Agroforestry Systems 14: 149-161, 1991.

© 1991 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Uses of tropical deciduous forest species by the Yucatecan

Maya

V. R I C O - G R A Y 1, A. C H E M A S 2 a n d S. M A N D U J A N O 3
~Centro de Ecologia UNAM, A.P. 70-275, M~xico, D.F. 04510 M~xico
2Est. Bioldgica Chamela UNAM, A.P. 21, Sn Patrieio, Jalisco 48980 Mdxico
~lnstituto de Ecologia, A.P. 63, Xalapa, Veracruz 91000 MOxico

Key words: useful plants, tropical deciduous forest, homegardens, maya, Yucatin, M~xico

Abstract. We present the uses that the Maya of Tixcacaltuyub and Tixpeual, Yucatin, M6xico,
have for the trees and shrubs of their surrounding tropical dry and deciduous forests; we add
the uses for trees and shrubs in their homegardens, because they complement their basic needs.
A total of 301 shrubs and tree species were present either in the forest or homegardens
sampled; 222 species (73.7%) have at least one reported use. The species with more uses are:
Bursera simaruba (10), Gliricidia sepium (10), Cordia dodecandra (9), Plumeria rubra (7),
Caesalpinia gaumeri (7), Vitex gaumeri (7), Enterolobium cyclocarpum (7), and Piscidia
piscipula (7). More species (152/69.7%) are classified for medicinal purposes, followed by
apiculture (87/39.9%), food (66/30.3%), fuel (38/17.4%), building (41/18.8%) and timber
(25/11.5%). Despite the lack of important commercial species (timber, fruit) in this type of
tropical forest, we discuss the importance of the tropical dry forest of Yucatfin as an area
where management could lead to sustainable production of honey, deer and building material
for houses.

Resumen. Presentamos los usos que los mayas de Tixcacaltuyub y Tixpeual, Yucatfin, M~xico,
le dan a los firboles y arbustos presentes en los bosques tropicales deciduo y seco que les
rodean. Asimismo, agregamos los usos para los irboles y arbustos del huerto familiar, ya que
estos complementan sus necesidades bfisicas. Se encontraron un total de 301 especies de
firboles y arbustos en el bosque y los huertos; 222 espec.ies (73.7%) tienen al menos un uso
reportado. Las especies con mils usos son: Bursera simaruba (10), Gliricidia sepium (10), Cord&
dodecandra (9), Plumeria rubra (7), Caesalpinia gaumeri (7), Vitex gaumeri (7), Enterolobium
cyclocarpum (7) y Piscidia piscipula (7). Se clasificaron mas especies (152/69.7%) para uso
medicinal que para cualquier otro uso, le siguieron en orden decreciente, apicolas (87/39.9%),
alimenticias (66/30.3%), combustibles (38/17.4%), para construcci6n (41/18.8%) y
maderables (25/11.5%). A pesar de la ausencia de especies importantes comercialmente
(maderables, frutos) en este tipo de bosque, discutimos la importancia del bosque tropical seco
de Yucatin como un firea en la cual el manejo puede conducir a un aprovechamiento
sostenido para apicultura, alimento para venado y material para construir habitaciones~

Introduction

M o d e r n s o c i e t y h a s n o t b e e n a b l e to s u s t a i n a b l y e x p l o i t t r o p i c a l forests;
c o m m e r c i a l v a l u e is o n l y g i v e n to a s m a l l n u m b e r o f t i m b e r species, a n d to
150

the short-term profits obtained from the cleared land (agriculture, cattle
raising). Large areas of tropical forests have been felled for these purposes,
and at the present rate, most of the large forested areas will have disappeared
by the year 2000 [1]. Multiple-use exploitation and conservation of tropical
forest resources, as long practiced by indigenous societies, have not been
adopted or, at least, not carefully looked at as a viable alternative to modern
production schemes [5]. This topic has recently been viewed in a different
way for an Amazon rainforest. Peters and co-workers [13] established that
sustainable exploitation of non-wood resources (fruit, latex) could generate
total net revenues two to three times higher than those resulting from forest
conversion (logging and clearing), while conserving. Revenues should
increase considerably if animal species are included and exploited under a
sustainable policy [1]. This scheme should vary from place to place,
depending on forest composition, species appreciation by locals, and
abundance. The first step needed to assess the value of a forest is an account
of the diversity of uses given by locals to forest species, and if produces are
locally traded or marketed. Most work has been done in tropical rain forests,
paying little or no attention to tropical deciduous or dry forests. Species
richness of tropical deciduous forests is considerably lower than that of rain
forests, nevertheless, their species are highly used by indigenous cultures.
The objectives of this paper are to: (1) present an account of the diversity of
uses that the Yucatecan Mayas have for the shrub and tree species composing
their surrounding deciduous forests; (2) present an account of the diversity
of uses for their homegarden shrub and tree species, because they complement
their basic needs; (3) emphasize the value of these forests as a unit, and their
importance in honey production, deer feeding, and building; and (4) discuss
briefly if forest and homegarden produces are marketed or locally traded.

General description of the study site

Two localities were selected in the State of Yucatfin, M6xico, based upon
previous experience and cumulative work. The village of Tixpeual is located
20 km east of M6rida, on the road to Tekant6; mean temperature is 26 °C;
annual precipitation is 800-900 mm; elevation is 9-10 m; vegetation type is
low tropical dry forest (canopy at 12-15 m) [19]; the main crop is sisal, Agave
]burcroydes Lemaire [6]. The village of Tixcacaltuyub is located 90km
southeast of M6rida, 16 km off Sotuta; mean temperature is 27.5 °C; annual
precipitation is 900-1000 mm; elevation is 18-20 m; vegetation type is tropical
deciduous forest (canopy at 20-25m) [15]; the main crop is maize, Zea
rnays L. [6].
 151

Method

Field work was accomplished in March, April, July, and September, 1988,
and was based on field work and open interviews with different informants.
Homegarden species information for both sites is based on Rico-Gray et al.
[16]. Forest species data for Yixpeual is based on Thien et al. [19], and for
Tixcacaltuyub on Rico-Gray et al. [15] and Rico-Gray & Garcia-Franco
(unpubl.). Classification of uses is based on the interviews, complemented
with published information [2, 4, 6, 12, 17, 21]. Diversity of uses was
computed using the Shannon-Weaver index ( H ' = pi log pi), where
i = uses (see Table 1), and pi = proportion of species for the ith use.
Species similarity between sites was computed using Sorensen's index
(S.I. = 2a/(2a + b + c)).

Results and discussion

Diversity of uses of forest and homegarden shrubs and trees

A total of 301 species (shrubs and trees) were present either in the forests or
homegardens sampled in Tixcacaltuyub and Tixpeual (Table 1); 222 species
(73.7%) have at least one reported use. One-hundred and eleven forest
species and 163 homegarden species are used for at least one purpose
(Table 1). The species with more uses are: Bursera simaruba (10), Gliricidia
sepium (10), Cordia dodecandra (9), Plumeria rubra (7), Caesalpinia gaumeri
(7), Vitex gaumeri (7), Enterolobium cyclocarpum (7), and Piscidia piscipula
(7). More species (152/69.7%) are classified for medicinal purposes, followed
by apiculture (87/39.9%), food (66/30.3%), fuel (38/17.4%), building
(41/18.8%), and timber (25/11.5%). These figures should be biased for
medicinal plants, because many species used for this purpose are herbaceous
species, which were not considered in the homegarden and forest studies
used as reference. Species similarity between forests and homegarden is
relatively low (30%); only 57 species are common to both environments.
Forest species diversity is 3.8 for Tixpeual and 1.5 Tixcacaltuyub. Home-
garden species diversity is relatively low for both sites (1.6). Diversity index
for species use is relatively higher, 4.5 for forest species, and 4.9 for home-
garden species; indicating multiple use. We did not find much additional
information by the use of such indices to that obtained by careful observation
and the interaction with the informants.
Our observations indicate that the people in the more isolated village
(Tixcacaltuyub) tend to use more forest and homegarden species, and that
152

Table 1. List of trees and shrubs present in the forests (F) and homegardens (H) studied.
Nomenclature follows Sosa et al. [18]. Uses: 1, Food; 2, medicine; 3, Fodder; 4, Timber; 5,
Religious; 6, Handcrafts; 7, Ornamental; 8, Building; 9, Fuel; 10, Apiculture; 11, Fiber; 12,
Toxic; 13, Glue; 14, Latex; 15, Toys; 16, Hometool; 17, Worktool; 18, Ink; 19, Spice; 20,
Field-tool; 21, Oil; 22, Soap; 23, Embarbascar; 24, Tanning; 25, Shade/Live Fence; 26,
Commercial Value; 27, Stimulant

Name Presence Type of use

Abutilon gaumeri Standl. F 3 10

Acacia anqustissima (Mill.) Blake H 2 3 4 9 10 18
A. collinsii Safford F
A. farnesiana (L.) Willd. F
A. gaumeri Blake F H 2 3 9 10 17
A. macracantha H. & B. F
A. milleriana Standl. F
A. pennatula (Schlecht. & Cham.) Benth H 3 9 l0 17
A. riparia H.B.K. F
A. riparioides (Br. & Rose) Standl. F
Acacia sp. F H
Acalphya seleriana Greenm. H
Acanthocereus pentagonus (L.) Britt. & Rose F H 2
Acrocomia mexicana Karw. ex Wart. H 1 2
Adelia barbinervis Schlecht. & Cham. F 3 8 9
Agavefourcroydes Lemaire H 2 10 11 26
Agave sp. H 2 10 11
Aloe vera L. H 2 10 26
Alvaradoa amorphoides Liebm. F H 2
Ananas comosus L. H 1 2
Annona muricata L. H 1 2 10 26
A. purpurea Moc. & Sess6 ex Dunal H 1 2 10
A. squamosa L. H 1 2 10
Anoda cristata (L.) Schlecht. F 2
Apocynaceae 1 H
Apoplanesiapaniculata Presl F H 8 9 10 17
Arrabidaeafloribunda (HBK) Bur. & K. Schum. H 8 15 16 17
Arundo donax L. H 2 28
Bauhinia divaricata L. F H 2 3 8 10 I I
B. variegata L. H 7
Bixa orellana L. H 2 10 18 19
Bonamia brevipedicellata Myint & Ward F 3 10
Borreria vertieillata (L.) G. Meyer F
Bougainvillaea buttiana Holttun ex Standl. H 7
Brachiariafasciculata (Swartz) Parodi F
Bravaisia tubiflora Hemsl. F 2 6 16
Bromelia karatas L. F H 1 2
Brosimum alicastrum Swartz H 1 2 3 14 16 17
Bunchosia swartziana Griseb. F H 2 589
Bursera simaruba (L.) Sarg. F H 1 2 3 5 8 9 l0 15 17 20
Byrsonima crassifolia (L.) H.B.K. H 1 2 l0
Cactaceae 1 H
 153

Table 1. continued)

Name Presence Type of use

Caesalpima gaumeri Greenm. F H 23489 l017

C. pulcherrima (L.) Swartz FH 2371024
C. vesicaria L. H 210
C. violacea (Mill.) Standl. F 389 l01518
C. )'ucatanensis Greenm. FH 10
Callicarpa acuminata H.B.K. F H 231016
Canna sp. H 710
Capsicum annumm L. H 1231219
C. frutescens L. H 12319
Carica papaya L. H 12310
Casearia nitida Jacq. H 2589
Cassia atomaria L. H 23917
C. emarginata L. F 78
C. [istula L. H 210
C. uniflora Mill. F 210
Cassia sp. F 3
Cecropia obtus!['olia Bertol. H 24
Cedrela odorata L. H 24810
Ceiba aesculiJolia (H.B.K.) Britt. & Baker FH 1291011
C. pentandra (L.) Gaertn. H 245
Celtis iguanaea (Jacq.) Sarg. FH 1
Centrosema sp. F
Cestrum nocturnum L. H 27
Chak ni F 8
Chak ts'iis'il ch~ F
Chamaecrista glandulosa (L.) Greenm. F
Chamaedorea sp. H 57
Chikin chanak F
Chiococca alba (L.) Hitchc. F 23
Chlorophora tinctoria (L.) Gaud. FH 14818
Cho'och H
Chrysoph),llum eainito L. H 1 2 1026
Citrus aurantifolia (Christ.) Swingle H 12 1926
C. aurantium L. H 1 2 1926
C. aurantium x reticulata H 1
C. limetoides Tan H 1 26
C. lmletoides x sinensis H 1
C. paradisi Max. H 1 26
C. reticulata Blanco H 1226
C. sinensis (L.) Osbeck H 1 26
Clusia [lava Jacq. H 1 2 1420
Cindoscolus aconit!)Colius (Mill.) Johnston FH 212
C. chayamansa McVaugh H 1 2
Coccoloba acapulcensis Standl. F 1389
C. spicata Lundell F 2
C. uv(l~,ra L. H 12410
Coccoloba sp. F
154
Table 1. (cont&ued)

Name Presence Type of use

Cochlospermum vitifolium Wild. ex Spreng. F 2 3 8 9 10 11 17

Cocos nucifera L. H 1 2 10
Codiaeum varieatum (L.) Blume H 7
Colubrina greggii S. Watson F 2 3
Colubrina sp. F H 2 8
Commelina sp. F 7
Compositae 1 F
Compositae 2 H
Cordia alliodora (Ruiz & Pav6n) R. & S. F 1 2 3 17
C. dodecandra DC. H 1 2 4 6 8 9 10 16 17
C. gerascanthus L. F H 2 4 8 10
C. sebestena L. H 1 2 4 l0
Crataeva tapia L. F H 2
Crescentia cujete L. H 2 4 6 16
Crinum sp. H 7
Crotonfalvens L. F 2 10
C.J~aqilis H.B.K. F 2 10
C. glabellus L. F H 2 8 9
Croton sp. F 2
Cruz ch6 H
Cucurbita sp. H 3
Cuphea gaumeri Koehne H
Dahlia sp. H 7
Dalbergia glabra (Mill.) Standl. H 2 6 11
Dalechampia scandens L. F 2 3
Delonix regia (Bojer ex Hook.) Raf. H 7 10
Desmodium sp. F
Diospyros anisandra Blake F H
D. cuneata Standl. F H 1 9
D. verae-crucis (Standl.) Standl. F
Diphysa carthagenensis Jacq. F 2 3 10
Dracaena americana Donn. Smith H 7 11
Duranta repens L. H 2 9 10
Ehretia tin(folia DC. H 2 5 9 10 15
Ek ch6 F
Elytrania imbricata (Vahl) Pers. F
Enriquebeltrania crenatifolia (Miranda) Redowski F
Enterolobium cyclocarpum (Jacq.)Griseb. F H 1 2 3 9 10 15 16
Erythrina standleyana Krukoff F H 2 5 7 12
Erythroxylum rotundifolium Lunan H
Eugenia mayana Standl. F H 2 3 10
Eupatorium hemipteropodum Robinson F H 2 5 19
Euphorbia schlechtendali Boiss F 2 10
Exostema caribaeum (Jacq.) Roem. & Schultes F 2 8 9 10 17
Ficus continifolia H.B.K. F H 2 3 6 10 13 14
Forchhammeria trifoliata Radlk. H 2 7
Galactia striata (Jacq.) Urban F 2
 155

Table 1. (continued)
Name Presence Type of use

Glirieidia sepium (Jacq.)Steud. F 1 2 3 4 8 9 10 12 17 20

Gossypium hirsutum L, H 2 11
Gramineae 1 F
Guazuma ulmifolia Lam. FH 1 2 8 9 I0 17
Guettarda elliptica Swartz F
Gymnopodiumfloribundum Rolfe FH 3 8 9 10
Gyrocarpus americanus Jacq. FH 2 10
Haematoxylon eampechianum L. F 2 4 10 18 19
Hamelia patens Jacq. FH 1 2 10
Hampea trilobata Standl. F 11
Hedychium coronarium H 7
Helicteris baruensis Jacq. F 2 3 8 9
Helicocarpus sp. F
Hibiscus rosa-sinensis L. H 2 7 10
Hippeastrum equestris Herbert H 7
Hybanthus yucatanensis Millsp. H 2
Hylocereus undatus (Haworth) Britt, & Ross H 1 2
lpomoea batatas (L.) Poir. H 3
lxora coccinea L. H 7
Jacaratia mexicana DC. FH 1 2 3 9
Jacquemontia tamnifolia (L.) Griseb F
J. pentantha (Jacq.) G. Don F 3
Jacquinia sp. F 2
Japach H
Jasminum officinalis L. H 2 7
Jatropha curcas L. H 1 2 19 20
J. gaumeri Greenm. F H 2 6 12 22
Kalis ak F
Kanlol kax F
Karwinskia calderoni Standl. F 3 8 9
Lantana camara L. H I 2 3
L. urtie([blia Mill. F H 2 19
Lawsonia inermis L. H 10
Leguminosae 1 F
Leguminosae 2 H
Leguminosae 3 H
Lens culinaria Medikus H 1
Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) DeWitt F H 3
Lim6n ch6 F
Lipia H 10
Lonchnera rosea (L.) Reichenb. H 2 7
Lonchocarpus yucatanensis Pittier F H 5 10
Lool chom F
Lool kab H
Luehea ,~peciosa Willd. F 2 4 8 9 10 17
Lysiloma latisiliquum (L.) Benth. F 2 9 10 25 26
Machaonia lindeniana Baill. F 2 8 9
156

Table 1. (continued)
Name Presence Type of use

Malmea depressa (Baill.) R.E. Fries F 1 2 8

Malpighiapunicifolia L. F 1 2 10
Mammea americana L. H 2
Mang(fera indica L. H 1 2 10
Manihot esculenta Krantz F H 1 2 12
Manilkara achras (Mill.) Fosberg H 1 2 4 8 14 26
Mastichodendron foetidissimum (Jacq.) Cronquist H
Melicoccus bijugatus Jacq. H 1
Melochia pyramidata k. F 2
Melothria pendula L. F 2
Merremia aegyptia (L.) Urban F 3
Metopium brownei ( J a c q . ) U r b a n F H 2 3 4 12
Mimosa bahamensis Benth. F H 2 9 16 17
Montanoa atriplicifolia (Pers.) Schultz Blp. F H 7 27
Morindayucatanensis Greenm. F H 2 10 18
Murraya paniculata (L.) Jacq. H 7
Musaparadisiaca L. H 1 10
Neea psychotrioides Donn. Smith F 18
Neomill~paughia emarginata (Gross.)Blake F H 3 8 9 10 16 17
Nerium oleander L. H 2 7 10
Nicotiana tabacum L. H 2 5 10 27
Nissoliafruticosa Jacq. F 2 10
Nopalea gaumeri Orcutt F H
Ocimum micranthum Willd. F 1 2 10
Opuntia sp. F H 1 2
Pachyrrhizus erosus (L.) Urban F 1 2 3
Paramentiera aculeata (H.B.K.)Seeman F H 2 4 6 10
P. edulis DC. H 1 2 10
Passiflora ciliata Dryad F 2
Persea americana Mill. H I 2
Phaseolus lunatus L. F I 2 3 10
Phyllanthus acidus (L.) Skeels H 1 2
P. glaucescens H.B.K. H 2 6
Phyllostylon brasiliensis Capenema F 8
Piscidiapiscipula (L.)Sarg. F H 2 4 6 8 9 10 23
Pisonia aculeata L. F H 2 10
Pithecellobium albicans (Kunth.) Benth. F H 2 3 8 10 24
P. dulce (Roxb.) Benth. H 1 2 3 9 10
P. leucospermum Brandeg. F
P. mangense (Jacq.) Macbride H
P. unquis-cati (L.) Mart. F
Platymiscium yucatanum Standl. F 2 4 8
Pluchea odorata (L.) Cass. F H 2 10
PlumeriarubraL. F H 1 2 3 4 5 7 14
Podopterus mexicanus H. & K. F
Porophyllum punctatum (Mill.) Blake F 2 10
Pouteria mammosa (L.) Cronquist H 1 26
 157
Table 1. (continued)

Name Presence Type of use

Pseudobombax ellipticum (H.B.K.) Dugand H 2 4 7

Psidium quajava L. H 1 2 l0
P. sartorianum (Berg.) Niedenzu F 2 8 9
Punica granatum L. H 1 2
Quamoclit coccinea (L.) Moench F 3
Randia aculeata L. F
R. gaumeri Greenm. & Thomp. F
R. standleyana L. Wms. H 7 10
Randia sp. 1 F H
Randia sp. 2 F
Rauvolfia tetraphylla L. F 2
Rhus radicans L. F 2 10 12
Ricmus communis L. H 2 21
Rosa sp. H 7
Rosaceae H 1 2
Ruta chalapensis L. H 2
Sabalyapa Wright ex Beccari H 2 6 8 9 10
Saccharum officinarum L. H 1
Sajuisich+ F
Sal Ch6 H
Sah'ia coccinea Juss. ex Murr. H 2 3 10
Samydia yucatanensis Standl. F
Sanseviera hyacinthoides (L.) Druce H 7 11
Sap#ulus saponaria L. H 6 8 24
Sebastiana adenophora Pax & Hoffm. F
Senecio confusus Britt. H
Senna racemosa (Mill.) I. & B. F H
Solanaceae 1 H
Solanum hirtum Vahl F 2 3
S. rudepannum Dunal H
S. to'dinamum Dunal H 3
Solanum sp. F H 2
Spondiassp. F H 1 2 3 10 13
Sprekelia sp. H 7
Stillingia sp. F
Swietenia macrophylla King H 2 4 8 10 26
Tahebuia rosea (Bertol.)Dc. F H 2 4 7 10 17
Tabernaemontana amyqdal([blia Jacq. H 2 10 14
T. coronaria (Jacq.) Willd. H 10
Talisia olivae[ormis (H.B.K.) Radlk. F H 1 2 3 4 9 10
Tamarindus indica L. H 1 2 3 10 19
Tecoma stans (L.) Juss. ex H.B.K. H 2 7 10
Terminalia catappa L. H 1 7
Thevetia gaumeri Hemsl. F H 2 10 14
Thouiniapaucidentata Redlk. F 2 8 10
Th~/a orientalis L. H 7
Tragia sp. F
158

Table l. (continued)
Name Presence Typeof use
Trichilia arborea C. DC. F
T. minutiflora Standl. F 89
Urera caracasana (Jacq.) Griseb. H 12
Verbenaceae 1 H
Viguiera dentata (Cav.) Spreng. F 2 3 7 10 19
Vitexgaumeri Greenm. F 2 3 8 9 10 17 26
Ximenia americana L. F 12
Yucca sp. H 1
Zacate Taiwan H 3
Zanthoxylum fagara (L.) Sarg. F
Ziziphus yucatanensis Standfl. F
Zeulania guidonia (Swartz) Britt. & Millsp. F 2489
Plus nine forest and three homegarden unidentifiedspecies

surplus produces are locally sold or traded. In contrast, the people in the
better communicated village (Tixpeual), can buy and sell their goods in an
organized public market, whether in the village or the state capital (M6rida).
One factor that showed to have a two-way effect on the use of forest and
homegarden produces is the condition of communications (roads and public
transport); their lack affects the possibility of commerce, their presence
always conveys development and forest transformation.

Economic importance of shrubs and trees of the Yucatecan forests

In contrast to the type and quantity of resources reported for an Amazonian

rainforest [13], the tropical dry forests studied lack important timber species
( Cedrela odorata, Enterolobium cyclocarpum, Manilkara achras, Swietenia
macrophylla), latex producers (Brosimum alicastrum, M. achras), and fruit
species (Annona spp., Chrysophyllum cainito, M. archas, Melicoccus
bijugatus, Persea americana, Pouteria mamosa), all of these are found,
sometimes in great number, in the homegarden. It would seem that these
forests have no value, but a closer look may prove differently.

Melliferous and polliniferous flora

Yucat/~n is M~xico's main honey producer and exporter. Most honey is
produced by beekeepers in small villages, where their bees forage in the
natural vegetation (40% of the plant species reported here) [for a detail
description of honey production and associated flora, see 4]. Present
deforestation rates highly affect honey yields [9]; bees are also affected by
excessive use of insecticides to protect monospecific crops and fumigation of
cities for mosquito control.
 159

Yucatecan forest and the diet of deer

Venison is the meat source most appreciated by Mayas and Yucatecans
in general. Deer (Odocoileus virginianus (Hays)) is a natural forest
inhabitant in the Yucatan Peninsula, but habitat destruction, excessive
hunting, and lack of management, are responsible for present low
population numbers. The plant species used for food by deer in Tixca-
caltuyub can be divided into: (a) Those cultivated in the corn fields, like
the leaves of Cucurbita spp., Ipomoea batatas, Capsicum spp., Phaseolus
spp., and Pachyrrhizus erosus, as well as the young fruits of Cucurbita
and Capsicum; (b) Those cultivated in homegardens, like Brosimum
alicastrum; and (c) Native species in the forest, like Abutilon gaumeri,
Bursera simaruba, Caesalpinia violacea, Chochlospermum vitifolium,
Colubrina greggii, Eugenia axillaris, Gymnopodium floribundum (resprouts),
Jacquemontia pentantha (in dry season), Merremia aegyptia, Metopium
brownei (fruit), Neomillspaughia emarginata (resprouts), Quamoclit coccinea,
Salvia coccinea, and Viguiera dentata.

Yucatecan .forests as suppliers of building materials

All the materials needed to build the traditional Mayan house come
from the forest [21]. Traditional house construction is being replaced in
many areas of Yucatan with houses built using modern materials, mainly
because: (a) natural materials are lacking (forests are not old enough
to have the tall stems needed as house support); (b) materials are so
scarce now that it is excessively time consuming to find them; and (c) people
in villages want to have the same living standards as city inhabitants.
Instead of substituting a house with a design that is the result of many years
of experience, and that is probably the best climatic alternative for the
region, its value should be emphasized, modern ideas and materials could
be used to improve the kitchen and bathroom, chemicals developed to
prevent wood decay could help to have longer turnover rates of natural
materials, and different designs could be used for different purposes (house,
school).

Homegarden producers
Homegardens provide a variety of produces; in particular, vegetables, fruits,
and ornamentals [16, 20], which are sold or traded locally. These goods
could have a considerable commercial value if production of the different
villages were coordinated, and produces shipped to Canct~n (large touristic
center), or M6rida (state capital), where thousands of millions of pesos are
spent each year to provide the city with vegetables and fruit [8]; farmers in
the small villages would benefit with an increasing income.
160

Conclusions

The above examples should be enough to assess the economic importance

that the tropical forests of Yucatfin have as a unit. Nevertheless, the
vegetation of Yucatfin has been cleared by man for a variety of purposes
(logging, cattle raising, sisal, orchards), strongly modifying the natural
habitat. If the Yucatecan forests were under a management system that
would allow us to exploit while conserving, with the establishment and
maintenance of areas with both young and old vegetation, then there should
be a relative abundance of melliferous flora, deer, and building materials, as
well as other goods. Forest management should highly increase yields, and
programs such as the deforestation of the Uxpanapa river valley in Veracruz
(thousands of hectares were denudated in the 1970's to convert them to
agriculture and cattle raising [2], after the failure, a part of the area is being
planted with rubber trees [7]), or the deforestation of the Yohaltt~n valley in
Campeche (over 40000 hectares were cleared for rice fields in the early
1980's at present the fields are abandoned, due to bad construction of the
drainage system, as well as the roads and infrastructure [10]), will have no
sense in M6xico. Over the years, the Maya have developed and used a variety
of agrosilvicultural techniques [14], which have formed the basis of their
vegetation management system. The careful study and adaption of these
techniques to modern needs should be attempted [5], so as to make a better
use of our natural resources, and maybe development and nature can be
compatible [3, 11].

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the members of the Simfi family of Tixcacaltuyb and
the Puch family of Tixpeul for their assistance and patience during the
interviews and field work. This research was partially supported by the
World Wildlife Fund-U.S.

References

I. Bucher EH (1989) Conservaci6n y desarrollo en el neotr6pico: en bfisqueda de alternativas.

Vida Silvestre Neotropical 2 : 3 - 6
2. Caballero J, Toledo VM, Argueta A, Aguirre E, Rojas P and Vicc6n J (1978) Estudio
botfinico y ecol6gico de la regi6n del rio Uxpanapa, Veracruz. No. 8. Flora fitil o el uso
tradicional de las plantas. Biotica 3:103-144
3. Cairncross F (1989) Crecimiento y ecologia deben ser compatibles. Excelsior (Financiera),
Octubre 16/1989
 161

4. Chemfis A and Rico-Gray V (1991) Apiculture and management of associated vegetation

by the maya of Tixcacaltuyub, Yucatfin, Mexico. Agroforestry Systems 13:13-25
5. Clay JW (1988) Indigenous Peoples and Tropical Forests. Cultural Survival, Inc.
Cambridge, MA
6. Flores JS (1987) Uso de los recursos vegetales en la Penisula de Yucatfin: pasado, presente
y futuro. Cuadernos de Divulgacidn No. 30. INIREB, Xalapa, Vet., M+xico
7. Freye R (1989) Destinar~. la region de Uxpanapa 16000 Ha. al cultivo del hule. Excelsior
(Los Estados), Octubre 16/1989
8. Gonzfilez A (1990) Eroga M+rida 17 500 millones en traer legumbres de otras entidades.
Excelsior (Tercera parte de seccti6n A), Septiembre 5/1990
9. Gonzfilez J (1987) La tala, otto enemigo de los apicultores. Excelsior (Los Estados), Abril
18/1987
10. Gonzfilez J (1990) Sin uso, inversi6n agricola per 200 rail millones en Yohaltfm. Excelsior
(Los Estados), Septiembre 6/1990
11. Martini E (1990) Destruccidn del ecosistema, factor primordial en el hambre y la
desnutrici6n en Am+rica Latina. Excelsior (Financiera), Octubre 16/1989
12. Mendieta RM and del Amo S (1981) Plantas Medicinales del Estado de Yucatfin.
INIREB-CECSA, M6xico
13. Peters CM, Gentry AH and Mendelsohn RO (1989) Valuation of an amazonian rain-
forest. Nature 339:655-656
14. Rico-Gray V, Gomez-Pompa A and Chan C (1985) Las selvas manejadas por los mayas
de Yohaltt~n, Campeche, M+xico. Biotica 10:321 327
15. Rico-Gray V, Garcia-Franco, JG, Puch A and Simfi P (1988) Composition and structure
of a tropical dry forest in Yucatan, Mexico. Int. J. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 14:21-29
16. Rico-Gray V, Garcia-Franco, JG, Chemas A, Puch A and Sim~t P (1990) Species com-
position, similarity, and structure of mayan homegardens in Tixpeual and Tixcacaltuyub,
Yucatan, Mexico. Econ. Bot. 44(4) (in press)
17. Sanabria DE (1986) El uso y manejo forestal en la comunidad de Xul, en el sur de
Yucatfin. In: Sosa V, ed, Etnoflora Yucatanense, 2. INIREB, Xalapa, Vet., M~xico
18. Sosa V, Flores JS, Rico-Gray V, Lira R and Ortiz JJ (1985) Lista floristica y sinonimia
maya. In: Sosa V, ed, Etnoflora Yucatanense, l. INIREB, Xalapa, Ver., M6xico
19. Thien LB, Bradburn AS and Welden AL (1982) The woody vegetation of Dzibilchaltun
a maya archaeological site in northwest Yucatan, Mexico. MARl, Tulane University,
Occasional Paper 5, New Orleans
20. Vargas C (1983) El Ka'anche: una pr~.ctica horticola maya. Biotica 8:151 173
21. Villers L, L6pez-Franco RM and Barrera A (1981) La unidad de habitaci6n tradicional
campesina y el manejo de recursos bioticos en el firea maya yuctanense. II. Materiales
vegetales en la habitaci6n rural tradicional Cobfi, Quintana Roo. Biotica 6:293-323