# Stakeholders' perceptions of climate change point to future challenges for the adaptation of grain legumes

Marie Marteau-Bazouni, Marie-Hélène Jeuffroy, Nicolas Guilpart

► To cite this version:

Marie Marteau-Bazouni, Marie-Hélène Jeuffroy, Nicolas Guilpart. Stakeholders' perceptions of climate change point to future challenges for the adaptation of grain legumes. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2026, 46 (1), pp.12. 10.1007/s13593-026-01088-9. hal-05507405

HAL Id: hal-05507405

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05507405v1

Submitted on 12 Feb 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
# Stakeholders' perceptions of climate change point to future challenges for the adaptation of grain legumes

Marie Marteau-Bazouni<fnref n="1" /> Ⓒ · Marie-Hélène Jeuffroy<fnref n="1" /> · Nicolas Guilpart<fnref n="1" />

Received: 25 November 2024 / Accepted: 7 January 2026

© The Author(s) 2026

## Abstract

The diversification of cropping systems using grain legumes has been identified as a crucial lever in the transition towards more sustainable agriculture in Europe. However, climate change will likely impact the yields and services provided by these crops. Increasing the production area of grain legumes will therefore require the design of effective adaptation strategies. Of all the factors constraining grain legume development in Europe, the impact of climate change is one that has received little attention from researchers to date. This study contributes to filling this gap by evaluating stakeholders' perceptions of climate change and adaptation options, as well as the barriers hindering adaptation. We conducted 33 interviews with stakeholders involved at various stages of the value chains for five major grain legume species in France. Interviewees' perceptions depended on their location and the grain legume species considered. Although most interviewees perceived climate change as a constraint for grain legumes, they identified opportunities for specific crops and regions. The interviewees had either observed, imagined, or experimented with a diverse range of adaptation options. Despite this diversity, the interviewees reported barriers of various natures that need to be removed to support adaptation. This diagnosis points to three major challenges for the adaptation of grain legumes: (i) addressing the antagonistic symptoms of climate change, including the perceived increase in climate variability, and the lack of methods for anticipating long-term climatic changes; (ii) dealing simultaneously with adapting to climate change and unlocking socio-technical systems regarding grain legumes; and (iii) filling knowledge gaps on grain legume response to climate change. To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess stakeholders' perceptions of climate change and identify opportunities and challenges for the adaptation of grain legumes in Europe.

**Keywords** Grain legumes · Field pea · Faba bean · Soybean · Lentil · Chickpea · Adaptation · Climate change · Survey · France

## 1 Introduction

Diversifying cropping systems with grain legumes is often proposed as a powerful means to contribute to the transition towards more sustainable agriculture in Europe (Köpke and Nemecek 2010; Watson et al. 2017; Peoples et al. 2019). Their ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen (N) means grain legumes provide numerous environmental and agronomic services, such as reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from synthetic fertilizer production and application, increased soil nitrogen availability, and pest and disease control. Grain legumes also supply high-protein grains that

can partly replace animal-based proteins to reduce the environmental footprint of European diets (Davis et al. 2010). Increasing the production and consumption of grain legumes would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, thereby contributing to the mitigation of climate change. A diet shift, with a partial substitution of proteins from animal products by grain legumes throughout Europe, would indeed make a significant dent in global emissions by 2050, with 231 to 259 MtCO₂eq of emissions avoided annually (Prudhomme et al. 2020), or 2% of global GHG emissions from agriculture (IPCC 2023a).

Despite the numerous services provided by grain legumes, these crops seldom feature in European cropping systems (Magrini et al. 2016). This is the result of the coevolution of several factors which have gradually locked in the agri-food sector's preference for cereals, hindering crop diversification and grain legume development in Europe

<footnote>Marie Marteau-Bazouni
m.marteau.b@gmail.com</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, AgroParisTech, UMR Agronomie, 91123 Palaiseau, France</footnote>
(Voisin et al. 2014; Magrini et al. 2016; Meynard et al. 2018; Balázs et al. 2021a). This socio-technical lock-in includes barriers such as lower investments in breeding compared with major species; a lack of solutions for pest, disease, and weed control; a lack of knowledge and technical references among farmers and their advisors; and logistical constraints for organizations involved in collecting, sorting, storing, and processing grain. Recently, growing concerns about the environmental impact of specialized agriculture have led to a push for the reintroduction of legumes into cropping systems, which is now being incentivized by several policies at the European level (e.g., European Green Deal, CAP subsidies).

Climate change is likely to have an impact on the yields of grain legumes and the services they provide, which may further hamper their development. Grain legumes are sensitive to numerous biotic and abiotic stresses, whose occurrence is likely to increase with climate change (Ahmed et al. 2022). These stresses can reduce yields (Farooq et al. 2017; Gogoi et al. 2018) and increase yield instability (Falconnier et al. 2020), factors that have already been identified as barriers to the adoption of grain legumes by farmers (Cernay et al. 2015). Stresses can also reduce the nitrogen services provided by legumes, either directly by reducing symbiotic nitrogen fixation (Serraj et al. 1999) or indirectly by reducing yields, on which crop N fixation partly depends (Herridge et al. 2022). Increasing the area grown with grain legumes will therefore require the implementation of adaptation strategies to increase the resilience of these crops to climate change.

To design such adaptation strategies, it is essential to consider stakeholders' perceptions of climate change (Masud et al. 2017) and analyze their activities to understand their needs (Cerf et al. 2012). Several studies have surveyed producers' and experts' perceptions of climate change and adaptation in Europe (Battaglini et al. 2009; Woods et al. 2017; Peltonen-Sainio et al. 2020; Zhao et al. 2022; Morel and Cartau 2023). They show that farmers have observed climate changes that affect their farming systems and have implemented or devised solutions to adapt to these changes. Some studies analyze farmers' drivers (Woods et al. 2017) and multifactorial decision-making processes (Morel and Cartau 2023) to guide policy making. Others show that farmers' attitudes to adaptation vary according to geographical differences (Battaglini et al. 2009; Peltonen-Sainio et al. 2020; Zhao et al. 2022) and farm characteristics (Peltonen-Sainio et al. 2020; Morel and Cartau 2023). Their findings are highly valuable for guiding the design of tailored innovations and policy instruments. Research on adaptation to climate change has, however, focused mostly on cereal production and viticulture. Consequently, few data are available on grain legume response to climate change and adaptation options (Marteau-Bazouni et al. 2024).

The objective of this study is to provide a diagnosis that will help design adaptation solutions better tailored to the needs of the stakeholders involved in grain legume value chains. Specifically, it aims to answer the following research questions: (i) how do stakeholders involved in the development of grain legumes perceive the evolution of climate and its impacts on these crops, (ii) how do they plan to adapt, and (iii) what are the barriers impeding the process of their adaptation?

To answer these questions, we conducted a survey in France inspired by the diagnosis of uses method (Cerf et al. 2012; Ravier et al. 2016; Clerino et al. 2023). France is a leading European producer of grain legumes and stands out as one of the European countries with the most ambitious plans to increase cultivated areas (European Commission 2023). For instance, the rural code includes a target of allocating 10% of the utilized agricultural area to legume production by 2030 (JORF n°0072 of 25 March 2025). Our study encompasses five species, which represented 98% of the French grain legume production area in 2020 (SAA 2020), namely soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.), field pea (Pisum sativum L.), faba bean (Vicia faba L.), lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.), and chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) (Figure 1). To our knowledge, this is the first study to offer a detailed analysis of stakeholders' views on the impact of climate change on grain legumes in a European country and the opportunities for—and challenges to—their adaptation.

# 2 Materials and methods

## 2.1 Definition of adaptation

Adaptation in the agricultural sector encompasses a wide range of forms (Smit and Skinner 2002; Howden et al. 2007; Kates et al. 2012). In this article, we used the definition proposed by Moser and Ekstrom (2010): "Adaptation involves changes in social-ecological systems in response to actual and expected impacts of climate change in the context of interacting non-climatic changes. Adaptation strategies and actions can range from short-term coping to longer-term, deeper transformations, aim to meet more than climate change goals alone, and may or may not succeed in moderating harm or exploiting beneficial opportunities." This broad definition includes various adaptation strategies at different space and time scales and includes positive and negative interactions with non-climatic factors.

## 2.2 Survey design

We conducted a total of 33 semi-structured interviews with 42 stakeholders. In most cases (26 out of 33), we conducted individual interviews. In 7 cases, two to three stakeholders

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Blooming faba bean cultivated in Ile-de-France region (NUTS2), France. Photocredit: N. Guilpart.</figcaption></figure>

from the same profession and area were interviewed together. Their expertise was considered to be complementary, and therefore, they were counted as one single interview. Throughout the text, the term “interviewees” refers to the sample of people interviewed, whereas the term “stakeholders” refers more generically to people involved in grain legume value chains.

The lock-in hampering grain legume development is characterized by interconnected barriers occurring at each stage on the value chains (Meynard et al. 2018). Due to the systemic nature of the issue, change can only be achieved through a concerted effort on the part of stakeholders (Magrini et al. 2016). We considered it essential to obtain a range of perspectives. Consequently, we interviewed stakeholders involved at different stages of the value chains, from seed breeding to grain processing. Interviewees were identified through snowball sampling. First, we selected advisors from ten regional Chambers of Agriculture (local extension services) to cover a large part of the French territory. They were then asked to recommend people in other professional sectors. Interviewees were selected to ensure coverage across the entire French territory and represent a diversity of professions across various segments of the grain legume value chains, including upstream activities (e.g., seed breeding and multiplication), downstream operations (e.g., grain collection and transformation), and support services (e.g., extension services). The interview phase was concluded upon reaching saturation point, at which point it was determined that further data collection would not bring any new information.

Eventually, we conducted interviews with professionals from cooperatives involved in collecting, storing, and processing grain (10 interviews), local extension services (10), national extension services (6), seed breeding (4), seed multiplication (1), food and feed industry (1), and French

administration (1). Interviewees were located across the country. Their location was defined as either their geographical area of expertise (for extension services) or their supply area (for cooperatives and industries). Fifteen interviewees were located in the north-west (Brittany, Normandy, Pays de la Loire, and Centre-Val de Loire), ten in the north-east (Hauts-de-France, Grand Est, and Bourgogne-Franche-Comté), and nine in the south (Nouvelle-Aquitaine, Occitanie, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, and Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur). The locations of four (resp. one) interviewees straddled two (resp. three) zones; their answers are therefore counted in more than one zone (Figure 2). In addition, five interviewees provided expertise at the national level.

All interviews were conducted by a single interviewer. They were performed remotely, either by phone (3 interviews) or video conferencing (30). Each interview lasted on average 60 min (minimum 35–maximum 120 min) and addressed the following topics:

- How do your professional activities contribute to the development of grain legumes?

- Do you think climate change is a barrier or an opportunity to the development of grain legumes in your region? How has climate evolved according to you and how has this impacted grain legumes?

- How do you (or other stakeholders) plan on adapting your (or their) activities to develop grain legumes in the context of climate change?

- What information on climate change do you use in your professional activities to help you adapt to it? What information would you need? At what space and time scales?

Interviews were not limited to these topics, however. Interviewees could also mention other topics they considered relevant.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** Interviewees' locations and professions. Interviewees' location is determined by either their area of expertise (for extension services) or their supply basin (for cooperatives and industries). The number of interviews in each zone (south, north-west, and north-</figcaption></figure>

east) is indicated in parentheses. Five interviewees provided expertise at the country level and are labeled "FR." Note that the locations of four (resp. one) interviewees straddled two (resp. three) zones; their answers are therefore counted in more than one zone.

## 2.3 Interview data analysis

Twenty-seven interviews were recorded and transcribed, either manually (6 interviews) or using the free software NoScribe (github.com/kaixxx/noScribe) (21 interviews). For the six interviews that could not be recorded, detailed notes were taken.

The interview transcripts were coded manually using the free software Taguette (www.taguette.org) to identify and categorize (i) the impacts of climate change on grain legumes, (ii) adaptation strategies, and (iii) barriers to adaptation mentioned by the interviewees. To avoid interpersonal bias, the coding was handled by a single researcher. By clustering similar responses, she obtained a coding pattern that emerged from the body of interviews. She labeled propositions "adaptation options" when they were either (i) currently being experimented with or implemented by the interviewees themselves; or (ii) currently being experimented with or implemented by farmers and observed by the interviewees; or (iii) devised by the interviewees but yet to be experimented with either by themselves or by farmers. Following Moser and Ekstrom (2010), the researcher applied the "barriers to adaptation" label to obstacles that make adaptation less efficient or more costly and can be overcome with innovative thinking and concerted effort.

Although all interviews and all coding have been done by a single researcher, the interview guidelines and the coding framework were co-constructed and validated by all authors. In addition, the use of definitions from the scientific literature for adaptation strategies and barriers to adaptation and the design of clear interview guidelines prior to the interviews helped minimize the risk of bias.

# 3 Results and discussion

## 3.1 Interviewees' perceptions of climate change

### 3.1.1 Relations between interviewees' perceptions, location, and grain legume species

Interviewees' perceptions of climate change were complex, with almost all of them (96%) outlining two or more concurrent changes impacting grain legumes. On average, 4.5 concomitant aspects of climate change were mentioned in each interview.

An overwhelming majority of our interviewees—97%— expressed concerns about climate change's negative impacts on grain legumes, while only 33% of them saw it as an opportunity (Figure 3). Interviewees' views on climate

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3** Positive and negative impacts of climate change mentioned in the interviews depending on the grain legume species considered. The results are presented as a percentage of the total number of interviews (n = 33). Although we tried to differentiate between spring and</figcaption></figure>

winter crops, this was not possible in every interview. Therefore, the column labeled “field pea” (resp. “faba bean”) includes, but is not strictly equal to, the sum of the results for spring and winter field pea (resp. spring and winter faba bean).

change depended on the species considered. They mostly mentioned negative impacts of climate change on field pea and faba bean, while they identified both negative and positive impacts it could have on lentil, chickpea, and soybean. Interviewees' views on climate change and its impacts also differed depending on their location (Figure 4). Some issues were mentioned more frequently in the south, such as the increasing biotic pressure and uncertain water availability, while others were mentioned more frequently in the north, including the increasing frequency of heavy rains.

### 3.1.2 A wide range of climatic constraints impacting grain legumes

The interviewees described many negative impacts of climate change on grain legumes. Interviewees from all three zones (Figure 4) reported an ongoing increase in the frequency of droughts (mentioned in 79% of the interviews) and heat stresses (76%). Specifically, they highlighted an increase in the frequency of these stresses during reproductive stages, causing flower abortion, reduced grain filling, and eventually yield losses. In addition, some interviewees (27%) reported an increasing uncertainty about the timing of droughts and heat stresses. They described stresses occurring earlier in the growing season or at unexpected times, resulting in reduced biomass and symbiotic nitrogen fixation: “The problem is that heat waves can now crop up

over a single week. We are seeing more and more of these spikes, and they are increasingly intense. They can occur during sowing or flowering, or when crops have reached maturity” (I3).

An increase in biotic pressure was mentioned in 58% of the interviews and an increase in pest pressure during the spring in 42% of the interviews, especially in the south and the north-west. Interviewees described earlier and more intense pest attacks from pea aphids (Acyrthosiphon pisum Harris) and weevils (Bruchus spp. and Sitona spp.) on lentil, field pea, and faba bean. They attributed this to milder winters and warmer springs accelerating pest life cycles. They also reported the spread of new insect pests in regions where they were not historically a problem (18% of the interviews), including infestations of *Bruchus* in the north of France and pod borers (Etiella zinckenella Treitschke) in the south. Similarly, an increasing pathogen pressure, which interviewees attributed to milder winters and an increased risk of damage from late frost, was reported in 36% of the interviews, especially on winter field pea and winter faba bean in the north. Some interviewees (9%) also reported the emergence of new pathogens in the north affecting field pea (complex of *Ascochyta* sp., *Colletotrichum* sp., and *Pseudomonas syringae*), linked to milder winters and springs.

Symptoms of climate change included increasing climatic variability. This was reported in 58% of the interviews, especially in the south and north-east. Interviewees described it
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4** Positive and negative impacts of climate change mentioned in the interviews depending on the interviewees' geographical area of expertise. The results are presented for three zones (south, north-east, and north-west) as a percentage of the number of interviews in each</figcaption></figure>

zone (indicated in parentheses). Note that the locations of four (resp. one) interviewees straddled two (resp. three) zones; their answers are therefore counted in more than one zone.

as a lack of seasonality, erratic or unprecedented weather events, and increasing year-on-year unpredictability: “Warming is a part [of climate change], but there are also climate hazards. When it rains, we get considerable amounts of water, when it’s hot, it’s often very hot, but, conversely, we are getting some very dry spells… and climates that are out of sync – or at least more random – and not as clear-cut as they used to be” (I13). It was perceived both as an ongoing trend (“Over the last 15–20 years [...] it used to be once every now and then, and now it’s every second or third year. So now every year is atypical, but one time it’ll be frost, the other it’ll be floods…” I7) and a challenge for the future (“Today, we try to think forward, but it’s not easy, because we don’t know what tomorrow will bring” I12). Specifically, a third (33%) of the interviewees reported that the increasing climatic variability hindered their ability to learn from 1 year to the next and to design adaptation strategies.

The interviewees reported an increasing temperature range in winter and early spring (mentioned in 45% of the interviews in all three zones). They described this as an increasing contrast between milder mean temperatures and

sudden cold waves occurring during the winter (mentioned in 15% of the interviews) or the spring (30%). According to them, these cold waves were less gradual, more severe, or occurred later than they historically had: “Though mean temperatures have increased, these cold dips are more severe. The temperature can be around 5–10°C, and then two days later dip to a low of around –10°C” (I3). “It used to be less problematic because we didn’t get –5°C or –10°C in early April” (I16). Interviewees reported an increasing risk of mechanical damage and pest and pathogen outbreaks due to this broadening temperature range, especially for winter field pea and winter faba bean.

A more uneven distribution of precipitation and an increasing frequency of heavy rains were mentioned in 42% of the interviews, especially in the north-east. Some interviewees (21%) reported an increasing frequency of heavy rains and storms in summer, resulting in crop lodging. They also perceived a rise in precipitation during winter (15%), resulting in restricted time windows for tillage operations and sowing. Finally, uncertain access to irrigation due to increasing competition for water resources was

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>
reported in 39% of the interviews, especially for soybean in the south.

These results are consistent with current knowledge about the physiology of grain legumes. The detrimental effects of thermal and water stresses on grain legumes, particularly during the reproductive stage, have been extensively studied (Farooq et al. 2017; Gogoi et al. 2018). Interviewees' perceptions also align with existing knowledge regarding past manifestations of climate change in France on major crops (Soubeyroux et al. 2025). Brisson et al. (2010) highlighted the increased frequency of heat stresses and drought and their detrimental effects on wheat yields in France. Vautard et al. (2023) found that climate change caused an earlier occurrence of bud burst for grapevine and fruit trees in France, increasing the exposure and the damage linked to frost. Changes in temperature and humidity are likely to have multiple impacts on crop pests and pathogens, including the geographical expansion of pest species, changes in growth rates, and changes in interactions between pests, hosts, and pest natural enemies (Bebber et al. 2013; Chaloner et al. 2021). Despite a paucity of data in Europe, impacts of climate change on grain legume pests and diseases have been documented in other regions of the world (Sharma et al. 2010; Vadez et al. 2012).

### 3.1.3 A few opportunities for some species and regions

The interviewees reported two main positive impacts of climate change on grain legumes. One-third (30%) mentioned warmer and drier climates as an opportunity to grow lentil, chickpea, and soybean, especially in the north. According to them, the increasing mean temperature allows these species to meet their thermal requirements until harvest in new areas. For example, they identified an opportunity for soybean in the north and Nouvelle-Aquitaine (south). In Brittany (north-west), drier springs were also seen as an opportunity for winter crops due to reduced disease pressure. Finally, drier and warmer climates would provide a competitive advantage to drought- and heat-tolerant species such as chickpea compared with other species; 21% of interviewees told us that lentil, chickpea, and soybean were already expanding northward ("species such as soybean, chickpea, lentil, are moving northwards, actually. Growing them is increasingly feasible" I20). Others (9%) described it as an opportunity for the future ("I think that chickpea has a part to play in the years to come and that it's a crop that could remain in France in the long run" I27).

A few interviewees (9%) noticed a reduction in frost days in winter and early spring, allowing for an extension of sowing windows. Their perception contrasted with the increasing risk of frost damage mentioned by other interviewees (45%). This contradiction could not be explained by either the interviewees' location or the crop species considered.

The interviewees' perceptions of new opportunities for soybean cultivation in northern France align with the scientific literature on the subject. The northward expansion of this crop in Europe has been well-documented (e.g., Lamichhane et al. 2020; Guilpart et al. 2022; Nendel et al. 2023). Similarly, a modelling study has revealed that climate change represents a potential opportunity for the cultivation of several cool-weather grain legume species, including chickpea and lentil, in northern Europe (Manners et al. 2020). Despite these opportunities being identified for certain species in certain regions, the overwhelmingly negative perceptions of climate change among the interviewees suggest that it may hinder the development of grain legumes in France.

## 3.2 Adaptation options to increase grain legume production despite climate change

### 3.2.1 A variety of adaptation options identified by the interviewees

In the interviews, we identified a diverse range of adaptation strategies that interviewees had already implemented, observed or at least devised (Figure 5), and pooled them into six main adaptation “levers,” namely (i) changing the cultivated varieties (mentioned in 82% of the interviews), (ii) adapting crop management (82%), (iii) redesigning cropping systems that include grain legumes (39%), (iv) shifting crop production areas (88%), (v) securing producers’ and stakeholders’ income (76%), and (vi) producing and circulating knowledge (61%). These levers differ in their scopes (ranging from the scale of the plant to that of production areas, including the cropping system), objectives (from stabilizing grain legume yields to securing stakeholders’ income), and the actors they involve. Each lever is further divided into several options, as described below.

### 3.2.2 Changing the cultivated varieties

The “varieties” lever included two main options. The first option, breeding new cultivars that are tolerant to biotic and abiotic stresses, was mentioned both by breeders and by other stakeholders (cooperatives and extension services) in 76% of the interviews. According to breeders, breeding mechanically selects for cultivars adapted to climate change: “In selection, we are confronted with climate constraints. So, de facto, we select, even passively, varieties that are more tolerant to these stresses” (I1). Other interviewees hoped that future breeding would provide new cultivars more tolerant to drought and heat stresses (expressed in 39% of the interviews), diseases (6%), and frost (3%): “Effective genetic selection [...] could help us deal with water stress, heat stress, it could help us deal with diseases” (I9). Breeding was described by both the breeders surveyed and other
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5** Adaptation options extracted from the interviews. Adaptation options are classified into six levers of various scales and scopes. The percentage of interviewees who mentioned each option is indicated in parentheses.</figcaption></figure>

interviewees as a long-term option, as it takes about ten years to breed a new variety.

The second option, proposed as a shorter-term one, was improving cultivar choices. Extension services and cooperatives suggested that already available cultivars provide enough resources to adapt to climate change (24% of the interviews). Some of them have conducted variety trials to optimize cultivar choices (e.g., identifying cultivars that are less sensitive to drought and heat stresses).

Breeding plants better adapted to future climate conditions and farmers' needs is one major challenge for adapting to climate change (IPCC 2023b). An increased breeding effort is particularly required for grain legumes, as they have received less investment and research efforts than major crops (Foyer et al. 2016; Magrini et al. 2016; Zander et al. 2016). The efficiency of breeding and cultivar choice in sustaining grain legume yields under future climate conditions

has been demonstrated by modelling studies (Marteau-Bazouni et al. 2024). Nevertheless, there is no assurance that the virtual cultivars designed in these studies are realistic and will satisfy breeders' requirements.

### 3.2.3 Adapting crop management

The “crop management” lever included a wide range of options. This lever was mentioned mainly by interviewees from cooperatives and national and local extension services. The various adaptation options mentioned have either been experimented with by farmers, are currently being studied by the interviewees in field trials, or are recommended by the interviewees based on their experience and knowledge of grain legume physiology. These options are part of an ongoing adaptation process to adjust to already perceptible changes: “We have already been adapting [...] We are on a

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>
short time scale, not necessarily long-term climate change, but it's necessarily linked with effects from climate modifications” (I28).

Farmers and extension services have already been experimenting with early sowing to avoid drought and heat stresses during reproductive stages, as reported in 58% of interviews. Conversely, late sowing of winter crops to reduce disease incidence was recommended by 18% of the interviewees. In the south, where winter temperatures are mild, some farmers have tried sowing spring pea or lentil in winter to escape drought and heat stresses, as reported in 6% of the interviews. Increasing irrigation was mentioned as an adaptation option by 24% of interviewees all over France. Some interviewees (12%) considered studying the optimization of irrigation management and timing to maximize crop water use efficiency. Reduced tillage was mentioned in 21% of the interviews, either to increase soil water retention (to adapt to increasing drought), or to improve the soil's load-bearing capacity (to adapt to increasing precipitation in winter), or else to allow for early sowing (to adapt to spring droughts). Reducing sowing density to reduce disease incidence and crop competition for water was either recommended or experimented with by 15% of the interviewees. Finally, some interviewees (12%, mainly cooperatives) have studied the efficiency of biostimulants to stimulate crop resistance to drought and heat, while 9% plan on studying the optimization of pesticide application.

The above-mentioned adaptation options are “classical” since they have already been identified for other annual crops in previous surveys (Zhao et al. 2022). Most of them have been studied through modelling (Marteau-Bazouni et al. 2024). Switching sowing dates, increasing irrigation, and reducing sowing density have been found efficient to sustain grain legume yields in future climate conditions, whereas a neutral impact has been found for reduced tillage. Interestingly, only a small percentage of our interviewees mentioned irrigation, although it is typically one of the most frequently cited options in surveys (Morel and Cartau 2023) and one of the most studied in modelling studies (Marteau-Bazouni et al. 2024). Irrigation has been shown to improve grain legume yields in both experimental studies (Dietrich et al. 2025) and modelling studies (Nendel et al. 2014). However, many of our interviewees (18%) deemed this option unrealistic and unsustainable due to the increasing pressure on water resources. For crops such as pea and faba bean, it was also considered unprofitable.

### 3.2.4 Redesigning cropping systems including grain legumes

In response to the increasing frequency of stresses and its negative impact on grain legume yield stability, designing alternative systems was proposed as a way to reduce the risk

associated with growing grain legumes as main crops; 39% of interviewees had either devised or observed this “cropping system” lever.

Intercropping was mentioned in 21% of the interviews and had been explored mainly for lentil, field pea, and faba bean. This option was proposed to adapt to heavy rains (e.g., camelina-lentil intercropping to avoid lodging) and increasing biotic pressure, as well as to stabilize income: "If you grow several species on the same plot, even if one species fails, the other allows for some degree of profitability" (I1). Some interviewees (18%) suggested or observed a diversification of grain legume uses within crop rotations (cover crops, forage crop mixtures): "We can also observe people who consider grain legumes, not necessarily as cash crops, but as double-crops, [...], intercrops, cover crops, or as catch crops" (I16). Another 6% of interviewees, located either in the south or the north-east, had observed soybean double-cropping (i.e., growing it as a second crop after a first cash crop the same year on the same plot) or experimented with it. One interviewee considered this option as a mean to render cropping systems more flexible in response to increasing climate variability.

These considerations are consistent with the literature. Ditzler et al. (2021) demonstrated that, despite the diversity of management patterns for legumes, research has mainly focused on just a few ways to incorporate them into cropping systems. Innovative cropping systems that include legumes are therefore required to achieve sustainable agricultural production in the context of climate change (Kuyah et al. 2021). Intercropping and double-cropping appear as promising leads. Intercropping legumes and non-legumes has a positive impact on the resilience of cropping systems to biotic and abiotic stresses (Himanen et al. 2016; Hassen et al. 2017). Double-cropping has been shown to improve resource use efficiency compared with single crops (Caviglia et al. 2004). Despite the paucity of modelling studies conducted for Europe, climate change has been found to ease the constraints to double-cropping in the USA, thereby creating opportunities for the expansion of this practice (Seifert and Lobell 2015).

### 3.2.5 Shifting crop production areas

The “production area” lever encompasses shifting species production areas (mentioned in 73% of the interviews) and shifting from spring to winter crops (55%).

Interviewees from local extension services and cooperatives proposed introducing new species such as field pea and faba bean to enlarge or replace “traditional” grain legume collections (site-based approach). The new species mentioned included chickpea, lentil, soybean, and exotic species such as lablab. They were introduced in the north-west and north-east of France either to seize an opportunity (e.g.,

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>
market opportunities for lentils and chickpeas in the human food sector and climatic conditions that are perceived to become increasingly favorable for growing these species) or to replace traditional species by stress-tolerant species such as chickpea. Some interviewees contributed to implement this option by coordinating trial networks (21%, mostly extension services), modelling present and future crop suitability (including grain legume species) to optimize crop choice locally (9%, cooperatives), and seeking new outlets (6%, cooperatives). Interviewees from national extension services, industries, and administrations also anticipated a shift of production areas with a northward displacement of the area suitable for soybean and Mediterranean crops such as lentil and chickpea (national approach). Although this option was frequently mentioned, 30% of the interviewees deemed it limited by economic factors (e.g., lack of market opportunities) and climatic constraints (e.g., no access to irrigation for soybean, less suitable local climatic conditions than expected, and the increasing frequency of stresses even in the north).

Farmers in the north-west and north-east had already experimented with shifting from spring to winter crops, which flower earlier and can thus avoid summer drought and heat, and interviewees from cooperatives and national extension services spoke of it (55%). However, 36% of interviewees reported only limited benefits from this option, due to winter crops' sensitivity to the increasing risk of late frosts, early stresses affecting winter crop reproductive stages, and heavy precipitation in winter and spring. Although it has been mentioned by a majority of interviewees, to our knowledge the feasibility of shifting from spring to winter crops in Europe has not been studied (Marteau-Bazouni et al. 2024).

### 3.2.6 Securing stakeholders' income

During interviews, 55% of interviewees mentioned the necessity to structure value chains and create more value around grain legumes. Although this does not exclusively address climate change adaptation, value creation or increased policy support (mentioned in 22% of the interviews) would compensate for grain legumes' poor performances and yield losses due to biotic and abiotic stresses and thus encourage farmers to adopt them: "One must accept to get lower yields, but try to find ways to create value" (I12).

Interviewees from all professional categories came up with this option. Some of them (27%) had contributed to implementing it in various ways: structuring new value chains for chickpea, lentil, and soybean in the north (12%, mostly local extension services), structuring value chains with new market opportunities for field pea in the food industry (6%, mostly cooperatives and industries), creating value using "Made in France" and environmental labels

(12%), and informing producers about market opportunities (3%).

Insurances at the farm or the cooperative level were mentioned as an adaptation strategy in 18% of the interviews. Finally, 12% of interviewees suggested diversifying grain legume species and sowing dates at the farm level (for farmers) or diversifying sources of supply (for cooperatives and industries) to increase system resilience.

Some of these "non-agronomic" adaptation options are particularly interesting since they imply deeper transformations aiming to meet more than climate change goals alone (Moser and Ekstrom 2010). In surveys about climate change adaptation, autonomous adaptations, such as adjustments in management practices, often represent "the lion share" (Woods et al. 2017; Zhao et al. 2022). Increased policy support and value chain structuring require collective action at the scale of the value chain or the territory, allowing for a scaling up that could result in more significant transformations (Kates et al. 2012).

### 3.2.7 Creating and circulating knowledge on climate change and grain legumes

Lastly, some interviewees, mostly from local extension services, highlighted the importance of knowledge production and circulation to increase stakeholders' ability to cope with climate change. Respectively, 39% and 21% of interviewees said they produced and disseminated knowledge on grain legumes and on climate change. For 24% of them, the main goal was to inform producers about improved management practices (informing them about the impact of sowing density on disease incidence, for instance), 15% focused on informing them about new species (e.g., technical and economical references about chickpea in the north-west), 12% emphasized raising their awareness about the impacts of future climate change on their productions, and 3% were mostly concerned with studying the effectiveness of options for adaptation and updating technical references (e.g., updating recommendations about sowing dates to avoid stresses during reproductive stages). Twelve percent of interviewees had developed decision support tools to help farmers plan the evolution of their cropping systems (e.g., crop choice and irrigation management). Finally, some interviewees (6%) called for improved weather forecast services to help stakeholders cope with the increased climate variability. These results align with those of Morel and Cartau (2023), who highlighted a need expressed by vegetable growers in France to acquire theoretical and practical knowledge to support adaptation to climate change. Like vegetables, limited knowledge is available for grain legumes compared with major productions such as cereals, pastures, and vineyards (see for example the results of the CLIMATOR project in France; Brisson and Levrault 2010).

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>
## 3.3 Barriers and conditions required to support stakeholders' adaptation

### 3.3.1 A number of barriers limiting adaptation

The diversity of adaptation options interviewees had identified (and already experimented with) contrasts with the pessimistic outlook some of them expressed regarding the future of grain legumes (18%, mostly cooperatives and extension services): “The problem is, we have some areas now where I don’t see how we’ll be able to keep growing these crops. Considering all the reasons we have mentioned, climate change, the loss of some synthetic active ingredients which is problematic, especially for disease control” (I31). “There is a lack of solutions. Today, we don’t see anything coming that could improve the situation” (I7).

This leads us to conclude that, despite the diversity of adaption options mentioned, these options are not satisfactory to the interviewees. Our interviewees reported several barriers to the adaptation process, classified in this section as climatic barriers, economic barriers, and knowledge gaps (Table 1 and Table 2). Removing these barriers appears to be a prerequisite for facilitating adaptation.

### 3.3.2 Addressing the challenges of climate change adaptation

The interviewees in our study perceived the challenges of adapting to climate change as a complex issue. In this section, we outline three constraints that have arisen from their experience, namely the antagonistic symptoms of climate change, the perceived increase in climate variability, and the lack of methods for anticipating long-term climatic changes.

The numerous and sometimes antagonistic symptoms of climate change were perceived as a constraint for some adaptation options. For example, the increased risk of late frost and diseases prevented modifying the sowing date or switching to winter crops to escape drought and heat stresses at reproductive stages: “It will involve early sowing to escape heat stress at flowering, but sowing earlier means getting exposed to frost” (I16).

Due to the numerous stresses impacting grain legumes, adapting to one specific stress may expose the cropping system to others. For example, switching from spring to winter crops may conflict with the provision of services by spring crops, such as the break-crop effect for weed control (mentioned in 9% of the interviews). Therefore, the complexity of climate change and the systemic nature of adaptation (i.e., adjusting management practices to escape one stress may

<table><caption>**Table 1** Non-exhaustive list of barriers to adaptation mentioned in the interviews for the three first levers (changing the cultivated varieties, adapting crop management, and redesigning cropping systems</caption><thead><tr><td>Lever</td><td>Barriers identified by the interviewees</td><td>Example quote</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Genetics</td><td>E: low investment in breeding and R&D compared with major crops</td><td>“I think that the first major barrier is funding, which is lower for legume selection.” I3</td></tr><tr><td>Genetics</td><td>T: lack of methods to anticipate future climate change</td><td>“We’ve been creating variability for years [...] but we had no tool. [...] So what we need, I think, collectively, are screening tools.” I1</td></tr><tr><td>Genetics</td><td>K: genes involved in stress tolerance?</td><td>“We need the support of research teams who could clear the way and tell us: “There are this or that genetic marker, gene, etc.”” I4</td></tr><tr><td>Management practices</td><td>C: “antagonistic” effects of climate change</td><td>“There can be modifications in crop management techniques [...]. It will consist in sowing early to escape heat stress at flowering, but sowing earlier means getting exposed to frost.” I16</td></tr><tr><td>Management practices</td><td>K: crop response to irrigation and biostimulants, pest and pathogen control, etc.?</td><td>“if I had water available, what is the water use efficiency of these crops [...] and at what stage of the crop cycle is it worth placing one round of irrigation, two rounds?” I28</td></tr><tr><td>Cropping systems</td><td>E: lack of market opportunities<br>T/E: cost of sorting</td><td>“you must be able to sort them [intercropped species] [...] but that’s expensive. When you sort, you still lose lentils.” I14</td></tr><tr><td>Cropping systems</td><td>K: lack of know-how for the management of new cropping systems</td><td>“To successfully implement this kind of system, one needs technical references on crop varieties [...], on maturity groups. How crops respond to different sowing and harvesting dates. This data is still missing to this day.” I23</td></tr></tbody></table>

that include grain legumes). The barriers are classified into C (climatic), E (economic, logistical, and organizational), K (knowledge gap), and T (technological and methodological).

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>
<caption>**Table 2** Non-exhaustive list of barriers to adaptation mentioned in the interviews for the three last levers (shifting crop production areas, securing producers' and stakeholders' income, and producing and circulating knowledge). The barriers are classified into C (climatic), E (economic, logistical, and organizational), K (knowledge gap), and T (technological and methodological).</caption>

<table><thead><tr><th>Lever</th><th>Barriers identified by the interviewees</th><th>Example quote</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Production areas</td><td>C: increasing frequency of stresses even in the north, increasing pressure on water resources<br>T: uncertain access to irrigation</td><td>“They say that soybean can be cultivated, [...] soybean withstands high temperatures, it even likes them, but it needs water. [...] [in the north-west] there are many irrigators, but not all farmers have access to irrigation, that's going to be the problem.” I24</td></tr><tr><td>Production areas</td><td>E: lack of market opportunities</td><td>“Today, we don't really have any interesting outlet. We only have production for feed that go away in barges. Apart from lentil, we don't have any existing value chain.” I14</td></tr><tr><td>Production areas</td><td>K: management and economic performances of new species? Comparative advantages of winter and spring crops?</td><td>“When you tell a farmer: “we tried this or that crop”, he will ask: “OK, I can try it, but how much will it cost me and what will I gain?” It's important to always have this notion of economic assessment.” I24</td></tr><tr><td>Stakeholders' income</td><td>E: lack of market opportunities</td><td>“it's more complicated to have an outlet to our customers, who, conversely, look for prices as low as possible [...] if our feedstuff is too expensive because we bought grains at too high a price, we won't be able to sell it.” I33</td></tr><tr><td>Knowledge</td><td>K: grain legume response to climate change?</td><td>“We've worked on viticulture, cereals, arboriculture, pastures and so on, but from memory, I could be mistaken, but I don't think we've ever worked on any specific legume species.” I22</td></tr></tbody></table>

have an impact on the whole cropping system) could reduce the efficiency of adaptation in some cases.

Some interviewees also expressed their inability to implement efficient adaptation solutions due to the increased climate variability they perceived: “Almost every year is an atypical year, and it is likely to get worse, so we're at a bit of a loss to offer solutions” (I25).

Interviewees expressed a need for methods that would enable them to anticipate long-term climatic changes. Specifically, breeders said they needed tools that would accelerate the identification and selection of stress-tolerant cultivars (e.g., experiments under controlled conditions and screening tools): “We sort of have to rely on sheer opportunity, [...] we have no guarantee to have [climate hazards] every year. So, we would like to run tests under controlled conditions to reproduce all these abiotic stresses as precisely and rigorously as possible [...] to identify stress-tolerant varieties and lines more rapidly” (I3). Experts from national extension services also expressed a need for protocols and methods to manage the climate's constant evolution: “It raises the question of how to work on these levers. Do I try them in the field? If I try them now, will my results be valid for 3–5 years in the current climate? How should I work?” (I28).

These climatic barriers are not specific to grain legumes. Conflicting timescales have already been identified as a barrier to adaptation in other studies (Biesbroek et al. 2011, 2013). Specifically, these studies describe the conflict between the long-term dynamics of climate change and the short-term dynamics of politics and decision-making. Our

results complement these studies by highlighting the conflict between the long-term dynamics of climate change and the short-term methods and tools available to the stakeholders to adapt. Although farmers have mentioned climate variability in surveys conducted on other crops (Battaglini et al. 2009; Lambert and Eise 2020; Morel and Cartau 2023), it was not specifically described as a barrier to adaptation. Our findings illustrate the specific hurdle posed by climate variability and the antagonistic effects of climate change in the case of grain legumes. Adaptation planning strategies that deal with uncertainty have been proposed in the agriculture sector (Vermeulen et al. 2013) as well as in other sectors characterized by longer time scales, such as infrastructure (Hallegatte 2009), forestry, and public policy (Dessai and Hulme 2004; Fankhauser 2017). They include concepts such as robust decision-making, iterative processes, or “no-regret” solutions. How to apply these concepts to the adaptation of annual crops like grain legumes, characterized by shorter time scales, is yet to be determined. Similarly, relevant research methods to support stakeholders' adaptation processes have yet to be designed.

### 3.3.3 Simultaneously dealing with the adaptation to climate change and the unlocking of socio-technical systems

Grain legumes will not be the only group of species affected by climate change (see for example the meta-analysis led by Challinor et al. (2014) on cereal yields under climate

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>
change). However, the fact that they are less cultivated may hinder efforts to adapt them to climate change. Based on our interviews and the scientific literature, we were able to analyze the intertwinement of climate change with the socio-technical lock-in favoring major crops (Figure 6).

First, climate change can reinforce the lock-in situation. The increased frequency of biotic and abiotic stresses can lead to an increased probability of crop failure, especially for farmers unfamiliar with grain legume cultivation. Frequent failures due to climate change can thus hinder the introduction of these species in cropping systems by farmers, as described by Meynard et al. (2018). Farmers' lack of interest in grain legumes may, in turn, reinforce barriers at other stages of the value chain (e.g., reduced investment in breeding and R&D and increased logistical constraints for collection and transformation). Second, the lock-in situation can hinder the process of adaptation to climate change. Lower investment in research and development compared with major species has left little margin for adaptation. For example, our interviewees perceived that weaker investment in breeding and public research's disinvestment from minor species had resulted in slower genetic improvement

compared to cereals, especially when it comes to the tolerance of these species to abiotic stresses (Table 1). A lack of technical references and knowledge may also prevent farmers from adapting their management practices to climate change. Finally, the lack of market opportunities and stakeholder coordination, which require time to be designed, can hinder the short-term adoption of transformative adaptation strategies such as intercropping.

Conversely, climate change may contribute to a certain extent to unlocking the situation around grain legumes. As mentioned in several interviews, climate change may indeed foster a growing interest in cropping systems that include grain legumes (e.g., incentive-based environmental policies renewing interest in grain legumes and renewed interest in crop diversification to increase system robustness) and thus create new market opportunities for these crops. Climate change may also be an opportunity for new species, such as chickpea or soybean, in areas where they were not grown heretofore.

The socio-technical lock-in hindering the development of grain legumes has been well described in the literature. For the first time, we include climate change as an additional

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

Source: Balázs et al. 2021; Magrini et al. 2016; Meynard et al. 2018; Voisin et al. 2014 / interviews

<caption>**Fig. 6** Interaction between climate change and the socio-technical lock-in hindering grain legume development. Rightward arrows symbolize the impact of non-climatic barriers on the adaptation process, whereas leftward arrows symbolize the impact of climate change</caption>

on the lock-in. Open circle arrows represent climatic barriers to the adaptation process. Data from the interviews are displayed in italics. The stakeholders interviewed for this study are indicated with asterisks (*).
component of this lock-in—as well as an opportunity for unlocking.

Public policies can play a key role in unlocking the situation, as several authors have demonstrated (Zander et al. 2016; Kuhlman et al. 2017; Balázs et al. 2021b, a). They are also central in climate change adaptation (Biesbroek et al. 2013; Eriksen et al. 2015). Public policies could therefore be a lever to promote the development of grain legumes in the context of climate change. However, it may require policy instruments to be redesigned to take into account the numerous challenges facing the development of grain legumes, as well as stakeholders' specific needs. While the European Commission has already called for new policy instruments to be designed to increase protein crop production (European Parliament 2011), the issue of ensuring legumes' sustainability in the context of climate change has yet to be addressed.

### 3.3.4 Filling knowledge gaps to support stakeholders' adaptation

In the interviews, we identified a knowledge gap on grain legume response to climate change. Over one-quarter (27%) of the interviewees used information about climate change in their activities, but only a few (12%) had access to information specifically about the impact of climate change on grain legumes. When asked how information about grain legume response to climate change could be useful to facilitate adaptation, interviewees provided a variety of potential applications. The nature of the information and the space and time scales for action depended on the intended recipient of the information (Table 3).

In addition to this knowledge gap on grain legume response to climate change, some interviewees identified other knowledge gaps hindering adaptation. According to them, many farmers lacked knowledge and know-how on grain legume cultivation, which could either prevent adaptation (e.g., a lack of knowledge on the cultivation and the economic performances of new species could prevent their

adoption by farmers) or lead to poor management and reduce the efficiency of adaptation (a lack of knowledge on winter crop cultivation, for example, would lead to poor disease management and lower yields when switching to winter crops). In addition, some interviewees from extension services and cooperatives mentioned a lack of knowledge on grain legume physiology to design adaptation options (e.g., knowledge about grain legume response to irrigation, about their pests and pathogens, and the crop management that could help to prevent their emergence or spread). Some breeders highlighted a need for more collaboration between the breeding industry and academic research to circulate knowledge on the genes enhancing stress tolerance in grain legumes. It is worth noting that almost one-third of the interviewees (27%) mentioned a lack of solutions to manage the biotic pressure, which is expected to increase with climate change.

Several studies have demonstrated the key role of knowledge in supporting grain legume adoption by farmers (Zimmer et al. 2016) and their adaptation to climate change (Howden et al. 2007). Our results show that stakeholders can be interested in specific knowledge about the impact of climate change on grain legumes. Such knowledge can be obtained through modelling, for example. However, the systematic review of model-based studies has highlighted a lack of data on grain legume response to climate change in Europe and a mismatch between available data and stakeholders' needs (Marteau-Bazouni et al. 2024). To bridge the gap between knowledge and action for adaptation, participatory modelling should be explored as a tool to meet stakeholders' needs and assist them in adapting to climate change (Beveridge et al. 2018; Naulleau et al. 2022). Such participatory processes have found application, for instance, in the design of relevant climate services to support adaptation (Touili et al. 2024).

Knowledge production does not solve everything, however. In examining how uncertainty impacts farmers' decision-making, Singh et al. (2020) drew a distinction between cases where reducing uncertainty by increasing

<table><caption>**Table 3** Potential use of information about the impact of climate change on grain legumes identified by the interviewees.</caption><thead><tr><td>Potential use</td><td>Nature of the information</td><td>Potential users</td><td>Space and time scales</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Identifying adaptation options</td><td>Agroclimatic indicators<br>Climate analogues</td><td>Local extension services, cooperatives</td><td>Local scale (NUTS3 → plot)<br>5–10 years</td></tr><tr><td>Guiding crop breeding programs</td><td>Agroclimatic indicators<br>Climate analogues</td><td>Seed breeders</td><td>National or European scale<br>10–30 years</td></tr><tr><td>Shifting crop production areas</td><td>Suitability or yield maps<br>Maps of limiting factors</td><td>Extension services, cooperatives, industries</td><td>National scale → supply area<br>5–20 years</td></tr><tr><td>Choosing the right grain legume species</td><td>Information on yield and<br>yield stability<br>Comparison with other<br>crops</td><td>Local extension services, producers</td><td>Local scale (NUTS3 → plot)<br>5–10 years</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>
the knowledge on and understanding of a problem may help them to adapt and cases characterized by high levels of observed variability that require other forms of support. Innovative design may be necessary to meet the numerous challenges associated with the adaptation of grain legumes to climate change (Prost et al. 2017).

## 3.4 Methodological limitations and perspectives

Many studies on the impacts of climate change have relied on large-scale surveys (e.g., Battaglini et al. 2009). While this approach improves the representativeness of the responses, it often relies on multiple-choice questionnaires, preset by the survey designers, which restricts the interviewees' ability to express their answers freely. On the opposite, we purposefully chose a qualitative approach inspired from the diagnosis of uses method (Cerf et al. 2012), involving semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions, to gain a deeper understanding of the interactions between the impacts of climate change on grain legumes, options for and barriers to their adaptation, and stakeholders' activities and needs, as experienced by stakeholders themselves. Thanks to this approach, we were able to capture “unanticipated” adaptation options such as value chain structuration or knowledge circulation. The limitation of this approach is the small number of interviewees. However, the goal of this exploratory study was to generate new insights rather than provide an exhaustive analysis (Morel and Cartau 2023; Malakar et al. 2024). Therefore, while we did endeavor to diversify the profiles of our interviewees, our goal was not to ensure the representativeness of stakeholders' professions or regional distribution within our sample. To represent the entire value chain comprehensively, it would have been necessary to include more individuals from processing sectors (e.g., food industries, since the only industries interviewed were feed industries), along with farmers.

The absence of farmers in our panel represents a limitation of our study. This choice was motivated by two principal reasons. The first reason was practical. To present an overview of the current situation on a national scale, we preferred to rely on experts or stakeholders who work daily with farmers and possess a comprehensive understanding of the impacts of climate change in their respective regions, following the previous work of Zhao et al. (2022). Secondly, among all the stakeholders involved in grain legume value chains, the perceptions of farmers and consumers regarding grain legumes have been the subject of extensive research. The drivers and barriers to farmers' adoption of grain legumes (Von Richthofen et al. 2006; Zimmer et al. 2016; Bonke et al. 2021; Degieter et al. 2023), as well as consumers' acceptance and willingness to purchase pulses (Schneider 2002; Lemken et al. 2019; Marette and Roosen 2022; Henn et al. 2022), have been well-studied. However,

the successful unlocking of sociotechnical systems requires paying close attention to every link in the value chains (Magrini et al. 2016; Meynard et al. 2018). One of the original contributions of our study is its focus on stakeholders such as cooperatives, extension services, seed breeders, and administration, who, despite playing a key role in agri-food systems (Magrini et al. 2016; Mawois et al. 2019), have received less attention. We showed that climate change is a challenge for grain legume development across the entire value chain.

We expect that farmers' point of view would have been more influenced by local conditions in terms of climate, soil, and farming systems. By excluding farmers from our panel, we may have overlooked information regarding the interactions between local soil conditions and climate change (van Tilburg and Hudson 2022; Stetter and Cronauer 2025). These interactions are important to consider, as adverse soil conditions can compromise crop growth, as well as the symbiosis on which the nitrogen nutrition of grain legumes depends, and increase their sensitivity to climate stresses (Salon et al. 2011; Araújo et al. 2015). Interviewing farmers would also have allowed us to identify differences between farming systems. Grain legumes can be integrated into cropping systems in various ways, such as cash crops, feed crops, intercrops, and service crops (Ditzler et al. 2021). Since it has been demonstrated that farm characteristics affect farmers' perceptions of climate change and their adaptation strategies (Peltonen-Sainio et al. 2020; Morel and Cartau 2023), we expect that the perceived impacts of climate change on grain legumes will differ among farms depending on how these crops are integrated into the cropping system. These two points would deserve further research.

Finally, our results reflect stakeholders' perceptions of climate change rather than the reality of it. Although we conducted no detailed analysis on this issue, the interviewees' reported perceptions of climate change seemed aligned with current literature on climate change and its impacts on agriculture. However, we did not attempt to verify or correct interviewees' perceptions. Although subjective, stakeholders' experience of climate change shapes their response to it and thus is a relevant output that must be taken into account when designing adaptation options (Cerf et al. 2012; Soubry et al. 2020).

## 4 Conclusion

Of all the factors constraining grain legume development in Europe, the impact of climate change is one that has received little attention from researchers to date. This study contributes to filling this gap by evaluating stakeholders' perceptions of climate change and adaptation options, as well as the barriers hindering adaptation.
Interviewees perceived complex and sometimes antago-
nistic impacts of climate change on grain legumes. Their
perceptions depended on their location and the species
considered. Although opportunities were identified for
specific species and regions, climate change was mostly
perceived as a constraint for the development of these
crops. These findings have significant implications for
grain legumes. They suggest that climate change could
jeopardize the development of these crops and hinder the
achievement of the sustainability objectives set by Euro-
pean and French policies. They highlight a need for effec-
tive adaptation strategies to support their development
despite the challenges posed by climate change. To our
knowledge, this is the first study to assess the perceptions
of various stakeholders regarding the effects of climate
change on grain legumes in Europe and the opportunities
and challenges for their adaptation to future climate.

This study presents an overview of adaptation options proposed by individual stakeholders in response to climate change. Our analysis reveals that these adaptations are subject to important constraints. To further advance this research, we suggest conducting collective workshops at the scale of small agricultural regions, involving a broad range of stakeholders, including farmers. These workshops would serve as case studies to refine locally the national diagnosis we propose here. Moreover, they would facilitate the collective formulation of consistent and systemic adaptation strategies, building upon and expanding the individual ideas envisioned by our interviewees (Moraine et al. 2014). A second research avenue would be to further explore the role of public policies, which interviewees highlighted as a key lever for effective adaptation. Innovative design could play a key role in overcoming both climatic and non-climatic barriers to adaptation.

**Acknowledgements** We sincerely thank all the interviewees who agreed to participate in the survey. Many thanks to P. Libbrecht for proofreading this article. Finally, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for their time and effort in reviewing the manuscript.

**Authors' contributions** Conceptualization: M. M-B., M-H. J., and N. G.; investigation, formal analysis, and writing—original draft preparation: M. M-B.; writing—reviewing and editing: M-H. J. and N. G.

**Funding** Open access funding provided by Université Paris-Saclay. This research was supported by the French Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Ecological Transition.

**Data Availability** The dataset generated and analyzed during the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

**Ethics approval** Not applicable.

**Consent to participate and for publication** Informed consent to partici-
pate was obtained from all interviewees. Written consent was obtained
from interviewees whose verbatims are published in the article.

**Conflict of interest** The authors declare no competing interests.

**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

References

Ahmed M, Sameen A, Parveen H, Ullah MI, Fahad S, Hayat R (2022)
Climate change impacts on legume crop production and adapta-
tion strategies. In: Ahmed M (ed) Global agricultural production:
resilience to climate change. Springer International Publishing,
Cham, pp 149–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14973-3_5

Araújo SS, Beebe S, Crespi M, Delbreil B, González EM, Gruber V, Lejeune-Henaut I, Link W, Monteros MJ, Prats E, Rao I, Vadez V, Patto MCV (2015) Abiotic stress responses in legumes: strategies used to cope with environmental challenges. Crit Rev Plant Sci 34:237–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352689.2014.898450

Balázs B, Kelemen E, Centofanti T, Vasconcelos MW, Ianetta PPM (2021) Integrated policy analysis to identify transformation paths to more sustainable legume-based food and feed value-chains in Europe. Agroecol Sust Food 45:931–953. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2021.1884165

Balázs B, Kelemen E, Centofanti T, Vasconcelos MW, Ianetta PPM (2021) Policy interventions promoting sustainable food-and feed-systems: a delphi study of legume production and consumption. Sustainability 13:7597. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147597

Battaglini A, Barbeau G, Bindi M, Badeck FW (2009) European wine-
growers’ perceptions of climate change impact and options for
adaptation. Reg Environ Change 9:61–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10113-008-0053-9

Bebber DP, Ramotowski MAT, Gurr SJ (2013) Crop pests and pathogens move polewards in a warming world. Nat Clim Change 3:985–988. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1990

Beveridge L, Whitfield S, Challinor A (2018) Crop modelling: towards locally relevant and climate-informed adaptation. Clim Change 147:475–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2160-z

Biesbroek GR, Klostermann J, Termeer C, Kabat P (2011) Barriers to climate change adaptation in the Netherlands. Clim Law 2:181–199. https://doi.org/10.1163/CL-2011-033

Biesbroek GR, Klostermann JEM, Termeer CJAM, Kabat P (2013) On the nature of barriers to climate change adaptation. Reg Environ Change 13:1119–1129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0421-y

Bonke V, Michels M, Musshoff O (2021) Will farmers accept lower gross margins for the sustainable cultivation method of mixed cropping? First insights from Germany. Sustainability 13:1631. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041631

Brisson N, Levrault F (2010) Changement climatique, agriculture et forêt en France : simulations d'impacts sur les principales espèces.

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>
Le Livre Vert du projet CLIMATOR (2007-2010). ADEME Éditions, Angers, 336 p. ISBN 978-2-35838-128-4

Brisson N, Gate P, Gouache D, Charmet G, Oury FX, Huard F (2010) Why are wheat yields stagnating in Europe? A comprehensive data analysis for France. Field Crop Res 119:201–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2010.07.012

Caviglia OP, Sadras VO, Andrade FH (2004) Intensification of agriculture in the outh-eastern Pampas. Field Crop Res 87:117–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2003.10.002

Cerf M, Jeuffroy MH, Prost L, Meynard JM (2012) Participatory design of agricultural decision support tools: taking account of the use situations. Agron Sustain Dev 32:899–910. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-012-0091-z

Cernay C, Ben-Ari T, Pelzer E, Meynard JM, Makowski D (2015) Estimating variability in grain legume yields across Europe and the Americas. Sci Rep 5:11171. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep11171

Challinor AJ, Watson J, Lobell DB, Howden SM, Smith DR, Chhetri N (2014) A meta-analysis of crop yield under climate change and adaptation. Nat Clim Change 4:287–291. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2153

Chaloner TM, Gurr SJ, Bebber DP (2021) Plant pathogen infection risk tracks global crop yields under climate change. Nat Clim Change 11:710–715. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01104-8

Clerino P, Fargue-Lelièvre A, Meynard JM (2023) Stakeholder's practices for the sustainability assessment of professional urban agriculture reveal numerous original criteria and indicators. Agron Sustain Dev 43:3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-022-00849-6

Davis J, Sonesson U, Baumgartner DU, Nemecek T (2010) Environmental impact of four meals with different protein sources: case studies in Spain and Sweden. Food Res Int 43:1874–1884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2009.08.017

Degieter M, Gellynck X, Goyal S, Mattelin M, De Wulf J, Ott D, De Steur H (2023) A mixed-methods approach to examine farmers' willingness to adopt protein crops. Outlook Agric 52:446–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270231205924

Dessai S, Hulme M (2004) Does climate adaptation policy need probabilities? Clim Policy 4:107–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2004.9685515

Dietrich L, Syrovy C, Döring TF, Jung R, Siebert S, Neuhoff D (2025) Irrigation but not fertilization increases yields and N2 fixation in organic faba bean in temperate climates. Agr Water Manage 314:109498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2025.109498

Ditzler L, van Apeldoorn DF, Pellegrini F, Antichi D, Bärberi P, Rossing WA (2021) Current research on the ecosystem service potential of legume inclusive cropping systems in Europe. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 41:6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-021-00678-z

Eriksen SH, Nightingale AJ, Eakin H (2015) Reframing adaptation: the political nature of climate change adaptation. Glob Environ Chang 35:523–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.014

European Commission (2023) Approved 28 CAP Strategic Plans (2023-2027) Facts and figures. https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/7b3a0485-c335-4e1b-a53a-9fe3733ca48f_en?filename=approved-28-cap-strategic-plans-2023-27.pdf&prefLang=fr. Accessed 2 Dec 2024

European Parliament (2011) The EU protein deficit: what solution for a long-standing problem? (2010/2111(INI)) - Report A7-0026/2011. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0026_EN.html. Accessed 12 Jun 2024

Falconnier GN, Vermue A, Journet EP, Christina M, Bedoussac L, Justes E (2020) Contrasted response to climate change of winter and spring grain legumes in southwestern France. Field Crop Res 259:107967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107967

Fankhauser S (2017) Adaptation to climate change. Annu Rev Resour Econ 9:209–230. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resour-100516-033554

Farooq M, Gogoi N, Barthakur S, Baroowa B, Bharadwaj N, Alghamdi SS, Siddique KHM (2017) Drought stress in grain legumes during reproduction and grain filling. J Agron Crop Sci 203:81–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/jac.12169

Foyer CH, Lam HM, Nguyen HT, Siddique KHM, Varshney RK, Colmer TD, Cowling W, Bramley H, Mori TA, Hodgson JM, Cooper JW, Miller AJ, Kunert K, Vorster J, Cullis C, Ozga JA, Wahlgqvist ML, Liang Y, Shou H, Shi K, Yu J, Fodor N, Kaiser BN, Wong FL, Valliyodan B, Considine MJ (2016) Neglecting legumes has compromised human health and sustainable food production. Nat Plants 2:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/NPLANTS.2016.112

Gogoi N, Farooq M, Barthakur S, Baroowa B, Paul S, Bharadwaj N, Ramanjulu S (2018) Thermal stress impacts on reproductive development and grain yield in grain legumes. J Plant Biol 61:265–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12374-018-0130-7

Guilpart N, Iizumi T, Makowski D (2022) Data-driven projections suggest large opportunities to improve Europe's soybean self-sufficiency under climate change. Nat Food 3:255–265. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00481-3

Hallegatte S (2009) Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Glob Environ Chang 19:240–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.12.003

Hassen A, Talore DG, Tesfamariam EH, Friend MA, Mpanza TDE (2017) Potential use of forage-legume intercropping technologies to adapt to climate-change impacts on mixed crop-livestock systems in Africa: a review. Reg Environ Change 17:1713–1724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1131-7

Henn K, Goddyn H, Olsen SB, Bredie WLP (2022) Identifying behavioral and attitudinal barriers and drivers to promote consumption of pulses: a quantitative survey across five European countries. Food Qual Prefer 98:104455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104455

Herridge DF, Giller KE, Jensen ES, Peoples MB (2022) Quantifying country-to-global scale nitrogen fixation for grain legumes II. Coefficients, templates and estimates for soybean, groundnut and pulses. Plant Soil 474:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-021-05166-7

Himanen SJ, Mäkinen H, Rimhanen K, Savikko R (2016) Engaging farmers in climate change adaptation planning: assessing intercropping as a means to support farm adaptive capacity. Agriculture 6:1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture6030034

Howden SM, Soussana JF, Tubiello FN, Chhetri N, Dunlop M, Meinke H (2007) Adapting agriculture to climate change. P Natl Acad Sci USA 104:19691–19696. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701890104

IPCC (2023a) Climate change 2023: Synthesis report - summary for policymakers. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2023

IPCC (2023b) Food, fibre and other ecosystem products. In: Pörtner HO, Roberts DC, Tignor M, Poloczanska ES, Mintenbeck K, Alegría A, Craig M, Langsdorf S, Löschke S, Möller V, Okem A, Rama B (eds) Climate change 2022 – impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, pp 713–906. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844.007

JORF n°0072 of 25 March (2025) Loi n°2025-268 du 24 mars 2025 d'orientation pour la souveraineté alimentaire et le renouvellement des générations en agriculture. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000051368091. Accessed 23 Dec 2025

Kates RW, Travis WR, Wilbanks TJ (2012) Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient. P Natl Acad Sci USA 109:7156–7161. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1115521109
Köpke U, Nemecek T (2010) Ecological services of faba bean. Field Crop Res 115:217–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2009.10.012

Kuhlman T, Helming J, Linderhof V (2017) Optimizing legume cropping: the policy questions. In: Murphy-Bokern D, Stoddard FL, Watson CA (eds) Legumes in cropping systems. CABI, UK, pp 226–243. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780644981.0226

Kuyah S, Sileshi GW, Nkurunziza L, Chirinda N, Ndayisaba PC, Dimobe K, Öborn I (2021) Innovative agronomic practices for sustainable intensification in sub-Saharan Africa. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 41:16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-021-00673-4

Lambert NJ, Eise J (2020) Farming in the face of uncertainty: how Colombian coffee farmers conceptualize and communicate their experiences with climate change. Int J Commun 14:258–278

Lamichhane JR, Constantin J, Schoving C, Maury P, Debaeke P, Aubertot JN, Dürr C (2020) Analysis of soybean germination, emergence, and prediction of a possible northward establishment of the crop under climate change. Eur J Agron 113:125972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2019.125972

Lemken D, Spiller A, Schulze-Ehlers B (2019) More room for legume – consumer acceptance of meat substitution with classic, processed and meat-resembling legume products. Appetite 143:104412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104412

Magrini MB, Anton M, Cholez C, Corre-Hellou G, Duc G, Jeuffroy MH, Meynard JM, Pelzer E, Voisin AS, Walrand S (2016) Why are grain-legumes rarely present in cropping systems despite their environmental and nutritional benefits? Analyzing lock-in in the French agrifood system. Ecol Econ 126:152–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.03.024

Malakar Y, Snow S, Fleming A, Fielke S, Jakku E, Tozer C, Darbyshire R (2024) Multi-decadal climate services help farmers assess and manage future risks. Nat Clim Change 14:586–591. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-02021-2

Manners R, Varela-Ortega C, van Etten J (2020) Protein-rich legume and pseudo-cereal crop suitability under present and future European climates. Eur J Agron 113:125974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2019.125974

Marette S, Roosen J (2022) Just a little bit more legumes! Results of an online survey in Europe. Int Food Agribus Manag Rev 25:329–346. https://doi.org/10.22434/IFAMR2021.0071

Marteau-Bazouni M, Jeuffroy MH, Guilpart N (2024) Grain legume response to future climate and adaptation strategies in Europe: a review of simulation studies. Eur J Agron 153:127056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2023.127056

Masud MM, Azam MN, Mohiuddin M, Banna H, Akhtar R, Alam ASAF, Begum H (2017) Adaptation barriers and strategies towards climate change: challenges in the agricultural sector. J Clean Prod 156:698–706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.060

Mawois M, Vidal A, Revoyron E, Casagrande M, Jeuffroy MH, Le Bail M (2019) Transition to legume-based farming systems requires stable outlets, learning, and peer-networking. Agron Sustain Dev 39:14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-019-0559-1

Meynard JM, Charrier F, Fares M, Le Bail M, Magrini MB, Charlier A, Messéan A (2018) Socio-technical lock-in hinders crop diversification in France. Agron Sustain Dev 38:54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0535-1

Moraine M, Duru M, Nicholas P, Leterme P, Therond O (2014) Farming system design for innovative crop-livestock integration in Europe. Animal 8:1204–1217. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114001189

Morel K, Cartau K (2023) Adaptation of organic vegetable farmers to climate change: an exploratory study in the Paris region. Agr Syst 210:103703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2023.103703

Moser SC, Ekstrom JA (2010) A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107:22026–22031. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1007887107

Naulleau A, Gary C, Prévot L, Berteloot V, Fabre JC, Crevoisier D, Gaudin R, Hossard L (2022) Participatory modeling to assess the impacts of climate change in a Mediterranean vineyard watershed. Environ Model Softw 150:105342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envso ft.2022.105342

Nendel C, Kersebaum KC, Mirschel W, Wenkel KO (2014) Testing farm management options as climate change adaptation strategies using the MONICA model. Eur J Agron 52:47–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2012.09.005

Nendel C, Reckling M, Debaeke P, Schulz S, Berg-Mohnicke M, Constantin J, Fronzek S, Hoffmann M, Jakšić S, Kersebaum KC, Klimek-Kopyra A, Raynal H, Schoving C, Stella T, Battisti R (2023) Future area expansion outweighs increasing drought risk for soybean in Europe. Glob Chang Biol 29:1340–1358. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16562

Peltonen-Sainio P, Sorvali J, Kaseva J (2020) Winds of change for farmers: matches and mismatches between experiences, views and the intention to act. Clim Risk Manag 27:100205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2019.100205

Peoples MB, Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Huguenin-Elie O, Jensen ES, Justes E, Williams M (2019) The contributions of legumes to reducing the environmental risk of agricultural production. In: Lemaire G, de Faccio Carvalho PC, Kronberg S, Recous S (eds) Agroecosystem diversity. Academic Press, pp 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811050-8.00008-X

Prost L, Berthet E, Cerf M, Jeuffroy MH, Labatut J, Meynard JM (2017) Innovative design for agriculture in the move towards sustainability: scientific challenges. Res Eng des 28:119–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-016-0233-4

Prudhomme R, Brunelle T, Dumas P, Le Moing A, Zhang X (2020) Assessing the impact of increased legume production in Europe on global agricultural emissions. Reg Environ Chang 20:91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-020-01651-4

Ravier C, Jeuffroy MH, Meynard JM (2016) Mismatch between a science-based decision tool and its use: the case of the balance-sheet method for nitrogen fertilization in France. NJAS-Wagen J Life Sci 79:31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2016.10.001

SAA (2020) Agreste - Statistique agricole annuelle (SAA). https://agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/agreste-saiku/?plugin=true&query=query/open/SAANR_DEVELOPPE_2#query/open/SAANR_DEVELOPPE_2. Accessed 8 Jul 2024

Salon C, Avice JC, Larmure A, Ourry A, Prudent M, Voisin AS (2011) Plant N fluxes and modulation by nitrogen, heat and water stresses: a review based on comparison of legumes and non legume plants. In: Shanker A, Venkateswarlu B (eds) Abiotic stress in plants - mechanisms and adaptations. InTech. ISBN 978-953-307-394-1. https://doi.org/10.5772/23474

Schneider A (2002) Overview of the market and consumption of puises in Europe. Br J Nutr 88:243–250. https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN20 02713

Seifert CA, Lobell DB (2015) Response of double cropping suitability to climate change in the United States. Environ Res Lett 10:024002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/2/024002

Serraj R, Sinclair TR, Purcell LC (1999) Symbiotic N2 fixation response to drought. J Exp Bot 50:143–155. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/50.331.143

Sharma HC, Srivastava CP, Durairaj C, Gowda CLL (2010) Pest management in grain legumes and climate change. In: Yadav S, Redden R (eds) Climate change and management of cool season grain legume crops. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 115–139

Singh AS, Eanes F, Prokopy LS (2020) Climate change uncertainty among American farmers: an examination of multi-dimensional

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>
uncertainty and attitudes towards agricultural adaptation to cli-
mate change. Clim Change 162:1047–1064. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10584-020-02860-w

Smit B, Skinner MW (2002) Adaptation options in agriculture to
climate change: a typology. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change
7:85–114. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015862228270

Soubeyroux JM, Dubuisson B, Corre L, Régimbeau M, de Cortázar-
Atauri IG (2025) Aperçu du changement climatique en France.
In: Debaeke P, Graveline N, Lacor B, Pellerin S, Renaudeau D,
Sauquet E (eds) Agriculture et changement climatique: Impacts,
adaptation et atténuation. Editions Quae, Versailles, pp 19-36.
https://doi.org/10.35690/978-2-7592-4012-8

Soubry B, Sherren K, Thornton TF (2020) Are we taking farmers seri-
ously? A review of the literature on farmer perceptions and cli-
mate change, 2007–2018. J Rural Stud 74:210–222. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.09.005

Stetter C, Cronauer C (2025) Climate and soil conditions shape farm-
ers' climate change adaptation preferences. Agr Econ 56:165–187.
https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12870

Touili N, Morel K, Aubry C, de Noblet-Ducoudré N (2024) What do
vegetable farmers expect from climate services to adapt to climate
change by 2060? A case study from the Parisian region. Clim Serv
34:100474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2024.100474

Vadez V, Berger JD, Warkentin T, Asseng S, Ratnakumar P, Rao KP, Gaur PM, Munier-Jolain N, Larmure A, Voisin AS, Sharma HC, Pande S, Sharma M, Krishnamurthy L, Zaman MA (2012) Adaptation of grain legumes to climate change: a review. Agron Sustain Dev 32:31–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-011-0020-6

van Tilburg AJ, Hudson PF (2022) Extreme weather events and
farmer adaptation in Zeeland, the Netherlands: a European cli-
mate change case study from the Rhine delta. Sci Total Environ
844:157212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157212

Vautard R, van Oldenborgh GJ, Bonnet R, Li S, Robin Y, Kew S, Philip S, Soubeyroux JM, Dubuisson B, Viovy N, Reichstein M, Otto F, de Garcia Cortazar-Atauri I (2023) Human influence on growing-period frosts like the early April 2021 in Central France. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 23:1045–1058. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-1045-2023

Vermeulen SJ, Challinor AJ, Thornton PK, Campbell BM, Eriyagama
N, Vervoort JM, Kinyangi J, Jarvis A, Läderach P, Ramirez-Vil-
legas J, Nicklin KJ, Hawkins E, Smith DR (2013) Addressing

uncertainty in adaptation planning for agriculture. Proc Natl Acad
Sci U S A 110:8357–8362. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.12194
41110

Voisin AS, Guéguen J, Huyghe C, Jeuffroy MH, Magrini MB, Meynard JM, Pelzer E (2014) Legumes for feed, food, biomaterials and bioenergy in Europe: a review. Agron Sustain Dev 34:361–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0189-y

Von Richthofen JS, Pahl H, Bouttet D, Casta P, Cartrysse C, Charles R, Lafarga A (2006) What do European farmers think about grain legumes? Grain Legumes 45:14–15

Watson CA, Reckling M, Preissel S, Bachinger J, Bergkvist G, Kuh-
lman T, Lindström K, Nemecek T, Topp CFE, Vanhatalo A,
Zander P, Murphy-Bokern D, Stoddard F (2017) Grain legume
production and use in European agricultural systems. Adv Agron
144:235–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2017.03.003

Woods BA, Nielsen HØ, Pedersen AB, Kristofersson D (2017) Farm-
ers’ perceptions of climate change and their likely responses in
Danish agriculture. Land Use Policy 65:109–120. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.04.007

Zander P, Amjath-Babu TS, Preissel S, Reckling M, Bues A, Schläfke N, Kuhlman T, Bachinger J, Uthes S, Stoddard F, Murphy-Bokern D, Watson C (2016) Grain legume decline and potential recovery in European agriculture: a review. Agron Sustain Dev 36:26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0365-y

Zhao J, Bindi M, Eitzinger J, Ferrise R, Gaile Z, Gobin A, Holzkämper A, Kersebaum KC, Kozyra J, Kriaučiūnienė Z, Loit E, Nejedlik P, Nendel C, Niinemets U, Palosuo T, Peltonen-Sainio P, Potopová V, Ruiz-Ramos M, Reidsma P, Rijk B, Trnka M, van Ittersum MK, Olesen JE (2022) Priority for climate adaptation measures in European crop production systems. Eur J Agron 138:126516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2022.126516

Zimmer S, Liebe U, Didier JP, Heß J (2016) Luxembourgish farmers'
lack of information about grain legume cultivation. Agron Sustain
Dev 36:2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0339-5

**Publisher's Note** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>