Ethnobotanical Study of the Mexican Laurel in El Chico National Park, Mexico: A Quantitative Perspective

  • Daniela Ortega-Meza Instituto de Ciencias Básicas e Ingeniería, Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, Pachuca de Soto, Hidalgo.
  • María Teresa Pulido-Silva Instituto de Ciencias Básicas e Ingeniería, Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, Pachuca de Soto, Hidalgo.
  • Joari Costa de Arruda Centro de Estudos em Limnologia, Biodiversidade e Etnobiologia do Pantanal, Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso, Cáceres, Mato Grosso.
  • Carolina Joana da Silva Centro de Estudos em Limnologia, Biodiversidade e Etnobiologia do Pantanal, Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso, Cáceres, Mato Grosso.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14237/ebl.10.1.2019.1427
Keywords: Free-list, Natural Protected Area (NPA), Quantitative ethnobotany, Social network, Mexican laurel

Abstract

This study was conducted in two villages of El Chico National Park (ECNP), Mexico, to document the uses of Litsea glaucescens (Mexican laurel) by the local population and to identify actors with knowledge about the species using quantitative ethnobotanical techniques. Fifty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted to obtain a free-list about the specific uses of the laurel, to analyze its importance among the social group under study, and to use social networking to identify individuals within the community who had particular knowledge about the plant. We found a total of 25 specific uses for the plant, which have different levels of importance for the people of the ECNP. The most common use was seasoning, while medicinal and cultural uses had a lesser importance. Use of the seed of the laurel as a material for handcrafts is recorded for the first time in this study. The social network showed that there was a relationship between the actors interviewed from the two communities. They are identified as having some relationship to the plant or knowledge about it, but the actors who produce it are the most prominent. An analysis of the specific uses of the laurel and those with knowledge about it is considered indispensable for generating specific management and harvesting strategies for the species, which will be able to contribute a local perspective to its conservation.

Author Biographies

Daniela Ortega-Meza, Instituto de Ciencias Básicas e Ingeniería, Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, Pachuca de Soto, Hidalgo.

Daniela Ortega-Meza is a PhD student in science, in biodiversity and conservation at the Center for Biological Research, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo. Her areas of academic interest and lines of research include sustainable tourism and ecotourism in protected natural areas, community-based ecotourism, non-timber forest products and the relationship between tourism and ethnobotany. She is a member of the network of researchers and tourism research centers and the network of non-timber forest products.

María Teresa Pulido-Silva, Instituto de Ciencias Básicas e Ingeniería, Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, Pachuca de Soto, Hidalgo.

María Teresa Pulido-Silva is a research professor at the Ethnobiology Laboratory, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo (Mexico) since 2007. Her areas of academic interest include the sustainable use of non-timber forest products and the study of traditional agricultural systems. Her publications are focused on non-timber forest products, ethnobotany, and climate change. She helped coordinate the first Latin American Congress of Ethnobiology.

Joari Costa de Arruda, Centro de Estudos em Limnologia, Biodiversidade e Etnobiologia do Pantanal, Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso, Cáceres, Mato Grosso.

Joari Costa de Arruda is a biologist, specializing in environmental management, a researcher in ecological and ethnoecological concepts applied to Pantanal water and biodiversity conservation and the Biodiversity Research Network in the Cerrado, Amazonian and Pantanal Biomes of the state of Mato Grosso – UNEMAT.

Carolina Joana da Silva, Centro de Estudos em Limnologia, Biodiversidade e Etnobiologia do Pantanal, Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso, Cáceres, Mato Grosso.

Carolina Joana da Silva is a biologist and an Adjunct Professor at the State University of Mato Grosso. Carolina is also a researcher in the Climate Network, Climate Change and Regional Development Sub-network and the Bionorte Network; graduate mentor in Environmental Sciences, Biodiversity and Biotechnology, and Biotechnology of the Amazônia Legal.

References

Alburquerque, U. P., T. A. de Sousa Araújo, M. A. Ramos, V. T. do Nascimento, R. F. P. de Lucena, J. M. Monteiro, N. L. Alencar, and E. de Lima Araújo. 2009. How Ethnobotany Can Aid Biodiversity Conservation: Reflections on Investigations in the Semi-Arid Region of NE Brazil. Biodiversity and Conservation 18:127–150. DOI:10.1007/s10531-008-9463-8.

Alburquerque, U. P., L. V. F. C. Cunha, R. F. P. Lucena, and R. R. N. Alves. 2014. Methods and Techniques in Ethnobiology and Ethnoecology. Springer, New York.

Alexiades, M., and P. Shanley. 2004. Productos Forestales, Medios de Subsistencia y Conservación. Estudios de Caso sobre Sistemas de Manejo de Productos no Maderables. Centro para la Investigación Forestal Internacional, Jakarta, Indonesia.

Beltrán-Rodríguez, L., A. Ortiz-Sánchez, N. A. Mariano, B. Maldonado-Almanza, and V. Reyes-García. 2014. Factors Affecting Ethnobotanical Knowledge in a Mestizo Community of the Sierra de Huautla Biosphere Reserve, Mexico. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 10:14. DOI:10.1186/1746-4269-10-14.

Berkes, F. 2007. Community-based Conservation in a Globalized World. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104:15188–15193. DOI:10.1073/pnas.0702098104.

Bernard, R. H. 2006. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 4th edition. Altamira Press, New York.

Biernacki, P., and D. Waldorf. 1981. Snowball Sampling, Problems and Techniques of Chain Referral Sampling. Sociological Methods and Research 10:141–163. DOI:10.1177/004912418101000205.

Blancas J., A. Casas, D. Pérez, J. Caballero, and E. Vega. 2013. Ecological and Socio-cultural Factors Influencing Plant Management in Náhuatl Communities of the Tehuacán Valley, Mexico. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 9:39. DOI:10.1186/1746-4269-9-39.

Borgatti, S. P. 1996. ANTHROPAC 4.0 Methods Guide. Analytic Technologies, Natick, MA.

Borgatti, S. P. 2002. Netdraw Network Visualization. Analytic Technologies, Harvard, MA. Available at: http://www.analytictech.com/ucinet/download.htm. Accessed on October 29, 2017.

Boster, J. S., J. C. Johnson, and S. C. Weller. 1987. Social Position and Shared Knowledge: Actors’ Perceptions of Status, Role, and Social Structure. Social Networks 9:375–387. DOI:10.1016/0378-8733(87)90005-0.

Castañeda, R., and J. Albán. 2016. Importancia Cultural de la Flora Silvestre del Distrito de Pamparomás, Ancash, Perú. Ecología Aplicada 15:151–169. DOI:10.21704/rea.v15i2.755.

CONABIO (Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad). 1998. La Diversidad Biológica de México: Estudio de País. Comisión Nacional para la Biodiversidad, Ciudad de México, Mexico.

CONANP (Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas). 2005. Programa de Conservación y Manejo Parque Nacional el Chico. Comisión de Áreas Naturales Protegidas, Pachuca de Soto, Hidalgo, Mexico.

Dávila-Figueroa, C. A., F. J. Flores Tena, F. M. Domínguez, R. C. Tapia, and E. P. Molphe Balch. 2011. Estatus Poblacional y Niveles de Aprovechamiento del Laurel Silvestre (Litsea glaucescens) en Aguascalientes. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Forestales 4:47–59.

Gómez-Pompa, A. 2001. Etnobotánica y Conservación. Revista de Geografía Agrícola 31:9–15.

Gaoue, O. G., M. A. Coe, M. Bond, G. Hart, B. C. Seyler, and H. McMillen. 2017. Theories and Major Hypotheses in Ethnobotany. Economic Botany 71:269–287. DOI:10.1007/s12231-017-9389-8.

Gravlee, L. 2002. The Uses and Limitations of Free Listing in Ethnographic Research. Research Methods in Cognitive Anthropology [web page]. Available at: http://www.gravlee.org/ang6930/freelists.htm#comp. Accessed on September 02, 2018.

Guzmán-Gutiérrez, S. L., R. Reyes-Chilpa, and H. Bonilla-Jaime. 2014. Medicinal Plants for the Treatment of “Nervios”, Anxiety and Depression in Mexican Traditional Medicine. Revista Brasileira de Farmacognosia 24:591–608. DOI:10.1016/j.bjp.2014.10.007.

Hammer, O., D. A. Harper, and P. D. Ryan. 2001. PAST: Paleontological Statistics Software Package for Education and data Analysis. Paleontología Electrónica 4:9. Available at: http://www.palaeo-electronica.org/2001_1/past/issue1_01.htm. Accessed on October 30, 2017.

INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía). 2010. Censo General de Población y Vivienda 2010. Tabulados, población total. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico. Available at: http://www.inegi.org.mx/sistemas/TabuladosBasicos/Default.aspx?c=27302. Accessed on October 18, 2017.

Jiménez-Pérez, N.C., F.G. Lorea Hernández, C. Jankowski, and R. Reyes-Chilpa. 2011. Essential Oils in Mexican Bays (Litsea spp., Lauraceae): Taxonomic Assortment and Ethnobotanical Implications. Economic Botany 65:178–189. DOI:10.1007/s12231-011-9160-5.

Krebs, C. J. 1989. Ecological Methodology. Harper and Row, New York.

Laumann, E. O., and F. U. Pappi. 1973. New Directions in the Study of Community Elites. American Sociological Review 38:212–230. DOI:10.2307/2094396.

López-Gutiérrez, B. M., B. E. Pérez-Escandón, and M. A. Villavicencio-Nieto. 2010. Los Laureleros de Nopaltepec, Estado de México y el Uso de Litsea glaucenscens H.E.K. (Lauraceae) de Tezoantla, Estado de Hidalgo, México. 1er Encuentro Hispano-Portugués de Etnobiología (EHPE 2010): Los Desafíos de la Etnobiología en España y Portugal. Revista de Fitoterapia 10 (S1).

López-Gutiérrez, B. M., B. E. Pérez-Escandón, and M. A. Villavicencio-Nieto. 2014. Aprovechamiento Sostenible y Conservación de Plantas Medicinales en Cantarranas, Huehuetla, Hidalgo, México, Como un Medio para Mejorar la Calidad de Vida en la Comunidad. Botanical Sciences 93:389–404. DOI:10.17129/botsci.106.

Mesquita, R. B., F. L. Pinheiro Landim, P. M. Collares, and C. Gilvaní de Luna. 2008. Analysis of Informal Social Networks: Application to the Reality of Inclusive School. Interface – Comunicação, Saúde, Educação 12:549–562. DOI:10.1590/S1414-32832008000300008.

Montañez-Armenta, M., T. E. Medina, and S. Martín. 2011. Aprovechamiento Tradicional de una Especie Protegida (Litsea glaucescens Kunth) en "Sierra del Laurel", Aguascalientes, México. Ra Ximhai 2:155–172. Available at: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=46119239001. Accessed on February 09, 2018.

Morais, F. F. de, R. F. de Morais, and C. J. da Silva. 2009. Traditional Ecological Knowledge about Plants Cultivated by Fishermen at Community Estirao Comprido, Pantanal Matogrossense, Brazil. Boletim do Museo Parense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas 4:277–294. DOI:10.1590/S1981-81222009000200005.

Ortiz-Quijano, D. E. 2016. La Pasión de Tezontepec. Tradición, Cultural e Identidad. Monografía Histórica de la Festividad de Semana Santa en Tezontepec de Aldama Hidalgo. Secretaría de Cultura del Estado de Hidalgo, Pachuca de Soto, Hidalgo, México.

Pardo de Santayana, M., and E. Gómez Pellón. 2003. Etnobotánica: Aprovechamiento Tradicional de Plantas y Patrimonio Cultural. Anales del Jardín Botánico de Madrid 60:171–182. Available at: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=55660112. Accessed on March 03, 2018.

Pío-León, J. F., F. Delgado-Vargas, B. Murillo-Amador, J. L. León-de-la-Luz, R. Vega-Aviña, A. Nieto-Garibay, M. Córdoba-Matson, and A. Ortega-Rubio. 2017. Environmental Traditional Knowledge in a Natural Protected Area as the Basis for Management and Conservation Policies. Journal of Environmental Management 201:63–71. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.06.032.

Phillips, O., and A. H. Gentry. 1993. The Useful Plants of Tambopata, Peru II: Additional Hypotheses Testing in Quantitative Ethnobotany. Economic Botany 47:33–43. DOI:10.1007/BF02862204.

Pulido, M. T., and C. Cuevas-Cardona. Cactus Nurseries and Conservation in a Biosphere Reserve in Mexico. Ethnobiology Letters 4:96–104. DOI:10.14237/ebl.4.2013.58.

Reyes-García, V., J. L. Molina, J. Broesch, L. Calvet, T. Huanca, J. Saus, S. Tanner, W. R. Leonard, T. W. McDade, and TAPS Bolivian Study Team. 2008. Do the Aged and Knowledgeable Men Enjoy More Prestige? A Test of Predictions from the Prestige-bias Model of Cultural Transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior 29:275–281 DOI:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.02.002.

Romney, A. K., and S. C. Weller. 1984. Predicting Informant Accuracy from Patterns of Recall Among Individuals. Social Networks 6:59–77. DOI:10.1016/0378-8733(84)90004-2.

SEMARNAT (Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales). 2010. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010, Protección Ambiental -Especies Nativas de México de Flora y Fauna Silvestres -Categorías de Riesgo y Especificaciones para su Inclusión, Exclusión o Cambio -Lista de Especies en Riesgo, Diario Oficial de la Federación 30 de diciembre de 2010. Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, Mexico City, Mexico. Available at: http://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle_popup.php?codigo=5173091. Accessed on September 17, 2018.

Shrestha, S., and K. E. Medley. 2017. Integrating Ecological and Ethnobotanical Knowledge to Promote Collaborative Conservation Planning in the Nepal Himalaya. Mountain Research and Development 37:97–107. DOI:10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-15-00081.1.

Turner, N. J. 1988. The Importance of a Rose: Evaluating the Cultural Significance of Plants in Thompson and Lillooet Interior Salish. American Anthropologist 90:272–290. DOI:10.1525/aa.1988.90.2.02a00020.

Tuxill, J., and G. P. Nabhan. 2001. People, Plants and Protected Areas: A Guide to in situ Management. Sterling, London.

Ethnobiology Letters Cover, Volume 10, Issue 1, 2019
Published
2019-04-15
How to Cite
Ortega-Meza, D., Pulido-Silva, M. T., Costa de Arruda, J., & da Silva, C. J. (2019). Ethnobotanical Study of the Mexican Laurel in El Chico National Park, Mexico: A Quantitative Perspective. Ethnobiology Letters, 10(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.14237/ebl.10.1.2019.1427
Issue
Vol 10 No 1 (2019)
Section
Research Communications

Copyright (c) 2019 Daniela Ortega Meza, María Teresa Pulido, Joari Costa de Arruda, Carolina Joana da Silva

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.