4.2 Article

Palm Use by Two Chachi Communities in Ecuador: a 30-Year Reappraisal

期刊

ECONOMIC BOTANY
卷 71, 期 4, 页码 342-360

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12231-017-9397-8

关键词

Chachi; Choco; Ethnobotany; Palms; Traditional knowledge

资金

  1. Claraz Schenkung

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reappraised traditional knowledge (TK) about palms (Arecaceae) by the Chachi indigenous group in northwestern Ecuador, 30 years after the first study in 1985 on Chachi palm ethnobotany (Barfod and Balslev 1988). We wished to gain insight about which palm species the Chachi people use today, and how palm TK has changed among the Chachi since 1985. In 2015, using semi-structured interviews and participant observation, we documented nine useful palm species and 457 use reports. The 1985 methods were less formalized, based on open-ended interviews and recorded 14 palm species with 38 use descriptions. Most uses fell into the categories Food (13 use descriptions), Utensils/Tools (10), and Construction (7). In 2015, most of the use descriptions similarly fall into the categories Food (38), Construction (20), and Utensils and tools (19). As in 1985, the most important species harvested today are Iriartea deltoidea and Wettinia quinaria. Four understory palm species reported as useful in 1985 were not recorded in 2015. Still, most of the uses documented among the Chachi in 1985 were also registered in 2015. Knowledge about blowguns, blowgun darts, and marimba keys, however, seems to have vanished. Although palms still provide important ecosystem services for the Chachi, (e.g., food and construction), better management of natural resources and land-use is pivotal to meet the Sustainable Development Goals that Ecuador is committed to through their participation in the United Nation's Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. This is particularly complicated because of the rapid human population growth in the coastal lowland of Ecuador and the impending threats from climate change.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据