Multidimensionality and scale in a landscape ethnoecological partitioning of a mountainous landscape (Gyimes, Eastern Carpathians, Romania)

Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine

Zsolt Molnár²  Dániel Babai¹ 

[1] Institute of Ethnology, Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, H-1014 Budapest, Országház u. 30, Hungary;Institute of Ecology and Botany, Centre for Ecological Research, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, H-2163 Vácrátót, Alkotmány u. 2–4, Hungary

关键词: Mountain hay meadows;    Phytosociology;    Nature conservation;    Traditional ecological knowledge;    Folk habitat;    Ecological anthropology;   

Others  :  862568
DOI  :  10.1186/1746-4269-9-11

 received in 2012-06-28, accepted in 2013-01-29,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Traditional habitat knowledge is an understudied part of traditional knowledge. Though the number of studies increased world-wide in the last decade, this knowledge is still rarely studied in Europe. We document the habitat vocabulary used by Csángó people, and determine features they used to name and describe these categories.

Study area and methods

Csángó people live in Gyimes (Carpathians, Romania). The area is dominated by coniferous forests, hay meadows and pastures. Animal husbandry is the main source of living. Data on the knowledge of habitat preference of 135 salient wild plant species were collected (2908 records, 44 interviewees). Data collected indoors were counterchecked during outdoor interviews and participatory field work.

Results

Csángós used a rich and sophisticated vocabulary to name and describe habitat categories. They distinguished altogether at least 142–148 habitat types, and named them by 242 habitat terms. We argue that the method applied and the questions asked (‘what kind of place does species X like?’) helped the often implicit knowledge of habitats to be verbalized more efficiently than usual in an interview. Habitat names were highly lexicalized and most of them were widely shared. The main features were biotic or abiotic, like land-use, dominant plant species, vegetation structure, successional stage, disturbance, soil characteristics, hydrological, and geomorphological features. Csángós often used indicator species (28, mainly herbaceous taxa) in describing habitats of species. To prevent reduction in the quantity and/or quality of hay, unnecessary disturbance of grasslands was avoided by the Csángós. This could explain the high number of habitats (35) distinguished dominantly by the type and severity of disturbance. Based on the spatial scale and topological inclusiveness of habitat categories we distinguished macro-, meso-, and microhabitats.

Conclusions

Csángó habitat categories were not organized into a single hierarchy, and the partitioning was multidimensional. Multidimensional description of habitats, made the nuanced characterization of plant species’ habitats possible by providing innumerable possibilities to combine the most salient habitat features. We conclude that multidimensionality of landscape partitioning and the number of dimensions applied in a landscape seem to depend on the number of key habitat gradients in the given landscape.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Babai and Molnár; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Berlin B: Ethnobiological Classification. Principles of Categorisation of Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1992.
• [2]Johnson LM, Hunn ES: Introduction. In Landscape Ethnoecology. Concepts of Biotic and Physical Space. Edited by Johnson LM, Hunn ES. New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books; 2010:1-11.
• [3]Meilleur B: Alluetain Ethnoecology and Traditional Economy: The Procurement and Production of Plant Resources in the Northern French Alps. PhD thesis, Washington: University of Washington; 1986.
• [4]Meilleur B: The structure and Role of Folk Ecological Knowledge in Les Allues, Savoie (France). In Landscape Ethnoecology. Concepts of Biotic and Physical Space. Edited by Johnson LM, Hunn ES. New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books; 2010:159-174.
• [5]Molnár Z: Traditional ecological knowledge of herders on the flora and vegetation of the Hortobágy. Debrecen: Hortobágy Természetvédelmi Közalapítvány; 2012.
• [6]Péntek J, Szabó TA: Ember és növényvilág. Kalotaszeg növényzete és népi növényismerete[People and plantlife. The vegetation and folk plant knowledge of Kalotaszeg.]. Bukarest: Kriterion Könyvkiadó; 1985.
• [7]Rab J: Népi növényismeret a Gyergyói-medencében. [Folk plant knowledge in the Gyergyó Basin.]. Csíkszereda: Pallas-Akadémia Könyvkiadó; 2001.
• [8]Rotherham ID: The Implications of Perceptions and Cultural Knowledge Loss for the Management of Wooded Landscapes: A UK case-study. Forest Ecol. Manag. 2007, 249:100-115.
• [9]Nch I-W, Hunn SE with J Selam and family: The big river”. Mid-Columbia indians and their land. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press; 1990.
• [10]Martin GJ: Ecological classification among the Chinantec and Mixe of Oaxaca, Mexico. Etnoecológica 1993, 1:17-33.
• [11]Shepard G, Yu DW, Lizarralde M, Italiano M: Rain Forest Habitat Classification among the Matsigenka of the Peruvian Amazon. J. Ethnobiol. 2001, 21:1-38.
• [12]Torre-Cuadros MA, Ross N: Secondary Biodiversity: Local Perceptions of Forest Habitats, the Case of Solferino, Quintana Roo, Mexico. J. Ethnobiol. 2003, 23:287-308.
• [13]Johnson LM: A Place That’s Good. Gitksan Landscape Perception and Ethnoecology. Hum Ecol 2000, 28(2):301-325.
• [14]Verlinden A, Dayot B: A comparison between indigenous environmental knowledge and a conventional vegetation analysis in north central Namibia. J Arid Environ 2005, 62:143-175.
• [15]Halme KJ, Bodmer RE: Correspondence between Scientific and Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Rain Forest Classification by the Non-indigenous Riberenos in Peruvian Amazonia. Biodivers Conserv 2007, 16:1785-1801.
• [16]Hernandez-Stefanoni JL, Pineda JB, Valdes V: Comparing the use of indigenous knowledge with classification and ordination techniques for assessing the species composition and structure of vegetation in a tropical forest. Environ. Manag. 2006, 37:686-702.
• [17]Roturier S, Roué M: Of forest, snow and lichen: Sámi reindeer herders’ knowledge of winter pastures in northern Sweden. Forest Ecol. and Manag. 2009, 258:960-967.
• [18]Abraão MB, Shepard GH, Nelson BW Jr, Baniwa JC, Andrello G, Yu DW: Baniwa Vegetation Classification in the White-Sand Campinarana Habitat of the Northwest Amazon, Brazil. In Landscape Ethnoecology. Concepts of Biotic and Physical Space. Edited by Johnson LM, Hunn ES. New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books; 2010:83-115.
• [19]Davidson-Hunt I, Berkes F: Journeying and Remembering: Anishinaabe Landscape Ethnoecology from Northwestern Ontario. In Landscape Ethnoecology. Concepts of Biotic and Physical Space. Edited by Johnson LM, Hunn ES. New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books; 2010:222-240.
• [20]Ellen R: Why aren’t the Nuaulu like the Matsigenka? Knowledge and Categorization of Forest Diversity on Seram, Eastern Indonesia. In Landscape Ethnoecology. Concepts of Biotic and Physical Space. Edited by Johnson LM, Hunn ES. New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books; 2010:116-140.
• [21]Gilmore MP, Ochoa SR, Flores SR: The Cultural Siginicance of the Habitat Maňaco Taco to the Maijuna of the Peruvian Amazon. In Landscape Ethnoecology. Concepts of Biotic and Physical Space. Edited by Johnson LM, Hunn ES. New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books; 2010:141-158.
• [22]Hunn ES, Meilleur BA: Toward a Theory of Landscape Ethnoecological Classification. In Landscape Ethnoecology. Concepts of Biotic and Physical Space. Edited by Johnson LM, Hunn ES. New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books; 2010:15-26.
• [23]Johnson LM, Hunn ES: Landscape ethnoecology. Concepts of Biotic and Physical Space. New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books; 2010.
• [24]Mark DM, Turk AG, Stea D: Ethnophysiography of Arid Lands: Categories for Landscape Features. In Landscape Ethnoecology. Concepts of Biotic and Physical Space. Edited by Johnson LM, Hunn ES. New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books; 2010:27-48.
• [25]Krohmer J: Landscape Perception, Classification, and Use among Sahelian Fulani in Burkina Faso. In Landscape Ethnoecology. Concepts of Biotic and Physical Space. Edited by Johnson LM, Hunn ES. New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books; 2010:49-82.
• [26]Johnson LM: Trail of Story, Traveller’s Path. Reflections on Ethnoecology and Landscape. Athabasca: AU Press, Athabasca University; 2010.
• [27]Hájková P, Roleček J, Hájek M, Horsák M, Fajmon K, Polák M, Jamrichová E: Prehistoric origin of the extremly species-rich semi-dry grasslands int he Bílé Karpaty Mts (Czech Republic and Slovakia). Preslia 2011, 83:185-204.
• [28]Tasser E, Tappeiner U: Impact of land use changes on mountain vegetation. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2002, 5:173-184.
• [29]Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C: Rediscovery of Traditional Ecological Knowledge as Adaptive Management. Ecol Appl 2000, 10:1251-1262.
• [30]Menzies CR, Butler C: Introduction. Understanding Ecological Knowledge. In Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Natural Resource Management. Edited by Menzies CR. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press; 2006:1-17.
• [31]Berkes F: Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis; 1999.
• [32]Brown J, Mitchell N, Beresford M: Preface. In The protected landscape approach. Linking Nature, Culture and Community. Edited by Brown J, Mitchell N, Beresford M. Gland (Switzerland) and Cambridge: IUCN; 2005:9-10.
• [33]Molnár Z, Bartha S, Babai D: Traditional ecological knowledge as a concept and data source for historical ecology, vegetation science and conservation biology: A Hungarian perspective. In Human Nature. Studies in Historical Ecology and Environmental History. Edited by Szabó P, Hedl R. Brno: Institute of Botany of the ASCR; 2008:14-27.
• [34]Borhidi A: Magyaroszág növénytársulásai. [Plant associations of Hungary.]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó; 2003.
• [35]Fleck DW, Harder JD: Matses indian rainforest habitat classification and mammalian diversity in amazonian Peru. J. Ethnobiol. 2000, 20:1-36.
• [36]Babai D, Molnár Z: Népi növényzetismeret Gyimesben II.: Termőhely- és élőhelyismeret. [Traditional ecological knowledge in Gyimes II.: Knowledge on habitats.]. Bot. Közlem 2009, 96:145-173.
• [37]Dobos F: A Gyimesi-szoros földrajza. [The geography of the Gyimes-strait.]Geographica Pannonica 33. Pécs: Kultúra nyomda; 1939.
• [38]Pálfalvi P: A Gyimesi-hágó (1164 m) környékének florisztikai vázlata [Floristic sketch of the surroundings of the Gyimes Pass (1164 m).]. Múzeumi Füzetek (Az Erdélyi Múzeum Egyesület Természettudományi és Matematikai Szakosztályának Közleményei) 1995, 4:107-114.
• [39]Nechita N: Flora şi vegetaţia cormofitelor din Masivul Hăşmas, Cheile Bicazului şi Lacu Roşu. Piatra-Neamţ: Muzeul de Ştiinţe Naturale; 2003.
• [40]Ilyés Z: A tájhasználat változásai és a történeti kultúrtáj 18–20. századi fejlődése Gyimesben. [Landscape changes and the 18–20. century development of the historical cultural landscape in Gyimes.]. Eger: Eszterházy Károly Főiskola; 2007.
• [41]Hofer T: A gyimesi csángó népcsoport kialakulása. [Origin of the Gyimes Csángó ethnic group.]. In Antropológia és/vagy néprajz. Tanulmányok két kutatási terület vitatott határvidékéről. [Antropology and/or ethnography. Studies from the border region of two disciplines]. Edited by Hofer T. Budapest: L’Harmattan Kiadó; 2009:66-77.
• [42]Babai D: Magashegyi növényzet etnoökológiai értékelése a Keleti-Kárpátokban (Gyimes). (Ethnoecological evaluation of mountain vegetation in the Eastern Carpathians (Gyimes). University of Pécs: PhD Dissertation; 2012.
• [43]Kallós Z: Gyimesvölgyi keservesek [Said songs from Gyimes]. Néprajzi Közlem. 1960, 5:3-51.
• [44]Tánczos V: Gyimesi archaikus népi imádságok és ráolvasások. [Archaic prayers and incantations in Ghimes region.]. In A Kriza János Néprajzi Társaság Évkönyve 2. [Annals of the Kriza János Ethnographic Society. 2.]. Edited by Zakariás E, Keszeg V. Kolozsvár: Kriza János Néprajzi Társaság; 1994:211-243.
• [45]Pócs E: Előszó. [Foreword.]. In Vannak csodák, csak észre kell venni. Helyi vallás, néphit és vallásos folklór Gyimesben I. [There are wondres, if you see them. Local religion, folk beliefs and religious folkore in Gyimes]. Edited by Pócs E. Budapest: L’Harmattan Kiadó; 2008:7-14.
• [46]Sólyom A, Knowles B, Bogdán J, Rodics G, Biró R, Nyírő G: Small scale farming in the Pogány-havas Region of Transylvania. Farming statistics, agricultural subsidies, the future of farming. Final Report. Miercurea Ciuc: Pagan Snow Cap association; 2011:97.
• [47]Bíró R, Demeter L, Knowles B: Farming and management of hay meadows in Csík and Gyimes – Experiences from social research. In Mountain hay meadows. Hotspots of biodiversity and traditional culture Edited by Knowles B. 2012. http://mountainhaymeadows.eu/online_publication/11-farming-and-management-of-hay-meadows-in-csik-and-gyimes.html webciteLast download: on the 27th October 2012
• [48]Krausmann F: Milk, Manure and Muscle Power. Livestock and the Transformation of Preindustrial Agriculture in Central Europe. Hum Ecol 2004, 32:735-772.
• [49]Molnár Z, Babai D: Népi növényzetismeret Gyimesben I.: Növénynevek, népi taxonómia, az egyéni és közösségi növényismeret. [Folk plant knowledge in Gyimes I.: Plant names, folk taxonomy, plant knowledge on individual and community level.]. Bot. Közlem 2009, 96(1–2):117-143.
• [50]Puri RK, Watson CW, Newing, H: Conducting Research in Conservation. A social science perspective. London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group; 2011:376.
• [51]Grey-Wilson C, Blamey M: Pareys Bergblumenbuch: wildblühende Pflanzen der Alpen, Pyrenäen, Apenninen, der skandinavischen und britischen Gebirge. Hamburg, Berlin: Parey; 1980.
• [52]Ellen R: The cultural relations of classification: an analysis of Nuaulu animal categories from central Seram. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1993:315.
• [53]Hunn E: Toward a perceptual model of folk biological classification. American Ethnologist 1976, 3(3):508-524.
• [54]Molnár Z: Classification of Pasture Habitats by Hungarian Herders in a Steppe Landscape (Hungary). Ethnomed: J. Ethnobiol; 2012. (accepted)
• [55]Netting RMC: Balancing on an Alp. Ecological change & continuity in a Swiss mountain community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1981.
• [56]Johann E, Agnoletti M, Bölöni J, Erol SC, Holl K, Kusmin J, Latorre JG, Molnár Z, Rochel X, Rotherham ID, Saratsi E, Smith M, Tarang L, Benthem M, Laar J: Europe. In Traditional Forest-Related Knowledge Sustaining Communities, Ecosystems and Biocultural Diversity, World Forests 12. Edited by Parotta JA, Trosper RL. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer Science + Business Media B. V; 2012:203-249.