Conservation Ecology
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Copyright © 2004 by the author(s). Published here under licence by The Resilience Alliance. Garibaldi, A. and N. Turner. 2004. Cultural keystone species: implications for ecological conservation and restoration. Ecology and Society 9(3): 1. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art1 Insight Cultural Keystone Species: Implications for Ecological Conservation and Restoration Ann Garibaldi and Nancy Turner ABSTRACT. Ecologists have long recognized that some species, by virtue of the key roles they play in the overall structure and functioning of an ecosystem, are essential to its integrity; these are known as keystone species. Similarly, in human cultures everywhere, there are plants and animals that form the contextual underpinnings of a culture, as reflected in their fundamental roles in diet, as materials, or in medicine. In addition, these species often feature prominently in the language, ceremonies, and narratives of native peoples and can be considered cultural icons. Without these “cultural keystone species,” the societies they support would be completely different. An obvious example is western red-cedar (Thuja plicata) for Northwest Coast cultures of North America. Often prominent elements of local ecosystems, cultural keystone species may be used and harvested in large quantities and intensively managed for quality and productivity. Given that biological conservation and ecological restoration embody human cultures as crucial components, one approach that may improve success in overall conservation or restoration efforts is to recognize and focus on cultural keystone species. In this paper, we explore the concept of cultural keystone species, describe similarities to and differences from ecological keystone species, present examples from First Nations cultures of British Columbia, and discuss the application of this concept in ecological restoration and conservation initiatives. INTRODUCTION necessities of life. These are the species that become embedded in a people's cultural traditions and “People of the Deer,” “Town of the Wild Plums,” narratives, their ceremonies, dances, songs, and “People of the Wild Rice” ... all around the globe, discourse. These are also the species for which a humans identify themselves and each other by their people will have developed the most detailed names cultural and economic affiliations with particular and associated vocabulary, and the ones on which they species of plants and animals. The reliance of humans focus in their immediate activities and conversations. on other life-forms in their environments is unquestioned. However, although all life-forms in In this paper, we discuss these culturally salient some way influence human survival and the diversity species and propose to identify them as “cultural of species used in any given region is immense, some keystone species,” a metaphorical parallel with species have more direct relevance and recognition in ecological keystone species (see also R. Ellen, peoples' life ways and have developed a primary, unpublished manuscript; Nabhan and Carr 1994; G. overriding importance. These significant species play a Nabhan, L. Monti, and L. Classen, unpublished unique role in shaping and characterizing the identity manuscript). In keeping with the growing body of of the people who rely on them. research and thinking in which ecological systems and social systems are conceptually linked (cf. Cavalli- The species that play these special cultural roles vary Sforza and Feldman 1981, Folke et al. 1998, Fracchia widely from one region to another and from one and Lewontin 1999, Dove 2001, Berkes et al. 2003), culture to another. In general, however, the species we see a number of benefits to identifying and most closely associated with indigenous and local focusing on culturally prominent species in research peoples, wherever they reside, are the ones they on environmental, economic, and cultural change and depend upon most extensively to meet their needs for restructuring, as well as in ecological restoration and food, clothing, shelter, fuel, medicine, and other biodiversity conservation efforts. In developing this University of Victoria Ecology and Society 9(3): 1. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art1 concept, we first provide a characterization of the species should be designated as having a keystone role original concept of the ecological keystone species, in a community (Mills et al. 1993). According to including a brief discussion of some of the potential Power et al. (1996), among the obstacles to such a and perceived problems and shortcomings of the idea. determination are: We then elaborate on the inextricable linkages between ecological systems and cultural systems, and 1. cost. It is an expensive and detailed task to suggest how our cultural keystone concept might be gather sufficient data to determine if a species situated within the current theoretical approaches in plays a keystone role; the area of ethnobotany and ethnoecology. We also 2. controls. It is difficult to measure data from in explore the contributions of this concept in the situ experiments because of the many partnership between social science and natural science, variables, known and unknown, in the field; and more specifically between indigenous knowledge 3. time. Long-term studies are required to and Western knowledge, sometimes referred to as determine patterns in species behavior; integrative science (see University College of Cape 4. ethical constraints. Certain tests to determine Breton 2003). the extent of its influence on an ecosystem, e.g., removing a species from its environment, In the next section, we develop the cultural keystone may eliminate the very species or habitat that concept more fully, providing three examples of conservation biologists are trying to save; and cultural keystone species from our work with First 5. context dependency. A species may play a Nations in British Columbia. Finally, we discuss the keystone role in some parts of its range, at implications and applications of the concept of the specific times of the year, or under certain cultural keystone species for understanding conditions. Therefore, the determination of a environmental change and in ecological restoration species as keystone varies both temporally and and habitat conservation. spatially, and a strong understanding of the context specific interactions is required. CONCEPT OF THE ECOLOGICAL KEYSTONE SPECIES However, despite these problems, many ecologists still see value in the concept of the ecological keystone Robert Paine coined the term “keystone species” in the species as a whole and believe that modifying rather late 1960s following his study of the rocky intertidal than dismissing the idea may be a useful approach zone of the Pacific Ocean (Paine 1969). Among his (deMaynadier and Hunter 1994, Power et al. 1996). A findings was the fact that, through predation, the ochre meeting of ecologists with expertise in the keystone starfish (Pisaster ochraceus) kept a population of species concept resulted in a publication that expanded mussels (Mytilus californianus) to a size that allowed the definition of keystone to mean “... a species whose the rest of the species in the ecosystem to coexist and impact on its community or ecosystem is large, and thrive in this coastal community. Once the starfish disproportionately large relative to its abundance ...” were removed from the system, a reduction in (Power et al. 1996:609). More recently it has been biodiversity of eight to 15 species was observed (Paine proposed that adding the caveat that keystone species 1966). Based on these findings, Paine (1969) “... perform roles not performed by other species or originally postulated that a species is considered processes ...” may increase the applicability of the keystone to a community if it holds the system in keystone concept to conservation (Kotliar 2000). The check and preferentially consumes species that would debate about exactly what is and what is not a otherwise dominate the system (Power et al. 1996). keystone species continues. Menge and Freidenburg This concept has since been studied, critiqued, and (2001) propose limiting keystone species to modified as well as cited in more than 92 publications consumers, in keeping with the original definition from 1970 to 1989 (Mills et al. 1993). proposed by Paine (1969), to separate bottom-up effects such as primary production from top-down Like any metaphorical concept of this magnitude, this effects such as keystone predation. Rather than one is not without its shortcomings. One major disregard the importance of bottom-up effects, Menge criticism of the keystone species concept stemmed and Freidenburg (2001) see them as linked but from the ambiguous nature of its definition (Mills et separate concepts. As shown above, delineating the al. 1993). This made it hard to identify exactly which boundaries between keystone and nonkeystone species Ecology and Society 9(3): 1. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art1 may be difficult at best. The term “foundation species” systems. Examined further, it becomes a tool to was recently put forth by Soulé et al. (2003) to classify understand the complex web of human-ecosystem those species that are very abundant or dominant, and connections. The ethnosphere is born out of the therefore fall outside the criteria of keystone according biosphere within which it is situated, but it has its own to Power et al. (1996), yet are highly interactive in an particular