Open Access
Volume 25, Number 6, November-December 2018
Article Number D606
Number of page(s) 6
Section New ideotypes of oil & protein crops / Nouveaux idéotypes d’oléoprotéagineux
Published online 14 November 2018
  • Almekinders CJM, Mertens L, van Loon JP, Lammerts van Bueren ET. 2014. Potato breeding in the Netherlands: a successful participatory model with collaboration between farmers and commercial breeders. Food Sec 6: 515–524. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Alves ML, Brites C, Paulo M, et al. 2017. Setting up decision-making tools toward a quality-oriented participatory maize breeding program. Front Plant Sci 8: 2203. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Ceccarelli S. 2015. Efficiency of plant breeding. Crop Sci 55(1): 87–97. [Google Scholar]
  • Desclaux D, Nolot JM, Chiffoleau Y, Gozé E, Leclerc C. 2008. Changes in the concept of genotype 3 environment interactions to fit agriculture diversification and decentralized participatory plant breeding: pluridisciplinary point of view. Euphytica 163: 533–546. [Google Scholar]
  • Desclaux D, Chiffoleau Y, Nolot JM. 2013. Du concept d’Ideotype à celui de Realtype : gestion dynamique des innovations variétales par une approche transdisciplinaire et partenariale. Exemple du blé dur pour l’AB. Innov Agron, INRA 32: 455–466. [Google Scholar]
  • González-Barrios P, Castro M, Pérez O, Vilaró D, Gutiérrez L. 2017. Genotype by environment interaction in sunflower (Helianthus annus L.) to optimize trial network efficiency. Span J Agric Res 15(4): e0705. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hurtado M, Vilanova S, Plazas M, et al. 2014. Enhancing conservation and use of local vegetable landraces: the Almagro eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) case study. Genet Resour Crop Evol 61: 787–795. [Google Scholar]
  • Joined Ethical Committee from INRA, CIRAD and IFREMER. 2018. Avis 11 sur « Les nouvelles techniques d’amélioration génétique des plantes » (in French). Available at (last consult: 2018/06/17). [Google Scholar]
  • Joshi KD, Musa AM, Johansen C, Gyawali S, Harris D, Witcombe JR. 2007. Highly client-oriented breeding, using local preferences and selection, produces widely adapted rice varieties. Field Crops Res 100: 107–116. [Google Scholar]
  • Joshi KD, Khanal NP, Harris D, et al. 2014. Regulatory reform of seed systems: Benefits and impacts from a mungbean case study in Nepal. Field Crops Res 158: 15–23. [Google Scholar]
  • Kidane YG, Mancini C, Mengistu DK, et al. 2017. Genome wide association study to identify the genetic base of smallholder farmer preferences of durum wheat traits. Front Plant Sci 8: 1230. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Lana MA, Eulenstein F, Schlindwein SL, Graef F, Sieber S, von Hertwig Bittencourt H. 2017. Yield stability and lower susceptibility to abiotic stresses of improved open-pollinated and hybrid maize cultivars. Agron Sustain Dev 37: 30. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Marshall DR, Pryor AF. 1979. Multiline varieties and disease control. II. The “Dirty Crop” approach with components carrying two or more genes for resistance. Euphytica 28: 145–159. [Google Scholar]
  • Report of the EC FOOD 2030 Independent Expert Group. 2018. Recipe for change: An agenda for a climate-smart and sustainable food system for a healthy Europe. Executive summary. Available at (Last consult: 2018/06/17). [Google Scholar]
  • Rivière P, Dawson JC, Goldringer I, David O. 2015. Hierarchical Bayesian modeling for flexible experiments in decentralized participatory plant breeding. Crop Sci 55: 1053–1067. [Google Scholar]
  • Tourvieille de Labrouhe D, Mestries E, Walser P. 2005. Quelles perspectives pour la lutte génétique vis-à-vis du mildiou du tournesol ? OCL 12(2): 85–93. [Google Scholar]
  • Vincourt P, Gallais A. 1983. Sur la recherche de critères de sélection : la régression géno phénotypique. Agronomie 3(9): 827–830. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Vincourt P, Derieux M, Gallais A. 1984. Quelques méthodes de choix des génotypes à partir d’essais multilocaux. Agronomie 4(9): 843–848. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Virk DS, Witcombe JR. 2007. Trade-offs between on-farm varietal diversity and highly client-oriented breeding – a case study of upland rice in India. Genet Resour Crop Evol 54: 823–835. [Google Scholar]
  • Witcombe JR, Yadavendra JP. 2014. How much evidence is needed before client-oriented breeding (COB) is institutionalised? Evidence from rice and maize in India. Field Crops Res 167: 143–152. [Google Scholar]
  • Witcombe JR, Joshi KD, Gyawali S, et al. 2005. Participatory plant breeding is better described as highly client-oriented plant breeding. I. Four indicators of client-orientation in plant breeding. Expl Agric 41: 299–319. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Witcombe JR, Gyawali S, Sunwar S, Sthapit BR, Joshi KD. 2006. Participatory plant breeding is better described as highly client-oriented plant breeding. II. Optional farmer collaboration in the segregating generations. Expl Agric 42(1): 79–90. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.