Mutual learning between researchers and

farmers during implementation of scientific

principles for sustainable development: the
case of biodiversity-based agriculture

Laurent Hazard, Patrick Steyaert,

Guillaume Martin, Nathalie Couix,
Marie-Laure Navas, Michel Duru, Anne
Lauvie & Julie Labatut
Sustainability Science

ISSN 1862-4065

Sustain Sci
DOI 10.1007/s11625-017-0440-6

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer
Japan. This e-offprint is for personal use only
and shall not be self-archived in electronic
repositories. If you wish to self-archive your
article, please use the accepted manuscript
version for posting on your own website. You
may further deposit the accepted manuscript
version in any repository, provided it is only
made publicly available 12 months after
official publication or later and provided
acknowledgement is given to the original
source of publication and a link is inserted
to the published article on Springer's
website. The link must be accompanied by
the following text: "The final publication is
available at link.springer.com.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Sustain Sci
DOI 10.1007/s11625-017-0440-6
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Mutual learning between researchers and farmers
during implementation of scientific principles for sustainable
development: the case of biodiversity-based agriculture
Laurent Hazard1 Patrick Steyaert2 Guillaume Martin1 Nathalie Couix1
Marie-Laure Navas3 Michel Duru1 Anne Lauvie4 Julie Labatut1
Received: 22 April 2016 / Accepted: 16 May 2017
Springer Japan 2017
Abstract A part of scientific knowledge that aims to
promote sustainable development consists in management
principles of complex systems. Its implementation requires
a precise understanding of the situation of action and of the
actors involvement in the situation. It can no longer be
thought of in terms of transfer. Successful implementation
relies on changing the ways of understanding and valuing
the local context, as well as the actors practices. Trans-
disciplinary approaches are proposed to facilitate mutual
learning between researchers and local actors that lead to a
better understanding of the action situation. We explore the
benefits of such approaches and their implications for those
involved in the field of agroecology. Agroecology is based
on the implementation of scientific principles that aim to
make agriculture more sustainable. These include the cre-
ation of agricultural production based on biodiversity.
Analysis of three case studies concerning the biodiversifi-
cation of forage production shows that implementation is
not getting farmers involved in the researchers project, but
rather that researchers intentions find a place in the
farmers projects. Researchers adapt their scientific
Handled by Osamu Saito, United Nations University Institute for the
Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS), Japan.
& Laurent Hazard
laurent.hazard@inra.fr
1
AGIR, Universite de Toulouse, INRA, INPT, INP-EI
PURPAN, Castanet Tolosan, France
2
INRA, UMR 1326 LISIS, 77454 Marne-la-Vallee, France
3
Montpellier SupAgro, UMR 5175 CEFE,
34293 Montpellier Cedex 5, France
4
INRA, UMR 0868 SELMET, 34060 Montpellier Cedex 1,
France
production to the farmers needs while farmers review their
goals and means as a result of these interactions. The result
is a better understanding of the situation to be transformed
by both researchers and farmers. This new insight justifies
making implementation an integral part of the scientific
approach. However, both researchers and farmers com-
mitted to the situation need to be ready to leave their
comfort zone.
Keywords Agrobiodiversity
Complexity
Sustainability
science
Participatory research
Transdisciplinarity

Co-learning
Introduction
Implementing scientific knowledge produced with the aim
of developing sustainable paths of development requires
adaptation to the socio-ecological context in which it will
be put into practice. Implementation also generally requires
a profound transformation in understanding and practice by
the different actors (Blackstock et al. 2007). This is clearly
what is at stake in the agroecological transition of agri-
culture in which Science is very prolific in proposing
sustainable states as a goal but less so in proposing the way
to achieve them. Agricultural modernization, which
accelerated at the end of the Second World War, was
highly successful in implementing scientific knowledge for
the development of productive agriculture. The intensifi-
cation of agricultural production was based on the use of
synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, the homogenization and
the specialization of practices (Lin et al. 2008). These
processes were relatively easy to implement by applying
standardized solutions that were ready to use by farmers
who were shunted into an executive role (Fitzgerald 2003).
123
 Author's personal copy
Now that it is well documented that this type of agriculture
is not sustainable, agroecology is developing supposedly
more sustainable agriculture (Rosset and Altieri 1997;
Gliessman 2006). This biodiversity-based agriculture
involves, for instance, the replacement of pesticides with
natural systems of pest and disease control based on spe-
cies diversity. Such a model is certainly more difficult to
implement since it increases the complexity to be managed,
the context-dependency and the uncertainty associated with
the natural processes (Duru et al. 2015). Its implementation
requires transdisciplinary approaches to produce the
appropriate knowledge to manage natural processes that
support production and to put farmers back in control, as
the stewards of the agroecosystem.
The production of scientific knowledge on agroecology
is increasing dramatically, but offers few clues on how to
transform generic knowledge into solutions adapted to
local contexts. Considering what happens in the field of
biological conservation sheds light on the challenges ahead
in the field of agroecology. Biological conservation has
undergone a paradigm shift similar to that which agricul-
ture is currently undergoing with the development of
agroecology: it shifted from management based on species
conservation to management based on the conservation of
biological processes. This change also acknowledged that
man has a stewardship of nature (Sanderson et al. 2002).
This paradigm shift placed field conservationists in great
difficulty (Picket et al. 1997; Couix and Hazard 2013).
First, they had to move beyond their current focus on
species to the management of complex and dynamic
interactions of species with all the components of the
landscape (Dunning et al. 1992). They had to deal with
change and uncertainty, and find a way to make good use
of dedicated tools in modeling, assessing, monitoring, etc.
Finally, they ended up experiencing the uncertainty and the
situational ambiguities that arise when using such generic
tools and methodologies that were built by scientists for
use in a particular context (Picket et al. 1997). Second, they
were invited to work with local stakeholders to match
conservation actions with the management of common
nature by local people. In addition to the well-known trade-
offs between conservation and production goals, conser-
vation objects differ from the objects goals of common
nature management, which complicated discussion and
coordination. These management objects are difficult to
grasp because they involve a multitude of actors and levels
of organization of the action (Allen and Garmestani 2015).
Overcoming these two difficulties are now part of the
issues facing biological conservation (Armitage et al.
2008).
Agroecology entails a level of complexity at least as
high as that managed by conservation biology. Imple-
menting the principles of agroecology to manage
123
Sustain Sci
agroecosystems is also on the research agenda. The main
approach is to make recommendations based on inferences
from modeling or experimentation. In model-based infer-
ence, the model is designed to capture the complexity of
the system. The scientific challenge is to couple the bio-
logical models with models that simulate the decision-
making processes of farmers. Such approaches could shed
light on major trends and provide support for large-scale
public decision-making. However, local calibration and the
representation of managerial decisions would never be
sufficiently accurate to highlight useful small-scale inno-
vations for the redesign of a farming system (McCown and
Parton 2006; Opdam 2010). As an alternative to model-
based inference, new practices can be proposed on the basis
of experience. Sutherland et al. (2004) suggested collecting
and disseminating successful innovations. Such experi-
ences probably serve as a source of inspiration for farmers
who wish to adopt agroecological farming systems. How-
ever, their success is highly dependent on the context and
their generalization to diverse contexts is undoubtedly
doomed to fail. Both model- and practice-based strategies
are to some extent based on the prevailing view of the
innovation process: technology transfer (van Kerkhoff and
Lebel 2006), which reaches its ultimate limits in the
implementation of complex agroecological principles, such
as biodiversification to increase agrosystem resilience.
The aim of agroecology is to create a functional
agroecosystem that is adapted to the local context and
displays a higher level of acceptable variability than that of
an intensive and specialized system. Implementing agroe-
cology represents a move away from the idea of technology
transfer towards a local process of co-innovation with
farmers. Complexity and context-dependence are tackled
through the use of farmers knowledge of their environ-
ment, and uncertainty is dealt with through their adaptive
management and social learning (van Kerkhoff and Lebel
2006; Duru et al. 2015; Martin 2015). This co-generation
of knowledge about socio-ecological systems drawing on
multiple understandings in an ongoing collective dialog in
order to transform practice, where academics and stake-
holders are all co-researchers defined what Blackstock
et al. (2007) call participatory sustainability science.
Participatory research is based on an instrumental rationale
by increasing the salience, legitimacy and credibility of
knowledge produced (Cash et al. 2003). But Blackstock
et al. (2007) also identified a substantive and normative
basis. The substantive reason is that transdisciplinarity that
embraces a plurality of knowledge is viewed as a way to
overcome the incomplete knowledge and incertitude rela-
ted to a complex situation that has to be dealt with. It
produces a new understanding of the situation that makes
sense to local actors, matches their practical experience and
the objects and processes to be managed. The normative
 Author's personal copy
Sustain Sci
reason is to develop the necessary individual and collective
learning to implement scientific principles. This learning is
facilitated by ongoing collaborative relationships, which in
turn enables the benefits of the emergent knowledge to be
acted on. However, after Blackstock et al. (2007), we note
that the assumptions regarding these instrumental, sub-
stantive and normative benefits of participatory approaches
remain unexplored.
In this article, we highlight co-learning between research-
ers and farmers in the participatory implementation of
agroecological principles, by presenting and analyzing three
projects designed to invite farmers to diversify their livestock
farming systems to increase their adaptive capacity. This
analysis demonstrates that inviting farmers to implement projects acknowledges the need to involve farmers in the
scientific principles is more than just a step in an implemen-
tation strategy. Rather, it defines a mode of knowledge gen-
eration that facilitates the transformation of problematic local
solutions through the integration of scientific and farmers
knowledge, by taking major issues into account.
Materials and methods
We analyzed three case studies on the biodiversification of
animal farming systems. They differed in the type of
interactions between researchers and farmers, which gave
us the opportunity to analyze how such interactions impact
co-learning between them. We built an analytical frame-
work to review the cases and conducted a reflexive analysis
with the researchers involved in them.
Case studies
The three case studies presented here are projects in which
the researchers intend to apply the principle of biodiver-
sification to livestock systems. Biodiversification is the so detailed and the formalization of farmers mental
enhancement of farming system biodiversity through crop
rotation, the use of crop mixtures, the integration of agro-
forestry, etc. It has been proposed as a way of increasing
the capacity of farming systems to adapt to global changes
and to reduce the use of synthetic inputs (Kremen and
Miles 2012; Altieri et al. 2015). The adaptive capacity of a
system is its ability to better cope with, manage or adjust
to some changing condition, stress, hazard, risk or oppor-
tunity (Smit and Wandel 2006).
The researchers involved in this three case studies share
the same domain, livestock farming, and the same scientific
basis, i.e., the ecological functional description of biological
entities at different levels of organization (communities,
species, and ecotypes). This scientific approach led to the
creation of a functional typology of grassland related to its
agricultural use (Al Haj Khaled et al. 2006), to assemble rules
for functional groups of species (Temperton 2004) and to an
evolutionary approach to functional traits in ecotypes of the
same species (Geber and Griffen 2003). In all the case
studies, the researchers intention was to introduce more
plant diversity in different components of the livestock
farming systems. The cases differed in the methods and tools
proposed to achieve their goal: (1) Forage rummy is a
serious game designed to match the diversity of forage
resources to herd feeding needs (Martin et al. 2011a; Martin
2015); (2) Capflor is decision support tool (DST) that
produces mixtures of forage species to sow in plurispecific
grasslands (http://capflor.inra.fr/); (3) Seed house is a
selection device to create and manage a diversity of forage
varieties well adapted to local conditions. Each of the three
development of locally adapted solutions. However, the
mode of farmer involvement and, more broadly, the overall
strategy of implementation differed between case studies.
Forage rummy
Forage rummy is a board game supported by a computer
model that intends to move away from the common view
that only the most productive grasslands are desirable.
Duru et al. (2008) showed that diversity in grassland types,
with different peak production times, could improve the
overall quality of the forage produced on farm. This
diversity increases the flexibility of farm management to
cope with unpredictable events (Martin et al. 2009). A
model was first developed to evaluate the potential for
getting farmers to implement this idea (Martin et al.
2011b, c). It simulates farmers strategies and decision-
making processes (Martin-Clouaire and Rellier 2009). Its
simulations accurately provide detailed timeframes and
production performance indicators (e.g., self-sufficiency
for forage, grass utilization rate). However, the model was
models so difficult that its calibration and validation for
two farms took 6 months (Martin et al. 2011c). Scaling it
out to other projects therefore seemed unrealistic. The
researchers changed their strategy and decided to create a
serious game. The game was designed to be used by an
agricultural consultant with two to four farmers in a 2- to
4-h workshop. During the game, the players are asked to
design a livestock system by selecting and combining
sticks and cards representing crop and grassland production
and animal feeding, production and reproduction from a
range of possibilities. The system designed is immediately
evaluated with a spreadsheet that provides information, for
example, on the match between forage production and
animal feed requirements. The development of this game
took 1 year and required 22 gaming sessions with different
players each time, who were consulted to improve the
game. The Forage rummy case study relates a specific
123
 Author's personal copy
session of the forage rummy played by a dairy sheep
farmer on September 11, 2014 at Egalieres (France); this
session was videotaped (https://vimeo.com/140042059).
Ten other farmers interacted with the player. All these
farmers belong to AVEM, an association of 150 farms,
mostly dairy sheep farms, half of which are organic,
located in the Roquefort area around Millau (France).
Capflor
Capflor addresses the farmers need to develop persistent
and productive sown grasslands in a low-input system.
Based on their studies of the interactions between natural
grassland competition and management, the researchers
created species assembly rules to generate grassland com-
munities adapted to local conditions and to the farmers
goals. Capflor was developed from a series of successive
filters based on the conceptual model of Keddy (1989), the
final combination of which was based on functional
assembly rules. Palatable species are first filtered according
to their ability to grow under the defined farming manage-
ment style, at a specific location with specific soil and cli-
matic conditions. The best combination of these filtered
species is chosen to maximize their ability to coexist in
space and time. Capflor was created to provide farmers with
a list of species to be sown. Farmers must give the DST
information on their location, the soil fertility of their field
and their management choices. Soil and climatic conditions
are selected automatically based on the location of the farm.
The DST then suggests mixtures of species with the most
appropriate composition. Its IT was developed in collabo-
ration with its potential users. This strategy arose from the
knowledge that many DST remain unused because they
were not adapted to the target-users needs (McCown 2001).
Participatory IT aimed to create an easy-to-use, widely
adopted DST. Capflor was based on a solution-finding
logic to find solutions for the problem faced by farmers who
want to develop multispecies grasslands. Its participatory
development therefore took place in conditions of formal
and sustainable interaction with farmers groups. The co-
design of this DST proceeded through iterations of one
month with at least one collective workshop with a farmers
group: 28 iterations were conducted in 2014 and 2015
between the lab and three main farmers groups located near
Toulouse (France). The original goal was to create a rele-
vant, easy-to-use user interface, but the interactions with
farmers had more far-reaching and unexpected effects. The
Capflor case study relates this participatory development.
Seed house
Seed house is a local farmers organization co-designed changes in intention, knowledge articulation, changes in
in close collaboration between AVEM farmers and the
123
Sustain Sci
researchers from 2008 to 2015. This collaboration was what
Stoker and John (2009) called a generative experiment
whose objective is to analyze innovations implemented in
the situation of use in order to refine and re-calibrate them
until they succeed. The farmers managed the process with
the aim of solving their problems related to self-sufficiency
in terms of forage that arose during a series of major
droughts in the 2000s. They called on INRA researchers for
help in 2008, and together they developed a collaborative
project that led to the implementation of evolution plant
breeding (EPB). EPB is seen by these researchers as a way
to respond to the request that plant breeding provide as
great a contribution to agroecology as it did to the inten-
sification of agriculture (Uphoff 2007). The currently
available cultivars were developed with different goals in
mind: they were selected to maximize their production
potential, the expression of which was guaranteed by the
massive use of inorganic inputs. They are, therefore, not
suitable for use in more variable, low-input cropping sys-
tems, and are more susceptible to unpredictable events, the
frequency of which is increasing with global climate
change. For livestock and dairy farmers, decisions about
which forage plants to cultivate are determined more by the
needs of their animals than by trying to achieve a produc-
tion potential per se. These farmers require well-adapted
and highly adaptable plant populations to enable them to
adopt agroecological practices. The development of such
plant populations requires reassessment of the target species
for breeding programs. These breeding programs should
make use of the microevolutionary processes underlying
plant adaptation, according to Sunesons principles of
evolutionary plant breeding (Suneson 1956). The seed
house case relates how such EPB principles were imple-
mented on farm with the AVEM Farmers (see video:
https://vimeo.com/49692901).
Analytical framework
Biodiversification occurs in a complex specific situation
with a high level of uncertainty. Managing complexity and
context dependency involves farmers, whereas managing
uncertainty requires being able to adjust to feedback from
the actions they undertake (van Kerkhoff and Lebel 2006;
Duru et al. 2015; Martin 2015). On these aspects, the three
case studies represented different strategies in terms of the
researchers intentions, the mode of implementation, the
role attributed to farmers in design and implementation, the
aims of the product, and the integration, or not, of feedback
(see Table 1). The co-learning that occurred between
researchers and farmers related to these strategies was
analyzed using the following categories: mutual learning,
objects, and management of complexity.
 Author's personal copy
Sustain Sci

Table 1 Initial researchers strategies developed in three projects of biodiversification applied to livestock systems
Study Researchers intention Implementation Role of Role of farmers Product of the Integration of
case method farmers in the in implementation feedback from
design of the implementation implementation
method

Forage Increasing the diversity of Serious game Consultation Players Intangibleplans to Not planned
rummy on-farm forage resources to organize and manage a
better match animal needs wide range of forage
resources on farm
Capflor Increasing the diversity of Decision Iterative co- Users Intangiblelists of forage Validation of
plant species in sown support tool design species to be sown the decision
grasslands to increase their together support tool
resilience outputs
Seed Breeding locally adapted and Generative Ongoing co- Managers Tangiblenew plant Inherent in the
house adaptable forage experiment design populations and a plant method
populations breeding device

Mutual learning refers to the knowledge exchanged
between the range of different actors who work together to
implement agroecological principles. This problem-driven
and solution-oriented reflexivity tests the ability of actors
from different scientific disciplines and professions to share
and build the knowledge required for successful imple-
mentation (Couix and Hazard 2013). In this constructivist
perspective, mutual learning acknowledges and integrates
different kinds of knowledge and their underlying episte-
mologies (Pohl and Hadorn 2008).
Changes in intention refers to the researchers ability
to review their initial intentions with respect to the devices
they implement. The case studies presented here are in-
tervention research projects (Fraser et al. 2009). The
researchers interact with farmers with an intention that
takes the form of a rational myth (Hatchuel and Molet
1986). It is rational because the ends are scientifically
sound, but it is a myth because in a complex and uncertain
context, these ends will likely not be reached. As described
by the American pragmatist philosopher John Dewey, in
his book Human Nature and Conduct, the acceptance
of fixed ends in themselves is an aspect of mans devotion
to the ideal of certainty. The question here is whether
researchers free themselves from this devotion. Do they
accept what they learn from the practitioners and from the
action, to review and adjust their strategy, i.e., the match-
ing of ends and means? Are they willing to follow the
proposals made by Avenier et al. (1999) to construct a
research intervention as an ongoing construction engaging
an incessant back and forth between ends and means,
reflection and action?
Knowledge articulation aims to analyze how scien-
tific knowledge and farmers knowledge are shaped toge-
ther. The transdisciplinary approaches developed in the
case studies are characterized by their level of integration
between different types of knowledge (Couix and Hazard
2013). These range from the extraction of farmers
knowledge to implement the researchers models, to a
change in the researchers representations on which the
action is based, to hybridization with scientific knowledge
to produce new meanings, new heuristics, and new stake-
holder identities (Lenoble and Maesschalck 2016).
Changes in objects corresponds to the fact that mutual
learning during the on-going project can lead project par-
ticipants to review what is really managed. Girard et al.
(2015) show that there may be an ontological gap between
what they call indicators-in-theory and indicators-in-use. In
our case studies, this refers to objects of knowledge that are
familiar to researchers and objects of management that are
more relevant in action and that make more sense to
farmers.
Finally, complexity management refers to the
capacity of the actors involved in the project to take into
account and to adapt to unexpected events that occur when
acting in a complex environment with a high level of
uncertainty.
Results
Involving farmers in the process of implementation of
biodiversity produced positive and significant results: the
forage rummy (Rami fourrager) is now a board game that
is sold and widely used by agricultural advisers, the num-
ber of Capflor users is increasing and a club of users has
been created, and seed houses (Maison de la Semence)
are flourishing all over France. However, the implemen-
tation process was not straightforward. Regardless of the
strategy, and of the researchers and farmers roles, chan-
ges and unexpected events occurred that have been useful.
The outcomes of the participatory implementation process
are presented below. They are summarized in Table 2.

123
 Author's personal copy
Sustain Sci

Table 2 Changes in the three study cases during the implementation of biodiversification
Study Mutual learning Changes in intention Knowledge articulation Changes in Complexity management
case objects

Forage Farmers: value of Adjustment according to the Scientific model calibrated No Players consider different
rummy new crops, impact situation of the level of with local knowledge types of interactions that
of the level of plant diversity used are not taken into account
production on the by the game but that
resilience of their influence their choices
farming systems (e.g., management of
Researchers: better different animal species on
understanding of the farm)
the farmers
contextual goals
(self-sufficiency)
Capflor Researchers: better The tool is no longer Empirical knowledge Seeds and The collective dynamics
understanding of considered only as a complements scientific seedling triggered by the tool
farmers personal tool but also as a knowledge thereby rates rather helped solve the problems
expectations learning support to be used increasing the relevance of than species caused by the tool, e.g.,
beyond productivity in groups the advice provided: and collective purchase of
Farmers: re- Organic farmers appeared to seedling rates rather than functional special seeds that are not
evaluation of forage be the main target simply a list of species to traits sold locally
interest of a wide sow
range of species
Seed Researchers: Adjustment according to the Design and Populations Collectively managing the
house knowledge about a situation of the level of operationalization of both and seeds complexity of the action
traditional species plant diversity used technical (seed production, rather than situation is part of the
(sainfoin) and With the creation of a seed plant breeding, etc.) and varieties, generative experiment.
traditional house, collective organizational genotypes This was the case, for
management (cereal intelligence became part of (governance, matching or landraces example, in the work
grazing) the adaptive potential to be production and selection, undertaken to restore co-
Farmers: knowledge developed together with etc.) aspects of a seed evolution of plants and
and know-how in biodiversity house agronomic practices
plant breeding (research project on the
redesign of agricultural
systems) or plants and
grazing animals
(workshops on breeding
ewes)

Forage rummy
The main transformation of the intention of the researchers
concerned the creation of the game. They abandoned the
idea of modeling farmers decisions and instead aimed to
capture the process in a serious game. While they were
developing the game, the researchers realized that the game
was more than an individual experience for one player, and
that there was real benefit in terms of learning when the
game was played by a small group of farmers. In the
studied game session played by farmers, the researchers
intentions were not modified. However, their desire to
promote the use of different sources of forage ran up
against farmers rationality. The farmer who played the
game did not try to maximize diversity or to optimize the
use of his resources. He limited his exploration of the use
of the games forage resources to his crops and grasslands.
He refused to include his rangelands in the game which,
from the researchers point of view, reduced the diversity
explored, because he wanted to keep the rangelands for his
horses. The game provided this flexibility. Nevertheless,
the player used the game session to test the effects of
increasing the diversity of crops and grasslands by intro-
ducing new mixtures, such as sainfoin/alfalfa/orchard
grass, into its feeding system. In fact, at the end of the
session, the farmers felt that the game, as it stood, would be
useful to their project for the agroecological redesign of
livestock systems. So they planned to build a database with
local crops, grassland and animal parameters, to make it
possible to play the game using different farms based on
knowledge validated by the group.
Mutual learning occurred among the members of the
group of farmers and between the farmers and the
researchers. Each change implemented by the farmer-
player was discussed by the whole group (farmers,
researchers and advisors). These debates frequently led

123
 Author's personal copy
Sustain Sci
farmers to question their own choices, and to consider the
relevance of reducing their stocking rates to increase the
resilience of their systems to severe drought. Although the
game focuses on matching forage and grain production to
animal feed requirements, it also clearly questions the
farmers individual and collective projects. The researchers
also learned from the farmers. For example, the farmers
asked for a change in the evaluation model. While the
evaluation spreadsheet calculated the total cost of feeding
the animals, the farmers asked for the total cost to be
broken it down into the purchase of feed, the purchase
fertilizer, and on-farm forage production costs. This
request was made to provide useful indicators for their
desire to achieve self-sufficiency in forage production. In
fact, they wanted to use the economic model in the game to
increase the ratio of on-farm feed production to feed pur-
chases rather than to minimize the cost of animal feed.
The game session went smoothly. The farmers were
familiar with the objects managed in the game: plant crops,
animal lots, calendar, etc. What they were asked to do, i.e.,
match forage production to animal needs, made sense to
them. The game did not really lead to hybridization of
scientific and empirical knowledge, but shaped the empir-
ical knowledge into a scientific frame. Indeed, before the
game, a local calibration was performed to include the
features of the soil, plants, animals, management and
weather in the area in which the game took place. To
calibrate the game, researchers engaged in extensive
exchanges with farmers. This first interaction made it
possible to include local knowledge about particular crops
and crop mixtures used in the region, such as sainfoin in
pure stands, and sainfoin/alfalfa/orchardgrass mixtures, and
about unusual uses of common crops, such as grazing on
cereals, in the game. Later, when playing the game, the
farmers were also able to identify a discrepancy in milk
production. They requested and documented a change in
the reference curve for milk production and therefore on
animal feeding needs to better match their own situations
(https://vimeo.com/140042059) (in French with sub-titles
in English).
Capflor
The IT development of Capflor led to a major change in the
way the researchers taught how the DST should be used.
During use, it became apparent that this DST could be used
collectively and not just by one individual at a time, as
originally planned by the researchers. Advisors of farmers
groups involved in the co-design of Capflor used Capflor as
training medium: 50 days of professional training were
organized in 2014 and 2015. They also used it to design on-
farm experiments: 240 mixtures were sown accounting for
a total of 500 ha. The co-design work necessitated surveys
of 28 farms which provided a background for discussion
among the farmers groups. It also appears that Capflor
helped the advisors make sense of what they learned from
the collective action. The revised form of Capflor has
become a learning support for advisors for work with
farmers groups and to increase their own expertise.
Originally, Capflor was used by the farmers groups to
design complex mixtures of forage species in order to
increase their self-sufficiency and the resilience of their
livestock farming systems. However, organic farmers
appeared to be more interested in this DST than conven-
tional farmers. They oriented the development of Capflor to
address two issues of prime importance in organic farming:
(1) the creation of mixtures to control weeds and (2) the
recommendation of various legume species to supply
nitrogen.
Mutual learning took place throughout the process. The
researchers realized that productivity was not the only goal
of farmers when they sowed a complex mixture of forage
species. They wanted to create mixtures of species with
other properties to fulfill the needs of their animals (plant
fibers, soluble sugars, secondary alkaloids, galactagogue
properties, etc.) or ecosystem services (species with effects
on the fertility or structure of the soil, or on flower pro-
duction). One change to the DST was thus the addition of a
larger number of variables describing the species, to
facilitate the choice of the species that best met the farm-
ers requirements. Other changes were made to include the
main species in the mixture that fit traditional know-how
built on specific species such as alfalfa, orchardgrass, and
perennial ryegrass, depending on the area concerned, or
because the species play a key role in grassland manage-
ment, as is the case of bluegrass, which covers the ground
thereby preventing weeds developing, or legume species to
provide nitrogen. The farmers also learned about ecological
concepts and the wide range of forage species from the
researchers. Capflor outputs are not limited to commercial
forage species, but also propose the use of wild species of
interest. This feature triggered the farmers interest in
species identified as forage species, but largely ignored
during agricultural intensification and specialization. They
asked for a change in the DST to allow its users access to a
detailed presentation of all forage species.
The interaction with farmers also revealed that the DST
would be more relevant if it could be parameterized locally
to make use of local feedback. Combining empirical and
scientific knowledge in the DST design addressed two
problems: (i) the fact that the farmers wanted to know
relevant seedling rates for the mixtures of species rather
than just the list of species to be sown, and (ii) the accurate
determination of local soil fertility. Since the researchers
themselves were not able to objectify and model these
aspects, it was decided to take advantage of local
123
 Author's personal copy
knowledge to overcome these problems. A module was
added to the DST to collect feedback from farmers con-
cerning Capflor outputs and to record the seed rates that
worked in the field. The creation of this module required
the creation of a mode of validation of the results to be
integrated in the DST. This mode of validation was
developed in a participatory way in each group. In addition,
access to the DST was created to allow local advisors to set
the model parameters. Local setting of the model param-
eters makes it possible to propose seed rates that work in
the area and help the farmer to determine the fertility of his
soil by choosing a type of soil in a typology of local soils.
The collective dynamics within each group initiated by
Capflor made it possible to solve problems raised by the
use of the DST. For example, the difficulties farmers faced
trying to get hold of the seeds they wanted for their mix-
tures led to the organization of collective purchases. Fur-
thermore, the re-evaluation of the forage interest of some
species that were not commercialized led in some cases to
local seed multiplication projects.
Seed house
The initial diagnosis of the problematic situation was
conducted by the AVEM farmers prior to their encounter
with researchers. They found that their systems were too
dependent on a single species, alfalfa, with the additional
problem that the varieties of this species used were not well
adapted to their needs. The researchers working on Capflor
proposed the use of complex mixtures to sow grasslands.
This proposal did not interest of the farmers. Since their
systems were mainly dependant on hay-making, they did
not see any advantage in increasing the number of species
in the grassland beyond four. A few farmers came up with
their own proposal of relaunching the cultivation of Sain-
foin, a traditional species, and this was accepted by the
others. Biodiversification, in that case, involved the addi-
tion of only one species, sainfoin, to the widely used
mixture of alfalfa and cocksfoot. Sainfoin has two major
obstacles to its cultivation: the constant shortage of com-
mercial seed and persistence of less than 3 years. In
response, the farmers organized themselves to collectively
produce seeds. They hired an agronomist in January 2012
to set up a seed house to produce their own seed (https:// needs and retain a high level of genetic diversity to
vimeo.com/49692901). In accordance with the proposals
made by the researcher, seed production was combined
with an evolutionary breeding program. Starting from
biotechnical issues, the project raised new questions about
breeding organization. Finally, the innovation in this case
was both technical and social.
Mutual learning occurred among the participants in that
project. First, the rediscovery of sainfoin gave rise to
articulation of scientific and local knowledge. Sainfoin is a
123
Sustain Sci
legume species that was once widely grown in the area, but
was abandoned by most farmers during the course of
agricultural intensification and specialization. However,
among the small group of famers who suggested the use of
this species, some were still cultivating it. The discussions
raised by this proposal revealed that sainfoin was more
drought resistant, established more rapidly and matured
earlier than alfalfa and cocksfoot. These traits, together
with its low level of competitiveness, favored the estab-
lishment and growth of companion species under its cover.
The incorporation of sainfoin in the mixture resulted in
earlier forage production after sowing, and an earlier first
cut in spring each year. Sainfoin appears to play a nurs-
ing role in the mixture, allowing the establishment of
alfalfa and cocksfoot under its cover, and protecting them
from drought and overuse. The relationship between the
plants and animals used in local production systems then
entered the debate. The farmers were aware that the use of
sainfoin in the mixture prevented alfalfa bloat in grazing
sheep, through the effect of its condensed tannins (Lees
1992). Once the group had expressed interest in this spe-
cies, their veterinarians provided another interesting piece
of information: these condensed tannins also have anthel-
mintic effects, reducing the need for chemical antiparasitic
treatments (Hoste et al. 2006). The farmers who were also
beekeepers explained that sainfoin is a very useful species
for sustained honey production, which is why it is impor-
tant to wait until its full flowering to cut this species. It is
indeed possible to cut an alfalfa/sainfoin mixture based on
the optimum maturity of alfalfa and sainfoin that has pas-
sed the full flowering stage because it flowers much earlier
than alfalfa. All these properties triggered a real enthusi-
asm for this species in the farmers group. Managing seeds
revealed the diversity of skills among the farmers involved,
as it requires coordination (plant testing, mechanical know-
how for the adjustment of harvesters and sorters, knowl-
edge of regulatory matters, etc.). Extensive exchanges took
place among farmers to appropriate this forgotten knowl-
edge and know-how, as well as with farmers outside the
group who were invited to conduct training sessions.
Farmers then learned from the researchers when the group
designed and implemented a plant breeding scheme to
create a sainfoin landrace adapted to the local farmers
maintain adequate adaptive capacity. Farmers were famil-
iar with seeds and seed production. Most of them produced
their own alfalfa seed on farm. They were not familiar with
the objects of plant breeding like varieties, populations,
genotypes. Variety refers to a distinct, uniform and
stable (DUS) population, according to the standards of the
seed sector and did not match the traits of landraces and
peasant populations. By producing their own seeds, the
farmers were able to escape from this normative frame.
 Author's personal copy
Sustain Sci
With the help of the researchers, they developed a plant
breeding program that is (i) evolutionary in the sense of the
word used by Suneson (1956), because the selected plants
are those that persist in their pastures; (ii) participatory,
because the farmers are responsible for selection and they
share their selected populations, and (iii) recurrent, because
the plants selected on different farms are pooled and enter
another selection cycle.
The seed house raised organizational issues both at farming systems were one way among others, to achieve
individual and collective levels: matching selection and
seed production with production at the farm level, con-
ducting workshops to collectively decide on the selection
criteria and the breeding scheme, organizing seed
exchanges among farmers, etc. The seed house favored gral part of the scientific approach. However committed to
the development of various collective actions. For exam-
ple, the farmers were able to transpose the approach
developed for sainfoin to other species for which the
available varieties did not meet their requirements: alfalfa
and rye for grazing tolerance, oats for frost resistance and
for the production of straw. But they also raised questions
about interactions in which their seeds were embedded. For
instance, in 2014, they started questioning the relevance of
their farming practices in the use of these seeds. To tackle
this issue, they launched a project on the agroecological
redesign of their farming systems (SALSA, http://agri
culture.gouv.fr/systemes-agro-ecologiques-laitiers-du-sud-
aveyron-salsa). The use of diverse forage resources has
since raised questions about the ability of the breed of ewes
reared in the area (Lacaune) to exploit these resources. In
2014, a 2-day workshop was organized during which the
farmers questioned the geneticists in charge of the Lacaune
breeding program. This workshop began with a presenta-
tion of the sainfoin EPB as an example of an alternative
approach to selection that could inspire changes in animal
breeding methods.
Discussion
Our three case studies reveal that working with farmers to
implement a scientific principle such as biodiversification
to increase the adaptive capacity of farming systems
could overcome the complexity of situations to be trans-
formed and the lack of knowledge about them. Scientific
approaches aimed at acquiring a complete understanding
before acting is a dead end in complex situations (van
Kerkhoff and Lebel 2006; Opdam 2010). This strategy,
used during the intensification of agriculture, is no longer
relevant in the context of agroecology, which aims to
develop locally adapted solutions. Local issues form a
system that is too complex to be objectified and unexpected
effects occur. However, the three case studies show that
these issues cannot be easily solved by simply embedding
potential users. The problem here is not to involve farmers
in a researchers project, but that researchers intentions
could find a place in farmers projects. To be part of the
farmers projects, the researchers should be able to adapt
both their artifacts and concepts to farmers needs. In our
case studies, biodiversification made sense to the local
actors. They considered that biodiversification and its
theoretically beneficial effects on adaptative capacity of
the self-sufficiency they were looking for. In all cases,
implementation leads to a better understanding of the sit-
uation to be transformed for both researchers and farmers.
This new insight justifies making implementation an inte-
the situation, the actors willing to transform it should be
ready to leave their comfort zone.
Taking action leads to a better understanding
of management situations
The use that is made of a scientific principle like biodi-
versification is redefined in the context of action. In their
interactions, both researchers and farmers were able to
review and reflect on their goals. In the case of the seed
house, the researchers went beyond the original and sim-
plistic reasoning the more diversification the better and
understood the farmers decision to limit their increase in
the diversity of plant species used as forage resources to a
few species (sainfoin, grazed cereals, etc.). In fact, eco-
logical knowledge (Connell 1978) validates farmers
practices and experience not to grow more than three to
five species in the grasslands they manage for hay-making
using high levels of organic fertilizer: plant competition
would result in the exclusion of species, in any case
resulting in the presence of only three to five dominant
species. The addition of a species like sainfoin to the tra-
ditional alfalfa/cocksfoot mixture made sense to the
farmers. It allows the extension of the production period
and an increase in the quality of their forage crops. In the
same way, during the forage rummy session, a farmer
decided not to use his rangelands for his sheep but for his
horses. By focusing on plant biodiversity, the researchers
were not able to prioritize which animal/plant species is
more agroecological. However, the interaction also trig-
gered profound questioning by farmers. In the forage
rummy case, one sheep farmer questioned and discussed
his level of production and stocking rates, which probably
represent the main level of change in their farming
systems.
Mutual learning occurred between the actors of these
implementation projects. That was the first surprise the
researchers had when they were developing the forage
rummy game. While interaction with researchers is
123
 Author's personal copy
expected from farmers involved in the project, learning
appeared to be reciprocal and researchers also learned from
this interaction. In fact, scientific knowledge was put to the
test in the interaction: this was the case in forage rummy
when the farmer requested that the dairy production curve
drawn by the researchers be revised according to his own
production. However, as already pointed out by van Passen
et al. (2011) this process does not disqualify the scientific
knowledge in the course of action. The farmers are asking
for scientific knowledge to answer their questions or to
legitimize their own knowledge and validate their choices.
As a result, scientific knowledge and empirical knowledge
are articulated (Tuomi 1999). However, the nature of this
scientific knowledge matters. The functional approach
adopted by the researchers in the three case studies
acknowledged the role of humans in the management of
nature. In functional ecology, humans are integrated into
the system through their actions within ecosystems and
their expectations of the services they provide (Folke et al.
1996). Other ecological theories that ignore the role of man
in nature management, or that consider it deleterious, can
less easily be put into practice and articulated with
empirical knowledge (Gonzalo-turpin et al. 2008). Making
co-evolution of biological components and human activi-
ties explicit facilitates dialog with the local actors and the
integration of biodiversification in their projects.
Confronting the situation of action also helps to clarify
which objects that are really managed need to be trans-
formed. A common idea is that time should be allowed in a
transdisciplinary project to develop a common language
between researchers and farmers (van Passen et al. 2011).
But rather than giving the things the same names, it is more
a question of identifying and defining them. In forage
rummy, it is not the total cost of animal feeding that is
managed by the farmers but the cost of purchasing animal
feed. So the farmers asked the researchers to adapt the
model to calculate the purchase cost that makes sense to
them. In Capflor and seed house case studies, the term
seeds was more relevant than the term varieties used vant. The breeding scheme designed will depend on the
by researchers in the description of the plant resource. This
precision made it possible to be more specific about the
nature of the seeds. In the seed house case, seeds desire of the farmers to obtain a sainfoin population with a
referred to peasant populations. Through their greater
genetic diversity, they have a greater adaptive capacity
than varieties a term that usually refers to distinct, seeds produced. This is particularly important because one
uniform, stable varieties grown as a pure stand (Thomas
et al. 2012). This clarification clearly influences possible
changes in a farming system. The same is true for their
social components. For example, unlike farmers who pur-
chase seeds from the local seed retailer, farmers who
belong to a seed house share both peasant seeds and
their combined knowledge on how best to use them, both of
which increase their adaptive capacity.
123
Sustain Sci
A wise transformation of these objects should also take
into account the interactions in which they are undertaken.
Forage rummy is based on the idea that the adaptive
capacity of a farming system depends on the interaction
between objects of management (crops, animal lots, etc.).
The complexity of these interactions means finding an
optimal solution in the game is meaningless. For example,
a farmer is be able to bring into the game interactions
between different animal species (sheep and horses) and
different on-farm forage resources (crops and rangelands),
taking into account the fact that the horses will be more
able than the dairy ewes to take advantage of the range-
lands. The complexity underlying the adaptive capacity of
a farming system clearly extends beyond the factors con-
sidered in the game. It involves other dimensions in the
way the game is played: choice of crops and rotations
according to soil function and plant health, economic
strategy, including constraints on trading dates, etc.
Capflor and the seed house were designed to promote
interactions between the biological and social dimensions
of seeds. Through the addition of a farmers knowledge
module and the possibility of locally adjusting settings,
Capflor was made more relevant for the support of col-
lective local actions by farmers in the domains of local
seed management and agroecological transition. Such a
tool linking theory and local practices is useful for exten-
sion workers and farmers group facilitators who wish to
increase their own expertise. In the case of the seed house,
adding sainfoin to the production context involved differ-
ent interactions between plants, animals and the social
components of the system. Workshops held to design ideal
plants take into account the broad-ranging knowledge of
the participants such as the role of sainfoin in mixtures, its
place in rotations and its relationship with the animals in
the production system. For example, the fact that farmers
were also beekeepers meant that optimizing the maturity of
an alfalfa/sainfoin mixture by selecting a sainfoin that
reaches maturity in the same period as alfalfa was irrele-
social structure of the farmers group, their values, with
seed production being seen as a collective good, and the
high level of diversity. Finally, the seed house appears to
be an efficient tool to connect farmers knowledge with the
of the main complaints made by farmers about commercial
seeds is the absence of relevant information about their use.
Some of the adaptive capacity of the system results from
the quality of information available concerning the possible
uses of farming resources.
In all the three case studies, the properties of the objects
to be transformed (feeding strategy, sown grasslands,
seeds) depended on complex interactions between plants,
 Author's personal copy
Sustain Sci
animals, farmers and collective organizations that manage
certain aspects of plant and animal properties, through, for
example, breeding, rangeland regulation, marketing, etc.
As already pointed out by Adger et al. (2005), the prop-
erties of such a complex system are defined by the prop-
erties of its component parts but also by the nature of their
interactions. It is clear from our three case studies that the
social components should be taken into account better than
we succeeded in doing.
Implementation must be part of the scientific field
Complying with the situation enables better systemic under-
standing that is specific and can only be revealed in action.
This aspect alone merits integrating implementation into
scientific approaches. This proposal is reinforced by the fact
that changes occur in the course of implementation and that
these changes can rarely be foreseen. The fact is, the system
described previously is far too complex and contextual for a
full understanding leading to a straightforward strategy for its
transformation. In forage rummy and Capflor, the livestock
farming systems and grassland communities, respectively,
were too complex and context-dependent to be adequately
represented in a model that made it possible to take appro-
priate actions with an acceptable level of confidence. These
complex systems have emergent properties and are subject to
constant adjustments to their changing environments, result-
ing in a high level of uncertainty. For Snowden (2002), such
systems are irreducibly complex systems in which the
components and their interactions are changing and can never
be quite pinned down. Relevant scientific knowledge is too
partial and often poorly adapted to its context of application.
But allowing more time to address these shortcomings cannot
compensate for their irreducibility. A property such as the
adaptive capacity of farming systems can therefore only be
assessed in situ, with local actors.
One consequence of this irreducibility is that imple-
mentation cannot simply be a planned implementation of
scientific knowledge. An ongoing strategy is required
(Avenier 1997). Such a flexible strategy, which is respon-
sive to new information, is all the more relevant since
social ecological systems are constantly evolving (Dixon
et al. 2014). Flexibility makes it possible to take advantage
of unexpected events since these are to be expected in the
management of such complex situations (Holling 2001). In
all three case studies, they appeared to be more fruitful than
initially anticipated: (1) the collective learning that occur-
red in forage rummy and became a focus for the devel-
opment of the game; (2) the farmers asking for Capflor to
capitalize on previous successes in the creation of multi-
species grasslands; (3) the setup of a collective seed
house to organize EPB and to ensure the production of
sufficient seeds for local use. In these situations,
researchers were able to surrender to the unknown moves
beyond acceptance by making unknowns an active part-
ner (Bammer 2013). However, only long-term immersion
in the situation and ongoing evaluation make it possible to
identify and take advantage of these unexpected effects.
In the light of the changes that happens in the course of
implementation, we follow the few authors such as Bam-
mer (2013), Duru et al. (2015), Opdam (2010) or Scholz
and Steiner (2015) that propose that such changes deserve
scientific studies, following transdisciplinary approaches to
produce knowledge in action and not simply knowledge for
action. Implementation should be an integral part of the
scientific enquiry and be accepted as a scientific question.
This is pretty obvious in disciplines like agroecology that
target transformation and try to find sustainable solutions.
First, sustainability can only be assessed in situ, and sec-
ond, implementation is a source of surprises and hence of
new knowledge production. Objects of management, as
well as management tools, may change in response to the
actions taken and to changes in the context. Forage rummy,
when used as a tool by the farmers of AVEM for the
redesign of their farming systems, is adapted to their own
goals. Capflor, through collective action on seed manage-
ment, creates more opportunities and higher levels of
adaptability than the seed companies who develop and sell
ready-to-use seed mixtures. Similarly, farmers who carry
out evolutionary plant breeding activities in their fields can
create genetically diverse populations that are well adapted
to their local environment and to low-input systems. The
management choices they make may generate highly
adaptable populations shared between different farmers, or
a set of populations, each adapted to a specific farm. The
management style of these farmers will shape plant
resources and determine their potential uses. Only scientific
analysis of these processes can shed light on the choices to
be made to promote a particular type of plant resource.
Implementing is about leaving a comfort zone
The actors, scientists, and farmers, involved in our case
studies took the risk on several occasions to leave their
comfort zone to consider objects and methods with which
they are not familiar. In each of the three case studies, this
original strategy evolved following interactions with
farmers. These changes were transformed into new biodi-
versification issues. Forage rummy was originally created
to design scenarios that did not include the objective of
promoting farmers learning. In the course of its develop-
ment, the scientists accepted considering it as boundary
object (Ewenstein and Whyte 2009) to promote dialog
between actors in the joint design of livestock farming
systems. Capflor, originally design like a decision support
tool for individual farmers, was transformed into a tool for
123
 Author's personal copy
use in farmers groups and to capitalize on local knowl-
edge. In the seed house case, the focus shifted from a
genetic problem to the coordination of seed production and
exchange. Thus, the implementation of biodiversification
has turned towards organizational innovation, with the
development of collective seed production, i.e., a seed
house. These three case studies have moved towards par-
ticipatory research approaches in which the strategy,
underlying model, and ergonomy of the tool were adapted
both to serve the farmers project and to combine the
knowledge of researchers and farmers.
Our results illustrate Kauffman and Aricos (2014) state-
ment that scientists must accept roles that go beyond tradi-
tional reflective scientist modes and that are outside of their
professional comfort zones to contribute to transformative
changes. In their book entitled knowledge in action van
Passen et al. (2011) stressed the importance of keeping in
constant touch with the research context and switching to
different strategies to match new situations in the imple-
mentation of science. More than a switch in strategy,
researchers, like the other project participants, must be willing
to change their way of thinking as a result of unexpected
effects. Such dynamic projects lead to epistemic shifts in
research. To render models, tools, and methodologies like
forage rummy, Capflor, and EPB operational, we adopted a
mode of knowledge production specific to situations of action:
the coproduction of knowledge in situ (Davidson-Hunt and
Michael OFlaherty 2007). This approach helps to develop
effective local agroecological practices as well as social
innovations such as the seed house.
Conclusion
The implementation of a scientific principle like biodi-
versification implies improving the understanding of the
situation to be transformed following that principle that in
return shapes what can be really done with it. The chal-
lenge for the researchers is to harness and/or to produce
the scientific knowledge and heuristic tools that can
hybridize with empirical knowledge, to render a complex
situation more understandable. It requires the develop-
ment of the kind of comprehensive and reflexive approach
used in our three case studies. This avoids at least two
pitfalls of transdisciplinary research underlined by Lang
et al. (2012), i.e., the lack of agreement on the problem to
be tackled and the resulting unbalanced problem owner-
ship which is often to the advantages of researchers. This
differs from participatory research approaches based on
the ideology of citizen science (Silvertown 2009) or on
the utilitarian rationality of user-oriented research
(Bjerknes and Bratteteig 1995). Such approaches do not
really challenge the dominant mode of scientific
123
Sustain Sci
production since local actors are enroled in them by
researchers still involved in classical knowledge transfer
and the delivery of expertise. However, there is a theo-
retical intelligibility generated by scientists in the action
situation. This intelligibility is useful in the field because
it is not produced with a view to identifying the correct
solution for implemented into the field. Rather, its aim is
to help local actors generate their own operational intel-
ligibility of their situation that will guide their actions and
help their projects succeed. In that sense this approach is
similar to the mode 2 of Nowotny et al. (2001). However,
it differs from mode 2 because it does not take place
outside of the researchers lab but proceeds by iterations
between the lab and the local situation. This participatory
approach fits the strategy of science concerned by the
implementation of its own concepts. It creates an original
mode of knowledge production that articulates under-
standing in situ and key scientific knowledge and theories.
The operational knowledge produced is specific to the
situation, but generic scientific knowledge is also gener-
ated about new operational objects and their use, such as
the Rami Fourrager game, the learning-based DST
Capflor, and seed house (Maison de la Semence)
organizations.
Acknowledgements This work was done under the Organismes et
Organisations Localement Adaptees (O2LA) project funded by the
Agence Nationale pour la Recherche (ANR-09-STRA-09). It also
benefited funding from INRA ACCAF Farmatch and PSDR Midi-
Pyrenees. The authors wish to thank Paul Laurent, Vladimir Goutiers,
Marie-Helene Charron, Mathew Deo for their work on Capflor,
Mathilde Piquet, who have contributed to the development of forage
rummy, as well as the farmers, agricultural consultants and the
members of AVEM for their participation.
References
Adger WN, Arnell NW, Tompkins EL (2005) Successful adaptation
to climate change across scales. Glob Environ Change 15:7786.
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.005
Al Haj Khaled R, Duru M, Decruyenaere V et al (2006) Using leaf
traits to rank native grasses according to their nutritive value.
Rangel Ecol Manag 59:648654
Allen C, Garmestani A (2015) Adaptive management of social-
ecological systems. Springer, Netherlands
Altieri MA, Nicholls CI, Henao A, Lana MA (2015) Agroecology and
the design of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agron
Sustain Dev. doi:10.1007/s13593-015-0285-2
Armitage D, Marschke M, Plummer R (2008) Adaptive co-management
and the paradox of learning. Glob Environ Change 18:8698
Avenier M-J (1997) La strategie chemin-faisant. Strategies et
organisations. Economica, Paris
Avenier M, Nourry L, Sweeney M (1999) Sciences of the artificial
and knowledge production: the crucial role of intervention
research in management sciences. Des Issues 15:5570
Bammer G (2013) Disciplining interdisciplinarity: integration and
implementation sciences for researching complex real-world
problems. ANU E-PR, Canberra
 Author's personal copy
Sustain Sci
Bjerknes G, Bratteteig T (1995) User participation and democracy: a
discussion of Scandinavian research on system development.
Scand J Inf Syst 7:7398
Blackstock KL, Kelly GJ, Horsey BL (2007) Developing and
applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for
sustainability. Ecol Econ 60:726742. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.
2006.05.014
Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F et al (2003) Knowledge systems for
sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:80868091.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1231332100
Connell JH (1978) Diversity of tropical rainforests and coral reefs.
Science 199:13041310
Couix N, Hazard L (2013) When the future of biodiversity depends on
researchers and stakeholders thought-styles. Futures 53:1321.
doi:10.1016/j.futures.2013.09.005
Davidson-Hunt IJ, Michael OFlaherty R (2007) Researchers,
indigenous peoples, and place-based learning communities.
Soc Nat Resour 20:291305. doi:10.1080/08941920601161312
Dixon J, Stringer L, Challinor A (2014) Farming system evolution
and adaptive capacity: insights for adaptation support. Resources
3:182214. doi:10.3390/resources3010182
Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR (1992) Ecological processes
that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos
65(1):169175
Duru M, Cruz PP, Raouda AHK et al (2008) Relevance of plant
functional types based on leaf dry matter content for assessing
digestibility of native grass species and species-rich grassland
communities in spring. Agron J 100:1622. doi:10.2134/
agronj2008.0003
Duru M, Therond O, Martin G et al (2015) How to implement
biodiversity-based agriculture to enhance ecosystem services: a
review. Agron Sustain Dev. doi:10.1007/s13593-015-0306-1
Ewenstein B, Whyte J (2009) Knowledge practices in design: the role
of visual representations as epistemic objects. Organ Stud
30:730. doi:10.1177/0170840608083014
Fitzgerald D (2003) Every farm a factory: the industrial ideal in
american agriculture. Yale University Press, New Haven
Folke C, Holling CS, Perrings C (1996) Biological diversity,
ecosystems, and the human scale. Ecol Appl 6:1018. doi:10.
2307/2269584
Fraser MW, Richman JM, Galinsky MJ, Day SH (2009) Intervention
research: developing social programs. Oxford University Press,
Oxford
Geber MA, Griffen LR (2003) Inheritance and natural selection on
functional traits. Int J Plant Sci 164:S21S42. doi:10.1086/
368233
Girard N, Magda D, Astruc JM et al (2015) Analyzing indicators for
combining natural resources management and production-ori-
ented activities. Environ Dev Sustain 17:155172. doi:10.1007/
s10668-014-9544-7
Gliessman S (2006) Agroecology: the ecology of sustainable food
systems, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL
Gonzalo-Turpin H, Couix N, Hazard L (2008) Rethinking partner-
ships with the aim of producing knowledge with practical
relevance: a case study in the field of ecological restoration. Ecol
Soc 13(2):53
Hatchuel A, Molet H (1986) Rational modelling in understanding
human decision making: about two cases studies. Eur J Oper Res
24:178186
Holling CS (2001) Understanding the complexity of economic,
ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems 4:390405. doi:10.
1007/s10021-00
Hoste H, Jackson F, Athanasiadou S et al (2006) The effects of
tannin-rich plants on parasitic nematodes in ruminants. Trends
Parasitol 22:253261. doi:10.1016/j.pt.2006.04.004
Kauffman J, Arico S (2014) New directions in sustainability science:
promoting integration and cooperation. Sustain Sci 9:413418.
doi:10.1007/s11625-014-0259-3
Keddy (1989) Competition. Population and community biology.
Chapman and Hall, London
Kremen C, Miles A (2012) Ecosystem services in biologically
diversified versus conventional farming systems: benefits,
externalities, and trade-offs. Ecol Soc 17(4):40
Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M et al (2012) Transdisciplinary
research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and
challenges. Sustain Sci 7:2543. doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0149-
x
Lees GL (1992) Condensed tannins in some forage legumes: their role
in the prevention of ruminant pasture bloat. In: Plant polyphe-
nols, pp 915934
Lenoble J, Maesschalck M (2016) Democracy, law and governance.
Ashgate Publishing Company, Farnham
Lin BB, Perfecto I, Vandermeer J (2008) Synergies between
agricultural intensification and climate change could create
surprising vulnerabilities for crops. Bioscience 58:847. doi:10.
1641/B580911
Martin G (2015) A conceptual framework to support adaptation of
farming systems: development and application with Forage
Rummy. Agric Syst 132:5261
Martin G, Hossard L, Theau JP, Therond O, Josien E, Cruz P, Rellier
JP, Martin-Clouaire R, Duru M (2009) Characterizing potential
flexibility in grassland use: application to the French Aubrac
area. Agron Sustain Dev 29(2):381389
Martin G, Felten B, Duru M (2011a) Forage rummy: a game to
support the participatory design of adapted livestock systems.
Environ Model Softw 26:14421453
Martin G, Martin-Clouaire R, Rellier JP, Duru M (2011b) A
simulation framework for the design of grassland-based beef-
cattle farms. Environ Model Softw 26:371385
Martin G, Theau JP, Therond O, Martin-Clouaire R, Duru M (2011c)
Diagnosis and simulation: a suitable combination to support
farming systems design. Crop Pasture Sci 62(4):328336
Martin-Clouaire R, Rellier J-P (2009) Modelling and simulating work
practices in agriculture. Int J Metadata Semant Ontol 4(1):4253
McCown RL (2001) Learning to bridge the gap between science-based
decision support and the practice of farming: evolution in
paradigms of model-based research and intervention from design
to dialogue. Aust J Agric Res 52:549571. doi:10.1071/AR00119
McCown R, Parton K (2006) Learning from the historical failure of
farm management models to aid management practice. Part 2.
Three systems approaches. Crop Pasture Sci 57:157172
Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons MT (2001) Re-thinking science:
knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity,
Cambridge
Opdam P (2010) Learning science from practice. Landsc Ecol
25:821823. doi:10.1007/s10980-010-9485-y
Picket STA, Ostfeld RS, Shachak M, Likens GE (1997) The
ecological basis of conservation: heterogeneity, ecosystems,
and biodiversity. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY
Pohl C, Hadorn GH (2008) Article methodological challenges of
transdisciplinary research. Natures Sci Societes 16:111121.
doi:10.1051/nss
Rosset PM, Altieri M (1997) Agroecology versus input substitution: a
fundamental contradiction of sustainable agriculture. Soc Nat
Resour 10:283295
Sanderson EW, Jaiteh M, Levy MA et al (2002) The human footprint
and the last of the wild. Bioscience 52:891. doi:10.1641/0006-
3568(2002)052[0891:THFATL]2.0.CO;2
Scholz RW, Steiner G (2015) Transdisciplinarity at the crossroads.
Sustain Sci 10:521526. doi:10.1007/s11625-015-0338-0
123
 Author's personal copy
Silvertown J (2009) A new dawn for citizen science. Trends Ecol
Evol 24:467471. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017
Smit B, Wandel J (2006) Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulner-
ability. Glob Environ Change 16:282292. doi:10.1016/j.gloenv
cha.2006.03.008
Snowden D (2002) Complex acts of knowing: paradox and descrip-
tive self-awareness. J Knowl Manag 6:100111
Stoker G, John P (2009) Design experiments: engaging policy makers
in the search for evidence about what works. Polit Stud
57:356373. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00756.x
Suneson CA (1956) An evolutionary plant breeding method. Agron J
4:188191
Sutherland WJ, Pullin AS, Dolman PM, Knight TM (2004) The need
for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 19:305308.
doi:10.1016/j.tree.2004.03.018
Temperton VM (2004) Assembly rules and restoration ecology:
bridging the gap between theory and practice. Island Press,
Washington, DC
123
Sustain Sci
Thomas M, Demeulenaere E, Dawson JC et al (2012) On-farm
dynamic management of genetic diversity: the impact of seed
diffusions and seed saving practices on a population-variety of
bread wheat. Evol Appl 5:779795. doi:10.1111/j.1752-4571.
2012.00257.x
Tuomi I (1999) Corporate knowledge. Theory and Practice of
Intelligent Organizations. Metaxis, Helsinki
Uphoff N (2007) Agroecological alternatives: capitalising on existing
genetic potentials. J Dev Stud 43:218236. doi:10.1080/
00220380601055700
van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L (2006) Linking knowledge and action for
sustainable development. Annu Rev Environ Resour
31:445477. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.31.102405.170850
van Passen A, van den Berg J, Steingrover E et al (2011) Knowledge
in Action. The search for collaborative research for sustainable
landscape development. Mansholt Publication series, vol 11.
Academic Publishers, Wageningen