ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Mayas living in southeast Mexico have used soils for millennia and provide thus a good example for understanding soil-culture relationships and for exploring the ways indigenous people name and classify the soils of their territory. This paper shows an attempt to organize the Maya soil knowledge into a soil classification scheme and compares the latter with the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (WRB). Several participative soil surveys were carried out in the period 2000-2009 with the help of bilingual Maya-Spanish-speaking farmers. A multilingual soil database was built with 315 soil profile descriptions. On the basis of the diagnostic soil properties and the soil nomenclature used by Maya farmers, a soil classification scheme with a hierarchic, dichotomous and open structure was constructed, organized in groups and qualifiers in a fashion similar to that of the WRB system. Maya soil properties were used at the same categorical levels as similar diagnostic properties are used in the WRB system. The Maya soil classification (MSC) is a natural system based on key properties, such as relief position, rock types, size and quantity of stones, color of topsoil and subsoil, depth, water dynamics, and plant-supporting processes. The MSC addresses the soil properties of surficial and subsurficial horizons, and uses plant communities as qualifier in some cases. The MSC is more accurate than the WRB for classifying Leptosols.
Content may be subject to copyright.
RESEARC H Open Access
Construction of an Yucatec Maya soil
classification and comparison with the WRB
framework
Francisco Bautista
1*
, J Alfred Zinck
2
Abstract
Background: Mayas living in southeast Mexico have used soils for millennia and provide thus a good example for
understanding soil-culture relationships and for exploring the ways indigenous people name and classify the soils
of their territory. This paper shows an attempt to organize the Maya soil knowledge into a soil classification
scheme and compares the latter with the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (WRB).
Methods: Several participative soil surveys were carried out in the period 2000-2009 with the help of bilingual
Maya-Spanish-speaking farmers. A multilingual soil database was built with 315 soil profile descriptions.
Results: On the basis of the diagnostic soil properties and the soil nomenclature used by Maya farmers, a soil
classification scheme with a hierarchic, dichotomous and open structure was constructed, organized in groups and
qualifiers in a fashion similar to that of the WRB system. Maya soil properties were used at the same categorical
levels as similar diagnostic properties are used in the WRB system.
Conclusions: The Maya soil classification (MSC) is a natural system based on key properties, such as relief position,
rock types, size and quantity of stones, color of topsoil and subsoil, depth, water dynamics, and plant-supporting
processes. The MSC addresses the soil properties of surficial and subsurficial horizons, and uses plant communities
as qualifier in some cases. The MSC is more accurate than the WRB for classifying Leptosols.
Background
Ethnoecology is concerned with studying the relation-
ships between humans and nature, and investigates how
indigenous people perceive, know and use the land-
scapes and their natural resources. This approach puts
emphasis on the cultural value of the belief-knowledge-
practice (kosmos-corpus-praxis or K-C-P) complex [1].
Ethnopedology, as part of ethnoecology, seeks to explore
the connections, synergies and feedbacks between sym-
bols, concepts and perceptions of soils and soilscapes in
local societies [2-5].
Yucatec Maya have used soils over four millennia, pro-
viding a good example for understanding soil-culture
relationships. The soils occurring in the Maya territory
have been well documented [6-14]. For instance, Pérez
[7] describes soil profiles in the southern portion of the
Yucatán state, using the FAO soil classification adapted
to the Mexican context [15]. This study is the first one
recognizing the Maya soil reference groups (MRGs) of
Ekluum, Yax kom and Akal che, and their local uses.
Using chemical and physical topsoil properties, Pool and
Hernández [8] highlight important short-distance differ-
ences between the MRGs of Ho luum and Kan kab
luum in the eastern part of the Yucatán state. Duch
[16,17] reports a variety of Maya soil-related names from
the southern Yucatán state. Working in the same region,
Dunning [10] classifies the soils according to the USDA
Soil Taxonomy [18], the INEGI soil classification system
[15,19], and the Yucatec Maya soil nomenclature [17],
but fails to analyze the differences among these soil clas-
sification schemes. Estrada [20] made a detailed descrip-
tion and sampling of 21 soil profiles in the Hocabá
municipality, using the WRB classification [21] and the
Maya nomenclature. This field information was subse-
quently used by Estrada et al. [22], together with local
* Correspondence: leptosol@ciga.unam.mx
Contributed equally
1
Centro de Investigaciones en Geografía Ambiental, Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de México, Antigua Carretera a Pátzcuaro No. 8701, Col. Ex-
Hacienda de San José de La Huerta, C.P. 58190 Morelia, Michoacán, México
Bautista and Zinck Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2010, 6:7
http://www.ethnobiomed.com/content/6/1/7 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY
AND ETHNOMEDICINE
© 2010 Bautista and Zinck; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access ar ticle distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attri bution License (http://creativecommons.org /licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproductio n in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
soil knowledge, to construct an indigenous soil classifica-
tion and prepare a map using MRGs. Bautista et al.
[12,13] studied micro-catenas in a karstic plain, highlight-
ing the importance of using micro-relief features and soil
color as diagnostic properties. They relate these features
with chemical constituents, such as organic matter and
phosphorus, and mineral contents of calcite, hematite,
goethite, and boehmite. Bautista et al. [23] also high-
lighted the importance of soil-relief patterns in large
areas within karstic plains for establishing a geopedologic
map of the whole Yucatán state. In general, soil variabil-
ity is controlled by relief and landforms from local and
plot scales [12-14,24] to regional scales [25]. Using geos-
tatistical analysis, Bautista et al. [14] showed the close
correlation and complementarity of the numerical, Maya
and WRB [21] classifications of 54 soil profiles from the
Mérida municipality. The Maya soil, geoform and water
knowledge at the Yucatán peninsula level was analyzed in
an integrated way by Bautista et al. [24], implementing
the K-C-P model as suggested by Barrera and Zinck [26]
and Barrera and Toledo [1] to understand the Yucatec
Maya ethnopedology.
The kosmos domain, which refers to the beliefs and
symbolism associated with the indigenous culture, has
been little studied in Yucatán [1,27]. Some studies
report on the Maya experience (i.e., the praxis domain)
in managing their soils [10,24,28,29]. Several studies
have addressed the Maya soil corpus per se but only in
small areas [12-14,17,22-24,29-33], and very few have
attempted to compare the Maya soil nomenclature with
the World Reference Base for Soil Resources [13,14].
The possibility of using indigenous soil knowledge for
designing local soil classifications and amending interna-
tional soil classifications is often questioned. Duch [17],
for instance, considers that Maya soil names should be
usedonlywithintheframeworkoftheMayasoil
nomenclature, while Krasilnikov and Tabor [4] sustain
that folk systems are only locally valid and have rela-
tively limited application compared to scientific systems.
It is, however, remarkable that soil classifications were
originally constructed from the farmersknowledge.
Dokuchaiev, for instance, documented and organized
the soil knowledge of the Ukrainian peasants into a clas-
sification scheme [34]. Nowadays, the Maya soil nomen-
clatureisusedbymorethan1.5millionpeopleinthe
Yucatán peninsula.
The objective of this work was to organize the Maya soil
nomenclature and knowledge and to construct a Yucatec
Maya soil classification by comparison with the framework
of the World Reference Base for Soil Resources.
Methods
The relief in the Yucatán State, southeast Mexico, has
developed from Miocene-Pliocene and Holocene
limestones and includes, as main regional units, a
coastal plain, a karstic plain, inland basins with hills
(extended karst), and hillands crossed by valleys (tec-
tono-karst) [35]. Our study was carried out mainly in
the lowlands of the coastal and karstic plains.
The coastal plain is a strip of land very slightly
inclined towards the sea that extends along the western
and northern coast at less than 10 m above sea level.
The climate is semiarid [36] and the vegetation cover is
shrub, savannah and mangrove [37].
The karstic plain lies 10-60 m above sea level and its
topography varies from horizontal to undulating. Two
main geoforms, namely mounds and depressions, sys-
tematically recur throughout the landscape [12].
Mounds are lapiaz fields with large bedrock outcrops,
intensively carved by minor solution channels, which
dominate the depressions by a few meters elevation
(2-10 m). Depressions are sinkholes (dolines) formed by
solutional enlargement of joints and subsequent settling
of the surface and/or by subsidence resulting from roof
collapse of small caverns. In general, shallow black soils
occur on mounds and deep red soils in depressions. Cli-
mate is subhumid warm with summer rains [36]. The
most common vegetation cover is dry forest [37].
The inland territory of the peninsula has also been
formed by karstification and includes basins with iso-
lated hills and larger hilly relief units crossed by valleys.
Hills reach elevations of about 220 m above sea level,
while basins and valleys are flat, closed depressions at
120-150 m above sea level [25].
Forty-five open interviews were conducted between
2000 and 2009. In 2009, field trips with bilingual Maya-
Spanish-speaking peasants took place. Some of these
peasants were agricultural technicians from the Agroe-
cology School U Yits Kaanof Mani, Yucatán, who are
knowledgeable with the main soils of the Yucatán state
[13,25,29].
Structured interviews were not done because peasants
do not feel comfortable when formal questionnaires are
used. As a consequence, we missed the opportunity to
perform statistical data analysis but responses gained in
quality.
Soils were described and sampled at representative
sites for laboratory analysis, and classified using the
WRB [21]. A multilingual soil database was built with
315 soil profile descriptions, using the database struc-
ture developed by De la Rosa et al. [38] (Figure 1). By
means of interviews, participative field transects and
workshops, local farmers were asked to name and show
the soil types, describe their properties, and explain the
characteristics used to recognize them in the territory of
their community (Figure 2).
The WRB framework was used to develop the MSC
mainly because of its relatively simple structure that
Bautista and Zinck Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2010, 6:7
http://www.ethnobiomed.com/content/6/1/7
Page 2 of 11
allowed accommodating the levels of soil perception
shown by Maya farmers. It is also the international soil
classification system most commonly used by Mexican
soil scientists together with the national INEGI system.
The WRB states comprising only two tiers of categorical
information, but the practical operation of the frame-
work implies four consecutive classification steps [21].
The system starts providing a set of ten classes based on
soil properties, forming factors and processes, which
serve as entries to the classification key. The following
level, the most important of the system, includes 32
reference soil groups (RSGs) that are clustered into the
ten entry classes aforementioned. Subsequently, soil
classification is refined using a two-tier system of prefix
(primary) qualifiers and suffix (secondary) qualifiers.
Thus practically, a four-step procedure is used to clas-
sifyagivensoilintheWRB.Wehaveimplementeda
similar categorical approach to construct the Maya soil
classification scheme. The criteria used to define the
entries to the classification key and the Maya soil refer-
ence groups (MRGs) are similar to those used in the
WRB framework, namely in our case: (1) organic carbon
content; (2) presence of features in the soil profiles that
reflect strong anthropic influence; (3) physical restric-
tions to root growth; (4) water influence and drainage
limitations; and (5) weak profile development (sandy
soils). Additional criteria were extracted from the Maya
soil nomenclature and implemented to subdivide the
MRGs at lower levels. For instance, Maya people make
a distinction between rock outcrops and stones as
coarse fragments that hinder root development. Simi-
larly, in Maya knowledge, the color contrast between A
and B horizons is relevant to separate MRGs, probably
as a reflection of differences in soil fertility or drainage.
This distinction has important implications for planting
strategies.
Results
Diagnostic soil properties
Maya peasants identify soil reference groups based on
relief position, soil color, stoniness, rockiness, gravel
content, depth, texture, structure and drainage, which
Figure 1 Study area and location of soil profiles in the state of Yucatán. LP = Leptosol, CM = Cambisol, LV = Luvisol, AR = Arenosol,
GL = Gleysol, ST = Stagnosol, VR = Vertisol, NT = Nitisol and SC = Solonchack.
Bautista and Zinck Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2010, 6:7
http://www.ethnobiomed.com/content/6/1/7
Page 3 of 11
are all soil properties of universal use in indigenous soil
classifications [3]. Plant community and area size are
also used as differentiating criteria in some particular
sites. The MSC gives more weight to topsoil than sub-
soil properties. Many of these properties are also diag-
nostic attributes in scientific soil classifications, such as
the WRB system and the USDA Soil Taxonomy [39].
The position of the soils on the terrain is a primary
diagnostic feature [40]. Maya soil groups and soil units
vary according to soil position on the landscape [13,23].
A major distinction takes place between soils on
mounds (Ho-luum) and soils in depressions (Kankabal),
the two main geoforms in the Yucatán karstic landscape.
Also the word kaanal luum designates soils on high
sites [17]. While terrain position is used by Maya pea-
sants for management purposes, it is considered mainly
as a pedogenic factor in the WRB classification.
Color is usually taken as an accessory, co-variant soil
property, as it reflects chemical and mineralogical prop-
erties that are not directly observable in field conditions,
such as organic matter, iron and manganese contents,
among others [41,42]. In the Yucatec Maya perception,
color is a highly differentiating attribute used to distin-
guish soils at the higher levels of the soil classification.
From the soils in the northern part of Yucatán, Bautista
et al. [12,13] report a clear difference between the black
soils on mounds and the red soils in depressions, the
first ones being rich in organic matter, calcium and
phosphorus, the second ones with high contents of Si,
Al and Fe oxides, together with the presence of hematite
and boehmite. Maya farmers use also color to distin-
guish key soil horizons. The concept of Kan kab, for
example, means yellow underneaththat refers to a yel-
low Bt horizon underlying a usually red epipedon in
Luvisols.
Stoninessisarelevantproperty influencing soil pro-
ductivity and soil management [43]. In karstic areas, the
amount of coarse fragments in the soil reflects the
intensity and stage of rock dissolution. High tempera-
ture and abundant rainfall accelerate the weathering of
calcareous rocks, generating deep clayey soils, with neu-
tral reaction and well developed structure [44,45]. Stoni-
ness is an important differentiating property in the
Yucatec Maya soil perception and classification. Special
words are used to refer to stoniness (muluuch) and
stone mounds (muul). Particular MRGs (e.g., Chochol)
allow distinguishing stony soils from others, which are
strongly correlated with the Hyperskeletic Leptosols in
Figure 2 Methodological approach.
Bautista and Zinck Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2010, 6:7
http://www.ethnobiomed.com/content/6/1/7
Page 4 of 11
the WRB classification [14]. The consideration given to
stoniness in the MSC could help improve the WRB clas-
sification with the introduction of qualifiers to recognize
the presence of calcareous coarse fragments in the Lep-
tosols, such as Chichic for gravelly soils and Chocholic
for stony soils.
Rockiness can take different forms that are reflected in
two MRGs: (1) Chaltún soils on smooth laminar bed-
rocks with surface dissolution channels, and (2) Tzekel
soils on large, rugged promontories with cracks (karst
mounds). In both cases, soils are poorly developed and
very shallow, except along joints and fractures where
limestone dissolution proceeds. Chaltún luum soils are
extensive in the north of Yucatán under semiarid cli-
mate, with a thorny shrub cover and a variety of herbac-
eous plants that grow only during the short rainy
season. To place these soils in the WRB system, Tzeke-
lic and Chaltunic are proposed as qualifiers of the
Leptosols.
Depth is used as an indicator of effective soil volume.
The MSC is more precise than the WRB classification,
establishing a clear difference between Hay luum and
Chaltún soils within the Lithic Leptosols. In Mayan lan-
guage, different words are used to indicate soil depth,
such as Hach taan luum for very deep soils; Taan luum
and Taan taan luum for deep soils; Mataan luum for
shallow soils; and Hach mataan taan luum for very
shallow soils [17]. On the basis of depth criteria, the
Kan kab luum soil class can be divided into three sub-
groups, resulting in a shallow (25-50 cm) Kan kab
luum, a moderately deep (50-100 cm) Kan kab luum,
and a deep (>100 cm) Kan kab luum. Recent modifica-
tions of the WRB [21] have led to eliminating depth
limits as a diagnostic criterion, arguing that the latter
are artificial and not genetic soil subdivisions. This is
questionable in the case of the tropical karst in the
Yucatán peninsula, where there are shallow soils that
show degrees of development similar to those of deep
soils [12,23,45]. We strongly support maintaining or re-
introducing depth qualifiers, i.e., lithic in Leptosols, and
epileptic and endoleptic in Kastanozems, as practical
classes for farming purposes but also for morphological
characterization.
Soil heterogeneity is relevant to farming. In the north-
ern part of the Yucatán peninsula, soil distribution pat-
terns are very complex, with frequent spatial variations
at short distance. For example, Bautista et al. [14] identi-
fied six MRGs, corresponding to four types of Leptosol
and one type of Kastanozem, on a surface area no larger
than 1350 m
2
. This might be the reason why farmers
integrate soil, land and soilscape in one comprehensive
concept. By contrast, the southern part of the Yucatán
state is more homogeneous. In the Pucc region, for
instance, Kan kab luum, Chac luum, Ekluum and
Yaax kom, that are among the best soils of the penin-
sula, occupy in general large areas. Only Akal chesoils
occur as small patches in swampy lowlands [28].
Yucatec Maya farmers use also the type and density of
individual plants and plant communities as soil indica-
tors.Forinstance,Akal cheare associated with hydro-
phytes, Chaltún luum with seasonal herbs, Kan kab
luum and Chac luum with plants adapted to hydropho-
bic soil materials, and Tzekel luum and Box luum with
tree communities.
Allthissoilknowledgeisintegratedbyfarmerswhen
it comes to crop selection and farming practices. Each
soil class or soil unit is used according to its suitability
for selected varieties of maize and other crops [46,47].
Engineering properties of soils were also taken into
account when building pyramids [48].
Soil nomenclature
The phonetic writing of the oral terms used by Maya
peasants can lead to confusions. For example, the com-
posite expression of Yaax kom luum means literally
the soil around a poorly drained area, while Yaax hom
luum (with hom instead of kom) would mean green
soil. The apostrophes following consonants in Yucatec
Maya words are used by linguists to indicate glottal
stops. Thus, Chochol is preferable to Chochol, which
in plain pronunciation has no meaning in Mayan lan-
guage (Table 1).
To distinguish among MRGs, Maya farmers give high
weight to topsoil properties, in the same fashion as
other indigenous people do in different agro-ecological
zones [5]. However, in deep soils with contrasting mor-
phology, they also take into consideration subsoil prop-
erties that influence soil management and/or crop
adaptability. This is the case of the Kan kab luum soils
that have red topsoil and yellow subsoil.
Soils enriched in organic matter from decomposition
of human and animal wastes in earlier settlements,
together with other rests of human activities such as
ceramic shards and kitchen middens, are clearly distin-
guished from other kinds of soil and named Kakabb
luum (Anthrosols). Similar soils have been described by
Dunning and Beach [31], and Duch [17].
Incipient soils, poorly developed because of the pre-
vailing environmental conditions, are frequent in the
Yucatán peninsula. Shallow soils and soils with little fine
earth material are segregated on the basis of vegetation
cover density, water dynamics, and the degree of disso-
lution of the calcareous substratum. Tzekel luum and
Chaltún luum are rocky soils; Chochol luum and Box
luum are stony soils; and Chichluum are gravelly
soils.
The presence of calcareous coarse fragments is a
dominant feature in the Yucatán soils and is recognized
Bautista and Zinck Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2010, 6:7
http://www.ethnobiomed.com/content/6/1/7
Page 5 of 11
as such by the local farmers. Many national soil classifi-
cations (e.g., the French, German, Polish, and Russian)
have specific groups to account for the occurrence of
calcareous fragments in soils. The WRB classification, in
contrast, does not fully recognize the essential role of
calcareous rocks, stones and gravels in soils and
excludes them from the Leptosols [39,49].
Tzekel luum, Yaax kom and Akal cheare compre-
hensive concepts, referring simultaneously or alterna-
tively to soils, soilscapes, lands, sites, ecosystems, or
plant communities. For instance, Tzekel luum desig-
nates the unproductive land and soilscape of Lithic Lep-
tosols on mounds and in depressions. Yaax kom is a site
name referring to the low-lying land that surrounds a
swampy area. Akal cheis rather an ecosystemic con-
cept, corresponding to a swamp with indicator trees
such as Dalbergia sp., Haematoxylon campechianum L.,
Bucida buceras,andAnnona glabra (Table 1). Akal
means flooded area and ché means tree or vegetation.
Thus, the combination of both particles in Akal che
refers to marshlands with soil seasonally flooded and
covered with trees [9]. The term expresses the interac-
tion between relief, hydrology and plant communities.
The soils can be grey Gleysols or light brown Stagno-
sols. Akal cheis a good example to illustrate the indi-
genous land concept proposed by Ortiz et al. [50],
where land is a specific terrestrial area that includes all
attributes of the biosphere, directly observed in the top-
soil or inferred from the presence of indicator plants or
animals.
Maya peasants use soil names and other terms as
modifiers to designate particular soils that share charac-
teristics of several groups. Also Maya soil names can
refertosoilscapes.Forexample,Kan kab Tzekel is
sometimes used for patches of shallow stony soils within
aKan kabal area. Pus ekluum can be used for shallow
transitional soils around a swath of deeper Ekluum.
Muluuch Tzekel is sometimes used to reflect the essen-
tially soil-less conditions found on some rocky mounds.
Maya use additional terms, not included in the classi-
fication scheme of Table 2, to refer to special soil or
land conditions that significantly restrict their use
potential. For example, Buy luumstandsforpoorsoils,
Sohol luum for dry and sterile soils, Kohaan luum for
degraded soils, and Chech luum for compact soils
[17,51].
Proposed classification scheme
On the basis of the diagnostic soil properties and soil
nomenclature used by Yucatec Maya farmers, we have
constructed a folk soil classification scheme with a hier-
archic, dichotomous and open structure based on the
WRB framework. Maya soil properties were used at the
same categorical levels as similar diagnostic properties
are used in the WRB system (Figure 3).
The first division is between organic and mineral soils
to separate the Puuc luum soils (Histosols), which
occur in areas of the karstic plain neighboring the
coastal plain. The second division considers the pre-
sence of anthropedogenic features to separate Kakkab
luum soils that are found in all regional relief units.
Kakkab luum are homegarden soils (Hortic Anthrosols)
that are enriched in organic matter derived from human
and animal wastes but may also contain potsherds, cera-
mic shards, ash, and other domestic residues. Their
location allows tracing former human settlements.
Table 1 Yucatec Maya soil names
Maya Spanish English References
Chaltún Tierra donde hay lajas,
con poca tierra encima
Soil with laminar
bedrock
Bautista et al.
(2003ab; 2005abc)
Box luum Box: negro
Luum: tierra
Black soil Bautista et al.
(2003ab; 2005abc)
Pus luum Tierra seca, suave Dry, soft soil Barrera (1995); Dunning and Beach (2004)
Chichluum Tierra con grava Soil with gravel Bautista et al.
(2003ab; 2005abc), Duch (2005)
Tzekel luum Tierra con rocosidad
tipo promontorio
Soil with large rock promontories Dunning and Beach (2004)
Chochol luum Suelo con piedras Soil with stones Duch (2005)
Kan kab luum Kan: amarillo
Kab: abajo
Yellow subsoil Barrera (1995), Dunning and Beach (2004)
Chak luum Chak: colorado
Luum: tierra
Red soil Barrera (1995)
Ekluum Tierra obscura,
de las sabanas
Dark soil Pérez (1984), Barrera (1995), Duch (2005)
Yaax kom Yaax: antes
Kom: valle, parte baja del terreno
Tierras bajas
Land around low-lying
terrain,
around a swamp
Flores et al. (1994),
Barrera (1995),
Dunning and Beach (2004)
Bautista and Zinck Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2010, 6:7
http://www.ethnobiomed.com/content/6/1/7
Page 6 of 11
All other mineral soils that do not show conspicuous
anthropedogenic features are grouped in five classes on
the basis of rockiness/stoniness, water influence and
drainage conditions, color contrast between topsoil and
subsoil, and the occurrence of sandy texture.
(1) Soils with limited rooting space because of rocki-
ness and/or stoniness at shallow depth. These soils are
separated on the basis of the same criteria as those used
in the WRB. Rock fragments can be boulders as in Tze-
kel luum or laminar limestone slabs as in Sak luum,
Pus luum, Chaltún and Hay luum. Tzekel luum (Lithic
Leptosols) occur mainly on mounds and hillslopes in all
regional relief units, while Sak luum (Gleyic Lithic Lep-
tosols) are common in the coastal plain (place of dis-
charge of the groundwater). Pus luum are found in
small areas, usually of less than one hectare, in all regio-
nal relief units. The Pus luum concept covers a variety
of soils including Lithic Leptosols, Mollic Leptosols and
Rendzic Leptosols, reflecting variability in soil depth,
calcium carbonate and organic matter. Chaltún and Hay
luum occur principally in the karstic plain, near the
coastal plain, but occasionally also in other relief units.
The stony soils called Chochol and Chichluum are
distributed in small areas of less than one hectare. Box
luum are commonly shallow, well drained, black soils
with little fine earth, 20-60% stoniness, >10% organic
matter, and with or without calcium carbonate.
(2) Soils influenced by water and poor drainage condi-
tions. These soils also are separated on the basis of the
same criteria as those used in the WRB. Yaax kom and
Akal cheare frequent in the south of the Yucatán
peninsula. Yaax kom cover large areas in inland plains,
while Akal cheare found in depressions between hills.
The central concept of Akal checorresponds to soils
temporarily flooded. These can be Gleysols as in Cam-
pecheorStagnosolsasitoccurssometimesinthe
southern Yucatán state. The difference between gleyic
and stagnic properties is reflected in the vegetation
cover. In the WRB system, Stagnosols were first consid-
ered false Gleysolsmainly because of the lack of infor-
mation for full characterization, but they have been
recently separated from Gleysols as an individual group.
Similarly, in the Maya soil classification, primary and
secondary qualifiers are added to the central concept of
the soil group. Thus, Akal chesoils can be either grey
Gleysols or light brown Stagnosols.
(3) Soils with color contrast between surface and sub-
surface horizons. This soil class was built using the
Table 2 Soil descriptors of Maya reference groups and correspondence with WRB soil groups
Soil descriptors MSC WRB
Black soils with abundant organic matter, fresh litter and litter in decomposition, in wet areas
generally covered by mangrove
Puuc luum Histosols
Black soils with high content of organic matter
derived from human and animal wastes (former homegardens), containing also potsherds, ash, and
other domestic residues
Kakkabb luum Hortic Anthrosols
Black soils, with very little fine earth, bedrock outcrops in the form of promontories, stones >25 cm
diameter
Tzekel luum Lithic Leptosols
Black soils, with little fine earth, soft, shallow, >10% organic matter, well drained, high water retention,
with or without calcium carbonate, laminar limestone
Pus luum Lithic Leptosols,
Rendzic Leptosols,
Mollic Leptosols
Light gray soils, sandy clay loam, extremely shallow (3-17 cm), poorly drained, calcareous over laminar
limestone
Sak luum Gleyic Lithic Leptosols
(Calcaric)
Predominant rock outcrops of laminar limestone, large amounts of coarse fragments, with very little
fine earth of red, reddish-brown or black color
Chaltún Nudilithic Leptosols
Very shallow soils (<10 cm), red, reddish-brown or black, 3-15% organic matter, <50% stones, few rock
outcrops
Hay luum Lithic or Nudilithic
Leptosols
Black soils, with more fine earth than Tzekel soils, >90% stones, coarse fragments >5 cm diameter Chochol luum Hyperskeletic Leptosols
Black soils, shallow (<25 cm), >90% gravel, >10% organic matter, high water retention Chichluum Hyperskeletic Leptosols
Black soils, with little fine earth, shallow, 20-60% gravel and stones, >10% organic matter, well drained,
with or without calcium carbonate
Box luum Mollic Leptosols
Grey or red soils, deep (>100 cm), clayey, no stones, temporary cracks, hard when dry Yaax kom luum Haplic Vertisols
Red soils, deep (>100 cm), clayey, no stones, temporary cracks, hard when dry, fertile (>50%
exchangeable bases)
Yaax kom- Kan
kab luum
Haplic Vertisols
(Chromic)
Grey soils, moderately deep (<100 cm), clayey, temporary cracks, no stones, no rocks, swampy during
the rainy season, in agricultural lands and large areas
Yaxx kom-Akal
che
Gleyic Vertisols
Grey soils, temporarily flooded, moderately deep (<100 cm), clayey, temporary cracks, no stones, no
rocks, swampy in summer, fall and winter, plant community with Dalbergia sp. and Haematoxylum
campechianum
Akal chegrey Gleysols
Light brown soils, temporarily flooded, moderately deep (<100 cm), clayey, temporary cracks, no
stones, no rocks, swampy in summer, fall and winter, plant community with Bucida burceras
Akal chelight
brown
Stagnosols
Bautista and Zinck Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2010, 6:7
http://www.ethnobiomed.com/content/6/1/7
Page 7 of 11
Maya perception of color contrast in well-developed and
deep soils such as Luvisols and Phaeozems. Kan kab
luum are widespread in the south of the penisula and
occupy also small areas in the north. Deep Phaeozoms
called Ekluum occur in karstic depressions in the
south.
(4) Soils without color contrast between surface and
subsurface horizons. The absence of strong color con-
trast in less-developed mineral soils lacking B horizons
is used by Maya to build a separate soil class. Chack
luum are widespread in the karstic plains of the south
and occur also in small areas in the north.
(5) Sandy soils. Pupuski luum are white sandy soils
located in the coastal plain, with or without gleyic and/
or salic properties. They can be distinguished from
other grey or white soils occurring in the area (e.g., Sak
luum) because they lack a lithic qualifier. Pupuski luum
include Arenosols as well as Gleysols and Solonchaks.
Thus the central concept of Pupuski luum can be speci-
fied using primary qualifiers for depth, gleyic properties,
and salinity.
Discussion
The relatively simple structure of the WRB helped us
accommodate the levels of soil perception shown by
Maya farmers. The criteria used in the WRB to distin-
guish entries to the classification key and reference soil
groups were useful to construct the upper levels of the
MSC scheme. The lower MSC levels are mainly based
on the formalization of features used by the Maya for
more detailed soil distinction.
The Maya soil classification can be used for improving
the WRB and other soil classification systems, in parti-
cular in karstic landscapes. For instance, the Maya soil
classification can provide qualifiers for Leptosols to cope
with soil and landscape features that strongly influence
land management and use, such as soil depth (e.g.,
extremely shallow soils), types of bedrock (e.g., promon-
tory bedrock, laminar bedrock), surface and subsurface
stoniness with ranges of size and quantity, and soil
color. Stoniness and gravel content are relevant proper-
ties to build hierarchy in the Maya soil classification (e.
g., Chochol and Chichluum). Rockiness can take dif-
ferent forms that are reflected in two MRGs: Chaltún
soils have smooth laminar bedrocks with surface disso-
lution channels, while in Tzekel soils bedrocks are
large, rugged promontories with cracks. The WRB clas-
sification does not include this feature as a diagnostic
property.
The Maya soil classification and the WRB classifica-
tion are complementary. The MSC shares categories
and classes with the WRB framework. This is an advan-
tage for the scheme being understood by technicians
and local scientists and being incorporated in specialized
Figure 3 Yucatec Maya soil classification scheme.
Bautista and Zinck Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2010, 6:7
http://www.ethnobiomed.com/content/6/1/7
Page 8 of 11
curricula at regional universities. It is recommended that
both systems be used at a maximum level of detail, as
together they provide valuable information on soil prop-
erties, distribution, formation, and use potential in the
study area. The MSC is addressed especially to exten-
sion agents and other experts involved in rural develop-
ment as a means for communicating with Maya farmers
in terms of soil management, farming practices and
crop selection.
ThesoilpropertiesusedtobuildtheMSCagreewith
similar soil properties used in indigenous soil classifica-
tions in other parts of the world [3,5,11]. As indigenous
soil classification schemes are mental constructs, result-
ing from the way the soil scientist interprets farmers
soil perceptions, variations might appear among the
schemes proposed by different authors to organize the
Yucatec Maya soil knowledge [11].
The meaning of some Maya soil names may vary
throughout the Yucatán peninsula. Such is the case of
the Akal che, for instance. These soils can be Gleysols
as in Campeche or Stagnosols as in some places of the
southern Yucatán state. The difference between gleyic
and stagnic properties is taken care of in the Maya soil
classification by adding primary and secondary qualifiers
to the central concept of the soil group. In general,
interregional variations such as in the above example
are more common than intraregional variations. How-
ever, it can be assumed that the Maya soil classification
applies to a large part of the peninsula of Yucatán (ca
152,000 km
2
) for two main reasons. One is the spatial
repetition of four geomorphic systems all over the area:
coastal, karstic, tectono-karstic, and fluvio-paludal, each
one showing specific soil-relief patterns [12,14,25]. Our
study documents the soils found in these four geo-
morphic environments and describes their variability
over an area of nearly 39,000 km
2
(Figure 4). This can
be considered a representative sample of the peninsula.
The second reason is linguistic homogeneity as 1.5 mil-
lion people speak the Yucatec Mayan language in the
Yucatán peninsula [51,52]. Obviously, additional studies
are needed to improve the MSC and test its applicability
in a variety of settings throughout Yucatán.
Soil heterogeneity at parcel level is well recognized by
Maya peasants who select the type of milpa according
Figure 4 Geomorphic environments in the Yucatán Peninsula (southeast México).
Bautista and Zinck Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2010, 6:7
http://www.ethnobiomed.com/content/6/1/7
Page 9 of 11
to soil quality and variability. For instance, in the center
of the Yucatán state, several types of milpa are used
including slash-and-burn milpa and sugar cane milpa,
but intensive milpa is practiced only on Kan kab luum
and Chak luum soils, using manure, manual tillage, and
cover crops with herbaceous legumes. In Tzekel, Chich
luum and Chochol luum, the planting distance is 1 ×
1 m, using a local maize variety along with beans and
squash. Whereas in Chackluum and Kan kab luum, the
planting distance is 0.6 × 0.6 m with an improved vari-
ety of maize together with sweet potato and cassava
[29]. This local soil variability should be reflected in soil
maps using the MSC as a reference system.
Conclusions
The conclusions about the Yucatec Maya soil knowledge
that can be derived from this study are as follows: (a)
the identification of soils in the Yucatec Maya classifica-
tion may be made using a key similar to that used in
the WRB; (b) the MSC is a natural system based on key
properties, such as rock types, size and quantity of
stones, color of topsoil and subsoil, depth, relief posi-
tion, water dynamics, and plant-supporting processes;
(c) the MSC addresses the soil properties of surficial
and subsurficial horizons that have morphological,
genetic and practical importance; (d) the soil properties
used in the MSC can help generate primary and second-
ary qualifiers for the WRB (e.g., Chaltunic, Chocholic,
Chichilic). However, much effort is still needed to go
deeper into the Maya soil knowledge. In particular, a
better understanding of the diagnostic properties used
and their relationships with soil forming factors is
necessary, before a complete classification system can be
established, especially at the lower categorical levels.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by CONACYT and the Yucatán State
government (Projects 0308P-B9506; R31624-B; YUC-2003-C02-054). We thank
the collaboration provided by Bernardo Xiu, Pedro Canché, Raúl Casanova,
Anastacia Dzul, E. Pérez, Miguel Uicab, Fredy Tzek, and the peasants of
Hocabá, Yucatán. We acknowledge the valuable comments provided by
three anonymous reviewers that helped improve an earlier version of this
manuscript.
Author details
1
Centro de Investigaciones en Geografía Ambiental, Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de México, Antigua Carretera a Pátzcuaro No. 8701, Col. Ex-
Hacienda de San José de La Huerta, C.P. 58190 Morelia, Michoacán, México.
2
International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation,
PO Box 6, 7500 AA Enschede, the Netherlands.
Authorscontributions
FB carried out the soil surveys, peasant interviews and the building of the
first version of the Maya soil classification. JAZ improved the Maya soil
classification and reviewed previous versions of the paper. FB and JAZ wrote
the final version of the paper.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Received: 4 August 2009
Accepted: 13 February 2010 Published: 13 February 2010
References
1. Barrera N, Toledo V: Ethnoecology of the Yucatec Maya: symbolism,
knowledge and management of soil resources. J Lat Am Geogr 2005,
4(Suppl 1):9-41.
2. Ortiz C, Pájaro D, Ordaz V: Manual para la cartografía de clases de tierras
campesinas. Serie Cuadernos de Edafología 15. Centro de Edafología, Colegio
de Postgraduados Montecillo, Estado de México, México 1990.
3. Barrera N, Zinck JA: Ethnopedology: a worldwide view on the soil
knowledge of local people. Geoderma 2003, 111:171-195.
4. Krasilnikov P, Tabor J: Perspectives of utilitarian ethnopedology. Geoderma
2003, 111:197-215.
5. Barrera N, Zinck JA, Ranst EV: Symbolism, knowledge and management of
soil and land resources in indigenous communities: Ethnopedology at
global, regional and local scales. Catena 2006, 65:118-137.
6. Cowgill UM: Soil fertility and the ancient Maya. Trans Connecticut Acad
Arts Sci 1961, 42:1-56.
7. Pérez J: Caracterización y utilización de la clasificación maya de suelo en
el municipio de Oxcutzcab Yucatán. Thesis of agronomist UACh. Chapingo,
México 1984.
8. Pool L, Hernández E: Los contenidos de materia orgánica de suelos en
áreas bajo el sistema agrícola de roza, tumba y quema: importancia del
muestreo. Terra 1987, 5(Suppl 1):81-92.
9. Duch J: La conformación territorial del estado de Yucatán. Los componentes
del medio físico Centro Regional de la Península de Yucatán (CRUPY),
Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo Edo de México, México 1988.
10. Dunning N: Lords of the hills: ancient maya settlement in the Puuc
region, Yucatán, México. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 15 WI, USA.
Prehistoric Press, Madison 1992.
11. Barrera N: Symbolism, knowledge and management of soil and land
resources in indigenous communities: ethnopedology at global, regional
and local scales. PhD thesis ITC Dissertation 173. International Institute for
Geoinformation Science and Earth Observation, Enschede, The Netherlands
2003.
12. Bautista F, Jiménez-Osornio J, Navarro-Alberto J, Manu A, Lozano R:
Microrelieve y color del suelo como propiedades de diagnóstico en
Leptosoles cársticos. Terra 2003, 21:1-11.
13. Bautista F, Estrada H, Jiménez J, González J: Relación entre relieve y suelos
en zonas cársticas. Terra Lat Am 2004, 22(Suppl 3):243-254.
14. Bautista F, Diáz-Garrido S, Castillo-González M, Zinck JA: Soil heterogeneity
of the soil cover in the Yucatán karst: comparison of Mayan, WRB and
numerical classifications. Eurasian Soil Sci 2005, 38(Suppl 1):81-88.
15. DETENAL: Modificaciones al sistema de unidades FAO-UNESCO 1968. .
México DF 1972.
16. Duch J: Los suelos, la agricultura y vegetación en Yucatán. La milpa en
Yucatán: un sistema de producción agrícola tradicional. Tomo 1 México:
Colegio de Postgraduados, ChapingoHernández E, Bello E, Levy S 1995.
17. Duch J: La nomenclatura maya de los suelos: una aproximación a su
diversidad y significado en el sur del estado de Yucatán. Caracterización
y manejo de suelos en la Península de Yucatán México DF: UACAM-UADY-
INEBautista F, Palacio G 2005, 73-86.
18. Soil Survey Staff: Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for
Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys, USDA. Handbook436 United States
Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 2 1999, 696.
19. INEGI: Mapa edafológico 1:250000 . Mérida F16-10 INEGI México 1984.
20. Estrada H: Caracterización y cartografía del recurso suelo del municipio
de Hocabá, Yucatán. Msc Thesis FMVZ-UADY. Mérida, Yucatán, México
2000, 128.
21. IUSS Working Group WRB (2006): World Reference Base for Soil Resources.
World Soil Resources Reports no 103, UN Food and Agriculture
Organization, Rome, 2 2006, 128.
22. Estrada H, Bautista F, Jiménez J, González J: Relationships between mayan
land classification and WRB in Yucatan, Mexico [abstract]. Book of
Abstracts International Conference and Field Workshop Soil classification 2004:
3-8 August 2004 Petrozavodsk, Karelia, RusiaKrasilnikov P 2004, 120.
23. Bautista F, Batllori-Sampedro E, Ortiz-Pérez MA, Palacio-Aponte G, Castillo-
González M: Geoformas, agua y suelo en la Península de Yucatán.
Naturaleza y sociedad en el área maya Yucatán, México: Academia Mexicana
Bautista and Zinck Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2010, 6:7
http://www.ethnobiomed.com/content/6/1/7
Page 10 of 11
de Ciencias y Centro de Investigación Científica de YucatánColunga P,
Larque A 2003, 21-35.
24. Bautista F, Palacio G, Ortiz M, Batllori E, Castillo M: El origen y el manejo
maya de las geoformas, suelos y aguas en la Península de Yucatán.
Caracterización y manejo de suelos en la Península de Yucatán: Implicaciones
agropecuarias, forestales y ambientales México DF: UACAM-UADY-INEBautista
F, Palacio G 2005, 21-32.
25. Bautista F, Aguilar Y, Rivas H, Páez R: Los suelos del estado de Yucatán.
Comunicaciones del Seminario: Importancia del binomio suelo-materia
orgánica en el desarrollo sostenible: 3-4 december 2007; Mérida Yucatán
Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional y el Centro de Edafología y
Biología Aplicada del Segura de Murcia, EspañaMartínez M, Cabañas D
2007, 11-42.
26. Barrera N, Zinck JA: Ethnopedology in a worldwide perspective. An annotated
bibliography Enschede The Netherlands: ITC Publication 77 2000.
27. Hirose J: La Salud de la TIERRA: el Orden Natural en el Ceremonial y las
Prácticas de Sanación de un Médico Tradicional Maya. Msc thesis in
Human Ecology Cinvestav, Yucatán, México 2002.
28. Dunning N, Beach T: Fruit of the luum: lowland maya soil knowledge
and agricultural practices. Mono y conejo 2004, 2:3-15.
29. Bautista F, Garcia J, Mizrahi A: Diagnóstico campesino de la situación
agrícola en Hocabá, Yucatán. Terra Lat Am 2005, 23(Suppl 4):571-580.
30. Aguilera N: Los recursos naturales del sureste y su aprovechamiento:
suelos. Rev Esc Nac de Agricultura Chapingo 1963, 3(Suppl 11-12):1-54.
31. Beach T: Soil constraints in northwest Yucatan, Mexico: pedoarchaeology
and Maya subsistence at Chunchucmil. Geoarchaeology 1998, 13:759-791.
32. Jensen Ch, Moriarty MD, Johnson KD, Terry RE, Emery KF, Nelson SD: Soil
resources of the Motul de San José Maya: correlating Soil Taxonomy
and modern Itzá Maya soil classification within a classic Maya
archaeological zone. Geoarchaeology 2007, 22:337-357.
33. Sweetwood R: The maya footprint: soil resources of Chunchucmil,
Yucatán, México. Msc thesis Faculty of Brigham Young University 2008.
34. Krasilnikov P, Arnold R, Ibáñez J-J: Introduction to Classifications With an
Emphasis on Soil Taxonomies. A Handbook of Soil Terminology, Correlation
and Classification EarhScan, LondonKrasilnikov P, Ibáñez JJ, Arnold R, Shoba
S 2009, 7-15.
35. Ihl T, Frausto O, Rojas J, Giese S, Goldacker S, Bautista F, Bocco G:
Identification of geodisasters in the state of Yucatan, Mexico. N Jb Geol
Paläont 2007, 246(Suppl 3):299-311.
36. Orellana Lanza R, Balam M, Bañuelos I, García E, González-Iturbe JA,
Herrera F, Orellana R, Vidal J: Evaluación climática. Atlas de procesos
territoriales de Yucatán Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Fac.
ArquitecturaGarcía A, Córdoba J 1999, 163-182.
37. Flores S, Espejel I: Tipos de vegetación de la Península de Yucatán.
Etnoflora yucatanense Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán. Mérida, Yucatán,
México 1994, 3.
38. De la Rosa D, Mayol F, Moreno F, Cabrera F, Díaz-Pereira E, Antoine J: A
multilingual soil profile database (SDBM Plus) as an essential part of
land resources information systems. Environ Modell Softw 2002,
17:721-730.
39. Krasilnikov P, Ibáñez JJ, Arnold R, Shoba S, Eds: A Handbook of Soil
Terminology, Correlation and Classification EarthScan, London 2009.
40. Hall GF, Olson CG: Predicting variability of soils from landscape models.
Spatial Variabilities of Soils and Landforms SSSA Special Publication, Number
28. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, USAMausbach ML,
Wilding LP 1991.
41. Torrent J, Schwertman U, Fechter H, Alférez F: Quantitative relationships
between soil color and hematite content. Soil Sci 1983, 136:354-358.
42. Torrent J, Cabedo A: Sources of iron oxides in reddish brown soil profiles
from calcarenites in southern Spain. Geoderma 1986, 37:57-66.
43. Magier J, Rabina I: Rock fragments and soil depth as factors in land
evaluation of terra rossa. Special Public Soil Sci Soc Am 1984, 13:13-30.
44. Blum WE: Soil classification and forms of energy involved in pedogenesis
[abstract]. Book of Abstracts International Conference and Field Workshop Soil
classification 2004: 3-8 August 2004 Petrozavodsk, Karelia, RusiaKrasilnikov P
2004, 4-5.
45. Gama-Castro J, Palacios-Mayorga S, Solleiro-Rebodello E, Sedov S:
Rendzinas: a group of soil that requires a new review [abstract]. Book of
Abstracts International Conference and Field Workshop Soil classification 2004:
3-8 August 2004 Petrozavodsk, Karelia, RusiaKrasilnikov P 2004, 19.
46. Terán S, Rasmussen Ch: La milpa de los mayas. Ministerio de Relaciones
Exteriores del Gobierno de Dinamarca. Yucatán, México 1994.
47. Flores S, Bautista F: Inventario de plantas forrajeras utilizadas por los
mayas en los paisajes geomorfológicos de la península de Yucatán.
Caracterización y manejo de suelos en la Península de Yucatán México D.F.
UACAM-UADY-INEBautista F, Palacio G 2005.
48. García-Solís C, Quintana P, Bautista F: La identificación de materiales
arcillosos y pétreos utilizados en la manufactura del friso modelado en
estuco de la SUBII-C1 de Calakmul, a través del análisis de difracción de
rayos X. La ciencia de materiales y su impacto en la arqueología Academia
Mexicana de Materiales, Innovación Editorial Lagares. México DFMendoza D,
Arenas J, Rodríguez V, Ruvalcaba J 2006, 2:237-252.
49. Goryachkin SV: Soil minorities - How should we classify them in WRB and
other classification systems? [abstract]. Book of Abstracts International
Conference and Field Workshop Soil classification 2004: 3-8 August 2004
Petrozavodsk, Karelia, RusiaKrasilnikov P 2004, 22-23.
50. Ortiz C, Gutiérrez-Castorena C, Licona-Vargas A, Sánchez-Guzman P:
Contemporary influence of indigenous soil (land) classification in
México. Eurasian Soil Sci 2005, 38(Suppl 1):89-94.
51. INEGI: Censo de población y vivienda Aguascalientes, México 2005.
52. Barrera A: Diccionario Maya: maya-español, español-maya México: Porrúa
1995.
doi:10.1186/1746-4269-6-7
Cite this article as: Bautista and Zinck: Construction of an Yucatec Maya
soil classification and comparison with the WRB framework. Journal of
Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2010 6:7.
Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central
and take full advantage of:
Convenient online submission
Thorough peer review
No space constraints or color figure charges
Immediate publication on acceptance
Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar
Research which is freely available for redistribution
Submit your manuscript at
www.biomedcentral.com/submit
Bautista and Zinck Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2010, 6:7
http://www.ethnobiomed.com/content/6/1/7
Page 11 of 11
... Another crucial factor to consider when characterizing flowers and BH involves the edaphological conditions of the flower's geographical origin. In this study, Acanceh, a municipality situated in the central area of Yucatan, was selected, which is characterized by Mollic Leptosol soil (as per the World Reference Base for Soil Resources) or Box lu'um (according to the Mayan classification as described by Bautista et al.) [53]. These soils manifest distinctive features, including a black color, an intermediate percentage of gravel and stones (20-60%), a substantial organic matter content (greater than 10%), good drainage capacity, and a high concentration of exchangeable cations like calcium, phosphorus, sulfur, and sodium. ...
... These soils manifest distinctive features, including a black color, an intermediate percentage of gravel and stones (20-60%), a substantial organic matter content (greater than 10%), good drainage capacity, and a high concentration of exchangeable cations like calcium, phosphorus, sulfur, and sodium. On the other hand, the red soils (WRB) or Hay lu'um (Mayan classification) found in Tahdziu present a lower content of exchangeable cations than Mollic Leptosol soils, red color, clayey texture, reduced moisture retention, lower organic matter content (<15%), and occasional rocky outcrops [53,54]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Yucatan, Mexico, is renowned for its rich plant diversity, with ~40% melliferous plants. Yucatan bee honey (BH) constitutes ~15.83% of Mexico’s annual BH production, giving high international value. Major melliferous families in Yucatan include Fabaceae, with Piscidia piscipula (“Jabin”) as an example, and Polygonaceae, with Gymnopodium floribundum (“Dzidzilche”), crucial for BH production. This study aimed to profile the metabolome of Jabin and Dzidzilche flowers and their associated BH to identify metabolites for each flower coming from two regions (Tahdziu and Acanceh) of Yucatán. Liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS2), total polyphenol content (TPC), and antioxidant capacity (AC) were implemented. As many as 101 metabolites (69 in flowers, 55 in BH) were tentatively identified using spectral libraries and in silico predictions, predominantly flavonoids, which accounted for 50.7% of the total identified metabolites in flower and 16.4% in BH. Samples exhibited variations in TPC, AC, secondary metabolites, and chemical classes depending on geography and botanical origin. Dzidzilche flowers from Acanceh displayed the highest total polyphenol content (TPC, 1431.24 ± 15.38 mg GAE/100 g dry matter) and antioxidant capacity (AC, 93.63% inhibition). Among the metabolites detected in flowers (Piscidia piscipula, Gymnopodium floribundum), 50.7% were found to be part of the flavonoid chemical class, whereas in their respective honey samples, only 16.4% of the identified metabolites were categorized as flavonoids. Vanillin and vitexin were tentatively identified as potential markers for the botanical origin identification of honey from Piscidia piscipula and Gymnopodium floribundum, respectively. Recognizing botanical and geographic BH origin is important for product authentication, identification, and traceability. This study offers chemical insights that can be valuable and complementary to melissopalynology, aiding in determining the origin and quality of Yucatan BH.
... The local micro relief reaches 10 to 35 m a.s.l. and slight ondulations and 0 -5 % slopes (Ellis and Porter-Bolland, 2008). The soils that predominant in the region according to Mayan Classification and the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (WRB) are: Pus lu'um (lithic Leptosols), k'an kab lu'um (Luvisols), and Yaax kom lu'um (haplic Vertisols) (Bautista and Zinck, 2010). The vegetation of the area corresponds to tropical sub-deciduous forest with a canopy height between 15 and 20 m (Rzedowski, 2006;. ...
Article
Full-text available
Second-growth forests represent the largest area of forest in southern Mexico and can provide relevant information on how their structural attributes in are linked to anthropogenic factors and for their forest management. However, a knowledge gap remains at national level with little scientific literature available. Therefore, this research aimed to investigate the structure and tree richness of second-growth forests in the south of Quintana Roo State, M´ exico. With stratified sampling through participatory mapping of local collaborators, secondary tropical forests of 7, 15, 27, 37, and ≥48 to 80 years (y) old-growth were identified. We categorized forests into three successional stage classes: 5-20 y (Class I; forests of 7 and 15 y); 25-40 y (Class II; forests of 27 and 37 y), and old-growth forest (Class III; forests 48-80 y). In each forest (7, 15, 27, 37, 48, and 80 y of time since abandonment [tSA]) three plots were randomly chosen and established within the forest. Each age class was composed of two forests and six sample plots. In total there were 18 plots of 500 m2 each. Subsequently, we: i) calculated the land use intensity (LUI) to which the sites were subjected, ii) described the following structural attributes: floristic similarity, true diversity (effective number of species), stem density, and basal area (AB), and iii) evaluated if tSA and LUI influence the aforementioned structural attributes. Tree diversity was characterized with Hill numbers associated with observed species richness (0D), richness of equally abundant species (1D), and dominant species (2D). Forest structure was analyzed by density (number of trees ha 1) and distribution of stems by diameter class ha 1 and basal area (BA, m2 ha 1). The second-growth forest was derived from the milpa agricultural system under moderate land use intensity (LUI index =0.02 - 0.1). Floristic structure was at least similar between Class I and Class III. Forest age and LUI do not affect tree composition of the forests (p ≥0.1667). However, these two factors affected stem density and BA. Only the species richness (0D) of second-growth forest and old-growth forest was influenced by tSA (p =0.0002). In second-growth forests, Classes I and II, 78 species (0D) were recorded, 8 and 8 exclusive species, 28 and 36 equally abundant species (1D), and 15 to 24 dominant species (2D). In the old-growth forest, Class III, 70 species were recorded, and 38 and 26 equally abundant (1D) and dominant species (2D), as well as 5 exclusive species. The density of stems decreased with increasing forest age and increasing BA. Second-growth forest and old-growth forest all showed a high density of small diameter stems. These results indicate that second-growth forests are important tree species reservoirs (including those for timber purposes), comparable to old-growth or mature forests, and therefore they are relevant not only as biodiversity conservation areas or carbon sinks, but also for planned sustainable forest management.
... Otro componente importante es el valor asignado a los suelos. En diversos estudios (Bautista et al., 2005;Bautista y Zinck, 2010;Estrada-Medina et al., 2013) se han identificado al menos diez tipos de suelos en la península de Yucatán. En este estudio se observaron seis, de acuerdo con la ubicación de las UPP, y dado que la mayoría se encuentran próximos a los Petenes, los suelos se caracterizan por ser menos profundos, inundables y pedregosos (Ya´x ka´ax, Tsek´el, Ya´xhom, respectivamente). ...
Article
La ganadería extensiva en México ha generado graves daños al medio ambiente a causa de la deforestación que trae consigo. Una alternativa a esta problemática son los sistemas silvopastoriles tradicionales (SSPt), sustentados históricamente en los conocimientos locales de los productores ganaderos. El objetivo de este estudio es analizar los conocimientos y las percepciones ambientales de la ganadería con SSPt desde una perspectiva multiespecie como aproximación a las múltiples relaciones que influyen sobre su manejo, y que se traducen en valores percibidos por los productores. Estos valores se atribuyen a la naturaleza (VN) y a la contribución de la naturaleza hacia las personas (CNP), mediante diferentes servicios ambientales. Se trabajó con doce productores del municipio de Tenabo, Campeche. Se aplicaron entrevistas, observación participante, visitas a los SSPt y asistencia a reuniones. La información generada se capturó y se organizó en ejes temáticos para su análisis a través del ATLAS.ti. Se encontró que los VN y CNP más relevantes fueron los cuerpos de agua, las características climáticas, la diversidad de suelos y árboles, el bienestar animal, y las interacciones con otras especies animales y vegetales. Se concluye que la toma de decisiones de los productores ganaderos está influenciada por el comportamiento etológico de los bovinos y afecta el funcionamiento del sistema de producción.
... Entre 50 y 75% de las especies arbóreas eliminan sus hojas en la época seca del año (Flores y Espejel, 1994). Los principales tipos de suelo son Leptosol, Litosol y Redzina (Bautista-Zúñiga, 2010;García-Gil et al. 2010), lo que en la clasificación maya corresponde al tsek'el lu'um (Flores y Espejel, 1994;Bautista y Zinck, 2010). ...
Article
Full-text available
RESUMEN En México, muchas comunidades rurales se caracterizan por aprovechar los recursos naturales como principal fuente de trabajo. La etnoecología analiza la manera en que las comunidades indígenas y sociedades campesinas tradicionales comprenden y explican su kosmos, corpus y praxis, aportando bases teóricas para entender sus formas de uso y manejo de recursos naturales. El presente estudio sistematiza el conocimiento etnoecológico entre recolectores y adornadores, sobre la cosmovisión, conocimiento, aprovechamiento y manejo tradicional del maquech, un recurso natural utilizado en la comunidad maya de Huhí para elaborar una artesanía viva. Los resultados de las entrevistas confirmaron que la recolecta, es una actividad que no todos los varones de la comunidad desempeñan, pues implica un amplio conocimiento de la especie y el entorno natural, así como prácticas y percepciones personales. La recolecta de Z. chilensis es importante en el sistema de subsistencia de los maquecheros, pues permite, obtener la remuneración económica y recursos de autoconsumo, necesarios para el sustento familiar. Los adornadores, materializan y otorgan los elementos simbólicos al maquech. Son protagonistas indirectos que influyen sobre las poblaciones de Z. chilensis, pues regulan la intensidad de recolecta de los maquecheros, basándose en la demanda de la artesanía a lo largo del año. Se concluye que en ambos casos, las nuevas generaciones de maquecheros y adornadores aprenden los conocimientos y prácticas de los adultos, especialmente de sus padres. Estos conocimientos se consolidan con el transcurso de la edad; sin embargo, la cosmovisión de los maquecheros y adornadores se considera el punto clave para regular el uso y aprovechamiento del maquech. Actualmente, la manera particular de percibir el aprovechamiento del recurso se expresa como netamente económica. PALABRAS CLAVE: Maquech, Etnoecología, Conocimiento tradicional, Huhí, Yucatán EthNoECoLogy thE MAqUECh BEEtLE (ZoPhERUS ChiLENSiS gRAy, 1832) iN A CoMMUNity of yUCAtAN, MExiCo ABStRACt In Mexico, many rural communities are characterized by taking advantage of natural resources as the main source of work. Ethnoecology analyzes the way in which indigenous communities and traditional peasant societies understand and explain their kosmos, corpus and praxis, providing theoretical bases to understand their ways of using and managing natural resources. The present study systematizes the ethnoecological knowledge among maquecheros and decorators, about the cosmovision, knowledge, use and traditional management of maquech, a natural resource used in the mayan community of Huhí's to elaborate a alive crafts. The results of the interviews confirmed that gathering is an activity that not all males in the community recover because it implies a
... Traditional knowledge in the form of Indigenous Maya soil classification has also proven critical to understanding land use patterns and crop choice in various settings, while demonstrating that Maya classification is not based solely on physical characteristics of the soil, but often incorporates elements of both land capability and suitability analysis (Barrera-Bassols and Toledo 2005; Beach et al. 2017;Culleton 2012;Dunning 1992;Dunning and Beach 2004;Hixson et al. 2017;Isendahl 2002;Jensen et al. 2007;Sweetwood et al. 2009). Studies have also correlated Maya classification systems with current World Reference Base (WRB) soil classification, demonstrating a high level of concordance in the types of soils distinguished by the two systems (Bautista et al. 2005;Bautista and Zinck 2010;Estrada-Medina et al. 2013a;Martínez-Villegas 2007;Palma-López and Bautista 2019;Sedov et al. 2007). ...
Article
Full-text available
Pre-Columbian food production in the Maya Lowlands was long characterized as reliant on extensive, slash-and-burn agriculture as the sole cultivation system possible in the region, given environmental limitations, with maize as the dominant crop. While aspects of this “swidden thesis” of Maya agriculture have been chipped away in recent years, there has been an underappreciation of the many forms of long-term capital investments in agriculture made by ancient Maya people. Here, we review the last three decades of research that has overturned the swidden thesis, focusing on long-term strategies. We demonstrate long-lasting agricultural investments by Maya people, in social capital including multigenerational land tenure, in cultivated capital including long-lived trees, and in landesque capital including soil amendments and landscape engineering projects, such as terracing and wetland modification.
Article
Full-text available
La canela che (Canella winterana) es un árbol de madera dura y de distribución restringida en las selvas de Calakmul, Campeche, donde es poco conocido, pero con amplio potencial maderable y no maderable. El objetivo del presente trabajo fue caracterizar y relacionar la composición florística asociada a la población de C. winterana en las selvas de Calakmul. Para ello, se identificó la composición de la comunidad florística asociada a C. winterana; se establecieron 10 sitios de muestreo similares a los del Inventario Nacional Forestal y de Suelos (Infys) usado en México. Se calcularon los índices ecológicos, de ordenación y de proximidad entre comunidades de árboles con base en la similitud en su composición por NMDS y UPGMA, en PAST 4.17. Se identificaron 121 taxones de árboles además de C. winterana, la mayoría de los individuos de esta especie se ubicaron en bosques de llanura aluvial media a baja y bosques subperennifolios medios; sobre leptosoles líticos o mólicos y vertisoles. Su patrón de distribución de fue agregado. Los árboles reproductivos promediaron alturas de 8.7 m y diámetros normales de 15.8 cm. Los frutos pesaron 0.34±0.06 g, con seis semillas en promedio, las cuales alcanzan un peso promedio de 0.04±0.001 g. En conclusión, se identificaron dos tipos de bosques y tres suelos asociados a C. winterana, así como atributos ambientales y ecológicos relevantes para su presencia en Calakmul, y se determinó que está bien integrada a la comunidad forestal de la región.
Article
Full-text available
Background Ethnobiologists commonly analyze local knowledge systems related to plants, animals, fungi, and ecosystems. However, microbes (bacteria, yeasts, molds, viruses, and other organisms), often considered invisible in their interactions with humans, are often neglected. Microorganisms were the earliest life forms on Earth, and humans have interacted with them throughout history. Over time, humans have accumulated ecological knowledge about microbes through attributes such as smell, taste, and texture that guide the management of contexts in which microorganisms evolve. These human-microbe interactions are, in fact, expressions of biocultural diversity. Thus, we propose that ethnomicrobiology is a distinct interdisciplinary field within ethnobiology that examines the management practices and knowledge surrounding human-microbe interactions, along with the theoretical contributions that such an approach can offer. Methods We reviewed scientific journals, books, and chapters exploring human-microbe relationships. Our search included databases such as Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and specific journal websites, using keywords related to ethnomicrobiology and ethnozymology. To categorize activities involving deliberate human-microbial interactions, we examined topics such as fermentation, pickling, food preservation, silaging, tanning, drying, salting, smoking, traditional medicine, folk medicine, agricultural practices, composting, and other related practices. Results Our research identified important precedents for ethnomicrobiology through practical and theoretical insights into human-microbe interactions, particularly in their impact on health, soil, and food systems. We also found that these interactions contribute to biodiversity conservation and co-evolutionary processes. This emerging interdisciplinary field has implications for food ecology, public health, and the biocultural conservation of hidden microbial landscapes and communities. It is essential to explore the socioecological implications of the interwoven relationships between microbial communities and humans. Equally important is the promotion of the conservation and recovery of this vast biocultural diversity, along with sustainable management practices informed by local ecological knowledge. Conclusion Recognizing the dawn of ethnomicrobiology is essential as the field evolves from a descriptive to a more theoretical and integrative biological approach. We emphasize the critical role that traditional communities have played in conserving food, agriculture, and health systems. This emerging field highlights that the future of ethnobiological sciences will focus not on individual organisms or cultures, but on the symbiosis between microorganisms and humans that has shaped invisible but often complex biocultural landscapes.
Chapter
Full-text available
RESUMEN Para contrarrestar los problemas globales de los suelos, se requiere plantear alternativas que ayuden a conservar este recurso. Para ello, el mapeo de suelos contribuye con datos científicos, útiles para implementar usos sustentables. En este trabajo se diseñó y desarrolló una aplicación para teléfonos inteligentes (app) con información edafológica, dirigido a diferentes usuarios de los suelos del estado de Campeche, México. Para la elaboración de la app se utilizó la metodología en cascada, este proceso cuenta con una estructura secuencial, cada etapa que se inicia debe de terminarse para comenzar con otra. En las primeras etapas se trabajó con la funcionalidad de la aplicación y desarrollo de interfaces gráficas usando Balsamiq, posteriormente se diseñó una lista de los principales perfiles de suelo del estado de Campeche mostrando la imagen, nombre y descripción del perfil de suelo y su clasificación tanto WRB 2007 y Maya; para su desarrollo se utilizó java como lenguaje de programación. Los mapas fueron convertidos a formato .kml para su visualización. Las últimas etapas consistieron en la fase de pruebas y en generar el archivo .apk de la aplicación para su publicación en Play Store. La aplicación cuenta con tres tipos de usuarios, a cada uno se le ofrece información específica. El menú de usuario cuenta con siete apartados, para la opción "Suelos" se muestra información clasificada de acuerdo al tipo de usuario que la utilice, con ayuda del GPS, el teléfono ubica al usuario en la posición exacta en que se encuentra. La app de los suelos de Campeche provee información de 14 perfiles de suelos representativos, sus características, distribución geográfica y capacidad agrológica. Esta información puede ser utilizada en tiempo real por usuarios profesionales, alumnos y agricultores, para tomar decisiones sobre usos del suelo.
Article
Full-text available
This review examines how Ethnopedology has developed over the last 23 years. It considers its role in soil security and knowledge co-production. Due to its constant interaction with the surrounding environment, indigenous or peasant soil knowledge is detailed, holistic, intergenerational, and even millennia-old. Farmer´s knowledge concerns about climate change, land degradation, soil conservation, sustainable agriculture, and agricultural production constraints have been recently demonstrated. However, this ethnoscience remains marginalised in university curricula, the production of scientific papers, and decision-making. In order to address the major global challenges facing humanity, Soil Security proposes the holistic assessment of soil through five dimensions: capacity, condition, capital, codification, and connectivity; the latter relates the environment to society but is the least developed. The other proposal is the co-production of knowledge, which implies collaboration between technicians and producers to achieve soil development. Integrating Ethnopedology with connectivity studies and the co-production of knowledge can contribute to Soil Security studies and soil sustainability. However, it is necessary to maintain an equal role in knowledge integration. This process should be socially and academically inclusive and always recognise the value of local soil knowledge in solving critical environmental problems.
Article
A failure to select a suitable location to grow organic coffee translates into low plantation productivity and degradation of such agroecosystems. Therefore, we need to know a priori the suitable environmental conditions. Twenty-eight soil profiles were described in this study in the Mixteca Alta, Oaxaca. Physical and chemical properties were measured, and a regression model approach identified the main properties associated with the peasant perception of soil suitability for organic coffee production. We found that peasant perception of high soil suitability is in altitudes higher than 1400 masl, soil depth greater than 1 m, slightly basic condition in its maximum pH value, 0.4 to 1 dS m−1 of Electric Conductivity at its maximum, and low values of Na.
Article
Full-text available
Article
Full-text available
Ethnopedological studies have been made in Mexico for more than 20 years. From the beginning, we noticed a confrontation between native knowledge, with a marked Mesoamerican origin, and the scientific knowledge of a Western origin. Native knowledge has been perceived as inferior or irrelevant compared to scientific knowledge; however, it has survived for more than five centuries despite the pressure of so-called culturization. For this reason, we consider that it is necessary to describe the historical, social, and intellectual context in which we have been immersed for many years of research. By working with ethnical contemporary groups since 1980, it has been possible to demonstrate the existence of an indigenous knowledge about land classes. Nowadays, the usefulness of native knowledge has been increasingly recognized among technicians and researchers. It has been used for current soil classification and soil mapping, because the native land classes correspond to the lowest levels of Soil Taxonomy and the WRB system. Also, with the local information, it has been possible to generate a simple procedure for soil mapping at local and regional levels. In this paper, we will describe the evolution and use of indigenous knowledge of land classes in Mexico over the past 20 years. Copyright © 2005 by Ortiz-Solorio, Gutiérrez-Castorena, Licona-Vargas, Sánchez-Guzmán.
Article
Historically, use of landscape models has shown that landscapes are predictable; they have a large nonrandom variability component. This nonrandom variability can be used to predict soils on the landscape if the methodology both to describe and to quantify processes that govern landscape development is understood. The bases for our understanding of soils and landscapes are the concepts of Davis and Penck and those of G. Milne, L.C. King and R.V. Ruhe in whose models process plays an important role. The landscape must be defined in three dimensions, the lateral as well as the vertical changes in stratigraphic materials. The hydrologic characteristics of the system, particularly lateral flow, must be determined. A better understanding of stratigraphic control on hydrologic parameters is needed. Neither landscape nor process components are defined adequately by present soil map units. Milne's catena model is an excellent foundation for integration of these concepts.
Article
The existing knowledge of the effect of soil depth and rock fragments on growth of fruit trees is limited. Most of the earlier research was done under conditions of natural rain or infrequent irrigation. With recent developments in irrigation and fertilization methods, such as drip or trickle irrigation, these factors should be reexamined. This issue has attained increased significance in recent years in Israel, where shallow mountain soils containing large amounts of rock fragments are practically the only soil resource for extending irrigated arable land.