Advertisement

Human Ecology

, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 191–202 | Cite as

Intra-cultural Differences in the Importance of Plant Resources and Their Impact on Management Intensification in the Tehuacán Valley, Mexico

  • Martha Sofía González-InsuastiEmail author
  • Alejandro Casas
  • Ignacio Méndez-Ramírez
  • Carlos Martorell
  • Javier Caballero
Article

Abstract

Management of plant resources is a complex process that involves the interaction of numerous cultural, environmental, economic, and ecological factors Therefore, understanding factors influencing management decisions requires multidisciplinary approaches, including both quantitative and qualitative perspectives. This study explores quantitative approaches as methodological tools with which to identify patterns underlying more intensive management of plant resources. The research was conducted in the village of Santa María Tecomavaca, Oaxaca, in south-central México, within the semiarid Tehuacán-Cuicatlán Biosphere Reserve. Three models explaining the management intensity tendencies were identified, consistent with the pattern of multiple variables influencing plant management.

Keywords

Domestication Edible plants Intracultural variation Resources management Tehuacán-Cuicatlan Valley 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This research was supported by the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT) throught Project G35450-V “Los Recursos Vegetales del Valle de Tehuacán-Cuicatlán desde una perspective Etnobotánica”. Special gratitude is expressed to Rafael Lira for his advice and support, as well as Santa María Tecomavaca community for their hospitality and help.

References

  1. Alcorn, J. B. (1981). Huastec non crop resource management: implications for prehistoric rain forest management. Human Ecology 9: 395–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alcorn, J. B. (1989). Process as resource: the traditional agricultural ideology of Bora and Huastec resource management and its implications for research. Advances in Economic Botany 7: 63–76.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, A. B., and Posey, D. A. (1989). Management of a tropical scrub savanna by the Gorotire Kayapo, Brazil. Advances in Economic Botany 7: 159–173.Google Scholar
  4. Arellano, E., and Casas, A. (2003). Morphological Variation of Escontria chiotilla (Cactaceae) under Silvicultural Management in the Tehuacán Valley, Central México. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 50: 439–453.Google Scholar
  5. Azurdia-Pérez, C. (1984). La otra cara de las malezas. Tikalia 3 (2): 5–23.Google Scholar
  6. Balée, W. (1989). The cultura of Amazonian forest. Advances in Economic Botany 7: 1–21.Google Scholar
  7. Balée, W., and Gély, A. (1989). Managed forest succesion in Amazonia: the Ka’apor case. Advances in Economic Botany 7: 129–158.Google Scholar
  8. Bentler, P. M., and Bonnet, y D. G. (1980). Significance test and goodness of fit in analysis of covariance structures. Psychology bulletin 88: 588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bentler, P. M. (2002). EQS 6 structural equations model program manual. Encino, C.A. Multivariate software inc.Google Scholar
  10. Berkes, F. (1998). Indigenous knowledge and resource management systems in the Canadian Subartic. In Berkes, F., Folke, C., and Colding, J. (1998) Linking social and ecological system. Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilence, Cambridge University press, Cambridge, pp. 98-128.Google Scholar
  11. Berkes, F., Holding, J., and Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications 10: 1251–1262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Berlin, B., Breedlove, D. E., and. Raven, P. H. (1974). Principles of Tzeltal Plant Classification. An Introduction to the Botanical Ethnography of a Mayan-Speaking People of Highland Chiapas, Academic press New York and London, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Bye, R. A. (1998). La intervención del hombre en la diversidad de las plantas en México. In Ramamoorthy, T. P., Bye, R. A., Lot, A. and Fa, J. (eds.) Diversidad Biológica de México, Orígenes y Distribución, Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México D.F., pp. 689–713.Google Scholar
  14. Caballero, J. (1987). Etnobotánica y desarrollo: la búsqueda de nuevos recursos vegetales. In Toledo, V. M. (ed.) Proceedings of IV Congreso Latinoamericano de Botánica: Simposio de Etnobotánica, perspectivas en Latioamerica, Medellín Colombia, June 29–July 5, 1986, Universidad de Antioquia, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Asociación Colombiana para el Avance de la Ciencia, Asociación Latinoamericana de Botánica, Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales, pp. 79–96.Google Scholar
  15. Caballero, J., and Mapes, C. (1985). Gathering and Subsistence Patterns among the Purepecha of Patzcuaro, México. Journal of Ethnobiology 5(1): 31–34.Google Scholar
  16. Caballero, J., Casas, A., Cortés, L., and Mapes, C. (2000). Patrones en el conocimiento, uso y manejo de las plantas en pueblos de México. Estudios Atacameños 16: 1–15.Google Scholar
  17. Callen, E. O. (1967). Analysis of the Tehuacan coprolites. In Byers, D. S. (ed.) The prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley. Volumen 1: Environments and subistence, University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 261–289.Google Scholar
  18. Camou-Guerrero, A., Reyes-García, V., Martínez-Ramos, M., Casas, A. (2008). Knowledge and use value of plant species in a Rarámuri community: A gender perspective for conservation. Human Ecology 36: 259–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Casas, A., Vázquez, M. C., Viveros, J. L. and Caballero, J. (1996). Plant management among the Nahua and the Mixtec in the Balsas River Basin, Mexico: An ethnobotanical approach to the study of plant domestication. Human Ecology 24: 455–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Casas, A., Caballero, J., Mapes, C., and Zárate, S. (1997a). Manejo de la vegetación, domesticación de plantas y orígen de la agricultura en Mesoamérica. Boletín de la Sociedad Botánica de México 61: 17–31.Google Scholar
  21. Casas, A., Pickersgill, B., Caballero, J. and Valiente-Banuet, A. (1997b). Ethnobotany and domestication in xoconochtli, Stenocereus stellatus (Cactaceae) in the Tehuacán Valley and La Mixteca Baja, Mexico. Economic Botany 51: 279–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Casas, A., Caballero, J., and Valiente-Banuet, A. (1999a). Procesos de domesticación en cactáceas columnares de la vertiente del Pacífico sur de México. In Pimienta-Barrios, E. (ed.). El Pitayo en Jalisco y Especies Afines en México, Universidad de Guadalajara, Fundación Jalisco Produce, Guadalajara, pp. 147–234.Google Scholar
  23. Casas, A., Caballero, J., and Valiente-Banuet, A. (1999b). Use, manegement and domestication of columnar cacti in south-central México: A historical perspective. Journal of Ethnobiology 19: 71–95.Google Scholar
  24. Casas, A., Valiente-Banuet, A., Viveros, J. L., Caballero, J., Cortés, L., Dávila, P., Lira, R., and Rodríguez, I. (2001). Plant resources of the Tehuacán-Cuicatlán Valley, México. Economic Botany 55: 129–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Casas, A., Otero-Arnaiz, A., Pérez-Negrón, E., and Valiente-Banuet, y A. (2007). In situ management and domestication of plants in Mesoamerica. Annals of Botany 100 (5): 1101–1115.Google Scholar
  26. Colunga, P., Hernández-X, E., and Castillo, A. (1986). Variación morfológica, manejo agrícola tradicional y grado de domesticación de Opuntia spp. en el bajío guanajuatense. Agrociencia 65: 7–44.Google Scholar
  27. Cruz, M., and Casas, A. (2002). Morphological variation and reproductive biology of Polaskia chende (Cactaceae) under domestication in central México. Journal of Arid Environment 51: 561–576.Google Scholar
  28. Davies, T. and Bye, R. A. (1981). Ethnobotany and progressive domestication of Jaltomata (Solanaceae) in México and Central America. Economic Botany 36: 225–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Feeny, D., Berkes, F., McCay, B. J., and Acheson, J. M. (1990). The tragedy of the commons: twenty-two years later. Human Ecology 18(1): 1–19.Google Scholar
  30. Frei, B., Sticher, O., and Heinrich, M. (2000). Zapotec and Mixe use of tropical habitats for securing medicinal plants in México. Economic Botany 54: 73–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gadgil, M. and Berkes, F. (1991). Traditional resource management systems. Resource Management and Optimization 18: 127–141.Google Scholar
  32. González, L. (1972). Las cactaceas subfósiles de Tehucán, Puebla. Cactáceas y Suculentas Mexicanas 17: 3–15.Google Scholar
  33. González-Insuasti, M. S. (2006). Factores que influyen en la intensificación de manejo de recursos vegetales por parte de poblaciones humanas: un estudio de caso del valle de Tehuacan-Cuicatlán. PhD Dissertation. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México.Google Scholar
  34. González-Insuasti, M. S., and Caballero, J. (2007). Managing plant resource: how intensive can it be? Human Ecology 35(3): 303–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. González-Insuasti, M. S. Martorell, C., and Caballero, J. (2008). Factors tha influence the intensity of non-agricultural management of plant resources. Agroforestry Systems 74 : 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Goodenough, W. H. (2003). In pursuit of culture. Annual Review of Anthropology 32: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Grupo Mesófilo (2001). Ordenamiento Territorial, Santa María Tecomavaca. Teotitlán Oaxaca. Etapa 1: Diagnóstico y Sistematización de la Información Comunitaria. Internal Document of Work Comisariado Municipal Santa María Tecomavaca, estado de Oaxaca, México.Google Scholar
  38. Harris, D. R. (1996). Domesticatory relationships of people, plants and animals. In Ellen, R. and Fukui, K. (eds.) From Redefining Nature: Ecology, Culture and Domestication, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 437–466.Google Scholar
  39. Hernández, X. E., Ramos, R. A. (1977). Metodología para el estudio de agroecosistemas con persistencia de tecnología agrícola tradicional. In: Agroecosistemas de México: contribuciones a la enseñanza, investigación y divulgación agrícola. Efraím Hernández X (ed). Colegio de Postgraduados, Chapingo, México. pp. 321–334.Google Scholar
  40. Hunn, E. (1982). The utilitarian factor in folk biological classification. American Anthropologist 84: 830–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (INEGI) (2001). Censo General de Población y Vivienda 2000. México.Google Scholar
  42. Kottak, C. P. (2004). An anthropological take on sustainable development: A comparative study of change. Human Organization 63: 501–510.Google Scholar
  43. Lawrence, A., Philips, O., Reategui-Ismodes, A., López, M., Rose, S., Wood, D., and Farfan, A. J. (2005). Local values for harvested forest plants in Madre de Dios, Peru: Towards a more contextualized interpretation of quantitative ethnobotanical data. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 45–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Luna, M. D. C. (1999). Etnobotánica de la pitaya mixteca (Pachyceraceae). PhD Dissertation. Colegio de Posgraduados de Chapingo, Chapingo, México.Google Scholar
  45. Luna, M. D. C., Aguirre, J. R., and Peña-V, C. B. (2001). Cultivares tradicionales mixtecos de Stenocereus stellatus (Cactaceae). Anales del Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Serie Botánica 72(2): 131–155.Google Scholar
  46. MacNeish, R. S. (1967). A summary of the subsistence. In Byers, D. S. (ed.) The Prehistory of the Tehuacán Valley, University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 290–331.Google Scholar
  47. Mapes, C. (1997). Etnobotánica del “quintonil” conocimiento, uso y manejo de Amaranthus spp. en México. PhD Dissertation. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México.Google Scholar
  48. Méndez-Ramírez, I. (2003). Modelos estructurales de covarianza. In González-Leonell, D. (ed.) Modelamiento structural en las ciencias sociales, Universidad de Sonora at Hermosillo press, pp. 13–36.Google Scholar
  49. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Actions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  50. Ostrom, E. (2001). Social Dilemmas and Human Behavior. In Noë, R., Hooff van, J. A. R. A. M. and Hammerstein, P. (eds.) Economics in Nature: Social Dilemmas, Mate Choice, and Biological Markets, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 21–41.Google Scholar
  51. Padoch, C. (1987). The economic importante and marketing of forest and fallow products in the Iquitos Region. Advances in Economic Botany 5: 74–89.Google Scholar
  52. Peacock, S. L. and Turner, N. J. (2000). “Just like a garden” traditional resource management and biodiversity conservation on the interior plateau of british columbia. In Minnis, P. E., and Elisens, W. J. (eds.) Biodiversity and native America, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, pp. 44–73.Google Scholar
  53. Philips, O., and Gentry, A. H. (1993a). The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru: I. Statistical hypothesis test with a new quantitative technique. Economic Botany 47: 15–32.Google Scholar
  54. Philips, O., and Gentry, A. H. (1993b). The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru: II. Additional hypothesis testing in quantitative ethnobotany. Economic Botany 47: 33–43.Google Scholar
  55. Pieroni, A. (2001). Evaluation of the cultural significance of wild food botanicals traditionally consumed in northwestern Tuscany, Italy. Journal of Ethnobiology 21(1):89–104.Google Scholar
  56. Pimienta-Barrios, E. and Nobel, P. S. (1994). Pitaya (Stenocereus spp., Cactaceae): an ancient and modern fruit crop of Mexico. Economic Botany 48: 76–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Platten, S and Henfrey, T. (2009). The cultural keystone concept: insights from ecological anthropology. Human Ecology 37: 491–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Posey, D. A. (1992). Interpreting and applying the “reality” of indigenous concepts: what is necessary to learn from the natives?. In Redford, K. H. and Padoch, C. (eds.) Conservation of Neotropical Forest. Working from Traditional Resource Use, Columbia University Press, Nueva York, pp. 21–33.Google Scholar
  59. Rindos, D. (1984). The Origin of Agriculture an Evolutionary Perspective, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  60. Shipley, B. (2000). Cause and Correlation in Biology. A User’s Guide to Path Analysis, Structural Equations and Causal Inference, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Smith, C. E. (1967). “Plants remains”. In Byers, D. S. (ed.) The prehistory of the Tehuacán valley. Environment and subsistence I, University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 220–255.Google Scholar
  62. Stoffle, R. W., Halmo, D. V., Evans, M. J. and Olmsted, J. E. (1990). Calculating the cultural significance of American indian plants: Paiute and Shoshone Ethnobotany at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. American Anthropologist 92: 417–432Google Scholar
  63. Tinoco, A., Casas, A., Luna, R., Oyama, K. (2005). Population genetics of Escontria chiotilla in wild and silvicutural managed populations in the Tehuacán Valley, central Mexico. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 52: 525–538.Google Scholar
  64. Turner, N. J. (1988). “The importante of a rose”: Evaluating the cultural significance of plants in Thompson and Lillooet Interior Salish. American anthropologist 90: 272–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Turner, N. J., Boelscher, M., and Ignace, A. (2000). Traditional ecological knowledge and wisdom of aboriginal peoples in Brithis Columbia. Ecological Applications 10: 1275–1287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vázquez, M. del C. (1991). Tendencias en el proceso de domesticación del papaloquelite (Porophyllum ruderale (Jacq.) Cass. Subsp. macrocephalum (DC.) R. R. Jonson Asteraceae). M. en C. Dissertation. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México.Google Scholar
  67. Warman, A. (2001). El campo mexicano en el siglo XXI. Fondo de Cultura Económica. México D.F.Google Scholar
  68. Wilken, G (1970). The ecology of gathering in a Mexican farming region. Economic Botany 24: 286–295.Google Scholar
  69. Williams, D. E. (1985). Tres arvenses solanáceas comestibles y su proceso de domesticación en el estado de Tlaxcala, México. M. en C. Dissertation. Colegio de Posgraduados at Montecillo, México.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martha Sofía González-Insuasti
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alejandro Casas
    • 2
  • Ignacio Méndez-Ramírez
    • 3
  • Carlos Martorell
    • 3
  • Javier Caballero
    • 3
  1. 1.Universidad de Nariño, ColombiaNariñoColombia
  2. 2.Universidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoMichoacánMéxico
  3. 3.Universidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoMéxico D.F.México

Personalised recommendations