Cotton: Traditional and Modern Uses

Abstract

Cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L., is one of the most important crops for humanity. It is placed among the top ten most widely grown crops in the world even though its main purpose is not food. In addition to the appreciation for its fibers, cultures learned to use the whole plant for many uses, from controlling reproduction and pharmaceuticals to pigments and cattle feed.
Wild populations of this species, that inhabit coastal dunes and lowlands, are heavily impacted by multiple factors that limit their proper conservation, such as land use changes caused by the development of resorts, roads, residential areas, and the general disturbance of coastal areas. On the other hand, biosecurity measures currently taken have proved inefficient in the face of gene and transgene flow with cultivated relatives of the same species.
In 2002, we began to study the populations of wild cotton to propose strategies that could contribute to in situ conservation of the species in Mexico, its center of origin and diversity. Since then, we have made multiple visits to each of the cotton metapopulations and talked to the people living in the same communities. We also investigated the genetic diversity, interactions between plants and insects, bacteria and fungi while documenting uses and traditions preserved by the people, which became valuable contributions that motivated us to write this chapter. We noted that the problems caused by migration, poverty, and loss of consciousness by the younger generations transcend from cotton conservation to society as a whole. These situations pointed out that long-term conservation of plant genetic resources of Mesoamerica will only be possible through the preservation of ancient knowledge about the care of crop fields (such as milpa), traditional and medicinal uses of plants, indigenous languages, gastronomy and general habits and customs that shaped the great biodiversity of Mesoamerica to domesticate over 150 crops that are important to humanity today.
Thus, one way to create conservation strategies for these plants is to make information available to all public about their past, present, and potential uses in order to promote care for the plants and their environment at local and global levels. In this chapter, we will discuss traditional and current uses of G. hirsutum, especially in Mesoamerica, because this region is its center of domestication and therefore, where the longest relationship with human civilizations has been established. Here, we show that instead of taking advantage from their great potential for generating long-term biosafety conditions and improving conservation strategies for this species at its center of origin and diversity, our society is wasting opportunities of the multiple uses cotton could provide.

Full text

439
Chapter 18
Cotton: Traditional and Modern Uses
Ana Wegier , Valeria Alavez , and Daniel Piñero
Abstract Cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L., is one of the most important crops for
humanity. It is placed among the top ten most widely grown crops in the world even
though its main purpose is not food. In addition to the appreciation for its fi bers,
cultures learned to use the whole plant for many uses, from controlling reproduction
and pharmaceuticals to pigments and cattle feed.
Wild populations of this species, that inhabit coastal dunes and lowlands, are
heavily impacted by multiple factors that limit their proper conservation, such as
land use changes caused by the development of resorts, roads, residential areas, and
the general disturbance of coastal areas. On the other hand, biosecurity measures
currently taken have proved ineffi cient in the face of gene and transgene fl ow with
cultivated relatives of the same species.
In 2002, we began to study the populations of wild cotton to propose strategies
that could contribute to in situ conservation of the species in Mexico, its center of
origin and diversity. Since then, we have made multiple visits to each of the cotton
metapopulations and talked to the people living in the same communities. We also
investigated the genetic diversity, interactions between plants and insects, bacteria
and fungi while documenting uses and traditions preserved by the people, which
became valuable contributions that motivated us to write this chapter. We noted that
the problems caused by migration, poverty, and loss of consciousness by the younger
generations transcend from cotton conservation to society as a whole. These situa-
tions pointed out that long-term conservation of plant genetic resources of
Mesoamerica will only be possible through the preservation of ancient knowl-
edge about the care of crop fi elds (such as milpa), traditional and medicinal uses of
plants, indigenous languages, gastronomy and general habits and customs that
shaped the great biodiversity of Mesoamerica to domesticate over 150 crops that are
important to humanity today.
A. Wegier , M.Sc. (*) • V. Alavez , B.Sc.
Jardín Botánico-Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México ,
Mexico, Distrito Federal , Mexico
e-mail: awegier@gmail.com; valeria.alavez@gmail.com
D. Piñero , Ph.D.
Instituto de Ecología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México , Mexico,
Distrito Federal , Mexico
e-mail: pinero@unam.mx
© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
R. Lira et al. (eds.), Ethnobotany of Mexico, Ethnobiology,
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-6669-7_18

440
Thus, one way to create conservation strategies for these plants is to make infor-
mation available to all public about their past, present, and potential uses in order to
promote care for the plants and their environment at local and global levels. In this
chapter, we will discuss traditional and current uses of G. hirsutum , especially in
Mesoamerica, because this region is its center of domestication and therefore,
where the longest relationship with human civilizations has been established. Here,
we show that instead of taking advantage from their great potential for generating
long-term biosafety conditions and improving conservation strategies for this spe-
cies at its center of origin and diversity, our society is wasting opportunities of the
multiple uses cotton could provide.
Keywords Cotton • In situ conservation • Genetic diversity • Traditional uses
Introduction
Cotton has been a fundamental natural resource since the origin of various civiliza-
tions and today remains as one of the groups of species most important plant species
for mankind [ 1 , 2 ]. It is the most widely used natural fi ber and the sixth largest
source of vegetable oil [ 3 ]. Also, ranked seventh in the world cultivated area and
genetically modifi ed cotton is the third most planted biotech crop worldwide [ 3 , 4 ].
It is important to note that within the fi fteen most important crops, cotton is the only
one that did not acquire its value by being a staple food [ 2 ].
Given its economic importance worldwide, Cotton ( Gossypium L.) is a genus
that has captured the attention of agricultural scientists, taxonomists, and evolution-
ary biologists. Especially in recent decades, molecular technologies have been
implemented to answer questions about the origin of polyploidy species, the phylo-
genetic relationships inside the genus and the origins of domesticated plants from
their wild progenitors, among others [ 2 ].
Perhaps the most striking aspect of cotton domestication is that given the wide
geographical distribution of the genus, different species became involved with
ancient cultures in different continents, which led to a process of convergent or
parallel domestication from divergent and geographically isolated wild ancestors.
This parallel domestication involved four species: two American, G. hirsutum and
G. barbadense , and two African and Asian, G. arboreum and G. herbaceum .
Thousands of years ago, the inhabitants of different regions of the world discov-
ered, independently, the unique properties of the fi bers of these four cotton species
and began to select them for manufacturing thread, ropes, textiles, and other appli-
cations. Each of these species has a unique history of domestication, diversifi ca-
tion, and use [ 1 ] that has modeled their genetic structure through management and
artifi cial selection of the variation caused by evolutionary processes over millions
of years.
A. Wegier et al.

441
Of the four domesticated species of cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. represents 95
% of the current production and most wild populations of this species live in Mexico.
Although there has been extensive research on its biology, ecology, and genetics,
most have been performed on domesticated plants and outside its natural distribu-
tion range; therefore, little is known about the whole species since, after the domes-
tication process, only part of the variation that could be found in wild populations is
preserved in other areas. Consequently, research on domesticated plants should be
used with caution and without extrapolating to the rest of the species.
The Gossypium Genus
Gossypium seem to have diverged from its closest relatives during the Miocene,
subsequently expanding worldwide by various transoceanic dispersal events,
acquiring its current geographical distribution [ 5 ]. The taxonomy of the genus has
been well studied. The species are grouped into four subgenera (i.e., Gossypium L.,
Houzingenia Fryxell, Sturtia R. Brown Todaro, and Karpas Rafi nesque) and seven
sections. This classifi cation system is based primarily on morphological and geo-
graphical evidence, although most infrageneric classifi cations are consistent with
cytogenetic and molecular data [ 2 ]. The centers of diversity of the genus are defi ned
by being rich in number of species and include Australia, the Horn of Africa
(Somalia, Djibouti, Eritrea, and Ethiopia), the southern Arabian Peninsula, and the
western part of central and southern Mexico [ 1 , 2 , 6 , 7 ].
Currently, the extraordinarily diverse genus Gossypium includes about 50 spe-
cies [ 2 ]. As the genus diversifi ed and expanded, an extensive chromosomal evolu-
tion followed. Although all diploid species share the same number of chromosomes
( n = 13), DNA per genome is very variable. Chromosome morphology is similar
between closely related species, and this is refl ected by the ability of species to
produce hybrids that display regular pairing of chromosomes during meiosis and
sometimes high fertility in F1. In contrast, crosses between more distant relatives
are diffi cult to make and those that are successful often have abnormalities during
meiosis. The collective observations of mating behavior, size of chromosomes, and
the relative fertility in interspecifi c hybrids led to the designation of single letter
symbols to defi ne groups of species sharing each genome type. Currently, eight sets
of diploid genomes are recognized (i.e., from A to G and K; [ 5 ]).
All Gossypium species produce seeds with elongated epidermal cells that resem-
ble short cylindrical hairs (1–3 mm); however, the species from which the culti-
vated cottons were domesticated present a second layer of longer hairs (10–25 mm),
with thinner secondary cell walls possessing cellulose strands that laid down in
periodically reversing spirals [ 2 , 8 ]. These kind of longer fi bers can be spun into a
yarn because when they desiccate at maturity form a fl attened ribbon that lastly
convolutes and twists because of the structure of its cell walls (Fig. 18.1 ) [ 2 , 7 ]. The
layer of elongated lint, the main target trait selected for domestication, is restricted
to the A (African–Asian) and AD-genome (American) species of Gossypium [ 2 ].
18 Cotton: Traditional and Modern Uses

442
Origin and Distribution of Diploid Domesticates
The cultivated A-genome diploids of the Old World, G. arboreum and G. herba-
ceum, are known primarily as crop plants, but the time and place of its domestica-
tion remains unclear. These short-staple cottons (fi ber length <23 mm) are important
regionally (i.e., Africa and Asia), while allotetraploid cultivates still dominate cot-
ton production in the world [ 2 , 9 ].
Gossypium herbaceum subsp . africanum is regarded as the wild progenitor of
cultivated G. herbaceum subsp . herbaceum given its distinct morphology and that
Fig. 18.1 Cotton fi ber. Up : Lateral view of cotton mature bolls with fi ber exposed, from wild ( left )
to domesticate ( right ). Center : Upper view of cotton mature bolls, from wild ( left ) to domesticate
( right ). Down : transformation of cotton bolls into yarn and thread (from left to right )
A. Wegier et al.

443
it is fully established in southern African forests and grasslands, which are generally
accepted as the source of the original G. herbaceum cultigens although today this
region is far away from historical or present diploid cotton cultivation [ 2 , 9 ].
On the other hand, no wild progenitor is known to G. arboreum . The Indus
Valley (Mohenjo-Daro) could be regarded as its possible center of original domes-
tication because it is the center of diversity for this species; however, centers of
diversity do not necessarily correspond to original geographic points of origin [ 2 ].
In fact, Hutchinson [ 10 ] considers the Indus Valley cottons to be more similar to
northern, more agronomically advanced G. arboreum cultivars [ 2 ]. Gossypium
arboreum has fi ve races: (a) Indicum , (b) Burmanicum , (c) Sinense , (d) Sudanense ,
and (e) Cernum [ 9 ]. Race Indicum, a primitive perennial domesticate, represents the
most agronomically primitive form of G. arboreum, which was subsequently dis-
persed into peninsular India and along the east coast of Africa and perhaps into East
Asia as a consequence of the Indian Ocean trade routes and with the rise of modern
textile industry [ 2 ].
The only archeological remains (i.e., cloth fragments and yarn) from diploid
domesticates were recovered in India and Pakistan (dated to 4300 years B.P.) and
belong to G. arboreum. No archeological evidence about G. herbaceum has been
identifi ed but its wide distribution prior to the development of industrial textile manu-
facturing imply a history of domestication at least as long as that of G. arboreum [ 2 ].
Origin and Distribution of Allotetraploid Domesticates
The allotetraploid cottons are the result of the union of two genomes, A and D,
which evolved in different hemispheres and diverged isolated from each other for
millions of years [ 2 ].
Long-distance dispersal played an important role not only in the diversifi cation
of major lineages but also in speciation within genomic groups of Gossypium [ 2 ].
Multiple intercontinental dispersal and transoceanic pathways are inferred during
the evolutionary history of the genus. These include, at least, one dispersal event
between Australia and Africa, another to America (probably Mexico) leading to the
evolution of diploid D genome and a second, much later, colonization of the New
World of the genome A ancestor that gave rise to the allopolyploid genome
AD. Wendel and Albert [ 11 ] raised the possibility of a radiation prior to the domes-
tication of the A-genome in Asia, followed by a transpacifi c migration, rather than
a transatlantic one. This possibility is supported by the biogeography of D -genome
species, following the hypothesis that they originated in western Mexico [ 2 ].
The origin of American Gossypium allopolyploids remained a classic mystery of
botany for half a century. Today, genetic sequence data convincingly demonstrate
that allopolyploids originated in the Middle Pleistocene, between one and two mil-
lion years before the earliest records of Homo sapiens , therefore, making unlikely
that Homo sapiens could intervene in the process of hybridization. A-genome spe-
cies (i.e., G. arboreum and G. herbaceum ) are equally divergent from the A-genome
18 Cotton: Traditional and Modern Uses

444
of allopolyploids. The identity of the donor remains unclear although it seems to be
most closely related to the present-day G. herbaceum because at the genomic level,
both A-genome diploids differ from A-genome allotetraploids by reciprocal trans-
locations of chromosome arms, but G. herbaceum presents two translocations
instead of three like G. arboreum [ 12 – 14 ].
The closest living relative of the D -genome parental donor is G. gossypioides [ 2 ,
15 , 16 ], although, historically, there has been another candidate: G. raimondii [ 17 ].
However, DNA sequence data revealed extensive recombination and introgression
with rDNA sequences from A-genome cottons which could be explained by an
ancient hybridization event, between G. gossypioides and an A-genome species [ 2 ].
Another aspect of the history of polyploid cottons that has been clarifi ed is that all
possess the A-genome cytoplasm and, most likely, from a single source. Studies
employing nuclear genes (inherited biparentally) lead to the same conclusion. Thus,
evidence indicates that all allopolyploid cottons come from the same ancestors [ 2 ].
Considering a Pleistocene origin of allopolyploid cotton species, it could be
inferred that morphological diversifi cation and expansion must have happened very
quickly. Five allopolyploid species are recognized: G. darwinii is native to the
Galapagos Islands, where it forms extensive and abundant populations in some
areas. G. tomentosum , native to the Hawaiian Islands has a much more diffuse pop-
ulation structure, mostly as scattered small populations on several islands. A third
allopolyploid, G . mustelinum is a rare species restricted to a relatively small region
in northern Brazil [ 18 ]. Gossypium barbadense , meanwhile, presents a southern
natural distribution, concentrated in the northern third of South America but with a
broad overlapping area of with G. hirsutum in the Caribbean. Finally, G. hirsutum
has a wide natural range, collectively presenting a morphological richness that cov-
ers the continuum of wild to domesticate. Wild G. hirsutum is distributed in the
coastal dunes and tropical rainforests of Mesoamerica and has even been reported
in remote Pacifi c islands like the Solomon Islands or the Marquesas. The latter two
species were domesticated independently by Hispanic cultures [ 1 ].
Gossypium barbadense
The original domestication of G. barbadense , also known as Pima or Egyptian cot-
ton, most probably occurred in South America, along the coastline of central Peru,
where the earliest archeobotanical remains dated 5500 years BP were recovered
(e.g., plant remains like seeds, fi ber or fruits, or manufactured r emnants of yarn,
fi shing lines, nets, and textiles) [ 2 , 19 ]. The primitive agronomic characteristics of
the remains along with molecular evidence that uncovered a center of genetic diver-
sity in agreement with the geographic area where wild populations are distributed
support this hypothesis [ 2 , 7 ].
Today, G. barbadense is produced in several regions of Central Asia, Egypt,
Sudan, India, the United States, and China. This species presents long, strong, fi ne
A. Wegier et al.

445
fi bers, but its yield is relatively low, specially compared to G. hirsutum , which is
why it accounts for less than 10 % of total world cotton production [ 2 ].
Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum or “upland” cotton, accounts for more than the 90 % of the
cotton production in the world, and its cultivars are widely distributed worldwide
ranging from tropical to temperate latitudes in approximately 40 countries, being
China, the United States, and India the main producers [ 3 ]. It is the only genetically
modifi ed species of Gossypium .
Gossypium hirsutum has a long history in Mesoamerica. This region is the center
of origin and genetic diversity of wild populations, and it is the place where the
relationship with human civilizations was fi rst established [ 20 ]. Therefore, it is in
Mesoamerica where upland cotton domestication took place, and this process meant
the starting point of a relationship that developed into a deep cultural, economic,
and anthropological association that prevails until today.
With the advent of novel technologies, extensive cultivation and the growth of
international commerce, cotton applications have increased in diversity and have
expanded worldwide. In the following pages we will review both, the traditional
uses of G. hirsutum at its center of domestication and its modern uses.
Traditional Uses of Gossypium hirsutum
The oldest archeobotanical remains found at the Tehuacan Valley set cotton utiliza-
tion and cultivation as early as 4000–5000 years BC [ 2 ], while ethnographic descrip-
tions, historical records, and pictorial sources reveal that Mesoamerican
civilizations—from Olmec to Maya and all Central Mexico cultures—were accom-
plished weavers and appreciated cotton and textiles among their most valuable
resources, which had an important impact on social, political, and economic prac-
tices of Prehispanic times [ 21 – 24 ].
Spinning and Weaving: Technologies and Signifi cance
Ethnohistorical evidence confi rms that during Prehispanic Mesoamerica, cotton thread
was spun by hand of women by means of, generally, three simple tools: (1) a thin
wooden spindle fi tted with (2) a ceramic disk or whorl, and (3) a small ceramic bowl
used to support the spindle as it twirled. These instruments were commonly made with
ceramic although wood, stone, and other materials have also been described [ 24 ].
18 Cotton: Traditional and Modern Uses

446
Cotton textiles where clearly manufactured and used in Central Mexico from a
very early date but with time, as the scale and intensity of cotton demand increased,
more specialized spinning equipment developed and more people became involved
in waving efforts [ 24 ]. Subtle differences in spinning techniques may have existed
among cultures, for instance, Mixtec codices from Oaxaca do not depict the use of
a support bowl, while practically all Central Mexico civilizations used it [ 24 ].
Spinning and weaving were activities that had a deep signifi cance to the femi-
nine identity and social status of Mesoamerican women, from their birth until their
death. Aztec girls, for instance, were presented with weaving tools as a birth ritual
and began to learn how to spin and weave at a very young age. Maya women were
also skilled in these activities. On the other hand, Mesoamerican women were tra-
ditionally buried with their spinning and weaving equipment suggesting the impor-
tance of carrying these tools into the afterlife [ 22 , 23 ]. Certain types of spinning and
weaving such as spinning of elite fi bers like cotton and the incorporation of precious
materials (e.g., dyes, feathers, and pearls) into textiles were highly respected elite
activities carried out by noblewomen whose tools were made of elite materials,
including gold and much others [ 23 ]. However, spinning artifacts found near
Xochicalco proved to be abundant and ubiquitous; a fi nding that suggest that both,
elite and commoner women, participated in textile production [ 24 ].
Finally, Mesoamerican cultures possessed a profound devotion to their deities,
which portrayed their most valuable ideologies about life. Weaving was associated
with the Maya female goddesses Ix Chebel Yax, the “wife of the creator,” and Ix
Chel, the “Moon Goddess,” and Aztec and Maya goddesses of childbirth were also
the goddesses of spinning and weaving [ 22 , 23 ].
Textiles
Textiles have traditionally played an important role for Mexican indigenous
groups like the Aztec, Maya, Zapotec, and several other peoples of Mesoamerica
from the Classic period (200 BC) to the present day.
In Prehispanic Mesoamerica, textiles were highly esteemed as commodities on a
level similar to gold and jade and possessed a wide variety of uses and signifi cances.
The uses of textiles could be separated in four primary categories [ 21 , 23 , 24 ]:
1 . Clothing : cotton garments were used as vestments especially for the elite, since
cotton was the most esteemed fi ber among the fi ber producing plants (e.g., maguey
or yucca). In the Basin of Mexico, cotton was an import, which implied that tex-
tiles could only be worned by high-status people. However, textiles varied in qual-
ity and not all were destined to high society clothing, but served instead for many
common everyday activities such as covers for tortilla or wraps for the deceased.
2 . Armor manufacture : textiles were an important element of armors or ichcahuipi-
lli , which placed them as very valuable items since war was an important ele-
ment to Central Mexico civilizations with signifi cant ritual and religious
implications and warriors were highly recognized members of society. Cotton
A. Wegier et al.

447
clothes were combined with woods and feathers to produce light, however
strong, shields, and the essential body armors of Mesoamerican warriors.
3 . Sociopolitical signifi cance : In Mesoamerica, wearing, possessing, or manufac-
turing high-quality decorated textiles was a symbolic demonstration of power,
wealth, or position which was an important element of elite exchange, politics,
and status validation. Textiles could be used to signify geographic origin, status,
and rank or conversely, its absence, especially clothing, was a widespread sym-
bol of loss of status and degradation. Finally, textiles and textile production
activities served as metaphors for several Mesoamerican deities.
4 . Economic commodity : textiles were valuable commodities for exchange in the
economic systems of the time, i.e., tribute and markets. Textiles played an
important role transferring economic value over large distances in Prehispanic
Mesoamerica because they were very valuable items that had very low weight
and thus were very easily transported.
Commerce, Trade, and Tribute
Textiles formed a major part of ancient Mesoamerican economy. Cotton and textile-
related transactions involved several levels according to the stages of the productive
chain, from the raw material production and transportation to the spinning, weav-
ing, and in certain cases embellishing; and fi nally, to the consumer. However, many
distribution mechanisms and networks were required to accomplish the dynamism
of cotton movements in Prehispanic Mesoamerica such as marketplace exchange,
foreign trade, and tribute [ 21 ].
Dealing in cotton or in cotton cloth was an economic enterprise of a high order,
which took place from the grand Tlatelolco marketplace, to sensitive borderland
markets (e.g., Cholula), to small marketplaces within the Aztec empire and beyond.
However, the spun thread, not woven, does not seem to have been a market or trade
item [ 21 ].
Raw cotton fi bers were extensively transported by local producers, local mer-
chants, and long-distance merchants (i.e., oztomeca ). Cotton cultivation requires a
constant warm temperature (i.e., 61° to 77 °F or 16° to 25 °C) and a heavy rainy
season. Such conditions were met in the wild distribution of G. hirsutum , and there-
fore was in these areas (Mexican Pacifi c and Gulf coastal areas) were Prehispanic
civilizations could grow cotton. However, cotton could also grow at inland regions
that possess warm temperatures and adequate water sources to maintain irrigation,
usually at valleys below 1000 m in elevation (e.g., the State today known as
Morelos). Given these restrictions, cotton could not be grown in Central Mexico
highlands (e.g., Tenochtitlan) and therefore transportation and exchange of raw
materials, most probably occurring at marketplaces, was essential to allow spinning
and weaving activities in the areas where cotton cultivation was not viable [ 21 ].
Historic documents and codices indicate that textiles were used extensively for
tribute in central Mexico. Tribute involved a payment in goods or services, or both,
18 Cotton: Traditional and Modern Uses

448
of conquered districts to Tenochtitlan. Cotton as a raw material was given in tribute
by four provinces and all but two provinces, of 38, provided textiles as tribute. For
instance, the Matricula de Tributos (Tribute Roll), a document listing the tribute
paid by the various tributaries of the Aztec empire, pictorially illustrates 60,400
mantles, each to be rendered in tribute four times yearly, yielding a total annual
tribute of 241,600 mantles. Cotton mantles were also a key form of tribute in colo-
nial Yucatan; cloth also is portrayed as an offering in the Maya codices whereas the
spinning of cotton constituted a tribute service for some towns in the Valley of
Mexico [ 21 , 22 ].
Finally, foreign trade involved the movement of elite textiles and was carried out
directly by rulers of sovereign city-states themselves. This kind of high-level
exchange between Mexica emissaries and foreign rulers across, sometimes, tense
boundaries, had political and economic advantages since it strengthen or promoted
the relations between city-states [ 21 ].
Maintaining Traditions Alive
An important part of cotton historical and current applications, from textile design,
social and religious meanings, weaving techniques and tools, among others, is being
rescued in Mexico by individual efforts, non-governmental organizations and pub-
lic institutions. People who are working to preserve and document the history of
textiles in their places of origin have become specialists on the subject and have
achieved a collaborative network that brings together 350 weavers (from 12 to 70
years old) in all regions of Oaxaca involving nine indigenous communities, who
have achieved to establish a production mechanism based on the preservation of
techniques, processes, and traditional elements involved in textile manufacturing
and strengthening the pride and admiration to those who perform this work in order
to inherit it throughout the generations [ 25 ].
The network starts with communities that (1) collect wild cotton fi bers, that are
involved in production projects and participatory breeding (with the support of MS
Flavio Aragón) or buy and spin cotton thread; then (2) other communities are
responsible for staining: at the coast, with snail ( Plicopurpura pansa Gould) or
indigo dye (from plants species Indigofera suffruticosa Mill. and I. tinctoria L.) and
at the central valleys, with crimsom cochineal ( Dactylopius coccus Costa, an insect
pest of cacti); afterward (3) thread is transported for waving, usually with horizontal
or rigid loom and; fi nally (4) textiles are used by indigenous communities or con-
veyed to obtain a fair price for this work [ 25 ].
Remigio Mestas has contributed to the formation of the network by fi nding the
just price and sustainable use of traditional textiles [ 25 ]. In addition, scholars and
social fi ghters support the preservation of culture and natural resources like Dr.
Alejandro de Ávila (Oaxaca Ethnobotanical Garden director and advisor and
curator of the Textile Museum of Oaxaca) or artist Francisco Toledo (founder of the
A. Wegier et al.

449
Center for the Arts and Textiles of Oaxaca), and several businessmen and intellectu-
als promote the protection of cultural roots and a healthy environment.
The Textile Museum of Oaxaca is one of the successes of these efforts. Founded
by the Alfredo Harp Helú Foundation, the Museum has the purpose of preserving
regional handicrafts in a space that allows exalting the testimonies of textile history
[ 26 ]. In this sense, textiles are presented not only as clothes but also as a means to
display and perceive the feelings, illusions, myths, beliefs, and experiences of the
communities that produce them [ 26 ].
Government initiatives also support the conservation of these traditions like the
Museum of Popular Arts of Oaxaca under the National Council for Culture and the
Arts (CONACULTA), or the National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of
Biodiversity (CONABIO) that recently conducted a cultural map entitled “Threads
from the land of clouds” a photographic exhibition that brings cultural richness of
the fabrics and textiles of the Oaxacan people .
Medicinal Uses
Although cotton usage is mainly known for textiles and all the activities surround-
ing its production and commerce, the plant also presents applications in traditional
medicine. Yucatecan Maya had many medicinal uses for the cotton plant (which
they call taman ): crushed young shoots were used for asthma; crushed seeds were
taken for tenesmus and aching bones. Convulsions were treated in a bath of boiled
leaves; the blossom was used to cure earache; and the toasted leaf is squeezed into
the eye to stop twitching. In addition, scalp diseases were treated with hot crushed
fl owers; ulcers and other skin diseases were treated with crushed leaves; and “a
certain veneral disease” was treated with the fl owers of the cotton plant. The pulver-
ized stem was used to relieve ulcers, and bites of scorpions, snakes, and other ven-
omous creatures were cured “admirably” with crushed plants probably young.
Other non-Mesoamerican groups used parts of the cotton plant for food. The Pima,
for example, used the seeds as food, pounding them up with mesquite beans in a
mortar, or parching and eating them without grinding. While such a use is undocu-
mented for ancient Mexico, toasted cottonseeds were used for food in twentieth-
century Tepoztlan [ 21 ].
In Quintana Roo and Tabasco, the disease most commonly treated with cotton
is cough, by taking diluted sap from leaves in water and juice from roasted fruits,
or seeds boiled in water or mixed with purple maguey or St. Nicholas herb ( Piqueria
trinervia Cav.) to make a potion. Cotton also often is used in the treatment of other
respiratory diseases such as asthma, colds, throat clearing, and labored breathing
that produces in the patient’s chest a whistle; for these, the leaves are roasted and
are applied, together with their juice, on the chest. Furthermore, this plant can be
used to aid in childbirth or menstrual disorders, wounds, sores, scorpion stings, or
snake bites and to lower blood pressure or fever. Traditional medicinal uses are
18 Cotton: Traditional and Modern Uses

450
mentioned both in the north of Mexico, especially in Sonora, and in the southern
States [ 27 ].
Modern Uses of Gossypium hirsutum
Cotton today has a diversity of applications, principally medicinal and many more
such as pigments, derivatives for cattle feed, different uses of the oily extracts,
among others.
Gossypol Applications
Gossypol is a molecule that occurs in cotton and its relatives of the genus Gossypium .
The quantity in which it occurs varies between species, varieties, and organs of
plants (e.g., it is higher in the seeds than in the roots) depending on the fertilization,
cultivation conditions, and the pressure exerted by insects (Fig. 18.2) [ 28 ].
The gossypol molecule can react differently according to the situation. It is said
that gossypol has a complex chemical reactivity, and this is refl ected in the different
classes of enzymes that can be inhibited by its presence, particularly those engaged
in the processes of production and transportation of energy in cells, and therefore
this compound can be attributed to large variety of biological effects such as antitu-
mor activity, spermicidal, antimalarial, antiparasitic, antiviral, antiamoebic, and
other activities [ 29 – 31 ].
Gossypol is produced by a mixture of pairs of compounds called enantiomers,
where one is called (+) and the other (−), because their images are opposite and can-
not be placed identically one above the other, like the images of our hands; the shape
is the same when both palms or backs come together but are not superimposable
when different faces come together. These gossypol enantiomers have different bio-
logical activities. The (−) enantiomer is quite toxic to most animals, including mam-
mals; only in ruminants toxicity is lower (e.g., herbivores such as giraffes, deer,
cows, and goats), and it is even lower in male ruminants than in females. This dif-
ference of gossypol toxicity b etween sexes is something that was noted for some
time in m any mammals [ 32 ]. The presence of gossypol gives protection to the plants
from predators such as insects, voles, and raccoons that otherwise might feed on
these plants and their seeds [ 28 , 33 ].
Cottonseed
The most common destination of cottonseed is cattle feed; however, the by- products
obtained during its industrial processing have many different and profi table uses.
A. Wegier et al.

451
Cottonseed processing starts with cleaning and could stop with the extraction of gos-
sypol for drugs and highly industrialized processes. The cleaning involves removing
foreign matter such as leaves, stems, or dirt. Then, removal of the smallest and fi nest
fi ber that remains attached to the seeds after the gin (where long fi bers are separated to
make textiles) takes place. It is normal that this step happens twice because each time
has different targets: longer fi bers are removed the fi rst time and the second; fi ne fi bers
are recovered mainly to produce quality paper for currency and art. Natural fi bers such
as linen and cotton can bind strongly than cellulose which is why the paper made with
both fi bers can bear the mistreatments plain paper cannot. Each dollar bill is made of 75
% cotton and 25 % linen, and in 2011 to produce a dollar cost 9.6 cents [ 34 ].
Fig. 18.2 Gossypol glands occur widely throughout plant structures of all Gossypium species.
Gossypol glands are easily recognized as the black dots over the plant tissues. Upper left : G. hirsutum
leaf. Upper right : G. hirsutum stems. Center left : G. hirsutum leaf (detail). Center right : G. thurberi
leaf. Lower left : G. turneri fl ower (observe glands over pistil). Lower right : G. turneri young fruit
18 Cotton: Traditional and Modern Uses

452
After the husk is removed, cottonseed is preferred by the dairy industry as cattle
feed although it has been tested in pigs [ 35 ], chickens [ 36 ], and rabbits [ 37 ] among
others, and the best response decreases the weight, so it’s always negative. Seeds
are ground and then mixed with cottonseed fl our to give more body and ease of
handling, but they also have many other industrial uses such as plastic manufacture,
oil drilling (mud additive), and furfural production (a solvent used in plastic and
synthetic rubber production and in petroleum refi ning).
When embryos are left bare, called the bait of the seed, their main use is to make
fl akes with chemical and mechanical processes to slightly decrease the amount of
free gossypol [ 38 ]. Oil extraction is mainly done with organic solvents (usually
hexane) and recovered to produce crude cottonseed oil, which then goes through a
refi ning process to separate completely the oil from the free fatty acids. The cot-
tonseed oil extracted is subsequently refi ned to produce products such as cooking
oil, margarine, and shortening. This oil was the most popular in the United States
and in the world before World War II, then was replaced by soybean and canola
[ 39 ].
When the process of extracting oils is over, lipid content in fl akes has decreased
to less than 0.6 %. The fl akes are then toasted to evaporate compounds (added) and
ground into fl our. Often, some of the compounds refi ned are returned to the fl our to
enhance its energy content or sometimes vitamins and minerals are added, depend-
ing on the fi nal destination. After leaving the toaster, fl akes are known as cottonseed
fl our. This fl our is dried, cooled, and ground or can be processed into pellets [ 40 ].
In Mexico, ranches engaged in milk production are the major customers of this
seed. These ranches store seeds preferably in ventilated and cool conditions to pre-
vent fi res because in case of fi re the highly fl ammable fat content from the seeds can
cause large amounts of seed to be lost. However, these storage and transport condi-
tions favor the spread and escape of cotton plants. There is a legal misunderstanding
in Mexico where genetically modifi ed seeds are treated and sold as conventional
[ 20 , 41 ], forgetting that they are still living organisms that can germinate and repro-
duce when conditions are appropriate; 3 % of the seeds a cow can eat are still viable
when they come out of the digestive tract and therefore continue their development
to become an adult plant. The people who manage these seeds are unaware that they
have a seed in their hands that can cause at least one of the four most common types
of damage caused by GMO s: (1) The damage associated with the movement of
genes and subsequent expression in different organisms and species; (2) damage
directly or indirectly associated with genetically modifi ed organisms; (3) damage to
nontarget organisms, which are those for which the transgene was not designed or
that are not the subject for which the GMO was released; and (4) can even affect the
evolution of pest resistance, hindering the strategies for pest control [ 42 ]. In short,
it is very important to achieve a way to change the perspective on the cost to reverse
these impacts. Destroying the seed by taking into action production processes of
greater economic impact, turning them into an advantage that will also develop a
biosecurity tool and will even exploit both natural and fi nancial resources invested
in the crop .
A. Wegier et al.

453
Medicinal Uses
Apparently, the people in China have long known the abortive properties of the
plant and its effects on men sperm; however, it was later noted that families who
cooked with cottonseed oil had fewer children, which triggered scientifi c studies of
the case. Studies intensifi ed in 1970 in China, Brazil, and Nigeria, but only the last
two continued to improve protocols, despite contraceptive effectiveness was clearly
irreparable and side effects like infertility and lack of absorption of potassium were
serious. However, some researchers still think that the effects can be improved with
dietary changes and smaller doses for men who no longer wish to reproduce [ 43 ].
Furthermore, these studies were very important because they helped to learn more
about a molecule (i.e., gossypol) that could have many potential uses, as diminish
or affect the growth of cells is what is sought in cancer and antiparasitic
treatments.
Since 1989, potential treatments were tested in vitro to control the human immu-
nodefi ciency virus (HIV) to reduce their enzymatic activities [ 44 ] with (−) gossypol
[ 45 ]. It can be used ingested, as well as vaginal gels for HIV control, in addition to
their effect to stop the mobility of sperms that serves as birth control and even to
prevent other sexually transmitted diseases such as herpes [ 44 , 46 ]. Gossypol is one
of the most effective ingredients, both in traditional pharmaceutical preparations
and alternative medicine .
Conclusions
After a review of past, current, and potential uses of cotton in Mesoamerica is clear
that conservation strategies of both, plants and practices, is possible with dedica-
tion, availability of information and public policies oriented to the comprehensive
conservation of plant genetic resources in situ. The regard for the laws that rule the
respect for the rights, dignity, natural resources, and territories of indigenous peo-
ples, taking into account their culture and traditions, are fundamental to achieve this
goal, but also a well-informed society is essential to allow fair payment for their
work and their products. Increase the estimation of the young generations for the
work of the elderly will permit the continuity of sustainable development efforts.
Similar organized efforts are probably emerging in Oaxaca, as we presented as an
example. These endeavors are fundamental because they arise from society and
may endure for long-term although they may require the support of governmental
and non-governmental organizations.
The most sophisticated uses of cotton are generally associated with intensive
monoculture, a practice that is possible in Mesoamerica only in a small percentage;
however, the information can be used at different scales. Domesticated and geneti-
cally modifi ed plants can sustain gene fl ow with wild relatives and traditional and
organic and crops, causing damage to diversity. Nevertheless, exploitation of the
18 Cotton: Traditional and Modern Uses

454
entire seed will generate a measure of biosecurity to prevent dispersion and in turn
produce signifi cant profi t. Descriptions about this process are abundant in this chap-
ter and in the literature, so they could make them attractive to the industry and
facilitate their implementation.
In general, it is clear that the variety of traditional medicinal uses of cotton is due
to the active compounds that have been described and used in recent decades by
modern medicine. Surely, when the control of the toxic effects of gossypol is
achieved, applications on human health issues will increase, but for now we present
the available information to promote the surge of new ideas.
Acknowledgements We thank Remigio Mestas, Alejandro de Ávila, Flavio Aragón, Jorge
Larson, Alejandro Casas, and Rafael Lira whose words and advice contributed to this chapter.
Thanks to historian Ximena Mondragón for valuable comments to the manuscript. We would like
to acknowledge all the people whose job, hobby, or traditions contribute to the conservation of
cotton and its signifi cance in Mesoamerican culture. This chapter is part of the research conducted
in the project “Program for the conservation of wild populations of Gossypium in Mexico,”
fi nanced by DGSPRNR-SEMARNAT and CARB-CONABIO to whom we express our gratitude
for logistical and fi nancial support.
References
1. Fryxell PA. The natural history of the cotton tribe (Malvaceae, tribe Gossypieae).
CollegeStation: Texas A&M University Press; 1979.
2. Wendel JF, Brubaker CL, Seelanan T. The origin and evolution of Gossypium . In: Stewart JM
et al., editors. Physiology of cotton. The Netherlands: Springer; 2010. p. 1–18.
3. FAOSTAT. Searchable online statistical database from Food and Agriculture Division of the
United Nations. 2012.
http://faostat.fao.org/ . Accessed April 2014.
4. James C. Global status of commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2012. ISAAA briefs no. 44.
Ithaca: ISAAA; 2012.
5. Seelanan T, Schnabel A, Wendel JF. Congruence and consensus in the cotton tribe (Malvaceae).
Syst Bot. 1997;22(2):259–90.
6. Watt G. The wild and cultivated cotton plants of the world. A revision of the genus Gossypium ,
framed primarily with the object of aiding planters and investi. Charleston: Nabu Press; 2010.
7. Hutchinson JB, Silow RA, Stephens SG. The evolution of Gossypium and the differentiation
of the cultivated cottons. New York: Oxford University Press; 1947.
8. Fryxell PA. Stages in the evolution of Gossypium L. Adv Front Pl Sci. 1965;10:31–55.
9. Khadi BM, Santhy V, Yadav MS. Cotton: an introduction. In: Zehr UB, editor. Cotton biotech-
nology in agriculture and forestry. Berlin: Springer; 2010.
10. Hutchinson JB. New evidence on the origin of the old world cottons. Heredity.
1954;8(2):225–41.
11. Wendel JF, Albert VA. Phylogenetics of the cotton genus ( Gossypium ): character-state
weighted parsimony analysis of chloroplast-DNA restriction site data and its systematic and
biogeographic implications. Syst Bot. 1992;17(1):115–43.
12. Brown MS, Menzel MY. The cytology and crossing behavior of Gossypium gossypioides . Bull
Torrey Botanical Club. 1952;79:110–25.
13. Gerstel DU. Chromosomal translocations in interspecifi c hybrids of the genus Gossypium .
Evolution. 1953;7(3):234–44.
14. Menzel MY, Brown MS. The signifi cance of multivalent formation in three-species Gossypium
hybrids. Genetics. 1954;39(4):546–57.
A. Wegier et al.

455
15. Wendel JF, Schnabel A, Seelanan T. Bidirectional interlocus concerted evolution following
allopolyploid speciation in cotton ( Gossypium ). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1995;92(1):280–4.
16. Cronn RC, Small RL, Haselkorn T, Wendel JF. Rapid diversifi cation of the cotton genus
( Gossypium : Malvaceae) revealed by analysis of sixteen nuclear and chloroplast genes. Am
J Bot. 2002;89(4):707–25.
17. Endrizzi JE, Turcotte EL, Kohel RJ. Genetics, cytology and evolution of Gossypium . Adv
Genet. 1985;23:271–375.
18. Wendel JF, Rowley R, Stewart JM. Genetic diversity in and phylogenetic relationships of the
Brazilian endemic cotton, Gossypium mustelinum (Malvaceae). Pl Syst Evol.
1994;192(1–2):49–59.
19. Pickersgill B. Domestication of plants in the Americas: insights from Mendelian and molecu-
lar genetics. Ann Bot. 2007;100(5):925–40.
20. Wegier AL. Diversidad genética y conservación de Gossypium hirsutum silvestre y cultivado
en México [PhD thesis]. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; 2013.
21. Berdan FF. Cotton in Aztec Mexico: production, distribution and uses. Mexican Studies.
1987;3(2):235–62.
22. Chase AF, Chase DZ, Zorn E, Teeter W. Textiles and the maya archaeological record. Anc
Meso. 2008;19(1):127–42.
23. Follensbee BJA. Fiber technology and weaving in formative-period gulf coast cultures. Anc
Meso. 2008;19(1):87–110.
24. Smith ME, Hirth KG. The development of prehispanic cotton-spinning technology in western
Morelos, Mexico. J Field Archaeol. 1988;15(3):349–58.
25. Aguilar A. La tradición ante el mundo actual. Remigio Mestas: tradición y sustentabilidad (II
de III partes). El Jolgorio cultural, Oaxaca. México; 2014.
26. López F. Museos textiles en Canadá, Guatemala y México. Res Mobilis. 2012;1(1):108–23.
27. Bibilioteca de digital de la Medicina Tradicional Mexicana (BDMTM). Accessed April 2014.
28. Berardi LC, Goldblatt LA. Gossypol. In: Liener IE, editor. Toxic constituents of plant food-
stuffs. New York: Academic Press; 1969.
29. Abou-donia MB. Physiological effects and metabolism of gossypol. Residue Rev.
1976;61:125–60.
30. Dodou K. Investigations on gossypol: past and present developments. Expert Opin Invest
Drugs. 2005;14(11):1419–34.
31. Celorio-Mancera ML, Ahn SJ, Vogel H, Heckel DG. Transcriptional responses underlying the
hormetic and detrimental effects of the plant secondary metabolite gossypol on the generalist
herbivore Helicoverpa armigera . BMC Genom. 2011;12(1):575.
32. Randel RD, Chase CC, Wyse SJ. Effects of gossypol and cottonseed products on reproduction
of mammals. J Anim Sci. 1992;70:1628–38.
33. Boatner CH. Pigments of cottonseed. In: Bailey AE, editor. Cottonseed and cottonseed prod-
ucts. New York: Interscience; 1948.
34. Kavilanz P. Dollar bills are made of cotton. CNN-Money.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/08/
news/economy/dollar_cotton_prices/ . Accessed March 2014.
35. Campbell T, Bullock S, Long D, Hewitt D, Dowd M. Visitation to cottonseed storage sites by
feral swine and evidence of gossypol exposure. Human-Wildlife Interact. 2010;4(1):145–51.
36. Diaw MT, Dieng A, Mergeai G, Sy M, Hornick JL. Effects of the substitution of groundnut
cake by conventional cottonseed kernel on broilers production in Senegal. Tropicultura.
2010;28(3):139–47.
37. Johnston NP, Berrio LF. Comparative effects of cottonseed, soybeans, saffl ower seeds and fl ax
seeds on the performance of rabbits and guinea pigs. J Appl Rabbit Res. 1985;8(2):64–7.
38. Calhoun ML, Kuhlmann SW, Baldwin BC. Cotton feed product composition and gossypol
availability and toxicity. 2nd National Alternative Feeds Symposium. Missouri, Columbia: St.
Louis, MO. University of Missouri. 1995; p. 125.
39. O’Brien RD, Jones LA, King CC, Wakelyn PJ, Wan PJ. Cottonseed oil. In: Shahidi F, editor.
Bailey’s industrial oil and fat products. 6th ed. New York: Wiley; 2005. p. 173–279. Chapter 5.
18 Cotton: Traditional and Modern Uses

456
40. Blasi DA, Drouillard JS. Composition and feeding value of cottonseed feed products for beef
cattle. Kansas State University. Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension
Service; 2002.
41. Wegier A, Piñeyro-Nelson A, Alarcón J, Gávez-Mariscal A, Alvarez-Buylla ER, Piñero
D. Recent long-distance transgene fl ow into wild populations conforms to historical patterns
of gene fl ow in cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum ) at its centre of origin. Mol Ecol.
2011;20(19):4182–94.
42. Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic
Plants (CEIACTP), Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, National Research Council.
Environmental effects of transgenic plants: The Scope and Adequacy of Regulation. National
Academies Press; 2002.
43. Coutinho EM, Athayde C, Atta G, et al. Gossypol blood levels and inhibition of spermatogen-
esis in men taking gossypol as a contraceptive. A multicenter, international, dose-fi nding
study. Contraception. 2000;61(1):61–7.
44. Polsky B, Segal SJ, Baron PA, Gold JW, Ueno H, Armstrong D. Inactivation of human immu-
nodefi ciency virus in vitro by gossypol. Contraception. 1989;39(6):579–87.
45. An T, Ouyang W, Pan W, et al. Amino acid derivatives of the (−) enantiomer of gossypol are
effective fusion inhibitors of human immunodefi ciency virus type 1. Antiviral Res.
2012;94(3):276–87.
46. Ratsula K, Haukkamaa M, Wichmann K, Luukkainen T. Vaginal contraception with gossypol:
a clinical study. Contraception. 1983;27(6):571–6.
A. Wegier et al.