An Evaluation of the Contemporary Uses and Cultural Significance of Mammals in Mexico

  • Dulce María Ávila Nájera Universidad Politecnica de Huatusco
  • Eduardo J Naranjo El Colegio de la Frontera Sur
  • Barbara Jane Tigar University of Central Lancashire http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6037-3544
  • Oscar Agustin Villarreal Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla
  • Germán David Mendoza Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14237/ebl.9.2.2018.1106
Keywords: Cultural value index, Ethnozoology, Wildlife conservation, Conservation management

Abstract

We evaluated current uses of wild mammals by indigenous and mestizo communities in Mexico by extracting data from 59 sources published or produced between 1987–2017, covering data from 240 localities and 3,905 questionnaires. We then calculated a Cultural Value Index (CVI) previously applied to plants to quantify resource use and assess the cultural significance of each mammal. A total of 82 species were reported, and the animals with the highest cultural importance according to their CVI (in brackets) were two species of deer (Odocoileus virginianus [18.32] and Mazama temama [10.04]), as well as the nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus [14.18]), white-nosed coati (Nasua narica [14.75]), collared peccary (Pecari tajaccu [11.90]), northern raccoon (Procyon lotor [11.28]) and spotted paca (Cuniculus paca [9.84]). The most common uses were for food, to reduce the damage or harm they cause, and for medicinal purposes, with O. virginianus, P. lotor, N. narica, and D. novemcinctus frequently hunted for all these reasons. Our analysis also highlighted the hunting of rarer species of national conservation concern, including commercial trading of body parts of the felids Panthera onca, Leopardus pardalis, and Leopardus wiedii. By quantifying the ethnozoological significance of wildlife to indigenous communities, indices such as CVI provide a robust measure of the extent of use and preference for particular species or taxa. This adds to the body of evidence used to develop effective regulations and laws related to harvesting and hunting, and helps promote a more sustainable and long-term approach to the use of natural resources.

Author Biographies

Dulce María Ávila Nájera, Universidad Politecnica de Huatusco

Dulce María Ávila Nájera is a Postodctoral Researcher in the Universidad Politecnica de Huatusco, Mexico. Her research interests focus on the ecology and conservation of big cats, particularly interspecies interactions and competition, and the sustainable management and cultural uses of wildlife.


Eduardo J Naranjo, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur

Eduardo J. Naranjo is a Senior Researcher at the Department of Conservation Biodiversity of the Colegio de la Frontera Sur in San Cristobal de las Casas. His research interests are in population ecology and the sustainable use and conservation of wildlife in tropical areas of Mexico and Mesoamerica.

Barbara Jane Tigar, University of Central Lancashire
Barbara Jane Tigar is a Lecturer in Ecology and Environmental Biology at the University of Central Lancashire. Her research focuses on using applied ecology to find sustainable solutions to global challenges, including the management of endangered and pest species and the impact of alien invasive species on native ecosystems.
Oscar Agustin Villarreal, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla
Oscar Agustinis Villarreal is Director of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine of the Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla. His main research interests are in the diversification of agroforestry production through the conservation, management, and sustainable use of wildlife and their habitats.
Germán David Mendoza, Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana
Germán David Mendoza is Coordinator of Doctorate studies in Agricultural Sciences at the Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana, Xochimilco Campus. His main research interests are animal nutrition, starch and cellulose digestion in ruminants, and the nutritional evaluation of habitats.

References

Allaby, M. 2010. Animals: From Mythology to Zoology. Facts On File, Inc., New York, NY.

Alves, R.R.N. 2012. Relationships Between Fauna and People and the Role of Ethnozoology in Animal Conservation. Ethnobiology and Conservation 1:1–69. DOI:10.15451/ec2012-8-1.2-1-69.

Alves, R.R.N., A. Feijó, R.R.D. Barboza, W.M.S. Souto, H. Fernandes-Ferrerira, P. Cordeiro-Estrela, and A. Langguth. 2016. Game Mammals of the Caatinga Biome. Ethnobiology and Conservation 5:1–55. DOI:10.15451/ec2016-7-5.5-1-51.

Alves, R.R.N., L.E.T. Mendonça, M.V.A. Confessor, W.L.S. Vieira, and L.C.S. Lopez. 2009. Hunting Strategies Used in the Semi-Arid Region of Northeastern Brazil. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 5:1–50. DOI:10.1007/s10668-016-9827-2.

Alves, R.R.N., E. Nogueira, H. Araujo, and S. Brooks. 2010. Bird-Keeping in the Caatinga, NE Brazil. Human Ecology 38:147–156. DOI:10.1007/s10745-009-9295-5.

Alves, R.R.N., I.L. Rosa, N.A. Léo-Neto, and R. Voeks. 2012. Animals for the Gods: Magical and Religious Faunal Use and Trade in Brazil. Human Ecology 40:751–780. DOI:10.1186/1746-4269-9-3.

Alves, R.R.N. and W.M.S. Souto. 2015. Ethnozoology: A Brief Introduction. Ethnozoology and Conservation 4:1–13. DOI:10.15451/ec2015-1-4.1 1-1.

Ceballos, G. and J. Arroyo-Cabrales. 2012. Lista Actualizada de los Mamíferos de México. Revista Mexicana de Mastozoología Nueva Epoca 2. Available at: http://www.revmexmastozoologia.unam.mx/ojs/index.php/rmm/article/view/20. Accessed on August 22, 2017.

Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO). 2008. El Capital Natural de México. Vol. I. Conocimiento Actual de la Biodiversidad. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, México. Available at: http://www.biodiversidad.gob.mx/pais/conocimientoActual.html. Accessed on August 22, 2017.

Cossio, B.A. 2007. Cocimiento y Comparación del Uso de la Fauna Silvestre en Dos Comunidades Ejidales del Municipio de Hueytamalco, Puebla, México. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Instituto de Ecología, Xalapa, Mexico.

Cullen, L., R.E. Bodmer, and C. Padua. 2000. Effects of Hunting in Habitat Fragments of the Atlantic Forests, Brazil. Biological Conservation 95:49–56. DOI:10.1016/s0006-3207(00)00011-2.

Cunningham, A.B. 2001. Applied Ethnobotany: People, Wild Plant Use, and Conservation. Earthscan, London and Stirling, UK.

Fa, J.E. and C.A. Peres. 2001. Game Vertebrate Extraction in African and Neotropical Forests: An Intercontinental Comparison. In Conservation of Exploited Species. Conservation Biology. Number 6, edited by J.D. Reynolds, G.M. Mace, K.H. Redford, and J.G. Robinson, pp. 203–241. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Gallina-Tessaro, S.A., A. Hernández-Huerta, C. Delfín-Alfonso, and A. González-Gallina. 2009. Unidades Para la Conservación, Manejo, y Aprovechamiento Sustentable de la Vida Silvestre en México (UMA). Retos para su Correcto Funcionamiento. Investigación Ambiental 1:142–152.

Happold, D.C.D. 1995. The Interactions between Humans and Mammals in Africa in Relation to Conservation: A Review. Biodiversity and Conservation 4:395–414. DOI:10.1007/BF00058424.

Johannes, R.E. 1993. Integrating Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Management with Environmental Impact Assessment. In Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Concepts and Cases, edited by J.T. Inglis, pp. 33–39. International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.

Léopold, M., A. Cakacaka, S. Meo, J. Sikolia, and D. Lecchini. 2009. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Three Underwater Reef Fish Monitoring Methods in Fiji. Biodiversity and Conservation 18:3367–3382. DOI:10.1007/s10531-009-9646-y.

Miller, B., B. Dugelby, D. Foreman, C. Martinez del Río, R. Noss, M. Philips, R. Reading, M.E. Soulé, J. Terborgh, and L. Willcox. 2001. The Importance of Large Carnivores to Healthy Ecosystems. Endangered Species UPDATE 18:202–2010.

Mourão, J.S., H.F.P. Araujo, and F.S. Almeida. 2006. Ethnotaxonomy of Mastofauna as Practised by Hunters of the Municipality of Paulista, State of Paraíba-Brazil. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2:1–7. DOI:10.1186/1746-4269-2-19.

Mourão, J.S. and N. Nordi. 2002. Comparações Entre as Taxonomias Folk e Científica Para Peixes do Estuário do Rio Mamanguape, Paraíba-Brasil. Interciencia 27:664–668.

Naranjo, E.J. 2008. Uso y Conservación de Mamíferos en la Selva Lacandona, Chiapas, México. In Avances en el Estudio de los Mamíferos de México II edited by C. Lorenzo, E. Espinoza, and J. Ortega, pp. 675–691. Asociación Mexicana de Mastozoología, A.C. (AMMAC). San Cristóbal de Las Casas, México.

Naranjo, E.J. 2013. Uso de la Fauna Silvestre. In La Biodiversidad de Chiapas: Estudio de Estado, edited by A. Cruz-Angón, E.D. Melgarejo, F. Camacho-Rico, and K.C. Nájera-Conchero, pp. 271–280. Comisión Nacional Para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO) and Gobierno del Estado de Chiapas, Mexico City, México.

Peres, C.A. 2000. Evaluating the Impact and Sustainability of Subsistence Hunting at Multiple Amazonian Forest Sites. In Hunting for Sustainability in Tropical Forests, edited by J.G. Robinson and E. Bennett, pp. 31–56. Columbia University Press, New York, NY.

Prins, H.H.T., J.G. Grootenhuis, and T.T. Dolan. 2000. Wildlife Conservation by Sustainable Use. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Boston, MA.

Purdy, K. and D. Decker. 1989. Applying Wildlife Values Information in Management: The Wildlife Attitudes and Values Scale. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17:494–500.

Redford, K.H. 1992. The Empty Forest. Bioscience 42:412–422. DOI:10.2307/1311860.

Robinson, J.G. and E.L. Bennett. 2000. Hunting for Sustainability in Tropical Forests. Columbia University Press, New York, NY.

Sarukhán, J., P. Koleff, J. Carabias, J. Soberón, R. Dirzo, J. Llorente-Bousquets, G. Halffter, R. González, I. March, A. Mohar, S. Anta, and J. De La Maza. 2009. Capital Natural de México: Conocimiento Actual, Evaluación y Perspectivas de Sustentabilidad. Síntesis. Report for Comisión Nacional Para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO), México. Available at: http://www.biodiversidad.gob.mx/pais/pdf/CapNatMex/Capital%20Natural%20de%20Mexico_Sintesis.pdf. Accessed on August 22, 2017.

Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT). 2010. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010. Protección Ambiental, Especies Nativas de Flora y Fauna Silvestres de México, Categorías de Riesgo y Especificaciones Para su Inclusión, Exclusión o Cambio, y Lista de Especies en Riesgo. Diario Oficial de la Federación [web page]. URL: https://www.gob.mx/profepa/documentos/norma-oficial-mexicana-nom-059-semarnat-2010. Accessed on August 22, 2017.

Sillitoe, P. 1998. The Development of Indigenous Knowledge. Current Anthropology 39:223–252. DOI:10.1086/204722.

Souto, W.M.S., J.S. Mourão, R.R.D. Barboza, and R.R.N. Alves. 2011. Parallels Between Zootherapeutic Practices in Ethnoveterinary and Human Complementary Medicine in NE Brazil. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 134:753–767. DOI:10.1016/j.jep.2011.01.041.

Treves, A., R.B. Wallace, L. Naughton-Treves, and A. Morales. 2006. Co-Managing Human-Wildlife Conflicts: A Review. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 11:383–396. DOI:10.1080/10871200600984265.

Turner, N. 1988. The Importance of a Rose, Evaluating the Cultural Significance of Plants in Thompson and Lilloet Interior Salish. American Anthropologist New Series 90:272–290.

Ethnobiology Letters Cover, Volume 9, Issue 2, 2018
Published
2018-08-05
How to Cite
Ávila Nájera, D. M., Naranjo, E. J., Tigar, B. J., Villarreal, O. A., & Mendoza, G. D. (2018). An Evaluation of the Contemporary Uses and Cultural Significance of Mammals in Mexico. Ethnobiology Letters, 9(2), 124-135. https://doi.org/10.14237/ebl.9.2.2018.1106
Issue
Vol 9 No 2 (2018)
Section
Research Communications

Copyright (c) 2018 Barbara Jane Tigar

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  • Authors retain ownership of the copyright for their content and grant Ethnobiology Letters (the “Journal”) and the Society of Ethnobiology right of first publication. Authors and the Journal agree that Ethnobiology Letters will publish the article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits others to use, distribute, and reproduce the work non-commercially, provided the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal are properly cited.
  • Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

For any reuse or redistribution of a work, users must make clear the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0).

In publishing with Ethnobiology Letters corresponding authors certify that they are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements. They warrant, on behalf of themselves and their co-authors, that the content is original, has not been formally published, is not under consideration, and does not infringe any existing copyright or any other third party rights. They further warrant that the material contains no matter that is scandalous, obscene, libelous, or otherwise contrary to the law.

Corresponding authors will be given an opportunity to read and correct edited proofs, but if they fail to return such corrections by the date set by the editors, production and publication may proceed without the authors’ approval of the edited proofs.