Unearthing the “Lost” Andean Root Crop “Mauka” (Mirabilisexpansa [Ruíz & Pav.] Standl.)

H. GENDALL*,1, J. SEMINARIO2, M. SØRENSEN

3, AND I. THEILADE4

1Herbarium, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, TW9 3AB, UK2Programa de Raíces y Tubérculos Andinos, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional deCajamarca, Cajamarca, Peru3Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg C, Denmark4Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg C, Denmark*Corresponding author; e-mail: harriet.gendall@btinternet.com

Unearthing the “Lost” Andean Root Crop “Mauka” (Mirabilis expansa [Ruíz & Pav.] Standl.).Although recognized as part of the vibrant array of native roots and tubers that support farmers’livelihoods in the Andean region, the root vegetable “mauka” (Mirabilis expansa (Ruíz & Pav.)Standl.) is little known outside the scattering of communities where it is cultivated and isconsidered at risk of disappearance. Based on fieldwork carried out in Peru in 2016, this studydocuments ethnobotanical knowledge of mauka through interviews with 40 farmers across theregions of Ancash, Huánuco, Puno, and Amazonas. Further, it re-evaluates the distribution of thecrop and explores opportunities for conservation. Mauka was found to be more widely distrib-uted in Peru than previously thought, and a total of 21 germplasm specimens were collected forex situ conservation, including one landrace from Puno that had not been previously described.Farmers reported a substantial decline inmauka cultivation in their communities 20–50 years ago,with its lack of commercial value cited as a major reason for abandonment. Promisingly, throughfacilitating an encounter between several of these farmers and chefs at the renowned Peruvianrestaurant Central, we demonstrate that revaluing mauka as a gastronomic ingredient couldincentivize ongoing cultivation.

Desenterrando La Raíz ‘Perdida’ De Los Andes “Mauka” (Mirabilis expansa [Ruíz & Pav.]Standl.). Aunque es conocida como una parte de la variedad de raíces y tubérculos nativoscultivados por agricultores de la región andina, la “mauka” (Mirabilis expansa (Ruíz & Pav.)Standl.) es poco usada fuera de las comunidades locales donde la gente se cultiva, y está enproceso de desaparecer. Este estudio está basado en trabajo de campo realizado en el Perúdurante el 2016, documentando los conocimientos etnobotánicos sobre la mauka. Se baso enentrevistas con cuarenta agricultores en los departamentos de Ancash, Huánuco, Puno, yAmazonas. También se reevalúo la distribución de este cultivo y se exploró las posibilidades parasu conservación. Se descubrió que la mauka está más ampliamente distribuida de lo que sepensaba. Se recolectaron un total de veintiúnmuestras de germoplasma para la conservación ex–situ, incluyendo un morofotipo no descrito en Puno. Los agricultores han informado sobre ladisminución sustancial del cultivo en los últimos 20 a 50 años. Su valor comercial bajo esconsiderado como una de las principales razones para su abandono. Al facilitar un encuentroentre varios de estos agricultores y chefs del renombrado restaurante Peruano Central,

demostramos que revalorizar lam a u k a c o m o i n g r e d i e n t egastronómico podría incentivar sucultivación nuevamente.

KeyWords: Peru, Andes, ethnobot-any, agrobiodiversity, crop conserva-tion, cultural memory, gastronomy.

1 Received 20 March 2019; accepted 12 July 2019;published online

Electronic supplementary material The online versionof this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-019-09467-y) contains supplementary material, which is avail-able to authorized users.

© 2019Economic Botany, 73(4), 2019, pp. 443–460

14 August 2019

Introduction

The rich legacy of agricultural diversity and asso-ciated ecological knowledge that typifies traditionalAndean farming has been severely eroded (Shepherd2017). Sadly, this is a trend experienced by small-holder farmers across the world, perpetuated at theglobal scale by our increasing dependence on anarrow range of food crops and raising due concernsover food security, nutrition, and environmentalsustainability (Padulosi 2012). While considerableefforts have been made internationally to conservecrop resources in gene banks, on-farm conservationremains a neglected area, as acknowledged in thesecond FAO report on the State of Plant GeneticResources for Food and Agriculture (FAO 2010).Uncomfortable observations made over two decadesago by Brush (1995)—that ex situ conservation mayinadvertently preclude in situ efforts, and that “littleis known about the actual crop populations inquestion and even less about the farming culturesthat produce them”—still resonate.The little known vegetable “mauka” is a pe-

rennial belonging to the Nyctaginaceae (fouro’clock) family, characterized by its sprawlingdecumbent growth habit and abundant edibleroots. Traditionally, mauka is cultivated between2,500 and 3,500 meters above sea level (m a.s.l.)and has been observed in Ecuador, Peru, andBolivia; an area that corresponds to one of theNew World centers of plant domestication iden-tified by Vavilov (Hawkes 1999). Alongside pota-toes (Solanum spp.), it is one of the nine Andeanroot and tuber crops (ARTCs) recognized by theInternational Potato Center (CIP) for their nutri-tional and economic significance to local subsistencefarmers (CIP 2019). Although considered an an-cient crop, it was not until the 1960s—after its“discovery” by local agronomists Julio Rea and JorgeLeón in a remote community in northernBolivia—that mauka became known to the scien-tific community (Rea and León 1965).In 1989, mauka appeared in the landmark pub-

lication Lost Crops of the Incas as part of a host ofAndean crops thought to have been overlooked as aresult of centuries of cultural marginalization fol-lowing the Spanish conquest, despite their potentialfor worldwide cultivation (National ResearchCouncil [NRC] 1989). Having remained invisibleto the outside world for longer than most “lost”crops, mauka was portrayed by its authors as partic-ularly obscure. Understood to be high yielding and

nutritious, yet poorly studied and at risk of disap-pearance, they called for further research into itsbotanical characterization, agronomic potential,and geographic distribution. Furthermore, theyhighlighted the urgent need for the collection ofgenetic material. In the years that have followed,other ARTCs have emerged from the shadows tobecome foods of intentional prominence. For ex-ample, oca (Oxalis tuberosa Molina) is now sold bysome specialist grocers in Europe, and maca(Lepidium meyenii Walp.)—which up until the1980s was cultivated in an area in Peru no largerthan 50 ha—has experienced “a meteoric rise froman overlooked botanical curiosity to internet noto-riety” (Hermann and Bernet 2009). Mauka, on theother hand, remains an enigma.Our study homes in on the scattering of fields

and kitchens where this forgotten crop survivesand—in some cases—thrives. Through ethnobo-tanical fieldwork carried out in Peru by Gendallin 2016, we aim to reconsider mauka’s knowngeographical range and to better understand thecrop from farmers’ own perspectives—in termsof its local significance, traditional uses, and fu-ture potential. The study was underpinned byour motivation to understand and improvemauka’s conservation potential, to which wesought an active and multi-angle approach. First,we responded to the need to conserve mauka exsitu by collecting germplasm in concert with thedocumentation of traditional knowledge—an inte-grated approach advocated by Nazarea (1998),which considers both biological and culturalstrands. Second, recognizing that revaluingneglected crops can provide both income-generating opportunities for, and give visibility to,rural households—and that mobilizing them assuch can support in situ conservation (Cohen et al.1991; Padulosi et al. 2019)—we facilitated a pilotinvestigation into mauka’s revaluation as a gastro-nomic ingredient. Working with the internationallyrenowned restaurant Central, based in Lima (Peru),we observed kitchen trials with mauka and facilitat-ed a meeting between the restaurateurs and maukafarmers, exploring incentives to revitalize cultivationand ecological knowledge production.

Background

WildMirabilis expansa was first botanized by Ruízand Pavón (1798) as part of an expedition led by theSpanish crown. Remarkably, another two centuries

ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL 73444

passed before the plant became known to science inits cultivated form, when it was reported by Rea andLeón (1965) in Camacho Province, northern Bo-livia. While M. expansa goes by many vernacularnames, the local Camacho designation “mauka” hasendured as that most widely adopted by the scien-tific community. For almost two decades followingits discovery, mauka remained fugitive; known onlyto exist in northern Bolivia. However, during theearly 1980s, it was Rea who again stumbled uponthe crop, confirming its existence in the Ecuadorianhighlands, where it is known as “miso” or “tazo.”Following this revelation, Rea published basic eth-nobotanical information about the crop, a call toaction preventing its disappearance, and his hypoth-esis that it had made an important contribution topre-Inca livelihoods (Rea 1982).

In 1984, Peruvian agronomist Juan Seminariofound mauka in the Chota Province of Cajamarca,northern Peru, spurring exploration in that region.Within a few years, it had been cited across thedepartments of Cajamarca and La Libertad and inthe Chachapoyas Province of Amazonas (all northernPeru) (Seminario 1988). In 1995, Mauro Vallenasobserved mauka in Sandia Province, far-southernPeru, forwarding germplasm to the University ofCajamarca (UNC) where it was characterized asmorphologically distinct from that of the northernprovenance (Seminario and Valderrama 2012); al-though this accession was later lost during the severe1997–1998 El Niño weather event. Morerecently—in relative proximity of Sandia and notfar from the site of its original discovery—the per-sistence of mauka in the community of Chullín(northern Bolivia) was confirmed by AlvarezMamani (2001).

Mauka is cultivated in mixed cropping systemsby smallholder farmers. Production is thought tobe almost exclusively for subsistence, with just afew recorded examples of mauka having beenobserved in the marketplace. Its culinary poten-tial has been largely disregarded, even thoughnutritional studies have shown that mauka hashigher levels of calcium, phosphorus, and proteinthan most other ARTCs (Seminario 2004). Infact, mauka’s unusual profusion of calcium has ledto the speculation that it could be used in thetreatment of osteoporosis—an idea promoted bythe widely read Peruvian agricultural magazineRevista Agronoticias (Anonymous 2015).

The scientific understanding of mauka and itsagronomic potential has been enhanced by re-search carried out over several decades by Juan

Seminario—most notably an ethnobotanicalstudy (Seminario 2004) and numerous publica-tions based on field experiments at the UNC, themajority of which are in Spanish. Recently, a reporton the agronomy of mauka, which synthesizes bothSeminario’s work and findings from other existingstudies, has been published by several authors of thisstudy (Seminario et al. 2019). Based on a review ofsecondary sources and field trials with two varietiesof mauka in Illinois (USA), Kritzer Van Zant hasalso published several papers on its ethnobotany andpotential as a forage crop (Kritzer Van Zant 2016a,b; Kritzer Van Zant et al. 2018). However, when weembarked on fieldwork in 2016, there was evidentlya need for up-to-date primary research on maukaand, most importantly, a consideration of localperspectives relating to it.

Field Methodology

Fieldwork areas were established followingSeminario and Valderrama’s (2012) recommenda-tion to concentrate efforts in the departments ofAncash, Amazonas, Huánuco, and Puno—wherelittle or no formal research on mauka had previouslybeen carried out. However, we were warned thatfinding mauka in these understudied regions wouldbe challenging, if not futile. Indeed, three decadesprior to our study, Hermann and Heller (1997)wrote that the number of farmers still cultivatingmauka might total a few thousand at best,predicting that if the trend of rural migration andcrop abandonment continued, it could become ex-tinct within one or two generations. Our samplingstrategy was therefore to find and interview as manymauka producers as permitted by the constraints oftime, resources, and logistics.

Five separate field trips of between 5 and 14 dayswere conducted over the period April–September2016, allowing observation of the crop in variousdevelopmental stages, with GIS mapping used torecord cultivation sites. Semistructured interviewswerecarried out with a total of 26 farming householdsfound to be cultivatingmauka, and stem cuttings werecollected from the same number of sites. To increasethe sample size, we also interviewed a second categoryof farmers—those who had previously cultivated orotherwise been familiar with mauka—which added afurther 14 to the dataset. Drawing a distinction be-tween the two, we refer to the former category asactive-memory interviews and the latter as latentmemory (summarized in Table 1; for precise

GENDALL ET AL.: UNEARTHING THE “LOST” ANDEAN ROOT CROP “MAUKA”2019] 445

localities, see Appendix 1 [Electronic Supplementa-ry Material, ESM]).To verify their familiarity with the plant,

those selected to take part in latent-memory inter-views were required to describe several of its uniquebotanical characteristics: the small size and stickinessof the inflorescence and the naturally astringenttaste of the root. With respect to local indigenouscultural and intellectual property rights, educatedprior informed consent was obtained from eachfarmer who took part, following an explanation ofthe purpose of the project. The Instituto Nacionalde Innovación Agraria (INIA) granted research per-mits for the collection of ethnobotanical informa-tion and crop genetic resources. Germplasm wasforwarded to a research facility belonging to INIAin Cajamarca, which manages the ex situ conserva-tion of ARTCs. Herbarium specimens representing11 sites (nine cultivated and four wild examples)were contributed to local herbaria at theUnivers idad Agrar ia La Molina (MOL),Universidad Nacional Mayor San Marcos (USM),and CIP.In the pilot experiment assessing mauka’s gastro-

nomic potential, we acted as both facilitators andparticipant observers. In July 2016, Gendall deliv-ered 10 kg of mauka roots to Central in Lima, asrequested by head chef VirgilioMartínez, purchasedfrom two separate farmers in Ancash at PEN 7.5 perkilo (approx. USD 2.28 kg−1). There we watchedchefs experimenting with mauka in the kitchen and,as diners, sampled dishes made with it. Twomonthslater, we facilitated a meeting with MaterInitiativa—the restaurant’s research team—andone of the two suppliers who had sold mauka tothem, at their farm in Ancash. To gain an under-standing of the broader context, semistructuredinterviews were carried out with 20 key informantsincluding local agronomists, representatives of Pe-ruvian governmental organizations, and several Eu-ropean horticulturalists familiar with mauka.

Findings and Discussion

GEOGRAPHICAL RANGE AND BOTANICAL

CHARACTERIZATION

The map in Fig. 1 shows mauka cultivation sitesrecorded in Peru at various time periods. Sites re-corded in Cajamarca, La Libertad, and Amazonasprior to 2015—by Seminario during multiple fieldtrips starting in 1984 and by Franco et al.(1989)—have built an image of mauka’s range innorthern Peru. Meanwhile, Vallenas’s (1995) ob-servation of mauka in Puno has evidenced its pres-ence in the south. Accordingly, the significant dis-t anc e o f separat ion between these twoclusters—approximately 1,180 km—has led to theidea that mauka’s distribution pattern is disjunct.Furthermore, since northern Peru is where the highestnumber of documented sites and the greatest diversityof vernacular names have been recorded, some scien-tists have hypothesized that it is the center ofM. expansa domestication, proposing that long-distance dispersal occurred as a result of forcedmigration outwards from Cajamarca and the sur-rounding area to northern Ecuador and southernPeru/northern Bolivia, under Inca rule (NRC1989).During 2015, a handful of cultivation sites were

recorded in Ancash by Prof. Saturnino Castillo fromColegio Simón Bolívar, Huaráz. Shortly after, dur-ing our 2016 fieldwork, a further 26 localities acrossAncash, Huánuco, and Puno were registered. Laterin 2017, two more were noted by Seminario inCajamarca and Huánuco. Although the map stillshows two distinct clusters, these more recent ex-plorations reduce the distance between them toapproximately 876 km, prompting us to reconsiderthe historical movement of the crop. Therefore,although the theory that northern Peru is the cradleof mauka domestication holds weight, we encour-age researchers to consider other possibilities,

TABLE 1. THE NUMBER OF FARMERS WHICH TOOK PART IN THE STUDY, BY REGION AND INTERVIEW TYPE.

Regional department Active memoryThose still cultivating mauka

Latent memoryThose previously cultivating or otherwise familiar with mauka

Ancash 11 4Huánuco 13 5Puno 2 2Amazonas 0 3Total 26 14

ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL 73446

Fig. 1. Map showing mauka cultivation sites recorded during four time periods, illustrating how the knowngeographical range of the crop has widened in recent years.

GENDALL ET AL.: UNEARTHING THE “LOST” ANDEAN ROOT CROP “MAUKA”2019] 447

namely, that it could have originated in southernPeru/northern Bolivia before moving northwards,or that domestication might have occurred indepen-dently in the north and in the south.Taking this a step further, we question if mauka’s

geographical range is truly disjunct, or whether thepattern reflects the more recent disappearance ofintermediate populations. According to our corre-spondence with several agronomists based in theregion who are familiar with ARTCs, we think itis unlikely that mauka will be found in Cusco,although it might have occurred there historically.However, in our experience, wherever mauka wasfound, farmers tended to share accounts of friendsor relatives cultivating it in neighboring communi-ties. Consequently, we believe that the gap could bereduced further by extending explorations to theconnecting departments of Junín, Huancavelica,Ayacucho, and Apurímac.The altitudinal range for mauka cultivation sites

was 2,769–3,369 m a.s.l., with the lowest point atSan Pablo de Pillao (Huánuco) and the highest atChurubamba (Huánuco). Incorporating existing al-titudinal data from other studies (Morillo Velastegui1998 [Ecuador]; Seminario and Valderrama 2012[Peru]; AlvarezMamani 2001 [Bolivia]), the knownrange widens to 2,300–3,450 m a.s.l., with themaximum value corresponding to Chullín (Bolivia)and the minimum to Namora (Cajamarca).Based on material conserved at the UNC,

Seminario and Valderrama (2012) previously char-acterized five landraces (I–V). Four of these origi-nate from the field, while the fifth is a cross betweenlandraces I and II, which occurred ex situ. We foundthat the majority of cultivated mauka from thenorthern departments of Ancash and Huánucowas green-stemmed and white-flowered, corre-sponding to landrace II. In contrast, all plant mate-rial from the southern department of Puno exhibit-ed reddish purple pigmentation, with several speci-mens corresponding to landrace IV—that whichwas collected by Vallenas in Sandia and then lostby the UNC 20 years prior as a result of the El Niñoweather event. Also in Puno, we observed an un-documented variety with a vivid magenta subterra-nean stem cortex, exemplifying greater intraspecificdiversity than previously known. Two distinct land-races described by Alvarez Mamani (2001)—bothrecorded in the same community in northern Bo-livia (yuraq mauk’a and kellu mauk’a)—most likelyreflect further diversity. As far as we know, this is theonly recorded example of local farmers cultivatingmultiple mauka landraces at once.

EX SITU MAUKA CONSERVATION

Of the 26 germplasm collections, 21 survivedand are now being conserved by INIA in Cajamar-ca, more than doubling the number of mauka ac-cessions held there (see Appendix 1, ESM, whichindicates corresponding localities). This is now themost extensive ex situ collection, although the UNCis not far behind and historically has been moreactive in collecting and carrying out research specificto mauka. Increased germplasm diversity is nowbeing safeguarded, with several enthusiastic non-governmental actors playing an important role byconducting their own agronomic trials with mauka(an organic farm in Corongo and the Colegio Si-món Bolívar in Huaráz, both in Ancash). However,material from Ecuador and southern Peru is drasti-cally underrepresented, and there are no ex situcollections of mauka from Bolivia. Moreover, theseare living collections and not immune to weatherextremes, pests, and diseases, or the financial chal-lenges of maintaining them in the long run.

FARMERS’ PERSPECTIVES ON MAUKA

CULTIVATION PAST AND PRESENT

Traditional mauka cultivation is thought to bestrictly small scale. Plants are generally found inhomegardens as opposed to chacras (fields) (Tapiaet al. 1996) and at quantities rarely exceeding fiveindividuals (Franco et al. 1997). However, ourstudy found that almost three-quarters of farmerswere cultivating mauka in chacras, not homegardensand—although the majority were cultivating be-tween one and five plants—this was not alwaysthe case. Nearly one-quarter of the households werecultivating between six and 10 plants, four hadbetween 16 and 20, one was cultivating 25, andanother a total of 27.Farmers reported a surprisingly high prevalence

of mauka cultivation in their communities 20–50 years ago (the period roughly corresponding tothe preceding generation of adult farmers). Al-though one-third said that the level of cultivationhad been “quite low,” 23% reported that it hadbeen relatively common, 30% described the levelof cultivation as being “quite high,” and 15% saidthat the prevalence of mauka cultivation at that timehad been “high” (Fig. 2). This contrasts with im-pressions of present-day cultivation that almost halfof the farmers described as being “quite low,” and afur ther 42% sa id was “at the point of

ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL 73448

disappearance.” In Amazonas, all households re-ported that the tradition of mauka cultivation haddisappeared.

The question of just how prevalent mauka washistorically remains open to debate. ThroughoutSeminario’s approximately 30 years of fieldwork inCajamarca and La Libertad, he generally observedfarmers cultivating just a handful of mauka plantseach, with a maximum of around 40 plants record-ed on one occasion, leading to the conclusion thatwhile more farmers might have cultivated it in thepast, perhaps they never did so in large quantities.However, some accounts from our study contradictthis, suggesting that mauka was indeed a larger-scalecrop in regions further south. For example, inRatacocha (Huánuco), one farmer recalled substan-tial levels of mauka cultivation:

When we were children, kuyacsa [mauka]was planted in every chacra […]. Entirechacras, with maize and beans. All the neigh-bors had it. Before, because there was a lot ofit, we used to collect it in sacks. We no longerharvest or eat it.

In Ancash, another informant explained that, upuntil a few years ago, mauka was being cultivatedin high quantities in a parcela común—a commonplot of land—by a group of neighbors in Chuncana,Palo Seco. Moreover, in Sandia (Puno), cultivation

appears to have been particularly high, with onefarmer explaining:

I think at least a third of families shouldstill have a few plants. We all used to have itbefore. About 40 years ago everyone hadmauka, and there was a lot of it. Longer ago,there was even more. In one chacra you couldfind up to 200 plants—that’s the quantity mygrandmother used to cultivate.

These rich anecdotes hint toward the idea thatmauka was indeed a significant crop for some An-dean communities; however, a larger number offarmers across a wider geographical range wouldneed to be interviewed to make a firmer overallassessment and explore the distinctions likely tooccur between regions.

CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE AND LOCAL

NOMENCLATURE

Many vernacular names were heard duringthe study, some recorded previously and othersfor the first time (Table 2). Mauka remains theonly denomination for cultivated M. expansa heardin southern Peru, and in Huánuco the plant iscommonly known as kuyacsa (although on oneoccasion it was referred to as superracacha and onanother as ooshpica). In northern Peru, where

Fig. 2. Farmers’ perceptions of the prevalence of mauka cultivation in their communities in the present day,compared with their perceptions of the period 20 to 50 years ago (across all study sites).

GENDALL ET AL.: UNEARTHING THE “LOST” ANDEAN ROOT CROP “MAUKA”2019] 449

mauka goes by many names, variations such asquishpi yuca, pishpi yuca, coshpi yuca, and kashpayuca chime with one another. Indeed, it is remark-ably similar in taste and appearance to the well-known staple “yuca” (Manihot esculentaCrantz, alsoknown as cassava or manioc), native to tropicallowland South America. Interestingly, the literaltranslation of yuca de jalca and allja yuca—whichdenotes a yuca-like plant belonging to the puna, theecoregion above 3,100 m a.s.l.—is somewhat amisnomer, since mauka occupies mid-rangealtitudes.When asked why they cultivate mauka, the

most common explanation was that it had beeninherited from their parents, grandparents, oreven from their ancestors. Some stated that cul-tivation was a conscious practice, necessary toprevent its disappearance, with one couple fromAncash (Fig. 3a) portraying mauka as an importantrelic: “Allja yuca [mauka] has always sustained ourancestors and us. It is like a memory or souvenirfrom them. The Inca used it as food, but now veryfew people cultivate it.” However, the majoritycharacterized mauka as merely a remnant from theprevious generation, maintained out of habit. Mostconsidered it a basic foodstuff with no historical orcultural significance, with some describing it as aweed.

WILD MAUKA

The only region where farmers identified wildmauka was Corongo (Ancash). Here one householdreferred to M. prostrata (Ruíz & Pav.) Heimerl as

ñatin jora, meaning “liver herb” in the local Llajuashdialect. Present in abundance along the border oftheir chacra, they often harvest the foliage to use aspig feed. A second farmer explained that wildmauka was present in the area and associated witha particular larva. Wild specimens—includingM. expansa, M. prostrata, M. intercedens Heimerl,and many unidentified Mirabilis species—were ob-served in four herbaria visited during the study (K,CUZ, MOL, and USM). These confirmed thehistorical presence of mauka’s crop wild relativesin the Peruvian departments of Lima, Ancash,Huancavelica, Lambayeque, Junín, Arequipa,Moquegua, Cusco, and Puno. In Bolivia, AlvarezMamani (2001) documented wild mauka referredto as k’ita mauk’a, encompassing what are thoughtto be several species.

TRADITIONAL CULTIVATION PRACTICES

September and August were most frequentlymentioned for planting mauka, coinciding withthe beginning of the wet season, while the driermonths of July and August were those most com-monly recommended for harvesting. However,farmers generally reported that mauka can beplanted or harvested at any time of the year, pro-viding it has matured. Other crops with more fixedcycles—such as maize, with which it was commonlyfound intercropped—often determine this. Oneinformant in Ancash suggested that maize mayshelter mauka from frost damage, to which its fo-liage is susceptible. Another informant from

TABLE 2. VERNACULAR NAMES FOR MAUKA RECORDED DURING THIS STUDY (IN BOLD) COMBINED WITH THOSEFROMEXISTINGSTUDIES ANDHERBARIUMSPECIMENLABELS (NOTE: SPELLINGSARE ANAPPROXIMATIONASTHESEARE

SPOKEN, NOT WRITTEN, DENOMINATIONS).

Region Locality Vernacular names

Ecuador Pichincha;Cotopaxi

Miso, tazo

NorthBolivia

Chullín (La Paz) Mauka, yuraq mauk’a (white), kellu mauk’a (yellow), k’ita mauk’a (wild M. expansa)

SouthPeru

Sandia (Puno) MaukaChincheros(Cusco)

Moqo Moqo (wild M. prostrata)

NorthPeru

Cajamarca; LaLibertad

Chago, chagos, chaco, achagu, yuca de jalca, arricón, cushpe, cushpenes, yuca Inca, camotillo,arracacha de toro, rábano, rabanito, pega pega, yuquilla, kashpa yuca

Amazonas Shalca, shallca yuca, shaggchya rumoAncash Quishpi yuca, coshpi yuca, cospiyá, allja yuca, yuca de la sierra, pishpi yuca, ñatin jora

(wild M. prostrata)

ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL 73450

Huánuco recalled how mauka was most favorablycultivated in assortment with maize, beans, yacón(Smallanthus sonchifolius [Poepp. & Endl.] H. Rob-inson), and squash (Cucurbita pepo L.). However,several others warned that close intercropping com-promised root production.

The plant is propagated clonally, by the divisionof the subterranean stems that thicken significantlyas the plant reaches maturity (Fig. 3b). While aerialstems can also be used, they have a much lowersurvival rate. Farmers explained that productioncould be raised significantly in just one growthseason, with one reporting that a single mauka plantcould easily be split into 25 plantlets. Althoughplanting is generally carried out directly after har-vesting, two informants recommended exposing thepropagules (cormoids) to the sun for a period of 1 to2 weeks beforehand to speed up seedling and rootdevelopment (Fig. 3c). One farmer in Puno saidthat, although he generally used stem cuttings,mauka propagation via seed was known to producehigher yields. Nevertheless, rather than plantingmauka year after year, farmers often rely on itsability to self-proliferate, by dropping its botanicalseed or self-planting its crawling stems. One farmer

explained how mauka is “very easy to propagate.You can cultivate it, but it is also born from thebotanical seed. Even if you abandon it, it continuesto grow.”

While mauka appears capable of fending foritself, farmers described interventions necessary forimproving quality and yield. For example, severalemphasized the importance of aporque, the processof hilling up soil around the base of the plant atseveral months into its growth cycle, to promote thedevelopment of the subterranean stem and train itto grow upright. Most farmers did not carry outweeding or irrigation specific to mauka but ex-plained that it would be indirectly tended to in theupkeep of the chacra or homegarden. Mauka wasfrequently referred to as drought tolerant and hardy,and the vast majority (84%) of farmers reported thatit did not succumb to pests or diseases. One farmerremarked that mauka is “the healthiest of all theplants we cultivate.” Indeed, several biochemicalstudies have shown that ribosome-inactivating pro-teins synthesized from mauka’s storage roots havean antimicrobial effect against root-rotting microor-ganisms (e.g., Vivanco and Flores 2000). Althoughimmature plants are susceptible to herbivory,

Fig. 3. a Farmers with mauka crop in Corongo, Ancash. b Subterranean stems, used for clonal planting. c Maukapropagules exposed to the sun. d Mauka and oca “asoleando” (sweetening in the sun).

GENDALL ET AL.: UNEARTHING THE “LOST” ANDEAN ROOT CROP “MAUKA”2019] 451

mauka’s aptitude for self-defense is further height-ened by its sticky, insect-trapping inflorescences.Informants agreed that yellowing foliage and

sticky flowers signaled crop maturity, with justover half stating that the vegetative period formauka is about 1 year. While the minimumtime reported was 8 months, several argued thatallowing mauka to mature beyond 1 year isbeneficial because the roots continue to increasein size. One farmer reported that 2 years isoptimum, and the largest root measured duringthe study (30 cm in length) came from a plantbelonging to a 99-year-old informant fromSandia who recommended 21 months for matu-rity. In fact, we suppose that her plant was olderthan this, as it had a prominently suberized stemcortex—a cork-like external layer known to de-velop only in very mature mauka plants.Mauka is usually harvested using a pico (pickaxe)

or a barreta (pole) to dig carefully around and liftout the roots. As a subsistence crop, farmers gener-ally said that mauka is harvested plant by plant, asopposed to all at once, as and when it is required forconsumption. Several even said that portions areharvested without digging up the entire plant, sothat it serves as a living larder, as described by onefarmer from Corongo:

The ‘allja yuca’ [mauka] was not some-thing we tended to much. So each time mygrandmother said: ‘Now, what shall I cook?Will there not be roots? Have you not seen amature one? Go and see if some are yellow.’We would go and look, but we did not pullthem out entirely. We dug with sticks to findthe biggest and most beautiful roots, and weleft the rest, the thinner ones, without dam-aging the plants much; because they thencontinued to develop, for other opportunities.We used the plant as ‘la salvavida de la olla’[the life-aid of the cooking pot].

Farmers generally described mauka as high yield-ing. Superlatives such as grandazo (huge), enorme(enormous), and tremendos (tremendous) wereused—especially in latent-memory interviews—todescribe the size of its roots. However, severalcomplained that, while this may have been true inthe past, mauka is now a low-yielding crop. “Theroots come out really thin—two or three, no more”remarked one farmer. Another said that all

crops—not just mauka—are poor-yielding nowa-days. During active-memory interviews, severalfarmers who were keen to demonstrate the size ofthe root expressed disappointment when unearthinga smaller than anticipated harvest.

TRADITIONAL CULINARY USE AND OTHER

APPLICATIONS

Unprocessed mauka roots can irritate the insideof the mouth, due to their content of oxalate crys-tals. However, leaving harvested roots out in the sun(a process referred to as asolear [to sun]) can elimi-nate this effect and enhance their natural sweetness,although in Huánuco, the word amortiguar (todilute/dull down) was heard several times in refer-ence to this (Fig. 3d). Two-thirds of farmers recom-mended this practice and suggested doing so for anaverage of 5 days, with several drawing a comparisonwith oca tubers that are also traditionally processedthis way. As one farmer explained: “If kuyacsa[mauka] is not exposed to the sun, it has no flavor.In that way, it is like oca. That’s what gives it flavor.The flavor is excellent; it has a good kind of aroma.However, one-third said that they do not associatethis practice with mauka. In Sandia, for example,one farmer said that mauka roots should be con-sumed fresh because sun exposure dries them out,making them less palatable. Meanwhile, anotherfrom the same village said that her grandmotherhad taught her to always asolear the roots, to max-imize their natural sweetness. Notably, one house-hold reported consuming mauka both asoleado andfresh, depending on the occasion.Almost three-quarters of farmers said that the

taste of mauka is “agreeable” and an additional18% reported that it was “very agreeable,” whilejust 8% of households described mauka as having a“disagreeable” taste. No correlation was found be-tween impressions of taste and geography or distinctlandraces. However, in Chullín, Alvarez Mamani(2001) documented that yuraq mauk’a roots areconsidered less bitter than those of kellu mauk’a,and it has been claimed that Ecuadorian mauka isless astringent than elsewhere (NRC 1989). Tastedescriptions ranged from dulce (sweet), rico (deli-cious), and bonito (beautiful) through to pica (itstings/is itchy) and insipido (insipid). Varied impres-sions were also given of its texture, including suave(smooth), duro (hard), pesado (heavy), and harinoso(starchy). At least five farmers indicated that maukais particularly filling, and provides the energy need-ed to sustain hard physical work, with one

ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL 73452

remarking: “When eating allja yuca [mauka] webear in mind that it is a nourishing plant and wefeel we are eating something good. We feel full anddo not get hungry until lunch time.”

Taste and texture were often compared to that ofpotato (Solanum tuberosum L.), sweet potato(Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.), arracacha (Arracaciax an th o r r h i z a Banc r . ) , o c a , and—mos tcommonly—yuca. Mauka was frequently describedas being identical to, or even as a variety of, yuca.However, others emphasized that mauka is unique intaste, such as one farmer from Corongo who recalledwith surprising clarity from some 40 years prior:

Its flavor was not like yuca and not likearracacha either. It was also different fromsweet potato and oca which are very sweet.It did not have such an outstanding flavor, itwas quite insipid, but somehow it was stilltasty. Its texture was smooth.

In preparing mauka, farmers described either peel-ing and then cooking the roots (Fig. 4a) or cookingand then peeling them (usually by hand). Boiledmauka is typically eaten in place of bread or potatoesfor breakfast or lunch, or as an accompaniment tocaldo (broth) (Fig. 4c), guiso/estofado (stews) orpicante de cuy (spicy guinea pig stew). In Sihuas,one farmer demonstrated boiling mauka beforehand peeling and pan frying it with herbs andtinned tuna (Fig. 4d). Another explained how sheonce hadmade a sweet pancake with mashedmaukaroots, while a number mentioned that it can begrated and incorporated into mazamorra (a tradi-tional dessert).

At the Colegio Simón Bolívar, pupils have suc-cessfully processed a flour from the roots that can beused in baking and as a thickener. Several farmerssaid that mauka was sometimes cooked in apachamanca or huatia—an earthen oven where foodis buried and baked with hot stones. As one farmerfrom Huánuco recalled:

My father used to leave it to mature for twoyears... But what amazing kuyacsa! [mauka].He would say ‘hey daughters, we are going tohave kuyacsa for lunch.’ So at half past ten wewould bury the kuyacsa for this pachamanca;a roast. We used to have a lot of goats, so mymother would make goat’s cheese and grind

up ají [chili peppers – Capsicum L. sp.] andthat is what we would eat with the kuyacsa.

One family in Vista Alegre, Huánuco (Fig. 5a),explained that mauka is essential for helping newmothers regain strength during the postnatal period,referring to the roots as a tonic. While it has beenwritten that mauka leaves are traditionally eaten assalad, none of the farmers interviewed for this studywere familiar with that practice. Instead, the familyrecommended the following:

If your hair falls out after having children,which is often the case for new mothers,kuyacsa [mauka] and sweet potato leaves serveas vitamins for the hair. You boil them in apot with their stems and bathe your hair in it.This is how my mother used to wash hers.You can also drink kuyacsa and sweet potatoleaves as a tea, for the vitamins too. That iswhat our grandparents used to do. That iswhy they were so good at rememberingthings.

Existing studies state that mauka leaves are com-monly used as animal forage or feed (Seminario1988; Tapia et al. 1996), but despite all intervieweeskeeping animals, almost half were unaware of thispractice. Some said that their livestock had con-sumed mauka when grazing—with several notingthat mauka was preferred over other plants—butthat they had never purposefully fed it to them. Justover 10% said that they fed both roots and leaves tolivestock, and one participant from Amazonasrecounted how his neighbor used to cook the rootsand feed them to her pigs, emphasizing that theygrew well.

FARMERS’ PERSPECTIVES ON MAUKA DECLINE

The prominent theme among farmers’ explana-tions for mauka decline is its lack of market value.One farmer from Huánuco described how she hadtaken a sack of mauka to market the previous yearbut, because nobody knew what it was, she couldnot sell any. If mauka had a market value, theyargued, they would be willing to reuptake or expandcultivation. Several farmers cited examples of othertraditional crops such as maca, mashua, and quinoa(Chenopodium quinoaWiulld.) that have undergonea renaissance in recent years, reasoning that mauka

GENDALL ET AL.: UNEARTHING THE “LOST” ANDEAN ROOT CROP “MAUKA”2019] 453

could follow suit. The NRC (1989) explains that,around the time of the Spanish conquest, maukaand other traditional Andean crops synonymouswith indigeneity were displaced by European spe-cies such as wheat, barley, and carrots, in a processreferred to as “botanical colonialism.” However,farmers attributed the much more recent declinein mauka cultivation to the dramatic modernization

of food customs and agriculture over the past fewdecades. Farmers reported that, although potatoeswere historically confined to a higher altitude, im-proved varieties that thrive at lower altitudes arenow ubiquitous, replacing mauka and other tradi-tional crops. As one farmer in Sihuas recalled,

Fig. 4. a Peeling mauka. bWashed mauka roots. c Boiled mauka with caldo. dMauka sautéed with tuna and herbs.

Fig. 5. a Family in Vista Alegre with mauka. b Farmer from Sihuas with mauka plant.

ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL 73454

I remember when I was small, there werenot so many potatoes here, so we ate whatthere was to eat. ‘Pishpi yuca’ [mauka],arracacha and yacón. That is what everyonehere ate. Potatoes were growing in the punaswhich we used to get in exchange with thehighland people for our maize or squash. Bitby bit, the potato arrived. Now we plantmostly potatoes, displacing the older crops.The youth of today are not interested incultivating old crops. Maize, wheat and pota-toes are all we grow here now. Before, it wasone-hundred percent subsistence farming.Now we sell a portion of our potatoes, andwith that, we buy rice and pasta. The customsthat our grandparents had are almostforgotten.

Farmers also linked agricultural change to thelack of interest in traditional foods and a shift intaste toward processed foods, particularly by theyounger generation. This has been described byCantor et al. (2018) as “dietary delocalization”—i.-e., the displacement of local with nonlocal foodcustoms. One farmer from Sandia whose neighborgifted her some mauka roots during an interviewcommented,

I make ‘mazamorra de maíz’ [maize pud-ding] and my children say to me: ‘What isthis? How disgusting! It smells horrible!’ Likeall children nowadays, they do not know it.Now there is rice, pasta, sugar. We buy that,and we work less in the chacra, so they do notknow about farming or traditional kinds offood. I will take this mauka home now andcook with it, but I bet my son is going to sayto me “What is this?”

Urbanization, especially the outwards migrationof the younger generation from rural areas, wasoffered as a further explanation. Due to the lack ofable-bodied agricultural laborers, one older couplehad recently abandoned not just mauka but most oftheir crops. As Brush (2004) explains, a key driver ofdiversity is adaptation by localized crop populationsthrough isolation in differentiated landscapes. Com-munities with a history of mauka cultivation remainrelatively isolated, with farmers in this study

reporting an average journey time of 1 h and40 min to their nearest market. However, the ex-tension of roads linking villages with urban centers,which several indicated had occurred only in the lastfew decades, has dramatically increased the move-ment of people and goods both into and out of rurallocalities. The absence of roads up until this pointgoes some way toward explaining why many aspectsof traditional agricultural life, including the cultiva-tion of mauka, persisted in these farther-flung areas.

Some farmers ascribed mauka decline to climatechange because of the damage wrought by long drysummers punctuated with sharp frosts, resulting inlow-yielding or destroyed crops. Several others de-scribed the plant as undeserving of scarce resourcesor simply not worth cultivating due to its antiquatednature, long vegetative period, and increasing ten-dency to underproduce. Importantly, several con-nected the dwindling of interest inmauka to the lossof cultural memory, explaining that those who havegiven up cultivating the crop have forgotten thecustoms and knowledge needed to make best useof it. Though touched on by the minority, therecognition that these processes go hand in hand issignificant.

Mauka in the New Andean Kitchen

TRADITIONAL FOODS AND PERUVIANGASTRONOMY

The “Peruvian gastronomic revolution,”which originated in the early 1990s, has elevatedthe profile of Peru’s culinary heritage both locallyand internationally (Lauer and Lauer 2006). Pe-ruvian cuisine is typified as a melting pot of pre- andpost-Columbian elements, combining traditionallocal ingredients with European, Asian, and otherinfluences. The promotion of national cuisine bythe Peruvian state, adopted as a strategy for socialcohesion and economic development, has been acornerstone of this phenomenon, whereby food ispositioned as the common thread that weaves to-gether an otherwise culturally diverse population(Matta 2016a). A recent opinion poll reported thatculinary culture is considered a greater source ofnational pride than Machu Picchu (OrganizaciónMundial del Turismo 2016).

Another key driver has been the work of a hand-ful of Peruvian chefs, mostly trained in Europe, whohave risen to global prominence. As Matta (2016b)explains, they have introduced indigenous products

GENDALL ET AL.: UNEARTHING THE “LOST” ANDEAN ROOT CROP “MAUKA”2019] 455

previously seen as backward into the fine-diningsphere, by using top-end Western culinary tech-niques. On the one hand, this has improved theattitude of the urban elite toward indigenous cultureand enticed traditional foods, such as arracacha, outof obscurity. However, a major critique suggeststhat the estheticization enacted by high-endchefs—as permitted by their privileged socialposition—glosses over indigeneity. Further, it hasbeen argued that the promise of cosmopolitan mul-ticulturalism upheld by the gastronomic revolutionis in fact deleterious to cultural uniqueness (García2013), equating to what Grey and Newman (2018)refer to as “culinary colonialism.”Notwithstanding these genuine concerns, we be-

lieve that the impetus of food provenancing in Perucould be mobilized to provide commercial incen-tives for continued mauka cultivation with positiveimplications. After all, mauka’s lack of market valuewas the most common explanation given by farmersas to why it is in decline. Raising the prestige ofmarginalized crops and developing their marketabil-ity (Brush 1995), as well as responding to thedemand for uniqueness in flavor or quality foundonly in certain heritage foods (Smale et al. 2004),are both relevant to the on-farm conservation ofgenetic resources. Furthermore, the potential forlocal empowerment does not necessarily have tobe negated by the evolution in cultural meaningundergone through a revaluation of this nature.

PILOT EXPERIMENT WITH CENTRAL

Central is the flagship restaurant of Peruvianchef Virgilio Martínez, currently holding thetitle of the world’s sixth best restaurant (TheWorld’s 50 Best 2018). The restaurant focuseson exploring and showcasing the biological andcultural diversity of the country. Based in Lima, ithas established its own research body MaterInitiativa, which—through country-wide expedi-tions to meet with farmers, foragers, ecologists,and anthropologists—seeks to “discover” mar-ginal native ingredients and draw inspirationfrom traditional food cultures. Martínez posi-tions his approach as taking a step beyond theexisting paradigm of the Peruvian gastronomicrevolution to tackle cultural and environmentalissues more discerningly.Experimenting with mauka in the kitchen during

lunch service, Martínez created a series of quickdishes that were served to Gendall and two repre-sentatives from CIP (Fig. 6a). These included thin

mauka crisps layered with fresh Andean cheese andherbs (Fig. 6b), mauka in a hot ceviche-style broth(Fig. 6c), and fried mauka with avocado puree andborage flowers, served alongside the 17-course Ma-ter Elevations tasting menu, where each dish repre-sents a discreet altitudinal niche. The restaurantteam was enthusiastic about mauka’s taste potentialand versatility, expressing an interest in learningmore about its traditional uses. Representativesfrom Mater Initiativa were later taught planting,harvesting, and processing techniques by maukasuppliers in Ancash (Fig. 6d).Since then, they have reiterated their interest in

sourcing mauka for the menu and working to con-serve it. With the unveiling of Martínez’s new res-taurantMil in rural Cusco in 2018—which empha-sizes collaboration with local farmers andembeddedness in the high-altitude landscape—hisreputation and philosophy are growing. Several ofMater Incitativa’s social media posts have featuredmauka and, more recently, Martínez’s partner PiaLeón—who was awarded Best Latin American Fe-male Chef in 2018—announced that she would beserving it in her new restaurant Kjolle (The World’s50 Best 2018). Nevertheless, sourcing mauka in thequantity and regularity required by these restaurantswill be challenging, and whether they can elaboratemauka’s substance and story from the field to theplate, without lessening its biocultural integrity,remains to be seen.

Conclusion

Though production is unmistakably small scaleand diminishing, this study indicates that—untilrecent decades—mauka was not just a homegardenquirk; rather, it was a food of considerable impor-tance for some Andean communities, with a widergeographical range than previously thought. Its use-fulness as a hardy, low-maintenance, self-proliferating crop continues to be appreciated today.Regrettably, however, important reservoirs of cul-tural memory are drastically depleted. Specialisttechniques, such as aporque, sweetening maukaroots in the sun and using its foliage as livestockfeed are unknown to a significant proportion offarmers. It can be speculated that such practices thatenhance the usefulness and enjoyability of maukawere once commonplace, and that their infrequencyin the present day both stems from and spurs localdisinterest in the crop.

ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL 73456

Montenegro de Wit (2015) urges us to challengethe one-dimensional accounts of loss that dominateour view of agrobiodiversity, posing a question par-ticularly relevant to our case: “What are the effectsof loss narratives—that is; the upshots of sayingspecies are vanishing?” The exaggerated loss narra-tive told so far by much of the existing literature,which perpetuates the false idea that mauka is nearimpossible to come by, most likely has been to thedetriment of investment in research and conserva-tion. Mauka is not lost. Rather, its story is one ofboth loss and persistence. However, in order toensure its survival, gene banking and the documen-tation of traditional knowledge must be urgentlyextended to all understudied regions, particularlyin Bolivia where no ex situ collections exist (FAO2019).

Suggesting that the inclination exists, manyfarmers in this study explained that, if mauka hadeconomic value, they would be keen to continuecultivating it. To this end, the current momentumtoward the revival of traditional native foods in Perushould be harnessed. However, any initiative carry-ing this idea forwards should involve farmers andchefs as co-strategists, so that it can be shaped in away that crystallizes local knowledge. Mauka’s long

vegetative period, its astringency before processing,and its rustic nonuniform roots should not bedownplayed. However, rather than being conceivedas obstacles, such qualities could be reinterpretedboth as selling points and as anchors for culturalmemory. With a foothold in both the traditionaland the modern Andean kitchen, producers andchefs could work together to revalue mauka in away that benefits the farmer, the restaurant, and thespecies itself.

AcknowledgmentsOur deepest gratitude goes to the farmers who

took part in the study, for their enormous hospital-ity and willingness to participate. Heartfelt thanksalso to our local collaborators INIA, CIP (notablyIvan Manrique), Virgilio and Malena Martínez ofCentral, Carola and Eilif Leidulvstad, DorisChalampuente-Flores, Saturnino Lucio CastilloLeón, Javier Martínez, José Roncagliolo, MilkaTello, Wilber Loza, and Jhonatan Chaparro. Like-wise, scholarly and practical input from MarkNesbitt, Owen Smith, Doris Chalampuente, GaiaLuziatelli, and Miriam Kritzer Van Zant have beeninvaluable to this research journey. Finally, we are

Fig. 6. aMartínez experimenting with mauka. b Thin mauka crisps layered with fresh Andean cheese and herbs. cMauka in a hot ceviche-style broth. d A farmer in Ancash teaches Malena from Mater Initiativa how to plant mauka.

GENDALL ET AL.: UNEARTHING THE “LOST” ANDEAN ROOT CROP “MAUKA”2019] 457

grateful for the comments from three anonymousreviewers.

Open Access This article is distributed under theterms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0I n t e r n a t i o n a l L i c e n s e ( h t t p : / /creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which per-mits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduc-tion in any medium, provided you give appropriatecredit to the original author(s) and the source, pro-vide a link to the Creative Commons license, andindicate if changes were made.

Literature CitedAlvarez Mamani, V. H. 2001. Manejo y

Conservación in–situ de Mauk’a (Mirabilisexpansa, R. y P.) Standley, Yacón (Smallanthussonchifolius, H. Robinson) y Racacha (Arracaciaxanthorrhiza, Bancroft) en la comunidad deChullina, Prov. B. Saavedra—Dpto. La Paz.Ing. Agr. Thesis, Facultad de Agronomia,Universidad Mayor de San Andrés, La Paz,Bolivia.

Anonymous. 2015. Para tener huesos de acero:Mauka o chago. Revista Agronoticias 413:5.

Brush, S. 1995. In situ conservation of landraces incenters of crop diversity. Crop Science 35:346–354.

———. 2004. Farmers’ bounty: Locating cropdiversity in the contemporary world. New Ha-ven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.

Cantor, C., I. Chan, and K. Baines. 2018. From theChacra to the Tienda: Dietary delocalization inthe Peruvian Andes. Food and Foodways 26(3):198–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/07409710.2018.1490376.

CIP (International Potato Center). 2019. Andeanroot and tuber crops. https://cipotato.org/crops/roots–and–tubers/ (October 2018).

Cohen, J. I., J. B. Alcorn, and C. S. Potter. 1991.Utilization and conservation of genetic re-sources: International projects for sustainableagriculture. Economic Botany 45(2):190–199.

FAO. 2010. Second FAO report on the state ofplant genetic resources for food and agriculture.http://www.fao.org/3/i1500e/i1500e00.htm(October 2018).

———. 2019. The state of the world’s biodiversityfor food and agriculture. In: FAO Commissionon genetic resources for food and agricultureassessments, J. Bélanger and D. Pilling, eds.

Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/CA3129EN/CA3129EN.pdf. (April 2019).

Franco, S., J. Rodríguez, and L. Machuca. 1989.Catálogo de colecciones de recursos fitogenéticosde la sierra norte del Perú 1985–1989. Cajamar-ca, Perú: INIAA, PRONARGEN.

Franco, S., J. Rodríguez, and J. Uceda Vejarano.1997. Caracterizacion y evaluacion delgermoplasma de chago (Mirabilis expansa) delINIA, en el valle de Cajamarca. Presented atthe Congreso Internacional de CultivosAndinos, Universidad Nacional de San AntonioAbad del Cusco, Cusco, Peru.

García, M. E. 2013. The taste of conquest:Colonialism, cosmopolitics, and the dark sideof Peru’s gastronomic boom. Journal of LatinAmerican and Caribbean Anthropology18(3):505–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/jlca.12044s.

Grey, S. and L. Newman. 2018. Beyond culinarycolonialism: Indigenous food sovereignty, liberalmulticulturalism, and the control of gastronomiccapital. Agriculture and Human Values 35:717–730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-018-9868-2.

Hawkes, J. G. 1999. The evidence for the extent ofN. I. Vavilov’s new world Andean centres ofcultivated plant origins. Genetic Resources andCrop Evolution 46(2):163–168.

Hermann, M. and T. Bernet. 2009. The transitionof maca from neglect to market prominence:Lessons for improving use strategies and marketchains of minor crops. Agricultural Biodiversityand Livelihoods Discussion Papers 1. Rome:Bioversity International. https://www.bioversityinternational.org/fileadmin/_migrat-ed/uploads/tx_news/The_transition_of_maca_from_neglect_to_market_prominence__nbsp_lessons_for_improving_use_strategies_and_market_chains_of_minor_crops_1318.pdf (No-vember 2018).

Hermann, M. and J. Heller, eds. 1997. Andeanroots and tubers: Ahipa, arracacha, maca andyacón. Promoting the conservation and use ofunderutilized and neglected crops. 21. Rome:Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Re-search, Gatersleben/ International Plant GeneticResources Institute.

Kritzer Van Zant, M. 2016a. History of Mirabilisexpansa (Ruiz and Pav.) Standl.; Growth and usein the Andes. Atlas Journal of Biology:236–248.https://doi.org/10.5147/ajb.2016.0138.

ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL 73458

———. 2016b. Review of the economic and eth-nobotany of the family Nyctaginaceae. AtlasJournal of Biology:249–266. https://doi.org/10.5147/ajb.2016.0139.

Kritzer Van Zant, M., K. Diesburg, and D. A.Lightfoot. 2018.Mirabilis expansa growth, yield,and quality traits: First US field trials for anancient, endangered, Andean crop. Atlas Journalof Biology:511–574. https://doi.org/10.5147/ajb.v0i0.174.

Lauer, M. and V. Lauer. 2006. La revolucióngastronómica Peruana. Lima: Universidad DeSan Martin De Porres, Escuela profesional deturismo y hoteleria.

Matta, R. 2016a. Food incursions into global heri-tage: Peruvian cuisine’s slippery road toUNESCO. Social Anthropology 24(3):338–352. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8676.12300.

———. 2016b. Recipes for crossing boundaries:Peruvian fusion. In: Cooking technology trans-formations in culinary practice in Mexico andLatin America, ed., S. I. Ayora–Diaz, 139–152.London: Bloomsbury.

Montenegro de Wit, M. 2015. Are we losing diver-sity? Navigating ecological, political, and episte-mic dimensions of agrobiodiversity conserva-tion. Agriculture and Human Values 33:625–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9642-7.

Morillo Velastegui, L. E. 1998. Analisis depolimorfismo en las colecciones de Jicama(Polymnia sonchifolia P & E) y Miso (Mirabilisexpansa R & P) del Banco de Germoplasma delINIAP. Ing. Agr. Thesis Ponticia UniversidadCatolica del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador. http://repositorio.iniap.gob.ec/handle/41000/574(October 2018).

Nazarea, V. 1998. Cultural memory and biodiver-sity. Tucson, Arizona: The University of ArizonaPress.

NRC (National Research Council). 1989. Lostcrops of the Incas: Little–known plants of theAndes with promise for worldwide cultivation.Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

Organización Mundial del Turismo. 2016. Alianzaentre turismo y cultura en el Perú—Modelos decolaboración entre turismo, cultura ycomunidad. https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284417575 (October 2018).

Padulosi, S. 2012. A new international collaborativeeffort on traditional crops, climate change andon–farm conservation. In: On farm conservation

of neglected and underutilized species: Status,trends and novel approaches to cope with cli-mate change, Proceedings of an InternationalConference, Frankfurt, 14–16 June 2011.Rome: Bioversity International.

Padulosi, S., D. M. Cawthorn, G. Meldrum, R.Flore, A. Halloran, and F. Mattei. 2019.Leveraging neglected and underutilized plant,fungi, and animal species for more nutritionsensitive and sustainable food systems. In: Ency-clopedia of Food Security and Sustainability,eds., P. Ferranti, E. M. Berry, and J. E. Ander-son, 3:361–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100596-5.21552-7.

Rea, J. 1982. El Miso: Una contribución de laagricultura Pre–Inca de Ecuador y Bolivia.Desde el Surco 5:23–26.

Rea, J. and J. León. 1965. La Mauka (Mirabilisexpansa Ruíz & Pavón), un aporte de laagricultura andina prehispánica de Bolivia.Anales Científicos 3:38–41.

Ruíz, H. and J. Pavón. 1798. Flora Peruviana, etChilensis. Madrid: Typis Gabrielis de Sancha.

Seminario, J. 1988. El Chago o mauka, Mirabilisexpansa R. y P. en Cajamarca, Memorias: VICongreso Internacional Sobre Cultivos Andinos.Quito, Ecuador: INIAP, Estación ExperimentalSanta Catalina.

——— . 2004. Aspectos etnobotánicos yproductivos del chago, miso o mauka (Mirabilisexpansa [Ruíz y Pavón] Standley). In: RaícesAndinas: Contribuciones al conocimiento y a lacapacitación, Conservación y uso de labiodiversidad de raíces y tubérculos andinos:Una década de investigación para el desarollo(1993–2003), ed., J. Seminario, 367–376. Li-ma: Centro Internacional de la Papa (CIP).

Seminario, J. and M. A. Valderrama. 2012.Variabil idad morfológica y evaluaciónagronómica de maukas Mirabilis expansa (Ruiz& Pav.) Standl. del norte peruano. RevistaPeruana de Biología 19:249–256. https://doi.org/10.15381/rpb.v19i3.1001.

Seminario, J., D. Chalampuente–Flores, H.Gendall and M. Sørensen. 2019. The agronomyof mauka (Mirabilis expansa [Ruíz & Pav.]Standl.)—A review. Journal of Plant Geneticsand Crop Research 1(2):1–23.

Shepherd, C. 2017. Andean cultural affirmationand cultural integration in context: Reflectionson indigenous knowledge for the in situ conser-vation of agrobiodiversity. In: Indigenousknowledge: Enhancing its contribution to

GENDALL ET AL.: UNEARTHING THE “LOST” ANDEAN ROOT CROP “MAUKA”2019] 459

natural resources management, ed., P. Sillitoe.Wallingford, Oxfordshire: CAB International.

Smale, M., M. R. Bellon, D. Jarvis, and B. Sthapit.2004. Economic concepts for designing policiesto conserve crop genetic resources on farms.Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 51:121–135. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:GRES.0000020678.82581.76.

Tapia, C., R. Castillo, and N.Mazón. 1996. Catalogode recursos geneticos de raíces y tubérculosAndinos en Ecuador. INIA, Quito. http://repositorio.iniap.gob.ec/bitstream/41000/2695/1/iniapscpm66.pdf (October 2018).

The World’s 50 Best. 2018. The World’s 50 BestRe s t au ran t s l i s t 1–50 . ht tp s : / /www.theworlds50best.com/# (October 2018).

Vallenas, M. 1995. Vigencia del cultivo de mauka(Mirabilis expansa) en Puno, Perú, Resúmenesdel primer Congreso peruano de CultivosAndinos “Oscar Blanco Galdós,” 11–16setiembre. Huamanga, Ayacucho.

Vivanco, J. M. and H. E. Flores. 2000. Biosynthesisof ribosome inactivating proteins from callus andcell suspension cultures from Mirabilis expansa.Plant Cell Reports 19(10):1033–1039. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002990000210.

ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL 73460