Serviços Personalizados
Journal
Artigo
texto em 
Inglês (pdf)
Artigo em XML
Referências do artigo
Tradução automática
Enviar este artigo por emailIndicadores
-
Citado por SciELO -
Acessos
Links relacionados
-
Similares em
SciELO
Compartilhar
Permalink
Revista mexicana de ciencias agrícolas
versão impressa ISSN 2007-0934
Rev. Mex. Cienc. Agríc vol.7 no.7 Texcoco Set./Nov. 2016
Articles
Food poverty and cornfields management: the case of the municipality of Zautla, Puebla, Mexico
1Maestría en Manejo Sostenible de Agroecosistemas. Centro de Agroecología del Instituto de Ciencias-BUAP. Avenida 14 Sur 6301 Ciudad Universitaria. C. P. 72570, Puebla, Puebla, México (biol.ora@hotmail.com; olguin33@hotmail.com; damianhuato@hotmail.com).
2Colegio de Postgraduados-Campus Puebla. Carretera Fed. Mex-Pue km 125.5, C. P. 72760, Puebla, Puebla, México. (agroecologia_iof@yahoo.com).
The small producers of corn temporarily living in food poverty, caused in part by low productivity. A model of technological intervention (MIT) was designed to improve the management of corn and land equivalent index (ETI) of producers Zautla-Puebla, Mexico grouped into three regions. The radical and progressive technologies producers were evaluated in management and according to the IET corn, considering the technological standard of efficient and MIT. It was found that: all food producers are poor; radicals and progressive technologies were applied, predominating the latter, which increased the IET; on average 15% of the corn growers proved efficient which drove corn as polyculture. The MIT is articulated to the agroecological paradigm that promotes complementary and synergistic practices and if the producers of corn with low and medium IET is transferred, productivity increased by 141 and 45%.
Keywords: equivalent index of land and efficient producers; model of technological intervention
Los pequeños productores de maíz de temporal viven en pobreza alimentaria, ocasionada en parte, por la baja productividad. Se diseñó un modelo de intervención tecnológico (MIT) para mejorar el manejo del maíz y el índice equivalente de la tierra (IET) de los productores de Zautla-Puebla, México agrupados en tres regiones. Se evaluaron las tecnologías radicales y progresivas aplicadas en el manejo del maíz y según el IET de los productores, considerando el patrón tecnológico de los eficientes como el MIT. Se encontró que: todos los productores son pobres alimentarios; se aplicaron tecnologías radicales y progresivas, predominando las segundas, las cuales incrementaron el IET; en promedio 15% de los maiceros resultaron ser eficientes los cuales manejaron el maíz como policultivo. El MIT está articulado al paradigma agroecológico que promueve prácticas complementarias y sinérgicas y si se transfiere a los maiceros de bajo y medio IET, su productividad aumentará en 141 y 45%.
Palabras clave: índice equivalente de la tierra y productores eficientes; modelo de intervención tecnológico.
Introduction
The small producers of corn temporary face high levels of poverty, hunger, migration and low yields, exacerbated by climate change (Morales, 2005). The poverty is the issue that most concerns the national and international community. Boltvinik (2003), defined as a multidimensional process generated by: current income, non-core assets and debt capacity, family wealth, access to free goods and services, leisure and knowledge of people.
Considering income, three types of poverty are recognized: patrimonial, capacity and food. The food poverty (PA) endangers the survival of the individual to harm their physical and mental health. It is defined as the inability to buy the basic food basket, even if use of all available household income is made. In Mexico there are 27.4 million (24% of the national total) of food poor. Puebla is fourth national position with 1.9 million (30% of the state total) deficient to food, while in Zautla 38% of the total population suffer from hunger (CONEVAL, 2013).
In Mexico the maize is the most important agricultural product, consumed 115 kg per capita annually (Massieu, 2002). The 7.5 million hectares are planted, of these, 84% are temporary and the rest are planted in irrigation. The average yield is temporary 2 260 kg per hectare in irrigation is 7 500 kg (SIAP, 2013). In Puebla 574 000 hectares of maize (60% of the state total) are planted; 91% are temporary and others for irrigation, with an average yield of1 510 and 4 380 kg per hectare, respectively. In Zautla are grown 3 560 hectares of time, of which 70% is corn with an average yield of 650 kg per hectare (SIAP, 2013).
The corn planting is done temporarily associated with other crops such as beans, pumpkin, tomatoes, peppers, among others, which contribute to meeting basic needs such as food (González and Reyes, 2014). The milpa system can reverse the food poverty by providing about 50% of the assets of the peasant diet, equivalent to 4 230 000 calories sufficient to feed a family of five to seven members per year (Altieri and Nicholls, 2010). If the corn is composed of various crops, it is irrelevant estimate of corn yields only. Therefore, it is proposed to use the land equivalent index (IET) representing the relative area of land cultivated in monoculture necessary to obtain the same production in association (Cassanova et al, 2001). An increase in the IET, can mean a way to bring down food poverty.
In Mexico, various strategies have been implemented to increase corn yields, include:
The Agricultural Development Sector Programme Fisheries and Food 2013-2018. It proposes a comprehensive strategy to increase domestic production of corn 24%, from 20.2 to 25 million tons from 2012 to 2018 (SAGARPA, 2013). However data SIAP (2013) indicate that the average increase in the last 20 years was 10%.
The program for sustainable modernization of traditional agriculture (MasAgro) implemented by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), poses raise corn production temporarily from 2.2 to 3.7 tons per hectare in 10 years, based on a model of "conservation agriculture" (CIMMYT, 2014). Turrent (2014), considered unattainable this goal, since the transfer of conservation tillage has already been explored by CIMMYT-Banco de Mexico (FIRA) in the 1980s, with little success.
There are other strategies promoting biodiverse farming systems. Jut:
Intercropping maize field with fruit trees (MIAF), developed by Turrent and Cortes (2014). His proposal is to intersperse three plant species: fruit tree, corn and beans. An example of its efficiency has been increased maize yields from 0.7 to 1.2 tons per hectare in Sierra Mixe of Oaxaca (Ruiz et al, 2012); and b) staggering agroecology is a project that promotes successful agroecological experiences in several countries, to stagger these practices to other producers, assuming it is in the "how to" where lies the key to productive success (Ranaboldo and Venegas (2007).
The strategy coincides with this project and assumes that productivity is an attribute of how crops are handled. Therefore, management is the core concept of our methodology.
For Damián et al. (2013); converge in handling two types of production conditions: a) general, which may be endogenous (climate, flora, fauna, etc.) and exogenous (public programs, characteristics of the household, etc.) unmodifiable short and medium term; and b) concrete, referred to factors directly involved in the production (land, capital, technology, etc.). The way how the producer combines and uses these resources in the production process, explains specifically how the cornis handled. To this end the producer performs several tasks (planting, tillage, etc.) successively during the season. The essential component in crop management technology is understood as the means by which scientific knowledge is transferred to the solution of concrete problems (Van Wyk, 2004). Innovation adds new products and services, or renew existing (Dismukes, 2005). The innovations can be progressive and radical; the first comprising successive and gradual improvements and the latter pose a different technological path (Stamm, 2008).
The radical innovations are a result of the Green Revolution. Currently, its generation and transfer is provided by the National Research Institute of Forestry, Agricultural and Livestock (INIFAP). The generation and dissemination of progressive innovations has been the product ofa long ancient process where peasants have built knowledge, experience and technology to agricultural practices (Gliessman, 1999). In this study the radical and progressive technologies applied in the management of the cornfields and classified to producers in low, medium and high by IET were evaluated. The latter were regarded as efficient and technological pattern like MIT, which transferred to other producers could increase the IET and reduce food poverty.
This research suggests possible results as follows: 1) most producers are poor food; 2) the management of Milpa is differentiated and is articulated to the agroecological paradigm where a technological syncretism based on dialogue of modern and traditional knowledge is applied, the latter predominating; 3) the IET is a consequence of the conditions that influence the management of the cornfields; and 4) if the pattern of successful technology transfers producers can reduce food poverty.
Materials and methods
Study zone
Zautla is located in the Sierra Norte de Puebla, between parallels 19° 39' 00" and 19° 48' 18", north latitude and meridians 97° 34' 18" and 97° 46' 24" west longitude. It has an area of 274.27 km2 and an altitude between 1 760 and 2 900 m. It has two climates: temperate humid with abundant rains in summer and warm humid with summer rains. The luvisols dominated soils are clayey moderate fertility; lithosols, they are very thin and rocky soil underdeveloped, and regosols are very young soils, generally from the recent deposit of rock and sand. For the development of this research the city was divided into three agro-ecological zones (ZAE): Forest Zone, Cañada Zone and the Llanos Zone, regarding their soil and climatic conditions.
Methodology
The methodology was developed by Damián et al. (2011), it is based on identifying locally to corn growers with increased productivity and technological pattern. However, this research provides two unpublished aspects: the analysis of food poverty and calculation of the IET.
Sampling design and implementation of a survey. The survey included questions relating to the general and specific conditions that influenced the handling of corn. From the information obtained the various indices used in this study were calculated. To estimate the sample size, it was considered as the sampling unit to each farmer of corn included in the list of beneficiary producers Support
Program to the Countryside (PROCAMPO) of the municipality of Zautla in 2012, with a total of N= 1 815; where three groups or strata of producers were identified: those that occur in the forest zone (N1=407, 22.42%), which occur in the area of the Cañada (N2= 746, 41.10%) and the Llanos Zone (N3= 662, 36.47%). The reference variable was the IET and to estimate the sample size was used the formula of Cochran (1977):
Donde: n= 107 producers, it is the estimated sample size; N= 1815 producers, is the number of producers in the sampling frame; S= 0.2599, is the standard deviation of the IET, calculated with data from a preliminary sample of 45 producers (10 of Forest Zone, 19 of Cañada Zone and 16 of Llanos Zone); t= 1.96, is the value of the Student's t distribution, with a reliability of 95% (a/2=0.025); d= is the desired accuracy for estimating the average yield (maximum distance of 5% of the actual average IET).
The design was stratified random sampling with sample distribution in proportion to the size of the strata, obtaining: n= 107 producers, 24 in Forest Zone, 44 in Cañada Zone and 39 in the Llanos Zone.
Corn management assessment
Calculation of land equivalent index (IET). To calculate this index was used the following expression:
IET = IET (1) + IET (2) +…+ IET (n)
Where: IET= Is the IET system. ETI (1), IET (2), IET (n)= individual IET of each crop associated obtained from the expression: IET (i) = Ax / Ux where: i: culture; i; i= 1, 2,..., n. Ax= crop yield x in partnership, Ux= crop yield x in monoculture, Si: IET> 1, the polyculture is advantageous; IET= 1, is indifferent planting mode; IET <1, monoculture to polyculture exceeded.
Index calculation appropriation of radical technologies (IATR). The INIFAP recommendations with those applied by producers in the field were compared. He was assigned a nominal value of 100 units a technology package and pondered1 each of the activities according to their impact on production: 10 (sowing date), 20 (variety), 15 (plant density), 25 and 5 (dose and date of application of fertilizers), 6 and 4 (type and dose of herbicide), 6 and 4 (type and dose of insecticide) and 5 (combat diseases). In his estimation was used the procedure and the mathematical expression of Damián et al. (2011).
Calculation of the degree of use of progressive technologies (GETP).Allowed to estimate the degree of implementation of progressive technologies: native seed, association and crop rotation, soil and water conservation and use of manure. Since there are no experimental references that have measured the impact of these inputs and practices in productivity, a value of 20 points will be awarded to each, so the GETP ranged from 0 to 100 units. His assessment was obtained by mathematical formula Damian et al. (2011).
Typology of producers by IATR and GETP. With the values obtained from IATR and GETP a typology of producers classifying them into three categories was prepared: a) low (<33.33); b) means (33.34-66.66); and c) high (>66.66).
Design model of technological intervention (MIT)
Identification, typology and characterization of producers by IET. To identify the highest value of the IET was taken, subtracting the child; the difference was divided between three and the ratio added to the lower value, constituting the range of low IET producers, and so on. This technique allowed producers grouped in ranges: low, medium and high IET for each ZAE and meet the technological pattern of high IET producers transfigured at MIT. The characterization allowed distinguish socioeconomic factors that affect the handling of the cornfields and feasibility to transfer the MIT.
Food poverty
Calculation of food poverty. This study was considered as monthly income, the total expenditure made by the household (food, clothing, housing, gas, electricity, water, telephone, fuel, gasoline, airline, health, education, parties and other) and income from work, grants and remittances. The amount obtained was compared to the amount of the basic food basket established by CONEVAL (2013), considering poor food producers whose monthly income per capita was less than $ 868 pesos. The monetary increase by adopting the MIT was calculated with the following formula:
Where: t: type of producer; t; t = low or medium.
The IET transformed potential production surpluses in pesos; by adding these to real incomes decrease the rate at which food poverty was obtained.
Results and discussion
Corn management assessment
Calculation of land equivalent index (IET). Management Zautla corn is done by 52% of producers and cornfields, corn associating with at least one crop. The remaining percentage handles it as monoculture.
Evaluation of radical technologies. Table 1 recommended by the INIFAP for planting corn in Zautla technology package is exposed, it is characterized by being comprised entirely of radical technologies.
Table 1 Technology package recommended by INIFAP for handling corn in the municipality of Zautla, Puebla, Mexico.
Fuente: INIFAP, 2009.
In estimating the IATR (Table 2) it found that the use of radical innovations is low, when applied less than one third of the recommendations. In the Llano in as many of these technologies (31 units) was used. The statistical analyzes showed that there is no significant correlation between the use of these technologies and the IET (n= 107, r= 0.0253, p= 0.7960)
Table 2 Number of producers according to the value of IATR and value of the IET by agro-ecological zone in the municipality of Zautla, Puebla, Mexico.
The low implementation of radical technologies is the result of several factors: 1) the technology package was inaccessible recommended considering that the annual per capita income of farmers is $5. 090 pesos. 2) ignorance of the recommended technologies. Survey data showed that 1% of producers received technical advice and 7% read technical brochures on handling the corn. 3) they are technologies that do not consider the varied soil and climatic conditions. In this regard, it is important to note that this technology package is recommended for all DDR Teziutlan which includes 30 municipalities, including Zautla.
Evaluation of progressive technologies. The GETP assessment showed that in handling the cornfields dominated by progressive innovations, since its value is 26 units above the IATR. In addition, it was found that there is a statistically significant relationship between the value of GETP and IET (n= 107, r= 0.3402, p= 0.0003) so these technologies are related to the increase of the IET (Table 3).
Table 3 Number of producers according to the value of GETP and TEI value by agro-ecological zone in the municipality of Zautla, Puebla, Mexico.
Fuente: elaboración con datos de la encuesta (2013).
The relevance of progressive technologies is the result of the adaptation of the natives to environmental conditions and the ancestral knowledge of the practices involved in the production process materials (Gómez et al, 1999). Moreover, Damián et al. (2013), argue that the efficiency of progressive innovations is due to the use of more intensive farming practices, creating synergies between the resources involved in the management of the cornfields.
Design intervention model technology (MIT)
Identification of producers by IET. By applying the methodology of the IET average values for each type of producer and ZAE they were obtained. These ranges, as well as IATR, GETP and the IET, are shown in Table 4.
Table 4 Types of producer's ranges IATR, GETP, IET and number of producers by type by value of IET in the municipality of Zautla, Puebla, Mexico.
Fuente: elaboración con datos de la encuesta (2013).
These figures indicate that the producers with high IET employed, on average, 80% of progressive innovations, predominating the association of crops and manure application. By contrast, in producing low IET prevailed radical innovations. These results coincide with those of Mojena et al. (2000), who obtained an IET of 1.2 in the yucca-maize and yucca-bean association, showing that the use of intercropping systems is agronomically more efficient than monoculture. Meanwhile Cruz (2009), evaluated 14 treatments in temporary associations corn-bean and corn- castor bean (8 polyculture and monoculture 6), obtaining values of relative efficiency of land of 1.04 and association.
Characterization of technological pattern of efficient producers. In the Table 5 exposed the agricultural activities implemented by efficient producers in the management of the cornfields, becoming the technological patterns of each ZAE.
Table 5 Technological pattern applied in the management of maize by efficient producers (high IET) in each agro-ecological zone of Zautla, Puebla, Mexico.
Fuente: elaboración con datos de la encuesta (2013). *Calculado de la producción anual de estiércol por especie animal según SAGARPA (2013).
The efficient producers accounted for 25% Forest, 11% in Cañada and 13% in Llanos. In the Tables 4 and 5, projecting that these producers used native seeds, they associated more than one crop, mainly maize, beans and pumpkin accompanied by fruit trees (apple, peach, pear, etc.); in addition, some rotated crops, incorporated a greater amount of manure and implemented water conservation practices and soil. It is emphasized that these agricultural practices are not in the technology package recommended by the INIFAP.
The IET increase is explained by the rate applied by efficient producers, which is based on the agro-ecological management paradigm. Agroecology seeks to design agricultural systems that mimic the dynamics of natural ecosystems, where the internal regulation of operation is a product of processes and synergies linked to biodiversity (Altieri, 1999). For example in the association maize-bean-pumpkin efficient producers took advantage of the different photosynthetic behavior presenting C4 plants (maize) and C3 (beans and pumpkin) as the first require higher light intensity; in addition, the presence of legumes promotes nitrogen fixation is used by the other cultures of the cornfields. On the other hand, corn serves as a support to the bean, while the pumpkin increases soil cover reducing erosion, retaining moisture and preventing weed overgrowth (Altieri and Nicholls, 2010).
In addition, Altieri and Nicholls (2013) state that in biodiverse agricultural systems is no redundancy of species, which translates into ecological heterogeneity. It is these redundant components that allow the system to keep functioning when an environmental change occurs. Therefore, the more functional biodiversity exists in the agroecosystem this will be more productive, stable, resilient and sustainable (De Schutter, 2010). Similarly, vegetable strata of the cornfields provide ecological niches for different species of arthropod predators and parasitoids of pests, minimizing phytosanitary problems (Nicholls and Altieri, 2002). The integration of biomass in the form of manure increases the supply of nutrients, aeration, moisture and improves soil biological activity (Brechelt, 2004).
Conclusions
For three decades, the Mexican government has committed to combat food poverty through the generation and transfer of radical technologies. However, the results of this investigation indicate that the management of maize held by producers Zautla is differentiated and performed primarily as cornfields. In this management prevails technological syncretism based on a dialogue of knowledge in which they interact radical and progressive technologies, being the predominant second, even without being recognized by the INIFAP. The biggest IET obtained by efficient producers was due to technological pattern used, it was considered that MIT. The MIT is articulated to the agro-ecological paradigm, especially to agrobiodiversity management of maize and complementary and synergistic processes that emerge from this biodiversity. The MIT transfer could be simple because it is coupled to the general and specific conditions involved in managing the cornfields. The adoption of MIT by low and middle producers increase the IET 141 and 45% respectively and specifically the production and consumption of corn would rise 127 kg per capita, helping to reduce household food poverty.
Literatura citada
Altieri, M. A. 1999. Agroecología: bases científicas para una agricultura sustentable. Montevideo: Nordan- Comunidad. 325 p. [ Links ]
Altieri, M. y Nicholls, C. 2010. Agroecología: potenciando la agricultura campesina para revertir el hambre y la inseguridad alimentaria en el mundo. Economía Crítica. 10:62-74. [ Links ]
Altieri, M. y Nicholls, C. 2013. Agroecología y resiliencia al cambio climático: principios y consideraciones metodológicas. Agroecología. 1(8):7-20. [ Links ]
Boltvinik, J. 2003. Tipología de los métodos de medición de la pobreza. Los métodos combinados. Rev. Comercio Exterior. 5(53). [ Links ]
Brechelt, A. 2004. Manejo ecológico del suelo. Fundación Agricultura y Medio Ambiente (FAMA). 1a. (Ed.): Santiago de Chile: RAPAL. 1819 p. [ Links ]
Cassanova, A.; Quintero, P. y Hernández, A. 2001. Policultivos. In: Funes, F.; García, L.; Bourque, M.; Pérez, N. y Rosset, P. (Coords.). Transformando el campo cubano. Avances agricultura sostenible. La Habana: ACTAF-FOOD, FIRST-CEAS. 225-234 p. [ Links ]
CIMMYT. 2014. Modernización sustentable de la agricultura tradicional (MasAgro). [ Links ]
CONEVAL. 2013. La pobreza por ingresos en México, 2013. http://www.coneval.gob.mx. [ Links ]
Cochran, W. G. 1982. Técnicas de muestreo. 3a. Impresión. CECSA. México, D.F. 513 p. [ Links ]
Cruz, M. A. 2009. Eficiencia relativa de la tierra y perspectivas de dos policultivos de temporal en Santa Cruz Xoxocotlán, Oaxaca. Tesis de Maestría. Oaxaca de Juárez: IPN. 145 p. [ Links ]
Damián, M. A.; Cruz, A.; Ramírez, B.; Juárez, D.; Andrade, D. y Espinosa, Z. 2011. Innovaciones para mejorar la producción de maíz de temporal, en el distrito de desarrollo rural de libres, Puebla. Manual técnico. Puebla: Fomento Editorial BUAP. [ Links ]
Damián, M. A.; Cruz, A.; Ramírez, B.; Romero, M. S. y Reyes, L. 2013. Maíz, alimentación y productividad: modelo tecnológico para productores de temporal de México. Agricultura Sociedad y Desarrollo. 2(10). [ Links ]
De Schutter, O. 2010. Report submitted by the special rapporteur on the right to food. General Assembly. Human Rights Council Sixteenth Session. Agenda item 3A/HRC. [ Links ]
Dismukes, J. 2005. Information accelerated radical innovation from principles to an operational methodology. The Industrial Geographer. 1(3):19-42. [ Links ]
Gliessman, R. 1999. Un enfoque agroecológico en el estudio de la agricultura tradicional. En: González, J. A. y Del Amo, R. S. (Comp.). Agricultura y sociedad en México: diversidad, enfoques, estudios de caso. México: Universidad Iberoamericana. [ Links ]
Gómez, G. G.; Ruíz, J. L. y Bravo, S. 1999. Tecnología tradicional indígena y conservación de los recursos naturales. In: balance y perspectivas del derecho social y los pueblos indios de Mesoamérica. VIII Jornadas Lascasianas. UNAM, México. 121-142 p. [ Links ]
González, A. y Reyes, L. 2014. El conocimiento agrícola tradicional, la milpa y la alimentación: el caso del Valle de Ixtlahuaca, Estado de México. Geografía Agrícola. 53:21-42. [ Links ]
Massieu-Trigo, Y. y Lechuga, J. 2002. El maíz en México: biodiversidad y cambios en el consumo. Análisis Económico. UAM. 17(36):281-303 p. [ Links ]
Mojena, M.; Bertolí M. y Zaffaroni, E. 2000. Evaluaciones de plagas insectiles en agroecosistemas de intercalamiento de maíz (ZREMAea mays, L) y frijol (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) con yuca (Manihot esculenta, Crantz). Rev. Bras de Agroc. 1(6):4-11. [ Links ]
Morales, C. 2005. Pobreza, desertificación y degradación de los recursos naturales. Editado por 1a (Ed.). Santiago de chile: CEPAL. [ Links ]
Nicholls, C. y Altieri, M. 2002. Biodiversidad y diseño agroecológico: un estudio de caso de manejo de plagas en viñedos. Manejo integrado de Plagas y Agroecología. (65): 50-64. [ Links ]
Ranaboldo, C. y Venegas, C. 2007. Escalonando la agroecología. Procesos y aprendizaje de cuatro experiencias: Chile, Cuba, Honduras y Perú. Madrid: Plaza Valdés. (Ed.) 177 p. [ Links ]
Ruiz, A. D.; Jiménez, L.; Figueroa, O. y Morales, M. 2012. Adopción del sistema milpa intercalada en árboles frutales por cinco municipios mixes del estado de Oaxaca. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Agríc. 8(3):1605-1621. [ Links ]
Sarandón, S. y Flores, C. 2014. Agroecología: Bases teóricas para el diseño y manejo de agroecosistemas sustentables. Buenos Aires: Editorial de la Universidad Nacional de La Plata (EDULP). 467 p. [ Links ]
Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural Pesca y Alimentación (SAGARPA). 2013. Programa Sectorial de Desarrollo Agropecuario, Pesquero y Alimentario 2013-2018. [ Links ]
Stamm, V. B. 2008. Managing innovation, design and creativity. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, J. and Sons. [ Links ]
Servicio de Información y Estadística Agroalimentaria y Pesquera (SIAP). 2013. Anuario estadístico de la producción agrícola. [ Links ]
Turrent, A. 2014. ¿Seguridad alimentaria o estancamiento? La Jornada, versión impresa. [ Links ]
Van, W. R. J. 2004. A template for graduate programs in management of technology (MOT). Report to the education committee, International Association for Management of Technology (IAMOT). [ Links ]
Vandermeer, J. 2002. Tropical agroecosystems. CRC press. Boca Raton. [ Links ]
Received: June 2016; Accepted: August 2016
Este es un artículo publicado en acceso abierto bajo una licencia Creative Commons
