la torre cuadros 2003 (traditional ecological knowledge, mexico)
TRANSCRIPT
Traditional ecological knowledge and use ofvegetation in southeastern Mexico: a case study fromSolferino, Quintana Roo
*MARIA DE LOS ANGELES LA TORRE-CUADROS and GERALD A.ISLEBEEl Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Unidad Chetumal, Herbarium, A.P. 424, Chetumal, Quintana Roo 77000,
*Mexico; Author for correspondence (e-mail: [email protected]; fax: 152-983-83-50440)
Received 6 June 2002; accepted in revised form 3 January 2003
Key words: Ethnoclassification, Mayas, Mexico, Quantitative ethnobotany, Tropical forest
Abstract. In order to assess traditional ecological knowledge of the Maya people in southeastern Mexico,we interviewed local people in Quintana Roo and estimated a number of vegetation variables in twodifferent types of forest which are currently locally exploited, namely Monte alto (medium staturedforest) and Sakal che’ (low forest). We employed the Use Value index for each plant species (UV ) tos
quantify the importance of each plant for each inhabitant. The results showed that this Maya communityclassify the different forest types by species associations and size, and according to soil appearance. Atotal of nine categories of use were defined for three plant forms (tree, palm and vine). Manilkara zapota(zapote), Thrinax radiata (chiit) and Macfadyena uncata (bilin kok) showed the highest use values foreach plant form. The most common uses were construction (35.5%), medicine (19.0%), craft (17.9%)and edibility (10.3%). There was a weak relationship between the cultural importance of plant species,expressed by the UV , and their availability in the medium statured forest and the medium statured–lows
forest transition expressed by the ImportanceValue index (IVI). The medium statured forest was the mostused forest type, as it provides many species for construction due to external demands rather than to localneeds.
Introduction
The severe deforestation of tropical forests is a global concern. Recent studies6estimated a rate of change in the forest area of 4.9 6 1.3 3 10 ha per year (Achard
et al. 2002). This may also involve a huge economic loss, as tropical forests have a9total estimated value of US$2007 per ha and a circulation capital of US$3813 3 10
per year (Costanza et al. 1997).Forest resources can be exploited following alternative strategies which prevent
deforestation and land transformation (Peters et al. 1989; Nepstad and Schwartzman1992; Plokin and Famolare 1992). For instance, ethnobotanists have found thatnon-timber products like edible fruits, oils, latex, and fiber represent the mostimmediate and profitable method for integrating the use and conservation ofAmazonian forests (Balick and Cox 1997). The economic value of useful species intropical forests has been assessed on national (Rutter 1990), regional (Toledo et al.
´1978; Richards 1991) and local scales (Prance et al. 1987; Pinedo-Vasquez et al.
B i odi versi t y and C onservat i on 12: 2455–2476, 2003.c© 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
2456
˜1990; Paz y Mino et al. 1991; Phillips and Gentry 1993a; Phillips et al. 1994).Comparable analysis of tree farming in Brazil gave yields of US$3184 per ha, whilethe conversion of tropical forest for cattle pasture gave a net present value of onlyUS$2960, assuming gross revenues of US$148 per year (Peters et al. 1989). In asimilar study, Balick and Mendelsohn (1992) valued the native medicinal plantspecies taken by the local people from a forest in Belize. From two separate 1-haplots of 30- and 50-year-old forest, the total biomass of respectively 309 and 1434kg (dry weight) of medicinal plants was calculated a present value of US$726 per hafor the 30-year forest, and US$3327 per ha for the 50-year forest (Balick andMendelsohn 1992). These studies fostered a greater understanding of the value ofthe tropical forest to local inhabitants and their economy. Traditional ecologicalknowledge emphasizes and unravels the actual utilities of tropical plant species, thusenhancing the local management and conservation of local forest resources andbiodiversity (Colorado and Collins 1987; Colorado 1988; Schultes 1988; Posey
´1990; Gadgil et al. 1993; Hunn 1993; Salmon 1996; Richards 1997; Turner et al.2000). This can be assessed in Mexico, as it is one of the best studied Latin
´American countries from an ethnobotanical point of view (Toledo 1987; Martınez1994). Indeed, over 50% of the Mexican indigenous groups have been subjected tostudies dealing with plant use patterns, and further research has focused on theMestizo population (Toledo 1990; Toledo et al. 1995).
National forest clearing programs for agriculture and husbandry during the 1970sand 1980s led to 75% of the state being covered by secondary plant communities indifferent seral stages (Olmsted et al. 1983). Still, the forests of Quintana Roo remainan important source of timber and non-timber products for domestic use and foreignmarkets (e.g. extraction of chicle from the tree Manilkara zapota and of guanoleaves from the palm Sabal yapa). Ethnobotanical research in northern QuintanaRoo has been scarce, notwithstanding the fact that modern Maya natives devote a lotof traditional knowledge to medicine, ritual, construction, food, and fabric elabora-tion (Barrera et al. 1976; Mendieta and Del Amo 1981; Flores 1987; Pulido and
´ ´Serralta 1993). For instance, Mendez and Duran (1997) estimated that aboutone-third of the plant species in northern Quintana Roo have medicinal applications.However, regional plant communities have been severely impacted over time byoverexploitation of timber, chicle and tourism.
The main goal of this study was to quantify the use of undisturbed vegetation byMaya people in a community of northern Quintana Roo. In this study, we firstdetermined Maya people’s criteria in differentiating and classifying vegetation typesaccording to a number of individual interviews. Secondly we examined the use ofeach vegetation type on the base of the Use Value index (UV ) (Phillips and Gentrys
1993a, 1993b). Third, we evaluated composition, abundance and distribution oftrees and palms in two vegetation types which are regarded as undisturbed by thepeople, and compared the Importance Value Index for each species (IVI) calculatedfor each type of forest with the UV obtained. Finally, we summarize the applica-s
tions of 10 useful plant species according to their use in Solferino and in the regionof study.
2457
Methods
Study area
The study was carried out in the Solferino ejido, a communal landholding with atotal area of 18400 ha located in the northern part of Quintana Roo (218129300 /218259000 N and 878069000 /878309000 W) (Figure 1). The local climate is char-acterized by annual mean temperatures varying between 24 and 26 8C, while theannual precipitation ranges from 900 to 1300 mm, with most rain between May andOctober and peaks in June and September (Escobar 1986). Soils are rich in Ca, Mg,
´Ka, Fe and Al, but poor in P and Mn (Wright 1967; Sanchez and Islebe 2001).This ejido gathers a total of 803 inhabitants (INEGI 2000). Local ethnic groups
consist of both Maya and Mestizo people from the states of Quintana Roo andYucatan, and a small group of Totonac descendants from Veracruz. The mainactivity is agriculture, either as a direct source of food (mainly traditional milpa, i.e.corn and squash bean fields /crops) or as a source of cash income (vegetables).Animal husbandry, fishing and apiculture are complementary activities.
Fieldwork was undertaken between October 2000 and January 2002. Approxi-mately 100 individuals were interviewed in a semi-structured open-ended format,asking them about the most important useful plants in the area. From these
Figure 1. Map showing the location of the Solferino ejido in the Yucatan Peninsula.
2458
interviews we selected 21 informants who had substantial knowledge about theforest. As a consequence, our sample shows a bias toward older male informants (18individuals, average age 61 years) with only three women being interviewed (detailsin La Torre-Cuadros and Ross, accepted paper). A second semi-structured interviewwas applied to obtain precise information on the use (category of use and part ofplants used) of those species which are presently exploited, and their location in thefield. These data were analyzed by the consensus of the informants technique, wherethe relative importance of each use is calculated by the degree of consensus in thevarious answers given by each informant (Adu-Tutu et al. 1979; Trotter and Logan1986; Phillips and Gentry 1993a). To quantify the plant resources present in eachvegetation type and contrast this estimate with the interview data, we divided thestudy area in four zones, based on aerial photography on a 1:75000 scale, andpositioned by GPS. These study zones comprised a medium statured forest disturbedby agriculture, a medium statured forest without disturbance, a transition vegetationbetween medium and low forests, and savanna. A total of 20 plots were establishedonly in the two undisturbed zones, namely 12 in the medium forest and 8 in thetransition. The plot area was standardized at 0.1 ha according to previous vegetation
´ ´ ´studies in the region (Duran 1986; Sanchez 2000; Sanchez and Islebe 2001), i.e. 202 2
3 50 m in the medium forest patches, and 10 3 100 m in the transition zone,because of the spatial distribution of the trees. We identified tree and palmindividuals with diameter at breast height (dbh) $5 cm, and collected data on theiruse by local people, incorporating use of vines too. All plant specimens werecollected and subsequently identified at the ECOSUR Herbarium.
Data analysis
We employed the Use Value index of each species s for each informant i (UV ) andis
the Use Value for each species s (UV ) proposed by Phillips and Gentry (1993a,s
1993b) to quantify the importance of each species for each informant. UV isis
defined as UV 5 oU /n , where U amounts to the number of uses quoted in eachis is is is
interview (event) by informant i, and n stands for the number of quotations foris
species s given by informant i. An ‘event’ is defined as the process of asking oneinformant on 1 day about the uses they know for one given species (Phillips andGentry 1993a). In our case, there were two events of informants’ interviews. Theoverall use value for each species s is equated by UV 5 o UV /n , where n equalss i is s s
the number of informants interviewed for species s.The informants quoted 61 types of plant uses, which have been categorized in
Table 3. We maintained the common name for each species following the criteria byBerlin (1973, 1992).
Detrented correspondence analysis (DCA) was applied on 20 plots with 922species and basal area (cm ), which was used as the variable of dominance (Curtis
1959). DCA was implemented in the PC-ORD package v. 3.0 (McCune andMefford 1997). The IVI for each species was used to characterize vegetation typesand explore species dominance patterns in our sampling zones. The IVI for a speciesis the sum of its relative density, relative dominance (basal area) and relative
2459
frequency (Curtis and McIntosh 1951). In order to assess species occurrencepatterns in each vegetation type, a classification method was carried out as proposed
´by Sanchez and Islebe (2002).
Results
Local Maya’s classification of vegetation types
A total of four major types of vegetation were identified by natives, who namedthem after a number of synonyms. Three of these vegetation types were consideredas undisturbed and were classified into a further eight vegetation subtypes regardingdominance or presence /absence patterns of plant species (Table 1). In over 50% ofthe interviews, natives put the focus on species size and soil characteristics as themain factors differentiating the medium statured forest from the low forest. Seralvegetation patches were recognized by locals by their exploitation, while speciesassociations and dynamics were reported for allocating the vegetation patches to asavanna forest type (Figure 2, Table 2).
Use values
Interviews reflected that the local vegetation is widely used by local Maya forconstruction (35.5%), medicine (19.0%), craft (17.9%) and edibility (10.3%).Patterns of use of vegetation resources are shaped by their accessibility (85.7%),morphological appearance (80.9%), and sometimes by information exchange
Figure 2. Plant species attributes reported by local Maya people for classifying the study vegetationtypes, i.e. Mb: Monte bajo (disturbed forest), Ma: Monte alto (medium statured forest), Sak: Sakal che’or Monte blanco (low forest), Sa: Sabana (savanna).
2460
Tab
le1.
Typ
esof
vege
tatio
nfo
und
inth
est
udy
area
,with
the
clas
sific
atio
nan
dno
men
clat
ure
repo
rted
bylo
calM
aya
nativ
esco
mpa
red
with
the
ecol
ogic
alcl
assi
ficat
ion.
Cla
ssifi
catio
nD
egre
eof
dist
urba
nce
aD
istu
rbed
Und
istu
rbed
Und
istu
rbed
Und
istu
rbed
Loca
lM
aya
nativ
es˜
Type
sof
vege
tatio
nM
onte
bajo
(kub
ches
orhu
amil,
Mon
teal
toor
Mon
tana
(Ma)
Saka
lche
’or
Mon
tebl
anco
Saba
na(S
a)˜
˜ca
nada
,can
aro
sa)
(Mb)
orTs
ek’e
la(S
ak)
Subt
ypes
ofve
geta
tion
Gua
nal
Tasi
stal
Zaca
tal
Chi
tal
Tint
alTu
lar
Cat
zim
alC
orch
al
Mira
nda
(197
8)
Ecol
ogic
alty
peso
fveg
etat
ion
Succ
essi
onal
vege
tatio
nin
Med
ium
stat
ured
fore
stLo
wfo
rest
‘Sav
anna
fore
st’
diff
eren
tre
gene
ratio
nst
ages
aV
eget
atio
nw
ithm
inor
hum
anin
terv
entio
n.
2461
Table 2. Definition of the criteria utilized in the local classification of the vegetation types.
Criteria Attributes mentioned by locals
Morphological appearance and Size: high, low, medium, small, little, ‘chaparro’in situ observations Color: white, green, black, pale
Thickness: thin, thickVegetative structures: thorny, entangled, ‘gajudo’Hardness: smooth, hardCover: little, dense, ‘piece’, ‘manchones’, ‘coposo’, gloomy, leafyCharacteristic of the soil: muddy, stone slab, pure stone, rocky,hard, burned, blackish, red
Association Presence or absence of different plants or animalsUse Places to cut wood, seed bed, wood for house, medicinal plants,
ornamental plants, corn harvesting milpa, animal food, restingplace, fishing, use of the ground
Dynamic As consequence of water level, phenological cycles and beliefsLocation Reference to an adjacent type of vegetation, place, distance in km
or in timeArea Characteristic of the landscapeOthers General perception of the environment
among cohabitants (38.2%) or in situ observations such as bark hardness or sapcolor (28.6%). The uses of trees, palms and vines were considered, and could beallocated to a total of nine categories, which composed the Use Value index (Table3).
A regression analysis showed a positive but weak relationship between Use Valuefor each species and its availability (defined by IVI) in each type of vegetation,
2despite its significance in the medium statured forest (r 5 0.17, P , 0.01, n 5 68;2transition zone: r 5 0.04, P 5 0.13, n 5 65).
Vegetation structure
DCA of the 20 plots separated the medium statured forest from the medium–lowforest along the first axis (eigenvalue 5 0.69, Figure 3), which represents an edaphicgradient. In plot 16 we found several species characteristic of secondary vegetationtypes in late regeneration stages. The second axis had a low eigenvalue (0.25) andrepresents a disturbance gradient, as the more disturbed plots according to theirbasal area and floristic composition are located on the upper left side of Figure 3.The vegetation of plots 12, 9, 11 and 13 is influenced by the nearby medium staturedforest, because it is composed by species shared between these plots and the plots onthe left side of Figure 3.
In the medium statured forest a total of 2010 individuals (dbh $5 cm) wasrecorded, belonging to 29 families, 52 genera and 68 species. Species richness wasdominated by Fabaceae (6 species), Moraceae (6 species), Sapindaceae (4 species),Sapotaceae (4 species), Caesalpiniaceae (4 species) and Polygonaceae (4 species),which contributed to almost 50% of the species pool present. The most diverse
2462
Tab
le3.
Use
Val
uein
dex
(UV
)fo
r47
spec
ies
oftr
ees,
4sp
ecie
sof
palm
san
d10
spec
ies
ofvi
nes,
UV
com
pone
ntfo
rea
chca
tego
ryof
use
(cU
V),
dist
ribu
tion
byty
peof
ss
x
vege
tatio
n,pl
ant
part
used
and
info
rman
tnu
mbe
r(2
1in
terv
iew
s).
ab
Life
Com
mon
Scie
ntifi
cFa
mily
UV
cUV
cUV
cUV
cUV
cUV
cUV
cUV
cUV
cUV
Loca
lveg
etat
ion
[p.
part
Part
(s)us
ed[
info
r.s
hcm
cte
ce
edr
dot
form
nam
ena
me
Tree
sza
pote
Man
ilkar
aza
pota
Sapo
tace
ae2.
610.
560.
441.
000.
61m
a,sa
k4
ex,b
k,tr,
fr9
alam
oFi
cus
sp.
Mor
acea
e2.
501.
000.
501.
00m
a3
wp,
tr,fr
1k’
anix
te’
Pout
eria
cam
pech
iana
Sapo
tace
ae2.
251.
001.
000.
25m
a2
tr,fr
2ba
lche
’Lo
ncho
carp
usca
still
oiFa
bace
ae2.
001.
001.
00m
a1
bk1
maj
agua
Ham
pea
trilo
bata
Mal
vace
ae2.
000.
751.
25m
b,m
a3
bk,t
r,br
4pa
lode
rosa
Sim
ira
salv
ador
ensi
sR
ubia
ceae
2.00
1.00
1.00
ma
1bk
1pi
chEn
tero
lobi
umcy
cloc
arpu
mFa
bace
ae2.
001.
001.
00m
a2
fr,t
r1
cara
colil
loSi
dero
xylo
nga
umer
iSa
pota
ceae
1.50
1.00
0.50
ma
2fr
,tr
1ce
dro
Ced
rela
odor
ata
Mel
iace
ae1.
500.
750.
75m
a1
tr2
kaat
sim
Mim
osa
baha
men
sis
Mim
osac
eae
1.50
0.50
1.00
ma,
sak
2rt,
bk1
kita
mch
e’C
aesa
lpin
iaga
umer
iC
aesa
lpin
acea
e1.
500.
501.
00m
a,sa
k2
tr,st
1´
nara
nja
agrı
aC
itrus
aura
ntiu
mR
utac
eae
1.50
1.00
0.50
ma,
sa1
fr1
tank
anch
e’M
acha
onia
linde
nian
aR
ubia
ceae
1.50
0.33
0.25
0.50
0.17
sak
3rt,
bk6
zacb
ach
Allo
phyl
usco
min
iaSa
pind
acea
e1.
501.
000.
50m
a3
tr,bk
,lv
1el
emuy
/yay
aM
alm
eade
pres
saA
naca
rdia
ceae
1.33
1.00
0.33
ma,
mb
3bk
,rt,
tr7
ts’u
’ts’u
k/su
suk
Dip
hysa
cart
hage
nens
isFa
bace
ae1.
331.
33m
a,sa
k1
tr3
chak
te’/
bras
ilete
Cae
salp
inea
mol
lisC
aesa
lpin
acea
e1.
290.
291.
00m
a,sa
k1
tr7
chuk
umH
avar
dia
albi
cans
Faba
ceae
1.25
0.25
1.00
ma,
mb
2bk
,tr
2lu
’um
che’
Eryt
hrox
ylum
conf
usum
Eryt
hrox
ylac
eae
1.25
1.00
0.25
ma,
mb
2tr,
bk2
nint
eRh
eedi
aed
ulis
Clu
siac
eae
1.25
0.50
0.75
ma,
mb
2fr
,br
2Ta
’an
che’
Cel
tistr
iner
via
Ulm
acea
e1.
251.
000.
25m
a,m
b,sa
k1
tr6
wilo
tebl
anco
sp.2
Faba
ceae
1.25
1.25
ma
1tr
2gu
iroC
resc
entia
cuje
teB
igno
niac
eae
1.17
0.83
0.33
sa1
fr3
palo
detin
teH
aem
atox
ylum
cam
pech
ianu
mC
aesa
lpin
acea
e1.
140.
140.
070.
93sa
k,sa
(tin)
3bk
,br,
tr7
taas
tab/
verd
elu
cero
Gue
ttard
aco
mbs
iiR
ubia
ceae
1.13
0.13
0.88
ma,
mb
1tr
4ch
in’
tok
Kru
giod
endr
onfe
rreu
mR
ham
nace
ae1.
070.
860.
070.
14m
a2
br,t
r7
caim
itoC
hrys
ophy
lum
mex
ican
umSa
pota
ceae
1.00
1.00
ma
1tr
1ce
iba
Cei
bape
ntan
dra
Bom
baca
ceae
1.00
1.00
ma
1tr
1C
opal
/pon
Prot
ium
copa
lB
urse
race
ae1.
001.
00m
a1
ex1
chak
a’ro
joBu
rser
asi
mar
uba
Bur
sera
ceae
1.00
1.00
ma,
mb
1tr
1ch
eech
emne
gro
Met
opiu
mbr
owne
iA
naca
rdia
ceae
1.00
1.00
ma,
mb
1tr
1gr
anad
illo
Plat
ymis
cium
yuca
tanu
mFa
bace
ae1.
001.
00m
a1
tr1
guar
umbo
Cec
ropi
ape
ltata
Cec
ropi
acea
e1.
001.
00m
a1
lv1
2463
guay
abill
oPs
idiu
msa
rtor
ianu
mM
yrta
ceae
1.00
1.00
ma
1tr
1hu
leC
astil
lael
astic
aM
orac
eae
1.00
0.50
0.50
ma
1ex
2ja
’ab
inPi
scid
iapi
scip
ula
Faba
ceae
1.00
1.00
ma
1tr
1´
limon
agrio
Citr
uslim
onia
Rut
acea
e1.
001.
00m
a,m
b1
fr1
mor
aC
hlor
opho
ratin
ctor
iaM
orac
eae
1.00
1.00
ma
1ex
1na
nce
indi
oBy
rson
ima
cras
sifo
liaM
alpi
ghia
ceae
1.00
1.00
ma
1fr
1pa
sa’a
k/ne
grito
Sim
arou
bagl
auca
Sim
arou
bace
ae1.
001.
00m
a1
wp
1po
mol
che’
Jatr
opha
gaum
eri
Euph
orbi
acea
e1.
001.
00m
a,m
b1
ex3
rosa
l/sa
kni
kte’
Plum
eria
rubr
aA
pocy
nace
ae1.
001.
00m
a1
tr1
siric
ote
Cor
dia
dode
cand
raB
orag
inac
eae
1.00
1.00
ma
1tr
1tz
ilil/
sac-
tzili
lD
iosp
yros
cune
ata
Eben
acea
e1.
000.
500.
50m
a1
tr1
wilo
tene
gro
sp.3
Faba
ceae
1.00
1.00
ma,
mb
1tr
2za
c-pa
hBy
rson
ima
buci
daef
olia
Mal
pigh
iace
ae1.
001.
00m
a,m
b1
fr3
zapo
tefa
isan
Pout
eria
amyg
dalin
aSa
pota
ceae
1.00
1.00
ma
1tr
1Pa
lms
chiit
Thri
nax
radi
ata
Palm
ae2.
090.
910.
910.
090.
18m
a(c
hi),
sak
3tr,
lv,f
r11
tasi
ste
Acoe
lorr
haph
ew
righ
tiiPa
lmae
1.10
1.00
0.10
sa(ta
),sa
k3
tr,lv
,fr
5gu
ano
Saba
lya
paPa
lmae
1.06
0.06
1.00
ma,
sak
1lv
9co
coyo
lAc
roco
mia
mex
ican
aPa
lmae
1.00
1.00
mb,
ma
1fr
1V
ines
bilin
kok
Mac
fady
ena
unca
taB
igno
niac
eae
1.94
0.11
1.33
0.50
ma,
mb
2bk
,wp
9an
ika
kC
ydis
taae
quin
octia
lisB
igno
niac
eae
1.87
0.59
1.23
0.05
ma,
sak,
mb
2w
p,fr
11ek
ish
(ek
kixi
l)C
ydis
tapo
tosi
naB
igno
niac
eae
1.58
0.36
0.36
0.86
ma,
sak,
mb
2w
p7
ak’
xuux
Aden
ocal
ymm
afis
sum
Big
noni
acea
e1.
301.
30m
a,sa
k1
wp
5ch
ilillo
Gau
dich
audi
acf
.muc
rona
taM
alpi
ghia
ceae
1.00
1.00
ma,
mb,
sak
1lv
1pu
k’a
kU
nide
ntifi
edB
igno
niac
eae
1.00
1.00
ma,
mb,
sak
1bk
2sa
bya
abVi
tistil
iifol
iaV
itace
ae1.
001.
00m
a,sa
k,m
b1
bk1
po’o
kakc
aPa
ssifl
ora
sp.
Pass
iflor
acea
e1.
001.
00m
a,m
b1
bk1
kunb
emba
Psitt
acan
thus
amer
ican
aLo
rant
hace
ae1.
001.
00m
a,sa
k2
lv,f
r1
cm
ukD
albe
rgia
glab
raFa
bace
ae1.
001.
00m
a,m
b,sa
k1
wp
179
.51
14.2
215
.11
28.2
03.
504.
198.
162.
012.
072.
67
Cat
egor
yof
use
(x):
1.ha
ndm
ade
craf
ts(h
c):b
aske
ts,f
urni
ture
,doo
rs,a
shtr
ay,n
apki
nri
ng,m
usic
alin
stru
men
t,co
okin
gut
ensi
ls,b
room
s,tr
aps,
ador
nmen
t.2.
med
icin
e(m
):to
trea
t:sw
ellin
g,fr
ight
,dy
sent
ery,
gast
ritis
,di
arrh
ea,
kidn
eyst
ones
,gu
llet
irri
tatio
n,co
ugh,
labi
alhe
rpes
,to
otha
che,
stom
acha
che,
head
ache
,an
emia
,pi
mpl
es,
diab
etes
,ch
oles
tero
l,ci
catr
izan
t,di
sinf
ecta
nt.
3.co
nstr
uctio
n(c
):ro
oftil
es,
roof
s,be
am,
fork
,po
stor
colu
mn,
wal
llin
ing,
tyin
g,fe
nce,
who
lelo
g,ro
pe.
4.tr
aditi
onal
tech
nolo
gy(t
ec):
chic
le,g
lue,
trap
s,ta
nnin
(tan
ning
),ra
wm
ater
ial
for
icec
ream
orto
oth
pale
ttes.
5.en
ergy
(e):
firew
ood,
torc
h.6.
edib
le(e
d):
diff
eren
tpa
rts
used
for
food
,flav
ouri
ng,c
onfit
ure.
7.ri
tual
(r):
fest
iviti
es,i
ncen
se,t
hank
sgiv
ing.
8.dy
eing
(d):
natu
rald
yein
g.9.
othe
rs(o
t):s
hade
,aro
mat
ic,w
ater
cont
aine
r,re
fuge
.Loc
alna
me
˜of
vege
tatio
nin
Solf
erin
o:(m
a)m
onte
alto
orm
onta
na,
(mb)
mon
teba
jo(s
ak)
saka
lch
e’,
(sa)
saba
na.
Subt
ypes
ofve
geta
tion:
(chi
):ch
ital
,(t
a):
tasi
stal
.Pl
ant
part
(s)
aus
ed:b
r:br
anch
es,b
b:bu
ld,b
k:ba
rk,e
x:ex
udat
es(s
ap,r
esin
,lat
ex),
fl:flo
wer
,fr:
frui
t,lv
:lea
ves,
rt:r
oot,
sd:s
eed,
st:s
tem
s,tr
:tru
nk,w
p:w
hole
plan
t.Pr
iori
tyor
der
bac
cord
ing
tost
ruct
ure
inte
rvie
ws.
Info
rman
ts:n
521
,18
men
and
3w
omen
(men
mea
n5
58.2
,wom
enm
ean5
75,d
iffe
renc
eis
mar
gina
llysi
gnifi
cant
,F5
3.14
;MSE
c5
723.
8;r5
0.09
2).
Con
side
red
vine
,al
thou
ghth
elif
efo
rmis
tree
.
2464
2Figure 3. DCA applied on 20 plots with 92 species and basal area (cm ) in the Solferino ejido.
genera were Ficus (4 species), Coccoloba (3 species) and Caesalpinia, Diospyros,and Lonchocarpus (2 species each) (Table 4).
Regarding the medium–low forest transition, a total of 684 individuals (dbh $ 5cm) were recorded, grouped in 31 families, 55 genera and 65 species. The mostdiverse families were Fabaceae (8 species), Caesalpiniaceae (5 species), Euphor-biaceae (4 species), Arecaceae and Sapotaceae (3 species each), amounting to 35%of the total number of species in this vegetation type, while the most diverse generawere Coccoloba, Caesalpinia, Croton and Lonchocarpus (2 species each) (Table 5).
Plant individuals in the medium statured forest showed a height range between 1¯and 15 m (X 5 6 m, Figure 4a), while the trunk diameter had a maximum of 81.1 cm
¯(X 5 11.3 cm, Figure 5a). In the transition zone, individual heights varied between 1¯ ¯and 10 m (X 5 4.7 m, Figure 4b), and the maximum trunk diameter was 97.9 cm (X
25 11.5 cm, Figure 5b). The total basal area was 269358 cm in 1.2 ha. The highest
2basal areas per species resulted from Manilkara zapota (55852 cm ), Metopium2 2brownei (31044 cm ), Bursera simaruba (19029 cm ), Dendropanax arboreus
2 2(17681 cm ) and Thrinax radiata (164141 cm ). These five species accounted for50% of the total basal area in this vegetation type (Table 4). As to the medium–low
2forest transition, we estimated a total basal area of 111448 cm in 0.8 ha. Here thespecies contributing with highest basal areas were Haemotoxylum campechianum
2 2(62619 cm ), Lysiloma latisiliquum (7499 cm ), Erythroxylum confusum (4291
2465
2T
able
4.IV
Iin
med
ium
stat
ured
fore
st(1
2pl
ots
of20
350
m,
dbh$
5cm
).
2N
o.Sc
ient
ific
nam
eFa
mily
No.
ofB
A(c
m)
FrR
DR
BR
FIV
IU
VsIV
I3
UVs
Ind3
Uvs
ind.
1M
anilk
ara
zapo
taSa
pota
ceae
128
5585
2.22
12.0
06.
3720
.74
3.27
30.3
72.
6179
.27
334.
082
Thri
nax
radi
ata
Palm
ae22
616
414.
0812
.00
11.2
46.
093.
2720
.61
2.09
43.0
747
2.34
3M
etop
ium
brow
nei
Ana
card
iace
ae11
431
044.
0812
.00
5.67
11.5
33.
2720
.47
1.00
20.4
711
4.00
4N
ecta
ndra
cori
acea
eLa
urac
eae
251
8778
.69
12.0
012
.49
3.26
3.27
19.0
20.
000.
000.
005
Burs
era
sim
arub
aB
urse
race
ae11
219
029.
0712
.00
5.57
7.06
3.27
15.9
11.
0015
.91
112.
006
Den
drop
anax
arbo
reus
Ara
liace
ae11
517
681.
0611
.00
5.72
6.56
3.00
15.2
80.
000.
000.
007
Pout
eria
cam
pech
iana
Sapo
tace
ae73
1064
8.90
12.0
03.
633.
953.
2710
.86
2.25
24.4
216
4.25
8Vi
tex
gaum
eri
Verb
enac
eae
3911
779.
4911
.00
1.94
4.37
3.00
9.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
9sp
.3Fa
bace
ae76
6012
.55
11.0
03.
782.
233.
009.
011.
009.
0176
.00
10Tr
ophi
sra
cem
osa
Mor
acea
e80
4820
.29
11.0
03.
981.
793.
008.
770.
000.
000.
0011
Coc
colo
basp
icat
aPo
lygo
nace
ae56
6289
.74
12.0
02.
792.
343.
278.
390.
000.
000.
0012
Chr
ysop
hyllu
mm
exic
anum
Sapo
tace
ae50
4697
.62
12.0
02.
491.
743.
277.
501.
007.
5050
.00
13M
alm
eade
pres
saA
nnon
acea
e65
3968
.60
10.0
03.
231.
472.
727.
431.
339.
8886
.45
14C
aesa
lpin
iaga
umer
iC
aesa
lpin
acea
e32
8395
.94
8.00
1.59
3.12
2.18
6.89
1.50
10.3
348
.00
15Lo
ncho
carp
usxu
ulFa
bace
ae51
3944
.40
9.00
2.54
1.46
2.45
6.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
16Sa
bal
yapa
Palm
ae19
7356
.02
9.00
0.95
2.73
2.45
6.13
1.06
6.50
20.1
417
sp.2
Faba
ceae
5218
38.9
29.
002.
590.
682.
455.
721.
257.
1565
.00
18Si
mar
ouba
glau
caSi
mar
ouba
ceae
2047
50.2
310
.00
1.00
1.76
2.72
5.48
0.00
0.00
0.00
19sp
.5U
nide
ntifi
ed43
1551
.00
10.0
02.
140.
582.
725.
440.
000.
000.
0020
Exot
hea
diph
ylla
Sapi
ndac
eae
3220
66.4
910
.00
1.59
0.77
2.72
5.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
21H
ampe
atr
iloba
taM
alva
ceae
3412
84.2
410
.00
1.69
0.48
2.72
4.89
2.00
9.79
68.0
022
Sapi
ndus
sapo
nari
aSa
pind
acea
e32
3705
.75
6.00
1.59
1.38
1.63
4.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
23G
uetta
rda
com
bsii
Rub
iace
ae27
2010
.59
9.00
1.34
0.75
2.45
4.54
1.13
5.13
30.5
124
Lysi
lom
ala
tisili
quum
Faba
ceae
1349
65.1
87.
000.
651.
841.
914.
400.
000.
000.
0025
Zuel
ania
guid
onia
Flac
ourta
ceae
1829
65.6
47.
000.
901.
101.
913.
900.
000.
000.
0026
Gym
nopo
dium
flori
bund
umPo
lygo
nace
ae31
2630
.93
5.00
1.54
0.98
1.36
3.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
27Pi
scid
iapi
scip
ula
Faba
ceae
1226
58.9
76.
000.
600.
991.
633.
221.
003.
2212
.00
28Al
loph
ylus
com
inia
Sapi
ndac
eae
1751
3.18
7.00
0.85
0.19
1.91
2.94
1.50
4.42
25.5
029
Thev
etia
gaum
eri
Apo
cyna
ceae
1550
4.43
7.00
0.75
0.19
1.91
2.84
1.50
4.26
22.5
030
Bros
imum
alic
astr
umM
orac
eae
816
84.3
26.
000.
400.
631.
632.
660.
000.
000.
0031
Spon
dias
mom
bin
Ana
card
iace
ae13
2658
.20
3.00
0.65
0.99
0.82
2.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
32Sw
artz
iacu
bens
isC
aesa
lpin
acea
e11
1681
.87
4.00
0.55
0.62
1.09
2.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
33Ps
idiu
msa
rtor
ianu
mM
yrta
ceae
1277
1.91
5.00
0.60
0.29
1.36
2.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
34Si
dero
xylo
nfo
etid
issi
mum
Sapo
tace
ae5
2296
.26
4.00
0.25
0.85
1.09
2.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
35Es
enbe
ckia
pent
aphy
llaR
utac
eae
611
35.6
15.
000.
300.
421.
362.
080.
000.
000.
0036
Prot
ium
copa
lB
urse
race
ae8
832.
845.
000.
400.
311.
362.
071.
002.
078.
00
2466
Tab
le4.
(con
tinu
ed)
2N
o.Sc
ient
ific
nam
eFa
mily
No.
ofB
A(c
m)
FrR
DR
BR
FIV
IU
VsIV
I3
UVs
Ind3
Uvs
ind.
37Fi
cus
cotin
ifolia
Mor
acea
e8
1288
.23
4.00
0.40
0.48
1.09
1.97
2.50
4.92
20.0
038
Coc
colo
baac
apul
cens
isPo
lygo
nace
ae14
984.
413.
000.
700.
370.
821.
880.
000.
000.
0039
sp.1
Mim
osac
eae
1074
8.74
3.00
0.50
0.28
0.82
1.59
0.00
0.00
0.00
40Lu
ehea
spec
iosa
Tilia
ceae
884
3.70
3.00
0.40
0.31
0.82
1.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
41Fi
cus
max
ima
Mor
acea
e5
1634
.66
2.00
0.25
0.61
0.54
1.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
42C
amer
aria
latif
olia
Apo
cyna
ceae
936
3.21
3.00
0.45
0.13
0.82
1.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
43C
aesa
lpin
iam
ollis
Cae
salp
inac
eae
674
8.28
2.00
0.30
0.28
0.54
1.12
1.29
1.45
7.74
44By
rson
ima
buci
daef
olia
Mal
pigh
iace
ae4
206.
333.
000.
200.
080.
821.
091.
001.
094.
0045
Cro
ton
refle
xifo
lius
Euph
orbi
acea
e4
95.4
93.
000.
200.
040.
821.
050.
000.
000.
0046
Rand
iaob
cord
ata
Rub
iace
ae3
76.1
83.
000.
150.
030.
820.
990.
000.
000.
0047
Dio
spyr
oscu
neat
aEb
enac
eae
457
0.30
2.00
0.20
0.21
0.54
0.96
1.00
0.96
4.00
48K
rugi
oden
dron
ferr
eum
Rha
mna
ceae
310
8.77
2.00
0.15
0.04
0.54
0.73
1.07
0.79
3.21
49sp
.9U
nide
ntifi
ed3
96.4
52.
000.
150.
040.
540.
730.
000.
000.
0050
sp.1
0U
nide
ntifi
ed2
128.
992.
000.
100.
050.
540.
690.
000.
000.
0051
Cup
ania
glab
raSa
pind
acea
e2
47.5
22.
000.
100.
020.
540.
660.
000.
000.
0052
sp.1
1U
nide
ntifi
ed3
296.
391.
000.
150.
110.
270.
530.
000.
000.
0053
Euph
orbi
ahe
tero
phyl
laEu
phor
biac
eae
328
0.94
1.00
0.15
0.10
0.27
0.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
54Fi
cus
sp.2
Mor
acea
e2
283.
731.
000.
100.
110.
270.
480.
000.
000.
0055
Dio
spyr
osya
tesi
ana
Eben
acea
e3
137.
641.
000.
150.
050.
270.
470.
000.
000.
0056
sp.1
2U
nide
ntifi
ed1
349.
671.
000.
050.
130.
270.
450.
000.
000.
0057
Coc
colo
baco
zum
elen
sis
Poly
gona
ceae
370
.08
1.00
0.15
0.03
0.27
0.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
58Fi
cus
sp.1
Mor
acea
e1
263.
021.
000.
050.
100.
270.
420.
000.
000.
0059
sp.1
3U
nide
ntifi
ed2
106.
231.
000.
100.
040.
270.
410.
000.
000.
0060
Jatr
opha
gaum
eri
Euph
orbi
acea
e2
63.8
11.
000.
100.
020.
270.
400.
000.
000.
0061
Cec
ropi
ape
ltata
Cec
ropi
acea
e2
56.9
41.
000.
100.
020.
270.
391.
000.
392.
0062
Lonc
hoca
rpus
cast
illoi
Faba
ceae
111
8.82
1.00
0.05
0.04
0.27
0.37
2.00
0.73
2.00
63sp
.14
Uni
dent
ified
150
.27
1.00
0.05
0.02
0.27
0.34
0.00
0.00
0.00
64Er
ythr
ina
stan
dley
ana
Cae
salp
inac
eae
133
.18
1.00
0.05
0.01
0.27
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
65sp
.15
Uni
dent
ified
123
.76
1.00
0.05
0.01
0.27
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
66N
eea
psyc
hotr
oide
sN
ycta
gina
ceae
122
.06
1.00
0.05
0.01
0.27
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
67Xy
losm
afle
xuos
aFl
acou
rtace
ae1
21.2
41.
000.
050.
010.
270.
330.
000.
000.
0068
Mun
tingi
aca
labu
raEl
aeoc
arpa
ceae
119
.63
1.00
0.05
0.01
0.27
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
Tota
l20
1026
935
8.00
0.00
100.
0010
0.00
100.
0030
0.00
34.0
810
224.
0068
500.
80
No.
ofin
d.:
num
ber
ofin
divi
dual
s,B
A:
basa
lar
ea,
Fr:
freq
uenc
y,R
D:
rela
tive
dens
ity,
RB
:re
lativ
edo
min
ance
,R
F:re
lativ
efr
eque
ncy,
IVI:
impo
rtan
ceva
lue
inde
x,U
V:
use
valu
ein
dex.
s
2467
2T
able
5.IV
Iin
the
tran
sitio
nal
zone
med
ium
stat
ured
fore
st-l
owfo
rest
(8pl
ots
of10
310
0m
,db
h$
5cm
).
2N
o.Sc
ient
ific
nam
eFa
mily
No.
ofin
d.B
A(c
m)
FrR
DR
BR
FIV
IU
VsIV
I3
UV
Ind3
UV
ss
1H
aem
atox
ylum
cam
pech
ianu
mC
aesa
lpin
acea
e15
262
619.
258
22.2
256
.19
5.00
83.4
11.
1495
.09
173.
282
Eryt
hrox
ylum
conf
usum
Eryt
hrox
ylac
eae
7042
90.9
37
10.2
33.
854.
3818
.46
1.25
23.0
787
.50
3Ly
silo
ma
latis
iliqu
umFa
bace
ae25
7498
.75
23.
656.
731.
2511
.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
4M
etop
ium
brow
nei
Ana
card
iace
ae23
3181
.59
63.
362.
853.
759.
971.
009.
9723
.00
5Ac
oelo
rrha
phe
wri
ghtii
Palm
ae36
1543
.15
55.
261.
383.
139.
771.
1010
.75
39.6
06
Man
ilkar
aza
pota
Sapo
tace
ae14
3283
.45
42.
052.
952.
507.
492.
6119
.56
36.5
47
Pisc
idia
pisc
ipul
aFa
bace
ae15
3025
.78
42.
192.
712.
507.
411.
007.
4115
.00
8Vi
tex
gaum
eri
Verb
enac
eae
1324
85.0
75
1.90
2.23
3.13
7.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
9M
imos
aba
ham
ensi
sM
imos
acea
e19
822.
485
2.78
0.74
3.13
6.64
1.50
9.96
28.5
010
Jacq
uini
am
acro
carp
aTh
eoph
rast
acea
e16
1051
.18
52.
340.
943.
136.
410.
000.
000.
0011
Burs
era
sim
arub
aB
urse
race
ae14
2005
.61
42.
051.
802.
506.
351.
006.
3514
.00
12C
resc
entia
cuje
teB
igno
niac
eae
917
93.8
65
1.32
1.61
3.13
6.05
1.17
7.08
10.5
313
Ficu
sco
tinifo
liaM
orac
eae
1316
61.9
34
1.90
1.49
2.50
5.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
14Ps
idiu
msa
rtor
ianu
mM
yrta
ceae
2158
6.36
33.
070.
531.
885.
471.
005.
4721
.00
15By
rson
ima
buci
daef
olia
Mal
pigh
iace
ae12
994.
054
1.75
0.89
2.50
5.15
1.00
5.15
12.0
016
Cel
tistr
iner
via
Ulm
acea
e17
1400
.67
22.
491.
261.
254.
991.
256.
2421
.25
17C
roto
nre
flexi
foliu
sEu
phor
biac
eae
1363
8.40
41.
900.
572.
504.
970.
000.
000.
0018
Den
drop
anax
arbo
reus
Ara
liace
ae10
1454
.05
21.
461.
301.
254.
020.
000.
000.
0019
Lonc
hoca
rpus
xuul
Faba
ceae
1383
5.60
21.
900.
751.
253.
900.
000.
000.
0020
Gym
nopo
dium
flori
bund
umPo
lygo
nace
ae14
551.
262
2.05
0.49
1.25
3.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
21C
occo
loba
spic
ata
Poly
gona
ceae
955
9.17
31.
320.
501.
883.
690.
000.
000.
0022
Hav
ardi
aal
bica
nsFa
bace
ae12
476.
052
1.75
0.43
1.25
3.43
1.25
4.29
15.0
023
sp.1
Faba
ceae
726
7.77
31.
020.
241.
883.
140.
000.
000.
0024
Swar
tzia
cube
nsis
Cae
salp
inac
eae
475
3.94
30.
580.
681.
883.
140.
000.
000.
0025
Saba
lya
paPa
lmae
412
83.9
32
0.58
1.15
1.25
2.99
1.06
3.17
4.24
26C
occo
loba
cozu
mel
ensi
sPo
lygo
nace
ae8
473.
072
1.17
0.42
1.25
2.84
0.00
0.00
0.00
27H
ampe
atr
iloba
taM
alva
ceae
516
2.18
30.
730.
151.
882.
752.
005.
5010
.00
28sp
.2Fa
bace
ae5
158.
333
0.73
0.14
1.88
2.75
1.25
3.44
6.25
29C
hrys
ophy
llum
mex
ican
umSa
pota
ceae
748
6.64
21.
020.
441.
252.
711.
002.
717.
0030
Gue
ttard
aco
mbs
iiR
ubia
ceae
742
5.33
21.
020.
381.
252.
661.
133.
007.
9131
Rand
iaob
cord
ata
Rub
iace
ae3
94.8
33
0.44
0.09
1.88
2.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
32Zu
elan
iagu
idon
iaFl
acou
rtace
ae5
380.
522
0.73
0.34
1.25
2.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
33C
amer
aria
latif
olia
Apo
cyna
ceae
619
9.41
20.
880.
181.
252.
310.
000.
000.
0034
Gym
nant
hes
luci
daEu
phor
biac
eae
532
9.99
20.
730.
301.
252.
280.
000.
000.
00
2468
Tab
le5.
(con
tinu
ed)
2N
o.Sc
ient
ific
nam
eFa
mily
No.
ofin
d.B
A(c
m)
FrR
DR
BR
FIV
IU
VsIV
I3
UV
Ind3
UV
ss
35Lo
ncho
carp
usru
gosu
sFa
bace
ae5
241.
152
0.73
0.22
1.25
2.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
36sp
.3Fa
bace
ae5
175.
412
0.73
0.16
1.25
2.14
1.00
2.14
5.00
37D
iosp
yros
cune
ata
Eben
acea
e5
171.
642
0.73
0.15
1.25
2.14
1.00
2.14
5.00
38C
aesa
lpin
iaga
umer
iC
aesa
lpin
acea
e4
286.
562
0.58
0.26
1.25
2.09
1.50
3.14
6.00
39D
iphy
saca
rtha
gene
nsis
Faba
ceae
420
0.29
20.
580.
181.
252.
011.
332.
685.
3240
Nec
tand
raco
riac
eaLa
urac
eae
416
6.87
20.
580.
151.
251.
980.
000.
000.
0041
sp.4
Uni
dent
ified
243
6.09
20.
290.
391.
251.
930.
000.
000.
0042
Sim
arou
bagl
auca
Sim
arou
bace
ae3
146.
932
0.44
0.13
1.25
1.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
43C
occo
loba
acap
ulce
nsis
Poly
gona
ceae
311
6.70
20.
440.
101.
251.
790.
000.
000.
0044
sp.5
Uni
dent
ified
373
.05
20.
440.
071.
251.
750.
000.
000.
0045
Gua
pira
linea
ribr
acte
ata
Nyc
tagi
nace
ae6
227.
741
0.88
0.20
0.63
1.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
46Al
loph
ylus
com
inia
Sapi
ndac
eae
252
.25
20.
290.
051.
251.
591.
502.
383.
0047
Xylo
sma
flexu
osa
Flac
ourta
ceae
243
.39
20.
290.
041.
251.
580.
000.
000.
0048
Bauh
inia
diva
rica
taC
aesa
lpin
acea
e4
130.
571
0.58
0.12
0.63
1.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
49Tr
ophi
sra
cem
osa
Mor
acea
e3
186.
721
0.44
0.17
0.63
1.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
50Eu
geni
abu
xifo
liaM
yrta
ceae
287
.29
10.
290.
080.
631.
000.
000.
000.
0051
Amyr
issy
lvat
ica
Rut
acea
e2
69.0
21
0.29
0.06
0.63
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
52sp
.6U
nide
ntifi
ed2
67.8
01
0.29
0.06
0.63
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
53C
aesa
lpin
iam
ollis
Cae
salp
inac
eae
245
.95
10.
290.
040.
630.
960.
000.
000.
0054
Side
roxy
lon
foet
idis
sim
umSa
pota
ceae
112
6.68
10.
150.
110.
630.
880.
000.
000.
0055
Plum
eria
rubr
aA
pocy
nace
ae1
96.7
71
0.15
0.09
0.63
0.86
1.00
0.86
1.00
56Pr
otiu
mco
pal
Bur
sera
ceae
180
.12
10.
150.
070.
630.
841.
000.
841.
0057
Jatr
opha
gaum
eri
Euph
orbi
acea
e1
66.4
81
0.15
0.06
0.63
0.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
58An
nona
glab
raA
nnon
acea
e1
60.8
21
0.15
0.05
0.63
0.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
59C
roto
nch
iche
nens
isEu
phor
biac
eae
154
.11
10.
150.
050.
630.
820.
000.
000.
0060
sp.7
Uni
dent
ified
139
.59
10.
150.
040.
630.
810.
000.
000.
0061
Thri
nax
radi
ata
Palm
ae1
38.4
81
0.15
0.03
0.63
0.81
2.09
1.68
2.09
62sp
.8U
nide
ntifi
ed1
36.3
21
0.15
0.03
0.63
0.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
63Rh
eedi
aed
ulis
Clu
siac
eae
125
.52
10.
150.
020.
630.
790.
000.
000.
0064
Mal
mea
depr
essa
Ann
onac
eae
410
3.08
10.
580.
090.
630.
581.
330.
785.
3265
Hip
pocr
atea
exce
lsa
Hip
pocr
atea
ceae
120
.43
10.
150.
020.
630.
150.
000.
000.
00To
tal
684
111
448.
3810
0.00
100.
0010
0.00
298.
639
34.4
610
291.
1123
570.
64
No.
ofin
d.:
num
ber
ofin
divi
dual
s,B
A:
basa
lar
ea,
Fr:
freq
uenc
y,R
D:
rela
tive
dens
ity,
RB
:re
lativ
edo
min
ance
,R
F:re
lativ
efr
eque
ncy,
IVI:
impo
rtan
ceva
lue
inde
x,U
V:
use
valu
ein
dex.
s
2469
2Figure 4. (a) Height frequency distribution for the plants (n 5 2010) collected from 12 plots (20 3 50 mper plot) in the medium statured forest, considering different forest–village distances; (b) height
2frequency distribution for the plants (n 5 684) collected from eight plots (10 3 100 m per plot) in themedium–low forest transition.
Figure 5. (a) Diameter (dbh) frequency distribution for the plants (n 5 2010) collected from 12 plots (202
3 50 m per plot) in the medium statured forest, considering different forest–village distances; (b)2diameter (dbh) distribution for the plants (n 5 684) collected from eight plots (10 3 100 m per plot) in
the medium–low forest transition.
2 2cm ) and M. zapota (3283 cm ). These five species accounted for nearly 70% of thetotal basal area in the transition zone (Table 5).
The species having top importance values (IVI) were M. zapota (30.4), T. radiata(20.6), M. brownei (20.5), Nectandra coriacea (19.0), and Bursera simaruba (15.6)in the medium statured forest, and H. campechianum (83.4), E. confusum (18.5), L.latisiliquum (11.6), M. brownei (10.0) and A. wrightii (9.8) in the transition zone(Tables 4 and 5).
Discussion
Vegetation types and native classification
This study has shown that the Maya in northern Quintana Roo classify the local
2470
vegetation by a number of consistent features which can be easily identified fromone habitat to another, and clearly distinguish undisturbed patches of forest fromother patches subjected to various degrees of disturbance and/or in different
˜regeneration stages (e.g. canadas or areas impacted by selective logging, naturalfires or hurricanes). These features are mainly soil appearance, species associationsand size, and were mostly reported in combination with qualitative observationsabout the forest (e.g. the high forest is green, the soil is of red type, etc.). Thenatives’ perception of vegetation type patterns coincided with that derived fromquantitative sampling and DCA, both underpinning the occurrence of two majorundisturbed vegetation types, namely Monte alto (medium statured forest) and Sakalche’ (low forest) (Table 1, Figure 3, Appendix 1).
The species associations encountered in the medium statured forest could beassigned to the Manilkara zapota–Thrinax radiata and Vitex gaumeri–Caesalpinia
´gaumeri communities, as described by Sanchez and Islebe (2002). Both com-munities grow in two different soil types. They are the K’ankab soil (chromicluvisols following the FAO (1988) soil classification), which is characterized by ared brownish color, average depth of 80 cm, slow superficial drainage and 20% ofrock cover, and the Tsek’el soil (lithosolrendzina following FAO criteria), whichhas dark brown to black color, average depth from 15 to 20 cm, fast superficialdrainage, and can be associated with bedrocks covering 45–65% of the forestsurface.
The Manilkara zapota–Thrinax radiata community resembles the Manilkara´zapota–Coccothrinax readii community (Sanchez and Islebe 2002), whereby C.
readii is replaced by T. radiata as a characteristic species, since C. readii is mainlydistributed in coastal environments and T. radiata can be found up to 50 km inlandin northern Quintana Roo (Quero 1992).
The medium–low forest transition featured a Hampea trilobata–M. brownei–B.´simaruba community described by Sanchez and Islebe (2002), and a H. campech-
ianum–E. confusum–L. latisiliquum community after Miranda (1978, sensu sub-deciduous low forest), so-called ‘tintal’ owing to the dominance of H. campech-ianum (logwood) (Table 5, Appendix 1). Both communities grow in Tsek’el andAk’alche (calcic gelysols) soils, the latter having a dark brown colour, slow drainageand a depth between 15 and 60 cm.
Use of each vegetation type and availability of plant species
Unlike Phillips et al. (1994), we did not aim at compiling a full list of useful speciesbut focused on patterns of use of the different vegetation types regardless of whetherthe plant species occurred in the study plots or not. By allocating species tocategories of use following the informant’s reports, a total of nine use categorieswere defined and only 10 species could be allocated to most of those categories. Weconsidered that the relationship between the cultural importance of plant speciesexpressed by the index of Use Value (UV ) and their availability was weak in thes
case of Solferino, because only 17 and 4% of the UV variation was explained bys
their availability in the medium forest and the transition zone, respectively. In the
2471
medium statured forest the relationship was statistically significant because the UVs
of many of the most valued species were proportional to their density, frequency andbasal area in the study plots (Table 4). This was particularly obvious for dominantspecies such as Manilkara zapota and Thrinax radiata. Additionally, UV valuess
were maximized for those species having various useful parts, e.g. M. zapota, ofwhich exudates (latex) are used for by-products, bark and trunk for construction andfruits as food. The medium statured forest was the most valuable vegetation type forthe local community, all trees, palms and vines mainly supplying raw materials forconstruction (e.g. dormers, root tiles, tanders or thatched palm roofs, so-calledpalapas) and charcoal-making (Table 3). Although the transition zone sharedseveral species with the medium statured forest, these were not available for usebecause of their poor appearance and low density (Tables 4 and 5). Of the 10dominant species in the medium statured forest, seven contributed to the topImportance Values (IVI) in this forest type, and only three of them had a UV aboves
1.00 (Table 4). This indicated that most of the dominant species supported less thanthree kinds of uses, though those uses were reported with a high degree of consensusamong native informants (Table 3).
In the following we summarize the applications of 10 useful plant speciesaccording to their use in Solferino and in the region of study.
The tree Manilkara zapota was the most valuable species for locals, and in factdominated the medium statured forest both in terms of frequency and basal area.This species provides chicle (latex), and wood mainly for rustic constructions.Individuals suitable for chicle extraction usually have diameters between 25 and 64cm (Hidalgo 1995), thus we found that some 40% of the individuals (n 5 130) fellwithin that range in the 1.2 ha of medium statured forest sampled. The tree Hampeatrilobata is the main local species utilized for construction (high UV ), but its IVIss
were generally low in the medium statured forest and the transition zone becauseonly individuals between 0.5 and 5 cm in diameter are appropriate for exploitation,and they are characteristic of secondary vegetation.
The tree Krugiodendron ferreum is employed as medicine and dyeing agent, andmarginally for construction. It has a scattered distribution, and only occurs in themedium statured forest where its relatively low frequency, abundance and basal arearesult in low IVIs. Two species, Haematoxylum campechianum and Erythroxylumconfusum, are dominant taxa in the transition zone. The bark of H. campechianum isused for dyeing and its trunk as fence posts, while E. confusum is only used forconstruction (Table 3).
The leaves of several palm species in the medium statured forest, mainly T.radiata and S. yapa, are employed for construction of roofs and walls of palapasand brooms. T. radiata is more abundant than S. yapa at any distance from thevillage center. People also use the trunk parts of T. radiata to make lobster traps.The trunks of the palm Acoelorraphe wrightii, which only occurred in the transitionforest (n 5 36), are employed in palapa walls.
Vines occurred in all vegetation types; however, some were difficult to find, e.g.Cydista aequinoctialis. They are basically utilized for construction, medicine andcrafts, though craft making is reduced since people get minor benefits from selling
2472
their products. The vine Cydista aequinoctialis is used to make baskets, as medicineand animal food (Table 3), and the vine Dalbergia glabra is the plant offering themost suitable material for furniture making and is collected from secondaryvegetation patches.
For all these 10 species, use patterns were determined by species accessibility andmorphological appearance. Accessibility is enhanced by the existing network ofpaths and roads.
Conclusions
The Maya community in northern Quintana Roo embodies a detailed knowledge onthe local forest environment, which optimizes the exploitation of plant resources andimplies their classification by vegetation types. People know where and when thedesired plant species is available for both domestic and external uses (e.g. trade).
The relationships between the cultural importance of plant species expressed bythe UV and its availability expressed by the IVI have two implications: (1) not alls
plant species are used according to their availability in the system, and (2) a real useand a cognitive use of a resource can generate a positive or negative impact in itssustainability. In order to increase their income, people put particular pressure onspecies which are used for construction. Thus, external demands on plant materialsfor construction of touristic facilities has led to the predominant exploitation of themedium statured forest. The demand for external use also puts stress on thepopulations of trees and palms. For example, Sabal yapa is the species with thehighest pressure, leading to a lack of control of its use.
The diversity of plant uses and the non-sustainable use of many valuable speciesin each vegetation type urges to establish regulations triggering the conservation andmanagement of target plant resources. Local knowledge on plant resources needs tobe integrated in management policies in order to attain a sustainable extraction ofcommercial plant species in northern Quintana Roo.
Acknowledgements
We appreciate the collaboration of all informants, their families and local authorities´in the Solferino ejido during fieldwork. Odilon Sanchez helped in species identifica-
´ ´tions. Luz Marıa Calvo, Gerardo Ceballos, Horacio Almanza and Jose Quintal gave´ ´logistic support in the field. Jose Antonio Gonzalez and Mario Osorio helped in GIS
work. Margarito Tuz, Edilberto Chi Tah and Korbany Quintal acted as field´ ´assistants. Finally, we also like to thank Salvador Herrando-Perez, Sophie Calme,
Oliver Phillips, and one anonymous reviewer for commenting on earlier versions ofthis paper. M.A.L.T.C. was supported by a Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores ofthe Mexican Government (SRE) doctoral scholarship (2000–2002).
2473
App
endi
x1.
Spec
ies
com
posi
tion
in20
plot
sof
0.1
ha(d
bh$
5cm
)in
two
type
sof
fore
st.
2474
App
endi
x1.
(con
tinu
ed)
2475
References
Achard F., Hugh D.E., Stibig H.J., Mayaux P., Gallego J., Richards T. et al. 2002. Determination ofdeforestation rates of the world’s humid tropical forests. Science 297: 999–1002.
Adu-Tutu Y., Afful M., Asante-Appiah K., Lieberman D., Hall J.B. and Elvin-Lewis M. 1979. Chewingstick usage in southern Ghana. Economic Botany 33: 320–328.
Balick M.J. and Cox P.A. 1997. Plants, People and Culture: The Science of Ethnobotany. ScientificAmerican Library, New York.
Balick M.J. and Mendelsohn R. 1992. Assessing the economic value of traditional medicines fromtropical rainforests. Conservation Biology 6: 128–130.
´ ´Barrera M.A., Barrera V.A. and Lopez F.R.M. 1976. Nomenclatura Etnobotanica Maya. Una inter-´ ´ ´pretacion taxonomica. INAH-Centro Regional del Sureste, Mexico, DF.
Berlin B. 1973. The relation of folk systematics to biological classification and nomenclature. AnnualReview of Ecology and Systematics 4: 259–271.
Berlin B. 1992. Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of Categorization of Plants and Animals inTraditional Societies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Colorado P. 1988. Bridging native and western science. Convergence 21: 49–59.Colorado P. and Collins D. 1987. Western scientific colonialism and the re-emergence of native science.
Practice: Journal of Politics, Economics, Psychology, Sociology and Culture Winter 1987: 50–65.Costanza R., d’Arge R., de Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B. et al. 1997. The value of the
world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253–260.Curtis J.T. 1959. The Vegetation of Wisconsin. An Ordination of Plant Communities. University of
Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin.Curtis J.T. and McIntosh R.P. 1951. An upland forest continuum in the prairie forest border region of
Wisconsin. Ecology 32: 476–496.´ ´Duran G.R. 1986. Estudio de la vegetacion de la selva baja subcaducifolia Pseudophoenix sargentii,
´ ´ ´profesional, Universidad Autonoma de Mexico, Facultad de Ciencias, Mexico, DF.´Escobar N.A. 1986. Geografıa General del Estado de Quintana Roo. Fondo de Fomento Editorial del
´Gobierno del Estado de Quintana Roo, Chetumal, Quintana Roo, Mexico.FAO 1988. Soil Map of the World with Revised Legend. World Soil Resources Report 60. FAO, Rome.
´ ´Flores J.S. 1987. Uso de los Recursos Vegetales en la Penınsula de Yucatan; pasado, presente y futuro.´INIREB, Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico.
Gadgil M., Berkes F. and Folke C. 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22:151–156.
Hidalgo F.R. 1995. Programa de manejo forestal para el aprovechamiento de recursos forestales de los´ ´ ´montes del area forestal permanente del ejido de Kantunilkin. Municipio Lazaro Cardenas, Quintana
´Roo, Mexico.Hunn E. 1993. What is traditional ecological knowledge? In: Williams N.M. and Baines G. (eds),
Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Wisdom for Sustainable Development. Centre for Resource andEnvironmental Studies, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia, pp. 13–15.
´ ´INEGI 2000. Anuario Estadıstico Quintana Roo. INEGI, Gobierno del Estado, Mexico.´ ´ ´ ´Martınez M.A. 1994. Estado actual de las investigaciones etnobotanicas en Mexico. Boletın de la
´ ´Sociedad Botanica de Mexico 55: 65–74.´ ´ ´ ´Mendez M. and Duran R.G. 1997. Diagnostico del conocimiento etnobotanico actual de las plantas
´ ´ ´ ´ ´medicinales de la Penınsula de Yucatan. Boletın de la Sociedad Botanica de Mexico 60: 15–24.´Mendieta R. and Del Amo S. 1981. Plantas medicinales del estado de Yucatan. Continental, Xalapa,
´Veracruz, Mexico.´ ´Miranda F. 1978. Vegetacion de la Penınsula Yucateca. 2nd edn. Colegio de Postgraduados, Chapingo,
´Mexico.McCune B. and Mefford M.J. 1997. PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data. MJM Software
Design, Gleneden Beach, Oregon.Nepstad D.C. and Schwartzman S. 1992. Non-timber products from tropical forests. Advances in
Economic Botany 9: 1–164.
2476
´ ´ ´ ´Olmsted C.I., Duran R.G. and Lopez A. 1983. Vegetacion de Sian Kaan. CICY-SEMARNAT, MexicoCity, Mexico.
˜ ´Paz y Mino G., Balslev H. and Valencia R. 1991. Aspectos etnobotanicos de las lianas utilizadas por los´ ´ ´indıgenas Siona-Secoya de la Amazonıa del Ecuador. In: Rıos M. and Pedersen H.B. (eds), Las
Plantas y el Hombre. Quito, Ecuador, pp. 105–118.Peters C., Gentry A. and Mendelsohn R.O. 1989. Valuation of an Amazonian rain forest. Nature 339:
655–656.Phillips O. and Gentry A. 1993a. The useful woody plants of Tambopata Peru. I. Statistical hypothesis
test with a new quantitative ethnobotany. Economic Botany 47: 33–43.Phillips O. and Gentry A. 1993b. The useful woody plants of Tambopata, Peru. II. Further statistical test
of hypotheses in quantitative ethnobotany. Economic Botany 47: 15–32.´Phillips O., Gentry A., Reynel C., Wilkin P. and Galvez-Duran C. 1994. Quantitative ethnobotany and
Amazonian conservation. Conservation Biology 8: 225–248.´Pinedo-Vasquez M.D., Zarin P.J. and Chota-Inuma J. 1990. Use-values of tree species in a communal
forest reserve in northeast Peru. Conservation Biology 4: 405–416.Plokin M. and Famolare L. 1992. Sustainable Harvest and Marketing of Rain Forest Products. Island
Press, Washington, DC.´Prance G.T., Balee W., Boom B.M. and Carneiro R.L. 1987. Quantitative ethnobotany and the case for
conservation in Amazonia. Conservation Biology 1: 296–310.¨ ¨Posey D.A. 1990. The science of the Mebengokre. Orion 9: 16–21.
Pulido M. and Serralta L. 1993. Lista anotada de las plantas medicinales de uso actual en el estado de´Quintana Roo. CIQRO, Chetumal, Quintana Roo, Mexico.
´ ´Quero H.J. 1992. Las palmas silvestres de la Penınsula de Yucatan. Publicaciones Especiales No. 10.´ ´Instituto de Biologıa, UNAM, Mexico, DF.
Richards P. 1991. Saving the rain forest: contested futures in conservation. In: Wallman S. (ed.),Anthropology and the Future. RKP Press, London, pp. 180–189.
Richards R.T. 1997. What the Natives know: wild mushrooms and forest health. Journal of ForestrySeptember 1997: 5–10.
´ ´ ´ ´Rutter A. 1990. Catalogo de las plantas utiles de la Amazonıa Peruana. Lima, Peru.´ ´ ´ ´ ´Sanchez O.M. 2000. Analisis estructural de la selva del jardın botanico. In: Sanchez O.M. and Islebe
´ ´ ´G.A. (eds), El Jardın Botanico Dr Alfredo Barrera Marın fundamento y estudios particulares.´CONABIO-ECOSUR, Quintana Roo, Mexico, pp. 59–74.
´Sanchez O.M. and Islebe G.A. 2001. Vulnerability of species of trees from the Mexican Carribbean.Feddes Report 112/5–6: 391–399.
´Sanchez O.M. and Islebe G.A. 2002. Tropical forest communities in southeastern Mexico. Plant Ecology158: 183–200.
´Salmon E. 1996. Decolonizing our voices. Winds of Change Summer 1996: 70–72.Schultes R.E. 1988. Primitive plant lore and modern conservation. Orion 7: 8–15.
´ ´ToledoV.M. 1987. La etnobotanica en Latinoamerica: vicisitudes, contextos y perspectivas Memorias del´ ´Simposio de Etnobotanica. IV Congreso Latinoamericano de Botanica. Instituto Colombiano para el
´Fomento de la Educacion Superior, pp. 13–24.´Toledo V.M. 1990. La perspectiva etnoecologica. Cinco reflexiones acerca de las ‘ciencias campesinas’
´sobre la naturaleza con especial referencia en Mexico. Ciencias 4: 22–29.´Toledo V.M., Caballero J., Argueda A., Rojas P., Aguirre E., Viccon J. et al. 1978. Estudio botanico y
´ ´ ´ ´ecologico de la region del rıo Uxpanapa. El uso multiple de la selva basado en el conocimientotradicional. Biotica 3: 85–101.
´ ´ ´Toledo V.M., Martınez E., Becerra R. and Ramos C.H. 1995. La selva util: Etnobotanica cuantitativa de´ ´ ´ ´los grupos indıgenas del tropico humedo de Mexico. Interciencia 20: 177–187.
Trotter R.T. and Logan M.H. 1986. Informant consensus: a new approach for identifying potentiallyeffective medicinal plants. In: Etkin N.L. (ed.), Plants in Indigenous Medicine and Diet. Redgrave,Bedford Hills, New York, pp. 91–112.
Turner N.J., Boelscher M. and Ignace R. 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge and wisdom ofaboriginal peoples in British Columbia. Ecological Applications 10: 1275–1287.
´ ´ ´Wright A.C.S. 1967. El reconocimiento de los suelos en la Penınsula de Yucatan, Mexico. Final Report,´FAO. Report Colegio de Posgraduados, Chapingo, Mexico.