Skip to main content
Log in

The palm has its time: an Ethnoecology ofSabal uresana in Sonora, Mexico

La Palma tiene su Tiempo: Una Etnoecológica de Sabal uresana en Sonora, México

  • Published:
Economic Botany Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Participant observation and formal interviews were used to learn what local people understood of palm natural history and how palms were managed. Ecological and ethnographic methods were combined to assess traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and traditional resource management (TRM). Palm workers understood TEK and TRM for palms. This knowledge was not general in the population, however. Residence, harvester status, and gender were strongly correlated with TEK and TRM. Harvest practices included limiting access, “sparing,” controlling harvest times and levels, and choice of leaf age and palm size. “Alpha” management is proposed as practices which maintain populations long-term. In this case, sparing was the single most important practice. “Beta” management is shorter term and important for obtaining good quality product in sufficient quantities. Although the impacts are more subtle, it can affect population structure over time. This study provides one prototype for identifying practices which function as de facto conservation traditions for wild-harvested species.

Resumen

Observación participante y entrevistas formales fueron los métodos utilizados para aprender cómo la gente local entendió la historia natural y manejo de las palmas. Métodos ecológicos y etnográficos fueron combinados para valorar el conocimiento tradicional de la ecología (TEK) y el manejo tradicional de los recursos (TRM) para las palmas. Aunque los palmeros entiendieron TEK y TRM para las palmas, este conocimiento no era generalizado entre la población. La residencia, y el estatus y el género del palmero fueron correlacionados fuertemente con TEK y TRM. Las prácticas de cosecha incluyeron: acceso limitado a las poblaciones, uso moderado de grandes palmas, tiempos y niveles controlados de cosecha, selección del tamaño de la palma y edad de la hoja. El manejo “alpha” es un manejo a largo plazo para el mantenimiento de las poblaciones, en este caso a través del uso moderado de las palmas grandes. El manejo “beta” es un manejo a corto plazo e importante para la obtención de productos de buena calidad en suficientes cantidades. Aunque su impacto sobre las poblaciones es más sutil, si puede afectar la estructura poblacional con el tiempo. Este estudio provee un modelo para valorar las especies silvestres e identificar las prácticas tradicionales que de hecho funcionan en la conservación de estas especies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature cited

  • Anderson, M. K. 1991. California Indian Horticulture: Management and use of redbud by the Southern Sierra Miwok. Journal of Ethnobiology 11:145–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balée, W. 1988. Indigenous adaptation to Amazonian palm forests. Principes: 32:47–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1994. Footprints of the forest: Ka’apor ethnobotany —the historical ecology of plant utilization by an Amazonian people. Columbia University, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balick, M. J., ed. 1988. The palm—tree of life: biology, utilization and conservation. Advances in Economic Botany 6.

  • —,and H. Beck, eds. 1990. Useful palms of the world. Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benz, B. F., F. Santana, R. Pineda, J. Cavados, L. Robles, and D. De Niz. 1994. Characterization ofmestizo plant use in the Sierra de Manantlan, Jalisco-Colima, Mexico. Journal of Ethnobiology 14: 23–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes, F. 1993. Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective. Pages 1–9,in Inglis, J. T., ed. Traditional ecological knowledge: concepts and cases. International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and International Development Centre, Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlin, B., D. E. Breedlove, and P. H. Raven. 1974. Principles of Tzeltal plant classification. Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, H. R. 1988. Research methods in cultural anthropology. Sage Publications, Newbury Park.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodley, J. H., and F. C. Benson. 1979. Cultural ecology of Amazonian palms. Reports of Investigation no. 56, Laboratory of Anthropology, Wash. State University, Pullman, WA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bye, R. A. 1976. Ethnoecology of the Tarahumara of Chihuahua, Mexico. PhD dissertation, unpublished. Department of Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

  • Caballero, J. 1994. Use and management ofSabal palms among the Maya of Yucatan. PhD dissertation, unpublished, University of California, Berkeley.

  • Chabot, B. F., and D. J. Hicks. 1982. The ecology of leaf life spans. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 13:229–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chazdon, R. L. 1991. Effects of leaf and ramet removal on growth and reproduction ofGeonoma congesta, a clonal understorey palm. Journal of Ecology 79:1137–1146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, L., V. Morrissette, and G. Regallet. 1992. Our responsibility to the seventh generation: indigenous peoples and sustainable development. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnepeg, Manitoba.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, A. B., and S. J. Milton. 1987. Effects of basket-weaving industry on Mokola Palm and dye plants in northwestern Botswana. Economic Botany 41:386–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Walt, B. R. 1994. Using indigenous knowledge to improve agriculture and natural resource management. Human Organization 53:123–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fong, F. W. 1992. Perspectives for sustainable resource utilization and management of Nipa vegetation. Economic Botany 46:45–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, J. J. 1977. Harvest of the palm: Ecological change in Eastern Indonesia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentry, H. S. 1942. A study of the flora and vegetation of the valley of the Rio Mayo, Sonora. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 527, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1963. The Warihio Indians of Sonora-Chihuahua: an ethnographic survey. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletins 186, Anthropological Papers 65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Getz, W. M.,and R. G. Haight. 1989. Population harvesting: demographic models of fish, forest and animal resources. Monographs in population biology 27.

  • Hall, P., and K. Bawa. 1993. Methods to assess the impact of extraction of non-timber tropical forest products on plant populations. Economic Botany 47:234–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hecht, S. B., A. B. Anderson, and P. May. 1988. The subsidy from nature: shifting cultivation, successional palm forests, and rural development. Human Organization 47:25–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinton, T. B. 1959. A survey of Indian assimilation in eastern Sonora. Anthropological papers No. 4. University of Arizona, Tucson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunn, E. S. 1982. Mobility as a factor limiting resource use in the Columbia Plateau of North America. Pages 17–43in Williams, N. M. and E. S. Hunn, eds. Resource managers: North American and Australian hunter-gathers. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglis, J. T., ed. 1993. Traditional ecological knowledge: concepts and cases. International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and International Development Centre, Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa.

  • Janzen, D. H. 1988. Tropical dry forests: the most endangered major tropical ecosystem. Pages 130–137,in Wilson, E. O., ed. Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jochim, M. A. 1976. Hunter-gather subsistence and settlement: a predictive model. Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. V. 1988. Worldwide endangerment of useful palms. Advances in Economic Economic 6: 268–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joyal, E. 1994. Palm ethnoecology in the Saripiqui region of Costa Rica. Journal of Ethnobiology 14: 161–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joyal, E.. 1995. An ethnoecology ofSabal uresana Trelease (Arecaceae) in Sonora, Mexico. PhD dissertation, unpublished, Arizona State University, Tempe.

  • —. 1996. The use ofSabal uresana (Arecaceae) and other palms in Sonora, Mexico. Economic Botany 50:429–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lande, R., S. Engen, and B. Saether. 1994. Optimal harvesting, economic discounting and extinction risk in fluctuating populations. Nature 372:88–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, Gary. 1995. Ethnobotany: a methods manual. Chapman & Hall, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mejia, K. 1988. Utilization of palms in elevenmestizo villages of the Peruvian Amazon (Ucayali River, Department of Loreto). Advances in Economic Botany 6:130–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendoza, A., D. Piñero, and J. Sarukhán. 1987. Effects of experimental defoliation on growth, reproduction and survival ofAstrocaryum mexicanum. Journal of Ecology 75:545–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nentvig, J. 1977. El rudo ensayo. Descripcion geografica, natural y curiosa de la Provincia de Sonora, 1764. Introduction, appendix, notes, and index by M. Nolasco, T. Martinez, and A. Flores. SEP Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia. Proyectos Especiales 58. Colección Cientifica. Etnologia. México, DF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonacs, P. 1993. Is satisficing an alternative to optimal foraging theory? Oikos 67:371–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oyama, K., and A. Mendoza. 1990. Effects of defoliation on growth, reproduction, and survival of a neotropical dioecious palm,Chamaedorea tepejilote. Biotropica 22:119–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, C. M. 1994. Sustainable harvest of non-timber plant resources in tropical moist forests: an ecological primer. Biodiversity Support Program,% World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfefferkorn, I. 1949, 1989. Sonora: a description of the province. Translated and annotated by Treutlein, T. E. University of New Mexico Press, Alburqueque.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, O., and A. H. Gentry. 1993. The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru: I. Statistical hypotheses tests with a new quantitative technique. Economic Botany 47:15–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinard, M. A., and F. E. Putz. 1992. Population matrix models and palm resource management. Bull. Inst. fr. études andines 21:637–649.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posey, D. A., J. Frechione, J. Eddins, L. Francelino da Silva, withD. Myers, D. Case, and P. MacBeath. 1984. Ethnoecology as applied anthropology in Amazonian development. Human Organization 43:95–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prance, G. T., W. Balée, B. M. Boom, and R. L. Carneiro. 1987. Quantitative ethnobotany and the case for conservation in Amazonia. Conservation Biology 1:296–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyke, G. H. 1984.Optimal foraging theory: a critical review. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 15:523–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rambo, T. 1985. Primitive polluters: Semang impact on the Malaysian tropical rain forest ecosystem. Anthropological Papers 76. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute, Inc. 1989. SAS/STAT User’s Guide, Version 6, Fourth edition, Vols. 1–2. Cary, NC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarukhán, J. 1978. Studies on the demography of tropical trees. Pages 163–184,in Tomlinson, P. B, and M. H. Zimmermann, eds. Tropical trees as living systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmink, M., K. H. Redford, and C. Padoch. 1992. Traditional peoples and the biosphere: framing the issues and defining the terms. Pages 3–13,in Redford, K. H., and C. Padoch. Conservation of neotropical forests: working from traditional resource use. Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Secretaría de Desarrollo Social (SEDESOL). 1994. Norma oficial Mexicana NOM-059-ECOL-1994, que determina las especies y subespecies de flora y fauna silvestres terrestres y acuáticas en peligro de extinctión, amenazadas, raras y las sujetas a protección especial, y que establece especificaciones para su protección. Diario oficial de la federación 488(10):22. México, DE

    Google Scholar 

  • Suzán, Humberto, G. Malda, J. Jiménez, L. Hernández, M. Martínez, and G. Nabhan. 1989. Evaluación de plantas amenazadas y en peligro de extinctión en el estado de Tamaulipas. BIOTAM 1: 20–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • TEK TALK, The editor. June 1992. TEK TALK: A newsletter on traditional ecological knowledge 1:1. UNESCO, Ottawa, Ontario.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uhl, N. W., and J. Dransfield. 1987. Genera Palmarum. A classification of palms based on the work of Harold E. Moore, Jr. Allen Press, Lawrence, KS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster’s seventh collegiate dictionary. 1971. Springfield, MA.

  • Williams, N. M., and G. Baines. 1993. Traditional ecological knowledge: wisdom for sustainable development. Centre for resource and environmental studies, Australian National University, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zona, S. 1990. A monograph ofSabal (Arecaceae: Coryphoideae). Aliso 12(4):583–666.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Joyal, E. The palm has its time: an Ethnoecology ofSabal uresana in Sonora, Mexico. Econ Bot 50, 446–462 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02866527

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02866527

Key Words

Navigation