{"paper_id":"36008abd-dc4e-460b-9156-97f7d6ce30bb","body_text":"Adaptation Strategies of South American Farmers to Climate Change: A Systematic Review | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Adaptation Strategies of South American Farmers to Climate Change: A Systematic Review Crsitian Jordán, Catalina Yáñez, Alejandra Engler This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8413236/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Climate change presents increasing challenges to agricultural systems worldwide, and South America is no exception. The region hosts diverse farming systems and faces significant climate risks, but evidence on how farmers adapt remains limited and comparatively underrepresented. To address this gap, this study conducts a systematic literature review following PRISMA guidelines, covering research published between 2004 and 2024. Thirty-five peer-reviewed studies were retrieved, revealing significant variability in country representation, methodological approaches, and depth of analysis, with a manifest absence of quantitative evidence. The research synthesized 180 adaptation strategies, grouped into six categories: i) crop and soil management; ii) irrigation management; iii) farm management; iv) livestock management; v) household strategies; and vi) ecosystems and environmental protection. Nearly 84% of all strategies fall into the first three categories, indicating a predominance of technical and production-oriented approaches. In addition, the review also reveals regional contrasts. Less vulnerable countries exhibit more technology-driven, long-term adaptations. In contrast, more vulnerable, agriculture-dependent countries rely on short-term, low-cost agronomic adjustments, reflecting broader inequalities in institutional capacity and financial resources. The findings highlight the need for more robust empirical research, particularly quantitative and longitudinal studies, to enrich understanding of farmers’ adaptation dynamics, and to examine the long-term sustainability and potential unintended consequences of specific adaptation strategies to support more equitable and resilient agricultural systems in South America. farmers' adaptation climate change South America systematic review Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 1. Introduction Climate change poses increasing challenges for agriculture, particularly in regions highly exposed to climatic variability and dependent on natural resources. Recent evidence from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2023) indicates an increasing frequency of droughts, shifts in precipitation patterns, steadily rising temperatures, and recurrent heatwaves. These changes have led to reduced crop yields, declining water availability, glacier retreat that threatens agriculture, intensifying competition among water users, and increased pressure from pests and diseases. South America is no exception. The IPCC reports that the region is highly exposed and already affected by climate change, with projected increases in temperature, aridity, and rainfall variability. Glaciers in the Andes continue to shrink, droughts and fires are expected to intensify, and multiple climate-related risks threaten food security, rural livelihoods, and deepen socio-economic inequalities (Reyer et al., 2017). Recent studies confirm that the region is becoming drier, warmer, and more prone to extreme events, including wildfires (Feron et al., 2024). The agricultural sector plays a vital role in economies and societies. By 2019, the region comprised 9% of the world's cropland and experienced the highest relative expansion between 2003 and 2019, mainly driven by Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia, and Uruguay (Potapov et al., 2022). Agriculture accounts for between 3.5% and 13.5% of national GDP across countries and offers high rural employment rates (25–30%) in nations like Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador. The economic and social importance of South America makes it particularly vulnerable to climate-related threats, highlighting the need to understand how its farmers adapt to these challenges. Despite these challenges, climate change adaptation in the region continues to face persistent barriers. Cavazos et al. (2024) highlight scientific knowledge gaps, weak institutional and political support, and limited financial and technical capacity as key obstacles. In South America, these structural challenges are compounded by socio-economic inequalities, governance deficiencies, and scarce regional cooperation, further constraining effective adaptation. These challenges are reflected in the region's research output. Despite decades of climate change literature, South America remains underrepresented in global literature. Dang et al. (2019), reviewing farmer adaptation worldwide from 1990 to 2016, did not include any South American studies. Likewise, Fierros-González and López-Feldman (2021) identified only 21 studies for Latin America, of which 15 were from South America. In contrast, Africa (Jellason et al., 2022; Magesa et al., 2023), Asia (Shaffril et al., 2018; Nor Diana et al., 2022), OECD countries (Waring et al., 2025), and the United States (Ishtiaque, 2023) show far more systematic documentation. This disparity limits the ability to generalize findings and integrate the region into global discussions on agricultural adaptation. Farmers respond to climate change through diverse agricultural, managerial, and technological actions (Dang et al., 2019; García de Jalón et al., 2018; Harmanny & Malek, 2019). These strategies differ in cost, complexity, and time horizon (Iglesias & Garrote, 2015; Robert et al., 2016), and can be incremental, systemic, or transformative (Fedele et al., 2019). Adaptation may also be reactive or proactive, short- or long-term, and occur autonomously—based on farmers’ own experience and resources—or through external support such as policies, extension services, or aid programs (Forsyth & Evans, 2013; Grigorieva et al., 2023). While these actions help maintain productivity under climate variability, they also shape patterns of resource use and long-term sustainability in rural landscapes. Although previous research has reviewed climate change adaptation in Latin America (Cavazos et al., 2024; Fierros-González & López-Feldman, 2021), no study has systematically examined autonomous adaptation strategies specifically for South American farmers. Understanding their behavior is essential, given their role as key agents of adaptation and their contribution to national food systems (Bozzola & Swanson, 2014; Howden et al., 2007). This study addresses this gap by conducting a systematic review of autonomous adaptation strategies implemented by South American farmers. It synthesizes documented strategies, identifies gaps, trends, and barriers, and examines how farmers respond to climate threats without external support, and how these actions shape broader adaptation pathways in the region. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first SLR focused exclusively on autonomous, farmer-level adaptation in South America, offering evidence that can guide future research and inform more equitable and context-sensitive climate policies. The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the methods applied in the systematic review. Section 3 summarizes the main results regarding adaptation strategies, barriers, and facilitators. Section 4 discusses these findings in relation to broader literature. Finally, Section 5 concludes with key insights and directions for future research. 2. Methodology 2.1. Research strategy A systematic literature review (SLR) on climate adaptations implemented by farmers in agriculture at the farm level was conducted following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) (Page et al., 2021). Although other literature review protocols exist (e.g., ROSES, Scoping review) (Grant & Booth, 2009), we utilized PRISMA, as it (i) identifies inclusion and exclusion criteria and (ii) defines research questions that permit systematic research (Moher et al., 2010; Page et al., 2021). Further, it has recently been used to conduct an SLR on farmers’ adaptation strategies in other regions, such as Africa (Magesa et al., 2023), and Asia (Shaffril et al., 2018), allowing certain comparability in terms of results. 2.2. Resources The search was conducted in three databases: Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), and Google Scholar. Scopus and WoS were chosen for their broad disciplinary coverage and advanced filtering capabilities, while Google Scholar was included to ensure access to additional peer-reviewed material not always indexed in the other databases. Searches were conducted in English, Spanish, and Portuguese, the main academic and official languages of the countries included in this review[1]. Because Scopus and WoS do not support non-English queries, Spanish and Portuguese searches were performed exclusively through Google Scholar. 2.3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria The search for articles covered the period 2004 to 2024 to retrieve up-to-date research papers. Only empirical studies were included. Non-research outputs, such as commentaries, letters responses, conference papers and grey literature were excluded. The SLR focused specifically on farmers and the concrete strategies they have implemented on their farms to adapt to climatic threats. Consequently, research on farmers’ perception or awareness, proposing adaptations, simulations of adaptation use or effectiveness without evidence of on-farm implementation, review articles on adaptation options, and studies focused solely on the impacts of climate change were also excluded (Table 1). The review covered ten South American countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela, where comparable peer-reviewed research on farmers’ adaptation was available. Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana, were excluded due to their scientific output remaining significantly lower than that of the other countries in the region[2]. Table 1 . Inclusion and exclusion criteria for articles in the SLR Criterion Eligibility Exclusion Language English, Spanish, and Portuguese No other language than English, Spanish, and Portuguese Time frame Between 2004 and 2024 < 2004 and > 2025 Countries South American countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Suriname, Guyana, and French Guiana Content of the articles Climate change adaptation strategies adopted by farmers. Proposed strategies, but without evidence of their adoption by farmers. 2.4. Systematic review process The collection of research papers followed a 4-step approach. First, search keywords were identified based on the research objectives and by consulting similar SLRs conducted in other regions (Ishtiaque, 2023; Magesa et al., 2023) (Table 2). The second stage consisted of searches conducted in Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar using predefined keywords. The search for keyword combinations yielded 627 articles. Third, the first screening was then conducted, which included reading and reviewing titles, abstracts, and results, yielding 43 academic publications for full-text examination. The eligibility criteria were then applied in detail to the collection of articles, leading to the exclusion of 8 articles and the selection of a final set of 35 relevant documents (Figure 1). 2.5. Data extraction and analysis The final set of 35 articles underwent a thorough review, analysis, and extraction of relevant information. The data were extracted by reading both the abstract and the full article. To facilitate the analysis, a database was built containing the main features of each article: type of agriculture and crops, production scale, implemented strategies, climatic events, and adaptation barriers (if mentioned)[3]. Complementarily, we extracted the year, authors, country of origin, and the names of the publishing journals. The database enabled the standardization and classification of strategies into general categories, the identification of patterns, and the visualization of results. We combined a deductive approach, using general categories drawn from previous studies (for instance, Harmanny & Malek, 2019; Ishtiaque, 2023 and Magesa et al., 2023) with an inductive approach, which allowed new categories to emerge directly from the content of the reviewed articles. This ensured a balance between theory, evidence, and farmers’ on-site implementation. Strategies were initially coded manually from descriptions in each article. Artificial intelligence, ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2024), was used as an auxiliary tool to support the preliminary organization of descriptive labels during the categorization stage. The research team made all coding, interpretation, and final classification decisions to ensure methodological rigor and reproducibility. 2.6. Climate events classification The classification of climate events was based on the categories proposed by the IPCC AR6 (2022), which distinguish between droughts, floods, heat waves, frosts, changes in temperature and precipitation, among others (IPPC, 202). However, during the review, we identified that several articles used inconsistent terms. Some reported broad climatic phenomena (e.g., “changes in the precipitation regime”), while others described specific manifestations such as droughts, frosts, or heatwaves. To address this issue, an ad hoc classification system was developed to harmonize diverse terms into standardized categories while maintaining alignment with IPCC definitions. Through an iterative process, we established eight categories of climate events: temperature increases, changes in precipitation regimes, droughts, floods, heatwaves, frosts, hailstorms, and increases in the frequency of extreme weather events. When an article did not explicitly link a strategy to a particular event, all adaptation strategies were assumed to be associated with each reported climate event. Table 2.Search strings used in the search Databases Keywords used Number of retrieved articles SCOPUS and WoS (Web of Science) climate AND change AND adaptation AND strategies AND agriculture AND farmers AND (Argentina OR Bolivia OR Brazil OR Chile OR Colombia OR Ecuador OR Paraguay OR Peru OR Uruguay OR Venezuela) 127 Google Scholar[4] climate change, adaptation strategies, agriculture, farmers, (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Perú, Uruguay, Venezuela) 500 [1] For all countries except Brazil, Spanish is the primary spoken language, while Portuguese is Portuguese is the official language of Brazil. [2] The decision was based on document statistics by country from the Scimago ranking (https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php?category=2301&region=Latin%20America). The scientific production of 13 Latin American countries in Agriculture was reviewed; three countries with low output, representing only 1% of the region’s total, were excluded. This limited search justifies their exclusion from the SLR. Table 1A in the Electronic Supplementary Material summarizes the 13 countries and their scientific output. [3] The database and summaries of the data are in Appendix 1 of the Electronic Supplementary Material. [4] For Google Scholar, keywords were searched in Spanish and Portuguese. The number of articles (500) refers to the first 50 results reviewed per search. 3. Results 3.1. Articles The SLR identified 35 articles published between 2004 and 2024, yielding a yearly publication rate of 1.66 (Figure 2). Publications were very limited during the first decade (2004–2013), with only four articles (0.4 per year), with the earliest appearing in 2007 in Argentina (Pereira et al., 2007). Conversely, 88% of the research output was published since 2014, with an average of 2.82 articles per year. Specifically, the last three years (2021–2024) concentrated 49% of the total (5.6 articles per year), with a peak of 12 articles in 2021, driven by high publication rates in Brazil, Peru (3 studies), Chile, and Colombia (2 studies) (for further details, see Figure 1A in the Electronic Supplementary Material). The publishing trend in Figure 2 mirrors those reported in other SLRs on farmers’ adaptation. For example, reviews in Africa (Magesa et al., 2023) and the US (Ishtiaque, 2023) show slow publication in the first decade, then peaks and declines. The US SLR (1980-2022) included 95 articles at 2.26/year. Magesa et al. (2023) analyzed 66 articles from Africa (2001-2020) at 3.3/year, and Shaffril et al. (2018) reviewed 38 studies over 12 years at 3.2/year. Thus, the 35 articles for South America represent a smaller volume in a similar period. 3.2. Approaches, sample size, farmers, and crops under study Figure 3 summarizes the geographic distribution of studies, production systems, and climate events addressed across South America. The figure allows for contextualizing the region’s heterogeneity, both in terms of exposure to climate threats and the diversity of agricultural systems represented in the literature. In terms of research output, Brazil has the most substantial evidence with 11 studies, followed by Colombia and Chile (6 articles each), and Peru (5 articles). Argentina has 3 papers, while Bolivia, Ecuador, and Uruguay each have 2 papers, and Paraguay and Venezuela each have 1. Regarding the scope of the articles, we found only three that cover more than one country (Leroy, 2019; Litre & Bursztyn, n.d.; Marchant Santiago et al., 2021). The reviewed articles encompass diverse production systems at the country level, from subsistence to commercial agriculture, from annual to perennial production (Figure 3). For instance, viticulture appears in Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay; fruit trees are analyzed in Argentina, Brazil (passion fruit, Acai), Colombia (avocado, citrus), Chile, and Ecuador; and potatoes with a strong presence in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Venezuela, Brazil, and Bolivia. Studies exhibit substantial heterogeneity regarding sample size. Some rely on small and local samples, such as the seven interviews analyzed by Milanés (2021) in Brazil or the 14 farmer cases in Argentina (Pereira et al., 2007), while others use National Census data, analyzing over 256.000 observations in Chile (Zúñiga et al., 2021) or 960.000 in Brazil (Gori Maia et al., 2018). Most studies focus on small farms (30 articles), with median and large-scale farms examined in 5 cases, mainly in Argentina (Mussetta & Barrientos, 2015; Pereira et al., 2007), Chile (Hadarits et al., 2010; Roco et al., 2014), and Uruguay (Fourment et al., 2020). Qualitative studies account for 51% of the methodological approaches (18 articles), followed by mixed-methods (29%, 10 articles) and quantitative studies (7%, 17 articles). Only Brazil, Chile, and Colombia use all three approaches; Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela rely on one. Quantitative analyses mostly use local cross-sectional data, except Tambet & Stopnitzky (2021) and Aragón et al. (2021) in Peru with repeated cross-sections, and Zúñiga et al. (2021) with national data in Chile. 3.3. Climate events Countries have experienced a variety of adverse climate effects, including changes in precipitation patterns, rising temperatures, droughts, more frequent extreme weather events, floods, frosts, hailstorms, and heatwaves. A total of 105 mentions of climate-related events were identified across the 35 articles. Most articles (88%, 31 articles) report multiple types of events, while only a few focus on individual events, such as droughts in Brazil (Magalhães et al., 2021) or rising temperatures in Peru (Aragón et al., 2021). The most reported climate event is changes in precipitation, discussed in 26 papers across all countries, with increases, decreases, rising temperatures, and droughts. The second and third most-cited are \"Temperature increase\" and \"Drought,” mentioned 23 and 20 times, respectively. All countries note \"Temperature increase,\" but \"Drought\" is only in Bolivia and Ecuador. Other events, such as \"Hailstorms,\" are reported only in Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, and Peru, while \"Heatwaves\" are the least reported, occurring only in Chile and Ecuador. 3.4. Identification of main adaptation strategies implemented by farmers The review identified 180 farm-level adaptation strategies, grouped into six categories: i) crop and soil management; ii) irrigation management; iii) farm management; iv) livestock management; v) household strategies; and vi) ecosystems and environmental protection. Most of the strategies, 84%, fall into three categories: “Crop and soil management” (33%), “Irrigation water management” (27%), and “Farm management” (24%). The categories \"Household strategies\" and \"Ecosystem and Environmental Protection\" account for only 5% and 3.9%. Table 3 summarizes the categories, examples, and country coverage. Crop and Soil Management (33%) involves 20 practices to improve soil, boost crop efficiency, and reduce climate and soil degradation impacts. Reported by 71% of the studies, common strategies include changing planting/harvesting dates (10), using tolerant or improved crop varieties (10), agroecological practices (5), cover crops (5), and organic fertilizers (4). These are used in nearly all reviewed countries. Irrigation management (27%) is the second-most mentioned category, with 49 references and 14 strategies. It appears in 71% of the articles (25). It includes on-farm strategies like installing efficient systems (drip, sprinkler) and water storage (15, 13 studies), and off-farm strategies focused on water-user coordination, governance (6), and water resource protection (4). Farm management (24%) is the third most cited category, with 21 articles (69%) and 14 strategy types, focusing on technical and operational decisions. It emphasizes crop change and diversification, making up over 46% of mentions (15). Other strategies include production adjustments, complementary activities, and financial credit mechanisms. Less-cited adaptation strategies include those within livestock, ecosystems/environmental protection, and household-level management, accounting for 21%. Livestock management (6.7%) involves strategies to sustain animal health, like management changes and livestock sales during climate shocks. Ecosystems/Environmental Protection, at 5%, includes actions to conserve and restore natural ecosystems, like water source protection and fire prevention. Household Strategies (3.9%) involve families adopting methods such as income diversification to reduce climate vulnerability. Table 3. Categories share and adaptation strategies implemented by farmers in South America Adaptation Category N° of articles Strategies (examples) Countries Crop and Soil Management 25 (71%) · Use of resistant and/or improved varieties · Changes in planting/harvesting dates · Sustainable Soil Management and Agroecological Production · Cover crops Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay Water management 25 (71%) · Efficient irrigation systems, · Water management/storage infrastructure, shifts Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay Farm Management 24 (69%) · Crop diversification · Crop change · Crop relocation to other geographic areas (or higher elevations) Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay Livestock Management 7 (20%) · Changes in livestock management Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Uruguay Ecosystems/Environmental protection 7 (20%) · Protection of water sources Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela Household Strategies 5 (14%) · New sources of income Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Peru and Uruguay Table 3 shows the breakdown of adaptation strategies at the country level, highlighting notable differences in adaptation portfolios. Paraguay and Venezuela display a clear dominance of a single category: Crop and Soil Management in Paraguay and Irrigation Water Management in Venezuela, each representing 75%. Other countries exhibit a more diversified and balanced adaptation portfolio: Chile and Argentina mainly implement Irrigation Water Management strategies, while Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, and Uruguay primarily adopt Crop and Soil Management strategies. 3.5. Climate events and adaptation responses The studies report a wide variety of climate events and the adaptation strategies farmers in South America implement. Changes in the rainfall pattern are the most reported phenomenon across all countries (Table 4). In these cases, farmers mainly depend on crop and soil management strategies (43.5% and 39% respectively), followed by water management and farm-level adjustments (27.4% and 26% respectively). Temperature increases, reported in 20 articles, are the second most common threat. To address it, main strategies include crop and soil management (39%), farm management (26%), and water management (24%). Strategies for farmers and workers include weather-appropriate clothing and adjusting work hours (Fourment et al., 2019; Infante & Infante, 2013; Rodríguez et al., 2021). Drought effects (16 articles from seven countries, excluding Bolivia and Ecuador) are primarily addressed through irrigation management strategies (37%), including collective water management, storage infrastructure, efficient irrigation technologies, and protection of water sources (Magalhães et al., 2021; Roco et al., 2016). Countries differ in emphasis: Colombia and Venezuela emphasize strategies related to local water governance (Ballesteros e Isaza, 2021; Jiménez et al., 2024; Leroy, 2019), while Chile and Brazil prioritize strategies with a stronger focus on infrastructure development and high-investment irrigation technologies (Gori Maia et al., 2018; Infante & Infante, 2013; Magalhães et al., 2021; Roco et al., 2014; Silva, 2024). Eight articles address the rising frequency of extreme weather events. These are mainly countered by crop and soil management strategies (26%), such as adjusting planting calendars and using tolerant crops, followed by irrigation and farm management strategies (17% each). Frosts are reported in six countries across seven articles, addressed through crops, soil, and farm management (32% each), with solutions like using helicopters for thermal control, short-cycle crops, and staggered planting (Hadarits et al., 2010; Jiménez Bedoya et al., 2024). Finally, less frequently reported climate events, floods, hailstorms, and heatwaves, also appear in the literature, although with limited geographic coverage. In these cases, adaptation responses generally involve physical protection, crop relocation, or specific production adjustments. Table 4. Climate events and adaptation strategies Climate event Articles Main adaptation strategies categories (%) Examples of strategies Countries reporting event Changes in precipitation regime 26 Crop & soil (43.5%); Water management (27.4%); Farm management (17.7%) Adjust planting/harvesting dates; efficient irrigation; crop change; soil management. All countries Temperature increase 20 Crop & soil management (39%); Farm management (26%); Water management (24%) Heat-tolerant varieties; workday adjustments; protective clothing All countries Drought 16 Irrigation management (37%); Collective water governance; Storage infrastructure Water storage; efficient irrigation; community irrigation management; protection of water sources Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela Extreme weather events (increased frequency) 8 Crop & soil management (26%); Water management (17%); Farm management (17%) Adjust planting calendar; tolerant varieties Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay and Peru, Frosts 7 Crop & soil management (32%); Farm management (32%) Thermal control (e.g., helicopters); short-cycle crops; staggered planting Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela Floods 5 Farm management; Crop & soil management Terraces; crop relocation Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela Hailstorms 4 Crop & soil management; Farm management Protective structures; switching crops Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, and Peru Heatwaves 2 Crop & soil management Adjusting varieties; crop shading, workday adaptation Chile and Ecuador 3.6. Regional constraints for farmers’ adaptation Research reports several constraints limit farmers’ adaptation in the region. These barriers span economic, technological, environmental, institutional, and production-related factors and recur across multiple countries in the region. Financial barriers hinder farmers' investment in adaptation. Studies show restricted access to credit, subsidies, or personal capital limits their ability to invest in strategies. For instance, coffee producers in Colombia face limited resources (Turbay et al., 2014), and in Brazil, 78% of farmers lack credit due to scarce technical and financial aid (Pires et al., 2014). In Chile, water shortages worsen due to the lack of funds for efficient irrigation technologies (Roco et al., 2014; Zúñiga et al., 2021). A second constraint involves inadequate water infrastructure, including efficient irrigation systems, storage, and flood control measures. In Peru, the lack of irrigation infrastructure impedes the adoption of conservation practices (Tambet & Stopnitzky, 2021), while in semi-arid regions of Brazil, water insecurity remains a major obstacle to drought management (Andrade et al., 2014). Institutional limitations are often reported, such as limited inter-institutional coordination, low government presence in rural areas, and inadequate public policies for training and tech transfer. In Brazil, local government capacity constraints affect family farming (Milanés, 2021), while in Argentina, training programs are considered insufficient (Mussetta & Barrientos, 2015). Several studies point to vulnerable production systems as constraints. Relying on monocultures, extensive livestock on natural pastures, and drought-sensitive crops increase climate risks. Examples include Brazil's natural-pasture livestock (Litre & Bursztyn, 2015) and traditional crops in drought-prone Chile (Infante & Infante, 2013). These barriers are common in South America, but their impact varies by country and production type. They help explain why crop and soil adaptations dominate, while structural, governance, or household measures are less widely adopted. 4. Discussion 4.1. Adaptation heterogeneity and regional implications Farmers constitute a diverse group whose decisions are influenced by various factors and behavioral patterns (Ricart et al., 2024), leading to different adaptation pathways (Stringer et al., 2020). This review confirms heterogeneity in adaptation strategies across South America, with a clear predominance of technical-productive strategies, led by crop and irrigation management, accounting for 60% of all reported adaptations. Agronomic strategies entail adjustments to farm production practices (del Pozo et al., 2019; Harmanny & Malek, 2019), typically corresponding to short-term, seasonal adjustments that, rather than strengthening the agricultural system, aim at maintaining production in the face of temporary climatic stress (Engler et al., 2021; Fedele et al., 2019; Robert et al., 2016). Their widespread adoption is probably linked to their low cost (investment and management), and low risk (Eakin & Wehbe, 2009), consistent with the financial constraints documented in the reviewed studies. Limited access to credit, subsidies, or technical assistance restricts the adoption of medium- or long-term measures. Moreover, such strategies may have a low benefit-implementation effort ratio (Iglesias & Garrote, 2015) and rarely contribute to long-term system resilience. Irrigation modernization, defined as technological and infrastructure improvements that enhance water use and reliability, is a widely promoted form of adaptation to water scarcity at the farm level (Frisvold & Bai, 2016; Iglesias & Garrote, 2015; Ward, 2022). Higher benefit-to-effort ratios characterize such advanced or “technological” forms of adaptation, but also by medium to high implementation costs (Iglesias & Garrote, 2015), which explains why several South American countries (e.g., Chile, Argentina, Peru, Brazil) have supported their adoption through grant programs (Jordán et al., 2025; Waring et al., 2025). Despite the notable benefits (e.g., higher yields and reduced water use per unit of land), efficiency improvements raise concerns about long-term sustainability. Research warns that efficiency gains can lead to the overuse of water resources and basin closure, reducing long-term adaptation options (Vicuña et al., 2014). This pattern illustrates the well-known “efficiency paradox,” where productivity improvements can encourage the expansion or intensification of irrigated agriculture, counteracting conservation efforts and increasing pressure on water resources (Grafton et al., 2018; Lankford et al., 2023). Therefore, efficiency-based adaptation may boost short-term resilience but unintentionally weaken long-term sustainability. Adaptation decisions also influence land-use dynamics. Adaptations such as cropland relocation or agricultural expansion can reduce vulnerability but may also lead to land-use changes that increase pressure on ecosystems. In South America, recent evidence shows a significant expansion of cropland, particularly in Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Bolivia, where 39% of new cropland replaced natural vegetation or forests (Potapov et al., 2022). Such changes, while adaptive from a productivity perspective, illustrate trade-offs between progress in water-use efficiency (SDG 6.4.1) and terrestrial ecosystem conservation (SDG 15 “Life on Land”) (Lee et al., 2016; United Nations, 2025). Production systems with limited diversification, such as monocultures or extensive livestock, further constrain adaptive capacity, favoring reactive rather than transformative responses and reinforcing vulnerability to recurrent climate shocks (Infante & Infante, 2013; Litre & Bursztyn, 2015). 4.2. Comparison with other regions Compared with similar SLRs conducted in other regions, South America shows the lowest number of retrieved articles and publication rate. Ishtiaque (2023) in the United States retrieved 95 articles, determining a publication rate of 2.26 articles per year over a 40-year research; Magesa et al. (2023) in Africa analyzed 66 articles (2001-2020), producing a publication rate of 3.3; whereas Shaffril et al. (2018) identified 38 related studies in a period of 12 years (2007-2018), yielding a rate of 3.2 articles. However, when standardizing by the number of countries covered in each review, South America´s (10 countries) publication density is comparable to Africa (19 countries) and Asia (13 countries), suggesting that the region is not necessarily less productive when evidence-generating countries are considered. Nonetheless, this metric must be interpreted with caution, as scientific output remains highly uneven within all regions. In South America, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Peru account for 80% of all studies, although every country is represented by at least one publication. Research concentration is even higher in Africa and Asia, where a small group of countries account for most publications. These patterns indicate that, despite its lower overall research volume, South America exhibits a somewhat more balanced internal distribution of studies, though it remains insufficient to capture the diversity of agricultural contexts and vulnerabilities across the region. On the other hand, Africa and South America share some agronomic strategies, such as crop diversification. However, African farmers rely more on low-cost and accessible options, such as adjusting planting dates or harvesting rainwater, while adaptation in South America often involves more strategic, investment-based technological measures, particularly in Brazil and Chile (Gori Maia et al., 2018; Roco et al., 2016). This contrast may reflect structural conditions: only 5% of Africa’s cultivated land is irrigated, compared to 14% in Latin America and 37% in Asia (Ringer et al., 2010). Asia and South America exhibit similarities regarding irrigation management, where modern irrigation systems coexist with traditional methods, also present in South America, particularly in countries like Chile, Peru, and Argentina (Gori Maia et al., 2018; Roco et al., 2014, 2016). However, Asian farmers also emphasize financial and social strategies, traditional knowledge, and community networks, which strengthen adaptive capacity (Shaffril et al., 2018), elements less visible in South American research. The United States by contrast, prioritizes irrigation technologies and long-term planning strategies (Ishtiaque, 2023), favored by the conditions of a developed economy. Overall, the comparison among SLRs highlights that, although South America is underrepresented in the adaptation literature, the findings indicate that the region lacks even a minimum level of research for each country. Moreover, the evidence shows a distinct focus on technical strategies at the farm level, primarily on irrigation and crop management. 4.3. Farmers’ adaptation, vulnerability, and food security Another aspect explored by this SLR was the link between the research and the levels of vulnerability and food security in the region. To do so, we used the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative (ND-GAIN) index[5] which measures a country's vulnerability to climate change and other global challenges, as well as its readiness to improve resilience (Chen et al., 2023). The use of the ND-GAIN Index provides a regional perspective on adaptive capacity gaps, linking the prevalence of low-cost agronomic strategies to broader structural vulnerabilities. Among the 187 countries in the dataset, South American countries rank between 25th and 145 th in the global ND-GAIN assessment, where Chile and Brazil appear as the least vulnerable (25th and 45th, respectively). On the contrary, Bolivia and Ecuador are the most vulnerable countries in the region (ranked 111 th and 145 th , respectively) (Table 2A in the Electronic Supplementary Material displays the rankings for every country in this SLR). A similar pattern holds for the ND-GAIN Food Score[6], which measures vulnerability in food production, nutrition, and rural livelihoods: Chile and Brazil again rank highest (15th and 46th), whereas Bolivia and Ecuador lag behind (86th and 95th). We further explored the relationship between academic evidence (the number of studies on farmers’ adaptation) and other key agricultural indicators, such as the share of the rural population, the share of rural employment, and agriculture’s contribution to GDP[7]. From Figure 4, it is observable that countries with high rural populations (Bolivia, Ecuador, and Paraguay) have less available evidence, with a correlation of -0.33. Similar trends are found when comparing the relationship between the number of studies and the share of agricultural GDP (-0.22), and with the Food Security and Vulnerability Index (-0.39 and -0.21, respectively). While moderate, these correlations suggest that countries most dependent on agriculture and/or most vulnerable to climate risks remain underrepresented in the literature. This mismatch has substantive implications. Less vulnerable countries, such as Brazil and Chile, show a prevalence of long-term technology-driven adaptations, including irrigation upgrades and improved water management. Conversely, more vulnerable countries with a greater reliance on agriculture, such as Bolivia, Ecuador, and Paraguay, tend to rely on short-term, low-cost agronomic practices that help address seasonal climate stress but do little to enhance long-term resilience. This uneven distribution of evidence restricts the ability to develop targeted adaptation policies for highly vulnerable groups (countries). The lack of evidence in those contexts makes it difficult to design specific policies, assess the effectiveness of existing adaptations, identify unmet needs, or anticipate future adaptation pathways, especially for smaller or resource-limited farmers. 4.4. Characteristics and limitations of the evidence in the region The available evidence presents several limitations that reduce the robustness and generalizability of the regional findings. These limitations reflect the state of the literature rather than the design of this review. First, research is mainly composed of small-scale qualitative studies (51%), followed by mixed-methods studies (29%), and a smaller share of quantitative studies (20%). Only Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Peru provide quantitative evidence, which limits comparability across countries and production systems. Additionally, the variability of qualitative research methods (e.g., interviews, focus groups) further decreases the consistency of the findings. A second limitation is the near absence of longitudinal data. Most quantitative studies rely on cross-sectional data, and only Peru offers studies with repeated rounds of data (Aragón et al., 2021; Tambet & Stopnitzky, 2021), though not in a longitudinal format, hindering and limiting the understanding of how adaptation evolves, persists, or responds to climatic and economic shocks. Geographic imbalances also exist. While Brazil, Chile, and Peru account for a significant proportion of the studies (63%), countries with greater dependence on agriculture and higher vulnerability, such as Bolivia, Paraguay, and Ecuador, are underrepresented. Thus, countries with the greatest adaptation needs are the least documented, hindering the design of evidence-based policies in those regions. Overall, these limitations indicate that the current literature offers a fragmented regional overview, helpful in identifying general patterns and trends, but insufficient for evaluating their effectiveness, sustainability over time, and relevance in the most vulnerable regions. 4.5. Limitations and Future Research Needs Although this review provides insights from an underrepresented region, it also presents limitations. First, the search terms (query) focused strictly on farmers’ implementation of adaptation practices; thus, they might have excluded relevant studies that used different terminology or addressed indirect forms of adaptation (e.g., education, the provision of tools). Additionally, because the search focused on agricultural actions, more transformational-oriented adaptations may not have been captured. Furthermore, the limitations in the literature, the small number of case studies, the heterogeneity of approaches, the lack of quantitative research, and the absence of longitudinal data highlight the need for more rigorous empirical studies. Research focusing on designs that can evaluate the prevalence, drivers, and persistence of adaptation strategies are required, as it allows for the identification of key factors, causal relationships, and the ability to generalize the findings. (Fierros-González & López-Feldman, 2021). Future research should also evaluate the effectiveness and long-term sustainability of adaptation strategies, including potential unintended consequences. For instance, in irrigation management, the sustainability of irrigation interventions remains insufficiently assessed, as efficiency gains might unintentionally limit future adaptation options (Lankford et al., 2023b). Addressing these gaps is essential for designing more effective and equitable adaptation policies. [5] Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative’s (ND-GAIN) Country Index is a free, open-source index that shows a country’s current vulnerability to climate disruptions. It also assesses a country’s readiness to leverage private and public sector investment for adaptive actions. The ND-GAIN Country Index brings together more than 40 core indicators to measure vulnerability and readiness of 182 UN countries from 1995 to the present (https://gain.nd.edu/our-work/country-index/). [6] The ND-GAIN Food Score is a 0–100 sub-index that measures a country’s vulnerability of its food system to climate change. Lower values indicate higher vulnerability, based on indicators such as projected crop yields, import dependency, agricultural capacity, nutrition, and rural population exposure (Chen et al., 2023). [7] Data for the share of rural population, share of rural employment and the share of agriculture on the GDP was retrieved from the Word Bank Open Data (https://data.worldbank.org/) 5. Conclusion Like other regions, South America is highly vulnerable to climate change. However, it remains comparatively underrepresented in the academic literature on climate change adaptation. This review aimed to provide the first synthesis of the strategies adopted by South American farmers to cope with a wide range of adverse climate events. The evidence of the 35 research articles included in this SLR reveals a heterogeneous and wide range of adaptations to climatic threats, grouped into six categories: i) crop and soil management; ii) irrigation water management; iii) farm management; iv) livestock management; v) household strategies; and vi) ecosystems and environmental protection. Overall, farmers mostly rely on individual, technical-productive strategies, with a lack of structural and governance-oriented strategies. Among all practices and strategies, irrigation water management, particularly efficient irrigation and water storage, is the most widely implemented adaptation strategy. The review also indicates that South America has less documented evidence than other regions, including Asia, Africa, and the United States. However, the internal distribution of studies is relatively less concentrated: unlike Africa and Asia, where a small number of countries account for most of the publications, every South American country is represented. Within the region, adaptation patterns differ markedly across countries. Less vulnerable countries, such as Chile and Brazil, lead the way in terms of evidence, which shows a relative predominance of long-term, technology-oriented measures. In contrast, more vulnerable and agriculture-dependent countries primarily rely on short-term, low-cost agronomic practices. These differences reflect broader inequalities in institutional capacity, financial resources, and access to technology. In addition, the limited evidence from these countries restricts understanding of farmers’ needs and the evaluation of adaptation effectiveness, especially for smaller or resource-constrained farmers. Future research should aim to close these gaps by incorporating quantitative and longitudinal designs, ideally combining multi-level information on farmer practices, socio-economic conditions, and perceptions. Evaluating adaptation strategies not only for effectiveness but also for long-term sustainability will be critical to inform more targeted, equitable, and resilient adaptation policies. This includes examining potential unintended outcomes—such as the efficiency paradox in irrigation or risks of biodiversity loss associated with agricultural expansion—which may undermine long-term sustainability goals that adaptation seeks to achieve. Strengthening this evidence base will be essential to inform policies targeting farmers and resource sustainability, balancing productivity goals with ecosystem conservation and social development, ensuring that adaptation contributes meaningfully to sustainable agricultural development in the region. Declarations Author Contribution C.J. and A.E. wrote the main manuscript. C.J. and C.Y. conducted the systematic review analysis. C.Y. prepared the tables and Figures 1–3 and wrote the main description of the methodology section. C.J. prepared Figure 4. J.C. and A.E. reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors cross-reviewed the studies included in the systematic review. Acknowledgments This study was financed by the National Fund for Scientific and Technological Development (ANID), projects FONDECYT N° 1230901 and FONDECYT POSTDOCTORADO N° 3240089, from the National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research, CONICYT, Chile. Data Availability We present a database of the articules used in the systematic review as supplementary material. References de Andrade AJP, Silva NM da, de Souza CR (2014) As percepções sobre as variações e mudanças climáticas e as estratégias de adaptação dos agricultores familiares do Seridó potiguar. Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente , 31 , 77–96 Aragón FM, Oteiza F, Rud JP (2021) Climate Change and Agriculture: Subsistence Farmers’ Response to Extreme Heat. Am Economic Journal: Economic Policy 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20190316 Ballesteros J, Isaza C (2021) Adaptation Measures to Climate Change as Perceived by Smallholder Farmers in the Andes. J Ethnobiol 41(3):428–446. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-41.3.428 Bozzola M, Swanson T (2014) Policy implications of climate variability on agriculture: Water management in the Po river basin, Italy. Environ Sci Policy 43:26–38. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.12.002 Cavazos T, Bettolli ML, Campbell D, Sánchez Rodríguez RA, Mycoo M, Arias PA, Rivera J, Reboita MS, Gulizia C, Hidalgo HG, Alfaro EJ, Stephenson TS, Sörensson AA, Cerezo-Mota R, Castellanos E, Ley D, Mahon R (2024) Challenges for climate change adaptation in Latin America and the Caribbean region. Frontiers in Climate , Volume 6-2024 . https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/climate/articles/ 10.3389/fclim.2024.1392033 Chen C, Noble I, Hellman J, Coffee J, Murillo M, Chawla N (2023) University of Notre Dame global adaptation initiative country index technical report. University of Notre Dame Dang H, Le, Li E, Nuberg I, Bruwer J (2019) Factors influencing the adaptation of farmers in response to climate change: a review. Climate Dev 11(9):765–774. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2018.1562866 del Pozo A, Brunel-Saldias N, Engler A, Ortega-Farias S, Acevedo-Opazo C, Lobos GA, Jara-Rojas R, Molina-Montenegro MA (2019) Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Strategies of Agriculture in Mediterranean-Climate Regions (MCRs). Sustainability 11(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102769 Engler A, Rotman ML, Poortvliet PM (2021) Farmers’ Perceived Vulnerability and Proactive versus Reactive Climate Change Adaptation in Chile’s Maule Region. Sustainability , 13 (17), 9907. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/17/9907 Fedele G, Donatti CI, Harvey CA, Hannah L, Hole DG (2019) Transformative adaptation to climate change for sustainable social-ecological systems. Environ Sci Policy 101:116–125. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.07.001 Feron S, Cordero RR, Damiani A, MacDonell S, Pizarro J, Goubanova K, Valenzuela R, Wang C, Rester L, Beaulieu A (2024) South America is becoming warmer, drier, and more flammable. Commun Earth Environ 5(1):501. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01654-7 Fierros-González I, López-Feldman A (2021) Farmers’ Perception of Climate Change: A Review of the Literature for Latin America. In Frontiers in Environmental Science (Vol. 9). Frontiers Media S.A. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.672399 Forsyth T, Evans N (2013) What is Autonomous Adaption? Resource Scarcity and Smallholder Agency in Thailand. World Dev 43:56–66. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.11.010 Fourment M, Ferrer M, Barbeau G, Quénol H (2020) Local Perceptions, Vulnerability and Adaptive Responses to Climate Change and Variability in a Winegrowing Region in Uruguay. Environ Manage 66(4):590–599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01330-4 Frisvold G, Sanchez C, Gollehon N, Megdal SB, Brown P (2018) Evaluating Gravity-Flow Irrigation with Lessons from Yuma, Arizona, USA. Sustainability , 10 (5), 1548. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1548 García de Jalón S, Iglesias A, Neumann MB (2018) Responses of sub-Saharan smallholders to climate change: Strategies and drivers of adaptation. Environ Sci Policy 90:38–45. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.09.013 Gori Maia A, Cesano D, Miyamoto BCB, Eusebio GS, de Silva PA O (2018) Climate change and farm-level adaptation: the Brazilian Sertão. Int J Clim Change Strateg Manag 10(5):729–751. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-04-2017-0088 Grafton R, Williams J, Perry CJ, Molle F, Ringler C, Steduto P, Udall B, Wheeler SA, Wang Y, Garrick D, Allen R (2018) The paradox of irrigation efficiency. Science 361:748–750. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat9314 Grant MJ, Booth A (2009) A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inform Libr J 26(2):91–108. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x Grigorieva E, Livenets A, Stelmakh E (2023) Adaptation of Agriculture to Climate Change: A Scoping Review. Climate 11(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/cli11100202 Hadarits M, Smit B, Diaz H (2010) Adaptation in viticulture: A case study of producers in the Maule Region of Chile. J Wine Res 21(2):167–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571264.2010.530109 Harmanny KS, Malek Ž (2019) Adaptations in irrigated agriculture in the Mediterranean region: an overview and spatial analysis of implemented strategies. Reg Envriron Chang 19(5):1401–1416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01494-8 Howden SM, Soussana J-F, Tubiello FN, Chhetri N, Dunlop M, Meinke H (2007) Adapting agriculture to climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 104 (50), 19691–19696. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701890104 Iglesias A, Garrote L (2015) Adaptation strategies for agricultural water management under climate change in Europe. Agric Water Manage 155:113–124. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.03.014 Infante A, Infante F (2013) Percepciones y estrategias de los campesinos del secano para mitigar el deterioro ambiental y los efectos del cambio climático en Chile. Agroecología 8(1):71–78 IPCC (2022) Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [H.-O.Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S.Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)] IPCC (2023) Sections. In: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647 Ishtiaque A (2023) US farmers’ adaptations to climate change: a systematic review of adaptation-focused studies in the US agriculture context. Environ Research: Clim 2(2):022001. https://doi.org/10.1088/2752-5295/accb03 Jellason NP, Salite D, Conway JS, Ogbaga CC (2022) A systematic review of smallholder farmers’ climate change adaptation and enabling conditions for knowledge integration in Sub-Saharan African (SSA) drylands. Environ Dev 43:100733. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2022.100733 Jiménez Bedoya A, Fuentes Gandara F, Uribe P, R., Pinedo Hernández J (2024) Perception and adaptation to climate change in vulnerable regions. Global J Environ Sci Manage 10(4):1791–1808. https://doi.org/10.22034/gjesm.2024.04.18 Jordán C, Engler A, Bopp C, Poortvliet PM, Jara-Rojas R (2025) Adaptation behavior to prolonged drought conditions: Farmers’ responses to water scarcity in Central Chile. Environment, Development and Sustainability . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-025-06421-y Lankford B, Pringle C, McCosh J, Shabalala M, Hess T, Knox JW (2023) Irrigation area, efficiency and water storage mediate the drought resilience of irrigated agriculture in a semi-arid catchment. Sci Total Environ 859:160263. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160263 Lee BX, Kjaerulf F, Turner S, Cohen L, Donnelly PD, Muggah R, Davis R, Realini A, Kieselbach B, MacGregor LS (2016) Transforming our world: implementing the 2030 agenda through sustainable development goal indicators. J Public Health Policy 37(Suppl 1):13–31 Leroy D (2019) Farmers’ Perceptions of and Adaptations to Water Scarcity in Colombian and Venezuelan Páramos in the Context of Climate Change. Mt Res Dev 39(2):R21. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-18-00062.1 Litre G, Bursztyn M (2015) Climatic and socio-economic risks perceptions and adaptation strategies among livestock family farmers in the Pampa Biome. Ambiente Sociedade 18:55–80 Magalhães HF, Feitosa IS, de Lima Araújo E, Albuquerque UP (2021) Perceptions of Risks Related to Climate Change in Agroecosystems in a Semi-arid Region of Brazil. Hum Ecol 49(4):403–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-021-00247-8 Magesa BA, Mohan G, Matsuda H, Melts I, Kefi M, Fukushi K (2023) Understanding the farmers’ choices and adoption of adaptation strategies, and plans to climate change impact in Africa: A systematic review. Clim Serv 30:100362. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2023.100362 Marchant Santiago C, Rodríguez Díaz P, Morales-Salinas L, Betancourt P, L., Ortega Fernández L (2021) Practices and Strategies for Adaptation to Climate Variability in Family Farming. An Analysis of Cases of Rural Communities in the Andes Mountains of Colombia and Chile. Agriculture 11(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11111096 Milanés OAG AGRICULTURA, FAMILIAR Y LA ADAPTACIÓN AL CAMBIO CLIMÁTICO (2021) EN COAPROCOR- PARANÁ, BRASIL. In Agroecologia: Métodos e Técnicas Para Uma Agricultura Sustentável - Volume 1 (pp. 379–398). Editora Científica Digital. https://doi.org/10.37885/201102259 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2010) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 8(5):336–341. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007 Mussetta P, Barrientos MJ (2015) Vulnerabilidad de productores rurales de Mendoza ante el Cambio Ambiental Global: clima, agua, economía y sociedad. Revista de La Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias Universidad Nac de Cuyo 47(2):145–170 Nor Diana MI, Zulkepli NA, Siwar C, Zainol MR (2022) Farmers’ Adaptation Strategies to Climate Change in Southeast Asia: A Systematic. Literature Rev Sustainability 14(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063639 OpenAI (2024) ChatGPT (version GPT-4.1). OpenAI Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, Alonso-Fernández S (2021) Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas. Rev Esp Cardiol 74(9):790–799. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recesp.2021.06.016 Pereira S, Maldonado I, Natenzon CE (2007) Estrategias de adaptación a la dinámica climática en el ámbito rural de la Pampa argentina Pires M, Cunha D, Reis D, Coelho A (2014) Farmers’ perceptions and adaptation strategies to climate change in Minas Gerais State, Brazil. Journal of Agricultural Sciences Potapov P, Turubanova S, Hansen MC, Tyukavina A, Zalles V, Khan A, Song X-P, Pickens A, Shen Q, Cortez J (2022) Global maps of cropland extent and change show accelerated cropland expansion in the twenty-first century. Nat Food 3(1):19–28. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00429-z Reyer CPO, Adams S, Albrecht T, Baarsch F, Boit A, Canales Trujillo N, Cartsburg M, Coumou D, Eden A, Fernandes E, Langerwisch F, Marcus R, Mengel M, Mira-Salama D, Perette M, Pereznieto P, Rammig A, Reinhardt J, Robinson A, Thonicke K (2017) Climate change impacts in Latin America and the Caribbean and their implications for development. Reg Envriron Chang 17(6):1601–1621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0854-6 Robert M, Thomas A, Bergez JE (2016) Processes of adaptation in farm decision-making models. A review. In Agronomy for Sustainable Development (Vol. 36, Issue 4). Springer-Verlag France. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0402-x Roco L, Engler A, Bravo-Ureta B, Jara-Rojas R (2014) Farm level adaptation decisions to face climatic change and variability: Evidence from Central Chile. Environ Sci Policy 44:86–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.07.008 Roco L, Poblete D, Meza F, Kerrigan G (2016) Farmers’ Options to Address Water Scarcity in a Changing Climate: Case Studies from two Basins in Mediterranean Chile. Environ Manage 58(6):958–971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0759-2 Rodríguez J, de Rodríguez JN, Carrero JCC, Novoa DM, L. L. R., Frank JVS (2020) Representations of Colombian Andean farmers on climate change and mitigation and adaptation strategies. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural 59:e220439 Shaffril HAM, Krauss SE, Samsuddin SF (2018) A systematic review on Asian’s farmers’ adaptation practices towards climate change. Sci Total Environ 644:683–695. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.349 de Silva K (2024) S. Percepção e estratégias de adaptação de agricultores familiares frente às mudanças climáticas no município de Barreiras Bahia Stringer LC, Fraser EDG, Harris D, Lyon C, Pereira L, Ward CFM, Simelton E (2020) Adaptation and development pathways for different types of farmers. Environ Sci Policy 104:174–189. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.10.007 Tambet H, Stopnitzky Y (2021) Climate Adaptation and Conservation Agriculture among Peruvian Farmers. Am J Agric Econ 103(3):900–922. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12177 Turbay S, Nates B, Jaramillo F, Vélez JJ, Ocampo OL (2014) Adaptation to climate variability among the coffee farmers of the watersheds of the rivers Porce and Chinchiná, Colombia | Adaptación a la variabilidad climática entre los caficultores de las cuencas de los ríos Porce y Chinchiná, Colombia. Investigaciones Geograficas 85:95–112. https://doi.org/10.14350/rig.42298 United Nations (2025) Sustainable Development Report Vicuna S, Alvarez P, Melo O, Dale L, Meza F (2014) Irrigation infrastructure development in the Limarí Basin in Central Chile: implications for adaptation to climate variability and climate change. Water Int 39(5):620–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2014.945068 Ward FA (2022) Enhancing climate resilience of irrigated agriculture: A review. J Environ Manage 302:114032. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.114032 Waring T, Biagini L, Bozzola M, Severini S (2025) Weathering the Storm: A Systematic Review of Climate Change Adaptation in Agriculture. Methods, Metrics, and Impacts. Bio-Based and Applied Economics . https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-16753 World Bank (2024) World Development Indicators . https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators Zúñiga F, Jaime M, Salazar C (2021) Crop farming adaptation to droughts in small-scale dryland agriculture in Chile. Water Resources and Economics , 34 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wre.2021.100176 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files ESM2.docx SLRSouthAmericaDatabase.xlsx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {\"props\":{\"pageProps\":{\"initialData\":{\"identity\":\"rs-8413236\",\"acceptedTermsAndConditions\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"archivedVersions\":[],\"articleType\":\"Research Article\",\"associatedPublications\":[],\"authors\":[{\"id\":570643520,\"identity\":\"d790e786-d42f-49e4-8aa0-55a3cef132b5\",\"order_by\":0,\"name\":\"Crsitian Jordán\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Universidad de las Americas, Chile\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Crsitian\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Jordán\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":570643521,\"identity\":\"e909a4b9-be72-4091-b507-f77f3d70da30\",\"order_by\":1,\"name\":\"Catalina Yáñez\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Catalina\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Yáñez\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":570643530,\"identity\":\"72810d85-8693-4bdf-95bb-4f38e5246a19\",\"order_by\":2,\"name\":\"Alejandra Engler\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile\",\"correspondingAuthor\":true,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Alejandra\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Engler\",\"suffix\":\"\"}],\"badges\":[],\"createdAt\":\"2025-12-20 15:53:34\",\"currentVersionCode\":1,\"declarations\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8413236/v1\",\"doiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8413236/v1\",\"draftVersion\":[],\"editorialEvents\":[],\"editorialNote\":\"\",\"failedWorkflow\":false,\"files\":[{\"id\":100356947,\"identity\":\"e71bafd0-1c04-41c4-9204-29bbf468d8cb\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-16 07:18:05\",\"extension\":\"docx\",\"order_by\":0,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":531803,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"ArticleFinalAE.docx\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8413236/v1/2342e8682386d3d0d7759340.docx\"},{\"id\":99834427,\"identity\":\"9a74f728-12f2-4a8b-b1f9-7a0d28135887\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-08 18:28:58\",\"extension\":\"json\",\"order_by\":1,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":5365,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"2f061b293386490bb66d8ab361760083.json\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8413236/v1/27ba5dfe584bf59323a1a757.json\"},{\"id\":100357072,\"identity\":\"d28cc425-f4fa-45cd-8583-892289cbb952\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-16 07:18:32\",\"extension\":\"docx\",\"order_by\":2,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":52714,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"ESM2.docx\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8413236/v1/a938d65fe44d490f82138f9f.docx\"},{\"id\":100357085,\"identity\":\"c77339bc-9f71-4fb0-b440-602fdfbe5993\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-16 07:18:40\",\"extension\":\"xlsx\",\"order_by\":3,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":34790,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"SLRSouthAmericaDatabase.xlsx\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8413236/v1/3ecf939338f63a0011bf364c.xlsx\"},{\"id\":100356446,\"identity\":\"1e38d344-68cf-48af-ab1c-6da7f2cff1eb\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-16 07:09:27\",\"extension\":\"xml\",\"order_by\":4,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":170565,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"2f061b293386490bb66d8ab3617600831enriched.xml\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8413236/v1/98b0e6ced6a4d2f6074a5334.xml\"},{\"id\":99834435,\"identity\":\"c2125cb8-ef3b-448a-8d19-43dca3f5d03b\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-08 18:28:58\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":5,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":79897,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"floatimage1.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8413236/v1/a42b6c8f54679e91b8ce434c.png\"},{\"id\":99834437,\"identity\":\"bc48f2e7-1f23-4248-87ce-d87075d730fb\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-08 18:28:59\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":9,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":27695,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"Onlinefloatimage1.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8413236/v1/dfe4e212d2f359df05516b5d.png\"},{\"id\":99834432,\"identity\":\"75cda2eb-2420-4a3f-b924-b2c412612399\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-08 18:28:58\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":10,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":10009,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"Onlinefloatimage2.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8413236/v1/5cb8ad83705617b1a948c3d0.png\"},{\"id\":100356618,\"identity\":\"096d3ef6-71cd-498b-a9cb-728104780a03\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-16 07:16:05\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":11,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":114812,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"Onlinefloatimage3.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8413236/v1/86396aa7037ac6251d7db095.png\"},{\"id\":100357033,\"identity\":\"3b247788-c022-4994-b8f8-81ef8528d75b\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-16 07:18:22\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":12,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":13183,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"Onlinefloatimage4.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8413236/v1/30dbe76bd4710c2e2746ca17.png\"},{\"id\":99834440,\"identity\":\"febb3289-8e0e-414c-8e34-c8bd46524974\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-08 18:28:59\",\"extension\":\"xml\",\"order_by\":13,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":168825,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"2f061b293386490bb66d8ab3617600831structuring.xml\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8413236/v1/521a37f8ea155f7eda22c614.xml\"},{\"id\":100356974,\"identity\":\"14eda120-713e-490e-b8e0-5e993c31c9c4\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-16 07:18:10\",\"extension\":\"html\",\"order_by\":14,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":181320,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"earlyproof.html\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8413236/v1/9e6813166fef4d24e684047a.html\"},{\"id\":99834424,\"identity\":\"93e641fd-d1e8-4e18-97b8-950059278c09\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-08 18:28:58\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":1,\"title\":\"Figure 1\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":98028,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eMethodology Flowchart. Modified from Page et al. (2021) and Shaffril et al. (2018).\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"floatimage1.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8413236/v1/05f047f9a9f5ac580a47d094.png\"},{\"id\":99834425,\"identity\":\"b0a3c9f6-23f8-4a92-8041-71bede3cc95d\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-08 18:28:58\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":2,\"title\":\"Figure 2\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":15838,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003ePublished articles on farmers’ adaptation strategies 2004-2024\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"floatimage2.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8413236/v1/21c0afaeb03170d4c8e7a7d0.png\"},{\"id\":100356880,\"identity\":\"9af84477-fdaf-4c88-894e-56a59bb85577\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-16 07:17:53\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":3,\"title\":\"Figure 3\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":307746,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eRegional distribution of studies, affected production systems, and climate-adverse events\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"floatimage3.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8413236/v1/96fa0f2d430796a3dc875819.png\"},{\"id\":99834442,\"identity\":\"ff795ca3-30c1-49ff-8704-9386d2a5452e\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-08 18:28:59\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":4,\"title\":\"Figure 4\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":43073,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eNumber of studies on farmers’ adaptation to climate change, by share of rural employment and agricultural GDP.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e(*) Venezuela does not present the contribution of agriculture to the national GDP.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"floatimage4.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8413236/v1/7ac66ff71e1fc8650965abe5.png\"},{\"id\":100376934,\"identity\":\"63090cc7-81b1-4e5c-977c-97704fcd72db\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-16 08:46:19\",\"extension\":\"pdf\",\"order_by\":0,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"manuscript-pdf\",\"size\":1341070,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"manuscript.pdf\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8413236/v1/d103b2bd-e079-4914-8ec8-ccacc9ebfbae.pdf\"},{\"id\":99834441,\"identity\":\"78bdd0a0-ca70-43a8-9550-34380b7d20b1\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-08 18:28:59\",\"extension\":\"docx\",\"order_by\":0,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"supplement\",\"size\":52714,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"ESM2.docx\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8413236/v1/324b195cf5d4dc67694f1986.docx\"},{\"id\":100357044,\"identity\":\"d4f38727-7ac2-4a41-852f-d1ef40df7f02\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-16 07:18:25\",\"extension\":\"xlsx\",\"order_by\":1,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"supplement\",\"size\":34790,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"SLRSouthAmericaDatabase.xlsx\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8413236/v1/7f7e707afb3ebba527bf4856.xlsx\"}],\"financialInterests\":\"No competing interests reported.\",\"formattedTitle\":\"Adaptation Strategies of South American Farmers to Climate Change: A Systematic Review\",\"fulltext\":[{\"header\":\"1. Introduction\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eClimate change poses increasing challenges for agriculture, particularly in regions highly exposed to climatic variability and dependent on natural resources. Recent evidence from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2023) indicates an increasing frequency of droughts, shifts in precipitation patterns, steadily rising temperatures, and recurrent heatwaves. These changes have led to reduced crop yields, declining water availability, glacier retreat that threatens agriculture, intensifying competition among water users, and increased pressure from pests and diseases.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eSouth America is no exception. The IPCC reports that the region is highly exposed and already affected by climate change, with projected increases in temperature, aridity, and rainfall variability. Glaciers in the Andes continue to shrink, droughts and fires are expected to intensify, and multiple climate-related risks threaten food security, rural livelihoods, and deepen socio-economic inequalities (Reyer et al., 2017). Recent studies confirm that the region is becoming drier, warmer, and more prone to extreme events, including wildfires (Feron et al., 2024).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe agricultural sector plays a vital role in economies and societies. By 2019, the region comprised 9% of the world's cropland and experienced the highest relative expansion between 2003 and 2019, mainly driven by Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia, and Uruguay (Potapov et al., 2022). Agriculture accounts for between 3.5% and 13.5% of national GDP across countries and offers high rural employment rates (25–30%) in nations like Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador. The economic and social importance of South America makes it particularly vulnerable to climate-related threats, highlighting the need to understand how its farmers adapt to these challenges.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eDespite these challenges, climate change adaptation in the region continues to face persistent barriers. Cavazos et al. (2024) highlight scientific knowledge gaps, weak institutional and political support, and limited financial and technical capacity as key obstacles. In South America, these structural challenges are compounded by socio-economic inequalities, governance deficiencies, and scarce regional cooperation, further constraining effective adaptation.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThese challenges are reflected in the region's research output. Despite decades of climate change literature, South America remains underrepresented in global literature. Dang et al. (2019), reviewing farmer adaptation worldwide from 1990 to 2016, did not include any South American studies. Likewise, Fierros-González and López-Feldman (2021) identified only 21 studies for Latin America, of which 15 were from South America. In contrast, Africa (Jellason et al., 2022; Magesa et al., 2023), Asia (Shaffril et al., 2018; Nor Diana et al., 2022), OECD countries (Waring et al., 2025), and the United States (Ishtiaque, 2023) show far more systematic documentation. This disparity limits the ability to generalize findings and integrate the region into global discussions on agricultural adaptation.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eFarmers respond to climate change through diverse agricultural, managerial, and technological actions (Dang et al., 2019; García de Jalón et al., 2018; Harmanny \\u0026amp; Malek, 2019). These strategies differ in cost, complexity, and time horizon (Iglesias \\u0026amp; Garrote, 2015; Robert et al., 2016), and can be incremental, systemic, or transformative (Fedele et al., 2019). Adaptation may also be reactive or proactive, short- or long-term, and occur autonomously—based on farmers’ own experience and resources—or through external support such as policies, extension services, or aid programs (Forsyth \\u0026amp; Evans, 2013; Grigorieva et al., 2023). While these actions help maintain productivity under climate variability, they also shape patterns of resource use and long-term sustainability in rural landscapes.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAlthough previous research has reviewed climate change adaptation in Latin America (Cavazos et al., 2024; Fierros-González \\u0026amp; López-Feldman, 2021), no study has systematically examined autonomous adaptation strategies specifically for South American farmers. Understanding their behavior is essential, given their role as key agents of adaptation and their contribution to national food systems (Bozzola \\u0026amp; Swanson, 2014; Howden et al., 2007).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThis study addresses this gap by conducting a systematic review of autonomous adaptation strategies implemented by South American farmers. It synthesizes documented strategies, identifies gaps, trends, and barriers, and examines how farmers respond to climate threats without external support, and how these actions shape broader adaptation pathways in the region. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first SLR focused exclusively on autonomous, farmer-level adaptation in South America, offering evidence that can guide future research and inform more equitable and context-sensitive climate policies.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the methods applied in the systematic review. Section 3 summarizes the main results regarding adaptation strategies, barriers, and facilitators. Section 4 discusses these findings in relation to broader literature. Finally, Section 5 concludes with key insights and directions for future research.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"2. Methodology\",\"content\":\"\\u003ch2\\u003e2.1. Research strategy\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eA systematic literature review (SLR) on climate adaptations implemented by farmers in agriculture at the farm level was conducted following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) (Page et al., 2021). Although other literature review protocols exist (e.g., ROSES, Scoping review)\\u0026nbsp;(Grant \\u0026amp; Booth, 2009),\\u0026nbsp;we utilized PRISMA, as it (i) identifies inclusion and exclusion criteria and (ii) defines research questions that permit systematic research\\u0026nbsp;(Moher et al., 2010; Page et al., 2021). Further, it has recently been used to conduct an SLR on farmers\\u0026rsquo; adaptation strategies in other regions, such as Africa (Magesa et al., 2023), and Asia (Shaffril et al., 2018), allowing certain comparability in terms of results.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch2\\u003e2.2. Resources\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe search was conducted in three databases: Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), and Google Scholar.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eScopus and WoS were chosen for their broad disciplinary coverage and advanced filtering capabilities, while Google Scholar was included to ensure access to additional peer-reviewed material not always indexed in the other databases. Searches were conducted in English, Spanish, and Portuguese, the main academic and official languages of the countries included in this review[1]. Because Scopus and WoS do not support non-English queries, Spanish and Portuguese searches were performed exclusively through Google Scholar.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch2\\u003e2.3. \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp;Inclusion and exclusion criteria\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe search for articles covered the period 2004 to 2024 to retrieve up-to-date research papers. Only empirical studies were included. Non-research outputs, such as commentaries, letters responses, conference papers and grey literature were excluded.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe SLR focused specifically on farmers and the concrete strategies they have implemented on their farms to adapt to climatic threats. Consequently, research on farmers\\u0026rsquo; perception or awareness, proposing adaptations, simulations of adaptation use or effectiveness without evidence of on-farm implementation, review articles on adaptation options, and studies focused solely on the impacts of climate change were also excluded (Table 1).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe review covered ten South American countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela, where comparable peer-reviewed research on farmers\\u0026rsquo; adaptation was available. Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana, were excluded due to their scientific output remaining significantly lower than that of the other countries in the region[2].\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eTable 1\\u003cstrong\\u003e.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003eInclusion and exclusion criteria for articles in the SLR\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ctable border=\\\"1\\\" cellspacing=\\\"0\\\" cellpadding=\\\"0\\\" width=\\\"599\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003ctbody\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eCriterion\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eEligibility\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eExclusion\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eLanguage\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eEnglish, Spanish, and Portuguese\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eNo other language than English, Spanish, and Portuguese\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eTime frame\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eBetween 2004 and 2024\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026lt; 2004 and \\u0026gt; 2025\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eCountries\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eSouth American countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eSuriname, Guyana, and French Guiana\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eContent of the articles\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eClimate change adaptation strategies adopted by farmers.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eProposed strategies, but without evidence of their adoption by farmers.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tbody\\u003e\\n\\u003c/table\\u003e\\n\\u003ch2\\u003e2.4. \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp;Systematic review process\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe collection of research papers followed a 4-step approach. First, search keywords were identified based on the research objectives and by consulting similar SLRs conducted in other regions (Ishtiaque, 2023; Magesa et al., 2023) (Table 2).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe second stage consisted of searches conducted in Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar using predefined keywords. The search for keyword combinations yielded 627 articles. Third, the first screening was then conducted, which included reading and reviewing titles, abstracts, and results, yielding 43 academic publications for full-text examination. The eligibility criteria were then applied in detail to the collection of articles, leading to the exclusion of 8 articles and the selection of a final set of 35 relevant documents (Figure 1).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch2\\u003e2.5. \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp;Data extraction and analysis\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe final set of 35 articles underwent a thorough review, analysis, and extraction of relevant information. The data were extracted by reading both the abstract and the full article. To facilitate the analysis, a database was built containing the main features of each article: type of agriculture and crops, production scale, implemented strategies, climatic events, and adaptation barriers (if mentioned)[3]. Complementarily, we extracted the year, authors, country of origin, and the names of the publishing journals. The database enabled the standardization and classification of strategies into general categories, the identification of patterns, and the visualization of results.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eWe combined a deductive approach, using general categories drawn from previous studies (for instance, Harmanny \\u0026amp; Malek, 2019; Ishtiaque, 2023 and Magesa et al., 2023) with an inductive approach, which allowed new categories to emerge directly from the content of the reviewed articles. This ensured a balance between theory, evidence, and farmers\\u0026rsquo; on-site implementation.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eStrategies were initially coded manually from descriptions in each article. Artificial intelligence, ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2024), was used as an auxiliary tool to support the preliminary organization of descriptive labels during the categorization stage. The research team made all coding, interpretation, and final classification decisions to ensure methodological rigor and reproducibility.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch2\\u003e2.6.\\u0026nbsp;Climate events classification\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe classification of climate events was based on the categories proposed by the IPCC AR6 (2022), which distinguish between droughts, floods, heat waves, frosts, changes in temperature and precipitation, among others (IPPC, 202). However, during the review, we identified that several articles used inconsistent terms. Some reported broad climatic phenomena (e.g., \\u0026ldquo;changes in the precipitation regime\\u0026rdquo;), while others described specific manifestations such as droughts, frosts, or heatwaves. \\u0026nbsp;To address this issue, an ad hoc classification system was developed to harmonize diverse terms into standardized categories while maintaining alignment with IPCC definitions.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThrough an iterative process, we established eight categories of climate events: temperature increases, changes in precipitation regimes, droughts, floods, heatwaves, frosts, hailstorms, and increases in the frequency of extreme weather events. When an article did not explicitly link a strategy to a particular event, all adaptation strategies were assumed to be associated with each reported climate event.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eTable 2.Search strings used in the search\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ctable border=\\\"1\\\" cellspacing=\\\"0\\\" cellpadding=\\\"0\\\" width=\\\"578\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003ctbody\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eDatabases\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eKeywords used\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eNumber of retrieved articles\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eSCOPUS and WoS (Web of Science)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eclimate AND change AND adaptation AND strategies AND agriculture AND farmers AND (Argentina OR Bolivia OR Brazil OR Chile OR Colombia OR Ecuador OR Paraguay OR Peru OR Uruguay OR Venezuela)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e127\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eGoogle Scholar[4]\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eclimate change, adaptation strategies, agriculture, farmers, (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Per\\u0026uacute;, Uruguay, Venezuela)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e500\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tbody\\u003e\\n\\u003c/table\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e[1] For all countries except Brazil, Spanish is the primary spoken language, while Portuguese is Portuguese is the official language of Brazil.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e[2] The decision was based on document statistics by country from the Scimago ranking (https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php?category=2301\\u0026amp;region=Latin%20America). The scientific production of 13 Latin American countries in Agriculture was reviewed; three countries with low output, representing only 1% of the region\\u0026rsquo;s total, were excluded. This limited search justifies their exclusion from the SLR. Table 1A in the Electronic Supplementary Material summarizes the 13 countries and their scientific output.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e[3] The database and summaries of the data are in Appendix 1 of the Electronic Supplementary Material. \\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv id=\\\"ftn4\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e[4] For Google Scholar, keywords were searched in Spanish and Portuguese. The number of articles (500) refers to the first 50 results reviewed per search.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/div\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"3. Results\",\"content\":\"\\u003ch2\\u003e3.1. \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp;Articles\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe SLR identified 35 articles published between 2004 and 2024, yielding a yearly publication rate of 1.66 (Figure 2). Publications were very limited during the first decade (2004\\u0026ndash;2013), with only four articles (0.4 per year), with the earliest appearing in 2007 in Argentina (Pereira et al., 2007). Conversely, 88% of the research output was published since 2014, with an average of 2.82 articles per year. Specifically, the last three years (2021\\u0026ndash;2024) concentrated 49% of the total (5.6 articles per year), with a peak of 12 articles in 2021, driven by high publication rates in Brazil, Peru (3 studies), Chile, and Colombia (2 studies) (for further details, see Figure 1A in the Electronic Supplementary Material).\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe publishing trend in Figure 2 mirrors those reported in other SLRs on farmers\\u0026rsquo; adaptation. For example, reviews in Africa (Magesa et al., 2023) and the US (Ishtiaque, 2023) show slow publication in the first decade, then peaks and declines. The US SLR (1980-2022) included 95 articles at 2.26/year. Magesa et al. (2023) analyzed 66 articles from Africa (2001-2020) at 3.3/year, and Shaffril et al. (2018) reviewed 38 studies over 12 years at 3.2/year. Thus, the 35 articles for South America represent a smaller volume in a similar period.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch2\\u003e3.2. \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp;Approaches, sample size, farmers, and crops under study\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eFigure 3 summarizes the geographic distribution of studies, production systems, and climate events addressed across South America. The figure allows for contextualizing the region\\u0026rsquo;s heterogeneity, both in terms of exposure to climate threats and the diversity of agricultural systems represented in the literature. \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp;\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eIn terms of research output, Brazil has the most substantial evidence with 11 studies, followed by Colombia and Chile (6 articles each), and Peru (5 articles). Argentina has 3 papers, while Bolivia, Ecuador, and Uruguay each have 2 papers, and Paraguay and Venezuela each have 1. Regarding the scope of the articles, we found only three that cover more than one country (Leroy, 2019; Litre \\u0026amp; Bursztyn, n.d.; Marchant Santiago et al., 2021).\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe reviewed articles encompass diverse production systems at the country level, from subsistence to commercial agriculture, from annual to perennial production (Figure 3). For instance, viticulture appears in Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay; fruit trees are analyzed in Argentina, Brazil (passion fruit, Acai), Colombia (avocado, citrus), Chile, and Ecuador; and potatoes with a strong presence in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Venezuela, Brazil, and Bolivia.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eStudies exhibit substantial heterogeneity regarding sample size. \\u0026nbsp;Some rely on small and local samples, such as the seven interviews analyzed by Milan\\u0026eacute;s (2021) in Brazil or the 14 farmer cases in Argentina (Pereira et al., 2007), while others use National Census data, analyzing over 256.000 observations in Chile (Z\\u0026uacute;\\u0026ntilde;iga et al., 2021) or 960.000 in Brazil (Gori Maia et al., 2018). Most studies focus on small farms (30 articles), with median and large-scale farms examined in 5 cases, mainly in Argentina (Mussetta \\u0026amp; Barrientos, 2015; Pereira et al., 2007), Chile (Hadarits et al., 2010; Roco et al., 2014), and Uruguay (Fourment et al., 2020).\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eQualitative studies account for 51% of the methodological approaches (18 articles), followed by mixed-methods (29%, 10 articles) and quantitative studies (7%, 17 articles). Only Brazil, Chile, and Colombia use all three approaches; Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela rely on one. Quantitative analyses mostly use local cross-sectional data, except Tambet \\u0026amp; Stopnitzky (2021) and Arag\\u0026oacute;n et al. (2021) in Peru with repeated cross-sections, and Z\\u0026uacute;\\u0026ntilde;iga et al. (2021) with national data in Chile.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch2\\u003e3.3. \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp;Climate events\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eCountries have experienced a variety of adverse climate effects, including changes in precipitation patterns, rising temperatures, droughts, more frequent extreme weather events, floods, frosts, hailstorms, and heatwaves. A total of 105 mentions of climate-related events were identified across the 35 articles. Most articles (88%, 31 articles) report multiple types of events, while only a few focus on individual events, such as droughts in Brazil (Magalh\\u0026atilde;es et al., 2021) or rising temperatures in Peru (Arag\\u0026oacute;n et al., 2021).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe most reported climate event is changes in precipitation, discussed in 26 papers across all countries, with increases, decreases, rising temperatures, and droughts. The second and third most-cited are \\u0026quot;Temperature increase\\u0026quot; and \\u0026quot;Drought,\\u0026rdquo; mentioned 23 and 20 times, respectively. All countries note \\u0026quot;Temperature increase,\\u0026quot; but \\u0026quot;Drought\\u0026quot; is only in Bolivia and Ecuador. Other events, such as \\u0026quot;Hailstorms,\\u0026quot; are reported only in Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, and Peru, while \\u0026quot;Heatwaves\\u0026quot; are the least reported, occurring only in Chile and Ecuador.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch2\\u003e3.4. \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp;Identification of main adaptation strategies implemented by farmers\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe review identified 180 farm-level adaptation strategies, grouped into six categories: i) crop and soil management; ii) irrigation management; iii) farm management; iv) livestock management; v) household strategies; and vi) ecosystems and environmental protection. Most of the strategies, 84%, fall into three categories: \\u0026ldquo;Crop and soil management\\u0026rdquo; (33%), \\u0026ldquo;Irrigation water management\\u0026rdquo; (27%), and \\u0026ldquo;Farm management\\u0026rdquo; (24%). The categories \\u0026quot;Household strategies\\u0026quot; and \\u0026quot;Ecosystem and Environmental Protection\\u0026quot; account for only 5% and 3.9%. Table 3 summarizes the categories, examples, and country coverage.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eCrop and Soil Management (33%) involves 20 practices to improve soil, boost crop efficiency, and reduce climate and soil degradation impacts. Reported by 71% of the studies, common strategies include changing planting/harvesting dates (10), using tolerant or improved crop varieties (10), agroecological practices (5), cover crops (5), and organic fertilizers (4). These are used in nearly all reviewed countries.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eIrrigation management (27%) is the second-most mentioned category, with 49 references and 14 strategies. It appears in 71% of the articles (25). It includes on-farm strategies like installing efficient systems (drip, sprinkler) and water storage (15, 13 studies), and off-farm strategies focused on water-user coordination, governance (6), and water resource protection (4).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eFarm management (24%) is the third most cited category, with 21 articles (69%) and 14 strategy types, focusing on technical and operational decisions. It emphasizes crop change and diversification, making up over 46% of mentions (15). Other strategies include production adjustments, complementary activities, and financial credit mechanisms.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eLess-cited adaptation strategies include those within livestock, ecosystems/environmental protection, and household-level management, accounting for 21%. Livestock management (6.7%) involves strategies to sustain animal health, like management changes and livestock sales during climate shocks. Ecosystems/Environmental Protection, at 5%, includes actions to conserve and restore natural ecosystems, like water source protection and fire prevention. Household Strategies (3.9%) involve families adopting methods such as income diversification to reduce climate vulnerability.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eTable 3. Categories share and adaptation strategies implemented by farmers in South America\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ctable border=\\\"1\\\" cellspacing=\\\"0\\\" cellpadding=\\\"0\\\" width=\\\"633\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003ctbody\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eAdaptation Category\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eN\\u0026deg; of articles\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eStrategies (examples)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eCountries\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eCrop and Soil Management\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e25\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e(71%)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026middot; Use of resistant and/or improved varieties\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026middot; Changes in planting/harvesting dates\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026middot; Sustainable Soil Management and Agroecological Production\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026middot; Cover crops\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eArgentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eWater management\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e25\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e(71%)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026middot; Efficient irrigation systems,\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026middot; Water management/storage infrastructure, shifts\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eArgentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eFarm Management\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e24\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e(69%)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026middot; Crop diversification\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026middot; Crop change\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026middot; Crop relocation to other geographic areas (or higher elevations)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eArgentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eLivestock Management\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e7\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e(20%)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026middot; Changes in livestock management\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eArgentina, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Uruguay\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eEcosystems/Environmental protection\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e7\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e(20%)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026middot; Protection of water sources\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eBrazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eHousehold Strategies\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e5\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e(14%)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026middot; New sources of income\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eArgentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Peru and Uruguay\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tbody\\u003e\\n\\u003c/table\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eTable 3 shows the breakdown of adaptation strategies at the country level, highlighting notable differences in adaptation portfolios. Paraguay and Venezuela display a clear dominance of a single category: Crop and Soil Management in Paraguay and Irrigation Water Management in Venezuela, each representing 75%. Other countries exhibit a more diversified and balanced adaptation portfolio: Chile and Argentina mainly implement Irrigation Water Management strategies, while Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, and Uruguay primarily adopt Crop and Soil Management strategies.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch2\\u003e3.5. \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp;Climate events and adaptation responses\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe studies report a wide variety of climate events and the adaptation strategies farmers in South America implement. Changes in the rainfall pattern are the most reported phenomenon across all countries (Table 4). In these cases, farmers mainly depend on crop and soil management strategies (43.5% and 39% respectively), followed by water management and farm-level adjustments (27.4% and 26% respectively).\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eTemperature increases, reported in 20 articles, are the second most common threat. To address it, main strategies include crop and soil management (39%), farm management (26%), and water management (24%). Strategies for farmers and workers include weather-appropriate clothing and adjusting work hours (Fourment et al., 2019; Infante \\u0026amp; Infante, 2013; Rodr\\u0026iacute;guez et al., 2021).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eDrought effects (16 articles from seven countries, excluding Bolivia and Ecuador) are primarily addressed through irrigation management strategies (37%), including collective water management, storage infrastructure, efficient irrigation technologies, and protection of water sources (Magalh\\u0026atilde;es et al., 2021; Roco et al., 2016). Countries differ in emphasis: Colombia and Venezuela emphasize strategies related to local water governance (Ballesteros e Isaza, 2021; Jim\\u0026eacute;nez et al., 2024; Leroy, 2019), while Chile and Brazil prioritize strategies with a stronger focus on infrastructure development and high-investment irrigation technologies (Gori Maia et al., 2018; Infante \\u0026amp; Infante, 2013; Magalh\\u0026atilde;es et al., 2021; Roco et al., 2014; Silva, 2024).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eEight articles address the rising frequency of extreme weather events. These are mainly countered by crop and soil management strategies (26%), such as adjusting planting calendars and using tolerant crops, followed by irrigation and farm management strategies (17% each). Frosts are reported in six countries across seven articles, addressed through crops, soil, and farm management (32% each), with solutions like using helicopters for thermal control, short-cycle crops, and staggered planting (Hadarits et al., 2010; Jim\\u0026eacute;nez Bedoya et al., 2024).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eFinally, less frequently reported climate events, floods, hailstorms, and heatwaves, also appear in the literature, although with limited geographic coverage. In these cases, adaptation responses generally involve physical protection, crop relocation, or specific production adjustments.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eTable 4. Climate events and adaptation strategies \\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ctable border=\\\"1\\\" cellspacing=\\\"0\\\" cellpadding=\\\"0\\\" width=\\\"666\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cthead\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eClimate event\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;Articles\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eMain adaptation strategies categories (%)\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eExamples of strategies\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eCountries reporting event\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003c/thead\\u003e\\n \\u003ctbody\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eChanges in precipitation regime\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e26\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eCrop \\u0026amp; soil (43.5%); Water management (27.4%); Farm management (17.7%)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eAdjust planting/harvesting dates; efficient irrigation; crop change; soil management.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eAll countries\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eTemperature increase\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e20\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eCrop \\u0026amp; soil management (39%); Farm management (26%); Water management (24%)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eHeat-tolerant varieties; workday adjustments; protective clothing\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eAll countries\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eDrought\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e16\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eIrrigation management (37%); Collective water governance; Storage infrastructure\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eWater storage; efficient irrigation; community irrigation management; protection of water sources\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eArgentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eExtreme weather events (increased frequency)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e8\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eCrop \\u0026amp; soil management (26%); Water management (17%); Farm management (17%)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eAdjust planting calendar; tolerant varieties\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eArgentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay and Peru,\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eFrosts\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e7\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eCrop \\u0026amp; soil management (32%); Farm management (32%)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eThermal control (e.g., helicopters); short-cycle crops; staggered planting\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eArgentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eFloods\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e5\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eFarm management; Crop \\u0026amp; soil management\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eTerraces; crop relocation\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eBrazil, Colombia, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eHailstorms\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e4\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eCrop \\u0026amp; soil management; Farm management\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eProtective structures; switching crops\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eBolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, and Peru\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eHeatwaves\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eCrop \\u0026amp; soil management\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eAdjusting varieties; crop shading, workday adaptation\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eChile and Ecuador\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tbody\\u003e\\n\\u003c/table\\u003e\\n\\u003ch2\\u003e3.6. \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp;Regional constraints for farmers\\u0026rsquo; adaptation \\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eResearch reports several constraints limit farmers\\u0026rsquo; adaptation in the region. These barriers span economic, technological, environmental, institutional, and production-related factors and recur across multiple countries in the region.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eFinancial barriers hinder farmers\\u0026apos; investment in adaptation. Studies show restricted access to credit, subsidies, or personal capital limits their ability to invest in strategies. For instance, coffee producers in Colombia face limited resources (Turbay et al., 2014), and in Brazil, 78% of farmers lack credit due to scarce technical and financial aid (Pires et al., 2014). In Chile, water shortages worsen due to the lack of funds for efficient irrigation technologies (Roco et al., 2014; Z\\u0026uacute;\\u0026ntilde;iga et al., 2021).\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eA second constraint involves inadequate water infrastructure, including efficient irrigation systems, storage, and flood control measures. In Peru, the lack of irrigation infrastructure impedes the adoption of conservation practices (Tambet \\u0026amp; Stopnitzky, 2021), while in semi-arid regions of Brazil, water insecurity remains a major obstacle to drought management (Andrade et al., 2014).\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eInstitutional limitations are often reported, such as limited inter-institutional coordination, low government presence in rural areas, and inadequate public policies for training and tech transfer. In Brazil, local government capacity constraints affect family farming (Milan\\u0026eacute;s, 2021), while in Argentina, training programs are considered insufficient (Mussetta \\u0026amp; Barrientos, 2015).\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eSeveral studies point to vulnerable production systems as constraints. Relying on monocultures, extensive livestock on natural pastures, and drought-sensitive crops increase climate risks. Examples include Brazil\\u0026apos;s natural-pasture livestock (Litre \\u0026amp; Bursztyn, 2015) and traditional crops in drought-prone Chile (Infante \\u0026amp; Infante, 2013).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThese barriers are common in South America, but their impact varies by country and production type. They help explain why crop and soil adaptations dominate, while structural, governance, or household measures are less widely adopted.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"4. Discussion\",\"content\":\"\\u003ch2\\u003e4.1. \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp;Adaptation heterogeneity and regional implications\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eFarmers constitute a diverse group whose decisions are influenced by various factors and behavioral patterns (Ricart et al., 2024), leading to different adaptation pathways (Stringer et al., 2020). This review confirms heterogeneity in adaptation strategies across South America, with a clear predominance of technical-productive strategies, led by crop and irrigation management, accounting for 60% of all reported adaptations.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAgronomic strategies entail adjustments to farm production practices (del Pozo et al., 2019; Harmanny \\u0026amp; Malek, 2019),\\u0026nbsp;typically corresponding to short-term, seasonal adjustments that, rather than strengthening the agricultural system, aim at maintaining production in the face of temporary climatic stress\\u0026nbsp;(Engler et al., 2021; Fedele et al., 2019; Robert et al., 2016).\\u0026nbsp;Their widespread adoption is probably linked to their low cost (investment and management), and low risk (Eakin \\u0026amp; Wehbe, 2009), consistent with the financial constraints documented in the reviewed studies. Limited access to credit, subsidies, or technical assistance restricts the adoption of medium- or long-term measures. Moreover, such strategies may have a low benefit-implementation effort ratio (Iglesias \\u0026amp; Garrote, 2015) and rarely contribute to long-term system resilience.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eIrrigation modernization, defined as technological and infrastructure improvements that enhance water use and reliability, is a widely promoted form of adaptation to water scarcity at the farm level (Frisvold \\u0026amp; Bai, 2016; Iglesias \\u0026amp; Garrote, 2015; Ward, 2022). Higher benefit-to-effort ratios characterize such advanced or \\u0026ldquo;technological\\u0026rdquo; forms of adaptation, but also by medium to high implementation costs (Iglesias \\u0026amp; Garrote, 2015), which explains why several South American countries (e.g., Chile, Argentina, Peru, Brazil) have supported their adoption through grant programs (Jord\\u0026aacute;n et al., 2025; Waring et al., 2025).\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eDespite the notable benefits (e.g., higher yields and reduced water use per unit of land), efficiency improvements raise concerns about long-term sustainability. Research warns that efficiency gains can lead to the overuse of water resources and basin closure, reducing long-term adaptation options (Vicu\\u0026ntilde;a et al., 2014). This pattern illustrates the well-known \\u0026ldquo;efficiency paradox,\\u0026rdquo; where productivity improvements can encourage the expansion or intensification of irrigated agriculture, counteracting conservation efforts and increasing pressure on water resources (Grafton et al., 2018; Lankford et al., 2023). Therefore, efficiency-based adaptation may boost short-term resilience but unintentionally weaken long-term sustainability.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAdaptation decisions also influence land-use dynamics. Adaptations such as cropland relocation or agricultural expansion can reduce vulnerability but may also lead to land-use changes that increase pressure on ecosystems. In South America, recent evidence shows a significant expansion of cropland, particularly in Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Bolivia, where 39% of new cropland replaced natural vegetation or forests (Potapov et al., 2022). Such changes, while adaptive from a productivity perspective, illustrate trade-offs between progress in water-use efficiency (SDG 6.4.1) and terrestrial ecosystem conservation (SDG 15 \\u0026ldquo;Life on Land\\u0026rdquo;) (Lee et al., 2016; United Nations, 2025). \\u0026nbsp;Production systems with limited diversification, such as monocultures or extensive livestock, further constrain adaptive capacity, favoring reactive rather than transformative responses and reinforcing vulnerability to recurrent climate shocks (Infante \\u0026amp; Infante, 2013; Litre \\u0026amp; Bursztyn, 2015).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch2\\u003e4.2. \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp;Comparison with other regions\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eCompared with similar SLRs conducted in other regions, South America shows the lowest number of retrieved articles and publication rate. Ishtiaque (2023) in the United States retrieved 95 articles, determining a publication rate of 2.26 articles per year over a 40-year research; Magesa et al. (2023) in Africa analyzed 66 articles (2001-2020), producing a publication rate of 3.3; whereas Shaffril et al. (2018) identified 38 related studies in a period of 12 years (2007-2018), yielding a rate of 3.2 articles.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eHowever, when standardizing by the number of countries covered in each review, South America\\u0026acute;s (10 countries) publication density is comparable to Africa (19 countries) and Asia (13 countries), suggesting that the region is not necessarily less productive when evidence-generating countries are considered. Nonetheless, this metric must be interpreted with caution, as scientific output remains highly uneven within all regions. In South America, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Peru account for 80% of all studies, although every country is represented by at least one publication. \\u0026nbsp; Research concentration is even higher in Africa and Asia, where a small group of countries account for most publications. These patterns indicate that, despite its lower overall research volume, South America exhibits a somewhat more balanced internal distribution of studies, though it remains insufficient to capture the diversity of agricultural contexts and vulnerabilities across the region.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eOn the other hand, Africa and South America share some agronomic strategies, such as crop diversification. However, African farmers rely more on low-cost and accessible options, such as adjusting planting dates or harvesting rainwater, while adaptation in South America often involves more strategic, investment-based technological measures, particularly in Brazil and Chile\\u0026nbsp;(Gori Maia et al., 2018; Roco et al., 2016). This contrast may reflect structural conditions: only 5% of Africa\\u0026rsquo;s cultivated land is irrigated, compared to 14% in Latin America and 37% in Asia (Ringer et al., 2010).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAsia and South America exhibit similarities regarding irrigation management, where modern irrigation systems coexist with traditional methods, also present in South America, particularly in countries like Chile, Peru, and Argentina (Gori Maia et al., 2018; Roco et al., 2014, 2016). However, Asian farmers also emphasize financial and social strategies, traditional knowledge, and community networks, which strengthen adaptive capacity (Shaffril et al., 2018), elements less visible in South American research. The United States by contrast, prioritizes irrigation technologies and long-term planning strategies (Ishtiaque, 2023), favored by the conditions of a developed economy.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eOverall, the comparison among SLRs highlights that, although South America is underrepresented in the adaptation literature, the findings indicate that the region lacks even a minimum level of research for each country. Moreover, the evidence shows a distinct focus on technical strategies at the farm level, primarily on irrigation and crop management.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch2\\u003e4.3. \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp;Farmers\\u0026rsquo; adaptation, vulnerability, and food security\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAnother aspect explored by this SLR was the link between the research and the levels of vulnerability and food security in the region. To do so, we used the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative (ND-GAIN) index[5] which measures a country\\u0026apos;s vulnerability to climate change and other global challenges, as well as its readiness to improve resilience (Chen et al., 2023). The use of the ND-GAIN Index provides a regional perspective on adaptive capacity gaps, linking the prevalence of low-cost agronomic strategies to broader structural vulnerabilities.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAmong the 187 countries in the dataset, South American countries rank between 25th and 145\\u003csup\\u003eth\\u003c/sup\\u003e in the global ND-GAIN assessment, where Chile and Brazil appear as the least vulnerable (25th and 45th, respectively). On the contrary, Bolivia and Ecuador are the most vulnerable countries in the region (ranked 111\\u003csup\\u003eth\\u003c/sup\\u003e and 145\\u003csup\\u003eth\\u003c/sup\\u003e, respectively) (Table 2A in the Electronic Supplementary Material displays the rankings for every country in this SLR). \\u0026nbsp;A similar pattern holds for the ND-GAIN Food Score[6], which measures vulnerability in food production, nutrition, and rural livelihoods: Chile and Brazil again rank highest (15th and 46th), whereas Bolivia and Ecuador lag behind (86th and 95th).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eWe further explored the relationship between academic evidence (the number of studies on farmers\\u0026rsquo; adaptation) and other key agricultural indicators, such as the share of the rural population, the share of rural employment, and agriculture\\u0026rsquo;s contribution to GDP[7]. From Figure 4, it is observable that countries with high rural populations (Bolivia, Ecuador, and Paraguay) have less available evidence, with a correlation of -0.33. Similar trends are found when comparing the relationship between the number of studies and the share of agricultural GDP (-0.22), and with the Food Security and Vulnerability Index (-0.39 and -0.21, respectively). While moderate, these correlations suggest that countries most dependent on agriculture and/or most vulnerable to climate risks remain underrepresented in the literature.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;This mismatch has substantive implications. Less vulnerable countries, such as Brazil and Chile, show a prevalence of long-term technology-driven adaptations, including irrigation upgrades and improved water management. Conversely, more vulnerable countries with a greater reliance on agriculture, such as Bolivia, Ecuador, and Paraguay, tend to rely on short-term, low-cost agronomic practices that help address seasonal climate stress but do little to enhance long-term resilience.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThis uneven distribution of evidence restricts the ability to develop targeted adaptation policies for highly vulnerable groups (countries). The lack of evidence in those contexts makes it difficult to design specific policies, assess the effectiveness of existing adaptations, identify unmet needs, or anticipate future adaptation pathways, especially for smaller or resource-limited farmers.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch2\\u003e4.4. \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp;Characteristics and limitations of the evidence in the region \\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe available evidence presents several limitations that reduce the robustness and generalizability of the regional findings. These limitations reflect the state of the literature rather than the design of this review.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eFirst, research is mainly composed of small-scale qualitative studies (51%), followed by mixed-methods studies (29%), and a smaller share of quantitative studies (20%). Only Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Peru provide quantitative evidence, which limits comparability across countries and production systems. Additionally, the variability of qualitative research methods (e.g., interviews, focus groups) further decreases the consistency of the findings.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eA second limitation is the near absence of longitudinal data. Most quantitative studies rely on cross-sectional data, and only Peru offers\\u0026nbsp;studies with repeated rounds of data (Arag\\u0026oacute;n et al., 2021; Tambet \\u0026amp; Stopnitzky, 2021), though not in a longitudinal format, hindering and limiting the understanding of how adaptation evolves, persists, or responds to climatic and economic shocks.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eGeographic imbalances also exist. While Brazil, Chile, and Peru account for a significant proportion of the studies (63%), countries with greater dependence on agriculture and higher vulnerability, such as Bolivia, Paraguay, and Ecuador, are underrepresented. Thus, countries with the greatest adaptation needs are the least documented, hindering the design of evidence-based policies in those regions.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eOverall, these limitations indicate that the current literature offers a fragmented regional overview, helpful in identifying general patterns and trends, but insufficient for evaluating their effectiveness, sustainability over time, and relevance in the most vulnerable regions.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch2\\u003e4.5. \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp; \\u0026nbsp;Limitations and Future Research Needs\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAlthough this review provides insights from an underrepresented region, it also presents limitations.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;First, the search terms (query) focused strictly on farmers\\u0026rsquo; implementation of adaptation practices; thus, they might have excluded relevant studies that used different terminology or addressed indirect forms of adaptation (e.g., education, the provision of tools). Additionally, because the search focused on agricultural actions, more transformational-oriented adaptations may not have been captured.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eFurthermore, the limitations in the literature, the small number of case studies, the heterogeneity of approaches, the lack of quantitative research, and the absence of longitudinal data highlight the need for more rigorous empirical studies. Research focusing on designs that can evaluate the prevalence, drivers, and persistence of adaptation strategies are required, as it allows for the identification of key factors, causal relationships, and the ability to generalize the findings. (Fierros-Gonz\\u0026aacute;lez \\u0026amp; L\\u0026oacute;pez-Feldman, 2021).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eFuture research should also evaluate the effectiveness and long-term sustainability of adaptation strategies, including potential unintended consequences. For instance, in irrigation management, the sustainability of irrigation interventions remains insufficiently assessed, as efficiency gains might unintentionally limit future adaptation options (Lankford et al., 2023b). Addressing these gaps is essential for designing more effective and equitable adaptation policies.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003csup\\u003e\\u003csup\\u003e[5]\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003eNotre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative\\u0026rsquo;s (ND-GAIN) Country Index is a free, open-source index that shows a country\\u0026rsquo;s current vulnerability to climate disruptions. It also assesses a country\\u0026rsquo;s readiness to leverage private and public sector investment for adaptive actions. The ND-GAIN Country Index brings together more than 40 core indicators to measure vulnerability and readiness of 182 UN countries from 1995 to the present (https://gain.nd.edu/our-work/country-index/).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e[6] The ND-GAIN Food Score is a 0\\u0026ndash;100 sub-index that measures a country\\u0026rsquo;s vulnerability of its food system to climate change. Lower values indicate higher vulnerability, based on indicators such as projected crop yields, import dependency, agricultural capacity, nutrition, and rural population exposure (Chen et al., 2023).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e[7] Data for the share of rural population, share of rural employment and the share of agriculture on the GDP was retrieved from the Word Bank Open Data (https://data.worldbank.org/)\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"5. Conclusion\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eLike other regions, South America is highly vulnerable to climate change. However, it remains comparatively underrepresented in the academic literature on climate change adaptation. This review aimed to provide the first synthesis of the strategies adopted by South American farmers to cope with a wide range of adverse climate events.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe evidence of the 35 research articles included in this SLR reveals a\\u0026nbsp;heterogeneous and wide range of adaptations to climatic threats, grouped into six categories: i) crop and soil management; ii) irrigation water management; iii) farm management; iv) livestock management; v) household strategies; and vi) ecosystems and environmental protection. Overall,\\u0026nbsp;farmers mostly rely on individual, technical-productive strategies, with a lack of structural and governance-oriented strategies. Among all practices and strategies, irrigation water management, particularly efficient irrigation and water storage, is the most widely implemented adaptation strategy.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe review also indicates that South America has less documented evidence than other regions, including Asia, Africa, and the United States. However, the internal distribution of studies is relatively less concentrated: unlike Africa and Asia, where a small number of countries account for most of the publications, every South American country is represented. Within the region, adaptation patterns differ markedly across countries. Less vulnerable countries, such as Chile and Brazil, lead the way in terms of evidence, which shows a relative predominance of long-term, technology-oriented measures. In contrast, more vulnerable and agriculture-dependent countries primarily rely on short-term, low-cost agronomic practices. These differences reflect broader inequalities in institutional capacity, financial resources, and access to technology. In addition, the limited evidence from these countries restricts understanding of farmers’ needs and the evaluation of adaptation effectiveness, especially for smaller or resource-constrained farmers.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eFuture research should aim to close these gaps by incorporating quantitative and longitudinal designs, ideally combining multi-level information on farmer practices, socio-economic conditions, and perceptions. Evaluating adaptation strategies not only for effectiveness but also for long-term sustainability will be critical to inform more targeted, equitable, and resilient adaptation policies.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThis includes examining potential unintended outcomes—such as the efficiency paradox in irrigation or risks of biodiversity loss associated with agricultural expansion—which may undermine long-term sustainability goals that adaptation seeks to achieve. Strengthening this evidence base will be essential to inform policies targeting farmers and resource sustainability, balancing productivity goals with ecosystem conservation and social development, ensuring that adaptation contributes meaningfully to sustainable agricultural development in the region.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Declarations\",\"content\":\"\\u003ch2\\u003eAuthor Contribution\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eC.J. and A.E. wrote the main manuscript. C.J. and C.Y. conducted the systematic review analysis. C.Y. prepared the tables and Figures 1\\u0026ndash;3 and wrote the main description of the methodology section. C.J. prepared Figure 4. J.C. and A.E. reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors cross-reviewed the studies included in the systematic review.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eAcknowledgments\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis study was financed by the National Fund for Scientific and Technological Development (ANID), projects FONDECYT N\\u0026deg; 1230901 and FONDECYT POSTDOCTORADO N\\u0026deg; 3240089, from the National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research, CONICYT, Chile.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eData Availability\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eWe present a database of the articules used in the systematic review as supplementary material.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"References\",\"content\":\"\\u003col\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003ede Andrade AJP, Silva NM da, de Souza CR (2014) As percep\\u0026ccedil;\\u0026otilde;es sobre as varia\\u0026ccedil;\\u0026otilde;es e mudan\\u0026ccedil;as clim\\u0026aacute;ticas e as estrat\\u0026eacute;gias de adapta\\u0026ccedil;\\u0026atilde;o dos agricultores familiares do Serid\\u0026oacute; potiguar. \\u003cem\\u003eDesenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e31\\u003c/em\\u003e, 77\\u0026ndash;96\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eArag\\u0026oacute;n FM, Oteiza F, Rud JP (2021) Climate Change and Agriculture: Subsistence Farmers\\u0026rsquo; Response to Extreme Heat. Am Economic Journal: Economic Policy 13(1). \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20190316\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1257/pol.20190316\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBallesteros J, Isaza C (2021) Adaptation Measures to Climate Change as Perceived by Smallholder Farmers in the Andes. J Ethnobiol 41(3):428\\u0026ndash;446. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-41.3.428\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.2993/0278-0771-41.3.428\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBozzola M, Swanson T (2014) Policy implications of climate variability on agriculture: Water management in the Po river basin, Italy. Environ Sci Policy 43:26\\u0026ndash;38. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.12.002\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.envsci.2013.12.002\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eCavazos T, Bettolli ML, Campbell D, S\\u0026aacute;nchez Rodr\\u0026iacute;guez RA, Mycoo M, Arias PA, Rivera J, Reboita MS, Gulizia C, Hidalgo HG, Alfaro EJ, Stephenson TS, S\\u0026ouml;rensson AA, Cerezo-Mota R, Castellanos E, Ley D, Mahon R (2024) Challenges for climate change adaptation in Latin America and the Caribbean region. \\u003cem\\u003eFrontiers in Climate\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003eVolume 6-2024\\u003c/em\\u003e. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.frontiersin.org/journals/climate/articles/\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/climate/articles/\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003e10.3389/fclim.2024.1392033\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.3389/fclim.2024.1392033\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eChen C, Noble I, Hellman J, Coffee J, Murillo M, Chawla N (2023) University of Notre Dame global adaptation initiative country index technical report. \\u003cem\\u003eUniversity of Notre Dame\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eDang H, Le, Li E, Nuberg I, Bruwer J (2019) Factors influencing the adaptation of farmers in response to climate change: a review. Climate Dev 11(9):765\\u0026ndash;774. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2018.1562866\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1080/17565529.2018.1562866\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003edel Pozo A, Brunel-Saldias N, Engler A, Ortega-Farias S, Acevedo-Opazo C, Lobos GA, Jara-Rojas R, Molina-Montenegro MA (2019) Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Strategies of Agriculture in Mediterranean-Climate Regions (MCRs). Sustainability 11(10). \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su11102769\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.3390/su11102769\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eEngler A, Rotman ML, Poortvliet PM (2021) Farmers\\u0026rsquo; Perceived Vulnerability and Proactive versus Reactive Climate Change Adaptation in Chile\\u0026rsquo;s Maule Region. \\u003cem\\u003eSustainability\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e13\\u003c/em\\u003e(17), 9907. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/17/9907\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/17/9907\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eFedele G, Donatti CI, Harvey CA, Hannah L, Hole DG (2019) Transformative adaptation to climate change for sustainable social-ecological systems. Environ Sci Policy 101:116\\u0026ndash;125. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.07.001\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.envsci.2019.07.001\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eFeron S, Cordero RR, Damiani A, MacDonell S, Pizarro J, Goubanova K, Valenzuela R, Wang C, Rester L, Beaulieu A (2024) South America is becoming warmer, drier, and more flammable. Commun Earth Environ 5(1):501. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01654-7\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1038/s43247-024-01654-7\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eFierros-Gonz\\u0026aacute;lez I, L\\u0026oacute;pez-Feldman A (2021) Farmers\\u0026rsquo; Perception of Climate Change: A Review of the Literature for Latin America. In \\u003cem\\u003eFrontiers in Environmental Science\\u003c/em\\u003e (Vol. 9). Frontiers Media S.A. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.672399\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.3389/fenvs.2021.672399\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eForsyth T, Evans N (2013) What is Autonomous Adaption? Resource Scarcity and Smallholder Agency in Thailand. World Dev 43:56\\u0026ndash;66. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.11.010\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.11.010\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eFourment M, Ferrer M, Barbeau G, Qu\\u0026eacute;nol H (2020) Local Perceptions, Vulnerability and Adaptive Responses to Climate Change and Variability in a Winegrowing Region in Uruguay. Environ Manage 66(4):590\\u0026ndash;599. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01330-4\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1007/s00267-020-01330-4\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eFrisvold G, Sanchez C, Gollehon N, Megdal SB, Brown P (2018) Evaluating Gravity-Flow Irrigation with Lessons from Yuma, Arizona, USA. \\u003cem\\u003eSustainability\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e10\\u003c/em\\u003e(5), 1548. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1548\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1548\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eGarc\\u0026iacute;a de Jal\\u0026oacute;n S, Iglesias A, Neumann MB (2018) Responses of sub-Saharan smallholders to climate change: Strategies and drivers of adaptation. Environ Sci Policy 90:38\\u0026ndash;45. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.09.013\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.envsci.2018.09.013\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eGori Maia A, Cesano D, Miyamoto BCB, Eusebio GS, de Silva PA O (2018) Climate change and farm-level adaptation: the Brazilian Sert\\u0026atilde;o. Int J Clim Change Strateg Manag 10(5):729\\u0026ndash;751. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-04-2017-0088\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1108/IJCCSM-04-2017-0088\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eGrafton R, Williams J, Perry CJ, Molle F, Ringler C, Steduto P, Udall B, Wheeler SA, Wang Y, Garrick D, Allen R (2018) The paradox of irrigation efficiency. Science 361:748\\u0026ndash;750. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat9314\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1126/science.aat9314\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eGrant MJ, Booth A (2009) A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inform Libr J 26(2):91\\u0026ndash;108. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eGrigorieva E, Livenets A, Stelmakh E (2023) Adaptation of Agriculture to Climate Change: A Scoping Review. Climate 11(10). \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/cli11100202\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.3390/cli11100202\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHadarits M, Smit B, Diaz H (2010) Adaptation in viticulture: A case study of producers in the Maule Region of Chile. J Wine Res 21(2):167\\u0026ndash;178. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09571264.2010.530109\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1080/09571264.2010.530109\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHarmanny KS, Malek Ž (2019) Adaptations in irrigated agriculture in the Mediterranean region: an overview and spatial analysis of implemented strategies. Reg Envriron Chang 19(5):1401\\u0026ndash;1416. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01494-8\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1007/s10113-019-01494-8\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHowden SM, Soussana J-F, Tubiello FN, Chhetri N, Dunlop M, Meinke H (2007) Adapting agriculture to climate change. \\u003cem\\u003eProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e104\\u003c/em\\u003e(50), 19691\\u0026ndash;19696. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701890104\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1073/pnas.0701890104\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eIglesias A, Garrote L (2015) Adaptation strategies for agricultural water management under climate change in Europe. Agric Water Manage 155:113\\u0026ndash;124. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.03.014\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.agwat.2015.03.014\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eInfante A, Infante F (2013) Percepciones y estrategias de los campesinos del secano para mitigar el deterioro ambiental y los efectos del cambio clim\\u0026aacute;tico en Chile. Agroecolog\\u0026iacute;a 8(1):71\\u0026ndash;78\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eIPCC (2022) \\u003cem\\u003eImpacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [H.-O.P\\u0026ouml;rtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegr\\u0026iacute;a, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S.L\\u0026ouml;schke, V. M\\u0026ouml;ller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eIPCC (2023) \\u003cem\\u003eSections. In: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change\\u003c/em\\u003e. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eIshtiaque A (2023) US farmers\\u0026rsquo; adaptations to climate change: a systematic review of adaptation-focused studies in the US agriculture context. Environ Research: Clim 2(2):022001. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1088/2752-5295/accb03\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1088/2752-5295/accb03\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eJellason NP, Salite D, Conway JS, Ogbaga CC (2022) A systematic review of smallholder farmers\\u0026rsquo; climate change adaptation and enabling conditions for knowledge integration in Sub-Saharan African (SSA) drylands. Environ Dev 43:100733. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2022.100733\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.envdev.2022.100733\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eJim\\u0026eacute;nez Bedoya A, Fuentes Gandara F, Uribe P, R., Pinedo Hern\\u0026aacute;ndez J (2024) Perception and adaptation to climate change in vulnerable regions. Global J Environ Sci Manage 10(4):1791\\u0026ndash;1808. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.22034/gjesm.2024.04.18\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.22034/gjesm.2024.04.18\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eJord\\u0026aacute;n C, Engler A, Bopp C, Poortvliet PM, Jara-Rojas R (2025) Adaptation behavior to prolonged drought conditions: Farmers\\u0026rsquo; responses to water scarcity in Central Chile. \\u003cem\\u003eEnvironment, Development and Sustainability\\u003c/em\\u003e. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-025-06421-y\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1007/s10668-025-06421-y\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLankford B, Pringle C, McCosh J, Shabalala M, Hess T, Knox JW (2023) Irrigation area, efficiency and water storage mediate the drought resilience of irrigated agriculture in a semi-arid catchment. Sci Total Environ 859:160263. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160263\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160263\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLee BX, Kjaerulf F, Turner S, Cohen L, Donnelly PD, Muggah R, Davis R, Realini A, Kieselbach B, MacGregor LS (2016) Transforming our world: implementing the 2030 agenda through sustainable development goal indicators. J Public Health Policy 37(Suppl 1):13\\u0026ndash;31\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLeroy D (2019) Farmers\\u0026rsquo; Perceptions of and Adaptations to Water Scarcity in Colombian and Venezuelan \\u003cem\\u003eP\\u0026aacute;ramos\\u003c/em\\u003e in the Context of Climate Change. Mt Res Dev 39(2):R21. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-18-00062.1\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-18-00062.1\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLitre G, Bursztyn M (2015) Climatic and socio-economic risks perceptions and adaptation strategies among livestock family farmers in the Pampa Biome. Ambiente Sociedade 18:55\\u0026ndash;80\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMagalh\\u0026atilde;es HF, Feitosa IS, de Lima Ara\\u0026uacute;jo E, Albuquerque UP (2021) Perceptions of Risks Related to Climate Change in Agroecosystems in a Semi-arid Region of Brazil. Hum Ecol 49(4):403\\u0026ndash;413. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-021-00247-8\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1007/s10745-021-00247-8\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMagesa BA, Mohan G, Matsuda H, Melts I, Kefi M, Fukushi K (2023) Understanding the farmers\\u0026rsquo; choices and adoption of adaptation strategies, and plans to climate change impact in Africa: A systematic review. Clim Serv 30:100362. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2023.100362\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.cliser.2023.100362\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMarchant Santiago C, Rodr\\u0026iacute;guez D\\u0026iacute;az P, Morales-Salinas L, Betancourt P, L., Ortega Fern\\u0026aacute;ndez L (2021) Practices and Strategies for Adaptation to Climate Variability in Family Farming. An Analysis of Cases of Rural Communities in the Andes Mountains of Colombia and Chile. Agriculture 11(11). \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11111096\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.3390/agriculture11111096\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMilan\\u0026eacute;s OAG AGRICULTURA, FAMILIAR Y LA ADAPTACI\\u0026Oacute;N AL CAMBIO CLIM\\u0026Aacute;TICO (2021) EN COAPROCOR- PARAN\\u0026Aacute;, BRASIL. In \\u003cem\\u003eAgroecologia: M\\u0026eacute;todos e T\\u0026eacute;cnicas Para Uma Agricultura Sustent\\u0026aacute;vel - Volume 1\\u003c/em\\u003e (pp. 379\\u0026ndash;398). Editora Cient\\u0026iacute;fica Digital. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.37885/201102259\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.37885/201102259\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMoher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2010) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 8(5):336\\u0026ndash;341. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMussetta P, Barrientos MJ (2015) Vulnerabilidad de productores rurales de Mendoza ante el Cambio Ambiental Global: clima, agua, econom\\u0026iacute;a y sociedad. Revista de La Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias Universidad Nac de Cuyo 47(2):145\\u0026ndash;170\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eNor Diana MI, Zulkepli NA, Siwar C, Zainol MR (2022) Farmers\\u0026rsquo; Adaptation Strategies to Climate Change in Southeast Asia: A Systematic. Literature Rev Sustainability 14(6). \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su14063639\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.3390/su14063639\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eOpenAI (2024) ChatGPT (version GPT-4.1). OpenAI\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003ePage MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hr\\u0026oacute;bjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, Alonso-Fern\\u0026aacute;ndez S (2021) Declaraci\\u0026oacute;n PRISMA 2020: una gu\\u0026iacute;a actualizada para la publicaci\\u0026oacute;n de revisiones sistem\\u0026aacute;ticas. Rev Esp Cardiol 74(9):790\\u0026ndash;799. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recesp.2021.06.016\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.recesp.2021.06.016\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003ePereira S, Maldonado I, Natenzon CE (2007) Estrategias de adaptaci\\u0026oacute;n a la din\\u0026aacute;mica clim\\u0026aacute;tica en el \\u0026aacute;mbito rural de la Pampa argentina\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003ePires M, Cunha D, Reis D, Coelho A (2014) Farmers\\u0026rsquo; perceptions and adaptation strategies to climate change in Minas Gerais State, Brazil. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Agricultural Sciences\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003ePotapov P, Turubanova S, Hansen MC, Tyukavina A, Zalles V, Khan A, Song X-P, Pickens A, Shen Q, Cortez J (2022) Global maps of cropland extent and change show accelerated cropland expansion in the twenty-first century. Nat Food 3(1):19\\u0026ndash;28. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00429-z\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1038/s43016-021-00429-z\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eReyer CPO, Adams S, Albrecht T, Baarsch F, Boit A, Canales Trujillo N, Cartsburg M, Coumou D, Eden A, Fernandes E, Langerwisch F, Marcus R, Mengel M, Mira-Salama D, Perette M, Pereznieto P, Rammig A, Reinhardt J, Robinson A, Thonicke K (2017) Climate change impacts in Latin America and the Caribbean and their implications for development. Reg Envriron Chang 17(6):1601\\u0026ndash;1621. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0854-6\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1007/s10113-015-0854-6\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eRobert M, Thomas A, Bergez JE (2016) Processes of adaptation in farm decision-making models. A review. In \\u003cem\\u003eAgronomy for Sustainable Development\\u003c/em\\u003e (Vol. 36, Issue 4). Springer-Verlag France. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0402-x\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1007/s13593-016-0402-x\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eRoco L, Engler A, Bravo-Ureta B, Jara-Rojas R (2014) Farm level adaptation decisions to face climatic change and variability: Evidence from Central Chile. Environ Sci Policy 44:86\\u0026ndash;96. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.07.008\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.envsci.2014.07.008\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eRoco L, Poblete D, Meza F, Kerrigan G (2016) Farmers\\u0026rsquo; Options to Address Water Scarcity in a Changing Climate: Case Studies from two Basins in Mediterranean Chile. Environ Manage 58(6):958\\u0026ndash;971. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0759-2\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1007/s00267-016-0759-2\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eRodr\\u0026iacute;guez J, de Rodr\\u0026iacute;guez JN, Carrero JCC, Novoa DM, L. L. R., Frank JVS (2020) Representations of Colombian Andean farmers on climate change and mitigation and adaptation strategies. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural 59:e220439\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eShaffril HAM, Krauss SE, Samsuddin SF (2018) A systematic review on Asian\\u0026rsquo;s farmers\\u0026rsquo; adaptation practices towards climate change. Sci Total Environ 644:683\\u0026ndash;695. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.349\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.349\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003ede Silva K (2024) S. Percep\\u0026ccedil;\\u0026atilde;o e estrat\\u0026eacute;gias de adapta\\u0026ccedil;\\u0026atilde;o de agricultores familiares frente \\u0026agrave;s mudan\\u0026ccedil;as clim\\u0026aacute;ticas no munic\\u0026iacute;pio de Barreiras Bahia\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eStringer LC, Fraser EDG, Harris D, Lyon C, Pereira L, Ward CFM, Simelton E (2020) Adaptation and development pathways for different types of farmers. Environ Sci Policy 104:174\\u0026ndash;189. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.10.007\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.envsci.2019.10.007\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eTambet H, Stopnitzky Y (2021) Climate Adaptation and Conservation Agriculture among Peruvian Farmers. Am J Agric Econ 103(3):900\\u0026ndash;922. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12177\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1111/ajae.12177\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eTurbay S, Nates B, Jaramillo F, V\\u0026eacute;lez JJ, Ocampo OL (2014) Adaptation to climate variability among the coffee farmers of the watersheds of the rivers Porce and Chinchin\\u0026aacute;, Colombia | Adaptaci\\u0026oacute;n a la variabilidad clim\\u0026aacute;tica entre los caficultores de las cuencas de los r\\u0026iacute;os Porce y Chinchin\\u0026aacute;, Colombia. Investigaciones Geograficas 85:95\\u0026ndash;112. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.14350/rig.42298\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.14350/rig.42298\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eUnited Nations (2025) \\u003cem\\u003eSustainable Development Report\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eVicuna S, Alvarez P, Melo O, Dale L, Meza F (2014) Irrigation infrastructure development in the Limar\\u0026iacute; Basin in Central Chile: implications for adaptation to climate variability and climate change. Water Int 39(5):620\\u0026ndash;634. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2014.945068\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1080/02508060.2014.945068\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eWard FA (2022) Enhancing climate resilience of irrigated agriculture: A review. J Environ Manage 302:114032. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.114032\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.114032\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eWaring T, Biagini L, Bozzola M, Severini S (2025) Weathering the Storm: A Systematic Review of Climate Change Adaptation in Agriculture. Methods, Metrics, and Impacts. \\u003cem\\u003eBio-Based and Applied Economics\\u003c/em\\u003e. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.36253/bae-16753\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.36253/bae-16753\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eWorld Bank (2024) \\u003cem\\u003eWorld Development Indicators\\u003c/em\\u003e. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eZ\\u0026uacute;\\u0026ntilde;iga F, Jaime M, Salazar C (2021) Crop farming adaptation to droughts in small-scale dryland agriculture in Chile. \\u003cem\\u003eWater Resources and Economics\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e34\\u003c/em\\u003e. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.wre.2021.100176\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.wre.2021.100176\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003c/ol\\u003e\"}],\"fulltextSource\":\"\",\"fullText\":\"\",\"funders\":[],\"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow\":false,\"hasManuscriptDocX\":true,\"hasOptedInToPreprint\":true,\"hasPassedJournalQc\":\"\",\"hasAnyPriority\":false,\"hideJournal\":true,\"highlight\":\"\",\"institution\":\"\",\"isAcceptedByJournal\":false,\"isAuthorSuppliedPdf\":false,\"isDeskRejected\":\"\",\"isHiddenFromSearch\":false,\"isInQc\":false,\"isInWorkflow\":false,\"isPdf\":false,\"isPdfUpToDate\":true,\"isWithdrawnOrRetracted\":false,\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"researchsquare\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"externalIdentity\":\"\",\"sideBox\":\"\",\"snPcode\":\"\",\"submissionUrl\":\"/submission\",\"title\":\"Research Square\",\"twitterHandle\":\"researchsquare\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":false,\"editorialSystem\":\"\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"\",\"inReviewEnabled\":false,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true},\"keywords\":\"farmers' adaptation, climate change, South America, systematic review\",\"lastPublishedDoi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8413236/v1\",\"lastPublishedDoiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8413236/v1\",\"license\":{\"name\":\"CC BY 4.0\",\"url\":\"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/\"},\"manuscriptAbstract\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eClimate change presents increasing challenges to agricultural systems worldwide, and South America is no exception. The region hosts diverse farming systems and faces significant climate risks, but evidence on how farmers adapt remains limited and comparatively underrepresented. To address this gap, this study conducts a systematic literature review following PRISMA guidelines, covering research published between 2004 and 2024. Thirty-five peer-reviewed studies were retrieved, revealing significant variability in country representation, methodological approaches, and depth of analysis, with a manifest absence of quantitative evidence. The research synthesized 180 adaptation strategies, grouped into six categories: i) crop and soil management; ii) irrigation management; iii) farm management; iv) livestock management; v) household strategies; and vi) ecosystems and environmental protection. Nearly 84% of all strategies fall into the first three categories, indicating a predominance of technical and production-oriented approaches. In addition, the review also reveals regional contrasts. Less vulnerable countries exhibit more technology-driven, long-term adaptations. In contrast, more vulnerable, agriculture-dependent countries rely on short-term, low-cost agronomic adjustments, reflecting broader inequalities in institutional capacity and financial resources. The findings highlight the need for more robust empirical research, particularly quantitative and longitudinal studies, to enrich understanding of farmers\\u0026rsquo; adaptation dynamics, and to examine the long-term sustainability and potential unintended consequences of specific adaptation strategies to support more equitable and resilient agricultural systems in South America.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"manuscriptTitle\":\"Adaptation Strategies of South American Farmers to Climate Change: A Systematic Review\",\"msid\":\"\",\"msnumber\":\"\",\"nonDraftVersions\":[{\"code\":1,\"date\":\"2026-01-08 18:28:54\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8413236/v1\",\"editorialEvents\":[{\"type\":\"communityComments\",\"content\":0}],\"status\":\"published\",\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"researchsquare\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"externalIdentity\":\"\",\"sideBox\":\"\",\"snPcode\":\"\",\"submissionUrl\":\"/submission\",\"title\":\"Research Square\",\"twitterHandle\":\"researchsquare\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":false,\"editorialSystem\":\"\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"\",\"inReviewEnabled\":false,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true}}],\"origin\":\"\",\"ownerIdentity\":\"64097c53-3550-47a9-9011-6284f598717e\",\"owner\":[],\"postedDate\":\"January 8th, 2026\",\"published\":true,\"recentEditorialEvents\":[],\"rejectedJournal\":[],\"revision\":\"\",\"amendment\":\"\",\"status\":\"posted\",\"subjectAreas\":[],\"tags\":[],\"updatedAt\":\"2026-01-08T18:28:54+00:00\",\"versionOfRecord\":[],\"versionCreatedAt\":\"2026-01-08 18:28:54\",\"video\":\"\",\"vorDoi\":\"\",\"vorDoiUrl\":\"\",\"workflowStages\":[]},\"version\":\"v1\",\"identity\":\"rs-8413236\",\"journalConfig\":\"researchsquare\"},\"__N_SSP\":true},\"page\":\"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]\",\"query\":{\"redirect\":\"/article/rs-8413236\",\"identity\":\"rs-8413236\",\"version\":[\"v1\"]},\"buildId\":\"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd\",\"isFallback\":false,\"isExperimentalCompile\":false,\"dynamicIds\":[84888],\"gssp\":true,\"scriptLoader\":[]}","source_license":"CC-BY-4.0","license_restricted":false}