Background
Animals have been part of human life since its origins, representing sources of food, medicine, clothing, social, cultural, symbolic and spiritual benefits for humanity [
1]. Human groups integrate faunal elements to their subsistence systems through a broad range of practices [
2], some of them, on one hand, involving control of the reproduction of successive generations and artificial selection processes of some animals that result in their domestication. On the other hand, people’s practices might include the opportunistic extraction of animals through hunting or gathering. However, people may also take deliberate actions to ensure the availability of wild fauna, without necessarily involving a domestication process [
2]. In order to improve the availability of desirable animals, these management actions might involve different ecological scales, from individuals to whole biotic communities [
3] or even ecosystem processes.
Management practices include multi-scale decision-making and transformations in order to use, maintain or recover elements or functional processes of ecosystems [
4]. In the case of fauna, these strategies can be focused on the animals themselves, from the individual to the population level, but also on elements or processes that support or influence them [
2], such as their ecological mutualists (i.e. host plants, plants of their diet, plants pollinated and/or dispersed by them), preys and/or predators, and even manipulation of abiotic elements like water and fire [
5]. The set of management practices can vary in the amount of energy and human effort invested, the presence of artificial selection, the control of the reproductive systems, and the extent of abiotic elements used, among others [
6]. This variation can be pictured along a gradient of management “complexity” and/or “intensity” [
4,
6].
The kind and intensity of management practices directed to animals depend on the motivations and the nature of the interactions between humans and fauna. Such interactions are modulated by both individual and social experiences and knowledge that are part of the complex of knowledge “corpus”, beliefs “cosmos
” and practices “praxis” known as traditional ecological knowledge or TEK [
7,
8]. In Mesoamerica, a region recognized for its high biocultural richness [
9,
10], and as one of the world’s main centres of domestication and origins of agriculture [
11], the wide spectrum of human-fauna interactions has configured a variety of processes and management practices. These, however, have not included the domestication of large mammals (i.e. for meat, milk or textile fibre production as well as draught animals) as in the Middle East, some other regions of Eurasia and the Andean Region [
12].
The Mesoamerican spectrum of human-fauna interactions has included management strategies that resulted in the post-domestication selection of the dogs (
Canis lupus familiaris Linnaeus, 1758) that arrived at the continent with human immigrations [
12] and the domestication of the turkey (
Meleagris gallopavo Linnaeus, 1758) [
13]. However, a variety of animals have received human attention in several ways. One example is the systematic nurturing of insects (i.e.
Dactylopius coccus Costa, 1829
, Melipona spp. Illiger, 1906) [
14,
15] and vertebrates (i.e.
Ara militaris Linnaeus, 1766,
Sylvilagus spp. Gray, 1987) [
16‐
18]. Currently, along with the nurturing of these species and the adoption of introduced domesticates from all over the world (i.e.
Apis mellifera Linnaeus, 1758,
Capra hircus Linnaeus, 1758,
Bos taurus Linnaeus, 1758,
B. taurus indicus Linnaeus,1758,
Ovis aries Linnaeus, 1758,
Equus caballus Linnaeus, 1758,
Gallus gallus Linnaeus, 1758,
Sus scrofa scrofa Linnaeus, 1758,
Cairina moschata Linnaeus, 1758 and other species of Anatidae), there is a range of extractive practices of wild animals. Some of them involve temporal captivity of individuals without breeding [
19,
20], the active cultivation of “milpa” exclusively for prey attraction [
3], favouring and caring for host plants in situ to increase the amount of insects gathered [
21], the care on structures such as ant nests to maintain their availability [
22], the spatial and temporal planning (i.e. hunting, fishing or gathering closures) to obtain a given resource and the formulation of communal and even religious regulations [
23,
24], among others. All these strategies are intended to satisfy several human concerns.
Human needs for food and medicine are the main drivers of management, but in addition, factors like curiosity, beauty and empathy can also be relevant [
20,
25]. Furthermore, actions are taken to reduce or prevent damages or losses that faunal elements may produce for subsistence systems or human health [
26,
27]. Ethnobotanical evidence supports the hypotheses that management practices are primarily directed to increase the availability of those resources under a high demand pressure due to their high value for use, especially when resources are relatively scarce [
6,
28‐
30]. However, the reduction in the risk of extirpation of a given resource after management might not always be successful, causing the loss not only of a biotic resource but also of the social and cultural activities related to it [
30].
The analysis of the balance between the demand and the outcome of management practices to improve or maintain the availability of desirable animals is in the interest of developing the theory of integrated ecosystem management. With this work, we wanted to contribute with a first regional analysis of the contemporary use and management practices of fauna (i.e. excluding zootechnical methods used to the intensive breeding and exploitation of animals and their products, especially for the introduced varieties of animal domesticates from all over the world) by the indigenous and mestizo people within a region of Mesoamerica with high biocultural diversity, in which archaeological and ethnoecological evidence indicates the use and management of plants and animals for at least 12,000 years [
4].
We aim to determine the number of species of wild animals that are used, and describe how they are used, the needs they satisfy, and the management practices involved in obtaining, maintaining or restoring the animal populations along a gradient of management intensity, in the Tehuacán-Cuicatlán Valley and neighbouring areas. We expected to find that wild animals continue being important elements of people’s subsistence system in the region, that vertebrates are mainly used as food, medicine or pets [
1], that edible insects are mostly represented by Coleoptera, followed by Hymenoptera, Hemiptera, Orthoptera and Lepidoptera, following the general tendency reported for Mexico [
31‐
33]. Finally, we expected to find a variety of management practices devoted to wild fauna including reproduction in captivity, captive care without reproduction, protection of animals or their host plants in wild conditions, hunting and gathering.
Discussion
As we expected, fauna continues to be an important element of human culture and subsistence in the Tehuacán Valley, and the main use given to wild animal species, both vertebrates and invertebrates is for food. According to our field observations, this happens even in the presence of edible domesticates such as turkeys, chickens, pigs, goats and lambs.
The number of animal species used in the TCV as food, ornament and medicine is low compared with the number of plant species used for those purposes, but their proportions and importance are similar in these main use categories. Medicinal use of plants (396 species) is followed by edible (339 species) and ornamental (313 species) [
4]. However, the fact that at least 874 plant species in the TCV are used as fodder [
4], reflects the human interest in feeding animals in this region during the last five centuries.
Birds are the main taxonomic group that represents ornamental species, making this category the second in importance for edible purposes after mammals. This information comes mostly from the dry forests of the arid zone of the TCV [
73]. Use and commercialization of living birds as ornamental is a complex activity that has a long tradition in Mexico and involves human specialization, organization and regulations at various levels from individuals and families, to non-profit associations and governmental policies [
107]; however, with a few exceptions, breeding is not part of the management strategy for ornamental species [
148]. So far, this is the case in the TCV.
The medicinal category was the third in the number of animal species and follows the tendency for Latin America, where the two groups with the larger numbers of medicinal species are mammals and birds [
149]. We hypothesise that their uses can be taken as indicators of human health needs in the area. The presence of institutional medical attention could be resulting in the decrease in the use of animals to alleviate illnesses, as it has been reported for the use of medicinal plants in Ixcatlán [
25]. In the Nahua localities of Coyomeapan, snakes are important components of the domestic first aid kit. They are used as antivenoms in a similar manner to that previously documented in localities of Brazil, where, in absence of antivenom treatments, coral snakes were introduced alive in brandy, and this brandy was then ingested to act as a preventive antivenom [
150]. The alcohol used in the TCV is made of sugarcane, whose preparation was introduced after the Spanish conquest, and it is also used to preserve the tails or glands of mammals used in other treatments. An especially interesting situation is observed for childbirth attention. Frequently, infusions of animal tails or reproductive parts are used to induce nausea in women and thereafter, contractions.
Didelphis spp. was the genus most widely used for this purpose in the region, even for animals’ birth. However, there is no consensus regarding its regional use since in some localities, other mammals such as
D. novemcinctus and
Sphiggurus mexicanus (Ker, 1792) are used instead.
Didelphis spp. fat is also used in childbirth in the Brazilian Amazon [
151], but only to prepare an oil to alleviate labouring women’s pain.
We could argue that the study of the use and management of insects is still far from complete in the region, and the numbers do not reflect the general tendency registered for Mexico. We encourage more research on this subject in the area. Yet, a deep perspective of the uses and management of insects was documented in a case study of a Popolocan locality [
97]. We also found a case of management of the immature stages of the lepidopteran
A. armida in Nahua localities in Coyomeapan, where it is gathered but also receives a kind of in situ management that has been even called a “proto-culture” and has been documented in coffee agroecosystems in the Zongolica region [
152]. The extent to which the interest for these caterpillars motivates special cares or management of the host tree (
H. aff. velutina) beyond tolerance remains to be investigated.
Most of the obtained records of animal use do not include information about frequency and yields of the animals that are extracted, neither about the actual ecosystems from which the extracted animals came from. Contributions in these topics would be valuable together with basic ecological studies since human activity and extractive practices have caused the reduction and almost extirpation of big mammals such as deer and peccaries from some areas of the TCV [
45,
47,
153].
Beyond the tangible-utilitarian attributes reported in the results of this work, the presence of certain animals in an area also may acquire an intangible dimension of use that, in turn, can lead to concrete management actions with positive or negative results for animal survival. For example, fauna which represents bad omens (
Catharthes aura (Linnaeus, 1758),
Coragyps atratus (Bechstein, 1793),
Geococcyx velox (Wagner, 1836),
Glaucidium brasilianum (J.F. Gmelin, 1788)) or good fortune (
Pyrocephalus rubinus (Boddaert, 1783),
Toxostoma curvirostre (Swainson,1827)
, Cynanthus sordidus (Gould, 1959)) [
72,
98]. This might also be the case of fauna mistakenly considered to be dangerous for human health, as it happens with lizards of the genus
Abronia spp. Gray, 1838 Another example is the use of hummingbirds as amulets; this might increase the risk of extirpation since no strategies for maintaining or restoring their populations was recorded. We recommend further research on this topic.
The management typology found so far in the TCV includes a variety of extractive practices similar to those documented in other regions of Mesoamerica. However, we have not found any evidence of breeding as it has been documented for some animals in other regions of Mesoamerica, as it is the case of stingless bees in the Maya region and in the Sierra Norte in Puebla, among others [
15,
154]. We did not find evidence of the manipulation of abiotic elements with the purpose of enhancing the availability of animals [
5], nor manipulation at community level with the only purpose of attracting animals as reported in the Maya region [
3]. Future research is needed to determine if the documented practices aimed at increasing the availability of the desirable animals are likely to be successful; therefore, we recommend investigating the outcome of these practices.
The use and management of fauna before 1500 B.P. has been discussed in the context of the history of the origins of agriculture in the region [
46‐
48] and involves a transition from seasonal hunting in great human groups to small groups. It might also be related to irrigated cultivation systems by allowing hunters to capture prey attracted to the systems, similar to what happens currently with the milpa. Captivity or breeding of wild animals are not considered to have happened in the region before 1500 B.P., except for
D. coccus [
155] and the possibly introduced wild
M. gallopavo around 2200 B.P. However,
Sylvilagus spp. were found in very high proportions compared to other preys and it has been hypothesised that it was due to massive hunting/trapping events [
47]. It could be possible that cottontails were captured and maintained in captivity, as it currently happens in some localities of the region, and as it was registered to have possibly happened in Teotihuacan [
18].
Up to 2010, there was documentation of 10 animal species found in the archaeological record which are still currently used [
153]. Through the review of information carried out in this study, we found reports for 10 additional species which continue to be used, making a total of 20 species. Although in the last 8 years studies on the use and management of regional fauna have increased, we have identified a lack of information on the subject for the Mixtec, Chinantec and Chocholtec communities of the TCV.
Epistemological discussion in ethnobiology and ethnozoology is dynamic [
156]. Trends in the thematic of ethnozoological research in Mexico have been reviewed and classified by Brand (1962), Argueta et al. (2012), Santos-Fita et al. (2012) and Gutiérrez-Santillán et al. (2019) [
156‐
158] among others. Works about extractive practices and use of fauna with feeding and ornamental purposes, as well as management issues, specifically domestication or taming, have been present in ethnozoological studies in Mexico. For the TCV, one of the first archaeological studies in which authors discuss these aspects was published in 1967, but the frequency of studies related to management has increased recently. For the period 1890–1962, Brand (1962) identified 4 studies related to hunting and the importance of animals in human diet, 7 studies on domestication and semi-domestication, 15 studies on ornamental use. For the period 1962–2001, Argueta et al. 2012 identified 26 studies on hunting, harvesting, importance in human diet and commercialization, 24 related to use as ornamental, tools, building and dressing elements and 18 studies related to animals in traditional medicine. For the period 2000 to 2011, Santos-Fita et al. 2012 identified 75 studies on hunting, harvesting, diet and commercialization, 16 studies on ornamental use, 30 about animals in traditional medicine and 26 on management and domestication.
A limitation of our work was the lack of analyses on the incorporation of invertebrate and vertebrate domesticates in local systems of subsistence. Further studies on these subjects would complement our understanding of the importance of wild animal resources to fulfil people’s needs, as well as the ecological and social processes that might emerge from the management of fauna in the region. An example of work that evaluates the interactions between introduced domesticates in the TCV and vegetation are the studies that have characterised the plant species consumed by goats [
159,
160] and those that have assessed the effects of goat herbivory on the growth and flower set of plants [
161]. Although goats have been considered detrimental for ecosystems, several authors have documented that, at the right densities, these animals may contribute to the conservation of plant diversity and participate in seed dispersal of numerous species [
162‐
164]. Other important issues are the local criteria for the human selection of domestic animals. Adaptation to local environments and cultural motivations are important issues to characterise local genetic resources and to complete a history of animal use and management in a region where agriculture and domestication had one of its earliest origins.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.