ethnobotanical knowledge of brosimum among urban rural

7/30/2019 Ethnobotanical Knowledge of Brosimum Among Urban Rural

1/6

Economic Botany 58(1) pp. 7277. 2004 2004 by The New York Botanical Garden Press, Bronx, NY 10458-5126 U.S.A.

ETHNOBOTANICAL KNOWLEDGE OF BROSIMUM ALICASTRUM(MORACEAE) AMONG URBAN AND RURAL EL SALVADORIAN

ADOLESCENTS1

SUZANNE YATES AND CARLOS R. RAMIREZ-SOSA

Yates, Suzanne (Department of Psychology, Lehman CollegeCUNY, Bronx, NY 10468; e-mail: [email protected]) and Carlos R. Ramrez-Sosa (Department of BiologicalSciences, Lehman CollegeCUNY, Bronx, NY 10468; current address: 1252 Jamaica Ave.,

Richmond Hill, NY 11418; e-mail: [email protected]). ETHNOBOTANICAL KNOWLEDGE OFBROSIMUM ALICASTRUM (MORACEAE) AMONG URBAN AND RURAL EL SALVADORIAN ADOLESCENTS.Economic Botany 58(1):7277, 2004. This study represents a systematic attempt to quantify

and compare the degree of familiarity among rural and urban El Salvadorian adolescents withujushte, Brosimum alicastrum Sw. (Moraceae). To do this, we administered a written question-naire to 177 students attending school in either San Franciso Menendez or Apopa, El Salvador.Using a closed-end format, the students provided information about their knowledge of the treeand its fruit, frequency and enjoyment of consumption, method of preparation, and the sourceof their knowledge. Although most of the rural students knew of the tree and ate its fruit, very

few of the urban students indicated familiarity. Statistical hypothesis testing demonstrated thatthe discrepancy between rural and urban knowledge could not be accounted for by differencesin reported socioeconomic status. Grandparents were cited as the most important source ofinformation about ujushte.

Key Words: Brosimum alicastrum (Moraceae); ujushte; ramon; El Salvador; ethnobotany;questionnaires; cultural transmission of knowledge.

In recent decades, ethnobotanists have ad-

vanced in the race to document the knowledge

of native groupsknowledge that may disap-

pear with the destruction of tropical forests

(Boom 1996; Prance and Kallunki 1984). Names

of plants and their respective uses by native peo-

ple are being catalogued in South and Central

America (Arvigo and Balick 1993; Boom 1996;

Milliken and Albert 1997; Ventocilla et al. 1995)

and in Africa (Johns et al. 1996). Participants

interviewed for most of these studies are healersor others characterized by their specialized

knowledge. Although the number of studies

aimed at documenting the extent to which av-

erage people know about and presently use

plants is increasing, most of these studies do not

report analyses based on statistical hypothesis

testing.

One plant that has an important economic his-

tory, Brosimum alicastrum Sw. (Moraceae), is a

large, evergreen canopy tree that is found

1 Received 13 April 2001; accepted 07 February2003.

throughout the Neotropics. It is commonly

known as ujushte in El Salvador and ramon in

Guatemala and Mexico (Witsberger et al. 1978).

In El Salvador this species is the dominant tree

in the last remaining forests within the bound-

aries of El Imposible National Park (Ramrez-

Sosa 2001), adjacent to the rural town included

in this study (San Francisco Menendez). Ujushte

trees can attain heights up to 45 m and produce

well-defined buttresses (Pardo-Tejada and San-

chez-Munoz 1978). Every part of this tree isused by humans (Ortiz et al. 1995). Fodder is

the most common use in most of Central Amer-

ica, and the latex is used as a galactogogue (Or-

tiz et al. 1995). The red to orange fruits are

fleshy and sweet (Pardo-Tejada and Sanchez-

Munoz 1978).

The uses of ujushte have long been known

throughout Latin America (Murray 1837), and

some have proposed that the tree was cultivated

and consumed as a major food source by the

classic Maya civilization (A.D. 300900) (Go-

mez-Pompa et al. 1987; Puleston 1982). Sheets(1982) proposed that the El Salvadorian diet has


2/6

2004] 73YATES & RAMIREZ-SOSA: BROSIMUM ALICASTRUM

been defined by its early use of a wide variety

of seed crops, roots, and tree crops (including

ujushte). Although Lentz and Ramrez-Sosa

(2002) failed to find evidence at the Joya de

Ceren archaeological site that ujushte was an

important food source of the ancient El Salva-dorians, the presence at ancient sites of large

numbers of ujushte trees supports the idea that

it was cultivated and used (Peters 1983).

Ujushte produces seeds that can be either

cooked in various ways or ground into flour to

make tortillas. Recently it has received some at-

tention for its nutritional value (Peters and Par-

do-Tejada 1982; Ortiz et al. 1995). According to

nutritional studies of the fruits, the content of

tryptophan (1.22.3%) and lysine (2.344.0%)

is important because these amino acids are lim-

ited in the diet of Central Americans (Ortiz et

al. 1995). Generally, the fruit contains a high

proportion of water (52.2%), necessitating de-

hydration for storing and processing purposes

(Ortiz et al. 1995). In El Salvador, ujushte is

processed for tortilla production in the same

manner as maize. Seeds are boiled in water with

lime or ashes until soft, washed at least three

times, and ground by hand. Round tortillas are

placed on a clay or metal griddle and cooked

until a brownish color appears. Ujushte tortillas

are comparable in aesthetic properties to maizetortillas; the taste is slightly different but not dis-

agreeable. A local family in San Francisco Me-

nendez demonstrated these procedures to the ju-

nior author of this article.

In a preliminary survey conducted in the mar-

ketplace of Tacuba, El Salvador, we found that

most adults knew about and had eaten ujushte

(Ramrez-Sosa and Yates 1996). Some prelimi-

nary evidence, however, suggested that even in

this rural area, where the tree is common, there

might be some generational loss of knowledge.In that pilot study, all five of the individuals who

did not know about ujushte were middle-aged or

younger.

The purpose of this work was to assess the

extent to which young people are being intro-

duced to ujushte. We also wanted to determine

who served as the primary agents of introduc-

tion. We predicted that urban youths would be

less likely to know about ujushte than would ru-

ral youths. Brosimum alicastrum is a very com-

mon species throughout the country, but defor-

estation and development are causing its disap-pearance from many areas. The dearth of public

land in the city should further limit access of

urban dwellers to the tree. Furthermore, we also

expected that knowledge of ujushte would be in-

fluenced by socioeconomic status. The fruit is

not harvested commercially. Because ujushte

was widely used during World War II when cornwas scarce, we thought it was possible that

ujushte has acquired a reputation as a poor per-

sons food. As a result, we predicted that chil-

dren raised in middle- or upper-class families

would be less likely to know about ujushte.

Finally, with this paper we sought to demon-

strate the usefulness of surveys in the effort to

acquire ethnobotanical information. Ethnobota-

nists most often employ an ideographic data col-

lection strategy that involves conducting in-

depth and individual interviews. This strategy is

well suited to situations in which information is

solicited from informants with specialized

knowledge, such as healers. These in-depth in-

terviews provide rich, descriptive data sets that

detail possible uses of native plants. Data gen-

erated by these means provide an excellent

source of ideas for hypothesis generation. Be-

cause they are labor intensive and time consum-

ing, however, such techniques are not practical

when seeking to answer questions about the ex-

tent to which the general population knows and

applies information about the uses of variousplants. In addition, ideographic methods are by

definition nonstandardized. It is not fair, there-

fore, to compare the results of one protocol di-

rectly with another. The formulation of relational

statements about the extent of knowledge in one

part of the country as opposed to another, for

example, requires a more systematic method.

METHODS

PARTICIPANTS

A questionnaire was designed to quantify and

compare the ethnobotanical knowledge of

school-age children living in an urban and a ru-

ral area in El Salvador. The rural town, San

Francisco Menendez in the Department of Ahu-

achapan, is adjacent to El Imposible National

Park. Apopa, the urban site chosen, is part of the

capital city, San Salvador. A total of 177 school-

children completed the survey. Of these, 98

were girls, 78 were boys, and one participant

declined to identify gender. They were recruited

from seventh- (n 70), eighth- (n 67), andninth- (n 40) grade classrooms. Students ages


3/6

74 [VOL. 58ECONOMIC BOTANY

ranged from 11 to 18, with a median age of 14

years. San Francisco Menendez has only one

class of each grade. As a result, we invited all

children attending those grades in that town to

participate, producing a sample of 74 rural stu-

dents who completed the survey on 4 July 1997.One public school in Apopa was chosen, and all

students enrolled in the relevant grades that were

in session were asked to participate. This pro-

duced a sample of 103 adolescents living in the

urban setting who completed the survey on 7

July 1997. In all cases, we first obtained per-

mission from the students teachers. The nature

and purpose of the study were carefully ex-

plained to the students, making it clear that stu-

dents participation in the study would have no

effect on their grades. Names were not recorded,

and students were assured that their answers

would be anonymous.

THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Each student received a Spanish language ver-

sion of the questionnaire. The questions and pos-

sible answers were orally presented to the stu-

dents as a group, and they were given time to

answer each one before continuing. This proce-

dure ensured that all students could participate,

regardless of their reading proficiency and also

helped to clarify the intent and meaning of eachquestion.

The questionnaire consisted of a series of

questions in a closed-end format, in which the

range of responses appears after the question

and the participant simply circles the most ap-

propriate answer. Most of the questions (e.g.,

Have you ever heard of a tree called ujushte?

Have you ever eaten ujushte?) were simple

yes/no queries. Several included scaled re-

sponses. For example, students were asked to

rate, on a scale of 0 (dont like it) to 3 (likeit very much), how much they enjoyed eating

each preparation of ujushte they had ever tried.

The questionnaire was organized around four

main themes. First, students were asked about

their knowledge of the tree and their ability to

identify it and its fruit. The second section dealt

with their consumption of ujushte, beginning

with a general question about whether they had

ever eaten it at all, and if so, when was the last

time. Students then completed a series of items

to determine the method of preparation (boiled,

roasted, raw, or as a tortilla either plain or mixedwith corn or green banana) and their degree of

fondness for each of the preparation methods. In

the third section, those who had eaten ujushte

identified the individual(s) who had taught them

how to identify and prepare it. Those who had

never eaten ujushte were asked if they had

known it was edible, if they knew anyone whodid eat it, and why they had never eaten it. The

final section consisted of demographic questions

concerning gender, grade, age, place of birth,

where they had lived for most of their lives, pre-

sent residence, and perceived economic status.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

KNOWLEDGE OF UJUSHTE

Only 68 of the 177 students polled (38.4%)

indicated they had heard of a tree called ujushte;58 (32.8%) said they could recognize the tree in

the wild/forest, and 57 (30.5%) said they had

actually eaten ujushte.

Analyses limited to those who reported eating

ujushte found that reactions were generally pos-

itive. Of the 57 who had eaten it, 22 (38.6%)

said they liked it very much, 7 (13%) liked it a

moderate amount, 23 (40.4%) liked it just a lit-

tle, and 2 (3.5%) individuals did not like it at

all. Most (57.9%, N 33) reported eating ujush-

te within the last year. Of the 57 ujushte con-sumers, 14% (N 8) reported eating it within

the previous week. Nearly all those (86%, N

49) who had eaten ujushte had tried it boiled,

whereas 31.6% (N 18) had eaten tortillas

made from ujushte, 28.1% (N 16) reported

having eaten it roasted, and 21.1% (N 12) had

tried it raw. Of the 18 students who had eaten

tortillas made from ujushte, 8 reported that the

tortilla had been made from ujushte alone, 4 re-

ported that the ujushte had been mixed with

corn, 1 had eaten tortillas made both ways, and5 did not know the preparation method used.

Knowledge of the tree was tantamount to

knowing the fruit is edible. There were only 14

students who knew of the tree but had never

eaten the fruit. Of these, 12 reported that they

knew it was edible and that they knew people

who ate ujushte.

Statistical analyses showed that there were no

differences in knowledge as a function of gender

or grade level. As a result, all of the following

analyses have been collapsed across these twodemographic variables.


4/6


Fig. 1. Histogram depicting knowledge of ujushteamong rural and urban adolescents in the study, as apercentage of the total population interviewed.

EFFECT OF RURAL VERSUS URBAN LIVINGON KNOWLEDGE OF UJUSHTE

A 2 analysis comparing the extent to which

adolescents from rural versus urban settings

knew of the tree revealed vastly different ex-

posure patterns: 2 (1, N 177) 69.30, P

0.001. The majority of adolescents in the rural

settings (N 55, 74.3%) had heard of ujushte.

In contrast, only 13 (12.6%) of those living in

urban settings had heard of the tree (Fig. 1). Theimpact of living in a rural versus an urban set-

ting could also be seen in childrens ability to

identify the tree. Whereas 89.1% (N 49) of

the rural students who had heard of ujushte said

they would be able to recognize the tree, only

61.5% (N 8) of urban adolescents who had

heard of the tree said they would be able to iden-

tify it: 2 (1, N 68) 5.89, P 0.015. Al-

though it failed to reach significance at the 0.05

level, a similar pattern was observed for con-

sumption patterns. In all, 83.6% (N 46) of therural adolescents who had heard of ujushte had

actually eaten it, whereas only 61.5% (N 8)

of the urban adolescents who knew of the tree

had tried it: 2 (1, N 68) 3.14, P 0.076.

Prospective power analysis shows that only

modest increases in sample size would have

made this difference significant at the 0.05 level.

The two groups also differed in their reported

liking for ujushte and when they had last eaten

it. Adolescents living in the rural area said they

liked it better (mean (M) 3.02) than those liv-

ing in the urban area (M 2.25), t (12.49) 2.66, P 0.02. Indeed, whereas 47.8% of the

rural youths said they liked the taste very

much, not a single urban youth gave ujushte

the highest rating. Rural students also reported

eating it more recently. Whereas 67.4% of the

rural students reported eating ujushte within the

past year, none of the urban students had (M5.11 vs. 7.13, respectively), t (28.07) 4.58, P

0.001. Students in both groups had eaten it

roasted, boiled, and as a tortilla, but none of the

urban youths had ever tried it raw.

EFFECT OF ECONOMIC STATUS ONKNOWLEDGE OF UJUSHTE

To assess economic status, students were

asked to rate self-perceptions of the familys sta-

tus, choosing one of the following terms: very

poor, poor, not so poor, middle class,

or upper class. A total of 5 people (2.8%)

considered their families to be very poor, 24

(13.6%) said they were poor, and 72 (40.7%)

described themselves as not so poor. In con-

trast, 66 (37.3%) identified their families as

middle class, and 8 (4.5%) considered their

families to be from the upper class. Because

more than 50% of the students described them-

selves as belonging to one of the poor cate-

gories, the decision was made to dichotomize

the data into only two economic groups: mid-

dle-class and above versus poor. A total of2 students (1.1%) declined to answer this ques-

tion and were dropped from the remainder of the

analysis (therefore, from this point in the anal-

ysis, total N 101).

A 2 analysis of the contingency table com-

paring knowledge of ujushte as a function of eco-

nomic status found that 70.6% of the students

who knew the tree described themselves as poor;

2 (1, N 175) 7.55, P 0.006. Among those

who knew of the tree, however, there were no

differences between poor and middle-class stu-dents in their ability to identify the tree in the

field, 2 (1, N 68) 0.63, P 0.43, or in

terms of whether they had actually ever eaten

ujushte, 2 (1, N 68) 1.53, P 0.22. The

economic groups also did not differ in their liking

of the taste of ujushte, or the recency with which

it had been eaten (both t values 1).

As might be expected, economic status was

confounded with regional identification. The ur-

ban students were almost evenly split between

poor (N 47, 46.5%) and middle class (N

54, 53.5%), whereas the majority of the ruralstudents (N 54, 73.0%) described themselves


5/6

76 [VOL. 58ECONOMIC BOTANY

Fig. 2. Histogram depicting sources of knowledgeabout ujushte among adolescents in the study, as a per-centage of the total population interviewed.

as poor rather than middle or upper class (N

20, 27.0%): 2 (1, N 175) 12.23, P 0.001.

An analysis limited to only the rural students

failed to find any evidence that knowledge of the

tree was related to economic status: 2 (1, N

74) 0.007, P 0.94. A repeat of this analysis

limited to the urban students also failed to reach

significance: 2 (1, N 101) 1.35, P 0.25.

SOURCE OF INFORMATION

Students were asked about their source of in-

formation about the edibility of ujushte. A listof categories of different relatives and friends

was provided, and students were free to circle

as many as applied. A blank line was also sup-

plied for students to write in a person (such as

scout leader) who did not appear on the list. By

a considerable margin, the most important

source of information for students was their

grandparents. Of the 57 students who had eaten

ujushte, 24 named a grandparent as their sole

source of information about the tree. Another 4

students identified a grandparent and anotherfamily member (such as a parent) as having told

them about it. In contrast, only 14 named a par-

ent or both parents as their information sources,

and 7 named a friend (Fig. 2). A Kolmogorov

Smirnov goodness-of-fit test, against the uni-

form distribution, indicates that the students

were more likely to have cited a grandparent as

the source of information than either other fam-

ily members or non-family members (P

0.001).

To assess whether grandparents played a larg-

er role for some subgroups than others, the in-formation source variable was dichotomized into

those that named a grandparent as a source (ei-

ther alone or with others) versus those who did

not. Separate 2 analyses failed to find any evi-

dence that the dependence on grandparents for

information varied as a function of either eco-

nomic status, 2 (1, N 49) 0.04, P 0.84,or location of residence, 2 (1, N 49) 0.68,

P 0.41.

CONCLUSIONS

Brosimum alicastrum, or ujushte, has been

used as a source of food in El Salvador since

ancient times. The tree is common throughout

the country, and the fruit is easily harvested

when it ripens and falls to the ground. Despite

the trees widespread availability, we found that

many teenagers have never heard of it. This ig-

norance about the tree is particularly prevalent

in urban areas. Because population shifts from

rural to urban centers are increasingly common,

studies such as this one are needed to track rates

of loss of cultural customs as urbanization pro-

ceeds.

Contrary to our prediction, we failed to find

statistical evidence that socioeconomic status af-

fected cultural transmission of information about

ujushte. The observed differences between

wealthier and poorer subjects are more readily

accounted for by economic differences foundbetween urban and rural students. It is, of

course, possible that our failure to find differ-

ences on this variable is due to our reliance on

a single, self-report item. Students may not

know their familys true financial status. It is

also possible that terms such as poor or

middle class have vastly different meanings

in rural and urban areas. Still, our finding, after

controlling for region, that students who thought

of their families as well off were equally likely

to have tried ujushte suggests that urbanizationis the more important variable.

Our finding that grandparents are the most im-

portant source of information about this tradi-

tional food source underscores the extent to

which knowledge transmission may be fragile.

For example, we did not collect information

about whether or not students in our sample

lived with or had ready access to a grandparent.

It is quite possible that population migration to

urban centers accelerates the breakup of extend-

ed families. It would also be informative to as-

certain parents reasons for not having transmit-ted information about ujushte to their offspring.


6/6


Answers to these questions should help frame

discussions about the dynamics underlying cul-

tural transmission of botanical information and

may suggest practical interventions for helping

people sustain their cultural heritage.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis research was funded by the Student Travel and Research Fund of

the Graduate School and by a Humana Fellowship, both of which were

awarded to C.R.R-S. by the City University of New York. We wish to

thank the students, teachers, and administration at Escuela Urbana Mixta

de San Francisco Menendez de San Francisco Menendez and Escuela

Urbana Mixta Vicente Acosta de Apopa for allowing this research to be

conducted. This study is based on data taken from the doctoral disser-

tation by C.R.R.-S. at the Graduate School of the City University of New

York under the advisement of Dwight Kincaid. C.R.R.-S. also extends

thanks to members of the Graduate Studies Program of the New York

Botanical Garden for advice in the early stages of this project.

LITERATURE CITEDArvigo, R., and M. J. Balick. 1993. Rainforest rem-

edies: One hundred healing herbs of Belize. Lotus

Press, Twin Lakes, WI.

Boom, B. M. 1996. Ethnobotany of the Chcobo Indi-

ans, Beni, Bolivia, 2nd Edition. The New York Bo-

tanical Garden Press, Bronx, NY.

Gomez-Pompa, A., J. S. Flores, and V. Sosa. 1978.

The Pet Kot: A man-made tropical forest of the

Maya. Interciencia 12:1015.

Johns, T., E. B. Mhoro, and P. Sanaya. 1996. Food

plants and masticants of the Batemi of Norongoro

District of Tanzania. Economic Botany 50:115121.

Lentz, D. L., and C. R. Ramrez-Sosa. 2002. Ceren

plant resources: Abundance and diversity. Pages

3342 in P. Sheets, ed., Before the volcano erupted.

University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.

Milliken, W., and B. Albert. 1997. The use of me-

dicinal plants by the Yanomami Indians of Brazil.

Economic Botany 51:264278.

Murray, J. 1837. A descriptive account of the Palo

Vaca, cow tree of the Caracas, with chemical anal-

ysis of the milk and the bark. Effingham Wilson,

Royal Exchange, London.

Ortiz, M., Y. Azanon, M. Melgar, and L. Elias.

1995. The corn tree (Brosimum alicastrum): A food

for the tropics. Pages 134146 in A. P. Simopoulos,

ed., Plants in human nutrition: World review of nu-

trition and diabetics. Karger Publishers, Basel,

Switzerland.

Pardo-Tejada, E., and C. Sanchez-Munoz. 1978.

Brosimum alicastrum: Recurso silvestre tropical

desaprovechado. Instituto de Investigaciones Sobre

Recussos Bioticos, A.C. Xelapa, Veracruz, Mexico.

Peters, C. M. 1983. Observations on Maya subsis-

tence and the ecology of a tropical tree. American

Antiquity 48: 610615.

, and E. Pardo-Tejada. 1982. Brosimum ali-

castrum (Moraceae) uses and potentials in Mexico.

Economic Botany 36:166175.

Prance, G. T., and J. A. Kallunki, eds. 1984. Eth-

nobotany in the neotropics: Proceedings, Ethno-

botany in the Neotropics Symposium, Society forEconomic Botany, 1314 June 1983, Oxford, OH,

The New York Botanical Garden Press, Bronx, NY.

Puleston, D. E. 1982. The role of ramon in Maya sub-

sistence. Pages 353366 in Kent V. Flannery, ed.,

Maya subsistence: Studies in memory of Dennis E.

Puleston. Academic Press, New York.

Ramrez-Sosa, C. R. 2001. Vegetation of a subtropical

pre-montane forest in Central America. Disserta-

tion, The Graduate School of the City University

of New York, New York, NY.

, and S. Yates. 1996. Etnobotanica del ujushte,

Brosimum alicastrum, en Tacuba, Ahuachapan, El

Salvador: Un estudio piloto. Pankia: Boletin Infor-mativo JBLL, 15:34.

Sheets, P. D. 1982. Prehistoric agricultural systems inEl Salvador. Pages 99118 in Kent V. Flannery,

ed., Maya subsistence: Studies in memory of Den-

nis E. Puleston. Academic Press, New York.

Ventocilla, J., H. Herrera, and V. Nunes. 1995.Plants and animals in the life of the Kuna. The

University of Texas Press, Austin.

Witsberger, D., D. Current, and E. Archer. 1978.Arboles del Parque Dininger. Ministerio de Edu-

cacion, Direccion de Publicaciones, San Salvador,

El Salvador.

ethnobotanical knowledge of brosimum among urban rural

Documents