Biodiversity and Conservation 12: 24552476, 2003. c 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Traditional ecological knowledge and use of vegetation in southeastern Mexico: a case study from Solferino, Quintana Roo
MARIA DE LOS ANGELES LA TORRE-CUADROS* and GERALD A. ISLEBE
El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Unidad Chetumal, Herbarium, A.P. 424, Chetumal, Quintana Roo 77000, Mexico; * Author for correspondence (e-mail: mtorre@ ecosur-qroo.mx; fax: 152 -983 -83 -50440) Received 6 June 2002; accepted in revised form 3 January 2003

Key words: Ethnoclassication, Mayas, Mexico, Quantitative ethnobotany, Tropical forest Abstract. In order to assess traditional ecological knowledge of the Maya people in southeastern Mexico, we interviewed local people in Quintana Roo and estimated a number of vegetation variables in two different types of forest which are currently locally exploited, namely Monte alto (medium statured forest) and Sakal che (low forest). We employed the Use Value index for each plant species (UVs ) to quantify the importance of each plant for each inhabitant. The results showed that this Maya community classify the different forest types by species associations and size, and according to soil appearance. A total of nine categories of use were dened for three plant forms (tree, palm and vine). Manilkara zapota (zapote), Thrinax radiata (chiit) and Macfadyena uncata (bilin kok) showed the highest use values for each plant form. The most common uses were construction (35.5%), medicine (19.0%), craft (17.9%) and edibility (10.3%). There was a weak relationship between the cultural importance of plant species, expressed by the UVs , and their availability in the medium statured forest and the medium staturedlow forest transition expressed by the Importance Value index (IVI). The medium statured forest was the most used forest type, as it provides many species for construction due to external demands rather than to local needs.

Introduction The severe deforestation of tropical forests is a global concern. Recent studies estimated a rate of change in the forest area of 4.9 6 1.3 3 10 6 ha per year (Achard et al. 2002). This may also involve a huge economic loss, as tropical forests have a total estimated value of US$2007 per ha and a circulation capital of US$3813 3 10 9 per year (Costanza et al. 1997). Forest resources can be exploited following alternative strategies which prevent deforestation and land transformation (Peters et al. 1989; Nepstad and Schwartzman 1992; Plokin and Famolare 1992). For instance, ethnobotanists have found that non-timber products like edible fruits, oils, latex, and ber represent the most immediate and protable method for integrating the use and conservation of Amazonian forests (Balick and Cox 1997). The economic value of useful species in tropical forests has been assessed on national (Rutter 1990), regional (Toledo et al. 1978; Richards 1991) and local scales (Prance et al. 1987; Pinedo-Vasquez et al.

2456 1990; Paz y Mino et al. 1991; Phillips and Gentry 1993a; Phillips et al. 1994). Comparable analysis of tree farming in Brazil gave yields of US$3184 per ha, while the conversion of tropical forest for cattle pasture gave a net present value of only US$2960, assuming gross revenues of US$148 per year (Peters et al. 1989). In a similar study, Balick and Mendelsohn (1992) valued the native medicinal plant species taken by the local people from a forest in Belize. From two separate 1-ha plots of 30- and 50-year-old forest, the total biomass of respectively 309 and 1434 kg (dry weight) of medicinal plants was calculated a present value of US$726 per ha for the 30-year forest, and US$3327 per ha for the 50-year forest (Balick and Mendelsohn 1992). These studies fostered a greater understanding of the value of the tropical forest to local inhabitants and their economy. Traditional ecological knowledge emphasizes and unravels the actual utilities of tropical plant species, thus enhancing the local management and conservation of local forest resources and biodiversity (Colorado and Collins 1987; Colorado 1988; Schultes 1988; Posey 1990; Gadgil et al. 1993; Hunn 1993; Salmon 1996; Richards 1997; Turner et al. 2000). This can be assessed in Mexico, as it is one of the best studied Latin American countries from an ethnobotanical point of view (Toledo 1987; Martnez 1994). Indeed, over 50% of the Mexican indigenous groups have been subjected to studies dealing with plant use patterns, and further research has focused on the Mestizo population (Toledo 1990; Toledo et al. 1995). National forest clearing programs for agriculture and husbandry during the 1970s and 1980s led to 75% of the state being covered by secondary plant communities in different seral stages (Olmsted et al. 1983). Still, the forests of Quintana Roo remain an important source of timber and non-timber products for domestic use and foreign markets (e.g. extraction of chicle from the tree Manilkara zapota and of guano leaves from the palm Sabal yapa). Ethnobotanical research in northern Quintana Roo has been scarce, notwithstanding the fact that modern Maya natives devote a lot of traditional knowledge to medicine, ritual, construction, food, and fabric elaboration (Barrera et al. 1976; Mendieta and Del Amo 1981; Flores 1987; Pulido and Serralta 1993). For instance, Mendez and Duran (1997) estimated that about one-third of the plant species in northern Quintana Roo have medicinal applications. However, regional plant communities have been severely impacted over time by overexploitation of timber, chicle and tourism. The main goal of this study was to quantify the use of undisturbed vegetation by Maya people in a community of northern Quintana Roo. In this study, we rst determined Maya peoples criteria in differentiating and classifying vegetation types according to a number of individual interviews. Secondly we examined the use of each vegetation type on the base of the Use Value index (UVs ) (Phillips and Gentry 1993a, 1993b). Third, we evaluated composition, abundance and distribution of trees and palms in two vegetation types which are regarded as undisturbed by the people, and compared the Importance Value Index for each species (IVI) calculated for each type of forest with the UVs obtained. Finally, we summarize the applications of 10 useful plant species according to their use in Solferino and in the region of study.

2457 Methods Study area The study was carried out in the Solferino ejido, a communal landholding with a total area of 18 400 ha located in the northern part of Quintana Roo (218129300 / 218259000 N and 878069000 / 878309000 W) (Figure 1). The local climate is characterized by annual mean temperatures varying between 24 and 26 8C, while the annual precipitation ranges from 900 to 1300 mm, with most rain between May and October and peaks in June and September (Escobar 1986). Soils are rich in Ca, Mg, Ka, Fe and Al, but poor in P and Mn (Wright 1967; Sanchez and Islebe 2001). This ejido gathers a total of 803 inhabitants (INEGI 2000). Local ethnic groups consist of both Maya and Mestizo people from the states of Quintana Roo and Yucatan, and a small group of Totonac descendants from Veracruz. The main activity is agriculture, either as a direct source of food (mainly traditional milpa, i.e. corn and squash bean elds / crops) or as a source of cash income (vegetables). Animal husbandry, shing and apiculture are complementary activities. Fieldwork was undertaken between October 2000 and January 2002. Approximately 100 individuals were interviewed in a semi-structured open-ended format, asking them about the most important useful plants in the area. From these

Figure 1. Map showing the location of the Solferino ejido in the Yucatan Peninsula.

2458 interviews we selected 21 informants who had substantial knowledge about the forest. As a consequence, our sample shows a bias toward older male informants (18 individuals, average age 61 years) with only three women being interviewed (details in La Torre-Cuadros and Ross, accepted paper). A second semi-structured interview was applied to obtain precise information on the use (category of use and part of plants used) of those species which are presently exploited, and their location in the eld. These data were analyzed by the consensus of the informants technique, where the relative importance of each use is calculated by the degree of consensus in the various answers given by each informant (Adu-Tutu et al. 1979; Trotter and Logan 1986; Phillips and Gentry 1993a). To quantify the plant resources present in each vegetation type and contrast this estimate with the interview data, we divided the study area in four zones, based on aerial photography on a 1:75 000 scale, and positioned by GPS. These study zones comprised a medium statured forest disturbed by agriculture, a medium statured forest without disturbance, a transition vegetation between medium and low forests, and savanna. A total of 20 plots were established only in the two undisturbed zones, namely 12 in the medium forest and 8 in the transition. The plot area was standardized at 0.1 ha according to previous vegetation studies in the region (Duran 1986; Sanchez 2000; Sanchez and Islebe 2001), i.e. 20 3 50 m 2 in the medium forest patches, and 10 3 100 m 2 in the transition zone, because of the spatial distribution of the trees. We identied tree and palm individuals with diameter at breast height (dbh) $5 cm, and collected data on their use by local people, incorporating use of vines too. All plant specimens were collected and subsequently identied at the ECOSUR Herbarium. Data analysis We employed the Use Value index of each species s for each informant i (UVis ) and the Use Value for each species s (UVs ) proposed by Phillips and Gentry (1993a, 1993b) to quantify the importance of each species for each informant. UVis is dened as UVis 5 o Uis /n is , where Uis amounts to the number of uses quoted in each interview (event) by informant i, and n is stands for the number of quotations for species s given by informant i. An event is dened as the process of asking one informant on 1 day about the uses they know for one given species (Phillips and Gentry 1993a). In our case, there were two events of informants interviews. The overall use value for each species s is equated by UVs 5 o i UVis /n s , where n s equals the number of informants interviewed for species s. The informants quoted 61 types of plant uses, which have been categorized in Table 3. We maintained the common name for each species following the criteria by Berlin (1973, 1992). Detrented correspondence analysis (DCA) was applied on 20 plots with 92 species and basal area (cm 2 ), which was used as the variable of dominance (Curtis 1959). DCA was implemented in the PC-ORD package v. 3.0 (McCune and Mefford 1997). The IVI for each species was used to characterize vegetation types and explore species dominance patterns in our sampling zones. The IVI for a species is the sum of its relative density, relative dominance (basal area) and relative

2459 frequency (Curtis and McIntosh 1951). In order to assess species occurrence patterns in each vegetation type, a classication method was carried out as proposed by Sanchez and Islebe (2002).

Results Local Maya s classication of vegetation types A total of four major types of vegetation were identied by natives, who named them after a number of synonyms. Three of these vegetation types were considered as undisturbed and were classied into a further eight vegetation subtypes regarding dominance or presence / absence patterns of plant species (Table 1). In over 50% of the interviews, natives put the focus on species size and soil characteristics as the main factors differentiating the medium statured forest from the low forest. Seral vegetation patches were recognized by locals by their exploitation, while species associations and dynamics were reported for allocating the vegetation patches to a savanna forest type (Figure 2, Table 2). Use values Interviews reected that the local vegetation is widely used by local Maya for construction (35.5%), medicine (19.0%), craft (17.9%) and edibility (10.3%). Patterns of use of vegetation resources are shaped by their accessibility (85.7%), morphological appearance (80.9%), and sometimes by information exchange

Figure 2. Plant species attributes reported by local Maya people for classifying the study vegetation types, i.e. Mb: Monte bajo (disturbed forest), Ma: Monte alto (medium statured forest), Sak: Sakal che or Monte blanco (low forest), Sa: Sabana (savanna).

2460

Table 1. Types of vegetation found in the study area, with the classication and nomenclature reported by local Maya natives compared with the ecological classication.
Degree of disturbance Disturbed Undisturbed a Undisturbed Undisturbed

Classication

Local Maya natives Types of vegetation Monte bajo (kubches or huamil, canada, cana rosa) (Mb) Guanal Chital Monte alto or Montana (Ma)

Sabana (Sa) Zacatal Tular Corchal Low forest Savanna forest

Subtypes of vegetation

Sakal che or Monte blanco or Tsek ela (Sak) Tasistal Tintal Catzimal

Miranda (1978) Ecological types of vegetation Successional vegetation in different regeneration stages

Medium statured forest

Vegetation with minor human intervention.

2461
Table 2. Denition of the criteria utilized in the local classication of the vegetation types. Criteria Morphological appearance and in situ observations Attributes mentioned by locals Size: high, low, medium, small, little, chaparro Color: white, green, black, pale Thickness: thin, thick Vegetative structures: thorny, entangled, gajudo Hardness: smooth, hard Cover: little, dense, piece, manchones, coposo, gloomy, leafy Characteristic of the soil: muddy, stone slab, pure stone, rocky, hard, burned, blackish, red Presence or absence of different plants or animals Places to cut wood, seed bed, wood for house, medicinal plants, ornamental plants, corn harvesting milpa, animal food, resting place, shing, use of the ground As consequence of water level, phenological cycles and beliefs Reference to an adjacent type of vegetation, place, distance in km or in time Characteristic of the landscape General perception of the environment

Association Use

Dynamic Location Area Others

among cohabitants (38.2%) or in situ observations such as bark hardness or sap color (28.6%). The uses of trees, palms and vines were considered, and could be allocated to a total of nine categories, which composed the Use Value index (Table 3). A regression analysis showed a positive but weak relationship between Use Value for each species and its availability (dened by IVI) in each type of vegetation, despite its signicance in the medium statured forest (r 2 5 0.17, P , 0.01, n 5 68; transition zone: r 2 5 0.04, P 5 0.13, n 5 65).

Vegetation structure DCA of the 20 plots separated the medium statured forest from the mediumlow forest along the rst axis (eigenvalue 5 0.69, Figure 3), which represents an edaphic gradient. In plot 16 we found several species characteristic of secondary vegetation types in late regeneration stages. The second axis had a low eigenvalue (0.25) and represents a disturbance gradient, as the more disturbed plots according to their basal area and oristic composition are located on the upper left side of Figure 3. The vegetation of plots 12, 9, 11 and 13 is inuenced by the nearby medium statured forest, because it is composed by species shared between these plots and the plots on the left side of Figure 3. In the medium statured forest a total of 2010 individuals (dbh $5 cm) was recorded, belonging to 29 families, 52 genera and 68 species. Species richness was dominated by Fabaceae (6 species), Moraceae (6 species), Sapindaceae (4 species), Sapotaceae (4 species), Caesalpiniaceae (4 species) and Polygonaceae (4 species), which contributed to almost 50% of the species pool present. The most diverse

2462

Table 3. Use Value index (UVs ) for 47 species of trees, 4 species of palms and 10 species of vines, UVs component for each category of use (cUVx ), distribution by type of vegetation, plant part used and informant number (21 interviews).
Common name 0.56 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.17 1.00 0.44 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.00 0.61 0.50 0.25 1.00 Scientic name Family UVs cUVhc cUVm cUVc cUVtec cUVe cUVed cUVr cUVd cUVot Local vegetation a [ p. part Part (s) used [ infor.b

Life form

Trees

0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75

1.00

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.33 1.00 1.00

0.29

0.25 0.50 0.33 1.33 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.25

0.25 0.75 0.25 0.33 0.93

0.50

0.83 0.14 0.13 0.86 1.00 1.00

0.07 0.88 0.07 1.00

0.14

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

zapote alamo kanixte balche majagua palo de rosa pich caracolillo cedro kaatsim ki tam che naranja agra tankanche zacbach elemuy/yaya tsutsuk/susuk chakte/brasilete chukum luumche ninte Ta anche wilote blanco guiro palo de tinte taastab/verde lucero chin tok caimito ceiba Copal/pon chaka rojo cheechem negro granadillo guarumbo

Manilkara zapota Ficus sp. Pouteria campechiana Lonchocarpus castilloi Hampea trilobata Simira salvadorensis Enterolobium cyclocarpum Sideroxylon gaumeri Cedrela odorata Mimosa bahamensis Caesalpinia gaumeri Citrus aurantium Machaonia lindeniana Allophylus cominia Malmea depressa Diphysa carthagenensis Caesalpinea mollis Havardia albicans Erythroxylum confusum Rheedia edulis Celtis trinervia sp. 2 Crescentia cujete Haematoxylum campechianum Guettarda combsii Krugiodendron ferreum Chrysophylum mexicanum Ceiba pentandra Protium copal Bursera simaruba Metopium brownei Platymiscium yucatanum Cecropia peltata

Sapotaceae Moraceae Sapotaceae Fabaceae Malvaceae Rubiaceae Fabaceae Sapotaceae Meliaceae Mimosaceae Caesalpinaceae Rutaceae Rubiaceae Sapindaceae Anacardiaceae Fabaceae Caesalpinaceae Fabaceae Erythroxylaceae Clusiaceae Ulmaceae Fabaceae Bignoniaceae Caesalpinaceae Rubiaceae Rhamnaceae Sapotaceae Bombacaceae Burseraceae Burseraceae Anacardiaceae Fabaceae Cecropiaceae

2.61 2.50 2.25 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.33 1.33 1.29 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.17 1.14 1.13 1.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

ma, sak ma ma ma mb, ma ma ma ma ma ma, sak ma, sak ma, sa sak ma ma, mb ma, sak ma, sak ma, mb ma, mb ma, mb ma, mb, sak ma sa sak, sa (tin) ma, mb ma ma ma ma ma, mb ma, mb ma ma

4 3 2 1 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 3 3 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

ex, bk, tr, fr wp, tr, fr tr, fr bk bk, tr, br bk fr, tr fr, tr tr rt, bk tr, st fr rt, bk tr, bk, lv bk, rt, tr tr tr bk, tr tr, bk fr, br tr tr fr bk, br, tr tr br, tr tr tr ex tr tr tr lv

9 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 6 1 7 3 7 2 2 2 6 2 3 7 4 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50

0.50 1.00 0.91 0.06 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.09 0.10 1.00 0.50 0.05 0.18

1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00

0.11 0.59 0.36 1.30 0.36 1.00 1.00

1.33 1.23 0.86

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 14.22 15.11 28.20 3.50 4.19 8.16 2.01 2.07 2.67

guayabillo hule ja abin limon agrio mora nance indio pasaak/negrito pomol che rosal/sak nikte siricote tzilil/sac-tzilil wilote negro zac-pah zapote faisan Palms chiit tasiste guano cocoyol Vines bilin kok ani kak ekish (ek kixil) ak xuux chilillo puk ak sab ya ab pookakca kunbemba muk c

Psidium sartorianum Castilla elastica Piscidia piscipula Citrus limonia Chlorophora tinctoria Byrsonima crassifolia Simarouba glauca Jatropha gaumeri Plumeria rubra Cordia dodecandra Diospyros cuneata sp. 3 Byrsonima bucidaefolia Pouteria amygdalina Thrinax radiata Acoelorrhaphe wrightii Sabal yapa Acrocomia mexicana Macfadyena uncata Cydista aequinoctialis Cydista potosina Adenocalymma ssum Gaudichaudia cf. mucronata Unidentied Vitis tiliifolia Passiora sp. Psittacanthus americana Dalbergia glabra

Myrtaceae Moraceae Fabaceae Rutaceae Moraceae Malpighiaceae Simaroubaceae Euphorbiaceae Apocynaceae Boraginaceae Ebenaceae Fabaceae Malpighiaceae Sapotaceae Palmae Palmae Palmae Palmae Bignoniaceae Bignoniaceae Bignoniaceae Bignoniaceae Malpighiaceae Bignoniaceae Vitaceae Passioraceae Loranthaceae Fabaceae

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.09 1.10 1.06 1.00 1.94 1.87 1.58 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 79.51

ma ma ma ma, mb ma ma ma ma, mb ma ma ma ma, mb ma, mb ma ma (chi), sak sa (ta), sak ma, sak mb, ma ma, mb ma, sak, mb ma, sak, mb ma, sak ma, mb, sak ma, mb, sak ma, sak, mb ma, mb ma, sak ma, mb, sak

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

tr ex tr fr ex fr wp ex tr tr tr tr fr tr tr, lv, fr tr, lv, fr lv fr bk, wp wp, fr wp wp lv bk bk bk lv, fr wp

1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 11 5 9 1 9 11 7 5 1 2 1 1 1 1

Category of use (x): 1. handmade crafts (hc): baskets, furniture, doors, ashtray, napkin ring, musical instrument, cooking utensils, brooms, traps, adornment. 2. medicine (m): to treat: swelling, fright, dysentery, gastritis, diarrhea, kidney stones, gullet irritation, cough, labial herpes, toothache, stomachache, headache, anemia, pimples, diabetes, cholesterol, cicatrizant, disinfectant. 3. construction (c): rooftiles, roofs, beam, fork, post or column, wall lining, tying, fence, whole log, rope. 4. traditional technology (tec): chicle, glue, traps, tannin (tanning), raw material for icecream or tooth palettes. 5. energy (e): rewood, torch. 6. edible (ed): different parts used for food, avouring, conture. 7. ritual (r): festivities, incense, thanksgiving. 8. dyeing (d): natural dyeing. 9. others (ot): shade, aromatic, water container, refuge. Local name of vegetation in Solferino: (ma) monte alto ormontana, (mb) monte bajo (sak) sakal che, (sa) sabana. Subtypes of vegetation: (chi): chital, (ta): tasistal. Plant part(s) used: br: branches, bb: buld, bk: bark, ex: exudates (sap, resin, latex), : ower, fr: fruit, lv: leaves, rt: root, sd: seed, st: stems, tr: trunk, wp: whole plant. a Priority order according to structure interviews. b Informants: n 5 21, 18 men and 3 women (men mean 5 58.2, women mean 5 75, difference is marginally signicant, F 5 3.14; MSE 5 723.8; r 5 0.092). c Considered vine, although the life form is tree.

2463

2464

Figure 3. DCA applied on 20 plots with 92 species and basal area (cm 2 ) in the Solferino ejido.

genera were Ficus (4 species), Coccoloba (3 species) and Caesalpinia, Diospyros, and Lonchocarpus (2 species each) (Table 4). Regarding the mediumlow forest transition, a total of 684 individuals (dbh $ 5 cm) were recorded, grouped in 31 families, 55 genera and 65 species. The most diverse families were Fabaceae (8 species), Caesalpiniaceae (5 species), Euphorbiaceae (4 species), Arecaceae and Sapotaceae (3 species each), amounting to 35% of the total number of species in this vegetation type, while the most diverse genera were Coccoloba, Caesalpinia, Croton and Lonchocarpus (2 species each) (Table 5). Plant individuals in the medium statured forest showed a height range between 1 and 15 m (X 5 6 m, Figure 4a), while the trunk diameter had a maximum of 81.1 cm (X 5 11.3 cm, Figure 5a). In the transition zone, individual heights varied between 1 and 10 m (X 5 4.7 m, Figure 4b), and the maximum trunk diameter was 97.9 cm (X 5 11.5 cm, Figure 5b). The total basal area was 269 358 cm 2 in 1.2 ha. The highest basal areas per species resulted from Manilkara zapota (55 852 cm 2 ), Metopium brownei (31 044 cm 2 ), Bursera simaruba (19 029 cm 2 ), Dendropanax arboreus (17 681 cm 2 ) and Thrinax radiata (164 141 cm 2 ). These ve species accounted for 50% of the total basal area in this vegetation type (Table 4). As to the mediumlow forest transition, we estimated a total basal area of 111 448 cm 2 in 0.8 ha. Here the species contributing with highest basal areas were Haemotoxylum campechianum (62 619 cm 2 ), Lysiloma latisiliquum (7499 cm 2 ), Erythroxylum confusum (4291

Table 4. IVI in medium statured forest (12 plots of 20 3 50 m 2 , dbh $ 5 cm).

Scientic name Manilkara zapota Thrinax radiata Metopium brownei Nectandra coriaceae Bursera simaruba Dendropanax arboreus Pouteria campechiana Vitex gaumeri sp. 3 Trophis racemosa Coccoloba spicata Chrysophyllum mexicanum Malmea depressa Caesalpinia gaumeri Lonchocarpus xuul Sabal yapa sp. 2 Simarouba glauca sp. 5 Exothea diphylla Hampea trilobata Sapindus saponaria Guettarda combsii Lysiloma latisiliquum Zuelania guidonia Gymnopodium oribundum Piscidia piscipula Allophylus cominia Thevetia gaumeri Brosimum alicastrum Spondias mombin Swartzia cubensis Psidium sartorianum Sideroxylon foetidissimum Esenbeckia pentaphylla Protium copal Sapotaceae Palmae Anacardiaceae Lauraceae Burseraceae Araliaceae Sapotaceae Verbenaceae Fabaceae Moraceae Polygonaceae Sapotaceae Annonaceae Caesalpinaceae Fabaceae Palmae Fabaceae Simaroubaceae Unidentied Sapindaceae Malvaceae Sapindaceae Rubiaceae Fabaceae Flacourtaceae Polygonaceae Fabaceae Sapindaceae Apocynaceae Moraceae Anacardiaceae Caesalpinaceae Myrtaceae Sapotaceae Rutaceae Burseraceae 128 226 114 251 112 115 73 39 76 80 56 50 65 32 51 19 52 20 43 32 34 32 27 13 18 31 12 17 15 8 13 11 12 5 6 8 55 852.22 16 414.08 31 044.08 8778.69 19 029.07 17 681.06 10 648.90 11 779.49 6012.55 4820.29 6289.74 4697.62 3968.60 8395.94 3944.40 7356.02 1838.92 4750.23 1551.00 2066.49 1284.24 3705.75 2010.59 4965.18 2965.64 2630.93 2658.97 513.18 504.43 1684.32 2658.20 1681.87 771.91 2296.26 1135.61 832.84 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 11.00 12.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 12.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 6.00 9.00 7.00 7.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 6.37 11.24 5.67 12.49 5.57 5.72 3.63 1.94 3.78 3.98 2.79 2.49 3.23 1.59 2.54 0.95 2.59 1.00 2.14 1.59 1.69 1.59 1.34 0.65 0.90 1.54 0.60 0.85 0.75 0.40 0.65 0.55 0.60 0.25 0.30 0.40 20.74 6.09 11.53 3.26 7.06 6.56 3.95 4.37 2.23 1.79 2.34 1.74 1.47 3.12 1.46 2.73 0.68 1.76 0.58 0.77 0.48 1.38 0.75 1.84 1.10 0.98 0.99 0.19 0.19 0.63 0.99 0.62 0.29 0.85 0.42 0.31 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.00 3.27 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.27 3.27 2.72 2.18 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.72 2.72 2.72 2.72 1.63 2.45 1.91 1.91 1.36 1.63 1.91 1.91 1.63 0.82 1.09 1.36 1.09 1.36 1.36 30.37 20.61 20.47 19.02 15.91 15.28 10.86 9.31 9.01 8.77 8.39 7.50 7.43 6.89 6.45 6.13 5.72 5.48 5.44 5.08 4.89 4.60 4.54 4.40 3.90 3.88 3.22 2.94 2.84 2.66 2.45 2.26 2.25 2.19 2.08 2.07 2.61 2.09 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 2.25 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.33 1.50 0.00 1.06 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.50 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Family No. of ind. BA (cm 2 ) Fr RD RB RF IVI UVs IVI 3 UVs 79.27 43.07 20.47 0.00 15.91 0.00 24.42 0.00 9.01 0.00 0.00 7.50 9.88 10.33 0.00 6.50 7.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.79 0.00 5.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.22 4.42 4.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.07 Ind 3 Uvs 334.08 472.34 114.00 0.00 112.00 0.00 164.25 0.00 76.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 86.45 48.00 0.00 20.14 65.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 68.00 0.00 30.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.00 25.50 22.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00

No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

2465

2466

Table 4. (continued)
Scientic name Ficus cotinifolia Coccoloba acapulcensis sp. 1 Luehea speciosa Ficus maxima Cameraria latifolia Caesalpinia mollis Byrsonima bucidaefolia Croton reexifolius Randia obcordata Diospyros cuneata Krugiodendron ferreum sp. 9 sp. 10 Cupania glabra sp. 11 Euphorbia heterophylla Ficus sp. 2 Diospyros yatesiana sp. 12 Coccoloba cozumelensis Ficus sp. 1 sp. 13 Jatropha gaumeri Cecropia peltata Lonchocarpus castilloi sp. 14 Erythrina standleyana sp. 15 Neea psychotroides Xylosma exuosa Muntingia calabura Moraceae Polygonaceae Mimosaceae Tiliaceae Moraceae Apocynaceae Caesalpinaceae Malpighiaceae Euphorbiaceae Rubiaceae Ebenaceae Rhamnaceae Unidentied Unidentied Sapindaceae Unidentied Euphorbiaceae Moraceae Ebenaceae Unidentied Polygonaceae Moraceae Unidentied Euphorbiaceae Cecropiaceae Fabaceae Unidentied Caesalpinaceae Unidentied Nyctaginaceae Flacourtaceae Elaeocarpaceae Total 8 14 10 8 5 9 6 4 4 3 4 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2010 1288.23 984.41 748.74 843.70 1634.66 363.21 748.28 206.33 95.49 76.18 570.30 108.77 96.45 128.99 47.52 296.39 280.94 283.73 137.64 349.67 70.08 263.02 106.23 63.81 56.94 118.82 50.27 33.18 23.76 22.06 21.24 19.63 269 358.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.40 0.70 0.50 0.40 0.25 0.45 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.15 0.05 0.15 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 100.00 0.48 0.37 0.28 0.31 0.61 0.13 0.28 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.21 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.05 0.13 0.03 0.10 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 100.00 1.09 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.54 0.82 0.54 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 100.00 1.97 1.88 1.59 1.53 1.40 1.40 1.12 1.09 1.05 0.99 0.96 0.73 0.73 0.69 0.66 0.53 0.53 0.48 0.47 0.45 0.45 0.42 0.41 0.40 0.39 0.37 0.34 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 300.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.29 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.08 Family No. of ind. BA (cm 2 ) Fr RD RB RF IVI UVs IVI 3 UVs 4.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.45 1.09 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10 224.00 Ind 3 Uvs 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.74 4.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 3.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 68 500.80

No.

37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68

No. of ind.: number of individuals, BA: basal area, Fr: frequency, RD: relative density, RB: relative dominance, RF: relative frequency, IVI: importance value index, UVs : use value index.

Table 5. IVI in the transitional zone medium statured forest-low forest (8 plots of 10 3 100 m 2 , dbh $ 5 cm).
Scientic name Haematoxylum campechianum Erythroxylum confusum Lysiloma latisiliquum Metopium brownei Acoelorrhaphe wrightii Manilkara zapota Piscidia piscipula Vitex gaumeri Mimosa bahamensis Jacquinia macrocarpa Bursera simaruba Crescentia cujete Ficus cotinifolia Psidium sartorianum Byrsonima bucidaefolia Celtis trinervia Croton reexifolius Dendropanax arboreus Lonchocarpus xuul Gymnopodium oribundum Coccoloba spicata Havardia albicans sp. 1 Swartzia cubensis Sabal yapa Coccoloba cozumelensis Hampea trilobata sp. 2 Chrysophyllum mexicanum Guettarda combsii Randia obcordata Zuelania guidonia Cameraria latifolia Gymnanthes lucida Caesalpinaceae Erythroxylaceae Fabaceae Anacardiaceae Palmae Sapotaceae Fabaceae Verbenaceae Mimosaceae Theophrastaceae Burseraceae Bignoniaceae Moraceae Myrtaceae Malpighiaceae Ulmaceae Euphorbiaceae Araliaceae Fabaceae Polygonaceae Polygonaceae Fabaceae Fabaceae Caesalpinaceae Palmae Polygonaceae Malvaceae Fabaceae Sapotaceae Rubiaceae Rubiaceae Flacourtaceae Apocynaceae Euphorbiaceae 152 70 25 23 36 14 15 13 19 16 14 9 13 21 12 17 13 10 13 14 9 12 7 4 4 8 5 5 7 7 3 5 6 5 62 619.25 4290.93 7498.75 3181.59 1543.15 3283.45 3025.78 2485.07 822.48 1051.18 2005.61 1793.86 1661.93 586.36 994.05 1400.67 638.40 1454.05 835.60 551.26 559.17 476.05 267.77 753.94 1283.93 473.07 162.18 158.33 486.64 425.33 94.83 380.52 199.41 329.99 8 7 2 6 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 3 4 2 4 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 22.22 10.23 3.65 3.36 5.26 2.05 2.19 1.90 2.78 2.34 2.05 1.32 1.90 3.07 1.75 2.49 1.90 1.46 1.90 2.05 1.32 1.75 1.02 0.58 0.58 1.17 0.73 0.73 1.02 1.02 0.44 0.73 0.88 0.73 56.19 3.85 6.73 2.85 1.38 2.95 2.71 2.23 0.74 0.94 1.80 1.61 1.49 0.53 0.89 1.26 0.57 1.30 0.75 0.49 0.50 0.43 0.24 0.68 1.15 0.42 0.15 0.14 0.44 0.38 0.09 0.34 0.18 0.30 5.00 4.38 1.25 3.75 3.13 2.50 2.50 3.13 3.13 3.13 2.50 3.13 2.50 1.88 2.50 1.25 2.50 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.88 1.25 1.88 1.88 1.25 1.25 1.88 1.88 1.25 1.25 1.88 1.25 1.25 1.25 83.41 18.46 11.63 9.97 9.77 7.49 7.41 7.26 6.64 6.41 6.35 6.05 5.89 5.47 5.15 4.99 4.97 4.02 3.90 3.79 3.69 3.43 3.14 3.14 2.99 2.84 2.75 2.75 2.71 2.66 2.40 2.32 2.31 2.28 1.14 1.25 0.00 1.00 1.10 2.61 1.00 0.00 1.50 0.00 1.00 1.17 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 0.00 0.00 1.06 0.00 2.00 1.25 1.00 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Family No. of ind. BA (cm 2 ) Fr RD RB RF IVI UVs IVI 3 UVs 95.09 23.07 0.00 9.97 10.75 19.56 7.41 0.00 9.96 0.00 6.35 7.08 0.00 5.47 5.15 6.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.29 0.00 0.00 3.17 0.00 5.50 3.44 2.71 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ind 3 UVs 173.28 87.50 0.00 23.00 39.60 36.54 15.00 0.00 28.50 0.00 14.00 10.53 0.00 21.00 12.00 21.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 4.24 0.00 10.00 6.25 7.00 7.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

2467

2468

Table 5. (continued)
Scientic name Lonchocarpus rugosus sp. 3 Diospyros cuneata Caesalpinia gaumeri Diphysa carthagenensis Nectandra coriacea sp. 4 Simarouba glauca Coccoloba acapulcensis sp. 5 Guapira linearibracteata Allophylus cominia Xylosma exuosa Bauhinia divaricata Trophis racemosa Eugenia buxifolia Amyris sylvatica sp. 6 Caesalpinia mollis Sideroxylon foetidissimum Plumeria rubra Protium copal Jatropha gaumeri Annona glabra Croton chichenensis sp. 7 Thrinax radiata sp. 8 Rheedia edulis Malmea depressa Hippocratea excelsa Fabaceae Fabaceae Ebenaceae Caesalpinaceae Fabaceae Lauraceae Unidentied Simaroubaceae Polygonaceae Unidentied Nyctaginaceae Sapindaceae Flacourtaceae Caesalpinaceae Moraceae Myrtaceae Rutaceae Unidentied Caesalpinaceae Sapotaceae Apocynaceae Burseraceae Euphorbiaceae Annonaceae Euphorbiaceae Unidentied Palmae Unidentied Clusiaceae Annonaceae Hippocrateaceae Total 5 5 5 4 4 4 2 3 3 3 6 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 684 241.15 175.41 171.64 286.56 200.29 166.87 436.09 146.93 116.70 73.05 227.74 52.25 43.39 130.57 186.72 87.29 69.02 67.80 45.95 126.68 96.77 80.12 66.48 60.82 54.11 39.59 38.48 36.32 25.52 103.08 20.43 111 448.38 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.29 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.88 0.29 0.29 0.58 0.44 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.58 0.15 100.00 0.22 0.16 0.15 0.26 0.18 0.15 0.39 0.13 0.10 0.07 0.20 0.05 0.04 0.12 0.17 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.02 100.00 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.63 1.25 1.25 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 100.00 2.20 2.14 2.14 2.09 2.01 1.98 1.93 1.82 1.79 1.75 1.71 1.59 1.58 1.33 1.23 1.00 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.88 0.86 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.81 0.80 0.79 0.58 0.15 298.639 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.09 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.00 34.46 Family No. of ind. BA (cm 2 ) Fr RD RB RF IVI UVs IVI 3 UVs 0.00 2.14 2.14 3.14 2.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 10 291.11 Ind 3 UVs 0.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 5.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.09 0.00 0.00 5.32 0.00 23 570.64

No.

35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

No. of ind.: number of individuals, BA: basal area, Fr: frequency, RD: relative density, RB: relative dominance, RF: relative frequency, IVI: importance value index, UVs : use value index.

2469

Figure 4. (a) Height frequency distribution for the plants (n 5 2010) collected from 12 plots (20 3 50 m 2 per plot) in the medium statured forest, considering different forestvillage distances; (b) height frequency distribution for the plants (n 5 684) collected from eight plots (10 3 100 m 2 per plot) in the mediumlow forest transition.

Figure 5. (a) Diameter (dbh) frequency distribution for the plants (n 5 2010) collected from 12 plots (20 3 50 m 2 per plot) in the medium statured forest, considering different forestvillage distances; (b) diameter (dbh) distribution for the plants (n 5 684) collected from eight plots (10 3 100 m 2 per plot) in the mediumlow forest transition.

cm 2 ) and M. zapota (3283 cm 2 ). These ve species accounted for nearly 70% of the total basal area in the transition zone (Table 5). The species having top importance values (IVI) were M. zapota (30.4), T. radiata (20.6), M. brownei (20.5), Nectandra coriacea (19.0), and Bursera simaruba (15.6) in the medium statured forest, and H. campechianum (83.4), E. confusum (18.5), L. latisiliquum (11.6), M. brownei (10.0) and A. wrightii (9.8) in the transition zone (Tables 4 and 5).

Discussion Vegetation types and native classication This study has shown that the Maya in northern Quintana Roo classify the local

2470 vegetation by a number of consistent features which can be easily identied from one habitat to another, and clearly distinguish undisturbed patches of forest from other patches subjected to various degrees of disturbance and / or in different regeneration stages (e.g. canadas or areas impacted by selective logging, natural res or hurricanes). These features are mainly soil appearance, species associations and size, and were mostly reported in combination with qualitative observations about the forest (e.g. the high forest is green, the soil is of red type, etc.). The natives perception of vegetation type patterns coincided with that derived from quantitative sampling and DCA, both underpinning the occurrence of two major undisturbed vegetation types, namely Monte alto (medium statured forest) and Sakal che (low forest) (Table 1, Figure 3, Appendix 1). The species associations encountered in the medium statured forest could be assigned to the Manilkara zapotaThrinax radiata and Vitex gaumeriCaesalpinia gaumeri communities, as described by Sanchez and Islebe (2002). Both communities grow in two different soil types. They are the Kankab soil (chromic luvisols following the FAO (1988) soil classication), which is characterized by a red brownish color, average depth of 80 cm, slow supercial drainage and 20% of rock cover, and the Tsekel soil (lithosolrendzina following FAO criteria), which has dark brown to black color, average depth from 15 to 20 cm, fast supercial drainage, and can be associated with bedrocks covering 4565% of the forest surface. The Manilkara zapotaThrinax radiata community resembles the Manilkara zapotaCoccothrinax readii community (Sanchez and Islebe 2002), whereby C. readii is replaced by T. radiata as a characteristic species, since C. readii is mainly distributed in coastal environments and T. radiata can be found up to 50 km inland in northern Quintana Roo (Quero 1992). The mediumlow forest transition featured a Hampea trilobataM. browneiB. simaruba community described by Sanchez and Islebe (2002), and a H. campechianumE. confusumL. latisiliquum community after Miranda (1978, sensu subdeciduous low forest), so-called tintal owing to the dominance of H. campechianum (logwood) (Table 5, Appendix 1). Both communities grow in Tsekel and Akalche (calcic gelysols) soils, the latter having a dark brown colour, slow drainage and a depth between 15 and 60 cm. Use of each vegetation type and availability of plant species Unlike Phillips et al. (1994), we did not aim at compiling a full list of useful species but focused on patterns of use of the different vegetation types regardless of whether the plant species occurred in the study plots or not. By allocating species to categories of use following the informants reports, a total of nine use categories were dened and only 10 species could be allocated to most of those categories. We considered that the relationship between the cultural importance of plant species expressed by the index of Use Value (UVs ) and their availability was weak in the case of Solferino, because only 17 and 4% of the UVs variation was explained by their availability in the medium forest and the transition zone, respectively. In the

2471 medium statured forest the relationship was statistically signicant because the UVs of many of the most valued species were proportional to their density, frequency and basal area in the study plots (Table 4). This was particularly obvious for dominant species such as Manilkara zapota and Thrinax radiata. Additionally, UVs values were maximized for those species having various useful parts, e.g. M. zapota, of which exudates (latex) are used for by-products, bark and trunk for construction and fruits as food. The medium statured forest was the most valuable vegetation type for the local community, all trees, palms and vines mainly supplying raw materials for construction (e.g. dormers, root tiles, tanders or thatched palm roofs, so-called palapas) and charcoal-making (Table 3). Although the transition zone shared several species with the medium statured forest, these were not available for use because of their poor appearance and low density (Tables 4 and 5). Of the 10 dominant species in the medium statured forest, seven contributed to the top Importance Values (IVI) in this forest type, and only three of them had a UVs above 1.00 (Table 4). This indicated that most of the dominant species supported less than three kinds of uses, though those uses were reported with a high degree of consensus among native informants (Table 3). In the following we summarize the applications of 10 useful plant species according to their use in Solferino and in the region of study. The tree Manilkara zapota was the most valuable species for locals, and in fact dominated the medium statured forest both in terms of frequency and basal area. This species provides chicle (latex), and wood mainly for rustic constructions. Individuals suitable for chicle extraction usually have diameters between 25 and 64 cm (Hidalgo 1995), thus we found that some 40% of the individuals (n 5 130) fell within that range in the 1.2 ha of medium statured forest sampled. The tree Hampea trilobata is the main local species utilized for construction (high UVs ), but its IVIs were generally low in the medium statured forest and the transition zone because only individuals between 0.5 and 5 cm in diameter are appropriate for exploitation, and they are characteristic of secondary vegetation. The tree Krugiodendron ferreum is employed as medicine and dyeing agent, and marginally for construction. It has a scattered distribution, and only occurs in the medium statured forest where its relatively low frequency, abundance and basal area result in low IVIs. Two species, Haematoxylum campechianum and Erythroxylum confusum, are dominant taxa in the transition zone. The bark of H. campechianum is used for dyeing and its trunk as fence posts, while E. confusum is only used for construction (Table 3). The leaves of several palm species in the medium statured forest, mainly T. radiata and S. yapa, are employed for construction of roofs and walls of palapas and brooms. T. radiata is more abundant than S. yapa at any distance from the village center. People also use the trunk parts of T. radiata to make lobster traps. The trunks of the palm Acoelorraphe wrightii, which only occurred in the transition forest (n 5 36), are employed in palapa walls. Vines occurred in all vegetation types; however, some were difcult to nd, e.g. Cydista aequinoctialis. They are basically utilized for construction, medicine and crafts, though craft making is reduced since people get minor benets from selling

2472 their products. The vine Cydista aequinoctialis is used to make baskets, as medicine and animal food (Table 3), and the vine Dalbergia glabra is the plant offering the most suitable material for furniture making and is collected from secondary vegetation patches. For all these 10 species, use patterns were determined by species accessibility and morphological appearance. Accessibility is enhanced by the existing network of paths and roads.

Conclusions The Maya community in northern Quintana Roo embodies a detailed knowledge on the local forest environment, which optimizes the exploitation of plant resources and implies their classication by vegetation types. People know where and when the desired plant species is available for both domestic and external uses (e.g. trade). The relationships between the cultural importance of plant species expressed by the UVs and its availability expressed by the IVI have two implications: (1) not all plant species are used according to their availability in the system, and (2) a real use and a cognitive use of a resource can generate a positive or negative impact in its sustainability. In order to increase their income, people put particular pressure on species which are used for construction. Thus, external demands on plant materials for construction of touristic facilities has led to the predominant exploitation of the medium statured forest. The demand for external use also puts stress on the populations of trees and palms. For example, Sabal yapa is the species with the highest pressure, leading to a lack of control of its use. The diversity of plant uses and the non-sustainable use of many valuable species in each vegetation type urges to establish regulations triggering the conservation and management of target plant resources. Local knowledge on plant resources needs to be integrated in management policies in order to attain a sustainable extraction of commercial plant species in northern Quintana Roo.

Acknowledgements We appreciate the collaboration of all informants, their families and local authorities in the Solferino ejido during eldwork. Odilon Sanchez helped in species identica tions. Luz Mara Calvo, Gerardo Ceballos, Horacio Almanza and Jose Quintal gave logistic support in the eld. Jose Antonio Gonzalez and Mario Osorio helped in GIS work. Margarito Tuz, Edilberto Chi Tah and Korbany Quintal acted as eld assistants. Finally, we also like to thank Salvador Herrando-Perez, Sophie Calme, Oliver Phillips, and one anonymous reviewer for commenting on earlier versions of this paper. M.A.L.T.C. was supported by a Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores of the Mexican Government (SRE) doctoral scholarship (20002002).

Appendix 1. Species composition in 20 plots of 0.1 ha (dbh $5 cm) in two types of forest.

2473

2474

Appendix 1. (continued)

2475 References
Achard F., Hugh D.E., Stibig H.J., Mayaux P., Gallego J., Richards T. et al. 2002. Determination of deforestation rates of the worlds humid tropical forests. Science 297: 9991002. Adu-Tutu Y., Afful M., Asante-Appiah K., Lieberman D., Hall J.B. and Elvin-Lewis M. 1979. Chewing stick usage in southern Ghana. Economic Botany 33: 320328. Balick M.J. and Cox P.A. 1997. Plants, People and Culture: The Science of Ethnobotany. Scientic American Library, New York. Balick M.J. and Mendelsohn R. 1992. Assessing the economic value of traditional medicines from tropical rainforests. Conservation Biology 6: 128130. Barrera M.A., Barrera V.A. and Lopez F.R.M. 1976. Nomenclatura Etnobotanica Maya. Una inter pretacion taxonomica. INAH-Centro Regional del Sureste, Mexico, DF. Berlin B. 1973. The relation of folk systematics to biological classication and nomenclature. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4: 259271. Berlin B. 1992. Ethnobiological Classication: Principles of Categorization of Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Colorado P. 1988. Bridging native and western science. Convergence 21: 4959. Colorado P. and Collins D. 1987. Western scientic colonialism and the re-emergence of native science. Practice: Journal of Politics, Economics, Psychology, Sociology and Culture Winter 1987: 5065. Costanza R., dArge R., de Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B. et al. 1997. The value of the worlds ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253260. Curtis J.T. 1959. The Vegetation of Wisconsin. An Ordination of Plant Communities. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Curtis J.T. and McIntosh R.P. 1951. An upland forest continuum in the prairie forest border region of Wisconsin. Ecology 32: 476496. Duran G.R. 1986. Estudio de la vegetacion de la selva baja subcaducifolia Pseudophoenix sargentii, profesional, Universidad Autonoma de Mexico, Facultad de Ciencias, Mexico, DF. Escobar N.A. 1986. Geografa General del Estado de Quintana Roo. Fondo de Fomento Editorial del Gobierno del Estado de Quintana Roo, Chetumal, Quintana Roo, Mexico. FAO 1988. Soil Map of the World with Revised Legend. World Soil Resources Report 60. FAO, Rome. Flores J.S. 1987. Uso de los Recursos Vegetales en la Pennsula de Yucatan; pasado, presente y futuro. INIREB, Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico. Gadgil M., Berkes F. and Folke C. 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22: 151156. Hidalgo F.R. 1995. Programa de manejo forestal para el aprovechamiento de recursos forestales de los montes del area forestal permanente del ejido de Kantunilkin. Municipio Lazaro Cardenas, Quintana Roo, Mexico. Hunn E. 1993. What is traditional ecological knowledge? In: Williams N.M. and Baines G. (eds), Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Wisdom for Sustainable Development. Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia, pp. 1315. INEGI 2000. Anuario Estadstico Quintana Roo. INEGI, Gobierno del Estado, Mexico. Martnez M.A. 1994. Estado actual de las investigaciones etnobotanicas en Mexico. Boletn de la Sociedad Botanica de Mexico 55: 6574. Mendez M. and Duran R.G. 1997. Diagnostico del conocimiento etnobotanico actual de las plantas medicinales de la Pennsula de Yucatan. Boletn de la Sociedad Botanica de Mexico 60: 1524. Mendieta R. and Del Amo S. 1981. Plantas medicinales del estado de Yucatan. Continental, Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico. Miranda F. 1978. Vegetacion de la Pennsula Yucateca. 2nd edn. Colegio de Postgraduados, Chapingo, Mexico. McCune B. and Mefford M.J. 1997. PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data. MJM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, Oregon. Nepstad D.C. and Schwartzman S. 1992. Non-timber products from tropical forests. Advances in Economic Botany 9: 1164.

2476
Olmsted C.I., Duran R.G. and Lopez A. 1983. Vegetacion de Sian Kaan. CICY-SEMARNAT, Mexico City, Mexico. Paz y Mino G., Balslev H. and Valencia R. 1991. Aspectos etnobotanicos de las lianas utilizadas por los indgenas Siona-Secoya de la Amazona del Ecuador. In: Ros M. and Pedersen H.B. (eds), Las Plantas y el Hombre. Quito, Ecuador, pp. 105118. Peters C., Gentry A. and Mendelsohn R.O. 1989. Valuation of an Amazonian rain forest. Nature 339: 655656. Phillips O. and Gentry A. 1993a. The useful woody plants of Tambopata Peru. I. Statistical hypothesis test with a new quantitative ethnobotany. Economic Botany 47: 3343. Phillips O. and Gentry A. 1993b. The useful woody plants of Tambopata, Peru. II. Further statistical test of hypotheses in quantitative ethnobotany. Economic Botany 47: 1532. Phillips O., Gentry A., Reynel C., Wilkin P. and Galvez-Duran C. 1994. Quantitative ethnobotany and Amazonian conservation. Conservation Biology 8: 225248. Pinedo-Vasquez M.D., Zarin P.J. and Chota-Inuma J. 1990. Use-values of tree species in a communal forest reserve in northeast Peru. Conservation Biology 4: 405416. Plokin M. and Famolare L. 1992. Sustainable Harvest and Marketing of Rain Forest Products. Island Press, Washington, DC. Prance G.T., Balee W., Boom B.M. and Carneiro R.L. 1987. Quantitative ethnobotany and the case for conservation in Amazonia. Conservation Biology 1: 296310. Posey D.A. 1990. The science of the Mebengokre. Orion 9: 1621. Pulido M. and Serralta L. 1993. Lista anotada de las plantas medicinales de uso actual en el estado de Quintana Roo. CIQRO, Chetumal, Quintana Roo, Mexico. Quero H.J. 1992. Las palmas silvestres de la Pennsula de Yucatan. Publicaciones Especiales No. 10. Instituto de Biologa, UNAM, Mexico, DF. Richards P. 1991. Saving the rain forest: contested futures in conservation. In: Wallman S. (ed.), Anthropology and the Future. RKP Press, London, pp. 180189. Richards R.T. 1997. What the Natives know: wild mushrooms and forest health. Journal of Forestry September 1997: 510. Rutter A. 1990. Catalogo de las plantas utiles de la Amazona Peruana. Lima, Peru. Sanchez O.M. 2000. Analisis estructural de la selva del jardn botanico. In: Sanchez O.M. and Islebe G.A. (eds), El Jardn Botanico Dr Alfredo Barrera Marn fundamento y estudios particulares. CONABIO-ECOSUR, Quintana Roo, Mexico, pp. 5974. Sanchez O.M. and Islebe G.A. 2001. Vulnerability of species of trees from the Mexican Carribbean. Feddes Report 112 / 56: 391399. Sanchez O.M. and Islebe G.A. 2002. Tropical forest communities in southeastern Mexico. Plant Ecology 158: 183200. Salmon E. 1996. Decolonizing our voices. Winds of Change Summer 1996: 7072. Schultes R.E. 1988. Primitive plant lore and modern conservation. Orion 7: 815. Toledo V.M. 1987. La etnobotanica en Latinoamerica: vicisitudes, contextos y perspectivas Memorias del Simposio de Etnobotanica. IV Congreso Latinoamericano de Botanica. Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educacion Superior, pp. 1324. Toledo V.M. 1990. La perspectiva etnoecologica. Cinco reexiones acerca de las ciencias campesinas sobre la naturaleza con especial referencia en Mexico. Ciencias 4: 2229. Toledo V.M., Caballero J., Argueda A., Rojas P., Aguirre E., Viccon J. et al. 1978. Estudio botanico y ecologico de la region del ro Uxpanapa. El uso multiple de la selva basado en el conocimiento tradicional. Biotica 3: 85101. Toledo V.M., Martnez E., Becerra R. and Ramos C.H. 1995. La selva util: Etnobotanica cuantitativa de los grupos indgenas del tropico humedo de Mexico. Interciencia 20: 177187. Trotter R.T. and Logan M.H. 1986. Informant consensus: a new approach for identifying potentially effective medicinal plants. In: Etkin N.L. (ed.), Plants in Indigenous Medicine and Diet. Redgrave, Bedford Hills, New York, pp. 91112. Turner N.J., Boelscher M. and Ignace R. 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge and wisdom of aboriginal peoples in British Columbia. Ecological Applications 10: 12751287. Wright A.C.S. 1967. El reconocimiento de los suelos en la Pennsula de Yucatan, Mexico. Final Report, FAO. Report Colegio de Posgraduados, Chapingo, Mexico.