Wild edible plant knowledge, distribution and transmission: a case study of the Achí Mayans of Guatemala

Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine

Marten Sørensen¹  Henrik Meilby²  Ida Theilade²  Nerea Turreira-García² 

[1] Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Thorvaldsensvej 40, Frederiksberg C 1871, Denmark;Department of Food and Resource Economics, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 25, Frederiksberg C 1958, Denmark

关键词: Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK);    Local ethnobotanical knowledge (LEK);    Knowledge loss;    Indigenous;    Ethnobotany;    Acculturation;   

Others  :  1218826
DOI  :  10.1186/s13002-015-0024-4

 received in 2014-08-25, accepted in 2015-04-22,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Knowledge about wild edible plants (WEPs) has a high direct-use value. Yet, little is known about factors shaping the distribution and transfer of knowledge of WEPs at global level and there is concern that use of and knowledge about WEPs is decreasing. This study aimed to investigate the distribution, transmission and loss of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) concerning WEPs used by a Mayan community of Guatemala and to enumerate such plants.

Methods

The case study was carried out in a semi-isolated community where part of the population took refuge in the mountains in 1982–1985 with WEPs as the main source of food. Major variables possibly determining knowledge and therefore investigated were socio-demographic characteristics, distance to and abundance of natural resources and main source of knowledge transmission. A reference list of species was prepared with the help of three key informants. Information about the theoretical dimension of knowledge was gathered through free listing and a questionnaire survey, while practical skills were assessed using a plant identification test with photographs. All villagers older than 7 years participated in the research (n = 62 including key informants).

Results

A total of 44 WEPs were recorded. Theoretical knowledge was unevenly distributed among the population, and a small group including very few informants (n = 3) mentioned, on average, three times more plants than the rest of the population during the free listing. Practical knowledge was more homogeneously distributed, key informants recognising 23 plants on average and the rest of the population 17. Theoretical and practical knowledge increased with age, the latter decreasing in the late phases of life. Knowledge about WEPs was transmitted through relatives in 76% of the cases, which led to increased knowledge of plants and ability to recognise them.

Conclusions

The WEP survey may serve as a reference point and as a useful compilation of knowledge for the community for their current and future generations. This study shows that the elder and the refugees living in the area for longer time know more than others about WEPs. It also shows the important role of knowledge transmission through relatives to preserve TEK.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Turreira-García et al.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Gagdil M, Berkes F, Folke C. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio. 1993; 22:151-6.
• [2]Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol Appl. 2000; 10:1251-62.
• [3]Nesheim I, Dhillion SS, Stølen K. What happens to traditional knowledge and use of natural resources when people migrate? Hum Ecol. 2006; 34:99-131.
• [4]Trosper RL, Parrotta JA, Agnoletti M, Bocharnikov V, Feary SA, Gabay M et al.. The unique character of traditional forest-related knowledge: threats and challenges ahead. In: Tradit for knowl sustain communities, ecosyst biocultural divers. Volume 12. Parrotta JA, Trosper RL, editors. World Forests, Dordrecht; 2012: p.563-88.
• [5]Ladio AH. The maintenance of wild edible plant gathering in a Mapuche community of Patagonia. Econ Bot. 2001; 55:243-54.
• [6]Pardo-de-Santayana M, Tardío J, Morales R. The gathering and consumption of wild edible plants in the Campoo (Cantabria, Spain). Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2005; 56:529-42.
• [7]Dweba TP, Mearns MA. Conserving indigenous knowledge as the key to the current and future use of traditional vegetables. Int J Inf Manage. 2011; 31:564-71.
• [8]Menendez-Baceta G, Aceituno-Mata L, Tardío J, Reyes-García V, Pardo-de-Santayana M. Wild edible plants traditionally gathered in Gorbeialdea (Biscay, Basque Country). Genet Resour Crop Evol. 2011; 59:1329-47.
• [9]Shackleton CM. The prevalence of use and value of wild edible herbs in South Africa. S Afr J Sci. 2003; 99:23-4.
• [10]Mahapatra AK, Panda PC. Wild edible fruit diversity and its significance in the livelihood of indigenous tribals: evidence from eastern India. Food Secur. 2012; 4:219-34.
• [11]Shrestha PM, Dhillion SS. Diversity and traditional knowledge concerning wild food species in a locally managed forest in Nepal. Agrofor Syst. 2006; 66:55-63.
• [12]Ladio AH, Lozada M. Human ecology, ethnobotany and traditional practices in rural populations inhabiting the Monte region: resilience and ecological knowledge. J Arid Environ. 2009; 73:222-7.
• [13]Teklehaymanot T, Giday M. Ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants of Kara and Kwego semi-pastoralist people in Lower Omo River Valley, Debub Omo Zone, SNNPR, Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2010; 6:23. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]Mattalia G, Quave CL, Pieroni A. Traditional uses of wild food and medicinal plants among Brigasc, Kyé, and Provençal communities on the western Italian Alps. Genet Resour Crop Evol. 2012; 60:587-603.
• [15]Godoy R, Reyes-García V, Byron E, Leonard WR, Vadez V. The effect of market economies on the well-being of indigenous peoples and on their use of renewable natural resources. Annu Rev Anthropol. 2005; 34:121-38.
• [16]Reyes-García V, Marti N, Mcdade T, Tanner S, Vadez V. Concepts and methods in studies measuring individual ethnobotanical knowledge. J Ethnobiol. 2007; 27:182-203.
• [17]Reyes-García V, Vadez V, Huanca T, Leonard WR, McDade T. Economic development and local ecological knowledge: a deadlock? Quantitative research from a native Amazonian society. Hum Ecol. 2006; 35:371-7.
• [18]Bonny E, Berkes F. Communicating traditional environmental knowledge: addressing the diversity of knowledge, audiences and media types. Polar Rec (Gr Brit). 2008; 44:243-53.
• [19]Antweiler C. Local knowledge and local knowing. An anthropological analysis of contested “cultural products” in the context of development. Anthr Inst. 1998; 93:469-94.
• [20]Ohmagari K, Berkes F. Transmission of indigenous knowledge and bush skills among the western James Bay Cree women of Subarctic Canada. Hum Ecol. 1997; 25:197-222.
• [21]Zarger RK. Acquisition and transmission of subsistence knowledge by Q’eqchi’ Maya in Belize. In: Ethnobiol biocultural divers. Stepp JR, Wyndham FS, Zarger RK, editors. University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia, USA; 2002: p.593-603.
• [22]Benz BF, Cevallos EJ, Santana MF, Rosales AJ, Graf MS. Losing knowledge about plant use in the Sierra de Manantlan Biosphere Reserve. Mexico Econ Bot. 2000; 54:183-91.
• [23]Ladio AH, Lozada M. Nontimber forest product use in two human populations from Northwest Patagonia: a quantitative approach. Hum Ecol. 2001; 29:367-80.
• [24]Zarger R, Stepp J. Persistence of botanical knowledge among Tzeltal Maya children. Curr Anthropol. 2004; 45:413-8.
• [25]Ross N. Lacandon Maya intergenerational change and the erosion of folk biological knowledge. In: Stepp JR, Wyndham FS, Zarger RK, editors. Ethnobiol biocultural Divers Proc 7th Int Congr Ethnobiol 7th Int Congr Ethnobiol. Athens, Georgia, USA; 2002. p. 585–92.
• [26]Gadgil M, Berkes F. Traditional resource management systems. Resour Manag Optim. 1991; 8:127-41.
• [27]Azurdia CA. Lecturas En Recursos Fitogenéticos. Instituto de Investigaciones Agrónomas. Facultad de Agronomía, USAC, Guatemala City; 1996.
• [28]Tang S-Q, Bin X-Y, Peng Y-T, Zhou J-Y, Wang L, Zhong Y. Assessment of genetic diversity in cultivars and wild accessions of Luohanguo (Siraitia grosvenorii [Swingle] A. M. Lu et Z. Y. Zhang), a species with edible and medicinal sweet fruits endemic to southern China, using RAPD and AFLP markers. Genet Resour Crop Evol. 2007; 54:1053-61.
• [29]Rana JC, Pradheep K, Chaurasia OP, Sood S, Sharma RM, Singh A et al.. Genetic resources of wild edible plants and their uses among tribal communities of cold arid region of India. Genet Resour Crop Evol. 2011; 59:135-49.
• [30]Grivetti LE, Ogle BM. Value of traditional foods in meeting macro- and micronutrient needs: the wild plant connection. Nutr Res Rev. 2000; 13:31-46.
• [31]Salvatore S, Pellegrini N, Brenna OV, Del Rio D, Frasca G, Brighenti F et al.. Antioxidant characterization of some Sicilian edible wild greens. J Agric Food Chem. 2005; 53:9465-71.
• [32]Aberoumand A, Deokule SS. Determination of elements profile of some wild edible plants. Food Anal Methods. 2009; 2:116-9.
• [33]LaRochelle S, Berkes F. Traditional Ecological Knowledge and practice for edible wild plants: biodiversity use by the Rarámuri in the Sierra Tarahumara, Mexico. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol. 2003; 10:361-75.
• [34]Ladio AH, Lozada M. Patterns of use and knowledge of wild edible plants in distinct ecological environments: a case study of a Mapuche community from northwestern Patagonia. Biodivers Conserv. 2004; 13:1153-73.
• [35]Reyes-García V, Vadez V, Leonard W, Wilkie D. Knowledge and consumption of wild plants: a comparative study in two Tsimane’ villages in the Bolivian Amazon. Ethnobot Res Appl. 2005; 3:201-7.
• [36]González JA, García-Barriuso M, Amich F. The consumption of wild and semi-domesticated edible plants in the Arribes del Duero (Salamanca-Zamora, Spain): an analysis of traditional knowledge. Genet Resour Crop Evol. 2010; 58:991-1006.
• [37]Ghorbani A, Langenberger G, Sauerborn J. A comparison of the wild food plant use knowledge of ethnic minorities in Naban River Watershed National Nature Reserve, Yunnan. SW China J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2012; 8:17. BioMed Central Full Text
• [38]Uprety Y, Poudel RC, Shrestha KK, Rajbhandary S, Tiwari NN, Shrestha UB et al.. Diversity of use and local knowledge of wild edible plant resources in Nepal. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2012; 8:16. BioMed Central Full Text
• [39]Blancas J, Casas A, Pérez-Salicrup D, Caballero J, Vega E. Ecological and socio-cultural factors influencing plant management in Nahuatl communities of the Tehuacan Valley, Mexico. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2013; 9:39. BioMed Central Full Text
• [40]Ladio A, Lozada M, Weigandt M. Comparison of traditional wild plant knowledge between aboriginal communities inhabiting arid and forest environments in Patagonia, Argentina. J Arid Environ. 2007; 69:695-715.
• [41]Araújo FR, Lopes MA. Diversity of use and local knowledge of palms (Arecaceae) in eastern Amazonia. Biodivers Conserv. 2011; 21:487-501.
• [42]Zonas Climáticas de Guatemala http://www.insivumeh.gob.gt/meteorologia/zonas%20climaticas.htm Accessed 15 Jun 2013.
• [43]Meteorología - Clima. Estadísticas Climáticas, Registros Histíricos y Datos Mensuales. Estación Meteorológica Chixoy. http://www. insivumeh.gob.gt/meteorologia/ESTACIONES/QUICHE/CHIXOY%20QUICHE PARAMETROS.htm webcite
• [44]De la Cruz JR. Clasificación de Zonas de Vida de Guatemala a Nivel de Reconocimiento. MAGA/INAFOR/UNIDAD DE EVALUACIÓN Y PROMOCION, DIGESA; 1982.
• [45]ISE Code of Ethics (with 2008 additions) http://ethnobiology.net/code-of-ethics/ Accessed 10 Sep 2012.
• [46]Martin GJ. Ethnobotany. A methods manual. People and Plants Conservation Series. Earthscan, London; 2004.
• [47]López Manuel A. Vocabulario Del Idioma Achi. Universidad de Texas; 1999.
• [48]Atran S, Medin D, Ross N, Lynch E, Vapnarsky V, Ek EU et al.. Folkecology, cultural epidemiology, and the spirit of the commons: a garden experiment in the Maya lowlands, 1991–2001. Curr Anthropol. 2002; 43:421-50.
• [49]Begossi A. Use of ecological methods in Ethnobotany: diversity indices. Econ Bot. 1996; 50:280-9.
• [50]Standley PC, Steyermark JA, Williams LO: Flora of Guatemala. Vol. 24. Chicago: Parts I-XIII. Fieldiana: Botany. Chicago Natural History Museum; 1946–1976.
• [51]SAS/STAT® 9.2 user’s guide. SAS Institute, Cary, NC; 2008.
• [52]Mutchnick PA, McCarthy BC. An ethnobotanical analysis of the tree species common to the Subtropical Moist Forest of Petén. Guatemala Econ Bot. 1997; 51:158-83.
• [53]Maldonado B, Caballero J, Delgado-Salinas A, Lira R. Relationship between use value and ecological importance of floristic resources of seasonally dry tropical forest in the Balsas river basin, México. Econ Bot. 2013; 67:17-29.
• [54]Cruz-Garcia GS, Price LL. Ethnobotanical investigation of “wild” food plants used by rice farmers in Kalasin, Northeast Thailand. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2011; 7:33. BioMed Central Full Text
• [55]Maroyi A. The gathering and consumption of wild edible plants in Nhema communal area, Midlands Province, Zimbabwe. Ecol Food Nutr. 2011; 50:506-25.
• [56]Caballero J, Cortés L. Percepción, uso y manejo tradicional de los recursos vegetales en México. In: Plantas, Cult y Soc Estud sobre la Relación entre Seres Humanos y Plantas en los Albores del Siglo XXI. Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Unidad Iztapalapa, México D.F; 2001: p.79-100.
• [57]Valor nutritivo y usos en alimentación humana de algunos cultivos autóctonos subexplotados de Mesoamérica. FAO, Santiago (Chile). Oficina Regional para América Latina y el Caribe; 1993. p. 123.
• [58]Ethnobotany http://www.rngr.net/publications/ttsm. Accessed 05 May 2013.
• [59]Twenty-five economically important families http://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C09/E6-118-03.pdf Accessed 19 May 2015.
• [60]Ross-Ibarra J. Origen y domesticación de la chaya (Cnidoscolus aconitifolius Mill I. M. Johnst): la espinaca Maya. Mex Stud Mex. 2003; 19:287-302.
• [61]Quinlan MB, Quinlan RJ. Modernization and medicinal plant knowledge in a Caribbean horticultural village. Med Anthropol Q. 2007; 21:169-92.