Wildlife use and harmful wild species in rural communities around the Communal Natural Protected Area El Gavilán, Oaxaca, Mexico
-
Published:2022-12-05
Issue:
Volume:
Page:1-20
-
ISSN:2448-8445
-
Container-title:ACTA ZOOLÓGICA MEXICANA (N.S.)
-
language:
-
Short-container-title:AZM
Author:
García-Grajales JesúsORCID, Luis-Curiel Carlos Alberto, Buenrostro-Silva Alejandra
Abstract
A large portion of rural human residents in Mexico are established in the states with greater biological diversity, and continue using a variety of wildlife species as sources of protein, fat, medicinal substances, clothes, adornments, ritual objects, and income, among other purposes. Our aims in this study were: 1) identify the main wildlife species that are part of local knowledge and are used, 2) describe the hunting techniques used by inhabitants of rural communities, and 3) identify the main wildlife species considered harmful between two groups of inhabitants of rural communities settled around the Communal Natural Protected Area El Gavilán on the central coast of Oaxaca, in southwest Mexico. We conducted fieldwork during four visits to the communities between June and December 2015. We obtained information through open conversations with structured and in-depth interviews. We calculated the Importance Culture Index (ICI) and the Importance Damage Index (IDI) per wildlife species. We recorded 51 wild species, which are part of the knowledge of the studied communities, and seven different uses were identified. There was no significant difference in the knowledge of wildlife among the study groups, but there was a significant difference in the use of wildlife. In general, the inhabitants of the communities around the NPA El Gavilán have extensive knowledge and make use of its wildlife, but there are differences in the uses of these species. Here we present a synthesis of the most relevant knowledge and uses of wildlife in communities around a natural protected area.
Publisher
Instituto de Ecologia, A.C.
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences,General Engineering,General Environmental Science
Reference69 articles.
1. Albuquerque, A. E., Lima, A., Souto, A., Bezerra, B., Freire, E. M. X., Sampaio, E., Casas, F. L., Moura, G., Pereira, G., Melo, J. G., Alves, M., Rodal, M., Schiel, M., Neves, R. L., Azevedo-Junior, S., Telino, W. (2012) Caatinga revisited: ecology and conservation of an important seasonal dry forest. Scientific World Journal, 205182, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/205182 2. Albuquerque, U. P., Cunha, L., Lucena, R., Alves, R. R. N. (2014) Methods and techniques in ethnobiology and ethnoecology (1a. ed). Springer, New York, USA, 480 pp. 3. Allaby, M. (2010) Animals: from mythology to zoology. New York, USA: First edition, Facts on File, Inc., 209 pp. 4. Bernard, H. R. (2006) Research methods in anthropology, qualitative and quantitative approaches (4a ed.). Altamira Press, New York, USA, 803 pp. 5. Bodmer, R. E., Eisenberg, J. F., Redford, K. H. (1997) The sustainability of subsistence hunting in the Neotropics. Conservation Biology, 11 (4), 977–982.
|
|