Using traditional ecological knowledge in discovery of rare plants: a case study from Turkey

• Autorzy: Molnar V. A. , Suveges K. , Molnar Z. , Loki V.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Sustainable (and adaptive) management of natural resources is usually based on long term local experiences with nature. Local traditional communities often possess rich ecological knowledge connected to nature and traditional resource use and management. This knowledge can provide unexpected new information for researchers, and show new opportunities and ways for professionals in conserving rare and threatened species. We found significant new populations of the rare Ophrys lesbis in a private area next to the settlement of Çamlık, Muğla, and Orchis punctulata in the graveyard of Kadılar, Antalya with the help of local rural people. We firstly report the replanting of some orchid species (Orchis papilionacea, O. italica, and Barlia robertiana) in kitchen gardens of Çamlık and Bayır, in Muğla Province. The presence of significant orchid populations (e.g., the biggest ever found for Ophrys lesbis) in an area, where local owners have been actively harvesting salep from year to year for decades suggests that the moderate salep harvesting can be sustainable for long run. Based on our observations, Turkish salep harvesters can help botanists and conservationists find new locations of rare threatened orchid populations, and therefore indirectly help in conserve these populations.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae
• Rocznik: 2017
• Tom: 86
• Numer: 3
• Opis fizyczny: Article 3541 [10p.],fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Molnar V. A.

• Department of Botany, Unversity of Debrecen, Egyetem ter 1, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary

autor

Suveges K.

• Department of Botany, Unversity of Debrecen, Egyetem ter 1, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary

autor

Molnar Z.

• MTA Centre for Ecological Research, Institute of Ecology and Botany, 2163 Vacratot, Hungary

autor

Loki V.

• Department of Botany, Unversity of Debrecen, Egyetem ter 1, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary

Bibliografia

• 1. Łuczaj L. Changes in the utilization of wild green vegetables in Poland since the 19th century: a comparison of four ethnobotanical surveys. J Ethnopharmacol. 2010;128:395– 404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2010.01.038
• 2. Łuczaj L. Ethnobotanical review of wild edible plants of Slovakia. Acta Soc Bot Pol. 2012;81:245–255. https://doi.org/10.5586/asbp.2012.030
• 3. Łuczaj L, Pieroni A, Tardío J, Pardo-de-Santayana M, Sõukand R, Svanberg I, et al. Wild food plant use in 21st century Europe: the disappearance of old traditions and the search for new cuisines involving wild edibles. Acta Soc Bot Pol. 2012;81:359–370. https://doi.org/10.5586/asbp.2012.031
• 4. Biró É, Babai D, Bódis J, Molnár Z. Lack of knowledge or loss of knowledge? Traditional ecological knowledge of population dynamics of threatened plant species in East-Central Europe. J Nat Conserv. 2014;22(4):318–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2014.02.006
• 5. Dolina K, Jug-Dujaković M, Łuczaj Ł, Vitasović-Kosić I. A century of changes in wild food plant use in coastal Croatia: the example of Krk and Poljica. Acta Soc Bot Pol. 2016;85(3):3508. https://doi.org/10.5586/asbp.3508
• 6. Ertuğ F. Wild edible plants of the Bodrum area (Muğla Turkey). Turk J Botany. 2004;28(1–2):161–174.
• 7. Simsek I, Aytekin F, Yesilada E, Yildirimli Ş. An ethnobotanical survey of the Beypazari Ayas and Güdül district towns of Ankara Province (Turkey). Econ Bot. 2004;58(4):705– 720. https://doi.org/10.1663/0013-0001(2004)058[0705:AESOTB]2.0.CO;2
• 8. Dogan Y, Baslar S, Ay G, Mert HH. The use of wild edible plants in Western and Central Anatolia (Turkey). Econ Bot. 2004;58(4):684–690. https://doi.org/10.1663/0013-0001(2004)058[0684:TUOWEP]2.0.CO;2
• 9. Altundag E, Ozturk M. Ethnomedicinal studies on the plant resources of East Anatolia Turkey. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2011;19:756–777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.05.195
• 10. Dogan Y. Traditionally used wild edible greens in the Aegean Region of Turkey. Acta Soc Bot Pol. 2012;81(4):329–342. https://doi.org/10.5586/asbp.2012.037
• 11. Dogan Y, Ugulu I, Durkan N. Wild edible plants sold in the local markets of Izmir Turkey. Pak J Bot. 2013;45(1):177–184.
• 12. Han Mİ, Bulut G. The folk-medicinal plants of Kadişehri (Yozgat – Turkey). Acta Soc Bot Pol. 2015;84(2):237–248. https://doi.org/10.5586/asbp.2015.021
• 13. Sezik E. Turkish orchids and salep. Acta Pharmaceutica Turcica. 2002;44:151–157.
• 14. Tamer CE, Karaman B, Copur OU. A traditional Turkish beverage: salep. Food Reviews International. 2006;22:43–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/87559120500379902
• 15. Kreziou A, de Boer H, Gravendeel B. Harvesting of salep orchids in north-western Greece continues to threaten natural populations. Oryx. 2015;50:393–396. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605315000265
• 16. Ghorbani A, Gravendeel B, Naghibi F, de Boer H. Wild orchid tuber collection in Iran: a wake-up call for conservation. Biodivers Conserv. 2016;23:2749–2760. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0746-y
• 17. Ghorbani A, Gravendeel B, Selliah S, Zarré S, de Boer H. DNA barcoding of tuberous Orchidoideae: a resource for identification of orchids used in Salep. Mol Ecol Resour. 2017;17(2):342–352. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12615
• 18. Özhatay N, Koyuncu M, Atay S, Byfield A. A study on natural medicinal plants trade of Turkey. İstanbul: Society for Protection of Natural; 1997.
• 19. Kasparek M, Grimm U. European trade in Turkish salep with special reference to Germany. Econ Bot. 1999;53:396–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02866718
• 20. Schönfelder M, Schönfelder H. Türkei – Vernichtung des besten derzeit bekannten Ophrys isaura-Standortes durch Ausgrabung. Berichte aus den Arbeitskreisen Heimischen Orchideen. 2002;18(2):125.
• 21. Sezik E. Destruction and conservation of Turkish orchids. In: Şener B, editor. Biodiversity. Biomolecular aspects of biodiversity and innovative utilization. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher; 2002. p. 391–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9242-0_54
• 22. Sezik E. Destroying of Ophrys species to obtain salep in Turkey. Journal Europäischen Orchideen. 2006;38:290.
• 23. Kreutz CAJ. Neue und interessante Funde im Südosten der Türkei, sowie Bemerkungen zum ständigen Rückgang der Orchideen in diesem Land. Journal Europäischen Orchideen. 2004;36:1045–1059.
• 24. Löki V, Tökölyi J, Süveges K, Lovas-Kiss Á, Hürkan K, Sramkó G, et al. The orchid flora of Turkish graveyards: a comprehensive survey. Willdenowia. 2015;45(2):231–243. https://doi.org/10.3372/wi.45.45209
• 25. Ertuğ F. Reply to Kasparek and Grimm’s. Econ Bot. 2000;54(4):421–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02866538
• 26. Turner N. Ancient pathways ancestral knowledge: ethnobotany and ecological wisdom of indigenous peoples of northwestern North America. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press; 2014
• 27. Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol Appl. 2000;10:1251–1262. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1251:ROTEKA]2.0.CO;2
• 28. Mascia BM, Brosius JP, Dobson TA, Forbes BC, Horowitz L, McKean MA, et al. Conservation and the social sciences. Conserv Biol. 2003;17:649–650. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01738.x
• 29. Newing H, Eagle CM, Puri RK, Watson CW. Conducting research in conservation. Social science methods and practice. New York, NY: Routledge Taylor Francis Group London and New York; 2011.
• 30. Huntingdon HP. Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methods and applications. Ecol Appl. 2000;10:1270–1274. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1270:UTEKIS]2.0.CO;2
• 31. Molnár Z, Bartha S, Babai D. Traditional ecological knowledge as a concept and data source for historical ecology vegetation science and conservation biology: a Hungarian perspective. In: Szabó P, Hedl R, editors. Human nature. Studies in historical ecology and environmental history. Brno: Institute of Botany of the ASCR; 2008. p. 14–27.
• 32. Kreutz CAJ. Die Orchideen der Türkei. Landgraaf: Kreutz & Seckel Verlag; 1998.
• 33. Gölz P, Reinhard HR. Die Orchideenflora von Lesvos. Mitteilungsblatt Arbeitskreis Heimische Orchideen Baden-Württemberg. 1989;21(1):1–87.
• 34. Kreutz CAJ, Çolak AH. Türkiye Orkideleri. İstanbul: Rota Yayınları; 2009.
• 35. IUCN/SSC Orchid Specialist Group. Orchids. Status survey and conservation action plan. Gland: IUCN; 1996.
• 36. Berlin B. Ethnobiological classification: principles of categorization of plants and animals in traditional societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1992. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400862597
• 37. Hunn ED, Johnson P, Russell T, Thornton T. Huna Tlingit traditional environmental knowledge conservation and the management of a “wilderness” park. Curr Anthropol. 2003;44:79–103. https://doi.org/10.1086/377666
• 38. Steinberg MK. Neotropical kitchen gardens as a potential research landscape for conservation biologists. Conserv Biol. 1998;12(5):1150–1152. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.98086.x
• 39. Molnár Z. A Hortobágyi pásztorok növényosztályozása a vadon termő növények ismertsége és néven nevezettsége. Crisicum. 2012;7:153–207.
• 40. Molnár Z, Kis J, Vadász C, Papp L, Sándor I, Béres S, et al. Common and conflicting objectives and practices of herders and nature conservation managers: the need for the “conservation herder”. EHSA. 2016;2(4):01215. https://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1215

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.5586/asbp.3541