diversity

Review
Research Status and Trends of Agrobiodiversity and Traditional
Knowledge Based on Bibliometric Analysis (1992–Mid-2022)
Yiling Liu, Xiaodong Ren * and Fengqiong Lu

School of Karst Science, State Engineering Technology Institute for Karst Desertification Control, Guizhou Normal
University, Guiyang 550001, China
* Correspondence: renxiaodong@hotmail.com

Abstract: Traditional knowledge is a favored research area in agrobiodiversity conservation at home

and abroad, and plays a vital role in the sustainable use of ecosystems, livelihood support, and food
security. In this paper, the WoS Core Collection was used as the data source to statistically analyze
the literature on the topic of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge research. The results show
the following: (1) The number of articles published in agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge
research has been increasing annually. (2) The United States is the most influential country in this
field of research, and other leading countries include India, Mexico, Germany, and Italy. (3) The
existing research is mainly in the field of natural science, and the Journal of Ethnobiology and
Ethnomedicine is the most crucial journal in terms of the number of articles published. (4) Neither
authors nor institutional collaboration networks have formed a close transnational collaboration
network. (5) Popular research in this area includes the conservation of local varieties, agricultural
landscape changes, livelihood support, and agroforestry systems. (6) In addition to the ongoing
focus on natural ecological aspects of research, future research will focus more on cultural and
social benefits. Finally, we propose to enhance the exploration of quantitative analysis research
Citation: Liu, Y.; Ren, X.; Lu, F.
methods, strengthen interdisciplinary research exchanges, expand the breadth of disciplinary research,
Research Status and Trends of
strengthen stakeholder cooperation, and promote the construction of relevant policies and regulations.
Agrobiodiversity and Traditional
Knowledge Based on Bibliometric
Keywords: bibliometric analysis; agrobiodiversity; traditional knowledge; Web of Science
Analysis (1992–Mid-2022). Diversity
2022, 14, 950. https://doi.org/
10.3390/d14110950

Academic Editors: Walter Musakwa, 1. Introduction

Nelson Chanza, Gaynor Paradza and
Ilias Travlos
Agrobiodiversity concerns the wild, semi-domesticated, and domesticated species of
plants and animals associated with food and agricultural production that are artificially con-
Received: 9 August 2022 structed, managed, and used, along with the agroecosystems and agricultural landscapes
Accepted: 3 November 2022 formed by multiple species, which are the result of the interaction between nature and
Published: 5 November 2022 human society and play important roles in socioeconomic, cultural, environmental, and
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral food security aspects [1–3]. International organizations such as the IDRC define agrobio-
with regard to jurisdictional claims in diversity as biodiversity related to food and production, including the diversity of plants,
published maps and institutional affil- animals, and microorganisms in terms of genes, species, and ecosystems [4,5]. Thus, for
iations. research purposes, agrobiodiversity can be divided into four components: agricultural
genetic diversity, agricultural species diversity, agroecosystem diversity, and agricultural
landscape diversity. The importance of agrobiodiversity as a branch of biodiversity cannot
be overstated. However, for a long time, various factors—such as policy influence, tech-
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. nology, economic development, global climate change, and the development of modern
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. agriculture—have caused drastic reductions in agrobiodiversity. Especially in areas where
This article is an open access article
agricultural industry is the main focus, agrobiodiversity is more vulnerable to the impacts
distributed under the terms and
of social and environmental changes. Therefore, how to conserve agrobiodiversity has
conditions of the Creative Commons
become the focus of many scholars’ research.
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
Traditional knowledge (TK), also known as indigenous knowledge, is defined by the
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
CBD as any indigenous knowledge, innovation, custom, or local community tradition that
4.0/).

Diversity 2022, 14, 950. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14110950 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/diversity

Diversity 2022, 14, 950 2 of 19

is important in the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and related practices [6].
The impact of indigenous traditional knowledge on agrobiodiversity has long been of inter-
est to many scholars. The impact of indigenous traditional knowledge on agrobiodiversity
was noted by some scholars as early as the 19th century, and they approached the issue
more from an ethnobotanical perspective [7]. Later, as research intensified and interdisci-
plinary exchanges increased, more and more scholars expanded their research perspectives
to include different angles. Traditional sustainable agroecosystems inherited by farmers
throughout history, while adapting to the local socioeconomic culture, also possess ex-
tremely high adaptive capacity, stability, and sustainability in response to extreme weather,
helping them to meet their survival needs in harsh environments [8–10]. Numerous stud-
ies have shown that traditional agricultural systems and specific indigenous methods of
maintaining soil fertility and crop management, along with local traditional sociocultural
and religious rituals, have saved many of the threatened but most economically valuable
conventional crop varieties and preserved the genetic diversity of local species [11–14].
Agrobiodiversity in traditional farming landscapes in some regions contributes signifi-
cantly to food and nutrition security, and local ecological knowledge contributes to the role
of agroecosystems in ecological restoration [15,16]. Numerous studies have proven that
traditional knowledge has positive implications for the conservation of agrobiodiversity
which, in turn, protects traditional knowledge [17].
The world is paying more and more attention to the field of agrobiodiversity and
traditional knowledge, and publications on this topic are gradually increasing in number.
However, to the best of our knowledge, no relevant bibliometric-analysis-based review
papers address agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge. More scholars use bibliomet-
ric analysis and visualization analysis software to analyze issues related to agricultural
biodiversity or traditional knowledge research. Malapane used VOSviewer to study the
development of indigenous knowledge in Africa for over 30 years [18]. Ritter examined
Brazilian ethnobotany by assessing research priorities, regions, and current issues [19]. Liu
analyzed research themes, evolutionary processes, and future trends in agroecosystems [20].
Therefore, in order to better understand the current research status and development trends
in the field of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge, this paper uses bibliometric
analysis to identify the major research countries, research institutions, popular journals,
and representative scholars in this field, and to discover the research themes in this field, in
order to provide suggestions and opinions for the development of agrobiodiversity and
traditional knowledge.

2. Data Sources and Research Methods

2.1. Data Sources
The ISI Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) is an authoritative and high-impact
database of journals, books, and international academic collections in various disciplines,
including the natural sciences, social sciences, biomedical sciences, engineering and tech-
nology, and arts and humanities. Therefore, we selected the WOSCC database as the
fundamental data source and used the advanced search function in the database with the
search formula TS = (“agricultural genetic diversity” or “agro-ecosystem diversity” or
“agrobiodiversity” or “agricultural landscape diversity” or “agricultural species diversity”)
AND TS = (“traditional ecological knowledge” or “traditional knowledge” or “local cul-
tural practices” or “indigenous knowledge” or “local knowledge”). The search time frame
started from 1 January 1992 and ended on 1 August 2022. In order to clarify the documen-
tary data for better analysis, we selected “Article” in “Document Types” and “English” for
“Languages”. As a result, we identified 689 documents. We imported 689 documents into
EndNote to exclude duplicates, leaving 688 documents. Then, to filter out irrelevant litera-
ture, two researchers independently read the titles, keywords, and abstracts to eliminate
literature on topics unrelated to agrobiodiversity or traditional knowledge. For example,
if an article had only agrobiodiversity content but no TK-related content, it was excluded
from the screening process. Finally, we were left with 419 publications (Figure 1).
 documents into EndNote to exclude duplicates, leaving 688 documents. Then, to filter out
irrelevant literature, two researchers independently read the titles, keywords, and ab-
stracts to eliminate literature on topics unrelated to agrobiodiversity or traditional
knowledge. For example, if an article had only agrobiodiversity content but no TK-related
Diversity 2022, 14, 950 content, it was excluded from the screening process. Finally, we were left with 419 publi-
3 of 19
cations (Figure 1).

Figure 1. General flowchart of bibliometric analysis.

Figure 1. General flowchart of bibliometric analysis.

2.2. Research Methods

2.2. Research Methods
2.2.1. Tools
2.2.1. Tools
Bibliometrics uses the quantitative analysis of academic literature to understand the
Bibliometrics
structure uses
and trends ofthe quantitative
global analysis
developments of academic
in research literature
fields and the to understand
impacts the
of authors,
structure and trends of global developments in research fields and the impacts of
institutions, and countries on international research output [21,22]. VOSviewer is a free authors,
institutions,
JAVA-basedand countries
software on international
developed research
by van Eck output of
and Waltman [21,22]. VOSviewer
The Centre is a free
for Science and
JAVA-based software developed by van Eck and Waltman of The Centre for
Technology Studies (CWTS) at Leiden University in the Netherlands in 2009. VOSviewer Science and
Technology
can reduce Studies (CWTS)
the overlap at Leiden
of nodes University
and labels wheninperforming
the Netherlands in 2009.
scientific VOSviewer
knowledge map-
can reduce the overlap of nodes and labels when performing scientific knowledge
ping representations and more clearly express the relationships between scientific topics.
Citespace is a scientific literature analysis tool jointly developed by Dr.Chenmei Chen of
the School of Information Science and Technology at Radisson University and the WISE
Lab at the Dalian University of Technology. CiteSpace has apparent advantages for sorting
out the evolution of research in a field [23]. Therefore, we used VOSviewer and CiteSpace
software for visualization and analysis. In the VOSviewer network visualization diagram,
the greater the importance of an item, the larger its labels and nodes; the links between
Diversity 2022, 14, 950 4 of 19

objects represent their relevance, with thicker lines representing stronger relevance, and
the color of the items representing the cluster to which they belong [24].

2.2.2. Research Methodology

This study was based on literature data from the WoSCC. Firstly, Excel was used to
conduct a preliminary statistical analysis of the annual numbers of publications, countries
of publication, publication disciplines, prominent authors, and research institutions in
agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge research according to the literature analysis
search function of WoS. After that, we exported the obtained literature data from the
WoSCC database in txt format and used the VOSviewer version 1.6.18 software to draw the
visualization maps of collaboration networks among the countries, authors, and institutions
with the most publications, along with keyword clustering with regard to the research
area. The software CiteSpace version 6.1.R2 was used to map the keywords’ time-zone
view and the keywords with the most robust citation bursts. Finally, the mapping analysis
reflected the research hotspots, development trends, and current situation in agricultural
biodiversity and traditional knowledge research (Figure 1).

3. Results and Analysis

3.1. Analysis of the Time of Publication
The annual distribution of the literature on agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge
is shown in Figure 2, and the overall trend can be divided into three stages. Publications
on agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge included in the WoSCC database have
appeared since 1992, but until 2008, the body of literature in this field was relatively small,
with no more than 10 articles per year, and was in its early stage of embryonic development.
This may be due to the fact that the topic of traditional knowledge was not formally raised
until 1992, when the Convention on Biological Diversity was adopted by the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development. From 2008 to 2016, the overall research
showed a fluctuating upward trend. After 2016, the number of relevant publications rose
significantly and at a fast rate, and the number of publications peaked in 2021. Although the
overall number of publications on agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge is relatively
Diversity 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 20
low, this field is in a rapid stage of development, with the amount of relevant literature
growing significantly and the field receiving increasing attention.

60

50
Number of Publications

40

30

20

10

0
1992 1998 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021

Year

Figure 2. The number of papers published in the field of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge
Figure 2. The number of papers published in the field of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge
from 1992 to mid-2022.
from 1992 to mid-2022.
3.2. Results
3.2.1. Analysis of the Different Countries of Publication
A search of the WoSCC found that a total of 96 countries or regions participated in
the research on agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge. The top 10 countries in terms
of numbers of articles published are shown in Table 1, which mainly consists of two parts:
the first part includes some developed countries in Europe and the United States, with
significant scientific research strength, while the second part comprises developing coun-
Diversity 2022, 14, 950 5 of 19

3.2. Results
3.2.1. Analysis of the Different Countries of Publication
A search of the WoSCC found that a total of 96 countries or regions participated
in the research on agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge. The top 10 countries in
terms of numbers of articles published are shown in Table 1, which mainly consists of two
parts: the first part includes some developed countries in Europe and the United States,
with significant scientific research strength, while the second part comprises developing
countries with rich biodiversity resources, such as Mexico, India, Brazil, and China. The
Diversity 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
top five countries in terms of numbers of published papers were the United States, 6India, of 20
Mexico, Germany, and Italy, and these five countries accounted for 58.95% of the total
documents. Among them, the number of American papers was as high as 80, accounting
for 19.09%
Table 1. Topof10the total publications,
countries or regions inand with as of
the number many as 3510 citations. The United States is
publications.
a solid and influential country in this field of research. Although Spain, Brazil, and Canada
were not in the top positions in terms of the numbers
Average Citation of perarticlesProportion
published, of
theyPublications
were in the
Country or Region TP top three
Percentage TC in Recent
in terms of average citations per article, at 69.83, 59.69, and 58.54, respectively,
Article
indicating the importance of these countries in the field of agrobiodiversity ThreeandYears
traditional
USA 80 knowledge research. In
19.09% terms of the numbers
3510 of articles published in the
44.43 last three years,
30.00%
India 45 Italy was the leader, accounting
10.74% 1774 for 51.28%,39.42
having given greater attention 26.67%to this field in
Mexico 44 recent years.
10.50% 2178 49.50 27.27%
Germany 39 Figure
9.31%3 shows the mapping of international
1882 48.26 collaborations in countries30.77% with 10 or
Italy 39 more publications.
9.31% The1846
size of the circles in47.33
the graph represents the frequency
51.28%of coopera-
tion between countries; the larger the circle, the more frequently the country cooperates
France 36 8.59% 1833 50.92 33.33%
with other countries; the thicker the lines between countries, the more intense the coopera-
China 29 6.92% 1519 52.38 41.38%
tion. The United States is at the center of a global network of international collaboration,
Canada 28 6.68% 1639 58.54 7.14%
maintaining a high frequency of cooperation with other countries—particularly Mexico,
Brazil 26 China, Italy,
6.21%and India. 1552 59.69 30.77%
Germany is the second most active country, cooperating more
Spain 23 frequently5.49%
with the UK 1606
and India. The active69.83
cooperation between the 26.09%various countries
TP: the
not onlynumber
promotesof publications;
progress inTC: the total
research onnumber of citations.and traditional knowledge, but
agrobiodiversity
also increases the scientific capacity of each country [20].

Figure 3.3.The
Thecollaboration network
collaboration of countries
network about the
of countries agrobiodiversity
about and traditional
the agrobiodiversity andknowledge.
traditional
knowledge.

3.2.2. Analysis of Subject Categories and Publishing Journals

In the WoSCC subject classification, the literature in the field of agrobiodiversity and
traditional knowledge research covers a total of 58 related disciplines, and the existing
research is mainly focused on the natural sciences, with the top five disciplines being en-
vironmental sciences, biodiversity conservation, ecology, environmental studies, and
plant sciences, in that order. Research in humanities and social sciences also occupies a
significant proportion, mainly involving anthropology and sociology.
The 419 retrieved articles were published in 213 journals, and the analysis of the top
10 journals in terms of the number of articles published showed that the disciplines pub-
Diversity 2022, 14, 950 6 of 19

Table 1. Top 10 countries or regions in the number of publications.

Proportion of Publications
Average Citation per
Country or Region TP Percentage TC in Recent
Article
Three Years
USA 80 19.09% 3510 44.43 30.00%
India 45 10.74% 1774 39.42 26.67%
Mexico 44 10.50% 2178 49.50 27.27%
Germany 39 9.31% 1882 48.26 30.77%
Italy 39 9.31% 1846 47.33 51.28%
France 36 8.59% 1833 50.92 33.33%
China 29 6.92% 1519 52.38 41.38%
Canada 28 6.68% 1639 58.54 7.14%
Brazil 26 6.21% 1552 59.69 30.77%
Spain 23 5.49% 1606 69.83 26.09%
TP: the number of publications; TC: the total number of citations.

3.2.2. Analysis of Subject Categories and Publishing Journals

In the WoSCC subject classification, the literature in the field of agrobiodiversity and
traditional knowledge research covers a total of 58 related disciplines, and the existing
research is mainly focused on the natural sciences, with the top five disciplines being
environmental sciences, biodiversity conservation, ecology, environmental studies, and
plant sciences, in that order. Research in humanities and social sciences also occupies a
significant proportion, mainly involving anthropology and sociology.
The 419 retrieved articles were published in 213 journals, and the analysis of the
top 10 journals in terms of the number of articles published showed that the disciplines
published in the current literature were mainly agronomy, ecology, ethnobotany, and hu-
manities and social sciences. The Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine is the journal
with the highest number of articles in this field, accounting for 8.83% of the total literature,
and mainly contains articles on humanities, society, nature, food, and health. The second-
ranked journal, Sustainability, focuses on human environmental, cultural, economic, and
social sustainability. The third-ranked journal, Biodiversity and Conservation, publishes
articles about biodiversity, its conservation, and its sustainable use. The journal with the
highest number of citations per article is Agroforestry Systems—a journal on agroforestry
systems. Agricultural Ecosystems Environment—a journal that focuses on agroecological
sciences—has the highest impact factor among the top 10 journals in the last five years, at
7.088, indicating that this journal has a strong influence on the field of agrobiodiversity and
traditional knowledge research (Table 2).

Table 2. Top 10 journals in a number of publications.

Average Citation per Five-Year Impact

Journal Percentage
Article Factor
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 8.83% 15.70 4.404
Sustainability 4.77% 6.50 4.089
Biodiversity and Conservation 3.34% 7.00 4.416
Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 2.86% 14.92 1.864
Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 2.39% 4.00 3.213
Agroforestry Systems 2.39% 46.00 2.627
Agriculture Ecosystems Environment 2.15% 37.89 7.088
Human Ecology 2.15% 26.67 2.728
Journal of Ethnobiology 2.15% 2.89 2.005
Ecology and Society 1.91% 39.13 6.486
Diversity 2022, 14, 950 7 of 19

3.2.3. Analysis of the Most Prominent Authors

The top three authors with the highest numbers of publications were A. Casas,
Z. Asfaw, and K.S. Zimmerer, from the Autonomous University of Mexico, Hawassa Univer-
sity, and the University of Pennsylvania, respectively. Asfaw was also the author with the
highest number of citations per article (Table 3). An analysis of the literature published by
these three authors revealed that Casas’ research indicates that indigenous cultures are es-
sential to ensuring the conservation and management of traditional ecological agroforestry
systems and agrobiodiversity [25–27]. Meanwhile, Asfaw focuses more on ethnobotany to
investigate and analyze the diversity of medicinal plants and major cereals in the Ethiopian
region, suggesting the positive role of traditional knowledge with respect to local varieties
and plant diversity [28–30]. Zimmerer’s research focuses on the exploration of agrobio-
diversity, arguing that current agrobiodiversity is closely linked to the global society and
knowledge systems [31], and explores the production and consumption of agrobiodiversity
by indigenous and smallholder farmers [32]. All three researchers come from disciplines in
the natural sciences, and their research focuses on ethnobotany, agroforestry ecosystems,
and biodiversity conservation.
Authors with three or more articles were retained to map the network of collaborative
relationships between authors. The diagram shows that the collaborative network among
authors is characterized by overall fragmentation and partial clustering, with most of
the international authors lacking connections and not forming transnational collaborative
networks. For example, A. Santoro and M. Agnoletti are both from the University of
Florence, Italy, while R.K. Maikhuri and S. Nautiyal are both from India. It can be concluded
Diversity 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 20
that in the field of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge research, collaboration
between authors is typically manifested as an internal collaboration between the same
countries or institutions in geographically adjacent locations (Figure 4).

Figure 4.4.The
Figure Thecollaboration network
collaboration of authors
network about the
of authors agrobiodiversity
about and traditional
the agrobiodiversity and knowledge.
traditional
knowledge.

3.2.4. Analysis of Major Issuing Institutions

The top three research institutions in agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge are
Bioversity International (15), the Chinese Academy of Sciences (15), and the Autonomous
University of Mexico (13). These three institutions are also the top three institutions in
terms of total citations, led by the Autonomous University of Mexico with 627, followed
by the Bioversity International with 546 and Chinese Academy of Sciences with 259 (Table
4). We included institutions with more than five published articles. Moreover, with the
default settings of VOSviewer, we omitted some articles with more than 25 collaborating
institutions to avoid bias in the network graph. Finally, the co-occurrence map of major
research institutions and the cooperative relationships between institutions in the field of
Diversity 2022, 14, 950 8 of 19

Table 3. Top 12 authors in a number of publications.

Average Citation per

Author Number of Papers
Article
Casas A 10 14.30
Asfaw Z 8 160.75
Zimmerer KS 7 24.29
Reyes-garcia V 6 14.17
Long CL 5 27.00
Diversity 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW Maikhuri RK 5 17.40 9 of 20
Moreno-calles AI 5 13.40
Rao KS 5 13.20
Santoro A 5 5.00
Singh RK Singh RK 5 5 11.00 11.00
Van Etten J Van Etten J 5 5 7.00 7.00
Venturi M 5 3.20
Venturi M 5 3.20

3.2.4. 4.
Table Analysis of Major Issuing
Top 12 institutions Institutions
in a number of publications.
The top three research institutions in agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge are
Average Citation per
Institution Bioversity International (15), the Chinese
Number Academy of Sciences (15), and the Autonomous
of Papers
University of Mexico (13). These three institutions are also the topArticle three institutions in
Chinese Academy of terms
Sciences 15
of total citations, led by the Autonomous 259627, followed by
University of Mexico with
Bioversity International
the Bioversity International with 546 15and Chinese Academy of Sciences546 with 259 (Table 4).
Autonomous UniversityWe of included
Mexico institutions with more 13 627with the default
than five published articles. Moreover,
Cornell University
settings of VOSviewer, we omitted 9some articles with more than 25 collaborating
174 institu-
tions
Minzu University of China to avoid bias in the network graph.
9 Finally, the co-occurrence map of
164 major research
institutions and the cooperative relationships
Pennsylvania State University 9 between institutions in the
191field of agrobio-
CIRAD diversity and traditional knowledge 8 research was generated. Figure 595shows that there
are
University of Florencemore frequent exchanges between
8 the International Center for Biodiversity,
27 Cornell
University,
Abomey-Callaway University and the Chinese Academy7 of Sciences. However, most of the institutions
77 are not
connected. In general, the international interinstitutional collaboration network is similar
Autonomous University of Barcelona 7 97
to the author collaboration network, and interinstitutional collaboration is infrequent and
has not yet formed a close cross-border collaboration network.

5. The
Figure 5.
Figure Thecollaboration network
collaboration of institutions
network about the
of institutions agrobiodiversity
about and traditional
the agrobiodiversity and knowledge.
traditional
knowledge.

3.3. Analysis of Research Hotspots

3.3.1. The Most Frequently Used Keywords
Keywords can reflect the author’s summary and refinement of the article, and high-
Diversity 2022, 14, 950 9 of 19

Table 4. Top 12 institutions in a number of publications.

Average Citation per

Institution Number of Papers
Article
Chinese Academy of Sciences 15 259
Bioversity International 15 546
Autonomous University of Mexico 13 627
Cornell University 9 174
Minzu University of China 9 164
Pennsylvania State University 9 191
CIRAD 8 95
University of Florence 8 27
Abomey-Callaway University 7 77
Autonomous University of Barcelona 7 97

3.3. Analysis of Research Hotspots

3.3.1. The Most Frequently Used Keywords
Keywords can reflect the author’s summary and refinement of the article, and high-
frequency keywords and the centrality of keywords are important for the judgment of
research hotspots and trends in the research field [23,33]. In this review, we analyzed
419 articles with a total of 2244 keywords. However, most of the keywords appeared
only once, so we retained 60 keywords that appeared more than 10 times and combined
some keywords with similar meanings, such as “medicinal-plants” and “medicinal plants”,
“landscapes” and “landscapes”, etc., resulting in 54 keywords. The keywords that appeared
more than 20 times are listed in Table 5; “Occurrences” represents the number of times that
the keyword appeared, and “Total link strength” represents the number of times that the
keyword co-occurred with other keywords, i.e., link strength.

Table 5. High frequency keywords in agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge research.

Keywords Occurrences Total Link Strength Keywords Occurrences Total Link Strength
biodiversity 113 462 home gardens 27 133
diversity 112 409 resilience 25 120
conservation 112 441 agriculture 25 108
agrobiodiversity 105 383 landraces 23 87
management 83 358 agroforestry 23 103
knowledge 49 209 indigenous knowledge 23 84
land-use 49 206 dynamics 22 98
ecosystem
47 194 medicinal plants 21 77
services
ethnobotany 41 157 local knowledge 21 78
food security 41 164 sustainability 21 84
traditional knowledge 38 143 community 21 77
biodiversity
31 117 forest 21 85
conservation
systems 31 140 landscapes 20 79
traditional
31 127 species richness 20 77
ecological knowledge
genetic diversity 28 112

After excluding the search terms, the top 10 most frequent keywords were “conser-
vation”, “diversity”, “management “, “landscapes”, “ecosystem service”, “ethnobotany “,
“food security “, “biodiversity conservation”, “systems”, and “genetic diversity”. The key-
words with the highest numbers of occurrences and the greatest connection intensity were
related to biodiversity conservation, which is the study of agrobiodiversity and traditional
knowledge. Moreover, due to the current international demand, biodiversity conservation
remains an important direction for research. It is worth noting that among the 54 keywords,
“Mexico” was the only regional keyword that appeared, with 12 occurrences, indicating
that much research in this field is carried out in Mexico.
Diversity 2022, 14, 950 10 of 19

3.3.2. Research Priorities in Agrobiodiversity and Traditional Knowledge

Keyword clustering, on the other hand, can visualize the association between key-
words and further reflect the literature’s key themes. VOSviewer generates a keyword
clustering map, as shown in Figure 6. A total of five prominent keyword clusters are
formed in the figure, and clusters 1–5 are represented by red, green, blue, purple,
Diversity 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 ofand
20
yellow, respectively. We organized the keywords into these five clusters to derive five
main research directions corresponding to the field of agrobiodiversity and traditional
knowledge research.

Figure 6. Co-citation
Figure Co-citationknowledge
knowledgemap of keywords
map about about
of keywords the agrobiodiversity and traditional
the agrobiodiversity knowledge.
and traditional
knowledge.
(1) Cluster 1: Conservation of landraces
(1) Cluster
Cluster1:1,Conservation
represented of bylandraces
the color red, is the largest in the figure and is related
to theCluster 1, represented
conservation of localbyvarieties.
the color red,Thisiscluster
the largest
has in
22the figure and
keywords, is related
mainly to the
related to
conservation
conservationofmeasures
local varieties. This cluster
(e.g., “home has 22
gardens”, “inkeywords, mainly related
situ conservation”), to conserva-
genetic diversity
(e.g.,measures
tion “genetic (e.g.,
diversity”,
“home“landraces”,
gardens”, “in “crop
situdiversity”), and farmers’
conservation”), geneticpractices
diversity(e.g.,
(e.g.,“farm-
“ge-
ers ““domestication”, “cultivation”).
netic diversity”, “landraces”, “crop diversity”), and farmers’ practices (e.g., “farmers
The loss of local
““domestication”, varieties along with their historical origin and cultural traditions
“cultivation”).
directly
The threatens
loss of localagricultural
varieties biodiversity,
along with their so it historical
is often necessary
origin and to apply
culturalconservation
traditions
measures
directly both in agricultural
threatens situ and ex situ [34–36]. Generally,
biodiversity, landraces
so it is often are relocated
necessary and collected
to apply conservation
in different
measures botanical
both in situ gardens
and ex situor gene banks
[34–36]. for ex situ
Generally, protection
landraces are[7]. Speciesand
relocated are preserved
collected
by various means; nevertheless, their evolutionary capacity
in different botanical gardens or gene banks for ex situ protection [7]. Species areand adaptability are not en-
pre-
hanced, the associated traditional farming knowledge is not maintained,
served by various means; nevertheless, their evolutionary capacity and adaptability are and they rapidly
disappear
not enhanced, in indigenous
the associated areastraditional
[36,37]. Infarming
situ conservation
knowledge hasisreceived close international
not maintained, and they
attention to ensure that landraces can continuously adapt
rapidly disappear in indigenous areas [36,37]. In situ conservation has receivedand evolve in the environment.
close in-
Expandingattention
ternational the diversity of agricultural
to ensure landscapes
that landraces has becomeadapt
can continuously the primary means
and evolve inof in
the
situ conservation. Expanding agricultural landscape diversity
environment. Expanding the diversity of agricultural landscapes has become the primary has become the primary
meansofofininsitu
means situconservation.
conservation; taking home
Expanding gardenslandscape
agricultural as an example,
diversityM. has
Vlkova
becomedemon-
the
strated that species diversity and richness are influenced by
primary means of in situ conservation; taking home gardens as an example, M. Vlkova the size of home gardens,
cultural identity,
demonstrated thatand traditional
species diversity agricultural
and richness techniques [28,38]. by
are influenced Croptheexchange
size of homeand gar-
seed
sharing among farmers in family gardens are conducive to crop
dens, cultural identity, and traditional agricultural techniques [28,38]. Crop exchange anddispersal, maintaining
agricultural
seed sharing diversity,
among farmersand improving
in family farming
gardens systems’ resilience
are conducive [39,40].
to crop W. Assefa
dispersal, and V.
maintain-
Caballero-Serran
ing found inand
agricultural diversity, theirimproving
research that the importance
farming and contribution
systems’ resilience [39,40]. W.of women
Assefa
to the conservation of agricultural biodiversity—as the prominent persons responsible for
and V. Caballero-Serran found in their research that the importance and contribution of
seed storage, processing, and exchange—were underestimated in the scientific field [41,42].
women to the conservation of agricultural biodiversity—as the prominent persons re-
sponsible for seed storage, processing, and exchange—were underestimated in the scien-
tific field [41,42].
In situ conservation of landraces is closely related to farmers, and requiring farmers
to participate in local conservation is also regarded as an essential conservation strategy
Diversity 2022, 14, 950 11 of 19

In situ conservation of landraces is closely related to farmers, and requiring farmers to

participate in local conservation is also regarded as an essential conservation strategy [43].
However, in the development of agriculture, modern crops will inevitably replace tradi-
tional crops—especially when the pursuit of higher economic returns is the farmers’ goal.
Although the incentive policies widely adopted by various countries to encourage farmers
to cultivate traditional crops have certain effects, they cannot solve this problem of the fun-
damental motivation of farmers. Therefore, how to combine agricultural biodiversity with
local economic and social development to develop and industrialize traditional crops, how
to achieve offsite protection and in situ protection more effectively, and how to establish a
perfect system for the protection of local varieties are the key research topics at present.
(2) Cluster 2 and Cluster 5: Agricultural landscape change
Cluster 2 is represented by the color green, while Cluster 5 is represented by the color
purple. Both of these clusters are related to agricultural landscape changes. They contain a
total of 17 keywords, mainly including biodiversity (e.g., “biodiversity”, “biodiversity con-
servation”), land-use changes (e.g., “land-use”, “agricultural intensification”), the impact of
landscape changes (e.g., “ecosystem services “, “species richness”, “habitat”), and cultural
landscapes (e.g., “community”, “biocultural diversity”, “cultural landscapes”) vocabulary.
Studies have shown that biodiversity is closely related to the heterogeneity of agri-
cultural landscapes, which positively affects agricultural regions’ biodiversity [44,45].
However, in recent years, with the intensification of human activities in agricultural land,
traditional land use has changed, agricultural intensification has become increasingly
intensive, and agricultural landscapes have been subjected to pressure from land-use
changes [46]. Agricultural intensification has led to the consolidation and expansion of
fields to form homogeneous and simple agricultural landscapes [47]. This has led to the
fragmentation of natural habitats and loss of biodiversity in traditional agroecosystems.
In the meantime, replacing traditional crop varieties during agricultural intensification
has resulted in the loss of traditional crop genes [48–51]. In addition, agricultural inten-
sification has changed the traditional agricultural landscape, causing the loss of many
cultural and traditional practices, along with the biocultural diversity associated with
them [52]. Therefore, there is a growing concern about reducing the negative impacts of
human activities in agricultural landscapes on agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge.
Some argue that rural communities worldwide have created and maintained traditional
agricultural landscapes through their traditional management practices and traditional,
low-intensity agroforestry land use, creating a diverse mosaic of species-rich habitats [53],
enhancing the heterogeneity of agricultural landscapes, and offering potential value for
biodiversity [54]. Farmers using traditional farming methods can conserve biodiversity by
maintaining traditional varieties and a diverse landscape structure [55].
Scholars support the role of traditional knowledge in enhancing agricultural land-
scapes’ heterogeneity, but in modern agricultural development, traditional land use will
be inevitably abandoned, and land will be intensively managed. Therefore, combining
modern and traditional agricultural management practices, exploring new paths of com-
patible intensive land use and agrobiodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes has
become a focus of attention.
(3) Cluster 3: Livelihood support
Cluster 3 is represented by the color blue and is related to the livelihood support
category. This cluster contains eight keywords, mainly including agriculture (e.g., “agri-
culture”, “agroecology”, “sustainable agriculture “) and factors affecting livelihoods (e.g.,
“intensification”, “climate-change”, “food sovereignty”).
In the field of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge research, most of the in-
ternational research on livelihood support has focused on developing countries with
rich biodiversity and less developed economies, where livelihoods and food security are
more vulnerable to threats, and traditional knowledge plays an important role [56]. S.C.
Shen’s survey of China’s ethnic minority regions found that rich agricultural resources
Diversity 2022, 14, 950 12 of 19

and agrobiodiversity are critical to maintaining local livelihoods and traditional cultures.
He proposed that sustainable conservation measures based on local communities should
be used to protect agrobiodiversity [57]. Some scholars believe that combining modern
agricultural science with traditional knowledge systems can conserve agrobiodiversity
while enhancing food security and ensuring agricultural production, livelihoods, and
ecology [58,59]. Lahmar et al., developed agricultural conservation techniques for specific
areas based on farmers’ knowledge and traditional local technologies [60,61]. Some stud-
ies have shown that ecological agriculture can optimize the design of local agricultural
systems based on local people’s traditional knowledge and culture, which positively im-
pacts the environment, and all ecological agriculture plays an essential role in sustainable
agricultural development [3,62,63]. Environmental change is an essential factor affecting
livelihoods and food security, and traditional knowledge plays a vital role in the response
of orthodox communities to environmental change. The traditional ecological and climatic
knowledge formed and accumulated by the residents of indigenous communities through
long-term interaction with the environment helps them to better sustain their survival
and development [64,65].
Current research on livelihood support at the micro level includes studies on the
genetic diversity of local crops, seed systems, insect resources, etc. [66–68]. This perspective
reflects on traditional agriculture, climate change, sustainable agricultural development,
and other issues [69–71]. Due to climate change, uneven development among regional
countries, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, food security and food sovereignty
in some countries and regions have been significantly impacted. Food production is one of
the most significant challenges of our time, and the importance of agrobiodiversity and
traditional knowledge for livelihoods and food production will continue to be an essential
research direction in the future.
(4) Agroforestry systems
Cluster 4 is represented by the color yellow and is related to agroforestry ecosystem
functions. This cluster contains seven keywords, mainly including agroforestry systems
(e.g., “systems”, “agroforestry”), functions (e.g., “resilience “, “adaptation”, “sustainabil-
ity”), and traditional knowledge (e.g., “local knowledge”, “ecological knowledge”).
Agroforestry systems are complex agroecosystems. The research in this area focuses
on the role and impact of indigenous traditional knowledge on agroforestry systems. Some
scholars have demonstrated the potential of traditional agroforestry systems for maintain-
ing biodiversity and ecosystem benefits by comparing species richness and diversification
approaches in traditional and non-traditional agroforestry systems [55,63,72]. Traditional
agroforestry management practices of farmers were found to produce various products
and ecological benefits and increase socioecological resilience [73]. On the other hand,
Moreno-Calles identified the importance of local traditional ecological knowledge and
management techniques for managing and restoring progressively homogenized complex
agroforestry systems [25]. Parrotta argues that traditional forest knowledge and agricultural
landscape management practices of indigenous and local communities can help to respond
and adapt to climate change effectively, suggesting that traditional knowledge and practices
of communities should be considered in policy development [74]. Many studies have been
conducted to theoretically validate the importance of agroforestry systems based on farm-
ers’ traditional management knowledge for biodiversity and ecosystem conservation [75].
Therefore, in the future, we should focus more on understanding traditional agroecosystems
from a multidisciplinary perspective and combining farmers with government departments
and research institutions to develop reasonable regional policies to promote the dynamic
management of dynamic agroecosystems and the conservation of biodiversity.

3.3.3. Keyword Evolution Trend Analysis

The “burst keywords” in CiteSpace represent the words that appear significantly more
frequently in a certain period, indicating that there are a large number of studies related
to these keywords in this period of time, while also indicating the changes in the research
Diversity 2022, 14, 950 13 of 19
Diversity
Diversity2022,
2022,14,
14,xxFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 14
14 of
of 20
20

hotspots [76]. The keyword time-zone view is the keyword’s performance on the time axis,
and the position
appearance of the node The
where thesizekeyword is located is the time of the first appearance
appearanceof ofthe
thekeyword.
keyword. Thenode node sizeindicates
indicatesthe
thenumber
numberof oftimes
timesthat
thatthe
thekeyword
keyword
of the
appeared keyword. The node size indicates the number of times that the keyword appeared
appearedduring
duringthe thestudy
studyperiod—the
period—thelarger
largerthe
thenode,
node,thethemore
moretimes
timesthethekeyword
keywordap- ap-
during the
peared. Thestudy
line period—the
between nodeslarger the node,
represents the the more timesof
co-occurrence the keyword
the keyword. appeared. The
Combining
peared. The line between nodes represents the co-occurrence of the keyword. Combining
lineemergent
the between nodes represents the co-occurrence of the keyword. Combining the emergent
the emergentwordswordswithwiththe
thetime-zone
time-zonediagram
diagramshows
showsthethedevelopment
developmentand andchanges
changesinin
words
the with the time-zone diagram shows the development and changes in the study topic
thestudy
studytopic
topicininaaspecific
specificperiod.
period.
in a specific period.
We
Weimported
importedthe theprimary
primaryliterature
literaturedata
datainto
intoCiteSpace
CiteSpaceand andfiltered
filteredout
out1515burst
burstkey-
key-
We imported the primary literature data into CiteSpace and filtered out 15 burst
words
wordsto toobtain
obtainFigure
Figure7.7.By
Bycombining
combiningthe thekeyword
keywordtime-zone
time-zonemaps mapsin inFigures
Figures77and
and8,8,
keywords to obtain Figure 7. By combining the keyword time-zone maps in Figures 7 and 8,
we
wecancanroughly
roughlydivide
dividethe
thekeyword
keywordevolution
evolutiontrends
trendsininagrobiodiversity
agrobiodiversityand andtraditional
traditional
we can roughly divide the keyword evolution trends in agrobiodiversity and traditional
knowledge research into three
knowledge research into three stages. stages.
knowledge research into three stages.

Figure
Figure 7.
Figure 7. Top
7. Top 15
Top15 keywords
15 keywords with
keywordswith the
with the strongest
the strongest citation
strongest citation bursts
citation bursts of
bursts of agrobiodiversity
of agrobiodiversity and
agrobiodiversity and traditional
and traditional
traditional
knowledge
knowledgefrom
knowledge from1992
from 1992to
1992 tomid-2022.
to mid-2022.
mid-2022.

Figure
Figure8.
Figure 8.The
8. The keywords
Thekeywords time-zone
keywordstime-zone
time-zone viewofof
view
view of
thethe
the agrobiodiversity
andand
agrobiodiversity
agrobiodiversity and traditional
traditional
traditional knowledge
fromfrom
knowledge
knowledge from
1992
1992
1992to
tomid-2022.
mid-2022.
to mid-2022.
Diversity 2022, 14, 950 14 of 19

The first stage was the nascent stage (1992–2008). Since the number of publications
was low before 2008, the keywords for mutations in this phase started in 2002 with “genetic
erosion”, followed by “on-farm conservation” and “farmers knowledge”, whose research
topics are related to the varietal diversity of cultivated species. Scholars in different regions
noted the genetic erosion of traditional crops and the loss of crop diversity across regions,
emphasizing the urgency and importance of conserving crop genetic resources [77,78].
To address this issue, research has focused on the keywords “species richness”, “in situ
conservation”, and “traditional ecological knowledge”. The practical knowledge of farmers
and the positive contribution of farm conservation to local varieties were identified [29,79].
This phase of research focused on the conservation of agricultural genetic resources. It
is worth noting that although the number of articles published during this period was
not large, many keywords with high frequency and importance began to appear, such as
“management”, “agricultural landscape”, “systems”, “Landscape”, “system”, “agricultural
intensification”, and “impact”; although these keywords were not the main content of this
period of research, they laid the foundations for later developments.
The second phase was the slow development phase (2009–2016). The mutation terms
in this period shifted from agricultural genetic resources to traditional knowledge, with
functions related to the conservation of biodiversity. At the same time, the keywords
“climate change”, “food security”, “cultural landscape”, “sustainable agriculture”, and
“cultural landscape” appeared for the first time in this period. These keywords are all related
to cultural and social benefits. This indicates that the research themes of agrobiodiversity
and traditional knowledge were integrated, the research themes were gradually diversified,
and the research system was initially established. From the time-zone map, we can see that
the research content of this phase developed further than the previous phase as the research
on the conservation of cultivated species’ diversity deepened. The research was centered
on the keywords “home garden”, “landrace”, and “genetic diversity”, from the call for
in situ conservation to the analysis of specific conservation cases [80,81]. In addition to
agroecosystems (the keywords “ecosystem service”, “agroforestry”, “agroforestry system”,
“plant”, “medicinal plant”), land-use changes (the keywords “land use”, “intensification”,
“sustainable agriculture”, “productivity”) were also a research focus at this stage. The
research was mainly conducted by adopting structured and semi-structured interviews,
species richness surveys, and sampling surveys of plant communities in the area. Moreover,
quantitative and qualitative studies were combined to analyze and investigate many
cases [82–84]. Traditional ecological knowledge and traditional agricultural management
practices were verified to be able to enhance biodiversity and landscape heterogeneity,
which are conducive to ecological resilience [54,73]. All in all, the research methods
and themes were more diverse in this phase, with the main emphasis on the study of
ecological benefits.
The third stage was the rapid development stage (2017–mid-2022). As the integration
of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge research deepens, scholars are beginning
to explore new areas while further deepening basic research. The burst keywords “cli-
mate change”, “intensification”, “food”, “security”, and “impact” in this period suggest
that research on livelihood support has received substantially more attention as global
environmental changes and the demand for food production have increased. Most of the
studies focus on the keywords “food system” and “food sovereignty”, and most explore the
contribution of farmers’ choices and indigenous knowledge systems to food sovereignty
and climate change from the perspective of peasant agriculture. They have proposed
approaches to food security by developing ecological agriculture, promoting the dissemi-
nation of economically valuable local varieties, and facilitating communication between
communities [85–87]. The burst keyword “cultural landscape” and the keywords “cultural
heritage”, “women”, and “region” appearing in the time-zone map during this period
reflect the diversification of research perspectives and scales, as well as the increase in
interdisciplinary research. Furthermore, we can see that the burst intensity of the keywords
“climate change”, “impact”, and “food” will continue beyond 2022. In addition to natural
Diversity 2022, 14, 950 15 of 19

ecological research, the study of cultural and social benefits will receive long-term attention
and be a hotspot for future research.

4. Discussion
To further promote research in the field of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge,
based on the results of the present review, the following aspects should also be focused on
in the future:
(1) In the current research field of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge, scholars
more often explore the management role of traditional knowledge and its impact and
contribution to agrobiodiversity through qualitative research methods, such as small
agricultural system management cases and structured interviews, which lack scientific
objectivity. There is a need to explore more quantitative research methods, expand
research perspectives, and develop innovative research methods so that traditional
knowledge in the local context can be connected with modern technology.
(2) The current research mainly focuses on natural science and ecology, and most of it is
conducted in agroecosystems. However, the conservation of agrobiodiversity and tra-
ditional knowledge is also related to local policies, indigenous peoples’ willingness to
preserve and pass on their knowledge, community development, and other social and
human factors, so it is necessary to strengthen interdisciplinary research exchanges
on the basis of the existing foundation and further expand the scope of disciplinary
research in this field.
(3) Capacity building for agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge conservation cannot
be limited to local communities and indigenous peoples—it also requires coopera-
tion with research organizations, governments, and other stakeholders to achieve
more stable development. In addition, as the attention and importance assigned to
agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge increases, future research will focus on
the development of relevant policies and regulations, as well as the assessment of
the impacts and conservation results of the existing policies, in order to adjust the
implementation of policies and further improve regional sustainable development.

5. Summary
In this paper, based on the 419 papers retrieved from the WoSCC database from 1992
to 2022 on the topic of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge, we analyzed the de-
velopment trends and research hotspots of the field by using the bibliometric analysis
method with the help of the WoSCC literature analysis function and the data visualization
analysis function of VOSviewer software. It was found that the number of articles on agro-
biodiversity and traditional knowledge has been increasing year by year during the search
period, and the development momentum is good. Internationally, developed countries
and countries with rich biodiversity resources are the main driving force of research in
this field. The USA is the center of the global collaborative network of countries, with the
highest total citations, and other highly active countries include India, Mexico, Germany,
and Italy. In terms of highly productive authors and research institutions, A. Casas, Z.
Asfaw, and K.S. Zimmerer have a strong influence in the field of agrobiodiversity and
traditional knowledge. Among the research institutions, the Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Bioversity International, and Cornell University have relatively close cooperation with
other institutions. However, both the authors’ collaboration network and the institutional
collaboration network reflect the characteristics of close ties within small clusters but a
lack of international collaboration. The subject classification of agrobiodiversity and tradi-
tional knowledge mainly focuses on the natural sciences, with some involvement of the
humanities and social sciences. Among the leading journals, the Journal of Ethnobiology
and Ethnomedicine has published the most articles, while Agriculture Ecosystems Envi-
ronment has the highest impact factor. The most popular keywords based on keyword
statistics were found to be related to the conservation of biodiversity, which has been the
purpose of research in this field. Further cluster analysis of the keywords revealed that
Diversity 2022, 14, 950 16 of 19

the main research themes in the current research field include four areas: conservation of
local species, agricultural landscape changes, livelihood support, and agroforestry systems.
Moreover, the trend analysis of keywords showed that with the integration and deepening
of research on agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge, research hotspots will focus
more on topics related to cultural and social benefits in the future, in addition to the natural
ecological aspects that have been the focus of research to date. Finally, suggestions were
made to enhance the exploration of quantitative analysis research methods, strengthen in-
terdisciplinary research exchanges, expand the breadth of disciplinary research, strengthen
stakeholder cooperation, and promote the construction of relevant policies and regulations.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.L.; methodology, Y.L.; software, Y.L.; validation, Y.L.
and F.L.; formal analysis, Y.L.; investigation, Y.L. and F.L.; resources, Y.L. and F.L.; data curation,
Y.L. and F.L.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.L.; writing—review and editing, Y.L. and F.L.;
visualization, Y.L.; supervision, X.R.; project administration, X.R.; funding acquisition, X.R. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Brookfield, H.; Stocking, M. Agrodiversity: Definition, description and design. Glob. Environ. Change 1999, 9, 77–80. [CrossRef]
2. Guo, H.J.; Padoch, C.; Fu, Y.N.; Cheng, A.G.; Dao, Z.N. Agrobiodiversity Assessment and In–situ Conservation. Plant Divers.
2000, S1, 27–41. (In Chinese)
3. Thrupp, L.A. Linking agricultural biodiversity and food security: The valuable role of agrobiodiversity for sustainable agriculture.
Int. Aff. 2000, 76, 265–281. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Zhou, Y.T. The Using of Agro-Biodiversity and Shaping of Playroom for Peasants’ Choices—A Case Study in Huabian Village ff Guizhou
Province; China Agricultural University: Beijing, China, 2015; pp. 7–10. (In Chinese)
5. Steglich, M.; Peters, K.J. Conservation and Sustainable Use of Agricultural Biodiversity: A Source Book; CIPUPWARD. GTZ; Bonn,
Germany, 2004; pp. iii–v. Available online: https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/67219 (accessed on 9 August 2022).
6. Jasmine, B.; Singh, Y.; Onial, M.; Mathur, V.B. Traditional knowledge systems in India for biodiversity conservation. Indian J.
Tradit. Knowl. 2016, 15, 304–312.
7. Veteto, J.R.; Skarbø, K. Sowing the Seeds: Anthropological Contributions to Agrobiodiversity Studies. Cult. Agric. 2009, 31, 73–87.
[CrossRef]
8. Singh, R.K.; Sureja, A. Indigenous knowledge and sustainable agricultural resources management under rainfed agro-ecosystem.
Indian J. Tradit. Knowl. 2018, 7, 642–654.
9. Yang, Y.B.; Xia, J.X.; Feng, J.C.; Guo, L.; Shi, S.; Xue, D.Y. Water resource management in the Hani Rice Terraces agro-ecosystem
from an ethnoecological perspective. Acta Ecol. Sinica. 2018, 38, 3291–3299. (In Chinese)
10. Lin, H.Y.; Wen, Y.; Yang, X.Y.; Zhang, Y.; Cheng, G. Ethnoecology Analysis of Miao Ethnic Group’s Climate-Smart Agriculture
Practices in Wumeng Mountain. J. Minzu Univ. China 2019, 28, 13–20. (In Chinese)
11. Negi, V.S.; Maikhuri, R.K. Socio-Ecological and Religious Perspective of Agrobiodiversity Conservation: Issues, Concern and
Priority for Sustainable Agriculture, Central Himalaya. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2013, 26, 491–512. [CrossRef]
12. Wood, D.; Lenne, J.M. The conservation of agrobiodiversity on-farm: Questioning the emerging paradigm. Biodivers. Conserv.
1997, 6, 109–129. [CrossRef]
13. Senda, T.; Tominaga, T. Genetic Diversity of Darnel (Lolium temulentum L.) in Malo, Ethiopia Depends on Traditional Farming
Systems. Econ. Bot. 2004, 58, 568–577. [CrossRef]
14. Wang, Y.J.; Wang, Y.L.; Sun, X.D.; Caiji, Z.M.; Yang, J.B.; Cui, D.; Cao, G.L.; Ma, X.D.; Han, B.; Xue, D.Y.; et al. Influence of ethnic
traditional cultures on genetic diversity of rice landraces under on-farm conservation in southwest China. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed.
2016, 12, 1–14. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Pandey, D.K.; Adhiguru, P.; Momin, K.C.; Kumar, P. Agrobiodiversity and agroecological practices in ‘jhumscape’ of the Eastern
Himalayas: Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Biodivers. Conserv. 2022, 31, 2349–2372. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Tarbox, B.C.; Swisher, M.; Calle, Z.; Wilson, C.H.; Flory, S.L. Luke Flory. Decline in local ecological knowledge in the Colombian
Andes may constrain silvopastoral tree diversity. Restor. Ecol. 2020, 28, 892–901. [CrossRef]
17. Ma, N.; Yang, L.; Min, Q.W.; Bai, K.Y.; Li, W.H. The Significance of Traditional Culture for Agricultural Biodiversity—Experiences
from GIAHS. J. Resour. Ecol. 2021, 12, 453–461.
Diversity 2022, 14, 950 17 of 19

18. Malapane, O.L.; Musakwa, W.; Chanza, N.; Radinger-Peer, V. Bibliometric Analysis and Systematic Review of Indigenous
Knowledge from a Comparative African Perspective: 1990–2020. Land 2022, 11, 1167. [CrossRef]
19. Ritter, M.R.; Silva, T.C.; Araujo, E.D. Albuquerque, UP. Bibliometric analysis of ethnobotanical research in Brazil (1988–2013). Acta
Botânica Brasílica 2015, 29, 453–461. [CrossRef]
20. Liu, W.J.; Wang, J.S.; Li, C.; Chen, B.X.; Sun, Y.F. Using Bibliometric Analysis to Understand the Recent Progress in Agroecosystem
Services Research. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 156, 293–305. [CrossRef]
21. Cobo, M.J.; Lopez-Herrera, A.G.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F. Science Mapping Software Tools: Review, Analysis, and
Cooperative Study Among Tools. Journal of the American Society for Information. Sci. Technol. 2011, 62, 1382–1402.
22. Mishra, M.; Sudarsan, D.; Santos, C.A.G.; Pattnaik, N.; Kar, D.; Baral, K.; Pattnaik, N. An overview of research on natural
resources and indigenous communities: A bibliometric analysis based on Scopus database (1979–2020). Environ. Monit. Assess.
2021, 193, 1–17. [CrossRef]
23. Liu, X.Q.; Zhang, Y.Y.; Zhao, X.Z.; Rui, Y. Research Progress and Enlightenment of Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development:
Bibliometric Analysis Based on 1990–2020 Web of Science Core Collection Literatures. Hum. Geogr. 2021, 36, 91–101. (In Chinese)
24. Van Nunen, K.; Li, J.; Reniers, G.; Ponnet, K. Bibliometric analysis of safety culture research. Saf. Sci. 2018, 108, 248–258. [CrossRef]
25. Moreno-Calles, A.I.; Casas, A.; Garcia-Frapolli, E.; Torres-Garcia, I. Traditional agroforestry systems of multi-crop “milpa” and
“chichipera” cactus forest in the arid Tehuacán Valley, Mexico: Their management and role in people’s subsistence. Agrofor. Syst.
2012, 84, 207–226. [CrossRef]
26. Moreno-Calles, A.; Casas, A.; Blancas, J.; Torres, I.; Masera, O.; Caballero, J.; Garcia-Barrios, L.; Perez-Negron, E.; Rangel-Landa, S.
Agroforestry systems and biodiversity conservation in arid zones: The case of the Tehuacan Valley, Central Mexico. Agrofor. Syst.
2010, 80, 315–331. [CrossRef]
27. Velasquez-Milla, D.; Casas, A.; Torres-Guevara, J.; Cruz-Soriano, A. Ecological and socio-cultural factors influencing in situ
conservation of crop diversity by traditional Andean households in Peru. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2011, 7, 40. [CrossRef]
28. Lulekal, E.; Asfaw, Z.; Kelbessa, E.; Van Damme, P. Ethnomedicinal study of plants used for human ailments in Ankober District,
North Shewa Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2013, 9, 63. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Chekole, G.; Asfaw, Z.; Kelbessa, E. Ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants in the environs of Tara-gedam and Amba remnant
forests of Libo Kemkem District, northwest Ethiopia. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2015, 11, 1–38. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Geleta, M.; Asfaw, Z.; Bekele, E.; Teshome, A. Edible oil crops and their integration with the major cereals in North Shewa and
South Welo, Central Highlands of Ethiopia: An ethnobotanical perspective. Hereditas 2002, 137, 29–40. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Zimmerer, K.S.; Cordova-Aguilar, H.; Olmo, R.M.; Olivencia, Y.J.; Vanek, S.J. Mountain Ecology, Remoteness, and the Rise of
Agrobiodiversity: Tracing the Geographic Spaces of Human–Environment Knowledge. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 2017, 107, 441–455.
[CrossRef]
32. Zimmerer, K.S.; Vaca, H.L.R.; Sahonero, M.T.H. Entanglements of agrobiodiversity-food amid cascading migration, coca conflicts,
and water development (Bolivia, 1990–2013). Geoforum 2022, 128, 223–235. [CrossRef]
33. Fang, R.X.; Wang, X.Q.; Bai, C.; Yan, W.H.; Yang, Q.S.; Li, W.Y.; Gao, L. Knowledge mapping of the research on the Convention on
Biological Diversity: Based on bibliometrics analysis of CiteSpace. Biodivers. Sci. 2021, 29, 1718–1726. (In Chinese) [CrossRef]
34. Meilleur, B.A.; Hodgkin, T. In situ conservation of crop wild relatives: Status and trends. Biodivers. Conserv. 2004, 13, 663–684.
[CrossRef]
35. Dulloo, M.E.; Hunter, D.; Borelli, T. Ex Situ and In Situ Conservation of Agricultural Biodiversity: Major Advances and Research
Needs. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca 2021, 38, 123–135.
36. Heywood, V.; Casas, A.; Ford-Lloyd, B.; Kell, S.; Maxted, N. Conservation and sustainable use of crop wild relatives. Agric.
Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 121, 245–255. [CrossRef]
37. Hammer, K.; Arrowsmith, N.; Gladis, T. Agrobiodiversity with emphasis on plant genetic resources. Sci. Nat. 2003, 90, 241–250.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Vlkova, M.; Polesny, Z.; Verner, V.; Banout, J.; Dvorak, M.; Havlik, J.; Lojka, B.; Ehl, P.; Krausova, J. Ethnobotanical knowledge and
agrobiodiversity in subsistence farming: Case study of home gardens in Phong My commune, central Vietnam. Genet. Resour.
Crop Evol. 2011, 58, 629–644. [CrossRef]
39. Aguilar-Stoen, M.; Moe, S.R.; Camargo-Ricalde, S.L. Home Gardens Sustain Crop Diversity and Improve Farm Resilience in
Candelaria Loxicha, Oaxaca, Mexico. Hum. Ecol. 2009, 37, 55–77. [CrossRef]
40. Abizaid, C.; Coomes, O.T.; Perrault-Archambault, M. Seed Sharing in Amazonian Indigenous Rain Forest Communities: A Social
Network Analysis in three Achuar Villages, Peru. Hum. Ecol. 2016, 44, 577–594. [CrossRef]
41. Assefa, W.; Kewessa, G.; Datiko, D. Agrobiodiversity and gender: The role of women in farm diversification among smallholder
farmers in Sinana district, Southeastern Ethiopia. Biodivers. Conserv. 2022, 31, 2329–2348. [CrossRef]
42. Caballero-Serrano, V.; McLaren, B.; Carrasco, J.C.; Alday, J.G.; Fiallos, L.; Amigo, J.; Onaindia, M. Traditional ecological knowledge
and medicinal plant diversity in Ecuadorian Amazon home gardens. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2019, 17, e00524. [CrossRef]
43. Maxted, N.; Guarino, L.; Myer, L.; Chiwona, E.A. Towards a methodology for on-farm conservation of plant genetic resources.
Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2002, 49, 31–46. [CrossRef]
44. Väli, Ü.; Mirski, P.; Sein, G.; Abel, U.; Tõnisalu, G.; Sellis, U. Movement patterns of an avian generalist predator indicate functional
heterogeneity in agricultural landscape. Landsc. Ecol. 2020, 35, 1667–1681. [CrossRef]
Diversity 2022, 14, 950 18 of 19

45. Birkhofer, K.; Andersson, G.; Bengtsson, J.; Bommarco, R.; Dänhardt, J.; Ekbom, B.; Ekroos, J.; Hahn, T.; Hedlund, K.;
Jönsson, A.; et al. Relationships between multiple biodiversity components and ecosystem services along a landscape com-
plexity gradient. Biol. Conserv. 2018, 218, 247–253. [CrossRef]
46. Izakovicova, Z.; Spulerova, J.; Raniak, A. The Development of the Slovak Agricultural Landscape in a Changing World. Front.
Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 6. [CrossRef]
47. Benton, T.G.; Vickery, J.A.; Wilson, J.D. Farmland biodiversity: Is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol. Evol. 2003,
18, 182–188. [CrossRef]
48. Landis, A.D. Ecology-Applied Ecology; Researchers from Michigan State University Report Recent Findings in Applied Ecology
(Designing agricultural landscapes for biodiversity-based ecosystem services). Ecol. Environ. Conserv. 2017, 18, 1–12.
49. Brunetti, I.; Tidball, M.; Couvet, D. Relationship between biodiversity and agricultural production. Nat. Resour. Model. 2019,
32, e12204. [CrossRef]
50. Fischer, C.; Thies, C.; Tscharntke, T. Mixed effects of landscape complexity and farming practice on weed seed removal. Perspect.
Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2011, 13, 297–303. [CrossRef]
51. Lu, B.R.; Zhu, Y.Y.; Wang, Y.Y. The current status and perspectives of on-farm conservation of crop genetic diversity. Biodivers. Sci.
2002, 4, 409–415. (In Chinese)
52. De Pasquale, G.; Livia, S. Biocultural diversity in the traditional landscape of Vallecorsa. Biodivers. Conserv. 2022, 31, 2373–2396.
[CrossRef]
53. Guadilla-Sáez, S.; Pardo-de-Santayana, M.; Reyes-García, V. The role of traditional management practices in shaping a diverse
habitat mosaic in a mountain region of Northern Spain. Land Use Policy 2019, 89, 104–235. [CrossRef]
54. Tscharntke, T.; Klein, A.M.; Kruess, A.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Thies, C. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and
biodiversity ecosystem service management. Ecol. Lett. 2005, 8, 857–874. [CrossRef]
55. Santoro, A.; Venturi, M.; Ben Maachia, S.; Benyahia, F.; Corrieri, F.; Piras, F.; Agnoletti, M. Agroforestry Heritage Systems as
Agrobiodiversity Hotspots. The Case of the Mountain Oases of Tunisia. Sustainability 2007, 12, 40–54. [CrossRef]
56. Ding, L.B.; Ma, N.; Wang, G.P.; He, S.Y.; Min, Q.W. Visual analysis of hotspots and emerging trends in traditional knowledge
associated with biodiversity. Biodivers. Sci. 2019, 27, 716–727. (In Chinese)
57. Shen, S.C.; Xu, G.F.; Li, D.Y.; Clements, D.R.; Zhang, F.D.; Jin, G.M..; Wu, J.Y.; Wei, P.F.; Lin, S.; Xue, D.Y. Agrobiodiversity and in
situ conservation in ethnic minority communities of Xishuangbanna in Yunnan Province, Southwest China. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed.
2017, 13, 1–15. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. Altieri, M.A.; Funes-Monzote, F.R.; Petersen, P. Agroecologically efficient agricultural systems for smallholder farmers: Contribu-
tions to food sovereignty. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 32, 1–13. [CrossRef]
59. Sabar, B.; Midya, D.K. Intersecting Knowledge With Landscape: Indigenous Agriculture, Sustainable Food Production and
Response to Climate Change-A Case Study of Chuktia Bhunjia Tribe of Odisha, India. J. Asian Afr. Stud. 2022. [CrossRef]
60. Lahmar, R.; Bationo, B.A.; Dan Lamso, N.; Guéro, Y.; Tittonell, P. Tailoring conservation agriculture technologies to West Africa
semi-arid zones: Building on traditional local practices for soil restoration. Field Crops Res. 2012, 132, 158–167. [CrossRef]
61. Segnon, A.; Achigan-Dako, E.; Gaoue, O.; Ahanchédé, A. Farmer’s Knowledge and Perception of Diversified Farming Systems in
Sub-Humid and Semi-Arid Areas in Benin. Sustainability 2015, 7, 6573–6592. [CrossRef]
62. Gliessman, S.R. Agroecology in the tropics: Achieving a balance between land use and preservation. Environ. Manag. 1992,
16, 681–689. [CrossRef]
63. Vallejo-Ramos, M.; Moreno-Calles, A.I.; Casas, A. TEK and biodiversity management in agroforestry systems of different
socio-ecological contexts of the Tehuacan Valley. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2016, 12, 1–15. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
64. Soriano, M.A.; Diwa, J.; Herath, S. Local perceptions of climate change and adaptation needs in the Ifugao Rice Terraces (Northern
Philippines). J. Mt. Sci. 2017, 14, 1455–1472. [CrossRef]
65. Yuan, N.N.; Xue, D.Y.; Peng, Y. The Roles of Traditional Knowledge in Biodiversity Conservation for Li Ethnic People in Hainan
Island of China. J. Minzu Univ. China 2011, 20, 30–33. (In Chinese)
66. van Andel, T.; Veltman, M.; Bertin, A.; Maat, H.; Polime, T..; Lambers, D.H.R..; Awie, J.T..; De Boer, H.J.; Manzanilla, V. Hidden
Rice Diversity in the Guianas. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1161. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
67. Toledo-Hernandez, M.; Denmead, L.H.; Clough, Y.; Raffiudin, R.; Tscharntke, T. Cultural homegarden management practices
mediate arthropod communities in Indonesia. J. Insect Conserv. 2016, 20, 373–382. [CrossRef]
68. Sthapit, B.; Rana, R.; Eyzaguirre, P.; Jarvis, D. The value of plant genetic diversity to resource-poor farmers in Nepal and Vietnam.
Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2008, 6, 148–166. [CrossRef]
69. Pautasso, M.; Aistara, G.; Barnaud, A.; Caillon, S.; Clouvel, P.; Coomes, O.T.; Delêtre, M.; Demeulenaere, E.; de Santis, P.; Döring,
T.; et al. Seed exchange networks for agrobiodiversity conservation. A Review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 33, 1. [CrossRef]
70. Prus, B.; Uruszczak, M.; Hernik, J. Arguments based on biocultural diversity to cease abandonment of traditional agricultural
systems: Lessons from Poland. Biodivers. Conserv. 2021. (prepublish). [CrossRef]
71. Villanueva, A.B.; Halewood, M.; Noriega, I.L. Agricultural Biodiversity in Climate Change Adaptation Planning. Eur. J. Sustain.
Dev. 2017, 6, 1–8. [CrossRef]
72. Falkowski, T.B.; Vazquez-Perez, J.R.; Chankin, A.; Campos-Beltran, A.Y.; Rangel-Salazar, J.L.; Cohen, J.B.; Diemont, S.A.W.
Assessing avian diversity and community composition along a successional gradient in traditional Lacandon Maya agro-forests.
Biotropica 2020, 52, 1242–1252. [CrossRef]
Diversity 2022, 14, 950 19 of 19

73. Gebru, B.M.; Wang, S.W.; Kim, S.J.; Lee, W.K. Socio-Ecological Niche and Factors Affecting Agroforestry Practice Adoption in
Different Agroecologies of Southern Tigray, Ethiopia. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3729. [CrossRef]
74. Parrotta, J.A.; Agnoletti, M. Traditional Forest-Related Knowledge and Climate Change. In Traditional Forest-related Knowledge;
Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 491–533.
75. Marentes, M.A.H.; Venturi, M.; Scaramuzzi, S.; Focacci, M.; Santoro, A. Traditional forest-related knowledge and agrobiodiversity
preservation: The case of the chagras in the Indigenous Reserve of Monochoa (Colombia). Biodivers. Conserv. 2021, 31, 2243–2258.
[CrossRef]
76. Lyu, X.; Peng, W.L.; Yu, W.; Xin, Z.F.; Niu, S.D.; Qu, Y. Sustainable intensification to coordinate agricultural efficiency and
environmental protection: A systematic review based on metrological visualization. J. Land Use Sci. 2021, 16, 313–338. [CrossRef]
77. Peroni, N.; Hanazaki, N. Current and lost diversity of cultivated varieties, especially cassava, under swidden cultivation systems
in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2002, 92, 171–183. [CrossRef]
78. Park, Y.J.; Dixit, A.; Ma, K.H.; Kang, J.H.; Rao, V.R.; Cho, E.G. On-farm Conservation Strategy to Ensure Crop Genetic Diversity in
Changing Agro-ecosystems in the Republic of Korea. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2005, 191, 401–410. [CrossRef]
79. Anchirinah, V.M.; Yiridoe, E.K.; Bennett-Lartey, S.O. Enhancing Sustainable Production and Genetic Resource Conservation of
Bambara Groundnut: A Survey of Indigenous Agricultural Knowledge Systems. Outlook Agric. 2001, 30, 281–288. [CrossRef]
80. Salako, V.K.; Fandohan, B.; Kassa, B.; Assogbadjo, A.E.; Idohou, A.F.R.; Gbedomon, R.C.; Chakeredza, S.; Dulloo, M.E.; Glele
Kakaï, R. Home gardens: An assessment of their biodiversity and potential contribution to conservation of threatened species
and crop wild relatives in Benin. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2013, 61, 313–330. [CrossRef]
81. Mahon, N.; McGuire, S.; Islam, M.M. Why bother with Bere? An investigation into the drivers behind the cultivation of a landrace
barley. J. Rural. Stud. 2016, 45, 54–65. [CrossRef]
82. Calvo-Iglesias, M.S.; Crecente-Maseda, R.; Fra-Paleo, U. Exploring farmer’s knowledge as a source of information on past and
present cultural landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 78, 334–343. [CrossRef]
83. Diemont, S.A.W.; Martin, J.F. Lacandon Maya ecosystem management: Sustainable design for subsistence and environmental
restoration. Ecol. Appl. 2009, 19, 254–266. [CrossRef]
84. Nainggolan, D.; Termansen, M.; Reed, M.S.; Cebollero, E.D.; Hubacek, K. Farmer typology, future scenarios and the implications
for ecosystem service provision: A case study from south-eastern Spain. Reg. Environ. Change 2011, 13, 601–614. [CrossRef]
85. Temudo, M.P. Planting Knowledge, Harvesting Agro-Biodiversity: A Case Study of Southern Guinea-Bissau Rice Farming. Hum.
Ecol. 2011, 39, 309–321. [CrossRef]
86. Vasconcelos, A.C.F.; Bonatti, M.; Schlindwein, S.L.; D’Agostini, L.R.; Homem, L.R.; Nelson, R. Landraces as an adaptation strategy
to climate change for smallholders in Santa Catarina, Southern Brazil. Land Use Policy 2013, 34, 250–254. [CrossRef]
87. Ruelle, M.L.; Kassam, K.-A.; Morreale, S.J.; Asfaw, Z.; Power, A.G.; Fahey, T.J. Biocultural diversity and food sovereignty: A case
study of human-plant relations in northwestern Ethiopia. Food Secur. 2019, 11, 183–199. [CrossRef]