Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Cultural Keystone Concept: Insights from Ecological Anthropology

  • Published:
Human Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. Fontana, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Cristancho, S., and Vining, J. (2004). Culturally Defined Keystone Species. Human Ecology Review 11(2): 153–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Davic, R. D. (2002). Herbivores as Keystone Predators. Conservation Ecology 6(2): r8. http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss2/resp8.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Davic, R. D. (2004). Epistemology, Culture, and Keystone Species. Ecology and Society 9(3): r1. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/resp1/.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Ellen, R. F. (1982). Environment, Subsistence and System: The Ecology of Small-Scale Social Formations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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/.

  • 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.

  • Higdon, J. W. (2002). Functionally Dominant Herbivores as Keystone Species. Conservation Ecology 6(2): r4. http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss2/resp4/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgs, E. (2005). The Two-Culture Problem: Ecological Restoration and the Integration of Knowledge. Restoration Ecology 13(1): 159–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holling, C. S. (1992). Cross-Scale Morphology, Geometry, and Dynamics of Ecosystems. Ecological Monographs 62(4): 447–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurlbert, S. H. (1997). Functional Importance vs. Keystoneness: Reformulating Some Questions in Theoretical Biocenology. Australian Journal of Ecology 22: 369–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanina, L. (1998). Determining Keystone Species. Conservation Ecology 2(2): R2. http://www.consecol.org/Journal/vol2/iss2/resp2.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, L. S., Soulé, M. E., and Doak, D. F. (1993). The Keystone-Species Concept in Ecology and Conservation. Bioscience 43(4): 219–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • O’Neill, R. V., and Kahn, J. R. (2000). Homo Economus as a Keystone Species. Bioscience 50(4): 333–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paine, R. T. (1966). Food Web Complexity and Species Diversity. American Naturalist 100: 65–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paine, R. T. (1969). A Note on Trophic Complexity and Community Stability. American Naturalist 103: 91–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Platten, S. J. (2005). The cultural dynamics of agricultural innovation in a Minahasan village. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Kent.

  • 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 

  • Power, M. E., and Mills, L. S. (1995). The Keystone Cops Meet in Hilo. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10(5): 182–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosemund, A. D., and Anderson, C. B. (2003). Engineering Role Models: Do Non-human Species Have the Answers? Ecological Engineering 20: 379–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Simberloff, D. (1998). Flagships, Umbrellas, and Keystones: Is Single-Species Management Passé in the Landscape Era? Biological Conservation 83(3): 247–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Steward, J. H. (1955). Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution. University of Illinois Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unruh, G. C. (2000). Understanding Carbon Lock-In. Energy Policy 28(12): 817–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanclay, J. (1999). On the Nature of Keystone Species. Conservation Ecology 3(1): r3. http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/resp3/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willson, M. F., and Halupka, K. C. (1995). Anadromous Fish as Keystone Species in Vertebrate Communities. Conservation Biology 9(3): 489–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anthropology, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK

    Simon Platten

  2. Department of Anthropology, Durham University, Durham, UK

    Thomas Henfrey

Authors
  1. Simon Platten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Henfrey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Henfrey.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Platten, S., Henfrey, T. The Cultural Keystone Concept: Insights from Ecological Anthropology. Hum Ecol 37, 491–500 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-009-9237-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-009-9237-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation