Extension-facilitated participatory variety selection for managing crop failure risks under changing climates

Introduction

On one hand, agricultural research stations release dozens of improved crop varieties each decade; on the other, farmer adoption of those varieties often stalls below 30% [1] . This disconnect between formal breeding pipelines and farmer fields has persisted across both developing and developed agriculture, costing billions in unrealized genetic gain [2] . In the US Upper Midwest, shifting precipitation patterns and more frequent late-season droughts have increased the urgency of getting climate-adapted varieties into production fields quickly [3] . Participatory variety selection places farmers at the center of the testing process, allowing them to evaluate new lines under their own soil, weather, and management conditions [4] . When linked to extension services, PVS can reach larger numbers of farmers through established advisory networks. But in the US context, cooperative extension has traditionally relied on plot-day demonstrations rather than structured multi-season PVS programs [5] . Few evaluations have measured whether PVS facilitated through extension channels actually reduces farmers' perceived crop failure risk. This research assessed the relationship between extensionfacilitated PVS participation and perceived crop failure risk among maize and soybean growers in south-central Wisconsin. The objectives were: a) To identify which variety traits farmers prioritized during PVS, b) To compare perceived crop failure risk between PVS participants and non-participants, and c) To measure the association between PVS session attendance and risk perception change [6,7] .

Theoretical framework

This research drew on Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations theory, which holds that adoption of new practices depends on perceived relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability [8] . PVS directly engages the trialability and observability dimensions by letting farmers test varieties on their own land and see results firsthand. The research also incorporated the Technology Acceptance Model adapted for agriculture, where perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use predict adoption intention [9] . Extension facilitation was positioned as the channel that reduces complexity and increases observability.

Instrument development

A 36-item questionnaire was developed to measure PVS www.extensionjournal.com participation, variety trait preferences, perceived crop failure risk, and farmer satisfaction with extension services. The crop failure risk scale comprised eight items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (Cronbach's α = 0.81). Content validity was assessed through expert review by four university agronomists and two senior extension agents. A pilot test with 22 farmers in Dane County led to rewording of three items for clarity. The final instrument was administered both on paper and via an online option [10] . [11] .

Material and methods

Material

Methods

Descriptive statistics summarized trait preferences and participation levels. Independent t-tests compared perceived risk scores between PVS participants and non-participants. Pearson correlation measured the relationship between cumulative PVS sessions attended and risk perception change. Multiple regression modeled risk perception as a function of PVS attendance, farm size, farming experience, and crop insurance status. Data were analyzed using R version 4.2.1 [12] .

Results

Table A moderate positive correlation (r = 0.59, p<0.01) indicated that more PVS exposure was associated with greater perceived risk reduction, though variability was high at lower attendance levels. The model positions extension agents as connectors between research station variety pools and farmer fields, with PVS trials serving as the central bridge that feeds into seed multiplication and distribution.

Comprehensive interpretation

PVS participation consistently predicted lower perceived crop failure risk, and the dose-response pattern held after controlling for farm characteristics. Farmers who selected varieties through hands-on trials appeared more confident in their planting decisions going into subsequent seasons.

Discussion

The strong preference for drought tolerance as a selection criterion reflects the growing salience of moisture stress in the Upper Midwest, where late-summer dry spells have become more frequent and severe over the past decade [3,13] .

This aligns with farmer preference data from PVS programs in sub-Saharan Africa, where drought resistance consistently outranks yield potential as the top selection trait [14,15] . The fact that similar priorities emerged among well-resourced US farmers suggests that climate anxiety cuts across development contexts. The 27.3% risk reduction among frequent PVS participants is meaningful but should be interpreted carefully-it reflects perceived risk, not actual yield loss data. Still, perceived risk shapes planting decisions, input investment, and willingness to try new varieties, so a shift in perception has real behavioral consequences [16,17] . Extension agents who facilitated PVS were rated higher on satisfaction not because they gave better lectures, but because the participatory format gave farmers a sense of ownership over the selection process [18,19] . www.extensionjournal.com

Conclusion

This research demonstrates that extension-facilitated PVS reduces perceived crop failure risk among maize and soybean growers, with the strongest effects seen among farmers who attended three or more sessions. Drought tolerance dominated farmer preferences during variety selection, pointing to climate anxiety as a driver of engagement with PVS programs. Cooperative extension programs in the US Midwest and similar temperate grain-producing regions should consider incorporating structured PVS into their variety testing outreach. The model proposed here links climate risk assessment, research station variety pools, and farmer fields through extension facilitation. Scaling this approach will require dedicated trial site management and closer coordination between breeders and extension teams than current plot-day formats typically provide [20] .

Acknowledgement

Acknowledgements Funding sourcesThis research was supported by an internal grant from the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison. No commercial funding was received.

References

1. Walker TS, Alwang J. Crop improvement, adoption, and impact of improved varieties in food crops in subSaharan Africa. Wallingford: CABI; 2015.
2. Evenson RE, Gollin D. Assessing the impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science. 2003; 300(5620):758-762.
3. Kucharik CJ, Serbin SP, Vavrus S, Hopkins EJ, Motew MM. Climate change, agriculture and wetlands in the upper Mississippi River basin. Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts; 2017. P.1-36.
4. Witcombe JR, Joshi A, Joshi KD, Sthapit BR. Farmer participatory crop improvement. I. Varietal selection and breeding methods. Exp Agric. 1996; 32(4):443460.
5. Lobell DB, Roberts MJ, Schlenker W, Braun N, Little BB, Rejesus RM, Hammer GL. Greater sensitivity to drought accompanies maize yield increase in the US Midwest. Science. 2014; 344(6183):516-519.
6. Ceccarelli S, Grando S. Decentralized-participatory plant breeding: An example of demand driven research. Euphytica. 2007; 155(3):349-360.
7. Sperling L, Ashby JA, Smith ME, Weltzien E, McGuire S. A framework for analyzing participatory plant breeding approaches. Euphytica. 2001; 122(3):439-450.
8. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th Ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.
9. Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model. Manage Sci. 2000; 46(2):186-204.
10. Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM. Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. 4th ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2014.
11. Israel GD. Determining sample size. University of Florida IFAS Extension Publication PEOD6. Gainesville: University of Florida; 2012. P.1-5.
12. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2022.
13. Hatfield JL, Prueger JH. Temperature extremes: Effect on plant growth and development. Weather Clim Extrem. 2015; 10:4-10.
14. Joshi A, Witcombe JR. Farmer participatory crop improvement. II. Participatory varietal selection. Exp Agric. 1996; 32(4):461-477.
15. Mekbib F. Farmer and formal breeding of sorghum and the implications for integrated plant breeding. Euphytica. 2006; 152(2):163-176.
16. Marra M, Pannell DJ, Abadi Ghadim A. The economics of risk, uncertainty and learning in the adoption of new agricultural technologies. Agric Syst. 2003; 75(23):215-234.
17. Feder G, Just RE, Zilberman D. Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A survey. Econ Dev Cult Change. 1985; 33(2):255-298.
18. Chambers R. Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. London: Intermediate Technology Publications; 1997.
19. Davis K, Nkonya E, Kato E, Mekonnen DA, Odendo M, Miiro R, Nkuba J. Impact of farmer field schools on agricultural productivity. World Dev. 2012; 40(2):402413.
20. Swanson BE, Rajalahti R. Strengthening agricultural extension and advisory systems. Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper 45. Washington DC: World Bank; 2010. P.1-182.