Advertisement

Human Ecology

, 37:491 | Cite as

The Cultural Keystone Concept: Insights from Ecological Anthropology

  • Simon Platten
  • Thomas Henfrey
Article

Abstract

The concept of the keystone species has a long history in ecological analysis, although its validity remains controversial. Anthropological researchers have recently coined the term cultural keystone species, but have not demonstrated any significant differences from existing treatments of culturally important species. We define cultural keystones according to their systemic function, as having essential roles in maintaining any level of complexity within a social–ecological system. Examples include bitter cassava consumption among lowland South American groups such as the Wapishana in Guyana, and commercial cultivation of carrots in Rurukan Village in Minahasa, Indonesia. These examples are both essential at one level of systemic reproduction: within the domestic and village economy in the cassava case, and carrots within regional markets. While each is centred upon a single biological species, the cultural keystone itself is not this species, but a complex incorporating several material and non-material system elements.

Keywords

Cultural keystone species Cultural significance Biocultural diversity Social–ecological systems Ethnobiology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Roy Ellen and Michael Fischer for instructive advice and comments during the writing of this paper, to Rachel Kaleta for introducing us to the keystone concept, to our friends in each of the research locations, and to two anonymous reviewers. Simon Platten’s fieldwork was supported by an ESRC-NERC studentship. Thomas Henfrey was supported during fieldwork by an APFT studentship from EC DG VIII, and during writing by a Hunt postdoctoral fellowship from the Wenner Gren Foundation.

References

  1. Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. Fontana, London.Google Scholar
  2. Bond, W. J. (1994). Keystone species. In Shultze, E. D., and Mooney, H. A. (eds.), Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function. Springer, Berlin, pp. 237–253.Google Scholar
  3. Brosi, B. J., Balick, M. J., Wolkow, R., Lee, R., Kostka, M., Raynor, W., Gallen, R., Raynor, A., Raynor, P., and Ling, D. L. (2007). Cultural Erosion and Biodiversity: Canoe-Making Knowledge in Pohnpei, Micronesia. Conservation Biology 21(3): 875–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Byg, A., Vormisto, J., and Balslev, H. (2006). Using the Useful: Characteristics of used Palms in South-Eastern Ecuador. Environment, Development and Sustainability 8: 495–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clay, J. W. (1997). Brazil nuts: the use of a keystone species for conservation and development. In Freese, C. H. (ed.), Harvesting Wild Species: Implications for Biodiversity Conservation. The Johns Hopkins University Press, London, pp. 246–282.Google Scholar
  6. Cristancho, S., and Vining, J. (2004). Culturally Defined Keystone Species. Human Ecology Review 11(2): 153–164.Google Scholar
  7. Daily, G. C., Ehrlich, P. R., and Haddad, N. M. (1993). Double keystone bird in a keystone species complex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 90(2): 592–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davic, R. D. (2000). Ecological Dominants vs. Keystone Species: A Call for Reason. Conservation Ecology 4(1): r2. http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss1/resp2.Google Scholar
  9. Davic, R. D. (2002). Herbivores as Keystone Predators. Conservation Ecology 6(2): r8. http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss2/resp8.Google Scholar
  10. Davic, R. D. (2003). Linking Keystone Species and Functional Groups: A New Operational Definition of the Keystone Species Concept. Conservation Ecology 7(1): r11. http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss1/resp11.Google Scholar
  11. Davic, R. D. (2004). Epistemology, Culture, and Keystone Species. Ecology and Society 9(3): r1. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/resp1/.Google Scholar
  12. De Leo, G. A., and Levin, S. (1997). The Multifaceted Aspects of Ecosystem Integrity. Conservation Ecology 1(1): 3. http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss1/art3/.Google Scholar
  13. Ellen, R. F. (1978). Nuaulu Settlement and Ecology: An Approach to the Environmental Relations of an Eastern Indonesian Community. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
  14. Ellen, R. F. (1982). Environment, Subsistence and System: The Ecology of Small-Scale Social Formations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  15. Ellen, R. F. (2003). On the Edge of the Banda Zone: Past and Present in the Social Organisation of a Moluccan Trading Network. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.Google Scholar
  16. Ellen, R. F. (2004a). The distribution of Metroxylon sagu and the historical diffusion of a complex traditional technology. In Boomgaard, P., and Henley, D. (eds.), Smallholders and Stockbreeders: Histories of Food Crop and Livestock Farming in Southeast Asia. KITLV, Leiden.Google Scholar
  17. Ellen, R. F. (2004b). Processing Metroxylon sagu Rottboell (Arecaceae) as a Technological Complex: A Case Study from South Central Seram, Indonesia. Economic Botany 58(4): 600–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ellen, R. F. (2006). Local Knowledge and Management of Sago Palm (Metroxylon sagu Rottboell) Diversity in South Central Seram, Maluku, Eastern Indonesia. Journal of Ethnobiology 26(2): 258–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garibaldi, A., and Turner, N. J. (2004a). Cultural Keystone Species: Implications for Ecological Conservation and Restoration. Ecology and Society 9(3): 1. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art1.Google Scholar
  20. Garibaldi, A., and Turner, N. (2004b). The Nature of Culture and Keystones. Ecology and Society 9(3): r2. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/resp2/.Google Scholar
  21. Gelcich, S., Edwards-Jones, G., Kaiser, M. J., and Castilla, J. C. (2006). Co-management Policy Can Reduce Resilience in Traditionally Managed Marine Ecosystems. Ecosystems 9: 951–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grimm, N. B. (1995). Why link species and ecosystems? A perspective from ecosystem ecology. In Jones, C. G., and Lawton, J. H. (eds.), Linking Species and Ecosystems. Chapman & Hall, New York, pp. 5–15.Google Scholar
  23. Henfrey, T. B. (2002). Ethnoecology, resource use, conservation and development in a Wapishana community in the South Rupununi, Guyana. Ph.D. thesis, University of Kent at Canterbury. http://lucy.ukc.ac.uk/csacpub/Henfrey_thesis/.
  24. Henfrey, T. B., and Platten, S. (2006). On cultural keystone complexes and their implications for system function. In Cybernetics and Systems 2006: The Proceedings of the 18th European Meeting on Cybernetics and System research. Austrian Society for Cybernetic studies, Vienna.Google Scholar
  25. Higdon, J. W. (2002). Functionally Dominant Herbivores as Keystone Species. Conservation Ecology 6(2): r4. http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss2/resp4/.Google Scholar
  26. Higgs, E. (2005). The Two-Culture Problem: Ecological Restoration and the Integration of Knowledge. Restoration Ecology 13(1): 159–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Holling, C. S. (1992). Cross-Scale Morphology, Geometry, and Dynamics of Ecosystems. Ecological Monographs 62(4): 447–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hurlbert, S. H. (1997). Functional Importance vs. Keystoneness: Reformulating Some Questions in Theoretical Biocenology. Australian Journal of Ecology 22: 369–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kay, C. E. (1998). Are Ecosystems Structured from the Top-Down or Bottom-Up: A New Look at an Old Debate. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26(3): 484–498.Google Scholar
  30. Kerley, G. I. H., Whitford, W. G., and Kay, F. R. (1997). Mechanisms for the Keystone Status of Kangaroo Rats: Graminivory Rather Than Granivory? Oecologia 111(3): 422–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Khanina, L. (1998). Determining Keystone Species. Conservation Ecology 2(2): R2. http://www.consecol.org/Journal/vol2/iss2/resp2.Google Scholar
  32. Knapp, A. K., Blair, J. M., Briggs, J. M., Collins, S. L., Hartnett, D. C., Johnson, L. C., and Towne, E. G. (1999). The Keystone Role of Bison in North American Tallgrass Prairie. Bioscience 49(1): 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kotliar, N. B. (2000). Application of the New Keystone-Species Concept to Prairie Dogs: How Well Does It Work? Conservation Biology 14(6): 1715–1721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lawton, J. H., and Jones, C. G. (1995). Linking species and ecosystems: organisms as ecosystem engineers. In Jones, C. G., and Lawton, J. H. (eds.), Linking Species and Ecosystems. Chapman & Hall, New York, pp. 141–150.Google Scholar
  35. Levey, D. J. (1990). Habitat-Dependent Fruiting Behavior of an Understory Tree, Miconia-Centrodesma, and Tropical Treefall Gaps as Keystone Habitats for Frugivores in Costa Rica. Journal of Tropical Ecology 6(4): 409–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meilleur, B. A. (1994). In search of ‘keystone societies’. In Etkins, N. L. (ed.), Eating on the Wild Side. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 250–279.Google Scholar
  37. Menge, B. A., Berlow, E. L., Blanchette, C. A., Navarette, S. A., and Yamada, S. B. (1994). Variation in Interaction Strength in a Rocky Intertidal Habitat. Ecological Monographs 64(3): 249–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Miller, B., Reading, R., Hoogland, J., Clark, T., Ceballos, G., List, R., Forrest, S., Hanebury, L., Manzano, P., Pacheco, J., and Uresk, D. (2000). The Role of Prairie Dogs as a Keystone Species: Response to Stapp. Conservation Biology 14(1): 318–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mills, L. S., Soulé, M. E., and Doak, D. F. (1993). The Keystone-Species Concept in Ecology and Conservation. Bioscience 43(4): 219–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nabhan, G. P., and Carr, J. L. (eds.) (1994). Ironwood: an ecological and cultural keystone of the Sonoran Desert. Conservation International Occasional Paper No. 1, Conservation International, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  41. O’Neill, R. V., and Kahn, J. R. (2000). Homo Economus as a Keystone Species. Bioscience 50(4): 333–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Paine, R. T. (1966). Food Web Complexity and Species Diversity. American Naturalist 100: 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Paine, R. T. (1969). A Note on Trophic Complexity and Community Stability. American Naturalist 103: 91–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Payton, I. J., Fenner, M., and Lee, W.G. (2002). Keystone Species: The Concept and Its Relevance for Conservation in New Zealand. Science for Conservation 203.Google Scholar
  45. Piraino, S., and Fanelli, G. (1999). Keystone Species: What Are We Talking About? Conservation Ecology 3(1): r4. http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/resp4/.Google Scholar
  46. Platten, S. J. (2005). The cultural dynamics of agricultural innovation in a Minahasan village. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Kent.Google Scholar
  47. Platten, S. J. (2007). Carrots and clove: Traditional change in upland Minahasan agriculture. In Ellen, R. F. (ed.), Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Modern Crises in Island Southeast Asia. Berghahn, Oxford.Google Scholar
  48. Power, M. E., and Mills, L. S. (1995). The Keystone Cops Meet in Hilo. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10(5): 182–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Power, M. E., Tilman, D., Estes, J. A., Menge, B. A., Bond, W. J., Mills, L. S., Daily, G., Castilla, J. C., Lubchenco, J., and Paine, R. T. (1996). Challenges in the Quest for Keystones. Bioscience 46(8): 609–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rosemund, A. D., and Anderson, C. B. (2003). Engineering Role Models: Do Non-human Species Have the Answers? Ecological Engineering 20: 379–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schulze, E. D., and Mooney, H. A. (1994). Ecosystem function of biodiversity: a summary. In Shulze, E. D., and Mooney, H. A. (eds.), Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function. Springer, Berlin, pp. 497–510.Google Scholar
  52. Simberloff, D. (1998). Flagships, Umbrellas, and Keystones: Is Single-Species Management Passé in the Landscape Era? Biological Conservation 83(3): 247–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. St. Antoine, S. (1994). Ironwood and art: lessons in cultural ecology. In Nabhan and Carr (eds.), Ironwood: An Ecological and Cultural Keystone of the Sonoran Desert. Conservation International Occasional Paper No. 1, Conservation International, Washington D.C., pp. 69–85.Google Scholar
  54. Stercho, A. M. (2006). The Importance of Place-Based Fisheries to the Karuk Tribe of California: A Socioeconomic Study. M.A. thesis, Humboldt State University.Google Scholar
  55. Steward, J. H. (1955). Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution. University of Illinois Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  56. Stoffle, R. W., Halmo, D. B., 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(2): 416–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tanner, J. P., Hughes, E. P., and Connell, J. H. (1994). Species Coexistence, Keystone Species, and Succession: A Sensitivity Analysis. Ecology 75(8): 2204–2219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Terborgh, J. (1986). Keystone plant resources in the tropical forests. In Soulé, M. (ed.), Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Sinauer, Sunderland, pp. 330–344.Google Scholar
  59. The Snow Leopard Conservancy. (2007). Mountain Cultures, Keystone Species: Exploring the Role of Cultural Keystone Species in Central Asia. Final Report (Grant 2005–2019) submitted to The Christensen Fund by SLC/ Cat Action Treasury, Sonoma, California.Google Scholar
  60. Ticktin, T., Amaka Whitehead, A. N., and O‘Ala Fraiola, H. (2006). Traditional Gathering of Native Hula Plants in Alien-Invaded Hawaiian Forests: Adaptive Practices, Impacts on Alien Invasive Species and Conservation Implications. Environmental Conservation 33(3): 185–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Turner, N. J. (1988). ‘The Importance of a Rose’: Evaluating the Cultural Significance of Plants in Thompson and Lillooet Interior Salish. American Anthropologist 90(2): 272–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Unruh, G. C. (2000). Understanding Carbon Lock-In. Energy Policy 28(12): 817–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vanclay, J. (1999). On the Nature of Keystone Species. Conservation Ecology 3(1): r3. http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/resp3/.Google Scholar
  64. Willson, M. F., and Halupka, K. C. (1995). Anadromous Fish as Keystone Species in Vertebrate Communities. Conservation Biology 9(3): 489–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of KentCanterburyUK
  2. 2.Department of AnthropologyDurham UniversityDurhamUK

Personalised recommendations