{"title":"Contrasting Indigenous Urarina and Mestizo Farms in the Peruvian Amazon: Plant Diversity and Farming Practices","authors":"Aaron L. Iverson, L. Iverson","doi":"10.2993/0278-0771-41.4.517","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Remote Amazonian communities are often largely self-sufficient, made possible in part by their agricultural skills and deep ecological knowledge of their landscapes. Mastery of their local flora undoubtedly plays a vital role in daily life, yet communities in the Amazon can vary widely in both the diversity of plants that they utilize and in how they manage plants in their agricultural landholdings. The dominant drivers of these differences in ecological knowledge and practices between communities are not clearly understood. We compare the agricultural practices and diversity of utilized plants in an Indigenous Urarina community and a Mestizo community in the Peruvian Amazon. Through field surveys and farmer interviews, we assessed the diversity of utilized plants found in the homegardens (N = 17) and chacras (cropped fields; N = 47), as well as multiple agricultural characteristics of the chacras and fallow fields (N = 32). Households from the Mestizo community cultivated a larger land area, while both communities utilized relatively short fallow times of < 6 years. Across both communities, farmers make use of a total of 207 plant species belonging to 60 plant families for various resources, including food, spices, medicine, fuel, craft, construction, hunting/fishing, and spiritual/cultural uses. Species diversity of utilized plants was significantly higher in the Urarina community, likely reflecting their longer historical roots in the region, lower reliance on a market economy, greater reliance on farm and forest products, and higher degree of biocultural relationship to the land. Kin size was negatively correlated with homegarden diversity, while increasing household wealth led to more species diversity in Urarina landholdings, but less diversity in Mestizo landholdings. These results suggest that both Mestizo and Indigenous communities, and especially the latter, play an important role in the conservation of traditional ecological knowledge and agrobiodiversity in the Peruvian Amazon; however, increasing market integration may jeopardize the biocultural relationships that undergird this in situ conservation.","PeriodicalId":54838,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ethnobiology","volume":"41 1","pages":"517 - 534"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ethnobiology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-41.4.517","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Abstract. Remote Amazonian communities are often largely self-sufficient, made possible in part by their agricultural skills and deep ecological knowledge of their landscapes. Mastery of their local flora undoubtedly plays a vital role in daily life, yet communities in the Amazon can vary widely in both the diversity of plants that they utilize and in how they manage plants in their agricultural landholdings. The dominant drivers of these differences in ecological knowledge and practices between communities are not clearly understood. We compare the agricultural practices and diversity of utilized plants in an Indigenous Urarina community and a Mestizo community in the Peruvian Amazon. Through field surveys and farmer interviews, we assessed the diversity of utilized plants found in the homegardens (N = 17) and chacras (cropped fields; N = 47), as well as multiple agricultural characteristics of the chacras and fallow fields (N = 32). Households from the Mestizo community cultivated a larger land area, while both communities utilized relatively short fallow times of < 6 years. Across both communities, farmers make use of a total of 207 plant species belonging to 60 plant families for various resources, including food, spices, medicine, fuel, craft, construction, hunting/fishing, and spiritual/cultural uses. Species diversity of utilized plants was significantly higher in the Urarina community, likely reflecting their longer historical roots in the region, lower reliance on a market economy, greater reliance on farm and forest products, and higher degree of biocultural relationship to the land. Kin size was negatively correlated with homegarden diversity, while increasing household wealth led to more species diversity in Urarina landholdings, but less diversity in Mestizo landholdings. These results suggest that both Mestizo and Indigenous communities, and especially the latter, play an important role in the conservation of traditional ecological knowledge and agrobiodiversity in the Peruvian Amazon; however, increasing market integration may jeopardize the biocultural relationships that undergird this in situ conservation.
期刊介绍:
JoE’s readership is as wide and diverse as ethnobiology itself, with readers spanning from both the natural and social sciences. Not surprisingly, a glance at the papers published in the Journal reveals the depth and breadth of topics, extending from studies in archaeology and the origins of agriculture, to folk classification systems, to food composition, plants, birds, mammals, fungi and everything in between.
Research areas published in JoE include but are not limited to neo- and paleo-ethnobiology, zooarchaeology, ethnobotany, ethnozoology, ethnopharmacology, ethnoecology, linguistic ethnobiology, human paleoecology, and many other related fields of study within anthropology and biology, such as taxonomy, conservation biology, ethnography, political ecology, and cognitive and cultural anthropology.
JoE does not limit itself to a single perspective, approach or discipline, but seeks to represent the full spectrum and wide diversity of the field of ethnobiology, including cognitive, symbolic, linguistic, ecological, and economic aspects of human interactions with our living world. Articles that significantly advance ethnobiological theory and/or methodology are particularly welcome, as well as studies bridging across disciplines and knowledge systems. JoE does not publish uncontextualized data such as species lists; appropriate submissions must elaborate on the ethnobiological context of findings.