bioRxiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2020.01.24.917864

A systematic review of scientific research focused on farmers in agricultural adaptation to climate change (2008-2017)

Yang, Y.·Seyler, B. C.·Feng, M.·Tang, Y.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Due to the severe consequences of climate change, associated risks to global food security, and the contribution of agriculture to greenhouse gas emissions, agriculture must necessarily adapt to meet these challenges. Many studies have therefore sought to investigate agricultural adaptation to climate change, and as key stakeholders in agriculture, farmers play a vital role in this process. There is a rapidly increasing corpus of scholarship on agricultural adaptation to climate change, with many studies beginning to incorporate survey methods to examine farmer perceptions and adaptation responses. Nevertheless, in-depth understanding of farmers worldwide is inadequate due to insufficiently robust methodologies, socio-economic disparities, and unequal geographic distribution. In this study, we searched and reviewed the existing peer-reviewed, English-language scientific articles published between 2008 and 2017 on agricultural adaptation to climate change that have incorporated farmers into their research methodologies. The main findings include the following: (1) a small but increasing number of studies focus on farmers in climate change adaptation; (2) the global geographic distribution of the reviewed studies is uneven, and many of the most vulnerable nations (e.g., lower-income/agricultural-dependent economies) have no representation at all; (3) there were diverse rationales and methods for incorporating farmers into the studies, and many of the methodological differences were due to practical and logistical limitations in lower-income/agricultural-dependent nations; and (4) studies were from multiple academic fields, indicating the need for more interdisciplinary collaboration moving forward because agricultural adaptation to climate change is too complex for a single discipline to fully explore. Although English is increasingly recognized as the "international language of science," due to the challenge of language segmentation limiting broader understanding of global scholarship whenever possible, future reviews should be jointly conducted in both English and non-English languages.

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Yang, Y., Seyler, B. C., Feng, M., Tang, Y.. 2020-01-24. A systematic review of scientific research focused on farmers in agricultural adaptation to climate change (2008-2017). https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.24.917864

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2020

Access to Scientific Literature by the Conservation Community

Access to the scientific literature is perceived to be a challenge to the biodiversity conservation community, but actual level of literature access relative to needs has never been assessed globally. We examined this question by surveying the constituency of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as a proxy for the conservation community, generating 2,285 responses. Of these respondents, ∼97% need to use the scientific literature in order to support their IUCN-related conservation work, with ∼50% needing to do so at least once per week. The crux of the survey revolved around the question, “How easy is it for you currently to obtain the scientific literature you need to carry out your IUCN-related work?” and revealed that roughly half (49%) of the respondents find it not easy or not at all easy to access scientific literature. We fitted a binary logistic regression model to explore factors predicting ease of literature access. Whether the respondent had institutional literature access (55% do) is the strongest predictor, with region (Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and gender (male) also significant predictors. Approximately 60% of respondents from Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have institutional access compared to ∼50% in Asia and Latin America, and ∼40% in Eastern Europe and in Africa. Nevertheless, accessing free online material is a popular means of accessing literature for both those with and without institutional access. The four journals most frequently mentioned when asked which journal access would deliver the greatest improvements to the respondent’s IUCN-related work were Conservation Biology, Biological Conservation, Nature, and Science. The majority prefer to read journal articles on screen but prefer to read books in hard copy. Overall, it is apparent that access to the literature is a challenge facing roughly half of the conservation community worldwide.View Full Text

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2020

Interpretative guides for interacting with tissue atlas and digital pathology data using the Minerva browser

The recent development of highly multiplexed tissue imaging promises to substantially accelerate research into basic biology and human disease. Concurrently, histopathology in a clinical setting is undergoing a rapid transition to digital methods. Online tissue atlases involving highly multiplexed images of research and clinical specimens will soon join genomics as a systematic source of information on the molecular basis of disease and therapeutic response. However, even with recent advances in machine learning, experience with anatomic pathology shows that there is no immediate substitute for expert visual review, annotation, and description of tissue images. In this perspective we review the ecosystem of software available for analysis of tissue images and identify a need for interactive guides or "digital docents" that allow experts to help make complex images intelligible. We illustrate this idea using Minerva software and discuss how interactive image guides are being integrated into multi-omic browsers for effective dissemination of atlas data.

scientific communication and education↗