Abstract
The concept of “ecological keystone species” underscores the central role certain species play in ecosystem dynamics. Analogously, “cultural keystone species” are essential in organizing social-ecological systems, reflecting the critical relationship between humans and their environment. While various indicators have been proposed for identifying cultural keystone species, recent studies have questioned their efficacy. Challenges persist in defining clear criteria for identifying these species, distinguishing them from other culturally and economically important species, and incorporating the emic perspectives of local communities. To address these challenges, we propose the cultural keystone species syndrome (CKSS) approach, which focuses on species identified as unique from an emic perspective. We conducted a case study in the Araripe-Apodi Environmental Protection Area in northeastern Brazil, where two communities, Horizonte and Sítio Macaúba, rely heavily on plant extraction for livelihoods. Using the free listing technique, we identified species considered culturally important by local residents. Our findings reveal an overlap between species identified as having the cultural keystone species syndrome and those considered only culturally significant, challenging the notion of exclusive cultural keystone species. We discuss the implications of our findings for biocultural conservation and highlight the need for a more nuanced understanding of cultural keystone species and their role in shaping social-ecological systems dynamics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The data supporting this study’s findings are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
Albuquerque, U. P., M. A. Ramos, R. F. P. Lucena, and N. L. Alencar. 2014. Methods and Techniques Used to Collect Ethnobiological Data. In: Methods and Techniques in Ethnobiology and Ethnoecology, eds. U. P. Albuquerque, L. V. F. C. Cunha, R. F. P. Lucena, and R. R. N. Alves, 15–37. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8636-7_2
Assis, A. L., N. Hanazaki, M. S. Reis, A. Mattos, and N. Peroni. 2010. Espécie Chave Cultural: Indicadores e Aplicabilidade em Etnoecologia. In: Etnoecologia em Perspectiva: Natureza, Cultura e Conservação, eds. A. G. C. Alves, F. J. B. Souto, and N. Peroni, 165-186. Recife: NUPEEA.
Axelsson, E. P., and F. M. Franco. 2023. Popular Cultural Keystone Species are also understudied — the case of the camphor tree (Dryobalanops aromatica). Trees, Forests and People 13: 100416.
Barbetta, P. A. 2008. Estatística aplicada às ciências sociais. Florianópolis, Santa Catarina: Ed UFSC.
Campos, L. Z., U. P. Albuquerque, N. Peroni, and E. L. Araújo. 2015. Do socioeconomic characteristics explain the knowledge and use of native food plants in semiarid environments in Northeastern Brazil? Economy Botany 115(1): 53-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2015.01.002
Cavalcanti, M. C. B. T., L. Z. Campos, L. Z., R. S. Sousa, and U. P. Albuquerque. 2015. Pequi (Caryocar coriaceum Wittm., Caryocaraceae) Oil Production: A strong economically influenced tradition in the Araripe region, northeastern Brazil. Ethnobotany Research and Applications 14: 437–452.
Chaves, L. S., A. L. B. Nascimento, and U. P. Albuquerque. 2019. What matters in free listing? A probabilistic interpretation of the salience index. Acta Botanica Brasilica 33(2): 360–369. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-33062018abb0330
Coe, M. A., and O. G. Gaoue. 2020a. Cultural keystone species revisited: Are we asking the right questions? Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 16(1): 70. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-020-00422-z
Coe, M. A., and O. G. Gaoue. 2020b. Most Cultural Importance Indices Do Not Predict Species’ Cultural Keystone Status. Human Ecology 48(6): 721-732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-020-00192-y
Cristancho, S., and J. Vining. 2004. Culturally defined keystone species. Human Ecology Review 11(2): 153-164.
Davic, R. D. 2004. Epistemology, culture, and keystone species. Ecology and Society 9(3). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/resp1/
De Meyer, E. 2023. The Spiritual Valuation of Erythrophleum suaveolens, a Cultural Keystone Species in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Economic Botany 77: 103–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-023-09566-x
Gaoue, O. G., M. A. Coe, M. Bond, G. Hart, B. C. Seyler, and H. McMillen. 2017. Theories and Major Hypotheses in Ethnobotany. Economy Botany 71(3): 269-287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-017-9389-8
Garibaldi, A. 2009. Moving from model to application: cultural keystone species and reclamation in fort Mckay, Alberta. Journal of Ethnobiology 29(2): 323–338. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-29.2.323
Garibaldi, A., and N. Turner. 2004. Cultural keystone species: implications for ecological conservation and restoration. Ecology and Society 9(3): 1-18.
IBAMA [Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis]. 2004. Plano de Manejo da Floresta Nacional do Araripe. Brasília: Ibama. https://www.gov.br/icmbio/pt-br/assuntos/biodiversidade/unidade-de-conservacao/unidades-de-biomas/caatinga/lista-de-ucs/flona-do-araripe-apodi/arquivos/flona_araripe_pm_diag3.pdf
Paine, R. T. 1969. A note on trophic complexity and community stability. The American Naturalist 103(929): 91–93.
Petelka, J., G. Bonari, I. Säumel, B. Plagg, and S. Zerbe. 2022. Conservation with local people: medicinal plants as cultural keystone species in the Southern Alps. Ecology and Society 27(4):14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13510-270414
Platten, S. J., and T. Henfrey. 2009. The cultural keystone concept: insights from ecological anthropology. Human Ecology 37: 491-500.
Reyes-García, V., Á. Fernández-Llamazares, P. McElwee, Z. Molnár, K. Öllerer, S. J. Wilson, and E. S. Brondizio. 2019. The contributions of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology 27(1): 3-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12894
Santos, L. L., F. J. Vieira, L. G. S. Nascimento, A. C. O. Silva, and G. M. Souza. 2014. Techniques for collecting and processing plant material and their application in ethnobotany research. In: Methods and techniques in ethnobiology and ethnoecology, eds. U. P. Albuquerque, L. V. F. C. Cunha, R. F. P. Lucena, and R. R. N. Alves, 161–173. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8636-7_11
Silva, T. C., L. Z. O. Campos, W. Balée, M. F. T. Medeiros, N. Peroni, and U. P. Albuquerque. 2017. Human impact on the abundance of useful species in a protected area of the Brazilian Cerrado by people perception and biological data. Landscape Research 44(1): 75-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1396304
Sousa D. C. P., G. T. Soldati, J. M. Monteiro, T. A. S. Araújo, and U. P. Albuquerque. 2016. Information Retrieval during Free Listing Is Biased by Memory: Evidence from Medicinal Plants. PLoS ONE 11(11): e0165838. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165838
Sousa R. S., P. M. Medeiros, and U. P. Albuquerque. 2019. Can socioeconomic factors explain the local importance of culturally salient plants in a social-ecological system? Acta Botanica Brasilica 33(2): 283–291. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-33062018abb0320
Souther, S., N. Lyndon, and D. Randall. 2021. Insights into the restoration and sustainable management of Emory oak: A southwestern cultural keystone species. Forest Ecology and Management 483: 118900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118900
Uprety, Y., H. Asselin, and Y. Bergeron. 2017. Preserving Ecosystem Services on Indigenous Territory through Restoration and Management of a Cultural Keystone Species. Forests 8(6): 194. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8060194
Uprety, Y., and H. Asselin. 2023. Biocultural Importance of the Chiuri Tree [Diploknema butyracea (Roxb.) H. J. Lam] for the Chepang Communities of Central Nepal. Forests 14(3): 479. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14030479
Zambrana, N. Y. P., R. W. Bussmann, R. E. Hart, A. L. M. Huanca, G. O. Soria, M. O. Vaca, D. O. Álvarez, J. S. Morán, M. S. Morán, S. Chávez, B. C. Moreno, G. C. Moreno, O. Roca, and E. Siripi. 2018. To list or not to list? The value and detriment of freelisting in ethnobotanical studies. Nature Plants 4: 201–204. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-018-0128-7
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the residents of the Horizonte and Sítio Macaúba communities for their attention, responsiveness, and participation; the Research Network on Biodiversity and Local Knowledge (REBISA); and the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio) for their support during the development of this research. The authors also thank the members of the Laboratory of Ecology and Evolution of Social-Ecological Systems (LEA), especially the entire LEA-Araripe team, for their valuable and enjoyable moments in the field; Dr. Washington Soares Ferreira-Junior, Dr. Gustavo Taboada Soldati, and Dr. Patricia Medeiros for their assistance with the data analysis and the fruitful discussions of this work. Similarly, we would like to express our intense gratitude to Dr. Ina Vandebroek (Editor-in-Chief of Economic Botany) and the anonymous reviewers who led us to rethink the structure and content of this work completely.
Funding
This work was financially supported by the Foundation for Science and Technology of the State of Pernambuco (FACEPE-APQ 1264–2.05/10).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
RSS conducted the field experiment, data analysis, and interpretation. UPA supervised the project and was involved in the data analysis and interpretation. ASC, FIRS, TCS, and UPA reviewed the manuscript and participated in the data analysis, interpretation, and final drafting. All the authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics Approval
Before collecting the data, authorization (No. 27093–1) was obtained through the Biodiversity and Conservation System (SISBIO) to develop the study in the Protected Area. As this research involved human subjects, the project was approved by the Research Ethics Committee (CEP) of the Federal University of Pernambuco through Plataforma Brasil (No. 139 813) and the Certificate of Presentation for Ethics Appreciation (CAAE) No. 02187512.8.0000.5207. Once the project was presented to the members of the communities, they were invited to participate and sign a statement of consent (TCLE) as established by Resolution 466/12 of the National Health Council (CNS), which authorized the collection and publication of the data.
Competing Interests
Dr. Ulysses Albuquerque declares that he serves as Senior Associate Editor for Economic Botany and has removed himself from the peer-review process for this paper.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Sousa, R.d., Cantalice, A.S., dos Santos, F.I.R. et al. Contributions to the Identification of Cultural Keystone Species from an Emic Perspective: a Case Study from Northeast Brazil. Econ Bot (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-024-09603-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-024-09603-3