Untitled

Johnson, Leslie Main

doi:10.1023/a:1007076221799

Cited by 68 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…among trees, along streams), and are literally the same as those used in Amazonia by the Matsigenka [11], Maijuna [21], or by the Gitksan and Witsuwit’en in British Columbia [13,26]. Similar locative expressions were also found by Molnár in the Hortobágy steppe [54].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

“…The knowledge of habitat preference of plant species was mostly the result of personal experience, and, as such, was mainly implicit cf. [13,26,52]. By asking the question „what kind of place does species X like?” we “forced” people to verbalize their knowledge related to habitats.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a similar high mountain environment in the Alps, Netting [55] and Meilleur [3,4] found similar features used in the recognition and naming of habitats. Johnson also documented the importance of similar features (physiography, hydrologic features, vegetation and wildlife habitats) among Kaska Dena, Gitksan, and Witsuwit’en First Nations in Western Canada [13,26]. The use of abiotic and biotic features (typically vegetation-related ones, e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[22]. Environmental features were combined flexibly in habitat descriptions see also [4,11,13,15,35]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Multidimensionality and scale in a landscape ethnoecological partitioning of a mountainous landscape (Gyimes, Eastern Carpathians, Romania)

Babai

Molnár

2013

J Ethnobiology Ethnomedicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTraditional habitat knowledge is an understudied part of traditional knowledge. Though the number of studies increased world-wide in the last decade, this knowledge is still rarely studied in Europe. We document the habitat vocabulary used by Csángó people, and determine features they used to name and describe these categories.Study area and methodsCsángó people live in Gyimes (Carpathians, Romania). The area is dominated by coniferous forests, hay meadows and pastures. Animal husbandry is the main source of living. Data on the knowledge of habitat preference of 135 salient wild plant species were collected (2908 records, 44 interviewees). Data collected indoors were counterchecked during outdoor interviews and participatory field work.ResultsCsángós used a rich and sophisticated vocabulary to name and describe habitat categories. They distinguished altogether at least 142–148 habitat types, and named them by 242 habitat terms. We argue that the method applied and the questions asked (‘what kind of place does species X like?’) helped the often implicit knowledge of habitats to be verbalized more efficiently than usual in an interview. Habitat names were highly lexicalized and most of them were widely shared. The main features were biotic or abiotic, like land-use, dominant plant species, vegetation structure, successional stage, disturbance, soil characteristics, hydrological, and geomorphological features. Csángós often used indicator species (28, mainly herbaceous taxa) in describing habitats of species. To prevent reduction in the quantity and/or quality of hay, unnecessary disturbance of grasslands was avoided by the Csángós. This could explain the high number of habitats (35) distinguished dominantly by the type and severity of disturbance. Based on the spatial scale and topological inclusiveness of habitat categories we distinguished macro-, meso-, and microhabitats.ConclusionsCsángó habitat categories were not organized into a single hierarchy, and the partitioning was multidimensional. Multidimensional description of habitats, made the nuanced characterization of plant species’ habitats possible by providing innumerable possibilities to combine the most salient habitat features. We conclude that multidimensionality of landscape partitioning and the number of dimensions applied in a landscape seem to depend on the number of key habitat gradients in the given landscape.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[22]. Environmental features were combined flexibly in habitat descriptions see also [4,11,13,15,35]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Multidimensionality and scale in a landscape ethnoecological partitioning of a mountainous landscape (Gyimes, Eastern Carpathians, Romania)

Babai

Molnár

2013

J Ethnobiology Ethnomedicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Miq., Araliaceae) has long been an important plant to indigenous people wherever it is found (Compton 1993, Gottesfeld 1992, 1994, Gottesfeld & Anderson 1988, Johnson 2000, Lantz 2001, Lantz et al 2004, Moerman 2002, 2009, People of 'Ksan 1980, Smith 1929, 1973, Smith et al 1997, Turner 1982, Turner & Thompson 2006. More than 34 broad categories of medicinal use and eight categories of spiritual use of devil's club have been distinguished from across 38 linguistic groups of northwestern North America (Lantz 2001, Lantz et al 2004, Turner 1982.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%