| Literature DB >> 17217539 |
Roberto Garibay-Orijel1, Javier Caballero, Arturo Estrada-Torres, Joaquín Cifuentes.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cultural significance is a keystone in quantitative ethnobiology, which offers the possibility to make inferences about traditional nomenclature systems, use, appropriation and valuing of natural resources. In the present work, using as model the traditional mycological knowledge of Zapotecs from Oaxaca, Mexico, we analyze the cultural significance of wild edible resources.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2007 PMID: 17217539 PMCID: PMC1779767 DOI: 10.1186/1746-4269-3-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ethnobiol Ethnomed ISSN: 1746-4269 Impact factor: 2.733
Figure 1Cultural significance study progress. CFSI: Pieroni's Cultural Food Significance Index; CS: Cultural significance; EMCSI: Edible Mushrooms Cultural Significance Index; ICS: Turner's Index of Cultural Significance.
Figure 2Location of study area.
Figure 3Ixtlan de Juarez village.
Figure 4Visual stimuli used in the perceived abundance test.
Figure 5Visual stimuli used for the taste score appreciation test.
Answers categorization and values for the cultural significance sub Indexes
| Sub index | Answer | Value |
| PAI | A | 0 |
| B | 2.5 | |
| C | 5 | |
| D | 7.5 | |
| E | 10 | |
| FUI | Never | 0 |
| Not every year | 2.5 | |
| Every year once | 5 | |
| 2–3 times a year | 7.5 | |
| 4 or more a year | 10 | |
| TSAI | A | 0 |
| B | 3.33 | |
| C | 6.67 | |
| D | 10 | |
| MFFI | Do not know | 0 |
| Always mixed in a stew with other mushrooms and meat: "amarillito con carne y hongos" | 2.5 | |
| In a stew not as its principal element, mixed with mushrooms, not with meat: "amarillito con hongos" | 5 | |
| As the principal element of a stew: pie, "quesadillas", mushrooms soup | 7.5 | |
| Cooked alone not in stew: roast, fried in butter | 9 | |
| If it is eaten raw or conserved for future consumption | +1 | |
| KTI | New use, discovered by itself | 0 |
| An immigrant (near town, other Mexican state, foreigner) | 2.5 | |
| Some town people, not blood parent (husband, friend, job partner) | 5 | |
| Father or mother, and he/she did not teach it to he's sons | 7.5 | |
| Three or more generations involved (grand fathers, fathers, he/she, sons) | 10 | |
| HI | He/she do not eat it because can be confused with a toxic one | 0 |
| He/she had eat it but with ill consequences | 3.33 | |
| He/she eat it with confidence, and it is healthy | 6.67 | |
| He/she eat it because it is good to health (give strong, mind power, reconstituent, medicine) | 10 | |
| EI | He/she do not sell or buy it | 0 |
| He/she have sell or buy it occasionally at low prices | 3.33 | |
| He/she have sell or buy it regularly | 6.67 | |
| He/she have sell or buy it at high prices | 10 |
PAI: Perceived Abundance Index; FUI: Frequency of Use Index; TSAI: Taste Score
Appreciation Index; MFFI: Multifunctional Food Index; KTI: Knowledge Transmission Index; HI: Health
Index; EI: Economic Index.
Example of EMCSI compute process for the responses of three interviewees
| Var. | Question | I 1 | Cat. | Val. | I 2 | Cat. | Val. | I 3 | Val. | Compute |
| QI | Sp. mentioned in his/her free list | Yes | 1 | Yes | 1 | No | 0 | 2/3 = 0.67* | ||
| PAI | Informant rank the abundance of spi | B | B | 2.5 | C | C | 5 | 0 | 3.75 | |
| FUI | How often do you eat spi? | Every week | 4 or more a year | 10 | Monthly from Jul. to Sep. | 2–3 times a year | 7.5 | 0 | 8.75 | |
| TSAI | How much do you like spi? | D | D | 10 | C | C | 6.67 | 0 | 8.335 | |
| MFFI | How do you cook spi? | Fried in butter, raw | Cooked alone plus raw (9 + 1) | 10 | "Amarillito con hongos" | Not principal element | 5 | 0 | 7.5 | |
| KTI | How many generations know... | Since grandma | Three or more generations | 10 | Learned from husband | Town, not blood parent | 5 | 0 | 7.5 | |
| HI | How safe is to eat spi... | Eat it with confidence | 6.67 | Because it is good to health | 10 | 0 | 8.335 | |||
| EI | Have you sold/bought spi... | No | 0 | Buy every month | Regularly | 6.67 | 0 | 3.335 | ||
| EMCSI |
In Var.: Variable. QI: Mention Index. PAI: Perceived Abundance Index. FUI: Frequency of Use Index. TSAI: Taste Score
Appreciation Index. MFFI: Multifunctional Food Index. KTI: Knowledge Transmission index. HI: Health Index. EI: Economic Index.
EMCSI: Edible Mushroom Cultural Significance Index. I 1, I 2, I 3: Answers of informants 1, 2 and 3. Cat.: Categorization. Val. Value. In the entire table, the categorizations and associated values are those indicated in Table 1. In Compute: * the formula for QI = (Number of mentions/Number of informants) 10. However, note than the division by 10 is to fit QI values to the same scale of other variables, because in this example just 3 informants were considered, the division was not done. The final value of each variable (except QI) is the average of informants' responses considering just those that knew the species; in this case 2.
Correspondence between scientific and folk taxa
| Species | Folk species | Taxa as treated in this paper |
| "Beshia sh que cuayo" | ||
| "Beshia bella" | ||
| "Beshia bella" | ||
| "Beshia bella" | ||
| "Beshia bella" | ||
| "Beshia de" de mercado | ||
| "Beshia de" de monte | ||
| "Lo biinii" | ||
| "Beshia be tzi" | ||
| "Beshia beretze" | ||
| "Beshia beretze" | ||
| "Beshia beretze" | ||
| "Beshia beretze" | ||
| "Beshia beretze" | ||
| "Beshia de que ya yeri" | ||
| "Beshia que biarida" | ||
| "Beshia que biarida" | ||
| "Beshia ya wela" | ||
| "Beshia ladhi biinii" | ||
| "Beshia ladhi biinii" | ||
| "Beshia ladhi biinii" | ||
| "Beshia ladhi biinii" | ||
| "Beshia ladhi biinii" | ||
| "Beshia ni tzi" | ||
| Hongo de leche naranja | ||
| Hongo de leche naranja | ||
| "Beshia ni tzi" | ||
| "Beyere" | ||
| "Beshia culirri" | ||
| "Beshia culirri" | ||
| "Beshia culirri" | ||
| "Beshia culirri" | ||
| Cabeza de león | ||
| Matzutake |
In Folk species, quoted names are in Zapotec, the rest in Spanish.
Figure 6Mushroom species with most cultural significance in Ixtlan. Top, from left to right: Cantharellus cibarius s.l., Amanita caesarea s.l., Ramaria purpurissima (one of the many Ramaria species used in Ixtlan). Bottom, from left to right: Neolentinus lepideus, Agaricus pampeanus, Tricholoma magnivelare.
Sub indexes values and edible mushroom cultural significance index estimates
| 1 | 5.053 | 5.698 | 3.840 | 6.350 | 6.500 | 8.641 | 6.521 | 0.000 | 189.731 | |
| 2 | 9.263 | 5.255 | 5.703 | 8.667 | 8.616 | 8.435 | 6.235 | 0.210 | 399.430 | |
| 3 | 0.421 | 4.167 | 4.833 | 4.168 | 7.625 | 5.625 | 6.670 | 0.000 | 13.932 | |
| 4 | 4.840 | 8.429 | 6.143 | 8.537 | 6.325 | 8.598 | 6.751 | 3.641 | 234.450 | |
| 5 | 4.530 | 8.162 | 5.974 | 8.685 | 7.059 | 8.718 | 6.755 | 0.167 | 206.210 | |
| 6 | 1.158 | 3.889 | 4.444 | 7.619 | 7.500 | 6.786 | 6.670 | 0.000 | 42.735 | |
| 7 | 1.474 | 4.231 | 3.654 | 6.429 | 5.833 | 9.464 | 5.955 | 0.000 | 52.414 | |
| 8 | 0.105 | 2.500 | 5.000 | 10.000 | 9.000 | 5.000 | 6.670 | 0.000 | 4.018 | |
| 9 | 3.895 | 3.603 | 4.571 | 7.224 | 6.674 | 8.958 | 6.762 | 0.180 | 147.895 | |
| 10 | 0.421 | 6.250 | 5.000 | 6.670 | 2.500 | 5.000 | 6.670 | 0.000 | 13.512 | |
| 11 | 0.526 | 5.833 | 2.643 | 4.443 | 3.000 | 6.786 | 6.670 | 0.000 | 15.461 | |
| 12 | 4.526 | 3.472 | 3.525 | 6.667 | 6.540 | 8.654 | 6.670 | 0.079 | 161.171 | |
| 13 | 0.421 | 5.625 | 3.125 | 6.668 | 3.125 | 8.750 | 6.670 | 0.000 | 14.300 | |
| 14 | 1.053 | 7.500 | 2.700 | 4.165 | 4.063 | 6.750 | 6.670 | 0.000 | 33.524 | |
| 15 | 0.421 | 5.000 | 1.500 | 8.335 | 8.500 | 7.500 | 6.670 | 0.000 | 15.792 | |
| 16 | 4.105 | 2.786 | 4.255 | 6.609 | 6.888 | 7.715 | 6.697 | 0.222 | 144.386 | |
| 17 | 6.737 | 3.194 | 3.230 | 9.235 | 7.500 | 8.320 | 6.779 | 1.251 | 266.164 | |
| 18 | 0.421 | 8.750 | 2.500 | 6.670 | 6.250 | 2.500 | 6.670 | 0.000 | 14.038 | |
| 19 | 8.211 | 6.162 | 4.770 | 6.713 | 6.331 | 8.377 | 6.714 | 0.084 | 321.439 | |
| 20 | 0.737 | 0.500 | 3.000 | 9.334 | 5.000 | 4.500 | 6.670 | 1.427 | 22.423 | |
| 21 | 4.842 | 3.667 | 1.944 | 8.391 | 6.682 | 3.649 | 8.422 | 4.565 | 180.707 |
N°: Number of the species. QI: Mention Index. PAI: Perceived Abundance Index. FUI: Frequency of Use Index. TSAI: Taste Score
Appreciation Index. MFFI: Multifunctional Food Index. KTI: Knowledge Transmission index. HI: Health Index. EI: Economic Index.
EMCSI: Edible Mushroom Cultural Significance Index.
Figure 7Tree diagram for euclidean distances between species, groups formation by complete linkage. Lines divide mayor mushroom groups designed by capital letters. Ellipses show minor mushroom groups designed by lowercase letters. 1: Agaricus pampeanus; 2: Amanita caesarea complex; 3: Austroboletus betula; 4: Cantharellus cibarius sp.1; 5: Cantharellus cibarius sp.2; 6: Cantharellus cinnabarinus; 7: Cortinarius secc. Malacii sp.; 8: Gomphus clavatus; 9: Hydnum repandum s.l.; 10: Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca; 11: Hygrophorus russula s.l.; 12: Hypomyces lactifluorum; 13: Laccaria vinaceobrunnea s.l.; 14: Laccaria laccata var. pallidifolia; 15: Lactarius deliciosus s.l.; 16: Lactarius volemus s.l.; 17: Neolentinus lepideus; 18: Pleurotus sp.; 19: Ramaria spp.; 20: Sparassis crispa; 21: Tricholoma magnivelare.
Figure 8Multi-dimensional scaling of fungal species by their euclidean distances. Inside lines divide mayor mushroom groups designed by capital letters. Ellipses show minor mushroom groups designed by lowercase letters. Arrows show differences with tree diagram groups. 1: Agaricus pampeanus; 2: Amanita caesarea complex; 3: Austroboletus betula; 4: Cantharellus cibarius sp.1; 5: Cantharellus cibarius sp.2; 6: Cantharellus cinnabarinus; 7: Cortinarius secc. Malacii sp.; 8: Gomphus clavatus; 9: Hydnum repandum s.l.; 10: Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca; 11: Hygrophorus russula s.l.; 12: Hypomyces lactifluorum; 13: Laccaria vinaceobrunnea s.l.; 14: Laccaria laccata var. pallidifolia; 15: Lactarius deliciosus s.l.; 16: Lactarius volemus s.l.; 17: Neolentinus lepideus; 18: Pleurotus sp.; 19: Ramaria spp.; 20: Sparassis crispa; 21: Tricholoma magnivelare.
Figure 9Principal component analysis of edible mushrooms, obtained from cultural significance sub indexes. Inside lines divide mayor mushroom groups designed by capital letters. PC: Principal component; EI: Economic Index; FUI: Frequency of Use Index; HI: Health Index; KTI: Knowledge Transmission Index; QI: Mention Index; TSAI: Taste Score Appreciation Index. 1: Agaricus pampeanus; 2: Amanita caesarea complex; 3: Austroboletus betula; 4: Cantharellus cibarius sp.1; 5: Cantharellus cibarius sp.2; 6: Cantharellus cinnabarinus; 7: Cortinarius secc. Malacii sp.; 8: Gomphus clavatus; 9: Hydnum repandum s.l.; 10: Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca; 11: Hygrophorus russula s.l.; 12: Hypomyces lactifluorum; 13: Laccaria vinaceobrunnea s.l.; 14: Laccaria laccata var. pallidifolia; 15: Lactarius deliciosus s.l.; 16: Lactarius volemus s.l.; 17: Neolentinus lepideus; 18: Pleurotus sp.; 19: Ramaria spp.; 20: Sparassis crispa; 21: Tricholoma magnivelare.
Figure 10Principal component analysis of cultural significance sub indexes from the species values. PC: Principal component; EI: Economic Index; FUI: Frequency of Use Index; HI: Health Index; KTI: Knowledge Transmission Index; MFFI: Multifunctional Food Index; PAI: Perceived Abundance Index; QI: Mention Index; TSAI: Taste Score Appreciation Index.