作为生物文化管理工具的文化基石物种。全球综述

IF 4.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Giulia Mattalia, Alex McAlvay, Irene Teixidor‐Toneu, Jessica Lukawiecki, Faisal Moola, Zemede Asfaw, Rodrigo Cámara‐Leret, Sandra Díaz, F. M. Franco, Benjamin S. Halpern, C. O’Hara, Delphine Renard, Yadav Uprety, Jeffrey Wall, Noelia Zafra‐Calvo, Victoria Reyes‐García
{"title":"作为生物文化管理工具的文化基石物种。全球综述","authors":"Giulia Mattalia, Alex McAlvay, Irene Teixidor‐Toneu, Jessica Lukawiecki, Faisal Moola, Zemede Asfaw, Rodrigo Cámara‐Leret, Sandra Díaz, F. M. Franco, Benjamin S. Halpern, C. O’Hara, Delphine Renard, Yadav Uprety, Jeffrey Wall, Noelia Zafra‐Calvo, Victoria Reyes‐García","doi":"10.1002/pan3.10653","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\n\nThe cultural keystone species (CKS) concept (i.e. ‘species that shape in a major way the cultural identity of a people’ as defined by Garibaldi and Turner in 2004) has been proposed as part of a common framing for the multiple entangled relationships between species and the socioecological systems in which they exist. However, the blurred and prolific definitions of CKS hamper its univocal application. This work examines the current use of the term CKS to reconcile a definition and explore its practical applications for biocultural stewardship.\n\nWe ran a search for the words ‘cultural’ AND ‘keystone’ AND ‘species’. Our search was limited to peer‐reviewed articles published in English between 1994 and 2022 (inclusive) and was conducted using Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. We extracted and analysed bibliometric information as well as information on (i) the CKS components, (ii) humans' support for CKS and (iii) the definitions of CKS.\n\nFrom the 313 selected documents, the CKS concept appears to be increasingly accepted, as evidenced by a growing corpus of literature. However, the absence of a systematic and precise way of documenting CKS precludes global cross‐cultural comparisons.\n\nThe geographical distribution of authors using the concept is biased. We found that 47% of all the CKS reported and 38% of the works identified in our review were located in North America.\n\nBeyond ‘supporting identity’, several other of nature's contributions to people are associated with the CKS definitions. However, the contributions of the sociocultural group to the survival and conservation of the CKS (i.e. stewardship) are made explicit only in one‐third of the documents reviewed.\n\nTo advance biocultural stewardship as a conservation paradigm, we suggest (a) defining CKS as an indissoluble combination of a non‐human species and one or more sociocultural groups; (b) acknowledging that species and sociocultural group relations should be classified in a continuum, according to gradients of relationship intensity; and (c) explicitly acknowledging the reciprocal relationships between sociocultural groups and species.\n\nRead the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.","PeriodicalId":52850,"journal":{"name":"People and Nature","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cultural keystone species as a tool for biocultural stewardship. A global review\",\"authors\":\"Giulia Mattalia, Alex McAlvay, Irene Teixidor‐Toneu, Jessica Lukawiecki, Faisal Moola, Zemede Asfaw, Rodrigo Cámara‐Leret, Sandra Díaz, F. M. Franco, Benjamin S. Halpern, C. O’Hara, Delphine Renard, Yadav Uprety, Jeffrey Wall, Noelia Zafra‐Calvo, Victoria Reyes‐García\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/pan3.10653\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n\\n\\nThe cultural keystone species (CKS) concept (i.e. ‘species that shape in a major way the cultural identity of a people’ as defined by Garibaldi and Turner in 2004) has been proposed as part of a common framing for the multiple entangled relationships between species and the socioecological systems in which they exist. However, the blurred and prolific definitions of CKS hamper its univocal application. This work examines the current use of the term CKS to reconcile a definition and explore its practical applications for biocultural stewardship.\\n\\nWe ran a search for the words ‘cultural’ AND ‘keystone’ AND ‘species’. Our search was limited to peer‐reviewed articles published in English between 1994 and 2022 (inclusive) and was conducted using Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. We extracted and analysed bibliometric information as well as information on (i) the CKS components, (ii) humans' support for CKS and (iii) the definitions of CKS.\\n\\nFrom the 313 selected documents, the CKS concept appears to be increasingly accepted, as evidenced by a growing corpus of literature. However, the absence of a systematic and precise way of documenting CKS precludes global cross‐cultural comparisons.\\n\\nThe geographical distribution of authors using the concept is biased. We found that 47% of all the CKS reported and 38% of the works identified in our review were located in North America.\\n\\nBeyond ‘supporting identity’, several other of nature's contributions to people are associated with the CKS definitions. However, the contributions of the sociocultural group to the survival and conservation of the CKS (i.e. stewardship) are made explicit only in one‐third of the documents reviewed.\\n\\nTo advance biocultural stewardship as a conservation paradigm, we suggest (a) defining CKS as an indissoluble combination of a non‐human species and one or more sociocultural groups; (b) acknowledging that species and sociocultural group relations should be classified in a continuum, according to gradients of relationship intensity; and (c) explicitly acknowledging the reciprocal relationships between sociocultural groups and species.\\n\\nRead the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52850,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"People and Nature\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"People and Nature\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10653\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"People and Nature","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10653","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

文化基石物种(CKS)的概念(即加里波第和特纳在 2004 年定义的 "对一个民族的文化认同具有重要影响的物种")已被提出,作为物种与它们所在的社会生态系统之间多重纠缠关系的共同框架的一部分。然而,"中观系统 "的定义模糊且繁多,妨碍了它的统一应用。我们对'文化'、'基石'和'物种'这三个词进行了搜索。我们使用谷歌学术、PubMed、Scopus 和 Web of Science 对 1994 年至 2022 年(含 2022 年)之间发表的同行评审过的英文文章进行了搜索。我们提取并分析了文献计量学信息以及以下方面的信息:(i) CKS 的组成部分;(ii) 人类对 CKS 的支持;(iii) CKS 的定义。然而,由于缺乏系统而精确的 CKS 文献方法,因此无法进行全球跨文化比较。除了 "支持身份 "之外,大自然对人类的其他一些贡献也与中美洲文化中心的定义有关。然而,社会文化群体对中科英才生存和保护的贡献(即管理)仅在三分之一的审查文件中得到明确阐述。为了将生物文化管理作为一种保护范式加以推进,我们建议:(a)将中科斯定义为非人类物种与一个或多个社会文化群体的不可分割的组合;(b)承认物种与社会文化群体的关系应根据关系强度的梯度划分为一个连续体;以及(c)明确承认社会文化群体与物种之间的互惠关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cultural keystone species as a tool for biocultural stewardship. A global review
The cultural keystone species (CKS) concept (i.e. ‘species that shape in a major way the cultural identity of a people’ as defined by Garibaldi and Turner in 2004) has been proposed as part of a common framing for the multiple entangled relationships between species and the socioecological systems in which they exist. However, the blurred and prolific definitions of CKS hamper its univocal application. This work examines the current use of the term CKS to reconcile a definition and explore its practical applications for biocultural stewardship. We ran a search for the words ‘cultural’ AND ‘keystone’ AND ‘species’. Our search was limited to peer‐reviewed articles published in English between 1994 and 2022 (inclusive) and was conducted using Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. We extracted and analysed bibliometric information as well as information on (i) the CKS components, (ii) humans' support for CKS and (iii) the definitions of CKS. From the 313 selected documents, the CKS concept appears to be increasingly accepted, as evidenced by a growing corpus of literature. However, the absence of a systematic and precise way of documenting CKS precludes global cross‐cultural comparisons. The geographical distribution of authors using the concept is biased. We found that 47% of all the CKS reported and 38% of the works identified in our review were located in North America. Beyond ‘supporting identity’, several other of nature's contributions to people are associated with the CKS definitions. However, the contributions of the sociocultural group to the survival and conservation of the CKS (i.e. stewardship) are made explicit only in one‐third of the documents reviewed. To advance biocultural stewardship as a conservation paradigm, we suggest (a) defining CKS as an indissoluble combination of a non‐human species and one or more sociocultural groups; (b) acknowledging that species and sociocultural group relations should be classified in a continuum, according to gradients of relationship intensity; and (c) explicitly acknowledging the reciprocal relationships between sociocultural groups and species. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
People and Nature
People and Nature Multiple-
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
9.80%
发文量
103
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信