Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Traditional ecological knowledge and use of vegetation in southeastern Mexico: a case study from Solferino, Quintana Roo

  • Published:
Biodiversity & Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In order to assess traditional ecological knowledge of the Maya people in southeastern Mexico, we interviewed local people in Quintana Roo and estimated a number of vegetation variables in two different types of forest which are currently locally exploited, namely Monte alto (medium statured forest) and Sakal che' (low forest). We employed the Use Value index for each plant species (UVs) to quantify the importance of each plant for each inhabitant. The results showed that this Maya community classify the different forest types by species associations and size, and according to soil appearance. A total of nine categories of use were defined for three plant forms (tree, palm and vine). Manilkara zapota (zapote), Thrinax radiata (chiit) and Macfadyena uncata (bilin kok) showed the highest use values for each plant form. The most common uses were construction (35.5%), medicine (19.0%), craft (17.9%) and edibility (10.3%). There was a weak relationship between the cultural importance of plant species, expressed by the UVs, and their availability in the medium statured forest and the medium statured–low forest transition expressed by the Importance Value index (IVI). The medium statured forest was the most used forest type, as it provides many species for construction due to external demands rather than to local needs.

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

  • Achard F., Hugh D.E., Stibig H.J., Mayaux P., Gallego J., Richards T. et al.2002. Determination of deforestation rates of the world's humid tropical forests. Science297: 999-1002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adu-Tutu Y., Afful M., Asante-Appiah K., Lieberman D., Hall J.B. and Elvin-Lewis M. 1979. Chewing stick usage in southern Ghana. Economic Botany33: 320-328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balick M.J. and Cox P.A. 1997. Plants, People and Culture: The Science of Ethnobotany. Scientific American Library, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balick M.J. and Mendelsohn R. 1992. Assessing the economic value of traditional medicines from tropical rainforests. Conservation Biology6: 128-130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrera M.A., Barrera V.A. and Lopez F.R.M. 1976. Nomenclatura Etnobotanica Maya. Una interpretacion taxonomica. INAH-Centro Regional del Sureste, Mexico, DF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlin B. 1973. The relation of folk systematics to biological classification and nomenclature. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics4: 259-271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlin B. 1992. Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of Categorization of Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colorado P. 1988. Bridging native and western science. Convergence21: 49-59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colorado P. and Collins D. 1987. Western scientific colonialism and the re-emergence of native science. Practice: Journal of Politics, Economics, Psychology, Sociology and Culture Winter1987: 50-65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R., d'Arge R., de Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B. et al.1997.The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature387: 253-260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis J.T. 1959. The Vegetation of Wisconsin.An Ordination of Plant Communities. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis J.T. and McIntosh R.P. 1951. An upland forest continuum in the prairie forest border region of Wisconsin. Ecology32: 476-496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duran G.R. 1986. Estudio de la vegetacion de la selva baja subcaducifolia Pseudophoenix sargentii, profesional, Universidad Autonoma de Mexico, Facultad de Ciencias, Mexico, DF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Escobar N.A. 1986. Geografýa General del Estado de Quintana Roo. Fondo de Fomento Editorial del Gobierno del Estado de Quintana Roo, Chetumal, Quintana Roo, Mexico.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO 1988. Soil Map of the World with Revised Legend. World Soil Resources Report60. FAO, Rome.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flores J.S. 1987. Uso de los Recursos Vegetales en la Penýnsula de Yucatan; pasado, presente y futuro. INIREB, Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadgil M., Berkes F. and Folke C. 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio22: 151-156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hidalgo F.R. 1995. Programa de manejo forestal para el aprovechamiento de recursos forestales de los montes del area forestal permanente del ejido de Kantunilkin. Municipio Lazaro Cardenas, Quintana Roo, Mexico.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunn E. 1993. What is traditional ecological knowledge?In:Williams N.M. and Baines G.(eds), Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Wisdom for Sustainable Development. Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia, pp. 13-15.

    Google Scholar 

  • INEGI 2000. Anuario Estadýstico Quintana Roo. INEGI, Gobierno del Estado, Mexico.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martýnez M.A. 1994. Estado actual de las investigaciones etnobotanicas en Mexico. Boletýn de la Sociedad Botanica de Mexico55: 65-74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendez M. and Duran R.G. 1997. Diagnostico del conocimiento etnobotanico actual de las plantas medicinales de la Penýnsula de Yucatan. Boletýn de la Sociedad Botanica de Mexico60: 15-24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendieta R. and Del Amo S. 1981. Plantas medicinales del estado de Yucatan. Continental, Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miranda F. 1978. Vegetacion de la Penýnsula Yucateca. 2nd edn.Colegio de Postgraduados, Chapingo, Mexico.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCune B. and Mefford M.J. 1997. PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data. MJM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, Oregon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nepstad D.C. and Schwartzman S. 1992. Non-timber products from tropical forests. Advances in Economic Botany9: 1-164

    Google Scholar 

  • Olmsted C.I., Duran R.G. and Lopez A. 1983. Vegetacion de Sian Kaan. CICY-SEMARNAT, Mexico City, Mexico.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paz y Mino G., Balslev H. and Valencia R. 1991. Aspectos etnobotanicos de las lianas utilizadas por los indýgenas Siona-Secoya de la Amazonýa del Ecuador. In:Rýos M. and Pedersen H.B.(eds), Las Plantas y el Hombre. Quito, Ecuador, pp. 105-118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters C., Gentry A. and Mendelsohn R.O. 1989. Valuation of an Amazonian rain forest. Nature339: 655-656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips O. and Gentry A. 1993a. The useful woody plants of Tambopata Peru. I. Statistical hypothesis test with a new quantitative ethnobotany. Economic Botany47: 33-43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips O. and Gentry A. 1993b. The useful woody plants of Tambopata, Peru. II. Further statistical test of hypotheses in quantitative ethnobotany. Economic Botany47: 15-32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips O., Gentry A., Reynel C., Wilkin P. and Galvez-Duran C. 1994. Quantitative ethnobotany and Amazonian conservation. Conservation Biology8: 225-248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinedo-Vasquez M.D., Zarin P.J. and Chota-Inuma J. 1990. Use-values of tree species in a communal forest reserve in northeast Peru. Conservation Biology4: 405-416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plokin M. and Famolare L. 1992. Sustainable Harvest and Marketing of Rain Forest Products. Island Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prance G.T., Balee W., Boom B.M. and Carneiro R.L. 1987. Quantitative ethnobotany and the case for conservation in Amazonia. Conservation Biology1: 296-310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posey D.A. 1990. The science of the Mebengokre. Orion9: 16-21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulido M. and Serralta L. 1993. Lista anotada de las plantas medicinales de uso actual en el estado de Quintana Roo. CIQRO, Chetumal, Quintana Roo, Mexico.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quero H.J. 1992. Las palmas silvestres de laPenýnsula de Yucatan. Publicaciones Especiales No. 10. Instituto de Biologýa, UNAM, Mexico, DF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards P. 1991. Saving the rain forest: contested futures in conservation. In:Wallman S.(ed.), Anthropology and the Future. RKP Press, London, pp. 180-189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards R.T. 1997. What the Natives know: wild mushrooms and forest health. Journal of Forestry September1997: 5-10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutter A. 1990. Catalogo de las plantas utiles de la Amazonýa Peruana. Lima, Peru.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez O.M. 2000. Analisis estructural de la selva del jardýn botanico. In:Sanchez O.M. and Islebe G.A.(eds), El Jardýn Botanico Dr Alfredo Barrera Marýn fundamento y estudios particulares.CONABIO-ECOSUR, Quintana Roo, Mexico, pp. 59-74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez O.M. and Islebe G.A. 2001. Vulnerability of species of trees from the Mexican Carribbean. Feddes Report 112/ 5-6: 391-399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez O.M. and Islebe G.A. 2002. Tropical forest communities in southeastern Mexico. Plant Ecology158: 183-200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon E. 1996. Decolonizing our voices. Winds of Change Summer1996: 70-72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultes R.E. 1988. Primitive plant lore and modern conservation. Orion7: 8-15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toledo V.M. 1987. La etnobotanica en Latinoamerica: vicisitudes, contextos y perspectivas Memorias del Simposio de Etnobotanica. IV Congreso Latinoamericano de Botanica. Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educacion Superior, pp. 13-24.

  • Toledo V.M. 1990. La perspectiva etnoecologica. Cinco reflexiones acerca de las 'ciencias campesinas' sobre la naturaleza con especial referencia en Mexico. Ciencias4: 22-29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toledo V.M., Caballero J., Argueda A., Rojas P., Aguirre E., Viccon J. et al.1978. Estudio botanico y ecologico de la region del rýo Uxpanapa. El uso multiple de la selva basado en el conocimiento tradicional. Biotica3: 85-101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toledo V.M., Martýnez E., Becerra R. and Ramos C.H. 1995. La selva util: Etnobotanica cuantitativa de los grupos indýgenas del tropico humedo de Mexico. Interciencia20: 177-187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trotter R.T. and Logan M.H. 1986. Informant consensus: a new approach for identifying potentially effective medicinal plants. In:Etkin N.L.(ed.), Plants inIndigenous Medicine and Diet. Redgrave, Bedford Hills, New York, pp. 91-112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner N.J., Boelscher M. and Ignace R. 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge and wisdom of aboriginal peoples in British Columbia. Ecological Applications10: 1275-1287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright A.C.S. 1967. El reconocimiento de los suelos en la Penýnsula de Yucatan, Mexico. Final Report, FAO. Report Colegio de Posgraduados, Chapingo, Mexico.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Unidad Chetumal, Herbarium, Chetumal, 77000, Mexico

    Maria De Los Angeles La Torre-Cuadros

  2. El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Unidad Chetumal, Herbarium, Chetumal, 77000, Mexico

    Gerald A. Islebe

Authors
  1. Maria De Los Angeles La Torre-Cuadros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gerald A. Islebe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria De Los Angeles La Torre-Cuadros.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

De Los Angeles La Torre-Cuadros, M., Islebe, G.A. Traditional ecological knowledge and use of vegetation in southeastern Mexico: a case study from Solferino, Quintana Roo. Biodiversity and Conservation 12, 2455–2476 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025861014392

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025861014392

Search

Navigation