Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Folk Biological Value and Chestnut Conservation in Turkey

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Economic Botany Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Folk Biological Value and Chestnut Conservation in Turkey. An ethnobotany dedicated to biocultural survival must advance research methods that perceive and support the biological basis of cultural survival in tandem with the cultural basis of biodiversity maintenance. To help address this challenge, we introduce the concept of “folk biological value”—the value of the more-than-human living world to cultural cohesion and survival—as well as a method to investigate and apply it to an ongoing biological conservation endeavor. In Turkey, the sweet chestnut tree population (Castanea sativa Mill.) is threatened by multiple exotic pathogens. In order to engage and study the collective value motivating continued chestnut presence and association, we sampled communities along the legible value structure of the value chain. We conducted 162 group interviews with 12 chestnut value chain groups across Turkey. Our results show how botanical knowledge of the tree transforms significantly in correspondence to the flow of the value chain. Further, we demonstrate that while the Black Sea region and western Turkey represent distinct human geographic zones of chestnut engagement, the most substantial countervailing forces defining nationwide conservation priorities are commercial and local maintenance value. This research furthers understanding of and capacity to engage community value during urgent local transitions from ecological protection to prioritization.

Türkiye’de Kestanenin Korunması Ve Folklorik Biyolojik Değer. Biyokültürel sürekliliği benimseyen bir etnobotanik yaklaşımı, biyoçeşitliliği korumanın kültürel temeliyle paralel olarak, kültürel sürekliliğin biyolojik temelini kavrayan ve destekleyen araştırma yöntemleri geliştirmelidir. Bu çabaya katkı sağlamak amacıyla çalışmada, biyolojik koruma uygulamalarında kullanılabilecek bir araştırma yöntemi olarak folklorik biyolojik değer kavramı ortaya konulmuştur. Türkiye’de mevcut kestane (Castanea sativa Mill.) varlığı çok sayıda egzotik patojenin tehdidi altında bulunmaktadır. Kestane varlığının sürekliliğinin sağlanması için önem arz eden ortak değerleri ve işbirliği çabalarını ortaya koymak ve bunlara katkı sağlayabilmek amacıyla değer zincirinin yapısına uygun gruplar çalışmaya dâhil edilmiştir. Bu amaçla, Türkiye genelinde kestane değer zincirinde yer alan 12 farklı katılımcı grup içerisinden 162 odak grup görüşmesi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar, kestane hakkındaki botanik bilginin, değer zinciri analizlerine bağlı olarak belirgin bir şekilde değiştiğini göstermektedir. Ayrıca, her ne kadar kestane üretimi bakımından Karadeniz Bölgesi ve Türkiye’nin batısındaki alanların farklı beşeri coğrafi bölgeleri temsil ettiği anlaşılsa da, ülke çapında koruma önceliklerini belirleyen asıl etkenlerin ticari ve yerel geçim değerleri olduğu görülmüştür. Aynı zamanda bu. araştırma, ekolojik koruma ve kimi türlerin öncelikli olarak koruma altına alınması kararının verilmesinde, toplumsal değerleri ve bu. değerlerin etki kapasitelerini dikkate alarak bu. sürece dahil edilmelerinin önemine de örnek oluşturmaktadır.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Akdogan, S. and E. Erkman. 1968. Dikkat kestane kanseri görüldü. Tomurcuk 1: 4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ankli, A., O. Sitcher, and M. Heinrich. 1999. Medical ethnobotany of the Yucatec Maya: Healers’ consensus as a quantitative criterion. Economic Botany 53: 144–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avagyan, A., M. Harutyunyan, and M. Hovanisyan. 2009. Armenia. In: Following chestnut footprints, ed. D. Avanzato, 10–13. Leuven, Belgium: International Society for Horticultural Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnosky, A. D., N. Matzke, S. Tomiya, G. O. U. Wogan, B. Swartz, T. B. Quental, C. Marshall, J. L. McGuire, E. L. Lindsey, K. C. Maguire, B. Mersey, and E. A. Ferrer. 2011. Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471(7336): 51–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, H. 1996. The political economy of the maize filiere. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 23:2–3, 120–145. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03066159608438610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bobokashvili, Z. and D. Maghradze. 2009. Georgia. In: Following chestnut footprints, ed. D. Avanzato, 48–52. Leuven, Belgium: International Society for Horticultural Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceballos, G., P. R. Ehrlich, A. D. Barnosky, A. Garcia, R. M. Pringle, and T. M. Palmer. 2015. Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Science Advances 1(5).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Çetin, G., E. Orman, and Z. Polat. 2014. First record of the Oriental gall wasp, Dryocosmus kuriphilus Yasumatsu (Hymenoptera: Cynipidae) in Turkey. Bitki Koruma Bulteni 54(4): 303–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conedera, M., P. Krebs, W. Tinner, M. Pradella, and D. Torriani. 2004. The cultivation of Castanea sativa (Mill.) in Europe, from its origin to its diffusion on a continental scale. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 13(3): 161–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conklin, H. C. 1954. The relation of Hanunóo culture to the plant world. Yale University, PhD Dissertation, New Haven, Connecticut

  • Crenshaw, K. 1991. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43(6): 1241–1299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daldal, M., Ö. Erincik, and J. Wall. 2018. Geographical distribution of vegetative compatibility and mating types of Cryphonectria parasitica in İzmir, Manisa and Denizli provinces in Western Turkey. Forest Pathology 48(5): e12444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desprez-Loustau, M. L., J. Aguayo, C. Dutech, K. J. Hayden, C. Husson, B. Jakushkin, B. Marçais, D. Piou, C. Robin, and C. Vacher. 2016. An evolutionary ecology perspective to address forest pathology challenges of today and tomorrow. Annals of Forest Science 73(1): 45–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamandis, S. 2009. Greece. In: Following chestnut footprints, ed. D. Avanzato, 63–71. Leuven, Belgium: International Society for Horticultural Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, P. A. and J. A. Hausman. 1994. Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(4): 45–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdem, R. 1951. Türkiye’deki kestane ölümünün sebepleri ve savaş imkanları. Tarım Bakanlığı, Orman Genel Müdürlüğü, Sayı No: 102, Seri 11, Ankara.

  • Farnworth, C. and J. Jiggins. 2003. Participatory plant breeding and gender analysis. Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (PRGA); Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Cali, CO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frei, B., M. Baltisberger, O. Sticher, and M. Heinrich. 1998. Medical ethnobotany of the Zapotecs of the Isthmus-Sierra (Oaxaca, Mexico): Documentation and assessment of indigenous uses. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 62: 149–165.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garibaldi, A. and N. Turner. 2004. Cultural keystone species: Implications for ecological conservation and restoration. Ecology and Society 9(3).

  • Garibay-Orijel, R., J. Caballero, A. Estrada-Torres, and J. Cifuentes. 2007. Understanding cultural significance: The edible mushrooms case. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 3: 4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hunn, E. 1982. The Utilitarian factor in folk biological classification. American Anthropologist 84(4): 830–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007. Ethnobiology in four phases. Journal of Ethnobiology 27(1): 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPBES. 2019. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, eds. E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, and H. T. Ngo. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplinsky, R. and M. Morris. 2002. A handbook for value chain research. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs, P., M. Conedera, M. Pradella, D. Torriani, M. Felber, and W. Tinner. 2004. Quaternary refugia of the sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.): An extended palynological approach. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 13(3): 145–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levi-Strauss, C. 1966. The savage mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loh, J. and D. Harmon. 2014. Biocultural diversity: Threatened species, endangered languages. WWF Netherlands, Zeist, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, G. 2004. Ethnobotany: A methods manual. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattioni, C., M. Cherubini, E. Micheli, F. Villani, and G. Bucci. 2008. Role of domestication in shaping Castanea sativa genetic variation in Europe. Tree Genetics and Genomes 4(3): 563–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. and A. Huberman. 1984. Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mujic, O., V. Zivkoviv, A. Vildana, Z. Tuzlak, S. Novak-Agbaba, Z. Prgomet, and M. Idzojtic. 2009. Bosnia and Herzogovina. In: Following chestnut footprints, ed. D. Avanzato, 20–23. Leuven, Belgium: International Society for Horticultural Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, J. G., R. Boubacar, and I. D. Guimbo. 2015. The “how” and “why” of including gender and age in ethnobotanical research and community-based resource management. Ambio 44: 67–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nyende, P. and R. Delve. 2004. Farmer participatory evaluation of legume cover crop and biomass transfer technologies for soil fertility improvement using farmer criteria, preference ranking and logit regression analysis. Experimental Agriculture 40: 77–88. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479703001443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paparella, F., C. Ferracini, A. Portaluri, A. Manzo, and A. Alma. 2016. Biological control of the chestnut gall wasp with T. sinensis: A mathematical model. Ecological Modelling 338: 17–36.

    Article  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(1): 15–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pieroni, A. 2001. Evaluation of the cultural significance of wild food botanicals traditionally consumed in northwestern Tuscany, Italy. Journal of Ethnobiology 21(1): 89–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posey, D. 1999. Maintaining the mosaic. In: Cultural and spiritual values of biodiversity, ed. D. Posey, 547–654. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Prance, G. T. 2007. Ethnobotany, the science of survival: A declaration from Kaua’i. Economic Botany 61(1): 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prance, A. G. T., W. Balee, B. M. Boom, and R. L. Carneiro. 1987. Quantitative ethnobotany and the case for conservation in Amazonia. Society for Conservation Biology 1(4): 296–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapport, D. and L. Maffi. 2010. The dual erosion of biological and cultural diversity: Implications for the health of ecocultural systems. In: Nature and culture: Rebuilding lost connections, eds. S. Pilgrim and J. Pretty, 103–122. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romney, A. K., S. C. Weller, and W. H. Batchelder. 1986. Culture as consensus: A theory of culture and informant accuracy. American Anthropologist 88(2): 313–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russel, K. 2009. United Kingdom. In: Following chestnut footprints, ed. D. Avanzato, 161–167. Leuven, Belgium: International Society for Horticultural Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soylu, A., Ü. Serdar, E. Ertan, and C. Mert. 2009. Turkey. In: Following chestnut footprints, ed. D. Avanzato, 155–160. Leuven, Belgium: International Society for Horticultural Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoffle, R., D. Halmo, M. Evans, and J. Olmsted. 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 

  • 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 

  • Vandebroek, I. 2010. The dual intracultural and intercultural relationship between medicinal plant knowledge and consensus. Economic Botany 64(4): 303–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandebroek, I. and M. J. Balick. 2012. Globalization and loss of plant knowledge: Challenging the paradigm. PLoS One 7(5).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Virgil. 2011. Eclogues. State College, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wall, J. R., E. Aksoy, N. Köse, T. Okan, and C. Köse. 2018. What women know that men do not about chestnut trees in Turkey: A method of hearing muted knowledge. Journal of Ethnobiology 38(1): 139–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all households and village members for their invaluable participation in and support for our field research. The authors are extremely grateful to the Turkish National General Directorate of Forestry, especially their offices and personnel in Borçka, Bursa, Çanakkale, Rize, Şile, Sinop, Trabzon, and Zonguldak, for their incredible facilitation and advising. We are thankful for the administration of Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa Faculty of Forestry for facilitation of our research efforts. We thank the Anthropology Department at Hacettepe University, especially Yılmaz Erdal, for invaluable guidance on the ethnographic history and contemporary context in Turkey. We sincerely thank The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK), Cornell University’s International Programs of College of Agriculture and Life Science, the American Research Institute in Turkey, the U.S. Borlaug Fellows in Global Food Security Program, and the Turkish Fulbright Commission for their generous support of this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, 111 Fernow Hall, Ithaca, NY, USA

    Jeffrey R. Wall

  2. Department of Forestry Economics, Faculty of Forestry, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, 34473, Bahçeköy, Istanbul, Turkey

    Taner Okan

  3. Department of Forest Biology and Wood Protection Technology, Faculty of Forestry, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, 34473, Bahçeköy, Istanbul, Turkey

    Coşkun Köse

  4. Faculty of Forestry, Department of Forest Botany, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, 34473, Bahçeköy, Istanbul, Turkey

    Nesibe Köse

  5. Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Letters, Hacettepe University, 06800, Beytepe, Ankara, Turkey

    Elif Başak Aksoy

Authors
  1. Jeffrey R. Wall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Taner Okan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Coşkun Köse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nesibe Köse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Elif Başak Aksoy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Taner Okan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wall, J.R., Okan, T., Köse, C. et al. Folk Biological Value and Chestnut Conservation in Turkey. Econ Bot 73, 461–476 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-019-09476-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-019-09476-x

Key Words

Anahtar kelimeler

Search

Navigation