Open Access

Plant management and biodiversity conservation in Náhuatl homegardens of the Tehuacán Valley, Mexico

  • Carolina Larios1,
  • Alejandro Casas1Email author,
  • Mariana Vallejo1,
  • Ana Isabel Moreno-Calles2 and
  • José Blancas1
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine20139:74

https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-9-74

Received: 16 September 2013

Accepted: 28 October 2013

Published: 6 November 2013

Abstract

Background

The Tehuacán Valley is one of the areas of Mesoamerica with the oldest history of plant management. Homegardens are among the most ancient management systems that currently provide economic benefits to people and are reservoirs of native biodiversity. Previous studies estimated that 30% of the plant richness of homegardens of the region are native plant species from wild populations. We studied in Náhuatl communities the proportion of native plant species maintained in homegardens, hypothesizing to find a proportion similar to that estimated at regional level, mainly plant resources maintained for edible, medicinal and ornamental purposes.

Methods

We analysed the composition of plant species of homegardens and their similarity with surrounding Cloud Forest (CF), Tropical Rainforest (TRF), Tropical Dry forest (TDF), and Thorn-Scrub Forest (TSF). We determined density, frequency and biomass of plant species composing homegardens and forests through vegetation sampling of a total of 30 homegardens and nine plots of forests, and documented ethnobotanical information on use, management, and economic benefits from plants maintained in homegardens.

Results

A total of 281 plant species was recorded with 12 use categories, 115 ornamental, 92 edible, and 50 medicinal plant species. We recorded 49.8 ± 23.2 (average ± S.D.) woody plant species (shrubs and trees) per homegarden. In total, 34% species are native to the Tehuacán Valley and nearly 16% are components of the surrounding forests. A total of 176 species were cultivated through seeds, vegetative propagules or transplanted entire individual plants, 71 tolerated, and 23 enhanced. The highest species richness and diversity were recorded in homegardens from the CF zone (199 species), followed by those from the TRF (157) and those from the TDF (141) zones.

Conclusion

Homegardens provide a high diversity of resources for subsistence of local households and significantly contribute to conservation of native biodiversity. The highest diversity was recorded in homegardens where the neighbouring forests had the least diversity, suggesting that management of homegardens aims at compensating scarcity of naturally available plant resources. Cultivated species were markedly more abundant than plants under other management forms. Diversity harboured and management techniques make homegardens keystones in strategies for regional biodiversity conservation.

Keywords

Biodiversity conservation Domestication Homegardens Náhuatl people Plant management Sustainable use Tehuacán Valley

Background

Homegardens are important agroforestry systems developed by numerous human cultures worldwide [1]. Characteristically located attached to peoples’ houses, these systems are commonly formed by a variety of plant and animal species either wild and domesticated, whose composition and structure are continually transformed according to plans designed by humans that manage them [17]. These processes illustrate mechanisms of domestication operating at ecosystems and landscape levels [8, 9]. Homegardens commonly are reservoirs of agrobiodiversity but also they may maintain native natural biodiversity [6, 8], including genetic diversity of species occurring wild in forests [1012]. This is possible since local people that manage the system frequently carry to homegardens plants from the wild [1318], which favours gene flow from wild and cultivated components [8, 9, 12, 1719] and ecological processes similar to those occurring in the surrounding forests. All these aspects in theory confer to homegardens a high resilience capacity [1].

People that manage homegardens find in them multiple goods to satisfy their social, cultural and economic needs, mainly food, medicines, ornamental and spiritual wellbeing, fodder, fuel wood, and products that generate monetary incomes [13, 2022]. Several authors have documented that these systems are also areas where domestication is experimented and agricultural practices are commonly tested there before carrying out them into parcels in fields out of the villages [6, 9, 12, 15, 17, 23]. Since homegardens are spaces of resources, management techniques, and human cultural processes these systems are considered as important reservoirs of biocultural heritage [24, 25].

The great variety of products provided by homegardens occurs in areas relatively small. According to Van der Wal and Bongers [26] homegardens in rural regions of Mexico may be ‘small’ (less than 1,000 m2), ‘intermediate sized’ (1,000 m2 to 2,000 m2), and ‘large’ (more than 2,000 m2), which indicates that such high diversity maintained in small areas necessarily involves strategies for optimizing usage of space and resources such as light, nutrients and water.

Several authors have questioned the capacity of traditional agricultural systems for reaching the challenges of productivity required for feeding the global society, suggesting that it is only through intensive industrialized systems that such purpose can be accomplished; however, it is real that the intensive industrialized systems have failed in numerous contexts and that their achievements have been accompanied with high environmental costs [27]. Therefore, looking for strategies for improving capacities of the traditional systems has become a new paradigm for constructing sustainable security systems of food and other goods for human life [28].

The purposes of increasing productivity has commonly promoted the simplification of traditional agroforestry systems, consequently leading to lose some of the principal attributes of sustainability [7, 29]. One of the greatest challenges of the contemporary human societies is therefore how to achieve optimum productivity without losing diversity of components and functions of these systems. According to an increasing number of authors [5, 27], productivity and sustainability are concealable properties of agroecosystems through agroecological principles. Documenting local management experiences, therefore, has become a primary source of empirical information for developing theory about such important principles. This is what our current study looks contributing for.

Different indigenous cultures in Mesoamerica have conserved traditional ecological knowledge and forms of natural resources management [21, 24, 25, 30, 31], which represent thousands of years of adaptation of human groups to particular surrounding environments and confer to them a high potential contribution for sustainable socio-ecological systems and biodiversity conservation [32, 33]. However, traditional knowledge and techniques are currently endangered and in process of gradual disappearing throughout the World [24, 25]. Promotion of modern techniques considered as having higher effectiveness and cultural prestige, migration, unemployment favouring abandonment of agricultural practices, bad governmental assistance policies, fragmentation of land tenure, among others are all factors influencing losing of traditional systems of resource management [7, 29, 31].

The Tehuacán Valley is one of the arid zones with the highest biodiversity of the Americas [34]. Although few studies are still available on agroforestry systems of that region, it has been documented that these systems, among them homegardens, harbour high native biological diversity [6, 7, 29], and could be key targets for policies of biodiversity conservation at regional level [6, 18]. More studies are needed for constructing such a strategy; for instance, only one case study of homegardens [20] has been reported in the literature for the region. Natural resources managed in agroforestry systems in general and homegardens in particular could be targets for improving conditions of human life and for maintaining ecosystem services. Socio-ecological sustainability should include ecological, social and economic dimensions [35, 36] and therefore, homegardens as systems complementing ecological functions and households wellbeing are important bases for designing socio-ecological sustainable ways of life [37]. An agroforestry system is more probably ecologically sustainable when allows biodiversity conservation and maintenance of water and soil, which in turn favours diversity of biotic interactions buffering changes in temperature and humidity, maintenance of nutrients cycling, efficient use of light and waste management determining wellbeing of people that manage them [37, 38].

Our study focused on determining composition of homegardens in Náhuatl rural communities, evaluating the capacity of these systems for conserving native biodiversity and their role in households’ economy, but we particularly emphasized documenting the local management techniques since we value them as crucial human experience for explaining past processes and the current state of problems, as well as for designing future management strategies [17]. Previous studies in the region have identified general forms of plant management in agroforestry systems, such as tolerance, promotion, protection, and cultivation [6, 9, 17, 23, 39]. In homegardens, tolerated plants are those growing ‘spontaneously’ (not human mediated but by natural propagation means) and that people let standing deliberately since they obtain a benefit (direct use or service) or because presence of plants do not cause any damage. Plants promoted or enhanced are those tolerated, already occurring in homegardens, and that people deliberately propagate by sowing their seeds or planting their vegetative propagules or entire young plants with the purpose of increasing their availability. People also use to protect especially those tolerated plants that are particularly valuable; for instance, they may provide structures for appropriate growing, construct irrigation systems to benefit them, take actions for protecting plants against herbivores, or prune neighbouring plants to let sun light reaching the protected plants. Cultivation involves sowing or planting of plants that were not naturally in homegardens areas and that people bring to them from the wild or from other agricultural systems [6, 9, 23].

Studies of traditional agricultural systems in tropical regions of the world provide important information for understanding ecological processes associated to sustainable management of natural resources [40]. Agroecology, according to Gliessman [40], is the application of concepts and principles of ecology for sustainably designing and managing agroecosystems; consequently, our study looks for understanding cultural and ecological principles connecting explicitly the value of ethnobiological approaches for understanding structure and functions of homegardens at local scale in order to identify bases for designing strategies of their sustainable management at both local and regional levels.

We studied homegardens managed by the Náhuatl people of communities at Coyomeapan, and Coxcatlán Puebla, in the Tehuacán Valley, analysing their capacity to maintain native species and their possible role in policies for biodiversity conservation and wellbeing of local people. We hypothesized that since native plant species are continually introduced to homegardens by people, plant diversity harboured in these systems would be proportional to the natural diversity existing in local forests, and also similar to the proportion of native plant species found in homegardens at regional level; we also expected that native species were mainly represented by components of the neighbouring natural vegetation within the territory of a village. We documented the benefits local people obtain from managing these systems, particularly those of the native species. In this respect we supposed that the primary aims directed to manage homegardens is easing access to edible, medicinal and ornamental plants, in this order. And finally, we documented plant management involved in homegardens, expecting higher frequency of tolerance and transplanting as found in other agroforestry systems of the communities studied. Our study aimed at: (1) inventorying plant species occurring in homegardens, their nomenclature, use and traditional management, (2) determining richness, abundance and diversity of plant species composing homegardens, and their role in maintaining native plant species, and (3) evaluating harvest, consumption and incomes obtained from homegardens’ products and comparing the role of this system in people’s subsistence and culture in different ecological conditions.

Methods

Study area

We studied homegardens from villages of the municipalities of Coyomeapan and Coxcatlán, located at the southeast of the state of Puebla in central Mexico (Figure 1). In the municipality of Coyomeapan we studied the communities of Coyomeapan at elevations averaging 2800 m, Ahuatla at 2400 m, Yohuajca at 2200 m, Chimalhuaca at 1840 m, and Aticpac at 1140 m. In these communities the predominant vegetation is distributed in three main environmental zones as follows: (1) Cloud Forest Zone (CFZ) in Coyomeapan and Ahuatla, (2) Tropical Rainforest Zone (TRFZ) in Aticpac, and (3) Tropical Dry Forest Zone (TDFZ) in Chimalhuaca and Yohuajca. In addition, we included in our analysis information from homegardens of a Thorn-Scrub Forest Zone (TSFZ) previously studied by Blanckaert et al. [20] in the village of San Rafael, in the municipality of Coxcatlán, neighbouring to Coyomeapan at 1200 m of elevation; also, we considered the information from the natural vegetation surrounding this village and studied by Vivar [41]. People of the communities studied live based on agriculture practiced in traditional agroforestry systems in fields out of the villages [7, 29], as well as managing homegardens, raising of goats, cattle and sheep, and extraction of forest products; migration to cities of Mexico and the U. S. is also important in their economy [9].
Figure 1

Study area. Communities studied in the municipalities of Coyomeapan and Coxcatlán in the state of Puebla, central México.

Production, incomes, and cultural aspects in homegardens

We studied a total of 30 homegardens, ten in each of the three first environmental zones referred to above, and considered and compared our information with that reported by Blanckaert et al. [20] for homegardens of the TSFZ. Homegardens studied were randomly sampled through a list of households in a village, assigning a number to them and then generating random numbers in a calculator. Semi-structured interviews [42] were conducted to the owners of each homegarden sampled, including questions on uses, names, management types, production and role of plant species of the system in the household’s subsistence. Native language is Náhuatl, after asking permit to carry out the study in communitarian meetings we interviewed 28 persons in Spanish since they were bilingual (Náhuatl and Spanish) and two persons only Náhuatl speakers were interviewed with the help of a local translator. Voucher specimens and photographs of each species recorded were prepared and information documented following the collecting format of the ethnobotanical data bank of Mexico, Banco de Datos Etnobotánicos de Plantas de México (BADEPLAN), of the Botanical Garden at UNAM.

We calculated the total amount of products obtained per homegarden through surveys and interviews about production per individual plant of a species, transforming the different local units of measurements (e.g. “caja”, “manojo”, “pieza”, “docena”, “bolsa”) in kg, and then by using data of vegetation sampling we estimated the total production in each homegarden. Proportions of products consumed directly by households and commercialized were estimated qualitatively by using as visual stimulus an image of a pie divided into five parts. We estimated incomes from the products of homegardens by investigating their prices through a survey carried out between August and October 2012, transforming their prices in Mexican pesos to U.S. dollars according to the exchange rate in that period. All the information referred to was stored in a database, and all quantitative analyses were conducted through the programme Past.

Ecological parameters evaluated

We measured the area of each homegarden, constructed maps indicating the disposition of plant areas and other components of the systems, recording the number of individuals of each plant species within the whole homegardens. With this information we calculated the species richness, diversity and dominance per homegarden. Richness was determined as the total number of species per homegarden and then averaged this figure per environmental zone. Abundance was calculated as the total number of individual plants of each species per homegarden. Frequency was estimated as the number of individuals of a plant species with respect the total number of individual plants composing a homegarden. With these parameters we calculated the ecological importance index of each species per homegarden. Diversity was estimated by the Shannon-Wiener index. Then we calculated the dominance as a measure of representativeness of each species through the Simpson index. Equity, the proportion of the observed diversity with respect the maximum diversity expected was calculated through the Pielou index: J = H’ / H’ max, in which J is Equity; H’ = diversity; H’ max  = maximum diversity. H’max was calculated as the ln (S) S being the number of species in a sample. Similarity among the sampled units was estimated through the Jaccard index.

We sampled seven sites of natural vegetation (500 m2 each site); three in the CFZ, two in the TRFZ, and two in the TDFZ in order to compare their composition in perennial plant species with that of the homegardens studied. For conducting a similar comparison in the homegardens of the village of San Rafael we considered the information of two additional sites sampled by Vivar [41] in the Thorn-Scrub Forest locally called ‘jiotillal’ (dominated by the ‘jiotilla’ Escontria chiotilla) in the natural area around this village. With this information we determined the proportion of local diversity maintained within homegardens.

Results

Floristic composition and ecological parameters of homegardens

Species richness and diversity

Area of homegardens in Coyomeapan and Ahuatla averaged 805 m2 ± D.S 550.98; in Aticpac 350 m2 ± D.S 168.33, whereas in Chimalhuaca and Yohuajca 300 m2 ± D.S 156.35. All parcels sampled are private property of the people interviewed. Most homegardens are in flatlands but in Coyomeapan and Ahuatla are on slight slope terrain. In the whole area sampled we recorded a total of 281 plant species belonging to 91 plant families, the richest one being Asteraceae (26 species), Solanaceae (17 species), Rosaceae (15 species) and Fabaceae (9 species) (Figure 2).
Figure 2

Plant families with the highest species richness recorded in the homegardens studied.

A total of 151 of the species recorded (34%) are native of the Tehuacán Valley, 20% are native in other areas of Mexico, and 130 (46%) are species introduced from other parts of the World. Herbs were the most numerous species (47%) in the homegardens studied, followed by trees (21%) and shrubs (20%). The remaining 12% of the species were other arborescent, vine, globose and cilindric cacti, and rosetophyllous plants. Figures 3, 4 and 5 shows species more frequently recorded in homegardens of the CFZ, TRFZ, and TDFZ. The highest species richness, diversity and equitability were recorded in homegardens of the CFZ, followed by those of the TRFZ, and then by those of the TDFZ (Table 1, Figure 6). This result contrasts with that found in natural vegetation; as it is shown in Table 2, the highest species richness and diversity were recorded in the Tropical Dry Forest (72 specie, H = 3.562), followed by the Tropical Rainforest (40 species, H = 2.74) and the Cloud Forest (24 species and H = 2.016). In the Thorn-Scrub Forest, Vivar (2004) recorded 69 plant species and estimated H = 1.28 (Table 2).
Figure 3

Frequencies of plant species recorded in the homegardens of Cloud Forest Zone (CFZ) at the communities of Coyomeapan and Ahuatla.

Figure 4

Frequencies of plant species recorded in the homegardens of Tropical Rainforest Zone (TRFZ) at the community of Aticpac.

Figure 5

Frequencies of plant species recorded in the homegardens of Tropical Dry Forest Zone (TDFZ) at the communities of Chimalhuaca and Yohuajca.

Table 1

Species richness, diversity (H’ = Shannon-Wiener index), dominance and equitability in homegardens of the studied zones

Environmental zone

Home garden

Area (m2)

Number of plant species

Number of individual plants

Diversity (H’)

Dominance

Equitability

CFZ

1

550

68

777

3.071

0.918

0.727

CFZ

2

1400

92

2687

3.041

0.918

0.672

CFZ

3

600

94

1116

3.092

0.884

0.68

CFZ

4

500

73

1384

2.675

0.833

0.623

CFZ

5

1000

89

1364

3.043

0.89

0.678

CFZ

6

2000

57

1184

2.81

0.906

0.695

CFZ

7

900

45

680

2.64

0.874

0.693

CFZ

8

100

66

2058

2.8

0.862

0.668

CFZ

9

400

46

801

3.225

0.944

0.842

CFZ

10

600

35

591

2.703

0.898

0.76

χ

 

805

66.5

1264

2.91

0.89

0.70

σ

 

550.98

20.88

662.79

0.21

0.03

0.06

TRFZ

11

400

91

1290

3.153

0.91

0.698

TRFZ

12

150

34

245

2.708

0.892

0.768

TRFZ

13

600

32

644

2.035

0.79

0.587

TRFZ

14

150

11

53

1.878

0.774

0.783

TRFZ

15

200

31

236

2.627

0.884

0.765

TRFZ

16

300

69

969

2.686

0.844

0.634

TRFZ

17

400

58

1587

2.126

0.783

0.523

TRFZ

18

250

47

736

2.308

0.817

0.599

TRFZ

19

600

39

1062

2.129

0.802

0.581

TRFZ

20

450

49

1420

2.195

0.795

0.564

χ

 

350

46.10

824.20

2.38

0.83

0.65

σ

 

168.33

22.48

532.06

0.39

0.05

0.10

TDFZ

21

500

43

574

2.801

0.898

0.744

TDFZ

22

600

37

444

2.578

0.857

0.713

TDFZ

23

250

14

47

2.427

0.895

0.919

TDFZ

24

200

34

2452

2.217

0.846

0.628

TDFZ

25

100

37

281

2.508

0.853

0.694

TDFZ

26

250

29

254

2.807

0.914

0.833

TDFZ

27

150

45

175

3.208

0.939

0.842

TDFZ

28

250

63

3933

1.966

0.768

0.474

TDFZ

29

400

19

1508

1.029

0.421

0.349

TDFZ

30

300

46

3537

1.007

0.35

0.262

χ

 

300

36.70

1320.50

2.25

0.77

0.65

σ

 

156.35

14.07

1473.13

0.73

0.21

0.22

CFZ = Cloud Forest Zone; TRFZ = Tropical Rainforest Zone; TDFZ = Tropical Dry Forest Zone.

Figure 6

Curve of species accumulated in vegetation sampling of homegardens, from higher to lower number of species at the communities of Coyomeapan, Ahuatla, Aticpac, Chimalhuaca y Yojhuaca. Coyomeapan, Puebla. CFZ = Cloud Forest Zone, TRFZ = Tropical Rainforest Zone, TDFZ = Tropical Dry Forest Zone.

Table 2

Species richness and diversity (Shannon-Wiener index) in natural vegetation of the studied zones

Cloud forest zone

H’=

2.016

Species richness:

24 spp.

 

Species

Abundance

Relative frequency

Relative density

Relative dominance

Ecological value

Quercus laurina

380

15.625

34.959

26.899

77.483

Quercus candicans

261

11.458

24.011

23.774

59.244

Ternstroemia sp.

73

10.417

6.716

7.658

24.790

Vaccinium leucanthum

96

5.208

8.832

8.781

22.821

Styrax argenteus

96

5.208

8.832

7.812

21.852

Baccharis conferta

60

7.292

5.520

6.296

19.107

Pinus sp.

40

6.250

3.680

4.404

14.334

Clethra sp.

29

6.250

2.668

3.510

12.428

Morella cerifera

14

5.208

1.288

1.551

8.047

Eupatorium sp.

17

4.167

1.564

1.727

7.458

Arbutus xalapensis

11

4.167

1.012

1.320

6.499

Quercus crassifolia

6

4.167

0.552

0.713

5.431

Rubus sp.

2

2.083

0.184

0.231

2.498

Litsea glaucescens

2

2.083

0.184

0.225

2.492

Tropical rain forest zone

 

H’ = 2.744

Species richness:

40 spp.

 

Species

Abundance

Relative frequency

Relative density

Relative dominance

Ecological value

Chamaedorea tepejilote

80

6.757

30.769

15.621

53.147

Aphelandra scabra

40

5.405

15.385

6.002

26.792

Piper sp.

19

6.757

7.308

6.346

20.411

Guarea glabra

11

5.405

4.231

8.450

18.086

Parmentiera aculeata

4

2.703

1.538

10.575

14.816

Aphananthe monoica

5

4.054

1.923

7.729

13.706

Miconia aff. Argentea

12

4.054

4.615

1.657

10.327

Comarostaphylis sp.

9

4.054

3.462

0.507

8.022

Albizia sp.

5

4.054

1.923

1.968

7.945

Oreopanax xalapensis

2

1.351

0.769

5.105

7.226

Ruprechtia sp.

1

1.351

0.385

5.016

6.752

Maclura tinctoria

2

1.351

0.769

4.074

6.194

Heliocarpus appendiculatus

3

4.054

1.154

0.333

5.541

Coccoloba grandifolia

2

2.703

0.769

1.336

4.808

Parathesis sp.

2

1.351

0.769

1.663

3.784

Inga vera

1

1.351

0.385

1.254

2.990

Sapindus saponaria

1

1.351

0.385

0.831

2.567

Eugenia capulí

1

1.351

0.385

0.495

2.231

Dendropanax arboreus

1

1.351

0.385

0.066

1.802

Trema micrantha

1

1.351

0.385

0.041

1.777

Tropical dry forest zone

H’=

3.562

Species richness:

72 spp.

 

Species

Abundance

Relative frequency

Relative density

Relative dominance

Ecological value

Lippia graveolens

256

1.592

14.144

22.074

37.809

Jatropha dioica

94

2.387

5.193

9.261

16.842

Dasylirion serratifolium

26

2.122

1.436

11.479

15.037

Dalea bicolor

104

2.122

5.746

5.593

13.461

Neopringlea sp

74

2.122

4.088

6.014

12.224

Gymnosperma glutinosa

118

2.387

6.519

0.662

9.569

Lippia sp.

58

2.653

3.204

2.340

8.197

Dodonaea viscosa

70

2.653

3.867

0.988

7.508

Calia secundiflora

16

1.061

0.884

5.140

7.085

Turnera diffusa

76

1.326

4.199

1.186

6.711

Calea sp.

30

1.592

1.657

2.949

6.198

Zaluzania sp.

32

2.653

1.768

1.733

6.153

Lysiloma acapulcensis

46

2.653

2.541

0.898

6.092

Eysenhardtia polystachya

2

0.531

0.110

5.065

5.706

Senna sp.

46

2.122

2.541

0.953

5.616

Galphimia glauca

24

2.653

1.326

1.249

5.227

Tecoma stans

40

1.857

2.210

0.550

4.616

Pilosocereus chrysacanthus

10

2.122

0.552

1.560

4.235

Opuntia pilífera

12

2.122

0.663

1.347

4.132

Ipomoea arborescens

24

1.592

1.326

0.833

3.751

Brickellia sp.

10

2.122

0.552

1.004

3.679

Mimosa sp.

10

1.061

0.552

2.023

3.637

Lantana cámara

20

1.592

1.105

0.877

3.573

Beaucarnea gracilis

16

1.592

0.884

0.987

3.462

Wimmeria sp.

14

1.326

0.773

1.356

3.456

Mammillaria sp.

24

1.592

1.326

0.321

3.238

Pittocaulon praecox

10

2.122

0.552

0.547

3.221

Indigofera sp.

10

1.592

0.552

0.891

3.035

Plumeria rubra

8

1.592

0.442

0.659

2.692

Senna fruticosa

10

1.061

0.552

0.897

2.510

Agave potatorum

12

1.326

0.663

0.269

2.258

Wimmeria microphylla

20

0.531

1.105

0.451

2.086

Pseudosmodingium sp.

4

1.061

0.221

0.797

2.079

Indigofera cuernavacana

4

1.061

0.221

0.789

2.071

Thorn-scrub forest zone

H’=

1.28

Species richness:

69 spp.

 

Species

Abundance

Relative frequency

Relative density

Relative dominance

Ecological value

Mammillaria carnea

127

14.85

8.44

0.42

23.71

Gomphrena decumbens

71

8.26

4.70

0.85

13.82

Panicum sp.

66

7.68

4.37

0.35

12.40

Opuntia pilifera

38

4.42

2.51

5.90

12.82

Loeselia glandulosa

34

3.99

2.27

0.05

6.30

Dalea carthagenensis

32

1.99

1.13

0.59

3.72

Chamaesyce cumbrae

32

3.69

2.10

0.16

5.95

Euphorbia heterophylla

28

3.28

1.87

0.08

5.22

Zinnia peruviana

24

2.81

1.60

0.29

4.70

Pectis haenkeana

22

1.93

1.10

0.46

3.50

Mimosa luisana

21

2.46

1.40

20.20

24.06

Stenocereus stellatus

21

2.42

1.38

1.25

5.05

Coryphantha pycnacantha

19

2.23

1.27

0.04

3.54

Viguiera dentata

17

0.82

0.47

2.27

3.56

Dalea sp.

17

3.75

2.13

1.58

7.47

Escontria chiotilla

17

1.99

1.13

20.81

23.94

Phaseolus sp.

17

2.58

1.47

0.11

4.16

Opuntia puberula

16

1.84

1.04

0.23

3.11

Carminatia alvarezii

14

1.64

0.93

0.06

2.64

Lippia graveolens

14

1.64

0.93

2.17

4.74

Physalis philadelphica

14

1.58

0.90

0.56

3.04

Boerhavia erecta

13

1.52

0.87

0.34

2.73

Mimosa polyantha

11

1.29

0.73

8.38

10.41

Sanvitalia fruticosa

10

1.17

0.67

0.06

1.90

Croton sp.

9

1.06

0.60

2.12

3.78

Cordia curassavica

9

1.02

0.58

2.52

4.11

Celtis pallida

8

0.94

0.53

0.60

2.07

Commelina erecta

8

0.94

0.53

0.04

1.52

CFZ = Cloud Forest Zone; TRFZ = Tropical Rainforest Zone; TDFZ = Tropical Dry Forest Zone; TSFZ = Thorn-Scrub Forest Zone (based on Vivar [41]). Only the most important species are reported.

Similarity of plant composition

Homegardens from the CFZ shared 108 species with those of the TRFZ (38.4% of the total number of species recorded in both areas), and 96 (34.1%) species with homegardens from the TDFZ. Homegardens from the TRFZ shared 86 (30.6%) species with those from the TDFZ. A total of 73 species (25.9% of all recorded in the whole sample) were shared among homegardens of the three zones directly studied.

Benefits provided by homegardens

According to perception of local people, homegardens provide the following main benefits: (1) complementing food, (2) closer availability of medicines, (3) obtaining monetary incomes, (4) complementing fuel wood and coffee, (5) obtaining shade, (6) soil retention, and (7) pleasure of being surrounded by ornamental beautiful plants. A total of 249 species were reported as having one use type, 30 species having two use types, and 2 species with three use types. The most numerous species were ornamental, followed by edible, medicinal, ritual, condiment, material for construction, living fences, fuelwood, shade, and tools (Figure 7).
Figure 7

Uses of the plant species recorded in the homegardens of all the communities studied in the municipality of Coyomeapan.

A total of 89 native species were recorded in homegardens of the CFZ, most of them ornamental plants (39 species), followed by edible plants (32 species), medicinal plants (14 species) and other uses (14 species). In homegardens of the TRFZ we recorded 86 native species, most of them edible plants (32 spp.), followed by ornamental plants (28 spp.), medicinal plants (18 spp.), and other uses (16 spp.). In homegardens of the TDFZ we recorded 69 native species, most of them edible plants (28 spp.), followed by ornamental plants (18 spp.), medicinal plants (13 spp.), and other uses (16 spp., Table 3).
Table 3

Total number and percentage of cultivated, enhanced and tolerated native plant species with different use types recorded in all the homegardens studied

Management type

Use

Number and percentage of species

Cultivated

TOTAL

71 spp. (100.0%)

 

Ornamental

35 spp. (49.2%)

 

Edible

30 spp. (42.2%)

 

Medicinal

7 spp. (9.8%)

 

Others

4 spp. (5.6%)

Enhanced

TOTAL

23 spp. (100.0%)

 

Ornamental

7 spp. (28.0%)

 

Edible

11 spp. (44.0%)

 

Medicinal

5 spp. (20.0%)

 

Others

3 (12.0%)

Tolerated

TOTAL

57 spp. (100.0%)

 

Ornamental

10 spp. (17.5%)

 

Edible

8 spp. (14.0%)

 

Medicinal

21 spp. (36.8%)

 

Others

24 spp. (42.1%)

People surveyed said that most of the products from homegardens (67.1%) are destined to commercialization and the remaining part (32.9%) for direct consumption by household. A total of 43 species (15% of the total recorded) generate monetary incomes, but most species (238, 85% of the total recorded) are not interchanged. Main species from homegardens commercialized are indicated in Tables 4 and 5.
Table 4

Number of native plant species used with different purposes in the different environmental zones studied

Zone

Use

Number of native plant species

% of native plant species recorded

Cloud forest

Ornamental

39

43.8

 

Edible

32

35.9

 

Medicinal

14

15.7

 

Others

14

15.7

 

TOTAL

89

100

Tropical rainforest

Ornamental

28

32.6

 

Edible

32

37.2

 

Medicinal

18

20.9

 

Others

16

18.6

 

TOTAL

86

100.0

Tropical dry forest

Ornamental

18

26.1

 

Edible

28

40.6

 

Medicinal

13

18.8

 

Othrs

16

23.2

 

TOTAL

69

100.0

Table 5

Prices in U.S. dollars (rate change in August-October 2012) per commercialization unit and kg of useful plant products of species recorded in the homegardens studied which are traded in the markets of Coyomeapan

Plant family

Species

Common name

Commercialization unit

kg/unit

Average price per unit

$/kg

ANNONACEAE

Annona cherimola

Chirimoya

Caja

10

3.08

0.31

ARECACEAE

Chamaedorea tepejilote

Tepejilote

Manojo

0.5

0.38

0.76

ASTERACEAE

Chrysanthemum morifolium

Flor campechana

Docena

0.3

0.76

2.56

CACTACEAE

Opuntia ficus-indica

Nopal

Penca

0.6

0.38

0.64

CARYOPHYLLACEAE

Dianthus caryophyllus

Clavel

Docena

0.3

1.15

3.8

CUCURBITACEAE

Sechium edule

Chayote

Pieza

0.2

0.04

0.19

LAURACEAE

Persea americana

Aguacate

Caja

10

3.46

0.35

MUSACEAE

Musa × paradisiaca

Plátano

Kg

1

0.39

0.39

MYRTACEAE

Psidium guajava

Guayaba

Bolsa

0.4

0.39

0.96

PASSIFLORACEAE

Passiflora edulis

Granadilla

Caja

10

6.15

0.62

ROSACEAE

Malus domestica

Manzana

Caja

10

3.65

0.37

ROSACEAE

Prunus persica

Durazno

Caja

10

4.62

0.46

ROSACEAE

Eriobotrya japonica

Níspero

Caja

10

3.85

0.39

ROSACEAE

Prunus serotina

Capulín

Bolsa

0.5

0.39

0.77

ROSACEAE

Prunus domestica

Ciruela

Caja

10

2.69

0.27

RUBIACEAE

Coffea arabica

Café tostado y molido

Kg

1

6.92

6.92

RUBIACEAE

Coffea arabica

Café verde

Kg

1

3.85

3.85

RUTACEAE

Citrus reticulata

Madarina

Bolsa

1

0.39

0.39

RUTACEAE

Citrus × sinensis

Licor de naranja

Lt.

1

3.08

3.08

RUTACEAE

Citrus × sinensis

Naranja

Kg

1.25

0.39

0.31

RUTACEAE

Citrus x aurantifolia

Lima

Bolsa

1

0.39

0.39

SOLANACEAE

Capsicum pubescens

Chile canario

Caja

10

3.46

0.35

ZINGIBERACEAE

Renealmia alpinia

Belígmoli

Docena

0.1

0.39

3.85

Other species such as apple (Malus domestica), prunes (Prunus domestica), peaches, canario chili (Capsicum pubescens), granadilla or passion fruit (Passiflora edulis) and custard apple (Annona cherimola) are also commercialized in markets, but these are mainly traded to foreign hoarders in the place of Coyomeapan. Hoarders pay low and unfair prices to local people for their products to commercialize them at higher prices in markets of the cities of Tehuacán, Ajalpan, and Zoquitlán in the state of Puebla, Zongolica, in the state of Veracruz and Teotitlán, in the state of Oaxaca. Barter is also a common practice exchanging a variety of products for maize and coffee.

Plant management

Management types

A total of 176 species recorded in the homegardens studied are cultivated, 71 species are native tolerated or let standing and 34 are enhanced or promoted. A total of 151 of the managed plant species are native (71 cultivated, 57 tolerated, and 23 enhanced, Tables 3 and 4). It can be noticed that the sum of the species mentioned is higher than the total recorded, because several species have more than one management type.

Spatial arrangement

A general pattern of spatial arrangement of plant species in homegardens were identified. Herbaceous, shrubby and vine plants providing benefits as ornamental, medicinal, and condiment are placed close to the houses, because according to local people these species generally require irrigation, they make beautiful their houses and provide medicines promptly when needed. Some tall trees are also placed close to the house, mainly Alnus acuminata (30% of all homegardens sampled), Quercus spp. (23%), Cupressus spp. (20%), Fraxinus uhdei (20), Salix taxifolia (13%), and Platanus mexicana (7%); according to people, these are trees destined to provide shade to the houses and to protect them against strong wind. Fruit producing trees and other large tree species are placed distanced from houses because, according to people, these species have extended roots that may affect the houses’ floor, and because their eventual falling down may destroy the house. In Coyomeapan and Ahuatla (CFZ) homegardens are delimited by living fences more commonly formed with Erythrina americana (50% of all homegardens of the CFZ), Yucca elephantipes (40%), Brugmansia candida (40%), Quercus laurina (23%), Fraxinus uhdei (20%), Arundo donax (20%), Cupressus spp. (20%), and Jasminum fruticans (17%). In Aticpac (TRFZ) people construct fences with stones and Hibiscus rosa-sinensis (50% of all homegardens of this village), whereas in Chimalhuaca and Yohuajca (TDFZ) there are no living fences.

Maintenance of homegardens

Women are the main managers of homegardens, practicing sowing, planting, maintenance and harvest of most products; also they are the main responsible of trading their products. Men participate in activities such as tree pruning, weeding, fertilization and actions against pests and harvesting of some products, mainly those of tall trees. Widows use to pay a salary (nearly $6.50 U.S. dollars per day) to men for doing these activities.

People from Coyomeapan, Ahuatla, Chimalhuaca and Yohuajca (CFZ and TDFZ) use to regularly add as fertilizer ground collected in the forest (‘tierra de monte’), ash from home fire, dung of hens, sheep and goats. In Aticpac (TRFZ) people leave the fallen leaves of plants to recycling into the soil and occasionally add forest ground to some particular plants, mainly fruit trees.

The general opinion of local people is that pests are not a real problem; however, people from Coyomeapan and Ahuatla (CFZ), add lime to fruit trees trunks in order to prevent ants and aphid attack; this method also allows controlling lichen growing since people consider that lichens “robe life to trees” affecting fruit production. Branches of big trees such as oaks, alder and ash trees are pruned when the hemi-parasite plant called “tempala” (Phoradendron sp.) infests them. In Aticpac (TRFZ) people use to remove by hand worms infesting plants in homegardens; ants and “cenicilla” (Oidium sp.) are prevented by putting lime on tree trunks. In Chimalhuaca and Yohuajca (TDFZ) people make use of agrochemical products to prevent pest attack since they cultivate ornamental plants close to the homegardens and they consider that pests of those crops will extend rapidly to homegardens.

Pruning is also practiced to control tree growing in order to make harvesting easy. Herbaceous and shrubby plants close to the houses are irrigated every three days during the dry season. Fruit trees are only occasionally irrigated.

Discussion

Our study confirmed that the homegardens studied harbour a high biological diversity represented by a total of 281 plant species. Although lower than other traditional agroforestry systems of the region (see for instance [7, 29]), 34% of the plant species maintained in homegardens are native to the region and 16% are native to local vegetation of the territories analysed. Such diversity reflects in first term the cultural interest of local people for maintaining multiple options for complementing their subsistence patterns, including food and other needs security. The local human cultures studied, as the Mesoamerican peoples in general, have solved their subsistence needs by the multiple forms of using natural resources and ecosystems [43]. But the high diversity recorded in this study also reflects the high biodiversity of natural ecosystems of the Tehuacán Valley, one of the highest biodiverse regions of Mexico [34]. Several authors (see for instance [44]), have discussed that homegardens commonly resemble the structure of natural ecosystems. The diversity in composition, structure and functions are human constructions and are apparently inspired in the surrounding ecosystems.

We should highlight that along with the local plant species diversity maintained in homegardens there is also an associated diversity [5] involving other groups of organisms (e.g. birds, insects, mammals) which we have not evaluated yet but that find in homegardens favourable habitats for reproducing their lives. General diversity (not only that of native plant species) is in theory highly relevant for the system resilience, and local and regional policies for biodiversity conservation have in homegardens targets for enhancing their richness and composition with particularly endangered species or those that could favour local associated diversity.

Species richness, diversity and equitability were higher in homegardens of the CFZ, followed by those of the TRFZ and then those of the TDFZ. Contrarily to our expectations, the highest diversity was recorded in homegardens where the neighbouring forests had the least diversity and vice versa. This pattern suggests that local people manage in homegardens mainly plant species that are not available in the wilderness close to their towns; at least for some species management appears to aim at compensating scarcity of naturally available plant resources. Based on sampling of natural vegetation we found that homegardens share with the local forests a total of 25 perennial plant species (Table 6), but nearly 100 species recorded are native to the region. In other words, although the capacity of homegardens to conserving local diversity is relatively low, their capacity for conserving regional biodiversity is high.
Table 6

Plant species shared among homegardens and natural vegetation in the studied zones at Coyomepan, Puebla

 

CFZ

TRFZ

TDFZ

TSFZ

 

Chamaedora elegans

Cercocarpus macrophyllus

Acacia farnesiana

Acacia cochliacantha

 

Platanus mexicana

Chamaedora elegans

Salix taxifolia

Acalypha sp.

 

Plumeria rubra

Hamelia patens

 

Celtis pallida

 

Rubus eriocarpus

Rubus eriocarpus

 

Cercidium praecox

 

Salix taxifolia

Talauma mexicana

 

Commelina erecta

  

Siparuna andina

 

Escontria chiotilla

    

Ferocactus latispinus

    

Lippia graveolens

    

Physalis philadelphica

    

Sedum sp.

    

Stenocereus pruinosus

    

Ziziphus amole

Total: 25

5

6

2

12

*Percentage

18.50%

22.22%

7.40%

+5.05%

* Percentage calculated based on the total number of species of trees and shrubs recorded in vegetation sampling of homegardens and natural vegetation in localities of Coyomeapan.+ Percentage calculated based on the total number of species of trees, shrubs and herbs recorded in homegarden’s vegetation sampling by Blanckaert et al. 2004 and wild jiotillal ’s vegetation sampling by Vivar (2004) in San Rafael Coxcatlán. CFZ = Cloud Forest Zone, TRFZ = Tropical Rainforest Zone, TDFZ = Tropical Dry Forest Zone; TSFZ = Thorn-Scrub Forest Zone.

Composition of homegardens seems to be related with the local environmental conditions of the villages studied; those from CFZ, TRFZ and TDF zones are different in composition among zones but similar within each zone. Composition of the homegardens studied in Coxcatlán by Blanckaert et al. [20] is in turn markedly different to that recorded in our study. For instance, Blanckaert et al. [20] found that cacti are among the main components of this system. Such composition is influenced by the high cultural value of cacti [17, 23] but also because of their adaptations to the local semiarid environment in Coxcatlán. Homegardens of the CFZ are significantly larger than those of the other zones studied, and that this aspect may influence composition of the system; however, according to [26] all the homegardens studied are within the ‘small size’ category.

Social factors also influence homegardens’ composition. Although all the villages studied are neighbouring territories inhabited by Náhuatl people with similar culture, the economic purposes of homegardens vary among villages. Production of food (and monetary incomes derived from these products), medicines and ornamental are the most important purposes, and these factors guide criteria for making decisions about the composition of homegardens, but they are different among the villages studied as well as to those of Coxcatlán. For instance, in homegardens of the CFZ medicinal plants are scarcer than in the other zones. This could be associated to the decreasing importance of traditional medicine in communities of that zone which have public health centres and private clinics as well as transportation to urban centres. For the contrary, in those communities edible and ornamental plant species for commercialization are more important. In the communities of the other zones studied medical services are more deficient and traditional medicine more important, as well as composition of medicinal plants in homegardens. In communities of the TDFZ people cultivate ornamental plants for commercialization and this group of plants is therefore more important than others. Similarly, Blanckaert et al. [20] found that in Coxcatlán ornamental plant species of the families Araceae and Liliaceae are particularly important. In fact, ornamental purpose is relatively more important in Coxcatlán than in all villages of Coyomeapan (Table 7). These patterns show that homegardens are systems influenced by ecological conditions and restrictions, but also by cultural and economic aspects configuring the role of the system in local people’s subsistence.
Table 7

Main plant families and species richness recorded in Coyomeapan (this study) and San Rafael, Coxcatlán (according to Blanckaert et al.[20])

Municipality

Total number of plant species

Plant family

Number of plant species

Coyomeapan

281

Asteraceae

26

  

Solanaceae

17

  

Rosaceae

15

  

Fabaceae

9

  

Agavaceae

8

Coxcatlán

233

Araceae

15

  

Cactaceae

14

  

Liliaceae

13

  

Solanaceae

12

  

Crassulaceae

10

The area comprised in this study is a relatively small portion of the great diversity of biocultural contexts of the Tehuacán Valley and it is far to be representative of the region. We reported information for only four of a total of 36 types of vegetation [45], and for one of eight indigenous ethnic groups of the region [16]. It is therefore possible to expect a high diversity of settings at the regional level yet to be studied. The method carried out allowed a relatively rapid diagnostic that could be implemented in short time for sampling the different biocultural conditions of the Tehuacán Valley, which would allow constructing strategies for regional biodiversity conservation and sustainable management. What is particularly relevant from our current study is the fact that the homegardens described are the expression of a current capacity for maintaining general diversity, and their important role for satisfying needs of local peoples.

Plant management involves important traditional ecological knowledge, practices, and technical experiences for designing any management plan. Most managed species were recorded in homegardens of CFZ, followed by those of TRFZ and TDFZ. Most species recorded are cultivated, followed by tolerated and enhanced plants. Most cultivated species are ornamental plants and edible species and only nearly 10% are medicinal plant; however most of the tolerated species are medicinal plants. Most studies on plant management have been centred in edible plants, but the results from this study suggest that studies on management and domestication should put more attention to ornamental and medicinal plants. Most enhanced or promoted plant species are edible and clearly this management type is directed to increase this benefit (Table 8). Although only 15% of all plant species recorded are commercialized, production in homegardens is continuous allowing monetary incomes throughout the year.
Table 8

Percentage of native plant species that are managed and used in different forms in the municipalities of Coyomeapan (this study) and San Rafael Coxcatlán, Puebla (according to Blanckaert et al.[20])

Municipality

Management type

%

Use

%

Coyomeapan

Cultivated

63

Ornamental

49.2

   

Edible

42.2

   

Medicinal

9.8

 

Protected

12

Ornamental

28

   

Edible

44

   

Medicinal

20

 

Tolerated

25

Ornamental

17.5

   

Edible

14

   

Medicinal

36.8

Coxcatlán

Cultivated

68

Ornamental

70

   

Edible

29.5

   

Medicinal

6.5

 

Protected

10

Ornamental

47.6

   

Edible

36.5

   

Medicinal

15.9

 

Tolerated

22

Ornamental

55.2

   

Edible

31

   

Medicinal

17.2

According with Altieri [27], traditional management systems may be adapted for increasing productivity and sustainability. For such purpose it is particularly relevant promoting conservation of diversity in agroecosystems as much as possible. Such purpose may increase the potential contribution of these systems to biodiversity conservation, food sufficiency, and ecological functions that favour higher resilience capacity and lower vulnerability to natural or socio-economic and cultural contingencies. Based on the information reported, it is possible to affirm that local homegardens are important reservoirs of biodiversity and that although local native biodiversity maintained within them is relatively lower than in other agroforestry systems, they may significantly contribute to its conservation at regional level. Such capacity should also be seen at landscape level. Considering that these systems may harbour endemic threatened species, they should be included in the strategies of biodiversity conservation and human wellbeing at regional level of the important biosphere reserve Tehuacán-Cuicatlán.

Conclusions

Homegardens studied in the municipality of Coyomeapan are reservoirs of high plant species diversity, nearly 34% of it being native to the Tehuacán Valle and nearly 16% to the local vegetation. The highest diversity was recorded in homegardens where the neighbouring forests had the least diversity, which suggests that management of homegardens aims at compensating scarcity of naturally available plant resources. Differently to other agroforestry systems of the area, cultivated species were markedly more abundant than plants under other management forms. Homegardens’ composition is influenced by ecological conditions and social factors according the role of the system in local people’s subsistence.

The information documented may support local programs for agroecological practices linked to dynamic conservation of biodiversity and culture. Homegardens may be important for local and regional strategies of protection of threatened species along with those of economic importance. Promoting interchange of local experiences about use and management techniques among rural communities, as well as diffusion of ecological and cultural information about the species managed could strongly support such a process. Academic institutions and NGOs might contribute with scientific and regional and national management experiences for making decisions at different scales.

Authors' information

CL Undergraduate student at the Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas (CIEco), AC, full time researchers at CIEco, UNAM. AIM associate professor at the Escuela Nacional de Estudios Superiores, UNAM, MV and JB postgraduate student at the Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas (CIEco), UNAM.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and Universidad Michacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo for supporting the research. We specially thank people and local authorities of the communities studied, their generosity for sharing their knowledge and facilities for conducting the vegetation sampling. We also thank the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (Project CB 2008-01-103551), and the Programa de Apoyo a la Investigación e Innovación Tecnológica (PAPIIT, Projects IN205111-3 and IN209214) of the DGAPA, UNAM for financial support. MSc Edgar Pérez-Negrón provided fieldwork assistance, whereas Dr. Fernando Villaseñor and Guillermo Vázquez gave computer and statistical assistance and two anonymous reviewers that provided valuable suggestions and comments.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas, UNAM
(2)
Escuela Nacional de Estudios Superiores, UNAM

References

  1. Kumar BM, Nair PKR: The enigma of tropical homegardens. Agrofor Syst. 2004, 61: 135-152.Google Scholar
  2. Budowski G: Agroforistería: una diciplina basada en el conocimiento tradicional. Rev Forestal Centroamericana. 1993, 2: 14-18.Google Scholar
  3. Lok R: El huerto casero tropical tradicional en América Central. Lok R (ed) Huertos Caseros Tradicionales de América Central: Características, Beneficios e Importancia, Desde un Enfoque Multidisciplinario. 1998, Turrialba, Costa Rica: Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE), 7-28.Google Scholar
  4. Nair PKR, Kumar BM: Introduction. Tropical Homegardens: A Time-Tested Example of Sustainable Agroforestry. Edited by: Kumar BM, Nair PKR. 2006, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 1-10.Google Scholar
  5. Perfecto I, Vandermeer J: Biodiversity conservation in tropical agroecosystems: a new conservation paradigm. N.Y. Acad Sci. 2008, 1134: 173-200. 10.1196/annals.1439.011.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Blancas J, Casas A, Rangel-Landa S, et al: Plant management in the Tehuacán-Cuicatlán Valley. Econ Bot. 2010, 64: 287-302. 10.1007/s12231-010-9133-0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Moreno-Calles A, Casas A, Blancas J, et al: Agroforestry systems and biodiversity conservation in arid zones: the case of the Tehuacán Valley, Central México. Agrofor Syst. 2010, 80: 315-331. 10.1007/s10457-010-9349-0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Parra F, Blancas J, Casas A: Landscape management and domestication of Stenocereus pruinosus (Cactaceae) in the Tehuacán Valley: human guided selection and gene flow. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2012, 8: 32-10.1186/1746-4269-8-32.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Blancas J, Casas A, Pérez-Salicrup D, Caballero J, Vega E: Ecological and sociocultural factors influencing plant management in Náhuatl communities of the Tehuacán Valley, Mexico. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2013, 9: 39-10.1186/1746-4269-9-39.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Otero-Arnaiz A, Casas A, Hamrick J, Cruse-Sanders J: Genetic variation and evolution of Polaskia chichipe (Cactaceae) under domestication in the Tehuacán Valley, central Mexico. Mol Ecol. 2005, 14: 1603-1611. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02494.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Casas A, Cruse J, Otero-Arnaiz A, Valiente-Banuet A: Maintenance of phenotypic diversity of Stenocereus stellatus (Cactaceae) by indigenous people in central México. Biodivers Conserv. 2006, 15: 879-898. 10.1007/s10531-004-2934-7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Parra F, Casas A, Peñaloza-Ramírez JM, et al: Evolution under domestication: ongoing artificial selection and divergence of wild and managed Stenocereus pruinosus (Cactaceae) populations in the Tehuacán Valley, Mexico. Ann Bot. 2010, 106: 483-496. 10.1093/aob/mcq143.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Caballero J: The Maya homegardens of the Yucatán peninsula: past, present and future. Etnoecológica. 1992, 1: 35-54.Google Scholar
  14. Casas A, Vázquez MC, Viveros JL, Caballero J: Plant management among the Nahua and the Mixtec from the Balsas River Basin: and ethnobotanical approach to the study of plant domestication. Hum Ecol. 1996, 24: 455-478. 10.1007/BF02168862.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Casas A, Caballero J, Valiente-Banuet A, Soriano JA, Dávila P: Morphological variation and the process of domestication of Stenocereus stellatus (Cactaceae) in Central Mexico. Am J Bot. 1999, 86: 522-533. 10.2307/2656813.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Casas A, Valiente-Banuet A, Viveros JL, et al: Plant resources of the Tehuacán Valley, Mexico. Econ Bot. 2001, 55: 129-166. 10.1007/BF02864551.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Casas A, Otero-Arnaiz A, Pérez-Negrón E, et al: In situ management and domestication of plants in Mesoamerica. Ann Bot. 2007, 100: 1101-1115. 10.1093/aob/mcm126.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Casas A, Rangel-Landa S, Torres-García I, et al: In situ management and conservation of plant resources in the Tehuacán-Cuicatlán Valley, Mexico: an ethnobotanical and ecological approach. Current Topics in Ethnobotany. Edited by: Albuquerque UP, Alves-Ramos M. 2008, Kerala, India: Research Signpost, 1-25.Google Scholar
  19. Cruse-Sanders J, Friar E, Parker K, et al: Managing diversity: domestication and gene flow in Stenocereus stellatus Riccob. in Mexico. Ecol and Evol. 2013, 3: 1340-1355. 10.1002/ece3.524.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Blanckaert I, Swennen RL, Paredes-Flores M, et al: Floristic composition, plant uses and management practices in homegardens of San Rafael Coxcatlán, Valley of Tehuacán-Cuicatlán, Mexico. J Arid Environ. 2004, 57: 39-62.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Montagnini F: Homegardens of Mesoamerica: biodiversity, food security, and nutrient management. Tropical Homegardens: A Time Tested Example of Sustainable Agroforestry. Edited by: Kumar BM, Nair PKR. 2006, The Netherlands: Springer, 61-84.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Pulido MT, Pagaza-Calderón M, Martínez-Ballesté A, et al: Home gardens as an alternative for sustainability: challenges and perspectives in Latin America. Current Topics in Ethnobotany. Edited by: Albuquerque UP, Alves-Ramos M. 2008, Kerala, India: Research Signpost, 55-79.Google Scholar
  23. Casas A, Caballero J, Mapes C, Zárate S: Manejo de la vegetación, domesticación de plantas y origen de la agricultura en Mesoamérica. Bol Soc Bot Méx. 1997, 61: 31-47.Google Scholar
  24. Toledo VM, Barrera-Bassols N: La Memoria Biocultural: La Importancia Ecológica de las Sabidurías Tradicionales. 2008, Barcelona, Spain: Ed. IcariaGoogle Scholar
  25. Boege E: El Patrimonio Biocultural de los Pueblos Indígenas de México: Hacia la Conservación in Situ de la Biodiversidad y Agrobiodiversidad de los Territorios Indígenas. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e. 2008, México: HistoriaGoogle Scholar
  26. Van der Wal H, Bongers F: Biosocial and bionumerical diversity of variously sized homegardens in Tabasco, México. Agrofor Syst. 2013, 87: 93-107. 10.1007/s10457-012-9526-4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Altieri MA: Agroecology, small farms and food sovereignty. Mon Rev. 2009, 61: 102-113.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Godfray CH, Beddington JR, Crute R, et al: Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science. 2010, 327: 812-818. 10.1126/science.1185383.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Moreno-Calles A, Casas A, García-Frapolli E: Traditional agroforestry systems of multi-crop “milpa” and “chichipera” cactus forest in the arid Tehuacán Valley, Mexico: their management and role in people’s subsistence. Agrofor Syst. 2012, 84: 207-226. 10.1007/s10457-011-9460-x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Hernández-Xolocotzi E: Aspects of plant domestication in Mexico: a personal view. Biological Diversity of Mexico. Edited by: Ramamoorthy TP, Bye R, Lot A, Fa J. 1993, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 733-753.Google Scholar
  31. Toledo VM, et al: Indigenous Peoples and Biodiversity. Encyclopedia of Biodiversity. Edited by: Levins S. 2000, New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  32. Berkes F, Folke C, Gadgil M: Traditional ecological knowledge, biodiversity, resilience and sustainability. Biodiversity Conservation. Edited by: Perrings. 1995, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 281-299.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Camou-Guerrero A, Reyes-García V, Martínez-Ramos M, Casas A: Knowledge and use value of plant species in a Raramuri community: a gender perspective. Hum Ecol. 2008, 36: 259-272. 10.1007/s10745-007-9152-3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Dávila P, Arizmendi MC, Valiente-Banuet A, et al: Biological diversity in the Tehuacan-Cuicatlan Valley, Mexico. Biodivers Conserv. 2002, 11: 421-442. 10.1023/A:1014888822920.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Mangel M, Hofman RJ, Norse EA, Twiss JR: Sustainability and ecological research. Ecol Appl. 1993, 3: 573-575.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Goodland R: The concept of enviromental sustaninability. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1995, 26: 1-10.1146/annurev.es.26.110195.000245.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Torquebiau E: Are tropical agroforestry homegardens sustainable?. Agr Ecosyst Environ. 1992, 41: 189-207. 10.1016/0167-8809(92)90109-O.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Torquebiau E, Penot E: Ecology Versus Economics in Tropical Multistrata Agroforests. Tropical Homegardens: A Time Tested Example of Sustainable Agroforestry. Edited by: Kumar BM, Nair PKR. 2006, The Netherlands: Springer, 269-282.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Lira R, Casas A, Rosas-López R, et al: Traditional knowledge and useful plant richness in the TehuacánCuicatlán Valley, Mexico. Econ Bot. 2009, 63: 271-287. 10.1007/s12231-009-9075-6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Gliessman S: Agroecología: Procesos Ecológicos en Agricultura Sostenible. 2002, Turrialba, Costa Rica: LITOCATGoogle Scholar
  41. Vivar D: Determinación de la Sustentabilidad en el Manejo del Quiotillal en el Valle de Tehuacán-Cuicatlán. México. Bachellor Thesis. 2004, Mexico: Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  42. Martin GJ: Ethnobotany: A Methods Manual. 1995, Cambridge, UK: Chapman & HallView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Toledo VM, Ortiz-Espejel MB, Cortés ME, et al: The multiple use of tropical forests by indigenous peoples in Mexico: a case of adaptive management. Conserv Ecol. 2003, 7 (3): 9-Google Scholar
  44. Barrera A: Sobre la unidad de habitación tradicional campesina y el manejo de recursos bióticos en el área Maya Yucatanense. Biotica. 1980, 5: 115-119.Google Scholar
  45. Valiente-Banuet A, Casas A, Dávila P, Arizmendi MC, Solís L, Treviño J, Rangel S: La Vegetación del Valle de Tehuacán-Cuicatlán. 2009, CONABIO, Fundación Cuicatlán, México: UNAMGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Larios et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.