| Literature DB >> 24466163 |
Zhang Kai1, Teoh Shu Woan2, Li Jie3, Eben Goodale4, Kaoru Kitajima5, Robert Bagchi6, Rhett D Harrison7.
Abstract
The value of local ecological knowledge (LEK) to conservation is increasingly recognised, but LEK is being rapidly lost as indigenous livelihoods change. Biodiversity loss is also a driver of the loss of LEK, but quantitative study is lacking. In our study landscape in SW China, a large proportion of species have been extirpated. Hence, we were interested to understand whether species extirpation might have led to an erosion of LEK and the implications this might have for conservation. So we investigated peoples' ability to name a selection of birds and mammals in their local language from pictures. Age was correlated to frequency of forest visits as a teenager and is likely to be closely correlated to other known drivers of the loss of LEK, such as declining forest dependence. We found men were better at identifying birds overall and that older people were better able to identify birds to the species as compared to group levels (approximately equivalent to genus). The effect of age was also stronger among women. However, after controlling for these factors, species abundance was by far the most important parameter in determining peoples' ability to name birds. People were unable to name any locally extirpated birds at the species level. However, contrary to expectations, people were better able to identify extirpated mammals at the species level than extant ones. However, extirpated mammals tend to be more charismatic species and several respondents indicated they were only familiar with them through TV documentaries. Younger people today cannot experience the sights and sounds of forest animals that their parents grew up with and, consequently, knowledge of these species is passing from cultural memory. We suggest that engaging older members of the community and linking the preservation of LEK to biodiversity conservation may help generate support for conservation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24466163 PMCID: PMC3897741 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086598
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Proportion of bird species identified to group level (light grey) or identified to species level (dark grey) against respondent gender, respondent age, and species abundance (error bars = standard error).
Note that for the statistical modeling respondent age was treated as a continuous variable.
Summary of the selection process for the model for bird identification.
| Model parameters included | K | ΔAIC |
| null model | 9 | 730 |
| gender + age + abundance | 17 | 2.7 |
| gender + age + abundance + gender:age | 20 | 0 |
| gender + age + abundance + age:abundance | 23 | 8 |
We could not examine the gender:abundance interaction because of complications with the Hauck-Donner effect.
We modeled the frequency of identifications at a particular level using a Poisson (link = log) GLMM, with village and respondent nested within village included as random effects (not shown). We investigated the effect of respondent gender, respondent age, and species abundance (common, rare, or extirpated) and their interactive effects* on the ability of people to correctly name species at two levels (overall (group+species level) and specific (species vs group level)). Full model details are given in the online supplementary material Table S2. Starting with the null model, we added and subtracted parameters by hand and assessed the impact of a factor by comparing AIC values. K = number of model parameters. ΔAICc = difference between AICc of the top ranked model and current model.
Summary of the parameter coefficients for the best model for bird identification.
| Parameter | β coefficient | Std. Error | z value | Pr(>|z|) |
| overall: gender | −0.634 | 0.111 | −5.70 | <0.0001 |
| specific: gender | −0.377 | 0.297 | −1.27 | 0.2037 |
| overall: age | −0.000 | 0.002 | 0.164 | 0.8700 |
| specific: age | 0.008 | 0.004 | 2.245 | 0.0248 |
| overall: species abundance(1) | −0.871 | 0.120 | −7.29 | <0.0001 |
| specific: species abundance (1) | −1.786 | 0.357 | −5.01 | <0.0001 |
| overall: species abundance (2) | −0.315 | 0.072 | −4.41 | <0.0001 |
| specific: species abundance (2) | −0.523 | 0.212 | −2.47 | 0.0134 |
| overall: gender:age | 0.015 | 0.009 | −1.80 | 0.0716 |
| specific: gender:age | 0.023 | 0.011 | 2.12 | 0.0341 |
We used a binomial (link = logit) GLMM with village and respondent nested within village included as random effects (not shown). We investigated the effect of respondent gender, respondent age, and species abundance ((1) common vs rare, (2) rare vs extirpated) and their interactive effects on the ability of people to correctly names species at two levels (overall (group+species levels) and specific (species vs groups levels)). Full model details are given in the online supplementary material Table S2.
Figure 2Proportion of mammal species identified to group level (light grey) or identified to species level (dark grey) against respondent gender, respondent age, and species abundance (error bars = standard error).
Note that for the statistical modeling respondent age was treated as a continuous variable.
Summary of the selection process for the model for mammal identification.
| Model parameters included | K | ΔAIC |
| null model | 9 | 401 |
| gender + age + abundance | 15 | 0 |
| gender + age + abundance + gender:age | 18 | 2 |
| gender + age+ abundance + age:abundance | 18 | 4.4 |
| gender + age + abundance + gender:abundance | 18 | 0.8 |
We modeled the frequency of identifications at a particular level using a Poisson (link = log) GLMM, with village and respondent nested within village included as random effects (not shown). We investigated the effect of respondent gender, respondent age, and species abundance (extant or extirpated) and their interactive effects on the ability of people to correctly name species at two levels (overall (group+species level) and specific (species vs group levels)). Full model details are given in the online supplementary material Table S3. Starting with the null model, we added and subtracted parameters by hand and assessed the impact of a factor by comparing AIC values. K = number of model parameters. ΔAICc = difference between AICc of the top ranked model and current model.
Summary of the parameter coefficients for the best model for mammal identification.
| Parameter | β coefficient | Std. Error | z value | Pr(>|z|) |
| overall: gender | −0.062 | 0.040 | −1.55 | 0.1206 |
| specific: gender | −0.002 | 0.082 | −0.03 | 0.9770 |
| overall: age | 0.002 | 0.002 | 1.30 | 0.1924 |
| specific: age | 0.007 | 0.004 | 1.78 | 0.0749 |
| overall:abundance | −0.092 | 0.039 | −2.38 | 0.0172 |
| specific:abundance | 1.484 | 0.097 | 15.34 | <0.0001 |
We modeled the frequency of identifications at a particular level using a Poisson (link = log) GLMM, with village and respondent nested within village included as random effects (not shown). We investigated the effect of respondent gender, respondent age, and species abundance (extant vs extirpated) and their interactive effects on the ability of people to correctly names species at two levels (overall (group + species levels) and specific (species vs groups levels)). The interactive terms were removed during model simplification. Although models including the interactive terms were roughly equivalent (Table 3), none of the coefficients for the interactive terms were significant. Full model details are given in the online supplementary material Table S3.
Figure 3A local extirpation time-line for five mammal species in Mengsong, SW Xishuangbanna, China (n refers to the number of respondents who provided time-line data for the species).
Only answers from respondents who identified the species concerned and who correctly identified the quality control species (see Methods) were used in constructing the extirpation time-line. In total 113 people were interviewed.