Recognition and traditional plants uses in an indigenous migrant community of San Luis Potosí, Mexico

Keywords: Agroforesty systems, circular migration, cultural importance index, ethnobotany, Huasteca Potosina

Abstract

Background: There is little research about the circular migration effect on Mexican traditional botanical knowledge, particularly in the Huasteca Potosina.

Questions: 1) Are the species recognition and the mentions of their uses different between active migrants, previously migrants and non-migrants? 2) Is the cultural importance of plants different between the groups mentioned?

Study site and period: Community of Tamán and its neighborhoods, Tamazunchale, San Luis Potosí. 2017-2018.

Methods: A catalogue of 41 species was shown to 16 active migrants, 25 previously migrants and 32 non-migrants. It was asked if they knew the plants and their uses; two cultural indices were built. The recognition and use mentions and the indexes between groups were compared.

Results: Species recognition and use mentions did not show significant statistical differences between migratory categories. Gender, the interaction migratory category*gender, and the covariates age and level education, did not influence the model. Indices of cultural importance (ICC) and relative importance (IIR) not showed differences. The major IIC (8.53) was presented by Cedrela odorata in the non-migrant group and for the IIR it was awarded to Bryophyllum sp. (2.00) in the group of previously migrants.

Conclusions: Circular migration does not affect neither plants recognition or the mention of uses between groups; gender does not influence the distribution of these variables either. There is a distance of specialized knowledge of migrants regarding non-migrants.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Elizandro Pineda-Herrera, Instituto Potosino de INvestigación Científica y Tecnológica A.C.
Ciencias Ambientales. Posdoctorante
David Douterlungne, Instituto Potosino de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica AC.

División de Ciencias Ambientales, Instituto Potosino de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica AC. San Luis Potosí, México

Leonardo Beltrán-Rodríguez, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Laboratorio de Etnobotánica Ecológica, Jardín Botánico, Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Alfonso Suárez-Islas, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, México

Instituto de Ciencias Agropecuarias. Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo

Profesor-Investigador

Alfredo Saynes-Vásquez, Instituto Saynes de Investigaciones sobre Cultura, Lengua y Naturaleza, México

Instituto Saynes de Investigaciones sobre Cultura, Lengua y Naturaleza, Juchitán, Oaxaca, México

Investigador

Mauricio Guzmán-Chávez, El Colegio de San Luis A.C

Programa de Estudios Antropológicos, El Colegio de San Luis A.C

Profesor-Investigador

Recognition and traditional plants uses in an indigenous migrant community of San Luis Potosí, Mexico

References

Albuquerque UP, Medeiros PM, Almeida ALS. 2007. Medicinal plants of the caatinga (semi-arid) vegetation of NE Brazil: a quantitative approach. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 114: 325–354. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2007.08.017

Albuquerque UP, Ramos MA, de Lucena RFP, Alencar NL. 2014. Methods and techniques used to collect ethnobiological data. In:

Albuquerque UP, Fernandez CLV, Farias PLR, Alves R, Eds. Methods and techniques in Ethnobiology and Ethnoecology, pp. 15-37, Springer, New York. ISBN 978-1-4614-8636-7

Alcorn JB. 1981. Some factors influencing botanical resource perception among the Huastec: Suggestions for future ethnobotanical inquiry. Journal of Ethnobioly 1: 221-230.

Alcorn JB. 1983. E1 te'lom Huasteco: Presente, pasado y futuro de un sistema de silvicultura indígena. Biótica 8: 315-331.

Alonso-Castro AJ, Maldonado-Miranda JJ, Zarate-Martínez A, Jacobo-Salcedo MR., Fernández-Galicia C, Figueroa-Zuñiga LA, Méndez-Martínez, R. 2012. Medicinal plants used in the Huasteca Potosina, Mexico. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 143: 292-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2012.06.035

Ávila-Uribe M, Suárez-Soto ML, Díaz-Perea J. 1994. Tének Campesinos in a rural community at the Huasteca Potosina complement their basic diet with local plants. Botanical Sciences 54: 3-15.

Beltrán-Rodríguez, L., Ortiz-Sánchez, A., Mariano, N. A., Maldonado-Almanza, B., Reyes-García, V. 2014. Factors affecting ethnobotanical knowledge in a mestizo community of the Sierra de Huautla Biosphere Reserve, Mexico. Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 10(1): 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-10-14

Bennett BC, Prance GT. 2000. Introduced plants in the indigenous pharmacopoeia of Northern South America. Economic Botanic 54: 90–102.

Boillat S, Berkes F. 2013. Perception and interpretation of climate change among Quechua farmers of Bolivia: indigenous knowledge as a resource for adaptive capacity. Ecology and Society 18: 21. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05894-180421

Brandt R, Mathez-Stiefel SL, Lachmuth S, Hensen I and Rist S. 2013. Knowledge and valuation of Andean agroforestry species: the role of sex, age, and migration among members of a rural community in Bolivia. Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine 9:1-13. http://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-9-83

Canales A. 1999. Periodicidad, estacionalidad, duración y retorno. Los distintos tiempos en la migración México-Estados Unidos. Papeles de Población 22: 11-41.

Cano-Ramírez M, De la Tejera B, Casas A, Salazar L, García-Barrios R. 2012. Migración rural y huertos familiares en una comunidad indígena del centro de México. Botanical Sciences 90: 287-304.

Cano-Ramírez M, De la Tejera B, Casas, A, Salazar L, García-Barrios R. 2016. Conocimientos tradicionales y prácticas de manejo del huerto familiar en dos comunidades tlahuicas del estado de México, México. Revista Iberoamericana de Economía Ecológica 25: 81-94.

Cilia López VG, Aradillas C, Díaz-Barriga F. 2015. Las plantas comestibles de una comunidad indígena de la Huasteca Potosina, San Luis Potosí. Entreciencias: diálogos en la Sociedad del Conocimiento 3: 143-152.

Curran S. 2002. Migration, social capital, and the environment: Considering migrant selectivity and networks in relation to coastal ecosystems. Population and Development Review 28: 89-125.

De Vidas AA. 2014. Nutriendo la sociabilidad en los mundos nahuas y teenek (Huasteca Veracruzana, México). Anthropology of food S9.

Dirzo R, Miranda A. 1991. El límite boreal de la Selva Tropical Húmeda en el continente americano contracción de la vegetación y solución de una controversia. Interciencia 16: 240-246.

García E. 1998. Climas: clasificación de Koppen, modificado por García. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO). México, D.F.

Gaoue, O. G., Coe, M. A., Bond, M., Hart, G., Seyler, B. C., & McMillen, H. (2017). Theories and major hypotheses in ethnobotany. Economic Botany 71: 269-287.

Gutiérrez R. 2011. Migración. 40% de indígenas de la huasteca emigran en busca de empleo. Consultada el 15 de Octubre de 2016: http://www.oem.com.mx/elsoldetijuana/notas/n2204839.htm.

INEGI. 2016. Anuario estadístico y geográfico del estado de San Luis Potosí. México: Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía.

Levis C, Costa FR, Bongers F, Peña-Claros M, Clement CR, Junqueira AB, Castilho CV. 2017. Persistent effects of pre-Columbian plant domestication on Amazonian forest composition. Science 355: 925-931. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal0157

Lira MG, Robson JP, Klooster DJ. 2016. Can indigenous transborder migrants affect environmental governance in their communities of origin? Evidence from Mexico. Population and Environment 37: 464-478. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-015-0247-2

Liu Y, Feng Y, Zhao Z, Zhang Q, Su S. 2016. Socioeconomic drivers of forest loss and fragmentation: A comparison between different land use planning schemes and policy implications. Land Use Policy 54: 58-68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.01.016

López TJF, Valdez-Hernández JI. 2011. Uso de especies arbóreas en una comunidad de la reserva de la biósfera La Sepultura, Estado de Chiapas. In: Endara-Agramont AR, Mora-Santacruz A, Valdez-Hernández JI. Eds. Bosques y Árboles del Trópico Mexicano: Estructura, Crecimiento y Usos. pp. 57-75, Universidad de Guadalajara-Prometeo Editores, Guadalajara, México.

Medeiros PM, Soldati GT, Alencar NL, Vandebroek I, Pieroni A, Hanazaki N, Albuquerque UP. 2012. The use of medicinal plants by migrant people: adaptation, maintenance, and replacement. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2012: 11. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1155/2012/807452

Medeiros PM, de Almeida ALS, de Lucena RFP, Souto FJB, Albuquerque UP 2014. Use of visual stimuli in ethnobiological research. In: Albuquerque UP, Fernandez CLV, Farias PLR, Alves R, Eds. Methods and techniques in Ethnobiology and Ethnoecology. pp. 87-98, Springer, New York. ISBN 978-1-4614-8636-7

Muellner AN, Pennington TD, Koecke AV, Renner SS. 2010. Biogeography of Cedrela (Meliaceae, Sapindales) in central and South america. American Journal of Botany, 97: 511-518. https://doi.org.10.3732/ajb.0900229

Nesheim I, Dhillion SS, Stolen KA. 2006. What Happens to Traditional Knowledge and Use of Natural Resources When People Migrate? Human Ecology 34: 99–131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-005-9004-y

Pennington TD, Sarukhán J. 2005. Árboles tropicales de México: Manual para la identificación de las principales especies. Fondo de Cultura Económica/Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. México, D.F. ISBN 970-32-1643-9

Peralta-Rivero C, Contreras SC, Galindo MMG, Algara SM, Mas CJF. 2014. Deforestation Rates in the Mexican Huasteca Region (1976-2011). Cienciagro 3: 1-20.

Phillips O, Gentry AH. 1993. The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru: I. Statistical hypothesis tests with a new quantitative technique. Economic Botany 47: 15–32.

Pineda-Herrera E, Hernández VSD, Douterlugne RD. 2019. ¿Qué son los bosques antrópicos? CIENCIA. 70:46-55.

Ponette-González AG. 2007. 2001: A household analysis of Huastec Maya agriculture and land use at the height of the coffee crisis. Human Ecology, 35: 289-301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-006-9091-4

Puig H. 1976. Tipos de Vegetación de la Huasteca Potosina (México). Estudio fitogeográfico y ecológico. Instiut de Recherche pour le developpement en cooperation y Centro de Estudios Mexicanos y Centroamericanos, México, D.F.

Punch S, Sugden F. 2013. Work, education and out-migration among children and youth in upland Asia: changing patterns of labour and ecological knowledge in an era of globalisation. Local Environment 18:255-270.

Reyes-García V, Huanca T, Vadez V, Leonard W, Wilkie D. 2006. Cultural, practical, and economic value of wild plants: a quantitative study in the Bolivian Amazon. Economic Botany 60: 62-74.

Ribeiro-Palacios M., Huber-Sannwald E, Barrios LG, de Paz FP, Hernández JC, Mendoza GMG. 2013. Landscape diversity in a rural territory: Emerging land use mosaics coupled to livelihood diversification. Land Use Policy 30: 814-824. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.06.007

Rivera-Lozoya E. 2012. Las plantas de los solares en una comunidad Nahuatl de la Huasteca Potosina. En: Van Hooft A. (prod.) Lengua y Cultura Nahua de la Huasteca, pp. 1-24. CCSYH-UASLP/Linguapax/CIGA-UNAM, San Luis Potosí, México. ISBN: 978-607-7856-73-3

Saynes-Vásquez A., Caballero J, Meave JA, Chiang F. 2013. Cultural change and loss of ethnoecological knowledge among the Isthmus Zapotecs of Mexico. Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 9: 40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-9-40

Suárez-Islas A, Williams-Linera G, Trejo C, Valdez-Hernández JI, Cetina-Alcalá VM, Vibrans H. 2012. Local knowledge helps select species for forest restoration in a tropical dry forest of central Veracruz, Mexico. Agroforestry Systems 85: 35-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-011-9437-9

Statsoft Corp. 2008. Statistica 8.0. URL. https://www.statistica.com/.

Souto T, Ticktin T. 2012. Understanding interrelationships among predictors (age, gender, and origin) of local ecological knowledge. Economic Botany 66: 149-164.

Vandebroek I, Balick MJ. 2012. Globalization and Loss of Plant Knowledge: Challenging the Paradigm. PLoS ONE 7: e37643. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037643

Villavicencio-Nieto MA, Pérez-Escandón BE, Gordillo-Martínez AJ. 2010. Plantas tradicionalmente usadas como plaguicidas en el estado de Hidalgo, México. Polibotánica 30: 193-238.

Voeks RA, Leony A. 2004. Forgetting the forest: assessing medicinal plant erosion in Eastern Brazil. Economic Botany 58: S294-S306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1663/0013-0001(2004)58[S294:FTFAMP]2.0.CO;2

Voeks RA. 2007. Are women reservoirs of traditional plant knowledge? Gender, ethnobotany and globalization in northeast Brazil. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 28: 7-20. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9493.2006.00273

Volpato G, Godínez D, Beyra A, Barreto A. 2009. Uses of Medicinal Plants by Haitian Immigrants and Their Descendants in the Province of Camagüey, Cuba. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 5: 1-9. http://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-5-16

Williams AM, Hall CM. 2002. Tourism, migration, circulation and mobility. In: Hall CM, Williams AM. Eds. Tourism and migration. pp. 1-52, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Published
2020-03-11
How to Cite
Pineda-Herrera, E., Douterlungne, D., Beltrán-Rodríguez, L., Suárez-Islas, A., Saynes-Vásquez, A., & Guzmán-Chávez, M. (2020). Recognition and traditional plants uses in an indigenous migrant community of San Luis Potosí, Mexico. Botanical Sciences, 98(1), 145-158. https://doi.org/10.17129/botsci.2353
Section
ETHNOBOTANY / ETNOBOTÁNICA