A Quantitative Method for Evaluating Contemporary Cultural Uses of Birds: A Case Study from Mexico
Abstract
This study evaluates the relationship between people and birds in Mexico, a country where high cultural and biological diversity are reflected in the close associations between people and natural resources, recorded since pre-Hispanic times. It systematically reviews 1041 records of cultural use of wild birds in Mexico published between 1996–2017 and analyzes patterns of contemporary use of avifauna. It classifies information for 252 birds by grouping uses of species and families into 11 categories and quantifies overall use with a Cultural Value Index (CVI). The data show that birds have a high cultural value as food, pets, and for medicinal uses (312, 235, and 119 records, respectively), particularly in the state of Chiapas. Large edible birds had the highest CVIs and included Plain chachalacas (Ortalis vetula; 9.72), Black-bellied whistling-ducks (Dendrocygna autumnali; 6.65), Crested guams (Penelope purpurascens; 6.25), and Great currasows (Crax rubra; 6.23), with the Cracidae family recorded as favored gamebirds. Conspicuous, brightly-colored birds had high CVIs, including Keel-billed toucans (Ramphastos sulfuratus; 6.50), Red-lored amazons, (Amazona autumnalis; 6.03), and allied species, which were traded or kept as pets despite legal protection. The high CVIs of Barn owls (Tyto alba; 5.45) were related to medicinal uses, and Mourning doves (Zenaida macroura; 5.69) were mainly used as gamebirds. Wild bird populations face increasing pressure from habitat loss and overexploitation. We propose that evaluating the ethnological significance of wildlife with indices like CVIs can quantify the distinctive needs of rural communities, which when combined with information on conservation status can develop more sustainable species management plans.
References
Alves, R. R. N., R. C. L. Leite, W. M. S. Souto, D. M. M. Bezerra, and A. Loures-Ribeiro. 2013. Ethno-ornithology and Conservation of Wild Birds in the Semi-Arid Caatinga of Northeastern Brazil. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 9:14. DOI:10.1186/1746-4269-9-14.
Alves, R. R. N., J. S. Silva, L. da Silva Chaves, and U. P. Albuquerque. 2018. Introduction—Ethnozoology Animals in Our Lives. In Ethnozoology and Animal Conservation, edited by R. R. N. Alves and U. P. Albuquerque, pp. 1–7. Academic Press, London, UK.
Alves, R. R. N., and W. M. S. Souto. 2015. Ethnozoology: A Brief Introduction. Ethnobiology and Conservation 4:1–13. DOI:10.15451/ec2015-1-4.1-1-13
Anderson, E. N., and F. Medina-Tzuc. 2005. Animals and the Maya in Southeast Mexico. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.
Anderson, E. N. 2017. Birds in Maya Imagination: A Historical Ethno-Ornithology. Journal of Ethnobiology 37:621–636. DOI:10.2993/0278-0771-37.4.621.
Ávila-Nájera, D. M., E. J. Naranjo, B. J. Tigar, O. Villarreal, and G. D. Mendoza. 2018. An Evaluation of the Contemporary Uses and Cultural Significance of Mammals in Mexico. Ethnobiology Letters 9:124–135. DOI:10.14237/ebl.9.2.2018.1106.
Berlanga, H., H. Gómez de Silva, V. M. Vargas-Canales, V. Rodríguez-Contreras, L. A. Sánchez-González, R. Ortega-Álvarez, and R. Calderón-Parra. 2017. Aves de México: Lista Actualizada de Especies y Nombres Comunes. México D.F, CONABIO. Available at: https://www.biodiversidad.gob.mx/especies/scripts_aves/docs/lista_actualizada_aos_2017.pdf. Accessed on August 26, 2019.
Birdlife International. 2018. State of the World’s Birds. Taking the Pulse of the Planet. [web page]. Available at: https://www.birdlife.org/sites/default/files/attachments/BL_ReportENG_V11_spreads.pdf. Accessed on August 26, 2019.
Costa-Neto, E. M., M. Vargas Clavijo, and D. Santos Fita. 2009. Manual de Etnozoología. Una Guía Teórico-Práctica Para Investigar la Interconexión del Ser Humano con los Animales. Tundra Ediciones Valencia, Spain.
Cuéllar Soto, E. 2017. El Aspecto Humano de la Conservación: Algunos Conflictos, Desafíos y Acciones en Argentina. Mastozoología Neotropical 24:9–5. Available at: https://www.sarem.org.ar/mastozoologia-neotropical-vol-24-no1/. Accessed on August 26, 2019.
Eaton, J. A., C. R. Shepherd, F. E. Rheindt, J. B. C. Harris, S. B. van Balen, D. S. Wilcove, and N. J. Collar. 2015. Trade-Driven Extinctions and Near-Extinctions of Avian Taxa in Sundaic Indonesia. Forktail 31:1–12.
Figueroa–Solano, E. 2000. Uso Agroecológico, Actual y Potencial, de Especies Arbóreas en una Selva Baja Caducifolia Perturbada del Suroeste del Estado de México. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Colegio de Postgraduados, Montecillo, Mexico.
González-Herrera L. R., J. Chablé-Santos, W. Aguilar-Cordero, and P. Manríque-Saide. 2018. El Comercio de Aves Silvestres En La Ciudad de Mérida, Yucatán, México. Ecosistemas y Recursos Agropecuarios 5:271–281.
Hull, K., and R. Fergus. 2017. Birds as Seers: An Ethno-Ornithological Approach to Omens and Prognostication among the Ch'Orti' Maya of Guatemala. Journal of Ethnobiology 37:604–620. DOI:10.2993/0278-0771-37.4.604.
Jacobo-Salcedo, M. R., A. J. Alonso-Castro, and A. Zarate-Martínez. 2010. Folk Medicinal Use of Fauna in Mapimi, Durango, México. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 122:902–906. DOI:10.1016/j.jep.2010.10.005.
Navarro-Sigüenza, A. G., M. F. Rebón-Gallardo, A. Gordillo-Martínez, A. T. Peterson, H. Berlanga-García, and L. A. Sánchez-González. 2014. Biodiversidad de Aves en México. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 85:S476–495. DOI:10.7550/rmb.41882.
Ortiz-Pulido, R. 2018. ¿Qué Especies de Aves Están en Riesgo en México? Huitzil, Revista Mexicana de Ornitología 19:237–272. DOI:10.28947/hrmo.2018.19.2.348.
Ortiz-Pulido, R., J. L. Alcántara-Carbajal, H. de la Cueva, J. Martínez-Gómez, P. Escalante Pliego, S. Parra-Martínez, T. P. Feria Arroyo, and S. Albert. 2016. Conservación de Aves en México, una Instantánea de 2015. Huitzil, Revista Mexicana de Ornitología 17:234–238. DOI:10.28947/hrmo.2016.17.2.252.
Partasasmita, R., J. Iskandar, and N. Malone. 2016. Karangwangi People’s (South Cianjur, West Java, Indonesia) Local Knowledge of Species, Forest Utilization and Wildlife Conservation. Biodiversitas 17:154–161. DOI:10.13057/biodiv/d170123.
Pires, S. F. 2012. The Illegal Parrot Trade: A Literature Review. Global Crime 13:176–190. DOI:10.1080/17440572.2012.700180.
Riedler, R., E. Pearlstein, and M. Gleeson. 2012. Featherwork: Beyond Decorative. Studies in Conservation 57 (Supplement 1):S244–249. DOI:10.1179/2047058412Y.0000000052.
Roblero-Morales, M. 2008. La Relación Hombre-Naturaleza Entre los Lacandones de Nahá, Ocosingo, Chiapas. Estudios Sociales y Humanísticos 6:125–140. DOI:10.29043/liminar.v6i1.271.
Roldán-Clará, V., V. M. Toledo, and I. Espejel. 2017. The Use of Birds as Pets in Mexico. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 13:1–18. DOI:10.1186/s13002-017-0161-z.
Sault, N. 2016. How Hummingbird and Vulture Mediate Between Life and Death in Latin America. Journal of Ethnobiology 36:783–806. DOI:10.2993/0278-0771-36.4.783.
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. S. D. M. A. and R. N. (SEMARNAT, Mexico). Available at: http://dof.gob.mx/normasOficiales/4254/semarnat/semarnat.htm. Accessed on August 26, 2019.
Tábara, J. D. 2006. Las Aves Como Naturaleza y la Conservación de las Aves Como Cultura. Papers: Revista de Sociología 82:57–77. DOI:10.5565/rev/papers.2049.
Toledo, V. M., and N. Barrera-Bassols. 2008. La Memoria Biocultural. La Importancia Ecológica de las Sabidurías Tradicionales, 1st edition. Icaria, Barcelona, Spain.
Turner, N. J. 1988. The Importance of a Rose: Evaluating the Cultural Significance of Plants in Thompson and Lillooet Interior Salish. American Anthropologist, New Series 90:272–290. DOI:10.1525/aa.1988.90.2.02a00020.
Valadez, A. R. 2003. Domesticación y Zootecnia en el México Antiguo. Imagen Veterinaria 3:32–45.
White, T., A. Johnson-Camacho, T. Bloom, P. Lancho-Diéguez, and R. Sellares. 2011. Human Perceptions Regarding Endangered Species Conservation: A Case Study of Saona Island, Dominican Republic. Revista Latinoamericana de Conservación 2:18–29.
Copyright (c) 2020 Dulce María Ávila-Nájera, Barbara J. Tigar, Zaira Zavala-Sánchez, Pedro Zetina-Cordoba, Ricardo Serna-Lagunes
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.