Intracultural Differences in Local Botanical Knowledge and Knowledge Loss among the Mexican Isthmus Zapotecs

This study reports on the socio-demographic and locality factors that influence ethnobiological knowledge in three communities of Zapotec indigenous people of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Mexico. It uses local botanical nomenclature as a proxy for general ethnobiological knowledge. In each of these c...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2016-03, Vol.11 (3), p.e0151693-e0151693
Hauptverfasser: Saynes-Vásquez, Alfredo, Vibrans, Heike, Vergara-Silva, Francisco, Caballero, Javier
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e0151693
container_issue 3
container_start_page e0151693
container_title PloS one
container_volume 11
creator Saynes-Vásquez, Alfredo
Vibrans, Heike
Vergara-Silva, Francisco
Caballero, Javier
description This study reports on the socio-demographic and locality factors that influence ethnobiological knowledge in three communities of Zapotec indigenous people of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Mexico. It uses local botanical nomenclature as a proxy for general ethnobiological knowledge. In each of these communities (one urban and two rural), 100 adult men were interviewed aided with a field herbarium. Fifty had a background in farming, and 50 worked in the secondary or tertiary sector as their main economic activity, totaling 300 interviews. Using a field herbarium with samples of 30 common and rare wild regional species, we documented visual recognition, knowledge of the local life form, generic and specific names and uses (five knowledge levels measuring knowledge depth). The relationship between sociodemographic variables and knowledge was analyzed with simple correlations. Differences between the three communities and the five knowledge levels were then evaluated with a discriminant analysis. A general linear analysis identified factors and covariables that influenced the observed differences. Differences between the groups with different economic activities were estimated with a t-test for independent samples. Most of the relationships found between sociodemographic variables and plant knowledge were expected: age and rurality were positively related with knowledge and years of formal schooling was negatively related. However, the somewhat less rural site had more traditional knowledge due to local circumstances. The general linear model explained 70-77% of the variation, a high value. It showed that economic activity was by far the most important factor influencing knowledge, by a factor of five. The interaction of locality and economic activity followed. The discriminant analysis assigned interviewees correctly to their localities in 94% of the cases, strengthening the evidence for intracultural variation. Both sociodemographic and historic intracultural differences heavily influence local knowledge.
doi_str_mv 10.1371/journal.pone.0151693
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1774172849</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A453471097</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_e395fcda4a614e9aa93e719534f97c21</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A453471097</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-445023ed5198520f279607c4e68d72079517cbffad75169e463141fc6e47c7833</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk01v1DAQhiMEoqXwDxBEQkJw2MWOnTi-VCrla8WiSnwduFiuM866cuwldqD8e5xuWm1QD8gH2-NnXs-MPVn2GKMlJgy_uvBD76Rdbr2DJcIlrji5kx1iTopFVSByd299kD0I4QKhktRVdT87KCpeV4ixw8yuXOylGmwcemnzN0Zr6MEpCLlx-dqrZHzto3RmXH10_reFpoVcumZvt_Yh5LLzrs3jBvJPcJlwl69C3HRDyH_IrY-gwsPsnpY2wKNpPsq-vXv79fTDYn32fnV6sl6oihdxQWmJCgJNiXldFkgXjKdgFYWqbliBGC8xU-day4aNWQOtCKZYqwooU6wm5Ch7utPdWh_EVKggMGMUs6KmPBGrHdF4eSG2velk_0d4acSVwfetkH00yoIAwkutGkllhSlwKTkBhnlJqOZMFThpHU-3DecdNArGitqZ6PzEmY1o_S9BUybVlcCLSaD3PwcIUXQmKLBWOvDDLu6SYITGuJ_9g96e3US1MiVgnPbjG4-i4iQpUYYRZ4la3kKl0UBnVPpV2iT7zOHlzCExES5jK4cQxOrL5_9nz77P2ed77AakjZvg7RCNd2EO0h2o-vThetA3RcZIjE1xXQ0xNoWYmiK5Pdl_oBun6y4gfwEWEQY1</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1774172849</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Intracultural Differences in Local Botanical Knowledge and Knowledge Loss among the Mexican Isthmus Zapotecs</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Saynes-Vásquez, Alfredo ; Vibrans, Heike ; Vergara-Silva, Francisco ; Caballero, Javier</creator><contributor>Lightfoot, David A</contributor><creatorcontrib>Saynes-Vásquez, Alfredo ; Vibrans, Heike ; Vergara-Silva, Francisco ; Caballero, Javier ; Lightfoot, David A</creatorcontrib><description>This study reports on the socio-demographic and locality factors that influence ethnobiological knowledge in three communities of Zapotec indigenous people of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Mexico. It uses local botanical nomenclature as a proxy for general ethnobiological knowledge. In each of these communities (one urban and two rural), 100 adult men were interviewed aided with a field herbarium. Fifty had a background in farming, and 50 worked in the secondary or tertiary sector as their main economic activity, totaling 300 interviews. Using a field herbarium with samples of 30 common and rare wild regional species, we documented visual recognition, knowledge of the local life form, generic and specific names and uses (five knowledge levels measuring knowledge depth). The relationship between sociodemographic variables and knowledge was analyzed with simple correlations. Differences between the three communities and the five knowledge levels were then evaluated with a discriminant analysis. A general linear analysis identified factors and covariables that influenced the observed differences. Differences between the groups with different economic activities were estimated with a t-test for independent samples. Most of the relationships found between sociodemographic variables and plant knowledge were expected: age and rurality were positively related with knowledge and years of formal schooling was negatively related. However, the somewhat less rural site had more traditional knowledge due to local circumstances. The general linear model explained 70-77% of the variation, a high value. It showed that economic activity was by far the most important factor influencing knowledge, by a factor of five. The interaction of locality and economic activity followed. The discriminant analysis assigned interviewees correctly to their localities in 94% of the cases, strengthening the evidence for intracultural variation. Both sociodemographic and historic intracultural differences heavily influence local knowledge.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151693</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26986077</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Agricultural economics ; Anthropology ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Correlation analysis ; Cultural change ; Culture ; Demographic aspects ; Demographics ; Discriminant analysis ; Earth Sciences ; Economic activity ; Economic analysis ; Economic conditions ; Ethnobiology ; Ethnobotany ; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice - ethnology ; Humans ; Influence ; Knowledge ; Knowledge acquisition ; Linear analysis ; Male ; Mexico ; Middle Aged ; Nomenclature ; People and Places ; Phytotherapy ; Rural communities ; Social aspects ; Social Sciences ; Sociodemographics ; Young Adult ; Zapotecs</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2016-03, Vol.11 (3), p.e0151693-e0151693</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2016 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2016 Saynes-Vásquez et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2016 Saynes-Vásquez et al 2016 Saynes-Vásquez et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-445023ed5198520f279607c4e68d72079517cbffad75169e463141fc6e47c7833</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-445023ed5198520f279607c4e68d72079517cbffad75169e463141fc6e47c7833</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4795621/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4795621/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,728,781,785,865,886,2103,2929,23868,27926,27927,53793,53795</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26986077$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Lightfoot, David A</contributor><creatorcontrib>Saynes-Vásquez, Alfredo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vibrans, Heike</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vergara-Silva, Francisco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Caballero, Javier</creatorcontrib><title>Intracultural Differences in Local Botanical Knowledge and Knowledge Loss among the Mexican Isthmus Zapotecs</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>This study reports on the socio-demographic and locality factors that influence ethnobiological knowledge in three communities of Zapotec indigenous people of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Mexico. It uses local botanical nomenclature as a proxy for general ethnobiological knowledge. In each of these communities (one urban and two rural), 100 adult men were interviewed aided with a field herbarium. Fifty had a background in farming, and 50 worked in the secondary or tertiary sector as their main economic activity, totaling 300 interviews. Using a field herbarium with samples of 30 common and rare wild regional species, we documented visual recognition, knowledge of the local life form, generic and specific names and uses (five knowledge levels measuring knowledge depth). The relationship between sociodemographic variables and knowledge was analyzed with simple correlations. Differences between the three communities and the five knowledge levels were then evaluated with a discriminant analysis. A general linear analysis identified factors and covariables that influenced the observed differences. Differences between the groups with different economic activities were estimated with a t-test for independent samples. Most of the relationships found between sociodemographic variables and plant knowledge were expected: age and rurality were positively related with knowledge and years of formal schooling was negatively related. However, the somewhat less rural site had more traditional knowledge due to local circumstances. The general linear model explained 70-77% of the variation, a high value. It showed that economic activity was by far the most important factor influencing knowledge, by a factor of five. The interaction of locality and economic activity followed. The discriminant analysis assigned interviewees correctly to their localities in 94% of the cases, strengthening the evidence for intracultural variation. Both sociodemographic and historic intracultural differences heavily influence local knowledge.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Agricultural economics</subject><subject>Anthropology</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Correlation analysis</subject><subject>Cultural change</subject><subject>Culture</subject><subject>Demographic aspects</subject><subject>Demographics</subject><subject>Discriminant analysis</subject><subject>Earth Sciences</subject><subject>Economic activity</subject><subject>Economic analysis</subject><subject>Economic conditions</subject><subject>Ethnobiology</subject><subject>Ethnobotany</subject><subject>Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice - ethnology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Influence</subject><subject>Knowledge</subject><subject>Knowledge acquisition</subject><subject>Linear analysis</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mexico</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Nomenclature</subject><subject>People and Places</subject><subject>Phytotherapy</subject><subject>Rural communities</subject><subject>Social aspects</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Sociodemographics</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><subject>Zapotecs</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk01v1DAQhiMEoqXwDxBEQkJw2MWOnTi-VCrla8WiSnwduFiuM866cuwldqD8e5xuWm1QD8gH2-NnXs-MPVn2GKMlJgy_uvBD76Rdbr2DJcIlrji5kx1iTopFVSByd299kD0I4QKhktRVdT87KCpeV4ixw8yuXOylGmwcemnzN0Zr6MEpCLlx-dqrZHzto3RmXH10_reFpoVcumZvt_Yh5LLzrs3jBvJPcJlwl69C3HRDyH_IrY-gwsPsnpY2wKNpPsq-vXv79fTDYn32fnV6sl6oihdxQWmJCgJNiXldFkgXjKdgFYWqbliBGC8xU-day4aNWQOtCKZYqwooU6wm5Ch7utPdWh_EVKggMGMUs6KmPBGrHdF4eSG2velk_0d4acSVwfetkH00yoIAwkutGkllhSlwKTkBhnlJqOZMFThpHU-3DecdNArGitqZ6PzEmY1o_S9BUybVlcCLSaD3PwcIUXQmKLBWOvDDLu6SYITGuJ_9g96e3US1MiVgnPbjG4-i4iQpUYYRZ4la3kKl0UBnVPpV2iT7zOHlzCExES5jK4cQxOrL5_9nz77P2ed77AakjZvg7RCNd2EO0h2o-vThetA3RcZIjE1xXQ0xNoWYmiK5Pdl_oBun6y4gfwEWEQY1</recordid><startdate>20160317</startdate><enddate>20160317</enddate><creator>Saynes-Vásquez, Alfredo</creator><creator>Vibrans, Heike</creator><creator>Vergara-Silva, Francisco</creator><creator>Caballero, Javier</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160317</creationdate><title>Intracultural Differences in Local Botanical Knowledge and Knowledge Loss among the Mexican Isthmus Zapotecs</title><author>Saynes-Vásquez, Alfredo ; Vibrans, Heike ; Vergara-Silva, Francisco ; Caballero, Javier</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-445023ed5198520f279607c4e68d72079517cbffad75169e463141fc6e47c7833</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Agricultural economics</topic><topic>Anthropology</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Correlation analysis</topic><topic>Cultural change</topic><topic>Culture</topic><topic>Demographic aspects</topic><topic>Demographics</topic><topic>Discriminant analysis</topic><topic>Earth Sciences</topic><topic>Economic activity</topic><topic>Economic analysis</topic><topic>Economic conditions</topic><topic>Ethnobiology</topic><topic>Ethnobotany</topic><topic>Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice - ethnology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Influence</topic><topic>Knowledge</topic><topic>Knowledge acquisition</topic><topic>Linear analysis</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mexico</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Nomenclature</topic><topic>People and Places</topic><topic>Phytotherapy</topic><topic>Rural communities</topic><topic>Social aspects</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Sociodemographics</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><topic>Zapotecs</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Saynes-Vásquez, Alfredo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vibrans, Heike</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vergara-Silva, Francisco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Caballero, Javier</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Saynes-Vásquez, Alfredo</au><au>Vibrans, Heike</au><au>Vergara-Silva, Francisco</au><au>Caballero, Javier</au><au>Lightfoot, David A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Intracultural Differences in Local Botanical Knowledge and Knowledge Loss among the Mexican Isthmus Zapotecs</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2016-03-17</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>e0151693</spage><epage>e0151693</epage><pages>e0151693-e0151693</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>This study reports on the socio-demographic and locality factors that influence ethnobiological knowledge in three communities of Zapotec indigenous people of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Mexico. It uses local botanical nomenclature as a proxy for general ethnobiological knowledge. In each of these communities (one urban and two rural), 100 adult men were interviewed aided with a field herbarium. Fifty had a background in farming, and 50 worked in the secondary or tertiary sector as their main economic activity, totaling 300 interviews. Using a field herbarium with samples of 30 common and rare wild regional species, we documented visual recognition, knowledge of the local life form, generic and specific names and uses (five knowledge levels measuring knowledge depth). The relationship between sociodemographic variables and knowledge was analyzed with simple correlations. Differences between the three communities and the five knowledge levels were then evaluated with a discriminant analysis. A general linear analysis identified factors and covariables that influenced the observed differences. Differences between the groups with different economic activities were estimated with a t-test for independent samples. Most of the relationships found between sociodemographic variables and plant knowledge were expected: age and rurality were positively related with knowledge and years of formal schooling was negatively related. However, the somewhat less rural site had more traditional knowledge due to local circumstances. The general linear model explained 70-77% of the variation, a high value. It showed that economic activity was by far the most important factor influencing knowledge, by a factor of five. The interaction of locality and economic activity followed. The discriminant analysis assigned interviewees correctly to their localities in 94% of the cases, strengthening the evidence for intracultural variation. Both sociodemographic and historic intracultural differences heavily influence local knowledge.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>26986077</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0151693</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-6203
ispartof PloS one, 2016-03, Vol.11 (3), p.e0151693-e0151693
issn 1932-6203
1932-6203
language eng
recordid cdi_plos_journals_1774172849
source MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry
subjects Adult
Aged
Agricultural economics
Anthropology
Biology and Life Sciences
Correlation analysis
Cultural change
Culture
Demographic aspects
Demographics
Discriminant analysis
Earth Sciences
Economic activity
Economic analysis
Economic conditions
Ethnobiology
Ethnobotany
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice - ethnology
Humans
Influence
Knowledge
Knowledge acquisition
Linear analysis
Male
Mexico
Middle Aged
Nomenclature
People and Places
Phytotherapy
Rural communities
Social aspects
Social Sciences
Sociodemographics
Young Adult
Zapotecs
title Intracultural Differences in Local Botanical Knowledge and Knowledge Loss among the Mexican Isthmus Zapotecs
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-18T08%3A51%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Intracultural%20Differences%20in%20Local%20Botanical%20Knowledge%20and%20Knowledge%20Loss%20among%20the%20Mexican%20Isthmus%20Zapotecs&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Saynes-V%C3%A1squez,%20Alfredo&rft.date=2016-03-17&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=e0151693&rft.epage=e0151693&rft.pages=e0151693-e0151693&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0151693&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA453471097%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1774172849&rft_id=info:pmid/26986077&rft_galeid=A453471097&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_e395fcda4a614e9aa93e719534f97c21&rfr_iscdi=true