Reflections on Huastec-Managed Forests' Contributions to Commercial Production and Resource Conservation Author(S): Janis B

Development Policy, Forests, and Peasant Farms: Reflections on Huastec-Managed Forests' Contributions to Commercial Production and Resource Conservation Author(s): Janis B. Alcorn Source: Economic Botany, Vol. 38, No. 4, Commemorating the 25th Anniversary of the Founding of the Society for Economic Botany (Oct. - Dec., 1984), pp. 389-406 Published by: Springer on behalf of New York Botanical Garden Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4254676 . Accessed: 31/07/2013 14:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

New York Botanical Garden Press and Springer are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Economic Botany.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.170.195.146 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:17:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DevelopmentPolicy, Forests, and Peasant Farms: Reflections on Huastec-managedForests' Contributionsto CommercialProduction and Resource Conservation1

JANIS B. ALCORN2

The Huastec Indians of northeasternMexico manage theirforests in an indigenous system that integratescommercial and subsistenceproduction. Elements of primaryand secondaryforest coexist with introducedspecies in this diversesilvi- culturalstructure which complements the swiddenand permanentagriculturefields of the Huastecfarmstead. Theforest's directproduction of the food, timber, and fuel resourcesdiscussed here buffersthe Huastec peasant family against market fluctuations and the failed harvestof a single crop. The Huastec system offorest managementoffers an alternativepattern to the agroforestryand plantation schemes now beingsuggestedfor development in the tropics.It is an alternativethat provides protectionfor wild genetic resourceswhile it contributesto the combination of commercialand subsistenceagriculture so importantfor the successfulmodern- ization of peasant agriculture.The documentationof this system demonstrates that ethnobotanistsand economicbotanists have an importantbut unrealizedrole to play in the protectionof biotic resourcesand in the developmentof sustained yield agroecosystemsfor peasants. The contributionsof ethnobotanistsare partic- ularly valuablebecause they can find whereand why useful wild speciespersist in agroecosystems.A greater effort to direct the attentions of policy makers to the value of ethnobotanicalknowledge is needed.

The Green Revolution has failed to fulfill all it promised; peasants have been displaced from smallholdings and their living standards continue to fall (e.g., Dahlberg, 1979; Frankel, 1971; Humphrey and Buttel, 1982; Perelman, 1977; Scott, 1976; Sharma, 1973; Taussig, 1978; Vermeer, 1976; Wilkes and Wilkes, 1972). Deforestation is proceeding at disastrous rates, and invaluable genetic resources are rapidly being lost (Myers, 1980; Oldfield, 1984). What have economic botany and ethnobotany to offer policy makers determined to halt these trends? Are the goals of these disciplines simply academic-to capture on paper data about the uses of exotic plants, investigate the properties of these plants, and develop "new" economic plants isolated from the natural and social contexts of the agroecosystems into which they are to be integrated? Can economic botanists and ethnobotanists do no more than document genetic resources and protest against their loss? Or can they play a critical role in solving the twin dilemmas of genetic resource conservation and peasant agriculture development? In an attempt to learn from the Green Revolution's failures, agricultural researchers have shifted their emphasis from simply developing high-yielding cul- tivars toward developing crops and agricultural structures that are better adapted to the natural and social conditions of peasant farmers (Baker et al., 1983; Janzen,

Received 1 February1984; accepted27 April 1984. 2 Departmentof Botany, University of Texas at Austin, TX 78712.

This content downloaded from 129.170.195.146 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:17:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 390 ECONOMICBOTANY [VOL. 38

1973; Plucknett and Smith, 1982; Rhoades and Booth, 1983), farmers who work an estimated 60% of the world's cultivated land (Cox and Atkins, 1979). While attention has been directed toward improving the productivity of traditional swidden agricultural systems, raised fields, and kitchen gardens (e.g., Clarke, 1976; Gliessman et al., 1981; G6mez-Pompa and Golley, 1980; Grandstaff, 1978; Greenland, 1975; Stavrakis, 1978), modernization of traditional forest management systems has not been seriously explored. Silvicultural systems offer an alternative means for the development of forested lands-lands that are increasingly being clear cut for eventual use as pastureland as the "pastoral front" follows on the heels of the "agricultural and extractive fronts" in Amazonia (Aspelin, 1975) and Central America (Myers, 1980; Nations and Komer, 1982). Permanently forested plots can complement other agricultural enterprises while protecting the natural resources of water, soil and forest, thus following the "conservation-based rural development" guidelines of the World Conservation Strategy (IUCN, 1980). Forestry industry and World Bank spokes- men, however, assert that natural forest management (that would conserve forest genetic resources) is economically "impossible" (Gregersen, 1981; Long and John- son, 1981; Spears, 1981) despite Leslie's (1977) assertion that too little is known about tropical forests and their behavior under management to make such a decision. They claim that on most sites plantations and conversion forestry can filnction as well as natural forests to protect soil and water resources. Foresters acknowledge that the conservation of forest genetic resources is important, but they generally refer that responsibility to the state (Brewer, 1981; Long and John- son, 1981). Recently foresters have been urged to assume a new role in rural development, a role that integrates silviculture with agriculture development (Flores Rodas, 1981; Spears, 1981). In its new role, forestry is primarily envisioned as a way to bring jobs to the countryside. This development strategy is intended to improve rural conditions by 1) paying wages to those who harvest and process timber, and 2') contracting to pay wages or permit food production on company/state land in return for establishing trees in "social" or "departmental" taungya agroforestry systems (Adeyoju, 1976; Budowski, 1981; Spears, 1981). This strategy of con- verting peasants into a rural labor force can, however, create new problems (e.g., Grossman, 1981; Gudeman, 1978; Segerstrom, 1976; Taussig, 1978; Wasser- strom, 1977, 1978). If forestry projects are to succeed at improving the quality of rural life, they must be coupled with efforts to protect the peasant/laborer's subsistence base and the integrity of his community. Those efforts do not nec- essarily require development of reliable, federally-backed social security, unem- ployment benefits, and company towns ("forest villages" -Segerstrom, 1976); rather, use could be made of an existing indigenous resource: small farms in closely integrated communities. Taussig (1978) demonstrates that peasant and capitalistic agriculture can have a symbiotic relationship if the potential for exploitation (intentional or unintentional) of the peasant labor force is controlled. Tropical forestry development efforts not only operate in different types of forests than does forestry in temperate zone industrialized countries, they operate in a different social milieu. Given this context, forestry could play a different, complementary role in rural development by developing and improving peasant- managed forest plots to modernize small farms. This type of forestry would

This content downloaded from 129.170.195.146 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:17:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 1984] ALCORN:HUASTEC-MANAGED FORESTS 391 integratefood and tree production in a way differentfrom scaled-downversions of corporate or state-dictated agroforestry;it would be built upon traditional silviculturalsystems that use naturalforest managementtechniques "impossible" for commercial forestry enterprises;and it would help preserve the indigenous forms of social security provided by peasant communities (e.g., Scott, 1976). It would work with peasants as peasantsinstead of transformingthem into laborers. It would utilize the ecologicalwisdom of traditionalagriculture instead of imposing temperatezone patternsonto the tropics,and it would utilize the myriadof tropical tree-borne and perennial crops. (In the tropics, unlike in the temperate zone, perennial plants and trees bear a significant part of the agriculturalproduce. Maintenanceof these crops is generallyless capital- and labor-intensivein com- parisonwith annuals,yet development programshave promotedthe replacement of perennials with annuals [e.g., Taussig, 1978].) Managed forest plots on the "moder" small farm would also function to protect genetic diversity. And their inclusion on the moder small farm would contributeto the continued viability of peasant-runagricultural operations because such managed forest plots could function to integratethe production of commercial and subsistencegoods. In the face of the problems createdby the spreadof capitalisticagriculture into communities evolved around subsistence agriculture(e.g., Frankel, 1971; Gude- man, 1978; Taussig, 1978), some investigators(e.g., Grossman, 1981) imply that commercial agriculturemust be kept out of traditional subsistence agriculture systems (an attitude that often strikes Third World dwellers as paternalistic),but others (e.g., Grandstaff, 1978) recognize that traditional agriculturalistsshould not be refused the benefits of participationin the "moder world." If continued direct productionof basic household needs is included as an integralgoal of small farm "modernization"projects, many of the detrimental effects of agricultural commercialization(e.g., worsenedinequality of food distribution-George, 1977; Lappeand Collins, 1978) can be prevented(Baer, 1983; Fleuretand Fleuret, 1983; Grandstaff,1978). To achieve ruraldevelopment without destroyingvaluable resourcesand without transformingpeasant families into laborersdependent on jobs for their subsistence (laborerswho, upon losing land and satisfactoryemployment, form the growingjobless class on Third World city edges), policy makers need to inform more fully their "top-down" policies with knowledge of the "bottom" and "external" sectors. First they must have a knowledge of peasant needs as they are perceived by peasants, the resources available to peasants, and the means to identify new needs as they evolve underthe processof development. Second, they need a commitment to addressingpeasant needs: appropriatetechnology, subsistence and income, productionof items importantfor their welfare(e.g., food and water well-drilling equipment, not soft drinks and televisions), and protection from those intent on exploiting peasants as cheap sources of labor or displacing them from their land. Third, policy makersmust understandthe world economic system and how its networksas well as those of local politico-economicinstitutions can affectthe outcome of local development projects.Fourth, policy makersneed a knowledge of their natural resources, and, fifth, they must be committed to preservingthose resourcesthrough conservative utilization and protection. The resourcesrecognized must include not only the sort noted by developed countries (primarily oil, gas, and minerals) but especially those relevant to the nation's

This content downloaded from 129.170.195.146 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:17:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 392 ECONOMICBOTANY [VOL. 38 peasant population-including essentials like firewood resources, surface water resources, soil, and medicinal plants (Anonymous, 1978). Sixth, policy makers must be conscious of how the dominant culture's status values can foil the ac- ceptanceof locally appropriateagroecosystems (e.g., the high statusof cattle ranch- ing and large mechanized farms, and the low status accorded wild food consumption and firewood use in many parts of the world) and make active efforts to change those biases. Finally, policy makers at the top levels of government must understandthe complexities of resource managementdecision-making as they are manifestednot only at the top levels of governmentand industry(Brewer, 1981; Gregersen, 1981), but also at the local levels of government and at the peasant "end-user's"level-levels where decisions are made about how the policies passed down from the top are actually implemented. Ethnobotanistsand economic botanists can't solve social or politico-economic problems associated with development goals but they can provide critically im- portantinformation for policy makers.Economic botanists are uniquelyqualified to identify and develop "new" economic plants appropriatefor integrationinto sustained-yieldagroecosystems. Economic botanists and ethnobotanistsalso identify geneticresources needing protection. Their participationis especiallyvaluable in national efforts to characterizethe variation and origins of the many tropical plants whose products are marketedregionally but rarelyenter world commerce (e.g., in Mexico, programsat InstitutoNacional de Investigacionessobre Recursos Bi6ticos and the Unidad de Investigacionessobre Recursos Geneticos Vegetales at the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico). Such resourcesare of little concern to the commercial-cropgene banks maintained by industrialized,temperate zone countries but of vital interest to nations concerned with creating indigenouspaths of agriculturaldevelopment that freethem from havingno choice but to follow foreignadvice (derivedfrom experiencesunder the social and natural conditions of industrialized,temperate zone countries)and develop export agriculture for foreign interests if they wish to improve agriculturalproduction. In these roles, economic botanists and ethnobotanistshave made and will continue to make important contributions to development. It is less widely recognized, however, that local ethnobotanicaldata are particularlyvaluable to policy makers if they include information about where the resource is available in existing agroecosystems,the sort of management practices used (if any) to maintain its presence, and the reasoning that informs management. Because ethnobotanists work at the "interfacebetween human societies and their environment" that is agriculture(Dahlberg, 1979), they are especiallyqualified to investigateindigenous agroecosystemsto document local crops, to find whereand why naturalvegetation persists, and to determine if elements of natural vegetation persist because of limited technology, local topography,labor requirements,indigenous conservation rules, pest-protectionbeliefs, logistical considerations,perceived needs (Al- corn, 198 lb), etc., or simply serendipity. Peasants play an active role in agriculturaldevelopment and genetic resource conservation,but that role and its potentialgo largelyunappreciated. Policy makers tend to view peasants as an inert population upon whom their own plans are imposed and neglect to note how peasantsrespond to and direct the development resultingfrom those plans. The internationalforestry industry tends to view the land and resourcerights of people living in areas conceded to timber companies

This content downloaded from 129.170.195.146 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:17:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 1984] ALCORN:HUASTEC-MANAGED FORESTS 393 as an inconvenience, a "challenge"hampering corporate profits (Adeyoju, 1976; Long and Johnson, 1981). And while peasants are responsible for maintaining major in situ repositoriesof crop germplasm-repositories upon which our gene banks and improved crops have been built (Oldfield, 1984; Wilkes, 1983), many biologists and conservationists perceive peasants as adversaries;small farmers have been designated"the most importantfactor in conversion of tropical moist forests"(Myers, 1980). In their zeal to protect virgin forest, biologists have failed to consider options for the vegetation not protected in reserves, the vegetation workedby peasants who live in its midst. While establishmentof national forest reservesis a criticalstep towardwild genetic resourceconservation (IUCN, 1980), forestpatches integrated into agroecosystemson a regionalor nationalscale would provide an additional haven for many wild species. Managedforest plots would not replace forest reserves but they would contribute to the success of forest reservesby providingan alternatesource from which peasantscould harvestuseful plants (Denevan, 1981).

SOCIAL AND NATURAL SETTING OF HUASTEC-MANAGED FORESTS In this paperI will describebriefly the forest managementsystem of the Huastec Indians of northeasternMexico as a specific example of a traditional peasant silviculturalsystem amenableto developmentworldwide. This informationis the result of ethnobotanical research on agriculturedecision-making and plant use carried out among the Huastec for 15 months between 1978 and 1983. Details of methodology can be found in Alcorn (1984). While peasants are a very het- erogeneous group (Harriss, 1982), the Huastec share many characteristicswith other peasantsin the moist tropical regions of the world (Hunt, 1979; Roseberry, 1976; Scott, 1976). The household is the unit of production and consumption, and agriculturaldecisions reflectconcern for spreadingrisks in orderto maintain a margin of safety. In addition to producing agriculturalcrops for their own subsistence, the Huastec also produce a surplus product which is appropriated into a largereconomic system. And, as in many peasantsocieties, wage labor also contributesto household income. The Huastec live at altitudes from 50-500 m on the eastern slope of the Sierra MadreOriental in northeasternMexico, primarilyin southeasternSan Luis Potosi and northernVeracruz states. The particularspecies that are integratedinto Huas- tec-managedforest plots are dependent upon the region's history and upon the local naturaland politico-economicenvironment. Although agricultural fields and secondaryvegetation dominate the area today, tropical moist forest (bosquetrop- ical perennifolio) once covered most of the region (Rzedowski, 1966, 1978). Brosimum alicastrumSw. (ramon) is the dominant species of Huastecanforests. Burserasimaruba (L.) Sarg., Carpodipteraameliae Lundell, Ceibapentandra (L.) Gaertn.(kapok, ceiba), Celtis monoicaHemsl., Dendropanaxarboreus (L.) Decne. & Planch., Diospyros digyna Jacq. (black persimmon), several species of Ficus, Garcianutans Rohr., Heliocarpusdonnell-smithii Rose, Manilkaraachras (Mill.) Fosberg (chicle, sapodilla, sapote), Mastichodendroncapiri (A.D.C.) Cronq. var. tempisque,Pithecellobium arboreum (L.) Urban, Pouteria hypoglauca(Standley) Baehni, Protium copal (Schlecht. & Cham.) Engl. (copal), Spondias mombin L. (hog plum), Tabebuiarosea (Bertol.) DC., Trichilia havanensisJacq., and Zue- lania guidonia (S.) Britt. & Millsp. are among the other characteristicspecies

This content downloaded from 129.170.195.146 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:17:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 394 ECONOMICBOTANY [VOL. 38

(Rzedowski, 1966). All these trees have economic value for Huastec peasantsand are included in managed forest plots. Like many of the world's peasant households, the average Huastec household operatesa small plot of land-usually around6 ha. One household'splot is usually divided into swidden milpa-fallow cycled fields for the production of maize, sugarcanefields for the productionof marketableraw sugarby household cottage industry, a dooryardcomplex, gardens, and managed forest plots called te'lom. In one representativeHuastec farming community covering 400 ha, approxi- mately 1/2of the land was in milpa-fallowcycled lands, 1/4in sugarcane,and /4 in te'lom. Forest managementis integratedinto the total agriculturalenterprise of the Huastechousehold, and the te'lom's success as a peasantagricultural structure is dependent upon that integration.Details on the integrationof te'loms into the particularagroecosystem of the Huastecs can be found in Alcorn (1984). The Huastec term te'lom literally means "group of trees" (Fig. 1). Te'loms are located by choice on steep slopes and ridges where they prevent erosion, or as greenbelts along creeks where they create a pleasant shady place for bathing, washing clothes, and social recreationas well as protect the quality of the water supply.As a generalcategory, te'lom covers a wide varietyof agriculturalstructures that share the common attributeof containingtrees primarily.Unlike the orange groves that have replacednatural forests in many similar areas of easternMexico, a given te'lom is not uniform from border to border, nor is one te'lom identical to another. How has this structurebeen created?

HUASTEC FOREST MANAGEMENT It has been noted that information on traditional agriculturalpractices and indigenous ecological knowledge is important for the development of modern sustained-yieldagroecosystems (Glass and Thurston,1978; Gliessman et al., 1981; Posey, 1983; Vermeer, 1976). Yet, one of the most important lessons from traditional agriculturehas been overlooked: peasants view natural processes and elements of the natural flora as resourcesto be exploited, not simply as impedi- ments to agriculture(Alcorn, 1981a; Chaconand Gliessman, 1982;Gordon, 1982). In the te'lom, arboricultureand natural forest management are integrated to produce forest plots that commonly contain elements of primaryand secondary vegetation as well as introduced species. The amount of active intervention in naturalprocesses and the species presentin a particularte'lom vary accordingto topographical,historical, market-relatedand personal factors. Most te'lom resourcesare managedonly casually.Useful plantsthat arisenaturally are selectively allowed to mature to productive size. If a desired species does not, or cannot volunteer, or does not volunteer where it is desired, a person will plant or trans- plant it into the te'lom. Thus, the number of useful species in a te'lom increases slowly as some are planted or transplantedand others arise spontaneouslyand are spared. Unwanted plants irregularlyremoved include 1) plants that are seen as "weeds," i.e., those individuals that are thought to lower the production of neighboringresources, 2) tall trees that might be felled by high winds-thus en- dangeringother resources, and 3) unproductivefruit trees. The owner'sproduction priorities influence which species fall into the first category. Priorities may be differentin different parts of a te'lom. For example, some households manage certain sections for firewood, others for construction resources, and others for

This content downloaded from 129.170.195.146 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:17:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 1984] ALCORN:HUASTEC-MANAGED FORESTS 395

s-rL,! 4$¶ s.. '~~~~~~~~~' -~ r-r~);;'~fF '-= -

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..,.· ·u ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~,,*., - .tr '" ~'" ,~::~~~~~~JC·T~~~...... ,~.jC ~. ..,, , ah. . ?q."~:. --- -~ - . 'iw ... ~~·i* . ·~~~,'· ;, ··6, '.. · * -- , . . 4 --~,.

Fig. 1-2. Fig. 1. A typical, casually managed te'lom in San Antonio municipio, San Luis Potosi. Coffee, mangoes, and avocados are scattered amidst elements of natural vegetation that provide food, medicine, fuel, construction materials, and utilitarian resources for the Huastec peasant household. Fig. 2. A typical te'lom managed more intensively for coffee production in Aquism6n municipio, San Luis Potosi. Native Chamaedorea elegans (parlor palm) has been protected and planted here for its leaves, which can be sold for local use and for its seeds purchased by merchants. Spared native trees shade the coffee. Brosimum alicastrum (ram6n), believed by Huastec to be the "maize" of their ancestors, is visible to the right. Thousands of uncollected ram6n seeds lie scattered among the dry leaves on the floor of this te'lom. An extended drought has left coffee (to the left) wilted and many other species leafless.

This content downloaded from 129.170.195.146 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:17:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 396 ECONOMICBOTANY [VOL. 38 coffee production.In each of these sections, however, other species are tolerated. An avocado zone, for example, is not a clean orchardof evenly-spacedavocado trees; it is a zone containing an array of species but having a high concentration of avocado trees. Weeding is not usually carriedout continuouslyand rigorously. "Useless" plants and "weeds" (plants that might be weeded out if weeding were done really rigorously)are commonly a part of the te'lom; their presence does not worrythe owner.If the owneris seriouslyinterested in commercialproduction, however, weeding is done more regularly-once or twice a year.

HUASTEC FOREST PRODUCTS Typically, there are over 300 species found in a te'lom plot. A complete list of te'lom species,their Huastecuses, annotationsof publishedaccounts of the species' uses elsewhere,as well as details on te'lom establishmentand maintenancehave been published in Spanish (Alcorn, 1983). Furtherinformation on specific plant uses can be found in Alcor (1984). A dictionaryof Huastec plant names is also available (Alcorn and HernandezV., 1983). Thirty-threespecies found in the te'lom are used as constructionresources. The leaves of Licaria capitata (Schlecht. & Cham.) Kostermans,Alcorn 2873, TEX, provide a superior roofing material. House walls are made from a number of species but most frequentlyfrom the native bamboo, Guaduaaculeata Rupr. ex Fourn., Alcorn2639, TEX, which is planted and protectedin te'loms. The te'lom treesmost often used as housepostresources are Diphysarobinoides Benth., Alcorn 1810, TEX, Piscidia piscipula (L.) Sarg.,Alcorn 2219, TEX, Cordiaalliodora (R. & P.) Oken, Alcorn2514, TEX, and Harpalycearborescens A. Gray,Alcorn 1963, TEX. The species used most commonly for house beams are Chrysophyllum mexicanum Brandegee,Alcorn 2183, TEX, Cupania dentata DC., Alcorn 2526, TEX, and Zuelaniaguidonia, Alcorn 2952, TEX. The bignoniaceousvines Cydista potosina (K. Schum. & Loes.) Loes., Alcorn 3199, TEX, and Melloa quadrivalvis (Jacq.) A. Gentry, Alcorn 2928. TEX, are commonly used for lashing, and the jackraftersof the traditional round roof are made from another te'lom vine- Petastoma ocositense(Donn. Smith) Kraenzl.,Alcorn 3350, TEX. The construction materials produced in the te'lom are both used by the household and sold to neighborsand townspeople. There are 65 species in the te'lom used for utilitarianpurposes in and around the farmstead.Firewood scavengedfrom dead wood and culled trees in the te'lom is used in the hearth and in the cottage industry of sugar manufacture.Te'lom- producedfirewood is also sold to townspeople. (Firewoodharvesting pressure on the te'lom is relatively light because the major portion of Huastec firewood is harvested from swidden cornfield-fallowcycled fields.) In addition, particular te'lom species have utilitarianuses. Basketsare made from Heteropterisbeechey- ana Juss., Alcorn2216, TEX, Smilax aristolochiifoliaMill. (Mexicansarsaparilla), Alcorn2751, TEX, and Tetrapterisschiedeana Cham. & Schlecht., Alcorn 2185, TEX. Eupatorium albicaule Sch. Bip. ex Klatt, Alcorn 3034, TEX, Jacobinia spicigera Bailey, Alcorn 2640, TEX, and Mucuna argophyllaStandley, Alcorn 3346, TEX, are used for dyes. Numerous species are used for household and farmsteadtools. For example, mortarsare made from the trunksof Carpodiptera ameliae, Alcorn 1667, TEX, and Enterolobiumcyclocarpum (Jacq.) Griseb. (ear-

This content downloaded from 129.170.195.146 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:17:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 1984] ALCORN:HUASTEC-MANAGED FORESTS 397

pod tree), Alcorn 2512, TEX; scoops are made from the wood of Bombax ellip- ticum HBK., Alcorn 3127, TEX; tool handles are made from Ehretia anacua (Berl.) I. M. Johnst. (sugarberry), Alcorn 2581, TEX; and loom parts are made from Chioacocca alba (L.) Hitchc., Alcorn 1652, TEX, Manilkara achras (chicle), Alcorn 1965, TEX, and Wimmeria concolor Schlecht. & Cham., Alcorn 2355, TEX. The flexible limbs of Bauhinia mexicana Vog., Alcorn 1679, TEX, and Eugenia capuli Schlecht. & Cham., Alcorn 1943, TEX, are used for making traps. Pithecelobium dulce (Roxb.) Benth., Alcorn 2772, TEX, is used for tanning hides. Fish poisons are extracted from Diospyros digyna, Alcorn 2522, TEX, Salmea scandens (L.) DC., Alcorn 2579, TEX, and Sapium sp., Alcorn 2938, TEX; animal poisons are made from Ibervillea sp., Alcorn 3348, TEX, and Rourea glabra HBK., Alcorn 2763, TEX. The fruits of Sapindus saponaria L. (southern soapberry), Alcorn 2509, TEX, are used as soap for washing clothes. House furnishings are made from a number of species including Cedrela odorata L. (tropical cedar), Alcorn 3295, TEX, Harpalyce arborescens, Melloa quadrivalvis, and Piscidia piscipula. Other species are used in making musical instruments; for example, Garcia nutans, Alcorn 3203, TEX, is used for making drums, and the latex of Castilla elastica Sesse (hule), Alcorn 3003, TEX, is employed to cover drum beaters. Some of these utilitarian plants are of minor commercial value. The resin of Protium copal, Alcorn 2602, TEX, is extracted and used in religious ceremonies as copal incense in many parts of Mesoamerica, and in some areas Huastec farmers are involved in small scale copal production and hence manage their te'loms for copal. Bursera simaruba, Alcorn 2945, TEX, locally used for firewood and other general purposes, is occasionally cut by outside contractors who purchase rights from the te'lom owner. Commercially valuable Cedrela odorata (tropical cedar, Spanish cedar) is planted and protected in te'loms for local use in furniture and house construction. One half of the medicinal plants used by the Huastec can be found in the te'lom (221 species). Many of the species used medicinally have other uses as well. Some, like Ruellia brittoniana Leonard, Alcorn 2051, TEX, used for treating headaches and fever, and Euphorbia lancifolia Schlecht., Alcorn 2610, TEX, used for treating insufficient milk production, sores and aches, are found growing in creekside greenbelts. Other te'lom medicinals (followed by some of the conditions they are used to treat) include Cedrela odorata (cough, vertigo, gastrointestinal ailments, wounds, edema), Chlorophora tinctoria (L.) Gaud. (fustic), Alcorn 1846, TEX (fever, kidney pain, cough, traumatic injuries), Dendropanax arboreus, Alcorn 2771, TEX (colds, malaise, aches), Ficus padifolia HBK., Alcorn 1837, TEX (traumatic injuries, sores, dysentery, colds), Heliocarpus donnell-smithii, Alcorn 2510, TEX (childbirth, gastrointestinal pain, wounds), Rivina humilis L. (rouge plant), Alcorn 1542, TEX (intestinal parasites, snakebite, sores, fever), Tabebuia rosea, Alcorn 2638, TEX (wounds, sores, malaise, uterine/vaginal cancer), and Urechites andrieuxii Muell. Arg., Alcorn 3310, TEX (snakebite, skin fungus, wounds). None of these 221 species is sold commercially although many of them do have medicinal uses in other parts of their range. Domestic livestock are fed fruit and leaves from the te'lom, and animals are tied in certain areas of the te'lom during the hot part of the day. Thus, the te'lom plays a role in livestock production as well.

This content downloaded from 129.170.195.146 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:17:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 398 ECONOMICBOTANY [VOL. 38

At the edges of the te'lom, or in small gaps, manioc (Manihot esculenta Crantz.), malanga (Xanthosoma violaceum Schott), vanilla (Vanilla planifolia Andrews), nopal (Nopalea cf: cochenillifera [L.] Salm.-Dyck, Opuntia spp.), colorin (Ery- thrina americana Mill.), and bananas (Musa x paradisiaca L.) are occasionally planted. But in the te'lom itself, there are 81 other food-producing plants. Nine species produce leaves or flowers that are prepared as greens. Most, like the corn- flavored Fernaldia pandurata (DC.) Woodson, Alcorn 3120, TEX, are only used for home consumption, but the leaves of one, coriander-flavored Peperomia cf maculosa (L.) Hook., Alcorn 1723, TEX, are sold in local markets. The seeds of Enterolobium cyclocarpum (earpod tree) are harvested and used for making a coffee-like beverage or for stuffing a tortilla-like bread called a bocole. Many of the food-producing species yield small snack fruits; for example, Bromelia karatas L., Alcorn 3118, TEX, fruits are eaten and used to make pulque. The small fruits of Acrocomia mexicana Karwinsky (coyal), Alcorn 3129, TEX, Chlorophora tinctoria (fustic), Ehretia anacua, Eugenia oerstedeana Berg., Alcorn 2576, TEX, Parathesis serrulata (Sw.) Mez., Alcorn 1673, TEX, Spondias mombin (hog plum), Alcorn 2729, TEX, and 36 other te'lom species are commonly eaten as snack foods. Other te'lom species produce larger fleshy fruits that are not only consumed by the producers but also sold in the market (Fig. 3); for example, Hylocereus undatus (Haw.) Britt. & Rose, Alcorn 3358, TEX, produces the very tasty and marketable pitaya. Other native American fruits produced in the te'lom for home consumption and for sale include ciruelas (Spondias purpurea L.), sapotes (Man- ilkara achras), mameys (Pouteria mammosa [L.] Cronq.), black persimmons (Diospyros digyna), avocados (Persea americana Mill., P. americana var. drymifolia [Schlecht. & Cham.] Blake), guavas (Psidium guajava L.), anonas (Annona reticulata L.), and the fruits of Mastichodendron capiri var. tempisque, Alcorn 2054, TEX, and Pouteria campechiana (Kunth.) Baehni, Alcorn 1843, TEX. In addition to these native species, the Old World favorites, mangoes (Mangifera indica L.) and oranges (Citrus sinensis [L.] Osbeck.) have been integrated into the te'lom. Te'lom-produced foods contribute critical vitamins, minerals, fats and protein to a tortilla-based diet. Te'loms thus contribute to the "food self-suffi- ciency" (Lappe and Collins, 1978) so important for preventing nutritional defi- ciencies commonly created by the inequitable distribution of food in developing countries (George, 1977). The nutritionally-valuable avocados (Persea americana, Persea americana var. drymifolia), mameys (Pouteria mammosa), mangoes (Man- gifera indica), ram6ns (Brosimum alicastrum, Alcorn 2376, TEX) and other fruits that rot on te'lom floors could also contribute to an improved diet in nearby arid parts of Mexico, but these fruits remain of limited commercial value because the marketing and distribution infrastructure is undeveloped. The most important commercial product of the Huastec te'lom is another Old World fruit-coffee (Coffea arabica L.). Huastec te'loms on the steep slopes of the Sierra Madre Oriental of Aquismon municipio, San Luis Potosi, are primarily managed for commercial coffee production. Regularly-spaced coffee bushes are shaded by a canopy of native trees. Noncoffee vegetation is weeded from the te'lom floor with a machete once a year. Spared trees in the canopy provide food and construction resources. A few other commercially-valuable plants are also being cultivated in these coffee finca te'loms. In response to the market demand

This content downloaded from 129.170.195.146 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:17:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 1984] ALCORN:HUASTEC-MANAGED FORESTS 399

Fig. 3. Fruits are often harvested for home consumption or market sale while passing through the te'lom on the way home. After gathering some fruits of Manilkara achras (sapotes), this Huastec housewife paused in an abandoned house-site gap to collect cuttings of Plumeria rubra L., frangipani, Alcorn 2999, TEX, for planting in her dooryard.

This content downloaded from 129.170.195.146 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:17:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 400 ECONOMICBOTANY [VOL. 38 for its seeds and leaves, farmersare protectingand propagatingnative Chamae- dorea elegans Mart. (parlorpalm), Alcorn 1832, TEX (Fig. 2). Locally the leaves are purchased for festival and altar decoration. Traveling buyers purchase the seeds, apparentlyto propagateplants for nurseryand florist use. In foothill municipiosperiodic low temperaturesmake commercialcoffee production more risky. Here te'loms are more natural(Fig. 1); volunteercoffee trees are scatteredlike other useful trees. An understoryof saplings and small trees is common, as is a layer of herbs and seedlings on the te'lom floor. These foothill te'loms are ideally suited for the managementof severalpotentially, commercially valuablespecies. One of these is Garcianutans, a tree from whose seeds is extracted a varnish oil reportedlysuperior to tung oil (Uphof, 1968). The Huastec do not presentlyprotect the tree-it is occasionally used for drum making, and the poi- sonous seeds are used as a sort of local Antabuse (disulfiram)to discourageal- coholics from consuming liquor. Another tree well suited for commercial production in te'loms is the natural dominant of Huastecan forests-the ramon, Brosimum alicastrum. The Mexican National Institute for the Investigation of Biological Resources (Instituto Nacional de Investigacionessobre Recursos Bio- ticos) has intensively studied the potential of this species. Brosimum alicastrum has multipleuses-its leaves areexcellent forage for livestock, and its high-yielding nutritious seeds show great promise for livestock feed and human consumption (Petersand Pardo-Tejeda,1982). Locally, the fruit and leaves are fed to livestock on the farmstead,the sparse but tasty flesh of the fruits is consumed as a snack and the dried seeds are occasionally included in the diet.

APPLICATIONS TO PEASANT AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT Agroforestryhas received increasingattention from geographers,foresters, and ecologists. Many agroforestrystructures and methods have been proposed.While monocrop plantation-typeforestry is still promoted (e.g., Guess, 1979; Mergen, 1981; UNESCO, 1978), most new proposalsare for highly-structured,multicrop systems designed for sequential harvest. Traditionalagroforesty methods incor- porate successional forest regrowthinto their enriched fallows (e.g., Denevan et al., 1984). Moder agroforestrysystems, however, are usually based on swidden patternsin which the fallow stage of naturalsecondary vegetation is replacedby tree or shrub crops destined to be removed to reinitiatethe relatively short agroforestry cycle (de las Salas, 1979; Hart, 1980; Huguet, 1978; Spurgeon, 1980; UNESCO, 1978; Weaver, 1979). The long-term effects of such rotation on soils have not been carefully investigated (Nwoboshi, 1981), but it is clear that this type of agroforestrydoes not function to protect naturalforest resources. The te'lom differs in that while it can be initiated in a milpa fallow and parts of it are occasionallyslashed and burnedto create swiddens,the te'lom is usually a more permanent forest structure. The types of utilization and development commonly suggestedfor forest ecosystems (UNESCO, 1978) reflectthe forestuses of industrializedTemperate Zone nations:hunting for sport,lumbering, and cattle grazing.Plantation forestry and conversion plantingto produce monocroppedor mixed stands of a few species are seen as the forestry of choice in areas where forests are to be used by humans. The te'lom, on the other hand, includes a great diversity of species, and it is managed in a way that causes much less intensive

This content downloaded from 129.170.195.146 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:17:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 1984] ALCORN:HUASTEC-MANAGED FORESTS 401 disturbanceof naturalcommunities. It changeswhat has been seen as the major problem of tropical silviculture, "understandingand manipulatingsuccessional vegetation"(Ewel, 1980), into a challengeto use elements of the naturalflora and the natural successional process as part of the silviculturalsystem. The personal attention to individual plants in te'lom managementtakes advantageof the peasant family's participationas "free" labor (something to which large scale silvi- culturaloperations don't have access) and independentdecision-making by each worker (something that the decision-makingstructure of large scale silvicultural operationsdoes not permit). The patchy distributionof te'loms in the mosaic of Huastec-managedagricultural plots probably also contributes to the ecological stability of the entire Huastec agroecosystem(Janzen, 1973). The te'lom is a flexible agriculturalstructure. Over the years, differentcrops have been integrated into the te'lom system but, despite bad years for certain tree-bornecrops and unpredictablemarket fluctuations,it has continued to provide fuel, food, and other resourcesfor the Huastec family. For the peasant, the advantagesof a te'lom-like system include 1) its low labor requirements-making it a viable complement to other more labor-intensiveagricultural structures and/ or allowing more free time for participationin wage labor, 2) the production of cash for the purchaseof manufacturedgoods, 3) the productionof productsdirectly useful in the household's subsistence, and 4) risk-spreadingdiversity important for the success of peasant agriculture.It is an agriculturalstructure that provides the advantagesof commercial agriculturefor the state and the individual; it can generateincome that can potentiallyimprove standardsof living while producing products of value to the national economy. But because this system produces a variety of products directly useful for the producerunlike many forms of commercial agriculture,it also contributes to maintaining peasants' subsistence at safety levels (Scott, 1976) and helps to preventthe deteriorationin the nutritional quality of diets that often accompanies a shift to commercial agriculture(e.g., Dewey, 1981; Fleuretand Fleuret, 1980). In addition, the te'lom system provides a critically-neededmeasure of protection for renewablenatural forest resources (Oldfield, 1981), and this makes it an especially attractivesystem for use in areas where resettlement programs are moving permanent communities of peasants into forested areas, in areas where forest is freely open for colonization, or in areas where some form of te'lom-like forest managementis alreadypracticed. The te'lom is not designed to provide the sole means of supportfor its owner; it does not approachthe short-termproductivity of a sugarcanefield, for example. Rather the te'lom is meant to complement other agriculturalstructures of the farmstead.The te'lom is not managedprimarily for maximum cash profitsor for its value as a source of employment; the goal of its managementis to maintain the peasant family's access to a diverse assemblage of "free" subsistencegoods and a supplementalsource of income. A modernized agroecosystemincluding a te'lom-like structurewould also include permanentand/or short fallow commercial agriculturefields (possibly including other forms of silviculture)from which the peasant'smain farm-derivedincome would come. (While it was once thought that all tropical forest soils could not supportsustained agriculturaluse, Sanchez et al. [1982] have shown that at least some soils can be put under continuous cultivation.) Some members of peasant families operatingsuch modernizedagro- ecosystemswould also be able to take advantageof local wage labor opportunities.

This content downloaded from 129.170.195.146 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:17:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 402 ECONOMICBOTANY [VOL. 38

If each individual farmstead is to maintain a managed forest patch, then a minimal size for land holdings must be established and enforced. Alternatively, largercommunally-owned forests could also be set aside. In the Huastec system, both communal and individually-ownedte'loms exist. As familiesgrow, however, lands are subdivided, and as individual holdings shrink, te'loms are being cut down-unless the family opts to depend more heavily on income from outside jobs. The Huastec te'lom system provides a basic plan of forest managementthat could be followed anywherein the world: the integrationof introducedcommer- cially-valuablespecies and native forest species in peasant-managedforest plots. A te'lom-like plot might seem messy or unprofitableto investigatorsaccustomed to the scale and decision-makingpriorities of commercialforestry or commercial agriculture,but its establishment and maintenanceare compatible with peasant needs and peasantdecision-making priorities (Barlett, 1980; Hunt, 1979). Despite the fact that they are often overlooked by investigators, natural forest product exploitation and forest managementhave been recordedto be part of traditional subsistence systems in many parts of the world (e.g., Conklin, 1980; Denevan et al., 1984; Floyd, 1969; Gordon, 1982; Kundstadter, 1978; Nations and Nigh, 1980; Parker et al., 1983; Rees, 1971; Sorensen, 1976; Taussig, 1978; Wilken, 1977; Yen, 1974). Indigenous silvicultural systems have rarely been studied by development planners, foresters or ecologists, however. In order to develop a moder, locally adapted te'lom-like system for inclusion in development plans, one would need informationabout 1) local forestspecies (theiruses, value, ecology, etc. -information gatheredfrom local people, research,and literaturereview), 2) present and past exploitation and management of local forests, 3) nonnative commercially-valuablehigh-yield tree crops adaptableto local conditions, 4) the structureand managementof the total extant agroecosystemincluding the labor and land demands of crops currentlygrown by local farmersor colonists (around which a te'lom-like forest plot would have to be worked), 5) local land tenure, and 6) existing and potential markets.Natural forest managementwould have to be recognized as "land use" by those enforcing land reform laws; the present attitude toward forested and fallowed lands is contributingto the spread of pas- tured lands (Dewalt, 1982). The steps necessaryto create transportation,storage and processing facilities (or adapt existing networks to tree/tree-bornecrops) would also have to be explored as would development of institutional structures and programs necessary to encourage the adaptation of the new crops/system. This is no small order. Given the social and financialfailures of many expensive development ventures and the imminent threatsof tropicaldeforestation (Myers, 1980; Bowonder, 1983), however, those charged with agriculturaldevelopment in the Third World should move to develop and encourage the adaptation of ecologically-diverseagroecosystems of "modular production units" (Gliessman et al., 1981) at the farmsteador community level (Grandstaff,1978; Toledo et al., 1976), units that include forestedplots, thus includingforests and useful wild plants as an integralpart of modern agriculture. While ethnobotanistshave participatedin germplasmbanks and conservancy gardens, policy makers are generally unaware of the full relevance of ethnobotanical data for agriculturaldevelopment. The burdenis upon us. We must focus and translateour ethnobotanicaldata into information that addressesthe prob-

This content downloaded from 129.170.195.146 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:17:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 1984] ALCORN:HUASTEC-MANAGED FORESTS 403 lems facing policy makers (Vadya, 1983). We must collect our data with an eye not only to preservingthem (as in a museum) but to perceiving their relevance for development so that they may be returnedto those from whom they were collected (Barrera,1979; CaballeroN., 1979; Gomez-Pompa, 1982).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am gratefulto the people of Teenek Tsabaalfor sharingtheir botanicalknowledge with me. I am especially indebted to Cfndido HernandezVidales, Jose Santos Cruz, and FranciscaVidales for teachingme about te'loms. I also wish to thank the people of the United States for supportingthe American Peace Corps, which, despite its many shortcomings,gave me the opportunityas a P.C. Volunteerto experiencethe problemsof ThirdWorld rural development firsthand in 1970-1972. The directionof my researchhas been influencedby the many farm families with whom I have interacted in India, Mexico and Peru. Discussions with MarshallAlcorn, James Brow, W. M. Denevan, Arturo G6mez-Pompa,Margery Oldfield, and BerylSimpson contributed much to the evolutionof this paper. I also appreciatethe suggestionsmade by GarrisonWilkes and an anonymousreviewer. Research on Huastecethnobotany has been supportedby a NationalScience Foundation Dissertation Improvement GrantDEB78-05968, a Social ScienceResearch Council International Doctoral Research Fellowship, an E. D. FarmerInternational Fellowship, a TinkerPostdoctoral Fellowship in MesoamericanEcology administeredby the Tulane University Centerfor Latin AmericanStudies, the University of Texas Instituteof LatinAmerican Studies, the Officeof GraduateStudies, and the InternationalStudent and Faculty ExchangeOffice. I thank the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologiaof Mexico for per- mission to collect plants and the Instituto Nacional de Investigacionessobre Recursos Bi6ticos in associationwith which this researchwas carriedout. An earlierversion of this paper was presented at the 24th Annual Meeting of the Society for Economic Botany in 1983. While gratefulfor the aid of those mentioned above, I alone accept responsibilityfor the contents of this paper.

LITERATURE CITED

Adeyoju, S. K. 1976. Land use and tenure in the tropics. Unasylva 28 (112-113): 26-41. Alcorn, J. B. 198 a. Huastecnoncrop resource management. Human Ecology9: 395-417. .1981b. Some factorsinfluencing botanical resource perception among the Huastec:Sugges- tions for futureethnobotanical inquiry. J. Ethnobiol. 1: 221-230. 1983. El te'lom Huasteco:Presente, pasado y futurode un sistema de silviculturaindigena. Bi6tica 8: 315-331. 1984. Huastec Mayan Ethnobotany.Univ. Texas Press, Austin. ,and C. HernandezV. 1983. Plants of the Huastecanregion of Mexico with an analysis of their Huastecnames. J. Mayan Ling. 4: 11-118. Anonymous. 1978. Drugpolicies and management:medicinal plants. WHO DocumentWHA31.33. World Health Organization,Geneva, Switzerland. Aspelin, P. L. 1975. External Articulation and Domestic Production: The Artifact Trade of the Mamainde of NorthwesternMato Grosso, Brazil. Unpubl. PhD. diss. Cornell Univ., Ithaca,NY. Baer, R. 1983. Response to Fleuretand Fleuret(1983). Cult. & Agric. 21: 19. Baker, D., E. Modiakgotla,D. Norman, J. Siebert, and M. Tjirongo. 1983. Helping the limited resourcefarmer through the farmingsystems approachto research.Cult. & Agric. 19: 1-8. Barlett,P. F. 1980. Adaptive strategiesin peasant agriculturalproduction. Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 9: 545-573. Barrera,A. 1979. La etnobotfnica. In Barrera,A., ed, La Etnobotfnica.INIREB, Xalapa. Bowonder,B. 1983. Forest depletion:Some policy options. ResourcesPolicy 1983: 206-224. Brewer,G. D. 1981. The State's responsibilitiesfor the protection and preservationof forestry resources.In Mergen,F., ed, Tropical Forests:Utilization and Conservation.Yale School of Forestry,New Haven. Budowski, G. 1981. The place of agro-forestryin managingtropical forests. In Mergen, F., ed, TropicalForests: Utilization and Conservation.Yale School of Forestry,New Haven, CT. CaballeroN., J. 1979. Perspectivaspara el quehaceretnobotfnica en Mexico. In Barrera,A., ed, La Etnobotanica.INIREB, Xalapa.

This content downloaded from 129.170.195.146 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:17:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 404 ECONOMICBOTANY [VOL. 38

Chac6n, J. C., and S. R. Gliessman. 1982. Use of the non-weed concept in traditionaltropical agroecosystemsof south-easternMexico. Agro-Ecosystems8: 1-11. Clarke, W. C. 1976. Maintenanceof agricultureand human habitats within the tropical forest ecosystem. Human Ecology4: 247-259. Conklin,H. C. 1980. EthnographicAtlas of Ifugao.Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT. Cox, G. W., and M. D. Atkins. 1979. AgriculturalEcology: An Analysis of WorldFood Production Systems.Freeman, San Francisco. Dahlberg,K. A. 1979. Beyond the Green Revolution. Plenum, New York. de las Salas, G., ed. 1979. Proceedings,Workshop: Agroforestry systems in LatinAmerica. CATIE, Turrialba,Costa Rica. Denevan, W. M. 1981. Swiddensand cattle versus forest: The imminent demise of the Amazon rain forest reexamined.Stud. Third WorldSocieties 13: 25-44. , J. M. Treacy,J. B. Alcor, C. Padoch, J. Denslow, and S. Flores Paitan. 1984. Indigenous agroforestryin the PeruvianAmazon: Bora Indian managementof swidden fallows. In Hem- ming, J., ed, Changein the Amazon Basin:Man's Impact on Forestsand Rivers. Univ. Man- chesterPress, Manchester,England. Dewalt, B. 1982. The big macroconnection: Population, grain, cattle in S. Honduras.Cult. & Agric. 14: 1-12. Dewey, K. G. 1981. Nutritionalconsequences of the transformationfrom subsistenceto commercial agriculturein Tabasco, Mexico. Human Ecology9: 151-187. Ewel,J. 1980. Tropicalsuccession: Manifold routes to maturity.Biotropica 12 (Supplement,Tropical Succession):2-7. Fleuret,P., and A. Fleuret. 1980. Nutrition, consumption,and agriculturalchange. Human Orga- nization 39: 250-260. , and . 1983. Socioeconomicdeterminants of child nutritionin Taita, Kenya:A call for discussion.Cult. & Agric. 19: 8, 16-22. FloresRodas, M. A. 1981. Forestryfor rural development--new approach. In Mergen,F., ed, Tropical Forests:Utilization and Conservation.Yale School of Forestry,New Haven, CT. Floyd, B. 1969. EasternNigeria. Praeger, New York. Frankel,F. 1971. India's Green Revolution:Economic Gains and Political Costs. PrincetonPress, Princeton,NJ. George,S. 1977. How the OtherHalf Dies: The Real Reasonsfor WorldHunger. Allanheld, Osmun, Montclair,NJ. Glass, E. H., and H. D. Thurston. 1978. Traditionaland modem crop protectionin perspective. BioScience28: 109-115. Gliessman, S. R., R. Garcia E., and M. Amador A. 1981. The ecologicalbasis for the application of traditionalagricultural technology in the managementof tropical agro-ecosystems.Agro- Ecosystems7: 173-185. Gomez-Pompa,A. 1982. La Etnobotfnicaen Mexico. Bi6tica 7: 151-161. , and F. Golley. 1980. Sintesis,conclusiones y recomendaciones:Seminario de Trabajosobre Estrategiasdel Uso del Suelo y sus Recursospor las CulturasMesoamericanas y su Aplicaci6n para Satisfacerlas DemandasActuales. Bi6tica 5: 43-51. Gordon, B. L. 1982. A PanamaForest and Shore. Boxwood Press, PacificGrove, CA. Grandstaff,T. 1978. The development of swidden agriculture(shifting cultivation). Developm. & Change 9: 547-579. Greenland,D. J. 1975. Bringingthe Green Revolution to the shiftingcultivator. Science 190: 841- 844. Gregersen,H. M. 1981. Environmentalconstraints versus economic gains in tropical forestry.In Mergen,F., ed, TropicalForests: Utilization and Conservation.Yale School of Forestry,New Haven, CT. Grossman,L. 1981. The culturalecology of economic development.Ann. Assoc. Amer. Geogr. 71: 220-236. Gudeman,S. 1978. The Demise of a Rural Economy:From Subsistenceto Capitalismin a Latin AmericanVillage. Routledge & KeganPaul, London, England. Guess, G. M. 1979. Pastureexpansion, forestry, and developmentcontradictions: The case of Costa Rica. Stud. Comp. Int. Developm. Spring 1979: 42-55.

This content downloaded from 129.170.195.146 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:17:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 1984] ALCORN:HUASTEC-MANAGED FORESTS 405

Harriss,J. 1982. Capitalismand PeasantFarming. Oxford Univ. Press, New Delhi. Hart, R. D. 1980. A naturalecosystem analog approach to the design of a successionalcrop system for tropicalforest environments.Biotropica 12 (Supplement,Tropical Succession): 73-82. Huguet,L. 1978. Symbiosis of agricultureand forestry.Unasylva 30: 25-29. Humphrey,C. R., and F. R. Buttel. 1982. Environment,Energy, and Society. Wadsworth,Bel- mont, MA. Hunt, D. 1979. Chayanov's model of peasant household resource allocation. J. Peasant Stud. 6: 247-285. IUCN-UNEP-WWF. 1980. WorldConservation Strategy: Living ResourcesConservation for Sus- tainableDevelopment. InternationalUnion for Conservationof Nature, Gland, Switzerland. Janzen,D. H. 1973. Tropicalagroecosystems. Science 182: 1212-1219. Kundstadter,P. 1978. Ecological modification and adaptation:An ethnobotanicalview of Lua' swiddenersin northwestThailand. In Ford, R. I., ed, The Nature and Statusof Ethnobotany, Anthropol.Pap. No. 67, Museum Anthropology,Univ. Michigan,Ann Arbor. Lappe,F. M., and J. Collins. 1978. Food First. Ballantine,New York. Leslie, A. 1977. Wherecontradictory theory and practiceco-exist. Unasylva 29 (115): 2-17. Long, A., and N. Johnson. 1981. Forest plantationsin Kalimantan,Indonesia. In Mergen,F., ed, TropicalForests: Utilization and Conservation.Yale School of Forestry,New Haven, CT. Mergen,F., ed. 1981. TropicalForests: Utilization and Conservation.Yale School of Forestry,New Haven, CT. Myers, N. 1980. Conversionof TropicalMoist Forests. National Academy of Sciences, Washing- ton, DC. Nations, J. D., and D. I. Komer. 1982. Indians, immigrantsand beef exports: Deforestationin CentralAmerica. Cult. Survival Quart.6: 8-12. , and R. B. Nigh. 1980. The evolutionarypotential of LacandonMaya sustained-yield tropical forest agriculture.J. Anthropol.Res. 36: 1-30. Nwoboshi, L. C. 1981. Soil productivityaspects of agri-silviculturein the West Africanrain forest zone. Agro-Ecosystems7: 263-270. Oldfield,M. L. 1981. Tropicaldeforestation and geneticresources conservation. Stud. Third World Societies 14: 277-345. 1984. The Valueof ConservingGenetic Resources. U.S. Gov. PrintingOff., Washington, DC. Parker,E., D. Posey, J. Frechione,and L. F. da Silva. 1983. Resourceexploitation in Amazonia: Ethnoecologicalexamples from four populations.Ann. CarnegieMus. 52: 163-203. Perelman,M. 1977. Farmingfor Profitin a HungryWorld. Allanheld, New York. Peters,C. M., and E. Pardo-Tejeda. 1982. Brosimumalicastrum (Moraceae): Uses and potentialin Mexico. Econ. Bot. 36: 166-175. Plucknett,D. L., and N. J. H. Smith. 1982. Agriculturalresearch and ThirdWorld food production. Science 217: 215-220. Posey, D. 1983. Indigenousecological knowledge and developmentof the Amazon. In Moran, E., ed, The Dilemma of AmazonianDevelopment. Westview, Boulder,CO. Rees, J. D. 1971. ForestUtilization by TarascanAgriculturalists in Michoacan.Ph.D. diss., U.C.L.A. University Microfilms,Ann Arbor, MI. Rhoades, R. E., and R. H. Booth. 1983. Interdisciplinaryteams in agriculturalresearch and development. Cult. & Agric. 20: 1-7. Roseberry,W. 1976. Rent, differentiationand the developmentof capitalismamong peasants. Amer. Anthropol.78: 45-58. Rzedowski,J. 1966. Vegetaci6ndel estado de San Luis Potosi. Actas Ci. Potosina 5: 1-191. 1978. Vegetaci6nde Mexico. Ed. Limusa, Mexico City. Sanchez, P. A., D. E. Bandy, J. H. Villachica, and J. J. Nicholaides. 1982. Amazon basin soils: Managementfor continuouscrop production.Science 216: 821-827. Scott, J. C. 1976. The Moral Economy of the Peasant.Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT. Segerstrom,G. 1976. Creatingwork and caring about workersin tropical forestry.Unasylva 28 (114): 2-9. Sharma,H. P. 1973. The Green Revolution in India: Preludeto a red one? In Gough, K., and H. P. Sharma,ed, Imperialismand Revolution in South Asia. MonthlyReview Press,New York. Sorensen,E. R. 1976. The Edge of the Forest. SmithsonianInstitution Press, Washington, DC.

This content downloaded from 129.170.195.146 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:17:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 406 ECONOMICBOTANY [VOL. 38

Spears,J. S. 1981. Small farmers-or the tropical forest ecosystem?A review of sustainableland use systems of tropicalforest areas. In Mergen,F., ed, TropicalForests: Utilization and Con- servation.Yale School of Forestry,New Haven, CT. Spurgeon,D. 1980. Agroforestry:A promising system of improved land managementfor Latin America.Interciencia 5: 176-178. Stavrakis,0. 1978. Ancient Maya agricultureand futuredevelopment. Cult. & Agric. 5: 1-8. Taussig, M. 1978. Peasant economics and the development of capitalistagriculture in the Cauca Valley, Colombia. Latin Amer. Perspectives5: 62-90. Toledo, V. M., A. Argueta,P. Rojas, C. Mapes,and J. Caballero. 1976. Uso multipledel ecosistema, estrategiasdel ecodesarrollo.Ci. Desarrollo 11: 33-39. UNESCO/UNEP/FAO. 1978. TropicalForest Ecosystems.UNESCO, Paris. Uphof, J. C. 1968. Dictionaryof Economic Plants. Verlagvon J. Cramer,New York. Vadya, A. P. 1983. Progressivecontextualization: Methods for researchin human ecology. Human Ecology 11:265-281. Vermeer, D. E. 1976. Food, farming, and the future:The role of traditionalagriculture in the developingareas of the world. Social Sci. Quart.57: 383-396. Wasserstrom,R. 1977. Land and labour in Central Chiapas:A regional analysis. Developm. & Change8: 441-463. 1978. Populationgrowth and economic developmentin Chiapas,1524-1975. HumanEcol- ogy 6: 127-143. Weaver,P. 1979. Agri-silviculturein tropicalAmerica. Unasylva 31: 2-12. Wilken, G. C. 1977. Integratingforest and small-scale farm systems in Middle America. Agro- Ecosystems3: 291-302. Wilkes, G. 1983. Currentstatus of crop plant germplasm.CRC CriticalReviews in Plant Sciences 1: 133-181. , and S. Wilkes. 1972. The Green Revolution. Environment14: 32-39. Yen, D. E. 1974. Arboriculturein the subsistenceof Santa Cruz, Solomon Islands.Econ. Bot. 28: 247-284.

Book Review

Environmental Mutagenesis, Carcinogenesis, and Plant Biology. Edited by Edward J. Kle- kowski, Jr. Vol. 1, 193 pp.; vol. 2, 196 pp. illus. Praeger, New York, 1982. Price not given.

This is a two-volume series containing 12 chapters, each by a different author. The majority of the chapters deal exclusively with terrestrial vascular plants, but some attention is given also to fungi and marine macrophytic algae. Volume 1 deals with human-health hazards posed by mutagenic compounds present in plants. Consideration is given to mutagenic compounds that are products of normal plant metabolism as well as those synthe- sized from environmental pollutants taken up by some plants. The second volume discusses biology of mutagenic changes within plants, and the features of plants favoring their utilization in bioassays designed to monitor the environment for mutagenic and carcinogenic pollutants. The books do an effective job of focusing attention on the importance of plants with regard to society's concern for human exposure to environmental mutagens, often times the cause of cancer. In general I believe the authors provide an excellent overview of the current status of this aspect of plant biology and point the direction for future research.

JOHN S. FLETCHER,UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA,NORMAN, OK 73019

This content downloaded from 129.170.195.146 on Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:17:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions