See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326114247

Children's Knowledge of Wild Food Plants in the Forest-

Agriculture Interface

Article  in  Journal of Ethnobiology · July 2018

DOI: 10.2993/0278-0771-38.2.205

CITATIONS READS

4 517

4 authors, including:

Gisella S. Cruz-Garcia María Elena Chuspe Zans

Oxfam Novib UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL INTERCULTURAL DE QUILLABAMBA
36 PUBLICATIONS   748 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   561 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

José G. Sánchez-Choy
Universidad Nacional Intercultural de la Amazonia
52 PUBLICATIONS   68 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ethnobotany, Ethnoentomology, Ethnography View project

Proyecto Biodiversidad y Comunidad View project

All content following this page was uploaded by José G. Sánchez-Choy on 06 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Children's Knowledge of Wild Food Plants in the Forest-
Agriculture Interface
Author(s): Gisella S. Cruz-Garcia, Cecilia Caffi, María Elena Chuspe Zans and
José Sanchez-Choy
Source: Journal of Ethnobiology, 38(2):205-222.
Published By: Society of Ethnobiology
https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-38.2.205
URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2993/0278-0771-38.2.205

BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the

biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online
platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations,
museums, institutions, and presses.
Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content
indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/
terms_of_use.
Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial
use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the
individual publisher as copyright holder.

BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit
publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to
critical research.
 Journal of
Ethnobiology 2018  38(2): 205–222

Children’s Knowledge of Wild Food Plants in the

Forest-Agriculture Interface

Gisella S. Cruz-Garcia1, 2 *, Cecilia Caffi3, María Elena Chuspe Zans4,

and José Sanchez-Choy5, 6

Abstract. This paper examines the relationship between children’s theoretical knowledge of wild
food plants in relation to sociocultural group, sex, and age in the context of social and environmental
change. Theoretical knowledge was assessed by evaluating the composition of the cultural domain
of “wild food plants,” naming ability, and cognitive salience. Freelistings were conducted with 57
Indigenous Shipibo-Konibo children and 57 mestizo children in Ucayali, one of the regions with the
highest deforestation rates in the Peruvian Amazon. A total of 120 plants were listed by all children,
with 72 listed by Indigenous and 95 by mestizo children. Most species listed as wild food plants have
been classified as domesticated species by scientists. The main factor affecting variation in children’s
theoretical knowledge was sociocultural group. Mestizo children included more introduced crops in
their lists, whereas, for Indigenous children, the most salient species were those that required specific
abilities or knowledge to be consumed. Older children presented statistically significant longer lists
than younger children, but there were no statistical differences in list length in relation to sex. We
conclude by discussing the definition of “wild” versus domesticated plants and the effect of socio-
ecological change on children’s ethnobotanical knowledge as the landscape transforms in the forest-
agriculture interface.
Keywords: cognitive salience, deforestation, ethnobotany, freelisting, traditional ecological
knowledge

Introduction may in fact be changing” (Zarger and Stepp

Theoretical knowledge, including
species classification and nomenclature,
is the basis of ethnobotanical knowledge
(Berlin 1992) and could be used as a
proxy to assess knowledge dynamics—the
process of knowledge creation, acquisi-
tion, transformation, and loss—especially
in contexts of socio-ecological change
(Zarger and Stepp 2004). In that sense, the
study of children’s ethnobotanical knowl-
edge is particularly crucial because “social
demand for such expertise and the cultural
value ascribed to environmental knowledge
2004:416). However, there are relatively
few studies on children’s ethnobotanical
knowledge (Souto and Ticktin 2012; Young
2002), although their geographical extent is
large. Thus, in Asia, ethnobotanical knowl-
edge has been studied among children in
Northeast Thailand (Setalaphruk and Price
2007); in the Indian Western Ghats (Cruz-
Garcia 2006a, 2006b, 2014; Cruz-Garcia
and Howard 2013); in Africa for the Baka
children from southeastern Cameroon
(Gallois 2015); and in Europe for children
living in the Biosphere Reserve of Grosses

1
Decision and Policy Analysis Research Area, International Center for Tropical Agriculture, Km 17 Recta Cali-
Palmira, Apartado Aéreo 6713, Cali, Colombia.
2
Botanical Research Institute of Texas, Fort Worth, Texas.
3
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Pavia, Italy.
4
Facultad de Ciencias, Escuela Profesional de Biología, Departamento Académico de Biología, Universidad
Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cusco, Peru.
5
Departamento Agroforestal Acuícola, Universidad Nacional Intercultural de la Amazonía, Ucayali, Peru.
6
Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonía Peruana, Pucallpa, Peru.
*
Corresponding author (g.s.cruz@cgiar.org)
206 Cruz-Garcia, Caffi, Zans, and Sanchez-Choy
Walsertal in Austria (Schunko et al. 2012).
Research on children’s ethnobiology has
also been conducted in Latin America.
For instance, Quinlan et al. (2016) studied
children’s learning of plants in Dominica,
West Indies; Zarger and Stepp (2004)
compared Tzeltal Maya children’s plant-
naming abilities 30 years ago with those of
a subsequent generation; Wyndham (2010)
assessed the influence of schooling on
Rarámuri children’s plant knowledge in the
Sierra Tarahumara, Mexico; Blacutt-Rivero
et al. (2016) documented children’s knowl-
edge of palm trees among Amerindian and
mestizo communities in Bolivia; Hynes et
al. (1997) compared children’s botanical
knowledge in relation to the geographic
isolation of their villages in the subtropical
montane forests of northwestern Argen-
tina; and Barreau et al. (2016) documented
knowledge transmission of wild edible
plants to younger generations of Mapuche
people in Chile.
To the best of our knowledge, no
previous study has focused on children’s
knowledge of wild food plants in the
forest-agriculture interface within a context
of increasing deforestation. Addressing that
topic is important because wild food plants
constitute an essential component of the
food basket of rural households around the
world (Bharucha and Pretty 2010; Cruz-
Garcia and Ertug 2014), which contributes
to improve the nutritional quality and
micronutrient content of people’s diet
(Grivetti and Ogle 2000; Heywood 2011).
It is also unknown if children distinguish
between wild and domesticated species in
contexts of landscape transformation. For
scientists, domesticated species include
species that have suffered changes in their
phenotypic and genotypic characteristics
as a result of artificial selection, and wild
food plants are non-domesticated species
that exist along a continuum of different
intensities of human management ranging
from truly wild (absence of management)
to semi-domesticated plants (Casas et al.
Journal of Ethnobiology 2018  38(2): 205–222
1996; González-Insuasti and Caballero
2007). The difference, however, might not
be so evident in the field. In that sense,
research on children’s knowledge of wild
food plants would contribute to a better
understanding of knowledge dynamics in
relation to domestication and landscape
transformation, which is particularly neces-
sary for regions facing increasing social
and environmental change.
The goal of this work is to document
selected aspects of children’s theoretical
knowledge of wild food plants, including
the composition of the cultural domain
of “wild food plants,” naming ability,
and cognitive salience. Certainly, chil-
dren’s ability to name local plants is a
key component of their ethnobotanical
knowledge (Zarger and Stepp 2004) and a
main indicator of theoretical knowledge.
Specifically, this study compares knowl-
edge of wild food plants among children in
Ucayali, Peru.
Previous research shows that knowl-
edge is distributed according to personal
and social factors and varies spatially and
temporally. For instance, knowledge is
influenced by intercultural factors such
as sociocultural group and ethnicity, and
intracultural factors such as gender and
age (Hopkins 2011; Müller et al. 2015;
Souto and Ticktin 2012). Consequently,
we studied knowledge of wild food
plants among children from two different
sociocultural groups—Indigenous Shipi-
bo-Konibo and mestizo children—while
also considering differences in sex and
age. Mestizos are migrants, or descen-
dent from migrants, from non-Amazonian
regions of Peru and usually of mixed Indig-
enous and European heritage. Additionally,
our results explore how deforestation and
environmental change in Ucayali—one of
the regions in the Peruvian Amazon with
the highest deforestation rates (Porro et al.
2015)—might relate to the distribution of
wild food plant knowledge among different
groups of children.
 Children’s Knowledge of Wild Food Plants in the Forest-Agriculture Interface 207
Study Site
Ucayali is the second largest adminis-
trative department of Peru. It is located in the
Amazon region, and has a humid tropical
forest cover and a hot and humid climate.
The main productive activities of the region,
including agriculture, livestock farming,
and timber production, make up almost
20% of Ucayali’s gross domestic product
(GDP) (INEI 2011; MINEM-GOREU 2007).
Ucayali is the main center of the Peru-
vian timber industry (Ramos Delgado and
Domínguez Torrejón 2009) and is facing a
rapid increase in palm oil and cacao plan-
tations (Salisbury and Fagan 2013), making
it one of the regions with the highest exten-
sions of deforestation (Oliveira et al. 2007).
Land degradation is mainly due to the
expansion of legal and illegal logging, land
clearing, and road construction (Galarza
and La Serna 2005; Miranda et al. 2014).
For instance, by 2010, about nine percent
of the original forest area of Ucayali had
been cleared (Porro et al. 2015).
About 20% of Ucayali is inhabited
by nearly 300 Indigenous communities,
with the Shipibo-Konibo being the largest
ethnolinguistic group, having an estimated
population of 35,000 inhabitants by 2002
(Tournon 2002). Their livelihoods mainly
depend on small-scale agriculture, fishing,
and hunting (Pimentel et al. 2004). Their
land, including agricultural fields and
forest, is communal property.
The remaining 80% of the population of
Ucayali consists mostly of mestizos who are
settled chiefly along the Federico Basadre
Highway, which connects Pucallpa with
Lima (860 km), the capital of the country,
or along the Ucayali river and its tributaries
(Porro et al. 2015). The highway, which
was built in 1945 (Pimentel et al. 2004),
allowed for the migration of families from
the Andean highlands and coastal regions
placing an increasing demand on Ucayali’s
natural resources (particularly timber). The
encroachment of mestizos, who cleared
the land for slash and burn agriculture,
was further facilitated by opening logging
roads (Murray 2006). The mestizo villages
participating in this study were created
between the 1970s and 1990s. Mestizo
livelihoods depend on agriculture and
their main income sources come from
palm oil, cacao, plantain, and, to a lesser
degree, livestock. There is no commu-
nally owned land in mestizo villages and
the forest, which is privately owned and
mainly secondary, is fragmented and scat-
tered across the different household land
properties. The staple crops in the region
are cassava (Manihot esculenta), maize
(Zea mays), plantain (Musa paradisiaca),
rice (Oryza sativa), and beans (Phaseolus
vulgaris).
Methods
Methods of Data Collection
Fieldwork took place between July and
September 2014 in two mestizo villages,
Pueblo Libre and La Unión, and two Shipi-
bo-Konibo communities, Puerto Belén and
Junín Pablo, in Ucayali, Peru (Figure 1). The
sites were selected by local experts from the
Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonía
Peruana (IIAP) as representatives of mestizo
and Shipibo-Konibo populations in Ucayali.
Through ongoing research projects in these
sites, IIAP has built rapport with the local
populations, which facilitated approaching
them. Selected communities are located in
the forest-agriculture interface, possessing
forested areas alongside agricultural fields.
The mestizo villages presented an average
deforestation rate of 28% from 2001 to
2014, with only 50% of their area having
a 60% or more of canopy cover in 2014.
During the same period, the Indigenous
communities showed an average defor-
estation rate of 8%, with 82% of their area
being covered with canopy (see Supple-
ment 1).
To examine children’s wild food plant
knowledge, we conducted written free-
listings with 146 children from ages seven
Journal of Ethnobiology 2018  38(2): 205–222
208 Cruz-Garcia, Caffi, Zans, and Sanchez-Choy

Figure 1. Study sites. The map indicates the changes in land use from January 2004 to December 2013,
according to Terra-i (CIAT 2015). Source: Terra-i; map prepared by Paula Paz. See Supplemental Map 1
for color version showing detailed gradients.

to 14, belonging to different sociocultural
backgrounds (mestizo and Indigenous).
Freelistings were conducted at the school,
with permission of the teachers who
provided prior oral informed consent. All
children who participated in the activity
did so voluntarily. Given that there is only
one school in each village, by working in
the school, we expected to engage most
children living in each village (see Table 1).
Children were asked to write down on
a piece of paper all the wild food plants
they know (Borgatti 1999). Mestizo chil-
dren wrote down the common names of
the plants in Spanish, the main language
spoken in the villages. Indigenous children
wrote the names in Shipibo-Konibo, with
the Spanish name next to it if they knew
it. The spelling and translation of Shipibo-
Konibo names was double-checked
according to Tournon (2006). Children were
also asked to indicate their sex and age, but
not their names. This study was carried out
in accordance with the recommendations
of the guidelines of the International Society
of Ethnobiology Code of Ethics (ISE 2006).
Thirty-two freelistings were excluded
from the analysis because they were either

Journal of Ethnobiology 2018  38(2): 205–222

 Children’s Knowledge of Wild Food Plants in the Forest-Agriculture Interface 209

Table 1. Distribution of the research sample, by sociocultural group, sex, and age, with the number of entries and
plants listed for each group.
% of the Number of Number of plants
Children stratification Sample Populationb population entriesc listed
Sociocultural group:          
Indigenous (total) 57 182 31 465 72
Mestizo (total) 57 97 59 593 95
Sex:          
Girls (total) 64 123 52 629 102
Indigenous girls 28 86 33 236 58
Mestizo girls 36 37 97 393 84
Boys (total) 50 156 32 429 87
Indigenous boys 29 96 30 229 57
Mestizo boys 21 60 35 200 64
Age : a
         
Younger children (total) 64 153 42 549 89
Indigenous younger 31 91 34 205 43
Mestizo younger 33 62 53 344 78
Older children (total) 46 126 37 477 94
Indigenous older 25 91 27 257 64
Mestizo older 21 35 60 220 69
a
Four children (one Indigenous and three mestizo) did not provide information about their age, there are
missing values for the analysis of age.
b
Children from seven to 14 years old (the sample’s age). This information was obtained from the health center
of each village or community.
c
One entry is one plant listed by one child.

empty (7), illegible (12), or did not indicate
a child’s sex (13). This yielded a total of 114
lists that were included as part of this study:
22 were conducted in Pueblo Libre, 35 in
La Unión, 29 in Puerto Belén, and 28 in
Junín Pablo. All entries (where one entry is
one plant listed by one child) were checked
for typos and synonyms. When there was
more than one common name for a specific
plant, the one most frequently mentioned
was chosen in order to make all lists compa-
rable. The botanical identification of plant
species mentioned by 10% or more Indig-
enous or mestizo children was conducted
by a local taxonomist from the Univer-
sidad Intercultural de la Amazonía Peruana
in Pucallpa on the basis of plant voucher
specimens collected in the study area. The
voucher specimens were collected in situ
with local experts in one of the villages
where the study took place. Herbarium
specimens of most identified species are on
repository in the herbarium at the univer-
sity. Information about whether a species
is native or introduced to the Amazon was
obtained from Tropicos (Missouri Botan-
ical Garden 2017), the Natural Resources
Conservation Service of the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA 2017),
The Plant List (2013), and Clement (1999).
Native species were classified as domesti-
cated or non-domesticated in Amazonia
at the time of European contact according
to Levis et al. (2017), Clement (1999),
Clement et al. (2010), and Jones et al.
(2013, for breadfruit).

Journal of Ethnobiology 2018  38(2): 205–222

210 Cruz-Garcia, Caffi, Zans, and Sanchez-Choy
Methods of Data Analysis
Data from freelistings were analyzed
according to frequency of mention of food
plants, particularly in relation to the pres-
ence of wild and domesticated species, as
well as native and introduced species. The
species mentioned by 10% or more of Indig-
enous or mestizo children were selected to
be compared according to sociocultural
group (Indigenous vs mestizo), sex (girl vs
boy), and age (younger children [i.e., 7–10
years old] vs older children [i.e., 11–14
years old]).
Naming ability was measured with
the length of the list. We calculated the
mean, median, and interquartile range for
the eight different groups: Indigenous boys,
Indigenous girls, mestizo boys, mestizo
girls, Indigenous younger, Indigenous
older, mestizo younger, and mestizo older
children. The sample size did not allow us
to further subdivide these groups (i.e., tabu-
lating sociocultural group with sex and age
in a single division). The Mann-Whitney U
test for non-parametric data was used to
test the statistical significance of the differ-
ences in the list lengths among the different
groups of children.
Freelistings were also analyzed
according to cognitive salience, by
combining both frequency of mention
and mean position of a species in the lists
as part of a single index. The Cognitive
Salience Index (CSI) ranges from 0, repre-
senting no informant mentioning a species
(least salient), to 1, representing all infor-
mants having mentioned a species first
(most salient), and assumes that the items
mentioned first in a list are more salient
than those mentioned last (Sutrop 2001).
CSIs were calculated for the eight different
groups of children and then compared
using Spearman rank order correlation
coefficients. Venn diagrams were devel-
oped to compare the species with a CSI of
0.05 or higher for the different groups of
children.
Journal of Ethnobiology 2018  38(2): 205–222
Methodological Caveats
The methodology used has several
limitations. Firstly, information was
collected in two different languages, which
might be a source of error when trans-
lating a plant name from Shipibo-Konibo
to Spanish. Secondly, given that data was
collected in written form, the length of the
lists might be affected by children’s writing
skills and this might cause some lists to be
empty. Thirdly, the collection of voucher
specimens for taxonomic identification
was conducted with adults knowledgeable
of plant resources but not with children,
which might introduce some intrinsic
biases. Fourthly, voucher specimen collec-
tion only took place in one of the mestizo
study villages but not in the Shipibo-Konibo
communities, which might be a source of
error, although Shipibo-Konibo children
were asked to provide the names of the
plants in Spanish. Finally, factors such as
education, parents’ occupation, household
composition, and income, which could also
explain variation in ethnobotanical knowl-
edge (Giovannini et al. 2011; Quinlan et al.
2016; Reyes-García et al. 2009), were not
part of the scope of this study. Despite these
caveats, the study yields valuable insights
into the understanding of children’s theo-
retical knowledge of wild food plants in the
forest-agriculture interface.
Results and Discussion
The Cultural Domain of Wild Food Plants
A total of 1058 entries were regis-
tered (n = 114 children), with 465 entries
corresponding to Indigenous (n = 57) and
593 to mestizo children (n = 57). A total
of 120 plants were listed by all children
(n = 114), with 72 plants listed by Indige-
nous and 95 by mestizo children (Table 1).
The number of food plants provided by
children in Ucayali was higher than the
number reported in studies with adults in
the Peruvian Amazon. For instance, Vásque
and Peláez (2015) documented 29 food
 Children’s Knowledge of Wild Food Plants in the Forest-Agriculture Interface 211
plants in a village located in Bagua Grande,
and Cruz-Garcia and Vael (2017) reported
30 wild food plants in Pueblo Libre, one of
the villages where the present study took
place. However, it is important to note that
several plants listed by children are intro-
duced crops, which might have increased
the length of the lists in this study.
Almost two-thirds of the plants were
mentioned by less than 10% of Indigenous
and by less than 10% of mestizo children
(Table 2). Remarkably, 21% and 35% of
the plants mentioned by Indigenous and
mestizo children, respectively, were listed
by only one child. This value was higher for
older than for younger Indigenous children
(24 and 10 plants respectively), whereas the
difference was minimal when comparing
Indigenous girls and boys (18 and 17 plants
respectively).
Regarding the species mentioned by
10% or more of Indigenous or mestizo
children, 19 were mentioned by both Indige-
nous and mestizo, nine only by Indigenous,
and 16 only by mestizo children. Children
in the study listed food plants that were
mainly identified at species level. Thus, only
one plant, cacao del monte, encompassed
two species (Theobroma obovatum and T.
glaucum), two plants (plátano and maduro)
corresponded to two different varieties of
the same species (Musa × paradisiaca), two
plants were identified only with regard to
Table 2. Number of food plants listed by Indigenous and mestizo children.
More than 10% of children (total)
Less than 10% of children (total)
five children
four children
three children
two children
one child
Total number of plants per sociocultural group
genus (Inga sp. and Garcinia sp.), one plant
was given a sp.1 (species 1) as its scientific
name because it could not be taxonomi-
cally identified, and the rest of the plants
were identified at the species level. Our
results showed that children living in rural
areas with permanent contact with nature
mentioned plants that were mainly iden-
tified at species level, which is aligned to
data from Berlin and Stevens (1994), who
reported that children living in areas with
less interaction with the natural environ-
ment present attrition in naming abilities,
shifting from species to generic names and
life form names in classification. Our find-
ings also dovetail with research presenting
similar high levels of naming ability among
rural children, for example among Zapotec
children (Hunn 2008) and Rarámuri chil-
dren (Wyndham 2010) in Mexico.
When focusing on the plants mentioned
by 10% or more of Indigenous or mestizo
children, we found that mestizo children
listed more introduced species than Indige-
nous children (57% and 46% respectively),
and all introduced species are domesti-
cated (Figure 2). Half of the native species
listed by mestizo children and 58% of
those listed by Indigenous children were
not domesticated at the time of European
contact (Table 3). These results raise two
important issues: 1) how “wild” versus
“domesticated” is conceptualized, and 2)
Number of plants listed by children
Indigenous Mestizo
28 35
44 60
3 2
4 7
6 5
16 13
15 33
72 95
Journal of Ethnobiology 2018  38(2): 205–222
212 Cruz-Garcia, Caffi, Zans, and Sanchez-Choy

Figure 2. Percentage of introduced and native plants listed by Indigenous and mestizo
children. The graph indicates if native species where domesticated or not at the time
of European contact. All introduced species are domesticated. The three plants that
lack information about endemicity and degree of domestication (because they were
not identified at species level) are not presented in the graph. Only information about
plants mentioned by 10% or more of Indigenous or mestizo children is presented (n =
114 children, with four missing values for age).

how knowledge transmission operates in cated landscapes in the Amazon, where

a context of socio-ecological change. We
discuss these issues in the following para-
graphs.
Given that different sociocultural
groups have different ways to interact
with nature, the emic perspective, or the
local conceptualization of a given cultural
domain, is the starting point of ethno-
botanical studies (Borgatti 1999). Local
definitions and classifications might differ
not only among different cultures and social
groups, but also from those given by scien-
tists (Michon and De Foresta 1997). Our
results show that this is the case of wild food
plants in the study site, where this cultural
domain not only differs according to socio-
cultural group, sex, and age, but also from
scientific classifications. It could be argued
that it is not possible to expect children to
be able to distinguish wild from domesti-
cated species, as some differences can only
be assessed at genetic level. In addition,
domesticated species native to the region
might present wild populations (Clement et
al. 2010), and children might, indeed, be
referring to the wild populations of native
domesticates. Moreover, there are no clear
distinctions between wild and domesti-
mosaics of different ecozones are situated
along a gradient of varying degrees of
human intervention (Posey 1985; Wiersum
1997). As children gather plants along this
gradient of environments, it might be diffi-
cult for them to differentiate between wild
and domesticated.
Some species dominant across the
Amazon forest, like Attalea phalerata,
were domesticated at the time of European
contact, but nowadays present minimal or
no human management (Levis et al. 2017).
This can be potentially related to the fact
that most of the associated traditional
knowledge was lost after the eradication of
about 90–95% of the Amazonian popula-
tion during the first contact with Europeans
(Clement 1999). Interestingly, a study
conducted in one of the mestizo villages
participating in this study reported that
local people gather the fruits of A. phalerata
from secondary forests (Cruz-Garcia and
Vael 2017). This study also documented
that local inhabitants classified some native
domesticated species as wild, because they
do not require much care to grow. Several
of these species—such as Inga edulis and
Pouteria caimito—are occurring as feral in

Journal of Ethnobiology 2018  38(2): 205–222

 Children’s Knowledge of Wild Food Plants in the Forest-Agriculture Interface 213

Table 3. Food plants listed by Indigenous and mestizo children, indicating species that are native to the Amazonia
and degree of domestication at the time of European contact. The table also indicates frequency of mention (freq)
and Sutrop’s cognitive salience index (CSI). Only information about plants mentioned by 10% or more Indigenous
or mestizo children is presented (n = 114 children, with four missing values for age).
Degree of Indigenous Mestizos
Native to the domestication at (total) (total)
Scientific name Amazoniac European contactd, e freq Sutrop freq Sutrop
Anacardium occidentale  I 9 0.02 7 0.02
Ananas comosus  I 11 0.03 12 0.02
Arachis hypogaea I 6 0.01
Artocarpus altilis  I 8 0.02 7 0.02
Attalea phalerata  N D 7 0.02
Averrhoa carambola  I 7 0.02
Bactris gasipaes  N D 12 0.03 16 0.05
Bertholletia excelsa  N D 6 0.03
Carica papaya I 10 0.02 26 0.08
Cecropia engleriana N ND 9 0.02
Citrullus lanatus  I 12 0.04 11 0.03
Citrus × aurantium  I 17 0.04
Citrus limon  I 9 0.02
Citrus reticulata  I 10 0.03
Cocos nucifera  I 6 0.01 20 0.04
Dioscorea trifida  I 7 0.01
Euterpe precatoria  N D 7 0.01
Garcinia sp. f f
9 0.03
Inga sp. ɸ ɸ
20 0.07 16 0.04
Inga edulis  N SD 19 0.07 35 0.11
Malus domestica  I 7 0.02
Mangifera indica  I 21 0.08 27 0.08
Manihot esculenta  N D 6 0.01
Mauritia flexuosa  N ID 43 0.20 21 0.06
Micropholis egensis  N ND 18 0.11
Musa × paradisiacaa I 6 0.04 17 0.07
Musa × paradisiacab I 10 0.03
Oenocarpus bataua  N ID 32 0.14 15 0.05
Passiflora edulis  N D 11 0.02
Passiflora ligularis  I 26 0.10
Pourouma cecropiifolia  N SD 16 0.05 7 0.01
Pouteria caimito  N D 23 0.10 9 0.03
Psidium guajava  I 12 0.02 16 0.04
Quararibea cordata  N SD 11 0.04 14 0.03
Rollinia mucosa  N D 9 0.02
Saccharum officinarum  I 7 0.01
Solanum sessiliflorum  N D 6 0.03 19 0.05
sp1 f f
9 0.03
Spondias dulcis  I 8 0.02
Syzygium malaccense  I 13 0.04
Theobroma cacao  N SD 23 0.07
Theobroma obovatum 
N ND 10 0.03
Bernoulli, T. glaucum 
Vitis vinifera  I 9 0.04
Zea mays  I   8 0.04 10 0.02
a
Musa x paradisiaca refers to plátano.
b
Musa x paradisiaca refers to banano.
c
N, native; I, introduced
d
D, domesticated; SD, semi-domesticated; ID, with incipiently domesticated populations; ND, not
domesticated but it was not specified if it was SD or ID.
e
Only for species native to the Amazonia.
f
Cannot define the endemicity and degree of domestication because the species has not been determined.

Journal of Ethnobiology 2018  38(2): 205–222

214 Cruz-Garcia, Caffi, Zans, and Sanchez-Choy
agricultural fields and home gardens, and
present incipient management patterns
(Cruz-Garcia 2017).
Children in our sample listed several
introduced domesticates as wild food
plants. This might, indeed, also show that
children have lost or failed to acquire
knowledge about native non-domesticated
food plants as the product of historical
processes of sociocultural and ecological
change that have occurred in the region,
which possess a long history of colo-
nialism. For instance, it is widely known
that ecological and social changes bring
about thorough transformation of atti-
tudes and values regarding plants, and that
increasing interactions of traditional soci-
eties with modern socio-economic systems
are related to cultural changes that have
an effect on ethnobotanical knowledge
(Reyes-García et al. 2014). Indeed, mestizo
children listed fewer native wild food plant
species and more introduced and commer-
cialized crops than Indigenous children.
For example, mestizo children listed as
wild food plants two crops that do not grow
in the region but are found in the market
(Malus domestica [apple], and Vitis vinifera
[grape]), whereas all plants that Indigenous
children listed grow in Ucayali. Indigenous
children have less access to the market,
where most introduced crops are bought by
mestizo families. Certainly, some authors
have reported that market integration influ-
ences ethnobotanical knowledge (Benz et
al. 2000; Reyes-García et al. 2005).
Children’s Wild Food Plants Naming
Ability
The length of lists was significantly
different between Indigenous and mestizo
children (Mann-Whitney U at 0.05), with
mestizo children presenting longer lists
(median = 10, interquartile range = 6 for
mestizo children; median = 8, interquar-
tile range = 5 for Indigenous children).
These results might be surprising given
that Indigenous communities have a lower
deforestation rate and higher forest cover
Journal of Ethnobiology 2018  38(2): 205–222
area in relation to mestizo villages. We can
think of three plausible explanations for
this finding. Firstly, although surrounded
by more forest area, the loss of biodiversity
is increasing among Indigenous communi-
ties. In addition, several wild food plants
are not necessarily gathered in the forest
but might be collected in other environ-
ments. For instance, the study conducted
in one of the mestizo villages (Cruz-Garcia
and Vael 2017) showed that 70% of wild
food plants were gathered in agricultural
fields and 43% in home gardens. Secondly,
mestizo children named more species on
average than Indigenous children and
listed many introduced crops, given that
they are exposed to a great diversity of
plants because of market relations. For
example, a study conducted by Murray
(2006) comparing mestizo and Indige-
nous communities in Ucayali showed that
mestizo households with greater access
to markets presented longer lists of foods.
Finally, mestizo children might have had
greater ease at writing than Indigenous
children and, consequently, would have
been more likely to write longer lists.
Mestizo girls were the group with
longest lists, followed by mestizo boys,
Indigenous girls, and Indigenous boys (Table
4). However, list length was not statistically
different between girls and boys in general
and between girls and boys by socio-cul-
tural group. This result resembles findings
by Wyndham (2010), who found no statis-
tically significant differences between girls
and boys regarding naming ability among
Rarámuri children in the Sierra Tarahu-
mara of Mexico. Similarly, Gallois et al.
(2017) did not find gender differences in
relation to identification abilities of wild
edibles among Baka children in southeast
Cameroon. Results, however, differ from
findings by Setalaphruk and Price (2007)
and by Cruz-Garcia and Howard (2013)
who found that girls knew more wild food
plants than boys in northeastern Thailand
and the Indian Western Ghats, respec-
tively. It should also be noted that a study
 Children’s Knowledge of Wild Food Plants in the Forest-Agriculture Interface 215
Table 4. Mean, standard deviation (SD), minimum, and maximum number of plants listed by children, by
sociocultural group, sex, and age.
Mean
Sociocultural group and sex:  
Indigenous girls 8.4
Mestizo girls 10.9
Indigenous boys 7.9
Mestizo boys 9.5
Socio-cultural group and age: *  
Indigenous younger 6.6
Mestizo younger 10.4
Indigenous older 10.3
Mestizo older 10.5
* Four children did not list their age, which are considered missing values.
conducted among children in the Bolivian
Amazon, Blacutt-Rivero et al. (2016) found
that gender differences existed in relation
to practical knowledge of palm trees (e.g.,
palm uses) but not in relation to theoretical
knowledge (e.g., naming palms). For these
reasons, we cannot exclude that there might
be gender differences in children’s practical
knowledge (e.g., use, management, and
preparation) about wild food plants.
We found that younger children had
shorter lists than older children, the differ-
ence being significant in statistical terms
(Mann-Whitney U at 0.05), particularly
for Indigenous children (Mann-Whitney
U at 0.05). Such differences could relate
to writing skills, probably higher among
mestizo than among Indigenous children.
The fact that older children had higher
levels of plant knowledge is not surprising
and is in line with previous findings. For
example, Wyndham (2010) also found that
older children presented better naming
scores than younger children, and Hynes
et al. (1997) found that older children
(10–14 years old) from the montane forests
of northwestern Argentina could identify
plants and their uses better than younger
children (6–9 years old). Similarly, Blacutt-
SD Min Max
     
3.3 3 16
4.4 2 22
4.1 1 19
4.9 2 22
     
2.8 1 12
5.0 2 22
3.7 4 19
4.4 3 18
Rivero et al. (2016) observed that older
children had more knowledge of palm trees
than younger ones in the Bolivian Amazon,
and Quinlan et al. (2016) documented that
children’s knowledge about plants signifi-
cantly increased with age in a rural village
located in Dominica, West Indies. The same
finding was reported by Gallois (2015) who
found that, in southeastern Cameroon,
Baka children’s ecological knowledge
varied according to age. Indeed, when
comparing different studies on children’s
ethnobiological knowledge, Quinlan et
al. (2016) concluded that, cross-culturally,
knowledge increases substantially between
nine and 12 years old, thus many children
already possess a thorough knowledge of
their natural environment by the age of 12.
Children’s Cognitive Salience of Wild
Food Plants
When comparing the complete lists,
the correlations of CSI values between
Indigenous boys and girls, mestizo boys
and girls, Indigenous younger and older
children, and mestizo younger and older
children, were all significant (Spearman’s ρ
at 0.01; see Supplemental Tables 1 and 2).
However, the different groups diverged on
Journal of Ethnobiology 2018  38(2): 205–222
216 Cruz-Garcia, Caffi, Zans, and Sanchez-Choy

several of the species with high CSI values
(i.e., CSI equal to or higher than 0.05).
Greater divergence was observed
between children from the same sex but
from different sociocultural groups than
between children from different sex but the
same sociocultural group (Table 5). Inga
edulis and Mangifera indica (mango) were
the only species with high salience for all
children groups stratified by socio-cul-
tural group and sex (Figure 3). These trees
are commonly present in home gardens,
where children play around them (and
with them), and their fruits are very easy
to collect and eat. Pouteria caimito and
Micropholis egensis were among the most
salient species for Indigenous but not
for mestizo boys and girls. The fruit of P.
caimito, which has a very sweet and tasty
mucilage, requires a specific knowledge
to be eaten. The pericarp has a resin that
sticks to the lips giving a sensation that both
lips would stick to each other, and people
usually make fun of this. Indigenous chil-
dren might have developed a better ability
to easily eat the mucilage of this species
without any problems. M. egensis, which
has a very small and sweet fruit, is mainly
cultivated for timber and hardly ever for
food. The consumption of this wild fruit
is not common among mestizos, i.e., M.
egensis was not listed among the wild food
plants consumed by mestizo adults in one
of the study villages (Cruz-Garcia and Vael
2017). Conversely, Carica papaya (papaya),
Passiflora ligularis, and Theobroma cacao
(cacao) had a high salience for mestizo but
not for Indigenous boys and girls. Certainly,
their fruits are very popular among mestizo
families, as they are easy to eat and very
common in their diet. These species are
cultivated mainly in home gardens by
mestizo families for family consumption,
with the exception of T. cacao, which is
cultivated as a source of income. Mestizo
children like to eat the mucilage of T.
cacao’s fruit, which mainly occurs during
the harvesting season when they help their
parents to separate the seeds from the cob
(then their parents dry the seeds before

Figure 3. Venn diagrams comparing most salient species for Indigenous and mestizo children (n  114). Each
circle comprises the most salient species for a specific group of children as indicated above the circle. Most salient
species are those with a CSI of 0.05 or higher. Species in the intersection between two circles are those that were
the most salient for both groups of children; whereas species that are not within the intersection were only salient
for one of the two groups. A compares Indigenous boys and girls, B mestizo boys and girls, C Indigenous and
mestizo boys, and D Indigenous and mestizo girls.

Journal of Ethnobiology 2018  38(2): 205–222

 Children’s Knowledge of Wild Food Plants in the Forest-Agriculture Interface 217

Table 5. Percentage of agreement regarding the most salient plants listed by children (i.e., CSI equal or higher than
0.05), by sociocultural group, sex, and age.

Agreement regarding the most

salient plants
Sociocultural group and sex:  

Indigenous boys Indigenous girls 41%

Mestizo boys Mestizo girls 41%
Indigenous boys Mestizo boys 18%
Indigenous girls Mestizo girls 29%
Sociocultural group and age:  

Indigenous older Indigenous younger 35%

Mestizo older Mestizo younger 53%
Indigenous older Mestizo older 17%
Indigenous younger Mestizo younger 29%

Figure 4. Diagrams comparing most salient species for Indigenous and mestizo younger and older children (n 
114 children). Each circle comprises the most salient species for a specific group of children as indicated above
the circle. Most salient species are those with a CSI of 0.05 or higher. Species in the intersection between two
circles are those that were the most salient for both groups of children; whereas species that are not within the
intersection were only salient for one of the two groups. A compares younger and older Indigenous children, B
younger and older mestizo children, C younger Indigenous and mestizo children, and D older Indigenous and
mestizo children.

selling them for making chocolate). The
fruits of T. cacao are also gathered in the
forest (Cruz-Garcia and Vael 2017). Indig-
enous communities do not cultivate T.
cacao.
Similarly, more differences were found
between children of the same age but from
different sociocultural groups, than between
children of different ages but from the same
sociocultural group (Table 5). Inga edulis

Journal of Ethnobiology 2018  38(2): 205–222

218 Cruz-Garcia, Caffi, Zans, and Sanchez-Choy
and Oenocarpus bataua were the only
species with high salience for all children
groups stratified by sociocultural group and
age (Figure 4). Inga edulis is very common
in home gardens and sometimes is grown
as living fence. Children like to climb on
and play around this tree and like to collect
and eat the fruits while playing. Sometimes
children play with I. edulis’s long pods like
swords. Oenocarpus bataua, which is rich
in oils, is very popular among Indigenous
and mestizo families in the region. Inga sp.,
M. egensis, and Pourouma cecropiifolia
were the most salient species for younger
and older Indigenous children, but not for
mestizo children. Certainly, these fruits
are highly appreciated among Indigenous
children. It is required to have some abil-
ities to eat the mucilage of Inga species’s
pods, and this might be more common
among Indigenous children. In contrast
with I. edulis, which has longer pods and
bigger seeds, the pods and seeds of Inga
sp. are smaller and, as result, it is more
difficult to separate the edible mucilage
from the seeds. For that, children roll the
fruit against their teeth with their tongue to
separate the seeds from the mucilage inside
the mouth, and then spit out the seeds like
small bullets. Likewise, the consumption of
P. cecropiifolia’s fruit also requires certain
abilities. The edible mesocarp is very slip-
pery, thus, sometimes children peel the
fruit and eat it directly from the peeled skin
with their mouths. Contrarily, C. papaya,
P. ligularis, and T. cacao were among the
most salient plants for younger and older
mestizo children but not for Indigenous
children. These results mirror the findings
documented when comparing boys and
girls by socio-cultural group (see previous
paragraph).
It is clear from these results that
inter-cultural differences—in contrast with
intra-cultural differences—were the most
important factor for differentiating the
salience of food plants. The salience of
species was mainly related to specific
knowledge or abilities that children have for
Journal of Ethnobiology 2018  38(2): 205–222
their consumption (i.e., fruits that are more
difficult to eat were more popular among
Indigenous children), the environments
where they are gathered, the livelihoods of
Indigenous and mestizos (i.e., small-scale
and commercial agriculture, respectively),
and their associated cultural values.
Certainly, Indigenous and mestizo peoples
in Ucayali possess different conceptualiza-
tions of their relationship with nature (see
Porro et al. 2015 for mestizos; Tournon 2006
for Shipibo-Konibo).
Conclusions
The results of this study show that
mestizo and Indigenous children in the
Peruvian Amazon conceptualize wild
food plants in a different way than scien-
tists do, as most species listed as wild food
plants have been classified as domesticated
by scientists. In addition, children listed
several introduced domesticates as wild
food plants. These findings might show
that children have lost or failed to acquire
knowledge about native non-domesticated
food plants, potentially originating by
changes in the bodies of local knowledge
associated with landscape transformations
in the forest-agriculture interface. We also
found that sociocultural group, followed
by age, was associated with variation in
the theoretical knowledge of wild food
plants, whereas we did not find differ-
ences associated with the sex of the child.
For instance, on the one hand, mestizo
children presented statistically significant
longer lists than Indigenous children, but
listed fewer native wild food plant species
and more introduced and commercial-
ized crops. On the other hand, Indigenous
children—in contrast with mestizos—gave
priority to species that require specific abil-
ities or knowledge to be consumed. These
differences might be related to different
preferences, gathering environments,
livelihoods, access to markets, and—ulti-
mately—different conceptualizations of
their relationship with nature. The results of
this study open the doors for future inves-
 Children’s Knowledge of Wild Food Plants in the Forest-Agriculture Interface 219
tigations on knowledge transmission and
factors affecting the transmission of wild
food plant knowledge in scenarios of land
use change along the forest-agriculture
interface.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Paul Peters,
who contributed with the organization of
the data, and Madelyn Hancco Carrion for
contributing to data collection. We would
like to extend our thanks to Paula Paz from
the Terra-i team from the International
Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), who
prepared the map and made the deforesta-
tion rate and forest cover calculations; and
to Hub Peters, who revised the English of
the manuscript. We are grateful to Victoria
Reyes-García, Sandrine Gallois, the Journal
editors, and three anonymous reviewers for
their valuable comments on earlier versions
of the manuscript. We are indebted to the
school teachers who gave us the oppor-
tunity to conduct the freelistings with the
students and to the children from Pueblo
Libre, La Unión, Puerto Belén, and Junín
Pablo who participated in the study.
This work was associated with the
Attaining Sustainable Services from
Ecosystems using Tradeoff Scenarios
project (ASSETS; http://espa-assets.org/;
NEJ002267-1), and partly funded with
support from the United Kingdom’s
Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation
(ESPA) program. ESPA receives its funding
from the Department for International
Development (DFID), the Economic and
Social Research Council (ESRC), and the
Natural Environment Research Council
(NERC). This study was also carried out
with financial and in-kind support from the
Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonía
Peruana (IIAP) and the International Center
for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT).
References Cited
Barreau, A., J. T. Ibarra, F. S. Wyndham, A. Rojas,
and R. A. Kozak. 2016. How Can We Teach
Our Children If We Cannot Access the
Forest? Generational Change in Mapuche
Knowledge of Wild Edible Plants in Andean
Temperate Ecosystems of Chile. Journal of
Ethnobiology 36:412–432.
Benz, B. F., J. Cevallos E, F. Santana M, J. Rosales
A, and S. Graf M. 2000. Losing Knowledge
About Plant Use in the Sierra De Manantlan
Biosphere Reserve, Mexico. Economic
Botany 54:183–191.
Berlin, B. 1992. Ethnobiological Classification:
Principles of Categorization of Plants and
Animals in Traditional Societies. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Berlin, B., and P. Stevens. 1994. Ethnobiological
Classification: Principles of Categorization
of Plants and Animals in Traditional Soci-
eties. Systematic Biology 43:293–295.
Bharucha, Z., and J. Pretty. 2010. The Roles
and Values of Wild Foods in Agricultural
Systems. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society 365:2913–2926.
Blacutt-Rivero, E., M. Moraes R, M. Gruca,
and H. Balslev. 2016. Local Knowledge
About Palms (Arecaceae) among Children
in Bolivia. Botanical Journal of the Linnean
Society 182:505–516.
Borgatti, S. 1999. Elicitation Techniques for
Cultural Domain Analysis. In Enhanced
Ethnographic Methods: Audiovisual Tech-
niques, Focussed Group Interviews and
Elicitation Techniques, edited by J. J.
Schensul, M. D. L. Compte, B. K. Nastasi,
and S. P. Borgatti, pp. 115–151. Altamira
Press, Walnut Creek, CA.
Casas, A., M. Del Carmen Vázquez, J. L. Viveros,
and J. Caballero. 1996. Plant Management
among the Nahua and the Mixtec in the
Balsas River Basin, Mexico: An Ethnobotan-
ical Approach to the Study of Plant Domes-
tication. Human Ecology 24:455–478.
CIAT (International Center for Tropical Agricul-
ture). 2015. Terra-i [website]. http://www.
terra-i.org/terra-i.html. Accessed on May
14, 2018.
Clement, C. R. 1999. 1492 and the Loss of
Amazonian Crop Genetic Resources. I.
The Relation between Domestication and
Human Population Decline. Economic
Botany 53:188–202.
Journal of Ethnobiology 2018  38(2): 205–222
220 Cruz-Garcia, Caffi, Zans, and Sanchez-Choy
Clement, C. R., M. de Cristo-Araújo, G.
Coppens D’Eeckenbrugge, A. Alves Pereira,
and D. Picanço-Rodrigues. 2010. Origin
and Domestication of Native Amazonian
Crops. Diversity 2:72–106.
Cruz-Garcia, G. S. 2006a. Children’s Knowl-
edge and Valuation of Wild Food Plants.
The Influence of an Educational Program
with Tribal and Non-Tribal Children in
Western Ghats, India. In Proceedings of
the Fourth International Congress of Ethno-
botany (ICEB 2005) Ethnobotany: At the
Junction of the Continents and the Disci-
plines, edited by F. Ertug, pp. 65–68. Zero
Prod. Ltd., Istanbul, Turkey.
Cruz-Garcia, G. S. 2006b. The Mother - Child
Nexus. Knowledge and Valuation of Wild
Food Plants in Wayanad, Western Ghats,
India. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethno-
medicine 2:39.
Cruz-Garcia, G. S. 2014. Symbol of Poverty?
Children’s Valuation of Wild Food Plants
in Wayanad, India. In Plants and People.
Choices and Diversity through Time,
edited by A. Chevalier, E. Marinova, and
L. Peña-Chocarro, pp. 421–427. Oxbow
Books, Oxford & Philadelphia.
Cruz-Garcia, G. S. 2017. Management and
Motivations to Manage “Wild” Food Plants.
A Case Study in a Mestizo Village in the
Amazon Deforestation Frontier. Frontiers in
Ecology and Evolution 5:127.
Cruz-Garcia, G. S., and F. Ertug. 2014. Intro-
duction: Wild Food Plants in the Present
and Past. In Plants and People. Choices
and Diversity through Time, edited by A.
Chevalier, E. Marinova, and L. Peña-Cho-
carro, pp. 211–215. Oxbow Books, Oxford
& Philadelphia.
Cruz-Garcia, G. S., and P. L. Howard. 2013.
‘I Used to Be Ashamed’. The Influence
of an Educational Program on Tribal and
Non-Tribal Children’s Knowledge and Valu-
ation of Wild Food Plants. Learning and
Individual Differences 27:234–240.
Cruz-Garcia, G. S., and L. Vael. 2017. El
Manejo De Plantas Silvestres Alimenti-
cias En Escenarios De Deforestación, Ilus-
trado Por Una Comunidad Mestiza De La
Amazonía Peruana. In Domesticación En El
Journal of Ethnobiology 2018  38(2): 205–222
Continente Americano. Volumen 2. Investi-
gación Y Manejo Sustentable De Recursos
Genéticos En El Nuevo Mundo, edited by
A. Casas and F. J. P.-R. Torres-Guevara, pp.
327–344. Universidad Nacional Autonoma
de México and Universidad Nacional
Agraria La Molina, Morelia, Mexico, and
Lima, Peru.
Galarza, E., and K. La Serna. 2005. Las Conce-
siones Forestales En El Perú:¿ Cómo
Hacerlas Sostenibles. Universidad del
Pacifico, Lima.
Gallois, S. 2015. Dynamics of Local Ecological
Knowledge : A Case Study among the Baka
Children from Southeastern Cameroon.
353 Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnología
Ambiental. Universidad Autónoma de
Barcelona, Barcelona.
Gallois, S., R. Duda, and V. Reyes-García. 2017.
Local Ecological Knowledge among Baka
Children: A Case of “Children’s Culture”?
Journal of Ethnobiology 37:60–80.
Giovannini, P., V. Reyes-García, A. Waldstein,
and M. Heinrich. 2011. Do Pharmaceu-
ticals Displace Local Knowledge and
Use of Medicinal Plants? Estimates from
a Cross-Sectional Study in a Rural Indige-
nous Community, Mexico. Social Science &
Medicine 72:928–936.
Global Forest Watch. 2016. Global Forest
Watch. Available at: http://www.global-
forestwatch.org/. Accessed on November
2015.
González-Insuasti, M. S., and J. Caballero. 2007.
Managing Plant Resources: How Intensive
Can It Be? Human Ecology 35:303–314.
Grivetti, L. E., and B. M. Ogle. 2000. Value of
Traditional Foods in Meeting Macro- and
Micronutrient Needs: The Wild Plant
Connection. Nutrition Research Reviews
13:31–46.
Hansen, M., R. DeFries, J. R. Townshend, and R.
Sohlberg. 2000. Global Land Cover Classi-
fication at 1 Km Spatial Resolution Using a
Classification Tree Approach. International
Journal of Remote Sensing 21:1331–1364.
Heywood, V. 2011. Ethnopharmacology, Food
Production, Nutrition and Biodiversity
Conservation: Towards a Sustainable Future
 Children’s Knowledge of Wild Food Plants in the Forest-Agriculture Interface 221
for Indigenous Peoples. Journal of Ethno-
pharmacology 137:1–15.
Hopkins, A. 2011. Use of Network Centrality
Measures to Explain Individual Levels
of Herbal Remedy Cultural Competence
among the Yucatec Maya in Tabi, Mexico.
Field Methods 23:307–328.
Hunn, E. 2008. A Zapotec Natural History:
Trees, Herbs, and Flowers, Birds, Beasts,
and Bugs in the Life of San Juan Gbëë.
University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Hynes, A. L., A. D. Brown, H. R. Grau, and
A. Grau. 1997. Local Knowledge and the
Use of Plants in Rural Communities in the
Montane Forests of Northwestern Argen-
tina. Mountain Research and Development
17:263–271.
INEI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística e
Informática). 2011. Producto Bruto Interno
Por Departamentos, 2001–2010. Insti-
tuto Nacional de Estadística e Informática
(INEI), Lima. Available at: https://www.
inei.gob.pe/media/MenuRecursivo/publi-
caciones_digitales/Est/Lib0995/Libro.pdf.
Accessed on June 2017.
ISE (International Society of Ethnobiology).
2006. International Society of Ethnobi-
ology Code of Ethics (with 2008 additions)
[website]. URL: http://ethnobiology.net/
code-of-ethics/. Accessed on May 4, 2018.
Jones, A. M. P., S. J. Murch, J. Wiseman, and D.
Ragone. 2013. Morphological Diversity in
Breadfruit (Artocarpus, Moraceae): Insights
into Domestication, Conservation, and
Cultivar Identification. Genetic Resources
and Crop Evolution 60:175–192.
Levis, C., F. R. Costa, F. Bongers, M. Peña-
Claros, C. R. Clement, A. B. Junqueira, E.
G. Neves, E. K. Tamanaha, F. O. Figueiredo,
and R. P. Salomão. 2017. Persistent Effects
of Pre-Columbian Plant Domestication on
Amazonian Forest Composition. Science
355:925–931.
Michon, G., and H. De Foresta. 1997. Agrofor-
ests: Pre-Domestication of Forest Trees or
True Domestication of Forest Ecosystems?
Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science
45:451–462.
MINEM-GOREU. 2007. Caracterización Del
Departamento De Ucayali, Con Fines
De Ordenamiento Territorial. Ministerio
de Energía y Minas (MINEM) y Gobierno
Regional de Ucayali (GOREU), Pucallpa.
Miranda, J. J., L. Corral, A. Blackman, G. Asner,
and E. Lima. 2014. Effects of Protected
Areas on Forest Cover Change and Local
Communities: Evidence from the Peruvian
Amazon. Inter-American Development
Bank, Washington.
Missouri Botanical Garden. 2017. Topicos [web
page]. URL: http://www.tropicos.org/.
Accessed on June 1 2017.
Müller, J. G., R. Boubacar, and I. D. Guimbo.
2015. The “How” and “Why” of Including
Gender and Age in Ethnobotanical
Research and Community-Based Resource
Management. Ambio 44:67–78.
Murray, T. P. 2006. Rhythm of the Rivers. An
Ecosystem Approach to Child Nutrition and
Health on the Amazon Frontier. Unpub-
lished Doctoral Dissertation, College of
Health and Science, University of Western
Sydney, Richmond, NSW, Australia.
Oliveira, P. J., G. P. Asner, D. E. Knapp, A.
Almeyda, R. Galván-Gildemeister, S.
Keene, R. F. Raybin, and R. C. Smith. 2007.
Land-Use Allocation Protects the Peruvian
Amazon. Science 317:1233–1236.
Pimentel, L. V., E. B. Rengifo, and R. L. Porto-
misnski. 2004. The Great Encyclopedia
of the Ucayali Region: Peruvian Amazon:
Regional Identity. El Comercio, Lima, Peru.
Porro, R., A. Lopez-Feldman, and J. W. Vela-Al-
varado. 2015. Forest Use and Agriculture
in Ucayali, Peru: Livelihood Strategies,
Poverty and Wealth in an Amazon Frontier.
Forest Policy and Economics 51:47–56.
Posey, D. A. 1985. Indigenous Management of
Tropical Forest Ecosystems: The Case of the
Kayapó Indians of the Brazilian Amazon.
Agroforestry Systems 3:139–158.
Quinlan, M. B., R. J. Quinlan, S. K. Council, and
J. W. Roulette. 2016. Children’s Acquisition
of Ethnobotanical Knowledge in a Carib-
bean Horticultural Village. Journal of Ethno-
biology 36:433–456.
Ramos Delgado, N., and G. Domínguez
Torrejón. 2009. Impacto De La Produc-
ción Forestal Maderable En La Economía
De La Región Ucayali, Perú. Universidad
Journal of Ethnobiology 2018  38(2): 205–222
222 Cruz-Garcia, Caffi, Zans, and Sanchez-Choy
Nacional Agraria La Molina, Lima (Perú).
Escuela de Postgrado. Especialidad de
Bosques y Gestión de Recursos Forestales.
Reyes-García, V., J. Broesch, L. Calvet-Mir, N.
Fuentes-Peláez, T. W. McDade, S. Parsa,
S. Tanner, T. Huanca, W. R. Leonard, and
M. R. Martínez-Rodríguez. 2009. Cultural
Transmission of Ethnobotanical Knowledge
and Skills: An Empirical Analysis from an
Amerindian Society. Evolution and Human
Behavior 30:274–285.
Reyes-García, V., J. Paneque-Gálvez, M. Gueze,
A. C. Luz, M. J. Macía, M. Orta-Martínez,
and J. Pino. 2014. Cultural Change and
Traditional Ecological Knowledge: An
Empirical Analysis from the Tsimane’ in the
Bolivian Amazon. Human Organization
73:162–173.
Reyes-García, V., V. Vadez, E. Byron, L. Apaza,
W. Leonard, E. Pérez, and D. Wilkie. 2005.
Market Economy and the Loss of Ethno-
botanical Knowledge: Estimates from
Tsimane’ Amerindians, Bolivia. Current
Anthropology 46:651–656.
Salisbury, D. S., and C. Fagan. 2013. Coca and
Conservation: Cultivation, Eradication, and
Trafficking in the Amazon Borderlands.
GeoJournal 78:41–60.
Schunko, C., S. Grasser, and C. R. Vogl. 2012.
Intracultural Variation of Knowledge About
Wild Plant Uses in the Biosphere Reserve
Grosses Walsertal (Austria). Journal of
Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 8:23.
Setalaphruk, C., and L. L. Price. 2007. Chil-
dren’s Traditional Ecological Knowledge
of Wild Food Resources. A Case Study in a
Rural Village in Northeast Thailand. Journal
of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 3:33.
Souto, T., and T. Ticktin. 2012. Understanding
Interrelationships among Predictors (Age,
Gender, and Origin) of Local Ecological
Knowledge. Economic Botany 66:149–164.
Journal of Ethnobiology 2018  38(2): 205–222
View publication stats
Sutrop, U. 2001. List Task and Cognitive Salience
Index. Field Methods 13:263–276.
The Plant List. 2013. The Plant List. A Working
List of All Plant Species. Version 1.1 [web
page]. URL: http://www.theplantlist.org.
Accessed on July 1, 2017.
Tournon, J. 2002. La merma mágica: vida e
historia de los shipibo-conibo del Ucayali.
Centro Amazónico de Antropología y Apli-
cación Práctica, Lima.
Tournon, J. 2006. Las Plantas, Los Rao Y Sus
Espíritus:(Etnobotánica Del Ucayali). Gobi-
erno Regional Ucayali, Gerencia Regional
de Desarrollo Social.
USDA (United States Department of Agricul-
ture). 2017. Plants Database [web page].
URL: https://plants.usda.gov. Accessed on
July 1, 2017.
Vásque, M. G., and F. P. Peláez. 2015. Especies
Vegetales Utilizadas Por Pobladores De
Berlín, Bagua Grande (Amazonas, Perú)
2011-2012. Revista REBIOLEST 2:61–75.
Wiersum, K. F. 1997. Indigenous Exploita-
tion and Management of Tropical Forest
Resources: An Evolutionary Continuum
in Forest-People Interactions. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 63:1–16.
Wyndham, F. S. 2010. Environments of Learning:
Rarámuri Children’s Plant Knowledge and
Experience of Schooling, Family and Land-
scapes in the Sierra Tarahumara, Mexico.
Human Ecology 38:87–99.
Young, K. 2002. Minding the Children: Knowl-
edge Transfer and the Future of Sustainable
Agriculture. Conservation Biology 16:855–
856.
Zarger, R., and J. Stepp. 2004. Persistence of
Botanical Knowledge among Tzeltal Maya
Children. Current Anthropology 45:413–
418.