Skip to main content

Crop Specialization, Exchange and Robustness in a Semi-arid Environment

Abstract

We compare the robustness of food supplies to annual variation in rainfall within two different agricultural systems: a generalist system with one type of agent who cultivates both maize and agave, and a specialist system composed of two types of agents who cultivate either maize or agave and are able to exchange. When mean rainfall is relatively high and less variable or relatively low and more variable, food supplies in the specialist system are more robust than in the generalist system. However, at intermediate levels of mean rainfall and variability, food supplies in the specialist system are less robust than those in the generalist system. Our analysis suggests that conflicts of interest and their associated costs constrain the development of specialization in some environments. When considering the robustness of social-ecological systems, it is important to consider “for whom a coupled social and ecological system is robust?”

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. Our basic scaling of the ecological parameters sets the per-unit area productivity of the landscape at 1 unit of maize and agave, respectively. Thus, a demand of 20 units demands that at least area units of maize and area units of agave be planted. However, the environment is variable, so we are assuming that agents plant 50 % more than is required to hedge against shortfalls, thus the maize and agave cultivation areas are of 21, and 9, respectively.

References

  • Anderies, J. M., Nelson, B. A., and Kinzig, A. P. (2008). Analyzing the Impact of Agave Cultivation on Famine Risk in Pre-Hispanic, Arid Northern Mexico. Human Ecology 36: 409–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderies, J. M., Rodriguez, A. A., Janssen, M. A., and Cifdaloz, O. (2007). Panaceas, uncertainty, and the robust control framework in sustainability science. PNAS 104(39): 15194–15199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M., and Ostrom, E. (2004). A framework to analyze the robustness of social ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecology and Society 9(1): 18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armillas P. 1964. Condiciones ambientales y movimientos de pueblos en la frontera septentrional de Mesoamerica. In Homenaje a Fernando Marquez-Miranda. Pp. 62-82. Publicaciones del Seminario de Antropologìa Americana. Madrid: Universidades de Madrid y Sevilla.

  • Berney C. 2002. Trade on the Mesoamerican Frontier: Evaluating the Significance of Blue-Green Stone at La Quemada, Zacatecas, Mexico. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of British Columbia.

  • Braniff, B. (2000). A Summary of the Archaeology of North-Central Mesoamerica: Guanajuato, Queretaro, and San Luis Potosi. In Foster, M. S., and Gorenstein, S. (eds.), Greater Mesoamerica: The Archaeology of West and Northwest Mexico. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 35–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braniff, B., and Hers, M.-A. (1998). Herencias chichimecas. Arqueologia 19: 55–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calviño, P. A., Andrade, F. H., and Sadras, V. O. (2003). Maize yield as affected by water availability, soil depth, and crop management. Agronomy Journal 95(2): 275–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J. M., and Abel, N. (2001). From Metaphor to Measurement: Resilience of What to What? Ecosystems 4(8): 765–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cashdan, E. (2001). Ethnic Diversity and its Environmental Determinants: Effects of Climate, Pathogens, and Habitat Diversity. American Anthropologist 103(4): 968–991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castetter, E. F., Bell, W., and Grove, A. (1938). The Early Utilization and Distribution of Agave in the American Southwest. Bulletin 6. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapin, F., Walker, B., Hobbs, R., Hooper, D., Lawton, J., Sala, O., and Tilman, D. (1997). Biotic control over the functioning of ecosystems. Science 277(5325): 500–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darling JA. 1998. Obsidian Distribution and Exchange in the North-Central Frontier of Mesoamerica. PhD thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan.

  • Elliott, M., Fisher, C. T., Nelson, B. A., Molina Garza, R. S., Collins, S. K., and Pearsall, D. M. (2010). Climate, agriculture, and cycles of human occupation over the last 4000 yr in southern Zacatecas, Mexico. Quarternary Research 74(1): 26–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ermentrout B. 2006. Xppaut 5.96.

  • Fish, S. K., Fish, P. R., and Madson, J. H. (1992). Evidence for Large Scale Agave Cultivation in the Marana Community. In Fish, S. K., Fish, P. R., and Madson, J. H. (eds.), The Marana Community in the Hohokam World. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 73–87. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, A. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social-relations. Psychological Review 99(4): 689–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The Emergence of a Perspective for Social-Ecological Systems Analyses. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions 16(3): 253–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, E., Mabee, W., and Figge, F. (2005). A framework for assessing the vulnerability of food systems to future shocks. Futures 37(6): 465–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glover, J. (1957). The relationship between total seasonal rainfall and yield of maize in the Kenya highlands. Journal of Agricultural Science 49(3): 285–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gluckman, M. (1941). Economy of the Central Bartose Plain. Rhodes-Livingston Institute, Livingston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., and Gintis, H. (2004). Introduction. In Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., and Gintis, H. (eds.), Foundations of human sociality: economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 1–7.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Heyman, J., and Ariely, D. (2004). Effort for payment: A tale of two markets. Psychological Science 15: 787–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosler, D. (1988). Ancient West Mexican Metallurgy: South and Central American Origins and West Mexican Transformations. American Anthropologist 90: 832–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosler, D. (1994). The Sounds and Colors of Power: The Sacred Metallurgical Technology of Ancient West Mexico. MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez, P. (1995). Algunas observaciones sobre la dinámica cultural de la arqueologìa de zacatecas. In Dahlgren, B., and de Archavaleta, M. S. (eds.), Arqueologìa del Norte y del Occidente de México. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, pp. 35–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez, P. (1992). Una red de interracion del noroeste de mesoamerica: Una interpretacion. In Lameiras, B. B., and Weigand, P. C. (eds.), Origen y desarrollo de la civilizacion en el occidente de Mexico: Homenaje a Pedro Armillas y Angel Palerm. El Colegio de Michoácan, Zamora, pp. 177–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez, P., and Darling, J. A. (2000). Archaeology of Southern Zacatecas: The Malpaso, Juchipila, and Valparaiso-Bolaños Valleys. In Foster, M. S., and Gorenstein, S. (eds.), Greater Mesoamerica: The Archaeology of West and Northwest Mexico. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 155–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, J. C. (1971). Archaeology of the Northern Frontier: Zacatecas and Durango. In Ekholm, G. F., and Bernal, I. (eds.), Handbook of Middle American Indians. Volume 11, Archaeology of Northern Mesoamerica. University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 768–804.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, S. A. (1999). Fragile Dominion: Complexity and the Commons. Perseus Books, Reading (MA).

  • Low, B., Ostrom, E., Simon, C., and Wilson, J. (2003). Redundancy and diversity: Do they influence optimal management? In Berkes, F., Colding, J., and Folke, C. (eds.), Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 83–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mabry, J. B. (2005). Diversity in early southwestern farming and optimization models of the in transition to agriculture. In Diehl, M. W. (ed.), Subsistence and Resource Use Strategies of Early Agricultural Communities in Southern Arizona. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, pp. 113–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauss, M. (2006). The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. Routledge, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millhauser JK. 1999. Economic, Social, and Ritual Dimensions of Obsidian Use in the Malpaso Valley, Zacatecas, Mexico, A.D. 500–900. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University.

  • Monaghan, J. (1996). Fiesta Finance in Mesoamerica and the Origins of a Gift Exchange System. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 2(3): 499–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, B. A. (1992). El maguey y nopal en la economìa de subsistencia de La Quemada, Zacatecas. In de Lameiras, B. B., and Weigand, P. C. (eds.), Origen y Desarollo de la Civilización en el Occidente de México. Colegio de Michoacán, Zamora, pp. 359–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, B. A. (1997). Chronology and Stratigraphy at La Quemada, Zacatecas, Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 24: 85–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, B. A., Darling, J. A., and Kice, D. A. (1992). Mortuary Practices and the Social Order at La Quemada, Zacatecas, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 3: 298–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson MC, Anderies JM, Hegmon M, Norberg J. 2010. The Complexities of Ecological and Social Diversity: A Long-term Perspective. Coupled Human-Natural Systems, National Science Foundation Proposal.

  • Norberg, J., Swaney, D., Dushoff, J., Lin, J., Casagrandi, R., and Levin, S. (2001). Phenotypic diversity and ecosystem functioning in changing environments: A theoretical framework. PNAS 98(20): 11376–11381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, J. R. (2010). The Pastoral Niche in Pre-Hispanic Mesoamerica. In Staller, J. E., and Carrasco, M. D. (eds.), Pre-Columbian Foodways: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Food, Culture, and Markets in Ancient Mesoamerica. Springer, New York, pp. 109–136.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, J. R., and Parsons, M. H. (1990). Maguey Utilization in Highland Mexico: An Archaeological Ethnography. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pianka, E. R. (1973). Evolutionary ecology. Harper and Row, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pryor, F. (1986). The Adoption of Agriculture: Some Theoretical and Empirical Evidence. American Anthropologist 88(4): 879–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reidsma P, Ewert F. 2008. Regional farm diversity can reduce vulnerability of food production to climate change. Ecology and Society 13(1).

  • Richards, A. I. (1961). Land, Labour and Diet in Northern Rhodesia: An Economic Study of the Bemba Tribe, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricker, W. E. (1954). Stock and Recruitment. Journal of the Fisheries Board of Canada 11(5): 559–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahlins, M. D. (1972). Stone Age Economics. Aldine-Atherton, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauer, C. O. (1963). Land and Life: A Selection from the Writing of C. O. Sauer. University of California Press, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilman, D., Wedin, D., and Knops, J. (1996). Productivity and Sustainability Influenced by Biodiversity in Grassland Ecosystems. Nature 379: 718–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trombold, C. D., and Israde-Alcántara, I. (2005). Paleoenvironment and Plant Cultivation on Terraces at La Quemada, Zacatecs, Mexico: The Pollen, Phytolith and Diatom Evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science 32: 341–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turkon, P. (2004). Food and Status in the Prehispanic Malpaso Valley, Zacatecas, Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23(2): 225–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, B., Kinzig, A., and Langridge, J. (1999). Plant attribute diversity, resilience, and ecosystem function: The nature and significance of dominant and minor species. Ecosystems 2(2): 95–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weigand, P. C., Harbottle, G., and Sayre, E. V. (1977). Turquoise Sources and Source Analysis: Mesoamerica and the Southwestern U.S.A. In Earle, T. K., and Ericson, J. E. (eds.), Exchange Systems in Prehistory. Academic Press, New York, pp. 15–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, E. R. (1982). Europe and the People Without History. University of California Press, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge funding provided by the National Science Foundation grant CNH-1113991 and Barrett Honors College. We would like to thank the LTVTP research group at ASU, especially Ann Kinzig and Keith Kintigh, as well as two anonymous reviewers for very helpful comments that improved the final version of this manuscript. All errors are out own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacob Freeman.

Appendix: Mathematical Details

Appendix: Mathematical Details

Maize yield: As discussed in the text, the yield of maize in our model is a function of rainfall.

If the yield of maize per unit area and mean annual rainfall in year t are defined as Y t and r t , respectively, then the productivity of maize, as shown in Fig. 1a is formalized as

$$ {Y}_t\left({r}_t\right)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}0\hfill & {r}_t\le {r}_m^l\hfill \\ {}\alpha \left({r}_t-{r}_m^l\right)\hfill & {r}_m^l<{r}_t\le {r}_m^u\hfill \\ {}Y \max \hfill & {r}_t>{r}_m^u.\hfill \end{array}\right. $$
(7)

Where α is the slope of the line between r °l m and r °u m in Fig. 1a, i.e.,

$$ \alpha =\frac{Y \max }{r_m^u-{r}_m^l}. $$
(8)

Note, see Table 7 for parameter definitions.

Table 7 Model state variables and parameter definitions

Maize storage: The amount of stored maize available for agent i in period t + 1 is equal to that available in period t, M i t , less what is consumed in period t, U i c , plus what is acquired in period t (either through cultivation or exchange), P i m (r t ), less what spoils between period t and t + 1. This yields the mathematical expression:

$$ {M}_{t+1}^i=\left({M}_t^i-{U}_c^i+{P}_m^i\left({r}_t\right)\right)\left(1-{\delta}_m\right) $$
(9)

where 1 − δ m is the proportion of maize that does not spoil from period t to t + 1. As defined above, the amount of maize available to each type of specialist depends on the amount produced in each period, P m (r t ). For the generalist in the Anderies et al. (2008) model, P m (r t ) is equal to the yield of maize, Y t . For the maize specialist here, P m (r t ) is the yield of maize less what is exchanged (Y t  − gift). For the agave specialist, P m (r t ) is the maize that can be “purchased” through the exchange of agave with the maize specialist.

Agave population dynamics: The biomass of agave per unit area in each age class alive in period t + 1 is the biomass of the immediately younger age class in t times the proportional increase in biomass through plant growth between t and t + 1, times the proportion that survive between between t and t + 1, as described in the text. We define the biomass of age class k at time t as x k t . Thus, x 7 62 is the biomass of 7-year olds in year 62. We define two survival functions s j (r t ), and s a (r t ) where the subscripts j and a denote juvenile and adult, respectively. These are functions of r t , the rainfall in period t and which have the shapes shown in Fig. 1b and c, respectively. Given our definition of the growth function, we can write

$$ {x}_{t+1}^k={s}_j\left({r}_t\right)\cdot {x}_t^{k-1}\cdot \exp \left(a\cdot \left[1-{x}_t^{k-1}\right]\right) $$
(10)

for the juveniles (k = 1,2,3) and

$$ {x}_{t+1}^k={s}_a\left({r}_t\right)\cdot {x}_t^{k-1}\cdot \exp \left(a\cdot \left[1-{x}_t^{k-1}\right]\right) $$
(11)

for adults (k = 4–15). Finally, we assume that the cultivator collects and transplants a constant number of new “pups” each year, i.e. x 0 t  = c for some constant c and for all t.

Rainfall dynamics: The rainfall in period t is a stochastic process given by

$$ {r}_t= \max \left(\widehat{r}\left(1+{\sigma}_rw\right),0\right). $$
(12)

where w is a standard normal random variable. Expression (12) generates a positive random variable that is approximately normally distributed with mean ≈ \( \widehat{r} \), and standard deviation ≈ \( \widehat{r} \) σ r for values of σ r  < 1, as in our case. See text for detailed discussions of U i c , P i m , g(x k − 1), and s k (r t ).

Comparing systems: We are comparing two “systems” consisting of populations of agents. System one consists of identical agents, all of the same type. The agents in this system exercise a strategy of cultivating both agave and maize. We call this agent a “generalist”, and by association we call this the “generalist” system. System two consists of a population with two types of agents. The first type exercises a strategy of cultivating only agave and exchanging with agents of the other type. We refer to this type as the “agave specialists”. The second type exercises the strategy of growing maize only and exchanging with the agave specialists. We call this second type the “maize specialists”. Again, by association, we call system two the “specialist system”. Because of its special characteristic, the “generalist system” can be viewed from the perspective of a single agent, as agents do not interact and they are all identical. In the specialist system, this is not the case, the units are defined in terms of a certain group size in which some individuals grow maize others grow agave.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Freeman, J., Anderies, J.M., Torvinen, A. et al. Crop Specialization, Exchange and Robustness in a Semi-arid Environment. Hum Ecol 42, 297–310 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-013-9638-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-013-9638-0

Keywords

  • Specialization and exchange
  • Social-ecological system
  • Crop diversity
  • Robustness
  • Risk