Children`s perception of native and introduced

Transcription

Children's knowledge, perception and appreciation of native and
non-native plant and animal species in Valle Fértil, Argentina
Master Thesis
Juliana Nates Jiménez
Supervisors:
Dr. Petra Lindemann-Matthies
Dr. Claudia Campos
Prof. Dr. Bernhard Schmid
Institut für Umweltwissenchaften
Universität Zürich
December 2008
Contents
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 6
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 7
2. Methods ............................................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Study area................................................................................................................................... 10
2.2 Data collection and study design .............................................................................................. 11
2.3 The biodiversity project ............................................................................................................ 13
2.4 The instrument........................................................................................................................... 14
First part of the survey ................................................................................................................................. 15
Second part of the survey ............................................................................................................................. 15
2.5 Characteristics of the study participants................................................................................. 16
2.6 Data analysis............................................................................................................................... 16
3. Results ................................................................................................................................. 18
3.1. Questionnaire study.................................................................................................................. 18
Most liked and most disliked animals.......................................................................................................... 18
Most harmful and most dangerous animals................................................................................................ 22
Most useful animals ..................................................................................................................................... 24
Animals of the Valle Fértil and their uses................................................................................................... 26
Adaptations of animals to the Valle Fértil................................................................................................... 28
Most liked and most disliked plants ............................................................................................................. 29
Most harmful and most dangerous plants................................................................................................... 33
Most useful plants ........................................................................................................................................ 35
Plants of the Valle Fértil and their uses ...................................................................................................... 37
Adaptations of plants to the Valle Fértil...................................................................................................... 39
3.2 Picture test.................................................................................................................................. 40
Identification of objects................................................................................................................................ 40
Identification of plants and animals that occur in the Valle Fértil ............................................................ 41
Familiarity with plants and animals depicted ............................................................................................. 42
The most beautiful objects ........................................................................................................................... 43
The ugliest objects ........................................................................................................................................ 44
Pet preferences ............................................................................................................................................. 45
Most useful objects....................................................................................................................................... 46
Most dangerous objects................................................................................................................................ 47
Most harmful objects.................................................................................................................................... 48
4. Discussion............................................................................................................................ 50
Preferences for species ..................................................................................................................... 50
Perception of dangerous and harmful species................................................................................. 52
Perception and knowledge of (local) useful species ........................................................................ 55
Knowledge of local species and their adaptations ........................................................................... 56
5. Summary and conclusions ................................................................................................. 57
2
6. Acknowledgements............................................................................................................. 59
7. References ........................................................................................................................... 60
8. Apendices ............................................................................................................................ 66
Appendix 1. Questionnaire ............................................................................................................... 66
Appendix 2. Pictures of the Questionnaire ...................................................................................... 69
Appendix 3. Pictures Cards .............................................................................................................. 69
Appendix 4. Poster ............................................................................................................................ 70
Appendix 5. Full list of favourite animals ....................................................................................... 71
Appendix 6. Full list of dislike animals............................................................................................ 72
Appendix 8. Full list of dangerous animals..................................................................................... 75
Appendix 9. Full list of useful animals ........................................................................................... 76
Appendix 10. Full list of animals from Valle Fértil ........................................................................ 77
Appendix 11. Full list of liked plants ............................................................................................... 78
Appendix 12. Full list of dislike plants............................................................................................. 80
Appendix 13. Full list of harmful plants.......................................................................................... 82
Appendix 14. Full list of dangerous plants ...................................................................................... 84
Appendix 15. Full list of useful plants ............................................................................................. 85
Appendix 16. Full list of plants from Valle Fértil ........................................................................... 87
3
Tables
Table 1: The ten most liked and most disliked animals in view of 860 (liked) and 816
(disliked) students in the Valle Fértil, Argentina. ....................................................................19
Table 2: Animals that students (n = 860) named as their favourite ones. ................................20
Table 3: Animals students (n = 819) disliked most. ................................................................21
Table 4: The ten most harmful and most dangerous animals in view of 774 (harmful) and 795
(dangerous) students in the Valle Fértil, Argentina. ................................................................22
Table 5: Animals perceived as most harmful by 774 students. Only one answer was
allowed......................................................................................................................................23
Table 6: Animals perceived as most dangerous by 795 students. ............................................24
Table 7: The ten most useful animals in view of 819 students. ...............................................25
Table 8: Animals perceived as most useful by 819 students. ..................................................25
Table 9: The ten most often named animals which were perceived to live in the Valle Fértil,
Argentina. ................................................................................................................................26
Table 10: Animals perceived to live in the Valle Fértil, Argentina by 839 students. .............27
Table 11: The six most often named uses of animals that live in the Valle Fértil, Argentina, in
view of 3,055 students. ............................................................................................................27
Table 12: The six most frequently named adaptations of animals (by 865 students) to the dry
climate of Valle Fértil, Argentina. ..........................................................................................29
Table 13: The ten most liked and most disliked plants in view of 812 (liked) and 816
(disliked) students in the Valle Fértil, Argentina. ...................................................................30
Table 14: Plants that students (n = 865) named as their favourites. ........................................31
Table 15: Plants that students (n = 865) named as their most disliked ones. ..........................32
Table 16: The ten most harmful and most dangerous plants in view of 575 (harmful) and 494
(dangerous) students in the Valle Fértil, Argentina. ...............................................................33
Table 17: Plants perceived as most harmful by 865 students. ................................................34
Table 18: Plants perceived as most dangerous by 865 students. ............................................35
Table 19: The ten most useful plants in view of 729 students. ...............................................36
Table 20: Plants perceived as most useful by 865 students. ...................................................36
Table 21: The ten most frequently named plants that were perceived (by 847 students) to live
in the Valle Fértil, Argentina...................................................................................................37
Table 22: Plants that were perceived (by 865 students) to live in the Valle Fértil, Argentina.
..................................................................................................................................................38
Table 23: The six most often named uses of plants that live in the Valle Fértil, Argentina, in
view of 3,969 respondents. ......................................................................................................38
4
Table 24: The six most often named adaptations of plants (by 865 students) to the dry climate
of Valle Fértil, Argentina. .......................................................................................................40
Table 25: Identifications of 15 objects. Students (837) were asked to identify as many objects
as possible. ..............................................................................................................................41
Table 26: Knowledge about the presence of species in the Valle Fértil. Students (n = 834)
were shown pictures of plants and animals and asked to mark the ones which occur in the
region. ......................................................................................................................................42
Table 27: Familiarity with species in the Valle Fértil. Students (n = 837) were shown pictures
of plants and animals and asked to mark which of them they had already seen in the region.
..................................................................................................................................................43
Table 28: The most beautiful objects. Students (n = 784) were shown 15 pictures and asked to
point out the objects they thought most beautiful. ...................................................................44
Table 29: The ugliest objects. Students (n = 743) were shown 15 pictures and asked to point
out the objects they thought most ugly. ...................................................................................45
Table 30: Preferences for pets. Students (n = 719) were shown 15 pictures and asked to point
out the objects they would like to have as a pet. .....................................................................46
Table 31: The most useful objects. Students (n = 702) were shown 15 pictures and asked to
point out the objects they though most useful. ........................................................................47
Table 32: The most dangerous objects. Students (n = 685) were shown 15 pictures and asked
to point out the objects they though most dangerous. .............................................................48
Table 33: The most harmful objects. Students (n = 618) were shown 15 pictures and asked to
point out the objects they though most harmful. .....................................................................49
Figures
Figure 1: Location of Valle Fértil, Argentina. .........................................................................10
Figure 2: Location of the participating schools in the Valle Fértil, Argentina. .......................12
Figure 3: Proportion of correct answers to the question which adaptations help animals to
survive in the arid area of Valle Fértil, Argentina. ..................................................................28
Figure 4: Proportion of correct answers to the question which adaptations help plants to
survive in the desert area of Valle Fértil, Argentina. ..............................................................39
5
Abstract
The present study investigated how children and adolescents in several communities in the
Valle Fértil, Argentina perceive their local flora and fauna but also introduced exotic species.
The study area is an arid region in the Argentinian Andes with open landscapes and scarce
vegetation. Study participants were mostly from farming families in the valley. Overall, 865
students (468 girls and 397 boys) from nine different schools participated in the survey. They
were between nine and seventeen years old. Data were collected by using two approaches. In
the first approach, study participants were asked about their perception, knowledge and
appreciation of species without actually showing them plants and animals, while in the second
approach they were asked with the help of a picture set to actually identify plants and animals
and to answer questions related to these species. The main objectives were to investigate (1)
which plants and animals children and adolescent living in the Valle Fértil, Argentina, like
and dislike most, (2) whether their perception and appreciation is directed towards local wild
species from the Valle Fértil, (3) how much they know about the regional flora and fauna, and
about their uses, (4) how much they know about the adaptations of local plant and animal
species to the arid climate of the Valle Fértil, and (5) whether age, gender, and origin of
knowledge about plants and animals influence study participants’ perception, knowledge and
appreciation of species.
The most liked species were mainly domestic introduced and “loveable” animals such as the
dog or the horse. In case of plants, garden plants with colourful flowers like the rose and
plants with eatable fruits such as mulberry were especially liked. In contrast, local native
species were mainly perceived as dangerous and harmful. Overall, students named many
different plant (171) and animal taxa (139), but of these only a third were native ones.
However, the most frequently mentioned plants were native ones, whereas the most
frequently mentioned animals were introduced ones. Most of the species named had economic
value. The most common uses were food and transport in case of animals, and food and
medicine in case of plants. When students could actually make their choice between plant and
animals (picture test), local native plants were least often selected. The perception of boys and
girls reflected their roles as women and men in the farming activities. Girls were more aware
of nature close to the houses, whereas boys were more aware of the environment of the farm
and wild nature in the region.
6
1. Introduction
Human alterations of the environment have resulted in the loss of biodiversity on a global
scale (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003, Thomas et al., 2004, Balmford & Bond,
2005). The term biodiversity encompasses a broad spectrum of biotic scales, from genetic
variation within species to biome distribution on the planet (Wilson, 1992; Purvis & Hector,
2000). Biodiversity can thus be described in terms of the number of entities (how many
genotypes, species, or ecosystems), the evenness of their distribution, the differences in their
functional traits, and their interactions (see detailed discussion in Hooper et al., 2005). There
is deep concern that the global reduction of biodiversity may negatively affect ecosystem
functioning and diminish the capacity of ecosystems to provide society with a stable and
sustainable supply of essential goods and services (Hooper et al., 2005; Spehn et al., 2005;
Balvanera et al., 2006). In consequence, the loss of biodiversity and deteriorating ecosystem
services may contribute to worsening human health, higher food insecurity, increasing
vulnerability of ecosystems to natural disasters, lower material wealth, worsening social
relations by damage to ecosystems highly valued for their aesthetic, recreational, or spiritual
values, and less freedom for individuals to control what happens and to achieve what they
value (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).
Human activities such as harvesting, habitat destruction and modification, overexploitation,
and the introduction of exotic species have been and are continuing to alter nature on local
and global scales (Trombulak et al., 2004; Hooper et al., 2005). The introduction of exotic
species is mostly related to human activities, and either intentional or not. However, as exotic
species enter ecosystems and interact with them, they can seriously affect ecosystem
functioning and local biodiversity (Caughley & Gunn, 1996; Vilá & Weiner, 2004). People’s
responses to the decline of biodiversity, i.e. the local, regional or global extinction of species,
and their support for conservation measures will depend on their knowledge 1 about
biodiversity, their perception 2 of the species present, and their awareness of the seriousness of
the threat of extinctions. This involves a consideration of the values that are placed upon the
environment, people’s preferences, and the way in which choices are exercised and conflicts
resolved (UNESCO, 1973). Several studies have shown that the public’s ability to identify
species is very limited (e.g. Lindemann-Matthies, 2002; Balmford et al., 2002; Bebbington,
1
In the present study, knowledge is understood as the amount of correct information that people have about the
environment and its organisms.
2
Perception is understood as the way in which people sense and understand the natural and man-made
environment.
7
2005). When, for instance, in Switzerland more than 6000 young people between the age of
eight and 18 were asked about organisms in their immediate environment, on average five
plants and six animals were named and unspecified taxa like ‘birds’, ‘trees’, and ‘grasses’
were among the most commonly listed in all age-groups (Lindemann-Matthies, 2002). Garden
and decorative plants with large and brightly coloured flowers and pets such as cats and dogs
were frequently perceived organisms, and also the ones the respondents liked best
(Lindemann-Matthies, 2005). Moreover, studies have shown that humans prefer animals over
plants, in particular animals that are similar to us in appearance and behaviour (Wandersee &
Schussler, 2001; Lindemann-Matthies, 2005). However, the above studies were all undertaken
in Western European countries and in the United States. Hardly anything is known about
children’s knowledge and perception of local species in South America or other countries of
the world. One study from India has shown that children tend to emphasize plants and herbs
that have medicinal uses, i.e. organisms related to animal and human health, and that their
perception was directed to indigenous health care (Chand & Shukla, 2003). Few studies have
investigated people’s perception of introduced, non-native plant and animal species (Colton &
Alpert, 1998).
In view of the increasing loss of biodiversity and its multiple values, it is essential to educate
people about native and non-native species, and to foster an awareness of the consequences of
species introductions (Caughley & Gunn, 1996). Children between the age of nine and twelve
are an important target group because they like to be actively involved in the investigation of
plants and animals in their environment, they easily intimidate with animal species and, by
this might understand the real value of biodiversity (Lindemann-Matthies, 2006). However,
people’s knowledge and perception of species might be influenced by variables such as age,
gender, and their place of living. Studies have shown that children are interested in the
investigation of nature and also interested in species, but that with increasing age their interest
strongly decreases (Lindemann-Matthies, 2002). In the United States, girls were found to
show a greater emotional affection for large, attractive, primarily domestic pet animals,
whereas boys showed a greater interest in wildlife (Kellert 1985, but see Eagles and Muffitt
1990). Overall, girls are more aware of species, and also more knowledgeable of plants and
animals (Lindemann-Matthies, 2002). Both children and adults from traditional, rural
communities and less developed countries were found to be more knowledgeable about
(useful) plant and animal species than those living in urban areas and highly developed
countries (Chipeniuk, 1995; Chand & Shukla, 2003; Pilgrim et al., 2007). Moreover, the
origin of taxonomic knowledge might influence people’s knowledge and perception of
8
species. At least in European countries, family members are an important source of
information about plants and animals (Lindemann-Matthies et al., 2004).
The present study investigated how children and adolescents in several communities in the
Valle Fértil, Argentina perceive their local flora and fauna but also introduced exotic species.
Data were collected by using two approaches. In the first approach, study participants were
asked about their perception, knowledge and appreciation of species without actually showing
them plants and animals, while in the second approach they were asked with the help of a
picture set to actually identify plants and animals and to answer questions related to these
species. The two approaches complement each other and allow a better understanding of the
fit between stud prticipants’ preferences and their actual knowledge of species. The main
research questions were:
1. Which plants and animals do children and adolescent living in the Valle Fértil, Argentina,
like and dislike most?
2. Is their perception and appreciation directed towards local wild species from the Valle
Fértil?
3. How much do they know about the regional flora and fauna, and about their uses?
4. How much do they know about the adaptations of local plant and animal species to the
arid climate of the Valle Fértil?
5. Do age, gender and origin of knowledge about plants and animals influence study
participants’ perception, knowledge and appreciation of species?
Students of Valle Fértil, Argentina. May 2007
9
2. Methods
2.1 Study area
The present project was carried out in the region of “Valle Fértil” San Juan province,
Argentina (fig 1). According to the Koeppen classification (McKnight & Hess, 2000), the
region is characterized by dry climate with an annual precipitation of 100 - 200 mm, and
temperatures between 16 - 24 °C (Cabrera, 1994). However, due to altitude differences
(between 1200 and 1900 m above sea level) local variations occur. Two vegetation zones can
be distinguished; the forested region of the “El Chaco” with up to 350 mm precipitation per
year and the dryer “El Monte” which is characterized by shrub steppe (Acosta & Murúa,
1999; Sanabria et al., 2006).
Figure 1: Location of Valle Fértil, Argentina. Modified from
http://www.argentina.gov.ar/argentina/portal/paginas.dhtml?pagina=294
Due to its clay texture and salinity of soils, the study area is characterized by a low vegetation
cover (Márquez et al., 2005). Ten vegetation communities can be found in the area, i.e. the
communities of (1) Deuterocohnia longipetala, (2) Puya spathacea and Ramorinoa girolae,
(3) Larrea cuneifolia, (4) Flourensia leptopoda, (5) Zuccagnia punctata, (6) Atriplex
10
spegazzinii, (7) Halophyton ameghinoi, (8) Celtis tala and Proustia cuneifolia, (9) Sporobolus
rigens, and (10) Distichlis spicata.
Typical animal species include the red viscacha rat (Tympanoctomys barrerae), the guanaco
(Lama guanicoe), the puma (Puma concolor), and the pampas fox (Lycalopex gymnocercus).
Examples for bird species are the cóndor (Vultur gryphus) and the parrot (Psitacidos spp).
Examples for reptiles are toad (Bufo spp), coral snake (Micrurus pyrhocryptus), and matuasto
(Homonota fasciata) (Cei, 1980, 1986, Márquez, 1999; Sanabria et al., 2006).
2.2 Data collection and study design
In 2008, data were collected during five months (February to June) in nine schools in the
Valle Fértil, Argentina (fig. 2). With the help of a written questionnaire and a picture test, all
students were asked about their knowledge, perception and appreciation of local native and
non-native plant and animal species. The schools were selected out of 28 schools which had
shown their interest to participate in the educational project “Conociendo para conservar la
biodiversidad del Parque Provincial Ischigualasto (Sitio Patrimonio de la Humanidad) y zona
de influencia: propuesta educativa para los docentes y la comunidad del Valle” (see chap.
2.3).
The main selection criterion was the accessibility of the schools. The Valle Fértil is situated in
a remote area of Argentina. Farming and mining are the most important economic pillars.
Villages are scarcely distributed and not always easily to access by public transport. The
population is a mix of indigenous tribes and white settlers who originate mainly from Italy
and Spain. Farmers in the area live in small towns or singles houses which are spread
throughout the valley. They have livestock such as horses, cattle and goats, and plant
tomatoes, potatoes, corn and beans. For cultivations they inundate their fields during the rainy
season. Extensive grazing is typical for the area, and cattle are competing with native
herbivores such as the guanaco. This can lead to overgrazing in some places and to the loss of
local wild plants. Main predator of both cattle and guanaco is the puma, an endangered and
protected species, which is, however, heavily hunted in the area of the Valle Fértil.
11
Figure 2: Location of the participating schools in the Valle Fértil, Argentina. Modified from
http://www.argentina.gov.ar/argentina/portal/paginas.dhtml?pagina=294
Data were collected with the help of a written questionnaire and a picture test. The final
version of the survey was developed in collaboration with researchers from the Institute and
Museum of Natural Sciences (UNSJ), University of San Juan, Argentina. Due to their
experiences, the questions were formulated in a way that local children and adolescents could
understand them. Moreover, they helped to find typical local plant and animal species for the
picture test.
It was intended to carry out the investigation at EGB2-level which is equivalent to the last
three years of primary school in Europe. However, due to the small number of students in
some of the classes, all students in school were finally included in the investigation. Before
the survey, all teachers were contacted by phone and asked whether they would like to
participate in the present study. The head of the schools were informed about the project, and
a date for a school visit was fixed. The study was carried out in the participating schools
during normal teaching hours. Teachers and members of the UNSJ helped with the
distribution of the questionnaires and the picture test.
12
Photo of Ischigualasto Provincial park, Valle Fértil, Argentina; April 2007
2.3 The biodiversity project
The present study was closely linked to the educational project “Conociendo para conservar la
biodiversidad del Parque Provincial Ischigualasto (Sitio Patrimonio de la Humanidad) y zona
de influencia: propuesta educativa para los docentes y la comunidad del Valle 3 ”. The project
was developed by teachers and students of the National University of San Juan, researchers
and doctoral students from the Institute and Museum of Natural Science (UNSJ - CONICET),
and researchers of the Argentinian Institute for Research in Arid Zones (IADIZA CONICET, Mendoza). Main aim of the project was the promotion of positive attitudes
towards the natural environment, and the promotion of knowledge and awareness of the
regional flora and fauna by stimulating children’s capacity to observe and investigate nature.
Both members of the communities of Valle Fértil as well as teachers and school directors
expressed a need for such a project in the hope to educate their communities more properly in
the sense of biodiversity / nature conservation.
Workshops for schools in the area of the Valle Fértil were developed. One workshop lasted
for approximately three hours and included the following activities: participative chats with
the help of audiovisual media, flora and fauna material exposition and environmental games.
About 28 schools within the study area participated in the project. Unfortunately, the
workshops started in May 2008, i.e. too late to evaluate the effects of certain activities on the
3
English translation: Awareness of local biodiversity in the Parque Provincial Ischigualasto: an educational
project
13
students’ perception and knowledge of local wild plant and animal species. However, in
October 2008 the region was visited again by a researcher from Switzerland. About 20
teachers were interviewed about their experiences with the educational project. Members of
the UNSJ will now distribute a posttest (similar to the pretest) and send it back to
Switzerland. Not all schools which had participated in the pretest were also participating in
the educational project. Children from these schools will also be asked to fill in the posttest,
and will be used as a control group.
Stella Giannoni in a workshop; May 2007
2.4 The instrument
The survey was divided in two parts. In the first part, students were asked to answer 19
questions regarding native and non-native plant and animal species (questionnaire in
Appendix 1). In the second part, students were asked with the help of a set of pictures to
identify 15 objects and to answer certain questions related to these objects (pictures in
Appendix 2). The pictures showed native plant and animal species typical for the region of the
Valle Fértil, but also introduced species from other parts of Argentina or other countries. The
pictures also showed some cartoon images (all from the Simpson family) to compare between
study participants’ knowledge of the real and the virtual world (see Balmford et al., 2002).
The Simpsons were chosen because they are very popular among children and adolescents in
the region.
14
First part of the survey
To investigate study participants’ preferences for single species, they were asked which plant
and animal they like most and dislike most. Moreover, they were asked to name the plants and
animals they though most dangerous for the health and life of people, most harmful because it
produces damage in farm and harm to domestic animals, and most useful. This allows
comparisons between students’ attitudes towards species and their perceived characteristics of
species. To investigate how informed young people living in the Valle Fértil are about their
local native flora and fauna, they were asked to name each five plants and animals of the
region and to describe their uses. To test study participants’ ecological knowledge, they were
asked to name some adaptation of species to the dry climate of the Valle Fértil. This will later
on allow a comparison of pretest and posttest knowledge, and thus an evaluation of the
effectiveness of the workshops undertaken in the educational project (see 2.3).
Second part of the survey
In the picture test, all students were shown 15 pictures. They were asked to select the one
object (plant, animal or comic figure) they liked best and the one they disliked most. They
were then asked to mark the objects native to the region, and the most beautiful, ugly, petlike, useful, dangerous and harmful ones. The objects chosen for the picture test (see
Appendix 2) were selected due to the following criteria:
-
Non-native animal species likely to be known to the students: brown hare (Lepus
europaeus), donkey (Equus asinus), cow (Bos taurus)
-
Non-native plant species likely to be known to the students: eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp),
Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus areira), tamarisk (Tamarix gallica)
-
Native and endangered animal species common in the region of Valle Fértil: puma (Puma
concolor), guanaco (Lama guanicoe), cóndor (Vultur gryphus)
-
Native and endangered plant species common in the region of Valle Fértil: mesquite
(Prosopis flexuosa), chica (Ramorinoa girolae), retamo (Bulnesia retama)
-
Exotic comic figures likely to be known to the students: Bart Simpson, Mr. Burns, Krusty
Great care was placed on the selection of suitable pictures (preferably digital photographs).
All pictures had to be of good quality, taken under similar light conditions and with the
intention to present a species as its best. A picture was supposed to show just one single plant
15
or animal in close-up. Typical characteristics of a species had to be identifiable. The final
picture set included 15 objects (twelve plants and animals and three Simpsons). Each picture
was printed out on photographic paper, fixed on a piece of pressboard (15 x 15 cm) and
marked with a letter of the alphabet (see Appendix 3). Cards depicting plants contained a
picture of the species from close-up, but sometimes also magnified images of characteristic
parts of the plants such as flowers, leaves or fruits (see Appendix 2). At the end of the survey,
a set of pictures was left in each of the participating schools for further use. Moreover, a
poster with some of the species used in the survey was printed and also given to the schools
for educational purposes (Appendix 4). In addition, cards and posters were also given to the
other schools participating in the overall educational project.
2.5 Characteristics of the study participants
Overall, 865 students (468 girls and 397 boys) participated in the study. They were between
nine and 17 years old (mean age = 13 years), and from nine schools in five different localities
of the Valle Fértil, Argentina (see fig. 2). Due to the remote location of villages in the Valle
Fértil, some schools had only few scholars. School size thus varied between six and 237
students per school. However, about 81% of the schools were located in the more urbanized
areas of the valley. When the students were asked to describe their place of living, almost
94% stated to live in an urban environment. About 76% of the students named their school as
the origin of their knowledge of local plants and animals. Family members such as parents
and grandparents were named by 20%, and friends or other sources by just 4% of the students.
In the analyses, only school and family were included.
2.6 Data analysis
The answers to the open questions were content-analyzed and sorted into categories according
to the type of responses given. Coding was discussed between the researcher and the research
project leader, and reliability judged by comparing their categorizations.
Due to a reform in school curricula in some parts of the study area, not all members of one
age group were also in a similar grade. Moreover, some students in a certain grade were much
older than expected which can be explained by the remoteness and low development status of
the region. Therefore, the age of a person and not the grade was used as unit of analysis.
16
Differences between boys and girls and students who named the school or family as origin of
taxonomic knowledge in their answers to the open questions (sorted into broad categories)
were analyzed by using chi-square-tests. To investigate whether students’ age, sex (coded as
1: male, 2: female), and origin of knowledge about species (coded as 1: school, 2: family)
influenced the probability that certain answers to the open questions (sorted into broad
categories) were given, the data were analyzed by binary logistic regressions with backward
elimination of non-significant variables. We controlled for the influence of the schools in
which the surveys had been carried out by including them as a categorical variable in the
analyses. All analyses were carried out with SPSS for Windows 12.0.1.
Working in the school Agrotecnico in Valle Fértil with the questionnaires and pictures cards; May 2007
Working in the school Agrotecnico in Valle Fértil with the questionnaires and pictures cards; May 2007
17
3. Results
In the first part of this chapter, the results of the questionnaire study are presented (chap. 3.1),
and in the second part the results of the picture test (chap. 3.2). Overall, students named 171
different plant and 139 different animal taxa. Among them were 56 plants and 68 animals
native to the Valle Fértil.
3.1. Questionnaire study
Most liked and most disliked animals
In the questionnaire all students were asked to name the animal they like most, and the one
they dislike most. Overall, 59 different animals were named as favourites. Of these animals,
39 were non-native and 20 native to the Valle Fértil, Argentina (full list in Appendix 5). The
dog and the horse were named most often as a favourite animal (almost half of all responses).
The ten favourite animals already added up to 79.9% of all responses. Among these animals
were only two native wild ones; the puma and the parrot (Table 1).
Cats were named most often as a disliked animal (see Table 1). However, those students who
had named the cat as their favourite animal did not name it again as the most disliked one.
The ten most disliked animals added up to 63% of the total sum of responses. However, no
clear dislikes for certain species were shown. Among the “top ten” disliked ones were four
non-native domestic animals (cat, pig, dog, horse), one non-native wild one (rat), and five
local native ones. Overall, 83 different animal species were named. Of these, 40 were native
and 43 non-native (full list in Appendix 6).
18
Table 1: The ten most liked and most disliked animals in view of 860 (liked) and 816 (disliked)
students in the Valle Fértil, Argentina. One answer per student was allowed.
Most liked animals
Responses (%)
Most disliked animals
Responses (%)
Dog (Canis lupus familiaris)
23.4
Cat (Felis silvestris)
16.2
Horse (Equus equus)
23.2
Snake°
9.2
10.6
Pig (Sus domesticus)
6.2
Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus)
8.0
Toad (Bufo spp.)
6.2
Puma (Puma concolor)
5.0
Spider°
5.7
Lion (Panthera leo)
3.4
Pampas fox (Lycalopex gymnocercus)
4.7
Tiger (Panthera tigris)
2.5
Rat (Rattus norvegicus)
4.3
Goat (Capra hircus)
1.8
Dog (Canis lupus)
4.2
Parrot (Psitacidos spp)
1.0
Skunk (Conepatus chinga)
4.0
Donkey (Equus asinus)
0.9
Horse (Equus equus)
2.8
° denotes unspecific taxa
Girls and boys differed in their preferences for a certain animal. Among the students who had
named the dog as their favourite, 60% were girls (Chi-square value = 4.41, p = 0.036),
whereas among those who had named the horse, 61% were boys (Chi-square value = 20.66, p
< 0.001). About 85% of the dog lovers named the school as their origin of taxonomic
knowledge (Chi-square value = 4.84, p = 0.028).
In the logistic regression model, both sex and origin of taxonomic knowledge influenced the
probability that the dog was named as a favourite animal (sex: B = 0.34, Wald = 4.09, p =
0.043, origin: B = -0.46, Wald = 4.33, p = 0.037). Moreover, both sex and the interaction of
sex and age influenced the probability that the horse was named as a favourite animal (sex: B
= -1.94, Wald = 13.91, p < 0.001, sex x age: B = 0.08, Wald = 4.79, p = 0.029). In addition,
the school itself had an influence (Wald = 21.51, p = 0.006). Over all ages, boys more likely
than girls named the horse as their favourite. However, with increasing age, girls more
strongly increased their affection for horses.
Among the students who had named the cat as the most disliked animal, 66% were girls (Chisquare value = 7.91, p = 0.005). Moreover, 19% of the cat haters had named the school as
their origin of taxonomic knowledge and 12% the family (Chi-square value = 4.36, p =
0.037). In the logistic regression model, sex, origin of taxonomic knowledge, and school
19
influenced the probability that the cat was named as the most disliked animal (sex: B = 0.40,
Wald = 3.99, p = 0.046; origin: B = -0.64, Wald = 5.74, p = 0.017; school: Wald = 19.42, p =
0.013). Girls were more likely to name the cat as their disliked animal, and school education
more likely than family influenced the dislike for cats.
When the 59 favourite animals were sorted into broader taxonomic categories, mammals were
predominant, especially non-native domestic ones (Table 2, compare Table 1).
Table 2: Animals that students (n = 860) named as their favourite ones. Only one answer was allowed.
The answers were sorted into broad taxonomic categories. The most frequently named animals in each
category are shown in brackets.
Category
Proportion of responses (%)
Mammals
88.7
Non-native domestic mammals common in Argentina (horse, dog, cat)
70.2
Exotic mammals (zebra, elephant, hippopotamus)
10.4
Native wild mammals in Valle Fértil (puma, pampas fox)
7.5
Non-native wild mammals common in Argentina (mouse, rabbit, hare)
0.6
Birds
6.8
Native wild birds in Valle Fértil (black-backed grosbeak1, monk parakeet2,
red crested cardinal3)
3.6
Non-native domestic birds common in Argentina (hen, goose, duck)
2.0
Non-native wild birds common in Argentina (dove)
1.0
Exotic birds (penguin)
0.2
Reptiles, amphibians, fishes (turtle, snake, iguana)
3.9
Invertebrates (tarantula spider)
0.6
1
Pheucticus aureoventris, 2Myiopsita monachus , 3Paroaria coronata
Among the students who had named an exotic mammal as their favourite, 60% were boys
(Chi-square value = 9.99, p = 0.002), and among those who had named a domestic mammal,
58% were girls (Chi-square value = 13.87, p < 0.001). In the logistic regression model, only
sex influenced the probability that a domestic or an exotic mammal was named (domestic: B
= 0.53, Wald = 11.04, p = 0.001; exotic: B = -0.69, Wald = 10.18, p = 0.001). Girls more
likely named domestic mammals and less likely named exotic ones. The choice of a local
native animal as a favourite was neither influenced by age, nor sex or origin of knowledge.
20
When the most disliked animals were sorted into broad taxonomic categories, non-native
domestic mammals were most prominent (Table 3, compare Table 1).
Table 3: Animals students (n = 819) disliked most. Only one answer was allowed. The responses were
sorted into broad taxonomic categories. The most frequently named animals in each category are
shown in brackets.
Category
Mammals
61.8
Non-native domestic mammals common in Argentina (cat, pig, horse)
36.5
Native wild mammals in Valle Fértil (puma, pampas fox, skunk)
14.0
Non-native wild mammals common in Argentina (rat, mouse)
5.8
Exotic mammals (monkey, wolf, hippopotamus)
5.5
Reptiles, amphibians, fishes (toad, iguana)
20.1
Invertebrates (vinchuca1, spider, bee)
12.1
Birds (parrot, monk parakeet2, black-backed grosbeak3)
6.0
1
The vinchuca (Triatoma infestans) is an insect which disperses the Chagas disease. The disease is endemic to
South America. The symptoms are malformation of the intestines or heart diseases such as a heart attack.
Without treatment the disease can be fatal. For more information: www.msf.es
2
Myiopsita monachus, 3Pheucticus aureoventris
Overall, about 41% of the students named a domestic and 46% a native animal as their most
disliked one. The probability that a native wild animal was named as the most disliked one
was higher for boys than for girls (B = -0.31, Wald = 4.61, p = 0.032), whereas the probability
that a domestic animal was named was higher for girls (B = 0.50, Wald = 11.11, p = 0.001).
Children’s preferences and aversions were correlated. The preference for a local wild animal
was correlated with an aversion of a non-native domestic animal (p = 0.046).
21
Most harmful and most dangerous animals
The puma and the pampas fox, both local native animals, were perceived most often as
harmful animals (Table 4). The puma was also frequently perceived as the most dangerous
animal. The study participants were more focused on certain animals when naming the most
dangerous ones. The ten most often named dangerous animals already added up to 79% of all
responses, whereas the ten most harmful animals added up to 66%. Overall, 60 different
animals were perceived as harmful (31 native to the Valle Fértil and 29 non-natives; full list
in Appendix 7), and 52 as most dangerous (25 native to the Valle Fértil and 27 non-natives;
full list in Appendix 8). About 86% of the children named the most harmful and 68% the most
dangerous animal at the genus or species level.
Table 4: The ten most harmful and most dangerous animals in view of 774 (harmful) and 795
(dangerous) students in the Valle Fértil, Argentina. One answer per student was allowed.
Most harmful animals
Responses (%)
Most dangerous animals
Responses (%)
17.2
24.9
Pampas fox (Lycalopex gymnocercus)
10.6
Snake°
23.4
15.8
Lion (Panthera leo)
8.0
Lion (Panthera leo)
Rat (Rattus norvegicus)
5.2
Scorpion°
5.5
Dog (Canis lupus)
4.9
Tiger (Panthera tigris)
3.5
4.6
Spider°
2.2
Ant°
4.6
Rattlesnake (Crotalus durissus)
1.3
3.8
Cow (Bos taurus)
1.0
Weasel (Mustela spp.)
3.5
Vinchuca (Triatoma infestans)
1.0
Snake°
3.5
Shark°
0.9
The puma was named as a most harmful animal by 17.7% of students who regarded the
school and by 26.4% of students who named the family as their origin of taxonomic
knowledge (Chi-square value = 6.00, p = 0.014). In the logistic regression models, only the
origin of taxonomic influenced the probability that the puma was named as a most harmful
animal (B = 0.51, Wald = 5.90, p = 0.015). None of the tested variables influenced the
22
probability that the puma was named as the most dangerous animal. With increasing age,
study participants were more likely to name the snake as the most dangerous animal (B =
0.10, Wald = 7.60, p = 0.006).
When the most harmful animals were sorted into broad taxonomic categories, native
mammals living in the Valle Fértil were most often named (Table 5, compare Table 4).
Table 5: Animals perceived as most harmful by 774 students. Only one answer was allowed. The
answers were sorted into broad taxonomic categories. The most frequently named animals in each
Category
Mammals
82.3
Native mammals in the Valle Fértil (puma, pampas fox)
33.1
Non-native domestic mammals common in Argentina (dog, cat)
19.3
Non-native wild mammals common in Argentina (rat, mole)
18.3
Exotic mammals (lion, tiger)
11..6
Invertebrates (ant, scorpion, vinchuca1)
10.3
Reptiles (rattlesnake, boa)
4.0
Birds (parrot, cernicola 2, cóndor )
2.1
Fishes (shark° )
1.3
1
Triatomas infestans, 2Falco sparerius; ° denotes unspecific taxa
Overall, 56% of the students named a local wild, 22% a non-native domestic, and 12% an
exotic animal as the most harmful one, and 10% could name no animal at all. In the model,
only the school influenced whether a native animal was named (B = 29.55, p < 0.001). Sex, its
interaction with age, and the school influenced the probability that a mammal was named as
the most harmful animal (sex: B = -1.10, Wald = 4.41, p = 0.036; sex x age: B = 0.08, Wald =
4.10, p = 0.043; school: Wald = 18.58, p = 0.017). With increasing age, the probability that a
mammal was named decreased for boys but increased for girls.
When the most dangerous animals were sorted into broad taxonomic categories, local wild
mammals were the largest category (Table 6, compare Table 4). Overall, 64% of the children
named a native and 28% a non-native animal as most dangerous, and 8% could name no
animal at all. Of all the non-native animals named, 10% were exotic ones such as lion, tiger or
shark. Only the school itself influenced the probability that a native animal (Wald = 55.27, p
< 0.001) or a domestic one (Wald = 20.73, p = 0.008) was named as most dangerous.
23
Table 6: Animals perceived as most dangerous by 795 students. Only one answer was allowed. The
Category
Mammals
51.7
Native wild mammals in Valle Fértil (puma, peccary, pampas fox)
26.2
Exotic mammals (leopard, wolf, tiger)
20.9
Non-native domestic mammals common in Argentina (cow, donkey, horse)
4.0
Non-native wild mammals common in Argentina (rat, bull, mouse)
0.6
Reptiles, amphibians, fishes (rattlesnake, coral snake, boa)
35.9
Invertebrates (scorpion, spider°, vinchuca1 )
13.0
Birds (eagle)
0.3
1
Triatomas infestans; ° denotes unspecific taxa
The perception of harmful and dangerous animals (sorted in categories) was correlated.
Native, exotic and domestic animals perceived as harmful were also perceived as dangerous
(all p < 0.001). Moreover, native animals which were disliked were also perceived as
dangerous and harmful (all p < 0.006).
Most useful animals
The horse and the dog were named most often as useful animals (Table 7). These two animals
already added up to 60% of the responses. Among the “top ten” useful animals were only two
local wild ones; the guanaco and the pampas fox. Overall, 27 different animal taxa were
named. Of these, 10 were native and 17 non-native ones (full list in Appendix 9). About 94%
of the students named a useful animal at the genus or species level.
In the model, both sex and school influenced the probability that the horse was named as the
most useful animal (sex: B = -0.34, Wald = 5.03, p = 0.025; school: Wald = 35.25, p < 0.001).
Girls were less likely than boys to name the horse as a useful animal. The school itself also
had an influence (Wald = 35.28, p < 0.001). Only the school itself influenced the probability
that the dog was named (Wald = 31.81, p < 0.001).
24
Table 7: The ten most useful animals in view of 819 students. One answer per student was allowed.
Overall, 27 different animals were named.
Most useful animals
Horse (Equus equus)
38.4
Dog (Canis lupus )
22.2
10.8
Cow (Bos taurus)
8.9
4.0
Goat (Capra hircus)
2.8
Hare (Lepus europaeus)
1.7
Guanaco (Lama guanicoe)
1.3
Pampas fox (Lycalopes gymnocercus)
0.9
When the animals perceived as most useful were sorted into broad taxonomic categories, nonnative domestic mammals were most prominent (Table 8, compare Table 7). Overall, 90% of
the students named a domestic animal as the most useful one, 5% a wild one and 5% could
not answer the question. Only the school influenced the probability that a domestic animal
was named (Wald = 17.53, p = 0.025).
Table 8: Animals perceived as most useful by 819 students. Only one answer was allowed. The
Category
Mammals
92.7
89.2
Native wild mammals in Valle Fértil (guanaco, puma, viscacha)
2.7
Exotic mammals (lion, leopard, elephant)
0.8
Birds (benteveo1, monk parakeet2, lechuza3)
5.2
Reptiles (snake°)
2.1
1
Non-native domestic mammals common in Argentina (horse, dog, donkey)
Pitangus sulphuratus, 2Myiopsita monachus, 3Athene cunicularia; ° denotes unspecific taxa
25
Animals of the Valle Fértil and their uses
All students were asked to write down five animals of the region and to explain their uses. On
average, the students could name 4.5 animals. Overall, 73% of the students could name five
animals as asked for and only 3% could name no animal at all.
Horse and cow were named most often (Table 9; see table 7). Overall, 87 different animal
species were named (49 native animals and 38 non-natives; full list in Appendix 10). Among
the ten most frequently named animals (69% of all responses) were only two native ones; the
puma and the pampas fox.
Table 9: The ten most often named animals which were perceived to live in the Valle Fértil,
Argentina. Five answers per students (n = 839) were requested. Overall, 3,979 responses were given.
Animals perceived to live in the Valle Fértil
Number of responses
Horse (Equus equus)
570
Cow (Bos taurus)
517
427
Goat (Capra hircus)
298
Dog (Canis lupus)
268
Hare (Lepus europaeus)
229
Pampas fox (Lycalopes gymnocercus)
173
170
169
Hen (Gallus gallus)
150
When the animals were sorted into broad taxonomic categories, non-native domestic
mammals were predominant (Table 10, compare Table 9). Overall, 80% of the animals named
were non-native and 20% native ones.
26
Table 10: Animals perceived to live in the Valle Fértil, Argentina by 839 students. Five answers per
person were requested. Overall, 87 different animal taxa were named. The answers were sorted into
broad taxonomic categories. The most frequently named animals in each category are shown in
brackets.
Category
Mammals
82.4
Non-native domestic mammals common in Argentina (horse, cow, donkey)
65.2
Native wild mammals in Valle Fértil (puma, pampas fox, skunk)
16.0
Exotic mammals (elephant, giraffe, lion)
0.8
Non-native wild mammals common in Argentina (mouse, rat)
0.4
Birds (benteveo7, monk parakeet2, rey del bosque3)
7.3
Reptiles, amphibians, fishes (snake°, iguana, lizard°)
1.8
Invertebrates (scorpion, spider°, worm°)
0.4
Pitangus sulphuratus, 2Myiopsita monachus, 3Pheucticus aureoventris; ° denotes unspecific taxa
1
All students were also asked to write down the uses of the animals they had named. Overall,
30% of the students could not fulfil this task. When the uses were sorted into broad
categories, the use of animals as food was most prominent (Table 11). However, students
were only able to come up with a use for an animal in about one third of the cases.
Table 11: The six most often named uses of animals that live in the Valle Fértil, Argentina, in view of
611 students. 3,055 responsed were given. Five answers per person were requested. The answers were
sorted into broad categories. Overall, 11 different uses were named.
Uses
Food (e.g. cow, guanaco)
Responses
1433
Transport and carriage (e.g. donkey, horse)
798
Domestic help (e.g. cat, dog)
425
Clothes and artefacts (e.g. guanaco)
300
Commerce (e.g. wild birds, rabbits)
32
Conservation (e.g. guanaco)
29
Other uses such as tourism
38
The perceived uses reflect the farming live in the rural area of the Valle Fértil. Cows, for
instance, are used for meet or milk production but also for transport, while horses are used for
transport and as food. Dogs have to guard the house and cats fight plagues such as mice or
insects. The skin and wool of llamas and guanacos is used for cloth, and wild birds are
27
sometimes captured and sold as pets. Some students considered the conservation of animals as
a use, and applied this “use” especially to wild animals such as the guanaco (Lama guanicoe).
Animals are also used for tool making. Knifes, for instance, are made from parts of the ñandu
(Rhea americana) or the quirquincho (Zaedyus pichiy). The shell of the quirquincho or the
feathers of the peacock have ornamental values. Moreover, guanacos are regarded as a tourist
attraction. Eating or touching of guanacos and pumas is believed to bring hunting luck and
health.
Adaptations of animals to the Valle Fértil
All students were asked to write down five adaptations of animals which help them to survive
in the desert of Valle Fértil, Argentina. None of the students could name five adaptations
correctly, and 55% of the students were unable to name at least one adaptation at all (fig. 3).
On average, students could write down three adaptations. With increasing age of the students,
the number of adaptations that were named correctly increased (r = 0.12, F1,863 = 13.96, p <
0.001).
Proportion of correct answers (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
Number of answers
Figure 3: Proportion of correct answers to the question which adaptations help animals to survive in
the arid area of Valle Fértil, Argentina. 388 students answered the question. Five adaptations should
have been named.
28
Only adaptations which are typical for the arid region of Valle Fértil were considered as
correct answers. Adaptations of organisms which do not specifically benefit them in dry
conditions were considered as wrong answers. For example, the ability of animals to hunt or
drink water was considered as a wrong answer because, although necessary, it is not a surplus
for surviving under harsh conditions. In contrast, the answer to store a lot of water would have
been a correct answer. The adaptations that were named correctly were sorted into broad
categories. The abilities of animals to safe water and to collect food for the dry season were
mentioned most often (Table 12). Some of the adaptations named were species-specific ones,
such as migration.
Table 12: The six most frequently named adaptations of animals (by 865 students) to the dry climate
of Valle Fértil, Argentina. Five answers per person were requested. The answers were sorted into
broad categories. Overall, 525 correct responses were given, and 14 different adaptations were named.
Adaptations
Ability to safe water and to collect food for the dry season
3.3
Ability to eat (spiky) plants of the area, for instance a cactus
2.4
Ability to hunt desert prey which is often hidden or poisonous
2.3
Ability to life in caves, sand or under stones to avoid extreme
temperatures and predation
1.5
Ability to forage for water and food in other places during dry season
1.2
Nocturnal life to avoid high temperatures
0.6
Other adaptations
0.8
No answer
87.9
Most liked and most disliked plants
All students were asked to name the plant they like most and they dislike most. Overall, 78
different plants (59 non-native and 19 native to the Valle Fértil, Argentina) were named as the
most favourite, and 97 (69 non-native and 28 native) as the most disliked ones (full lists in
Appendix 11 and 12). The rose and the mesquite were named most often as a favourite plant
(almost half of all responses), whereas the cactus was named most often as the most disliked
one (Table 13).
29
The “top ten” favourite plants added up to 64.5% of all responses, whereas the ten most
disliked ones added up to only 47%. Among the most liked plants were only two local native
ones, the mesquite and the cactus (Table 13). About 96% of the children named their favourite
and 81% their most disliked plant at the genus or species level.
Table 13: The ten most liked and most disliked plants in view of 812 (liked) and 816 (disliked)
students in the Valle Fértil, Argentina. One answer per student was allowed.
Most liked plants
Responses (%)
Rose (Rosa spp.)
36.6
Most disliked plants
Cactus° (Cactaceae)
Responses (%)
12.0
Mesquite (Prosopis spp.)
6.0
Garabato (Acacia furcatispina)
6.6
Daisy (Bellis perennis)
4.7
Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus areira)
4.7
Mulberry (Morus spp.)
4.4
4.7
Jasmine (Jasminus spp.)
3.4
Rude (Ruta chalepensis)
4.5
Cactus° (Cactaceae)
2.2
3.0
Peach (Prunus persica)
2.1
Paraíso (Melia azedarach)
3.0
Orange (Citrus spp.)
2.0
Jarilla (Larrea spp.)
2.9
Pink (Caryophyllaceae)
1.6
Rose (Rosa spp.)
2.9
Poplar (Populus spp.)
1.5
Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.)
2.4
Among the students who had named the rose as their favourite plant, 70% were girls (Chisquare value = 49.11, p < 0.001), whereas among those who had named the mesquite, 67%
were boys (Chi-square value = 10.21, p < 0.001). In the model, both sex and school
influenced the probability that the rose was named (sex: B = 1.06, Wald = 45.29, p < 0.001;
school: Wald = 19.60, p = 0.012). Girls were much more likely than boys to name the rose as
their favourite plant. In contrast, boys were more likely to name the mesquite (B = -0.92,
Wald = 9.08, p = 0.003).
Among the students who had named the garabato as the most disliked plant, 63% were boys
(Chi-square value = 7.32, p = 0.007). In the model, age, sex, the interaction of age and sex,
and the school influenced the probability that the garabato was named (age: B = 0.54, Wald =
7.30, p = 0.007; sex: B = 3.40, Wald = 4.31, p = 0.038; age x sex: B = -0.33, Wald = 6.55, p =
0.010; school: Wald = 15.68, p = 0.047). With increasing age, the probability that boys named
30
the garabato as their most disliked plant strongly increased, while the probability than girls
named the garabato strongly decreased. Only the school itself influenced the probability that
the cactus was named as the most disliked plant (Wald = 24.71, p = 0.002).
When the favourite plants were sorted into broad taxonomic categories, non-native shrubs and
herbs were the largest category (Table 14, compare Table 13).
Table 14: Plants that students (n = 865) named as their favourites. Only one answer was allowed. The
answers were sorted into broad taxonomic categories. The most frequently named plants in each
Category
Shrubs and herbs
Non-native shrubs and herbs common in Argentina (rose, daisy, jasmine)
Native shrubs and herbs in Valle Fértil (garabato1, jarilla2, retamo3)
58.0
53.6
4.4
Trees
Non-native trees common in Argentina (mulberry, peach, orange)
Native trees in Valle Fértil (mesquite4, quebracho5, tala6)
33.2
23.4
9.8
Cacti°
2.3
No answer
4.9
Other answers
1.6
1
Acacia furcatispina, 2Larrea spp., 3Bulnesia retama, 4Prosopis spp., 5Schinopsis haenckeana , 6Celtis tala; °
denote unspecific taxa
About 75% of the students who had named non-native shrubs and herbs as their favourites
were girls (Chi-square value = 85.99, p < 0.001). Among the students who preferred nonnative trees, 68% were boys (Chi-square value = 84.96, p < 0.001), and among those who
preferred local native shrubs and herbs, 69% were boys (Chi-square value = 30.28, p < 0.001).
In the models, girls were much more likely than boys to name non-native shrubs and herbs as
their favourites (B = 1.52, Wald = 81.25, p < 0.001), but boys were more likely to name nonnative trees (B = -1.57, Wald = 82.39, p < 0.001). The school itself also influenced this
preferences (shrubs/herbs: Wald = 32.38, p < 0.001; trees: Wald = 36.56, p = 0.001). With
increasing age, the probability that local native shrubs and herbs were named decreased more
strongly for girls than for boys (age x sex: B = -0.67, Wald = 23.32, p < 0.001).
31
Overall, 76% of the students named non-native, 17% local native, and 2% plants which could
not be identified such as “red flower” or “bonsai” as their favourites, and 5% could name no
plant at all. When the most disliked plants were sorted into broad taxonomic categories, nonnative trees, shrubs and herbs were most frequently named (Table 15, compare Table 13).
Overall, 42% of the students disliked a non-native and 37% a local native plant. Another 7%
named plants which could not be identified such as “thorns” or “trees with thorns”, and 14%
did not answer the question. The school influenced the probability that a native plant growing
in the Valle Fértil was named (Wald = 37.90, p < 0.001).
Table 15: Plants that students (n = 865) named as their most disliked ones. Only one answer was
allowed. The answers were sorted into broad categories. The most frequently named plants in each
Category
Shrubs and herbs
37.5
Non-native shrubs and herbs common in Argentina (rude, rose, daisy)
19.8
Native shrubs and herbs in Valle Fértil (garabato1, jarilla2, nettle3)
17.7
Trees
Non-native trees common in Argentina (Peruvian pepper tree 4, mulberry5,
paraíso6)
Native trees in Valle Fértil (mesquite7, sauce8, quebracho9)
30.5
22.9
7.6
Cacti°
12.0
No answer
13.7
Other answers
1
8
6.3
Acacia furcatispina, 2Larrea spp., 3Urtica spp., 4Schinus areira, 5Morus spp., 6Melia azedarach, 7Prosopis spp.,
Salix humboldtiana, 9Schinopsis haenckeana; ° denote unspecific taxa
Children’s preferences for certain plant and animal taxa were correlated. The preference for
native animals (sorted into categories) was correlated with a preference for native plants (p =
0.001).
32
Most harmful and most dangerous plants
The cactus and the garabato were most often perceived as harmful plants, and the cactus also
most often as a dangerous plant (Table 16). The ten most frequently named harmful plants
only added up to 46%, and the ten most frequently named dangerous ones to 44% of all
responses. Among the most harmful and most dangerous plants were each four local native
plants (full list in Appendix 13 and 14). Overall, 86 different plants were perceived as most
harmful and 54 as most dangerous. However, 23% of all responses to the harmful plants and
9% to the dangerous ones were unspecific such as “vegetables”, “fungus” or “carnivore
plant”, and could thus not be assigned to certain species. Moreover, 33% of the students did
not name a harmful and 43% a dangerous plant at all. About 40% of the respondents named
the most harmful plant and 31% the most dangerous one at the genus or species level.
Table 16: The ten most harmful and most dangerous plants in view of 575 (harmful) and 494
(dangerous) students in the Valle Fértil, Argentina. One answer per student was allowed.
Most liked plants
Cactus°
Responses (%)
10.2
Most disliked plants
Responses (%)
Cactus°
24.9
7.4
Nettle (Urtica spp.)
23.4
Duraznillo*
6.6
15.8
Climber°
6.0
Fungus°
5.5
Nettle (Urtica spp.)
5.8
Coca (Erythoroxylum coca)
3.5
Fungus°
3.5
Duraznillo*
2.2
Chipica*
2.1
Marijuana (Cannabis sativa)
1.3
2.0
Carnivore plant°
1.0
Amor seco (Acaena magellanica)
1.5
Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.)
1.0
Coca (Erythoroxylum coca)
1.5
Higuera del zorro (Jatropha excisa)
0.9
° denotes unspecific taxa, * unknown to researcher
With increasing age, the probability that the cactus was named as the most harmful plant
decreased (B = -0.15, Wald = 7.91, p = 0.005). The probability that the garabato was named
was only influenced by the school itself (Wald = 31.00, p < 0.001). None of the tested
variables influenced the probability that the cactus or nettle were named as most dangerous
plants.
33
When the most harmful plants were sorted into broad taxonomic categories, native shrubs and
herbs growing in the Valle Fértil were predominant (Table 17, compare Table 16). None of
the variables influenced whether a certain plant or plant category was regarded as most
harmful. With increasing age, the probability that a local native plant was named decreased (B
= -0.22, Wald = 5.98, p = 0.014). In addition, the school itself had an influence (Wald =
20.29, p = 0.009).
Table 17: Plants perceived as most harmful by 865 students. Only one answer was allowed. The
Category
Shrubs and herbs
26.5
Native shrubs and herbs in Valle Fértil (garabato1, amor seco2, clavel del
aire3)
18.0
Non-native shrubs and herbs common in Argentina (marijuana, chilli, soy
bean)
8.5
Cacti°
10.3
Trees
7.7
Non-native trees common in Argentina (mulberry4, paraiso5, Peruvian
pepper tree6)
4.4
Native trees in Valle Fértil (mesquite7, quebracho8, brea9)
3.3
No answer
33.5
Other answers
22.0
1
Acacia furcatispina, 2Acaena magellanica, 3Tillandsia spp., 4Morus spp., 5Melia azedarach, 6Schinus areira,
7
Prosopis spp., 8Schinopsis haenckeana, 9Cercidium praecox; ° denote unspecific taxa
When the as most dangerous perceived plants were sorted into broad taxonomic categories,
cacti and local native shrubs and herbs were frequently named (Table 18, compare Table 16).
Overall, 37% of the students named local native and 11% non-native plants. Both age and
school influenced the probability that a local native plant was perceived as most dangerous
(age: B = -0.18, Wald = 3.86, p = 0.049; school: Wald = 18.89, p = 0.015). With increasing
age the probability increased that a native plant was perceived as most dangerous.
34
Table 18: Plants perceived as most dangerous by 865 students. Only one answer was allowed. The
Category
Shrubs and herbs
23.0
Native shrubs and herbs in Valle Fértil (nettle1, garabato2, amor seco3 )
Non-native shrubs and herbs common in Argentina (marijuana, chilli,
castor oil plant)
16.8
6.2
Cacti°
19.0
Trees
5.6
Non-native trees common in Argentina (eucalyptus, Peruvian pepper
tree4 , mulberry5)
2.4
Local native trees in Valle Fértil (molle6, mesquite7, tala8)
3.2
No answer
42.9
Other answers
1
7
Urtica spp., 2Acacia furcatispina, 3Acaena magellanica.,
Prosopis spp., 8Celtis tala; ° denote unspecific taxa
9.5
4
Schinus areira , 5Morus spp., 6Schinus spp.,
Most useful plants
Rose and mesquite were most often perceived as useful plants (Table 19). However, these two
plants only added up to 23% of all responses. Among the ten most frequently named plants
were five non-native ones (rose, mulberry, lemon, peppermint, poplar) and five local native
plants. Overall, 74 different plants (22 native and 48 non-native) were named (full list in
Appendix 15). About 76% of the students named the most useful plant at the genus or species
level.
Among the students who named the rose as the most useful plant, 67% were girls (Chi-square
value = 7.13, p = 0.008). About 14.3% of students who named the school as their origin of
taxonomic knowledge, but only 7.7% who named their family perceived the mesquite as the
most useful plant. In the model, age (B = -0.27, Wald = 10.79, p = 0.001), sex (B = -0.50,
Wald = 4.54, p = 0.033) and school (Wald = 44.33, p < 0.001) influenced the probability that
the rose was named. With increasing age of the students the probability that the rose was
named increased. Girls were more likely than boys to name the rose.
35
Table 19: The ten most useful plants in view of 729 students. One answer per student was allowed.
Overall, 74 different plants were named.
Most useful plants
Rose (Rose spp.)
12.5
10.6
8.6
Chinchil (Tagetes spp.)
5.9
Poleo (Lippia turbinata)
4.4
Lemon (Citrus spp.)
3.1
Peppermint (Mentha piperita)
2.3
2.2
2.2
Cactus°
1.8
Most often, non-native shrubs and herbs were perceived as most useful (Table 20, compare
Table 19). Overall, 32% of the students named local native and 50% non-native plants. About
2% of the responses were unspecific such as “vegetables”, and 16% of the students did not
answer the question at all. The school influenced the probability that local native plants were
named (Wald = 34.76, p < 0.001).
Table 20: Plants perceived as most useful by 865 students. Only one answer was allowed. The answers
were sorted into broad taxonomic categories. The most frequently named plants in each category are
shown in brackets.
Category
Shrubs and herbs
44.2
Non-native shrubs and herbs common in Argentina (rose, peppermint,
wine)
28.0
Local native shrubs and herbs in Valle Fértil (chinchil1, poleo2, jarilla3 )
16.2
Trees
35.0
Non-native trees common in Argentina (mulberry4, lemon 5, poplar6)
22.0
Local native trees in Valle Fértil (mesquite7, quebracho8, tala9)
13.0
Cacti°
1.8
Other answers
2.5
No answer
16.5
1
Tagetes spp., 2Lippia turbinata, 3Larrea spp., 4Morus spp., 5Citrus spp., 6Populus spp., 7Prosopis spp.,
Schinopsis haenckeana, 9Celtis tala; ° denote unspecific taxa
8
36
Plants of the Valle Fértil and their uses
The students were asked to write down five plants of the valley and to explain their uses. On
average, the students could name 4.5 plants. Overall, 79% of the students could name five
plants as asked for and only 2% could name no plant at all.
Mesquite and chinchil were named most often (Table 21). Among the ten most frequently
named plants (48% of all responses) were seven local native ones (mesquite, chinchil, poleo,
jarilla, cactus, quebracho, chañar). Overall, 116 different plant taxa (42 native and 74 nonnative) were named (full list in Appendix 16).
Table 21: The ten most frequently named plants that were perceived (by 847 students) to live in the
Valle Fértil, Argentina. Five answers per person were requested. Overall, 3,969 responses were given.
Plants perceived to live in the Valle Fértil
Responses
509
Chinchil (Tagetes spp.)
220
Poleo (Lippia turbinata)
214
203
Cactus°
200
Quebracho (Schinopsis haenckeana)
184
160
143
Chañar (Geoffroea decorticans)
123
Peppermint (Mentha piperita)
108
° denote unspecific taxa
Overall, 58% of the students named local native, 40% non-native and 2% unspecified taxa.
Native shrubs and herbs were most frequently mentioned (Table 22, compare Table 21).
37
Table 22: Plants that were perceived (by 865 students) to live in the Valle Fértil, Argentina. Five
answers per person were requested. Overall, 116 plants were named. The answers were sorted into
broad categories. The most frequently named plants in each category are shown in brackets.
Category
Trees
44.1
Non-native trees common in Argentina (mulberry1, poplar2, eucalyptus)
22.8
Native trees in Valle Fértil (mesquite3, quebracho4, tala5)
21.3
Shrubs and herbs
41.9
Native shrubs and herbs in Valle Fértil (chinchil6, poleo7, jarilla8 )
27.4
Non-native shrubs and herbs common in Argentina (peppermint, rose)
14.5
Cacti°
1.5
Other answers
2.7
No answer
9.8
1
Morus spp., 2Populus spp. , 3Prosopis spp., 4Schinopsis haenckeana., 5Celtis tala, 6Tagetes spp., 7Lippia
rubinata, 8Larrea spp.; ° denote unspecific taxa
The students were also asked to write down the uses of the plants they had named. Plants
were mainly associated with food (Table 23).
Table 23: The six most often named uses of plants that live in the Valle Fértil, Argentina, in view of
3,969 respondents. Five answers per person were requested. The answers were sorted into broad
categories. Overall, 15 different uses were named.
Uses
Responses
Food (e.g. chinchil1, peppermint)
Medicine (e.g. eucalyptus, peppermint)
2
1304
798
3
Fire wood (e.g. jarilla , mesquite )
425
Shadow (e.g. mulberry4, paraiso5)
300
Furniture (e.g. cactus, jarilla6)
32
Handicrafts (e.g. cactus)
29
Other uses (e.g. tools)
1081
1
Tagetes spp., 2Larrea spp., 3Prosopis spp., 4Morus spp., 5Melia azedarach, 6Larrea spp.
Many plants are used for infusions such as the chinchil (Tagetes spp.) or as spices such as the
thyme. In the region of Valle Fértil it is also common to treat illnesses with traditional
medicines, because for many farmers a doctor would be too expensive and also too far away.
38
In the area it is also common to cook with wood fire which is exemplified in plants such as
garabato (Acacia furcatispina) and quebracho (Schinopsis haenckeana). In the dry area,
especially in summer, it is important for both humans and their cattle to have some shade
which can be provided by plant species such as mulberry (Morus spp.) and paraiso (Melia
azedarach). Plants like jarilla (Larrea spp.) and mesquite are commonly used for beds, chairs,
tables or to make broomsticks out of it, and poplar is often used for house building. Artefacts
made of cactus wood are sold to tourists. Moreover, cacti and chipica can be eaten or, in case
of cacti used as drugs. The quebracho (Schinopsis haenckeana) is used for colour paintings.
Adaptations of plants to the Valle Fértil
Only 0.5% of all students could name correctly five adaptations of plants to the dry conditions
in the Valle Fértil, and 52% were unable to name at least one adaptation (fig. 4). On average,
students could write down 0.9 adaptations. With increasing age of the students, the number of
adaptations that were named correctly increased (r = 0.08, F1,864 = 5.24, p = 0.022).
Only adaptations which are typical for the arid region of Valle Fértil were considered as
correct answers. Adaptations of organisms which do not specifically benefit them in dry
conditions were considered as wrong answers. For example, water or minerals were
considered as a wrong answer because, although necessary, it is not a surplus for surviving
under harsh conditions.
Proportion of correct answers (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
Number of answers
Figure 4: Proportion of correct answers to the question which adaptations help plants to survive in the
desert area of Valle Fértil, Argentina. 414 students answered the question. Five adaptations should
have been named.
39
The adaptations that were named correctly were sorted into broad categories. The abilities of
plants to safe water and to reduce transpiration by having thorns instead of leaves were
mentioned most frequently (Table 24).
Table 24: The six most often named adaptations of plants (by 865 students) to the dry climate of Valle
Fértil, Argentina. Five answers per person were requested. The answers were sorted into broad
categories. Overall, 748 correct responses were given, and 25 different adaptations were named.
Adaptations
Ability to safe water
4.8
Presence of thorns
4.3
Protracted roots
3.3
Absence or small leaves
1.4
Use of rain water or dew
1.2
Succulent leaves
0.4
Other adaptations
1.9
No answer
82.7
3.2 Picture test
Identification of objects
With the help of a set of pictures, students were asked to identify fifteen objects. On average,
students could identify 10.5 objects. None of the students was able to identify all objects
correctly, but only few (3%) could not fulfil the task at all. However, with increasing age of
the students, the number of correct answers increased (r = 0.22, F1,864 = 44.84, p < 0.001).
Cows and donkeys, i.e. domestic animals were most often and the two local wild plants
tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima) and chica (Ramorinoa girolae) least often correctly
identified (Table 25). Overall, non-native animals and cartoon figures were best and native
wild plant species least known to the students.
40
Table 25: Identifications of 15 objects. Students (837) were asked to identify as many objects as
possible. Overall, 9,639 correct responses were given.
Category and objects
Correct responses (%)
Objects
Non-native animals common in Argentina
88.6
Cow
94.8
Donkey
94.3
Hare
76.6
Cartoon figures common in Argentina
87.0
Bart
89.9
Krusty
87.5
Mr. Burns
83.4
Native wild animals in Valle Fértil
84.2
Puma
89.0
Guanaco
86.4
Cóndor
77.3
Non-native plants common in Argentina
55.3
Eucalyptus
84.7
Peruvian pepper tree
75.8
Tamarisk
5.5
Native wild plants in Valle Fértil
36.3
Mesquite
80.7
Retamo
20.0
Chica
Main category
8.2
Identification of plants and animals that occur in the Valle Fértil
Students were asked to look at each object and to decide whether it occurs in the Valle Fértil
or not. On average, students could correctly identify 8.6 out of 12 objects. 19% of the students
could correctly identify all objects and 4% could not fulfil the task at all. Students had fewer
problems to correctly point out animals which occur in the region than plants (Table 26).
41
Table 26: Knowledge about the presence of species in the Valle Fértil. Students (n = 834) were shown
pictures of plants and animals and asked to mark the ones which occur in the region. Overall, 9,806
correct responses were given.
Objects
Main category
82.2
Hare
83.0
Donkey
82.9
Cow
80.8
73.1
Puma
76.6
Guanaco
72.4
Cóndor
70.2
66.1
Eucalyptus
87.6
68.3
Tamarisk
42.5
65.9
Mesquite
78.4
Chica
66.1
Retamo
53.3
Familiarity with plants and animals depicted
On average, students were familiar with 6.4 out of 12 organisms. About 9% of the students
felt that they had already seen all of the organisms alive, whereas 10% were unfamiliar with
all of them. With increasing age of the students, students’ familiarity with the organisms
increased (r = 0.128, F1,864 = 14.47, p < 0.001). More boys (58%) than girls (43%) stated to
have seen a puma alive (Chi-square value = 18.65, p < 0.001). Students were least familiar
with local native wild plants (Table 27).
42
Table 27: Familiarity with species in the Valle Fértil. Students (n = 837) were shown pictures of plants
and animals and asked to mark which of them they had already seen in the region. Overall, 7,128
responses were given.
Objects
Main category
70.8
Cow
71.6
Donkey
71.4
Hare
69.4
56.0
Guanaco
59.9
Cóndor
58.3
Puma
49.7
43.1
Mesquite
54.3
Chica
40.6
Retamo
34.5
42.9
Eucalyptus
56.1
45.2
Tamarisk
27.4
The most beautiful objects
Students were asked to mark the objects they thought most beautiful. On average, 2.5 objects
were marked, but 9% of the students did not answer the question. With increasing age of the
students, the number of objects regarded as beautiful increased (r = 0.13, F1,864 = 14.16, p <
0.001). The puma was marked most often (Table 28). Overall, animals and cartoon figures
were considered more beautiful than plants, especially the local wild ones.
43
Table 28: The most beautiful objects. Students (n = 784) were shown 15 pictures and asked to point
out the objects they thought most beautiful. Overall, 2,179 responses were given.
Responses (%)
Objects
31.1
Puma
42.2
Guanaco
28.7
Cóndor
22.4
24.1
Hare
30.9
Cow
21.4
Donkey
20.0
Bart
11.1
16.9
Krusty
8.3
Mr. Burns
8.1
Eucalyptus
9.3
14.2
Tamarisk
7.9
6.0
Mesquite
Main category
8.3
12.1
Chica
6.8
Retamo
6.0
The ugliest objects
Students were also asked to mark the ugliest objects. On average, 2.0 objects were marked.
However, 14% of the students did not mark any object. With increasing age, more objects
were marked (r = 0.13, F1,864 = 15.75, p < 0.001). Overall, non-native animals were perceived
as ugliest, and cartoon figures at least ugly (Table 29). However, the Peruvian pepper tree was
most often pointed out as ugly.
44
Table 29: The ugliest objects. Students (n = 743) were shown 15 pictures and asked to point out the
objects they thought most ugly. Overall, 1,688 responses were given.
Responses (%)
Objects
16.4
Cow
19.4
Donkey
18.6
Hare
11.1
14.2
20.7
Eucalyptus
13.5
Tamarisk
8.4
13.7
Cóndor
16.9
Puma
14.0
Guanaco
10.1
12.3
Retamo
12.7
Chica
12.5
Mesquite
11.8
Mr. Burns
Main category
8.5
11.2
Krusty
9.0
Bart
5.2
Pet preferences
Students were asked which of the depicted objects they would like to have as a pet. The hare
and the puma were most often chosen. Overall, native and non-native wild animals were
preferred (Table 30). About 17% of the students did not choose any object.
45
Table 30: Preferences for pets. Students (n = 719) were shown 15 pictures and asked to point out the
objects they would like to have as a pet. Overall, 1,064 responses were given.
Responses (%)
Objects
18.8
Puma
31.0
Guanaco
16.0
Cóndor
9.5
17.9
Hare
32.9
Donkey
12.9
Cow
Main category
7.9
1.7
Bart
2.0
Krusty
1.8
Mr. Burns
1.2
1.5
Mesquite
2.1
Retamo
1.4
Chica
1.0
1.3
Eucalyptus
1.3
1.2
Tamarisk
0.9
Most useful objects
Students were also asked to point out the most useful objects. The donkey and the cow were
perceived as most useful (Table 31). Some native wild plants such as mesquite were also
considered as useful. About 19% of the students did not mark any object. With increasing age,
more objects were marked (r = 0.30, F1,864 = 84.23, p < 0.001).
46
Table 31: The most useful objects. Students (n = 702) were shown 15 pictures and asked to point out
the objects they though most useful. Overall, 2,036 responses were given.
Responses (%)
Objects
39.2
Donkey
48.8
Cow
39.1
Hare
29.8
16.4
Mesquite
31.6
Chica
10.5
Retamo
7.1
12.2
Eucalyptus
19.2
12.5
Tamarisk
5.0
Guanaco
Main category
8.4
11.4
Puma
8.4
Cóndor
5.3
2.2
Bart
3.0
Krusty
2.2
Mr. Burns
1.5
Most dangerous objects
On average, the students marked 2.0 most dangerous objects. However, 21% of the students
marked none at all. With increasing age of the students, more objects were marked (r = 0.25,
F1,864 = 57.58, p < 0.001). Native animals such as puma and cóndor were perceived as most
dangerous (Table 32). However, also the cow was perceived as dangerous. The plants
depicted were perceived as least dangerous, even less dangerous than the comic figures.
47
Table 32: The most dangerous objects. Students (n = 685) were shown 15 pictures and asked to point
out the objects they though most dangerous. Overall, 1,730 responses were given.
Responses (%)
Objects
37.2
Puma
67.1
Cóndor
37.6
Guanaco
6.8
Cow
Main category
19.2
45.2
Donkey
6.4
Hare
6.1
5.0
Krusty
9.0
Mr. Burns
3.0
Bart
2.9
3.8
Eucalyptus
5.5
5.4
Tamarisk
0.6
3.1
Retamo
4.5
Mesquite
2.5
Chica
2.4
Most harmful objects
Students marked, on average, 1.8 objects as harmful. However, 29% marked no object at all.
With increasing age of the students, more objects were marked (r = 0.34, F1,864 = 109.83, p <
0.001). Puma and cóndor, but also the donkey were marked most often (Table 33). Native
wild animals such as the puma were considered as most harmful.
48
Table 33: The most harmful objects. Students (n = 618) were shown 15 pictures and asked to point out
the objects they though most harmful. Overall, 1,595 responses were given.
Responses (%)
Objects
25.8
Puma
45.1
Cóndor
25.3
Guanaco
7.1
23.7
Donkey
30.5
Hare
20.7
Cow
19.9
5.8
7.1
Eucalyptus
6.4
Tamarisk
3.9
4.1
Retamo
4.7
Mesquite
4.3
Chica
3.4
Main category
2.0
Mr. Burns
2.2
Bart
2.2
Krusty
1.7
49
4. Discussion
In view of the alarming loss of biodiversity and the recognition of its value (e.g. Heywood,
1995; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005), it is essential to educate people about the
value of the diversity of organisms, including less attractive ones like the majority of plants
and invertebrates (Kellert, 1996; Lindemann-Matthies, 2005, 2006). The present study is one
of the first attempts undertaken in Argentina to investigate students’ preferences for plants
and animals, and to investigate their perception and knowledge of native wild species in the
Valle Fértil.
Preferences for species
Domestic animals such as dog, horse, and cat were liked best by the study participants. These
animals were all non-native to Argentina, but can all be found in the study region of Valle
Fèrtil, Argentina. Among the ten favourite animals were nine “loveable” mammals (see
Kellert, 1985). Research has shown that the particular physical and behavioural characteristics
of organisms shape people’s attitudes towards them (Kellert, 1993a; Wandersee & Schussler,
2001). According to the similarity principle, humans like animals that are similar to them in
appearance and behaviour, and have the capacity to communicate either by eye contact or
sound (Wandersee, 1986). In general, human’s preferences are directed towards fuzzy
creatures with large round eyes, flat and expressive faces, and the ability to sit upright, to
skilfully handle objects with their body parts and to interact socially with humans (Morris &
Morris, 1966; Bell, 1981; Morris, 1982; Kellert, 1985; Katcher & Wilkins, 1993; Ward et al.,
1998). Several studies have found that not only young children, but also many adults
especially like large animals with considerable intelligence and a capacity for social bonding
(Kellert, 1980; Bell, 1981; Schulz, 1985; Kellert, 1993b; Lindemann-Matthies, 2005). The
parrot, the only bird among the ten best liked animals in the present study, also fulfils several
of the above named criteria. Parrots are quite similar in behaviour to humans, sit upright and
handle objects with their “hands” (Morris & Morris, 1965). Additionally, parrots often have
attractive colours which make them more visible to humans. Plants, in contrast, appear more
often as a homogenous (green) mass which makes them less visible and, in consequence, also
less attractive to humans (Wandersee & Schussler, 1999; 2001).
If plants “want to be perceived”, they have to attract the attention of humans; otherwise
humans will have a considerable “plant blindness” towards them (Wandersee & Schussler,
2001). Bright coloured and showy flowers which stuck out are thus a good indicator for plants
50
to be perceived. In the present study, the rose which has been introduced to the Valle Fértil as
an ornamental (garden) plant, was named as a favourite. Daisy, jasmine and pink were also
liked, most likely because they have large, colourful or fragrant flowers which catch the
attention of people. Other studies from European countries have also shown that garden and
decorative plants were favoured by children (Scherf, 1988; Tunnicliffe, 2001; LindemannMatthies, 2005). However, in the present study edible plants such as mulberry, peach and
orange tree were also liked, which is feasible as children like to eat their fruits. It has been
assumed by evolutionary biologists that people’s preferences for certain species or features of
species are genetically based (Wilson, 1984). Bright colours in plants, for instance, may have
signalled “food” to our ancestors which would partly explain modern human’s predisposition
for it (Heerwagen & Orians, 1993). Among the plants which students in the Valle Fértil liked
best, was the cactus. A preference for the cactus could also be explained by its large and
pretty flowers, and edible fruits.
Dogs and horses were by far the favourite animals. Similar results were found in a large study
from Switzerland, where almost 7000 students between the age of eight and 16 were asked
about their preferences. Almost half of the children named the dog or the horse as their
favourite animal (Lindemann-Matthies, 2005). However, whereas in Switzerland dogs and
horses are kept as pets, in rural areas of Argentina they are used for transport or to guard the
house. In general, the present data show that in the Valle Fértil, both girls and boys prefer
useful animals over pets or wild ones. This strengthens the hypothesis that we best like what
we are familiar with (Weilbacher, 1993; Lindemann-Matthies, 2005). In contrast to the Swiss
study, horses were particularly liked by boys (but see Lindemann-Matthies, 2005). This could
be explained by the frequent use of horses in the field, and by the image of the Argentinean
man as a gaucho (cowboy), who is an excellent rider and a symbol for the pampas. Other
studies have also shown that affection or dislike may depend on the image of species that
people, influenced by culture and tradition, have generated (examples in Shepard, 1997). This
would explain why in the present study pigs and skunks are among the most disliked animals.
They are, at least in view of humans, filthy and smelly animals and thus representatives of
organisms to which a negative attribute (dirt, stench) is attached (Katcher & Wilkins, 1993;
Shepard, 1997).
In contrast to other studies, in which cats were solely among the preferred animals (Morris &
Morris, 1966), at least in the rural study area of Valle Fértil they were also disliked. One
reason could be that in this region cats are usually not kept as pets. They are kept to control
51
pests such as rats, mice and snakes, and might thus be associated with their prey. Due to their
independent behaviour pattern, cats in the Valle Fértil might not even want to socialize with
their human owners. Overall, almost half of the disliked animals were native ones such as
snakes, spiders and the pampas fox. However, the pattern of dislike was less clear than the
one for the favourite animals. The wide range of answers suggests that children and
adolescents normally think of animals with affection, and that they have a harder time to
specify animals they dislike. However, some organisms such as snakes and spiders are likely
to be disliked which was also the case in the present study. Studies have shown that both
children and adults tend to avoid invertebrates such as insects and spiders because they are
small and morphologically and behaviourally unlike humans (Morris & Morris, 1965; Morris,
1982; Kellert, 1993a). Moreover, in the Valle Fértil and elsewhere, some snakes and insects
such as the vinchuca (Triatoma infestans) are indeed potentially dangerous to humans and
create fear in them. Fear and dislike for certain animals might to some extent be irrational.
However, an intrinsic aversion towards snakes and spiders has evolved over a long period of
time, and snakes and spiders might have been dangerous to humans in prehistoric times
(Morris & Morris, 1965; Shepard, 1997).
Perception of dangerous and harmful species
Study participants showed a strong bonding with the puma, both in mind and when looking at
its image. Fulfilling all the criteria of a “loveable” mammal (Kellert, 1985), the puma was one
of the best liked animals, chosen most often as a potential pet, and regarded as most beautiful.
Similar results were found for the European hare (Lepus europaeus) which might have been
mixed up with the rabbit in the questionnaire study. However, the puma but also the lion and
tiger were both liked and perceived as most dangerous. They are strong predators, all of them
on top of the food chain, with a powerful and attractive image. Especially young children
perceive them as “omnipotent parents” (Morris & Morris, 1966). All of them are used as
flagship species in conservation campaigns (Ashworth et al., 1995) and frequently presented
in the mass media (Hershey, 1996). As only the puma is native to the study region, it was
most often named as a favourite, but also harmful and dangerous animal. However, it could
also be that students confused names, as farmers and other people in the region refer to the
puma (Puma concolor) as puma, lion, mountain lion or American lion (Sanabria et al., 2006;
Lucherini & Merino, 2008). It should thus be considered that, whenever puma and lion appear
in a list together, only the puma might have been meant, which would also increase its
52
importance. In the region of Valle Fertil, pumas are heavily hunted. Although pumas do
normally not attack humans, they often attack livestock and cause severe loss to the regional
farmers (Campos et al. 2007; Lucherini & Merino, 2008). The pampas fox too is a local native
hunter which attacks sheep and other small domestic animals (Lucherini & Merino, 2008). It
is thus not surprising that the pampas fox, although a pretty animal, appeared only on the list
of the most disliked and harmful animals. However, some students perceived the pampas fox
also as useful, maybe because it is often killed for its skin. School education reduced
children’s perception of the puma as a harmful animal which might be due to at least some
conservation education in schools in the region. The donkey, although a favourite animal, was
also considered as a harmful one (both in mind and in the picture test) which reflects reality.
Donkeys were once introduced to the Valle Fértil, but are now common and almost
naturalized. Although still used on farms, wild donkeys live in the valley. They sometimes
enter cultivations and damage them, but most of all they compete with local wild species for
the scarce vegetation and for the use of water supply (Sanabria al., 2006, Campos et al.,
2007).
Some of the most disliked animals such as spider and snake were also perceived as most
dangerous. Rattlesnakes and other poisonous snakes, scorpions and poisonous spiders are
found in the region of Valle Fértil, and are potentially dangerous to local people. Moreover,
the vinchuca (Triatoma infestans) was named. This insect is the vector of the chagas disease
which has a large impact on human health and well being (Palafoz et al., 2003, Medicos Sin
Fronteras, 2008). Even though students in the present study named the vinchuca as dangerous,
people in the Valle Fertil are hardly aware of the seriousness of the disease (Medicos Sin
Fronteras, 2008). Interestingly, the cow was perceived as a most dangerous animal, but also as
a most useful one. One explanation could be that the study participants had different images
in mind when answering the questions. Male cows might have been thought of in the first
case, and female ones in the second case. In the picture test, the cow was chosen as the second
most dangerous organism. However, the image shown to the students depicted a bull which
can actually be quite dangerous to farmers and other people. The present results emphasize
the importance of study approaches which not only ask about preferences but also include
visual choice settings. Although not a local animal, the shark was also perceived as most
dangerous. The fear of sharks most likely originates from media information. Mass media like
to present the shark as a human hunter and predator humans cannot escape. Other studies have
also pointed out that aversions but also preferences for animals may be subject to fashion and
strongly influenced by the presentation of particular fierce or cute, anthropomorphic animal
53
characters in the mass media (Hershey, 1996). Especially in remote regions such as the Valle
Fértil, students might not be able to judge the validity of the information presented in the
mass media as they have no direct experiences with the species presented (Chipeniuk, 1995;
López de la Roche, 2007).
In the present study, the participants had much more difficulties to name harmful or
dangerous plants than animals (shown in the number of responses). There are several, not
mutually exclusive, explanations for these findings. (1) People are not aware of plants and
their characteristics, since they are more attracted to animals than plants (Wandersee, 1986;
Flannery, 1991; Wandersee & Schussler, 1999; Kinchin, 1999; Lindemann-Matthies, 2002).
(2) People can obviously only name what they know about. Studies have shown that
children’s everyday-life perception of local wild plants, at least in European countries, is poor
(Lock, 1995; Lindemann-Matthies, 2002). When 12-14 year old students in Britain were
asked what living things they would expect to find near their school, few made reference to
plants (Lock 1995). This illiteracy is not due to a general lack of opportunity for children to
see plants in their immediate environment; it more reflects the lack of opportunities for
children to study local organisms (Lindemann-Matthies, 2006). In the present study, the
cactus was less often named as a most harmful plant with increasing age and thus school
education of the students. (3) People might not be aware of any potential danger that comes
from sessile plants which can only attack and hurt when being touched (Wandersee &
Schussler, 1999). However, students in the present study were quite aware of cacti, garabato
(Acacia furcatispina) and nettle which either have thorns or nettles. Stinging nettle was found
to be one of the most disliked plants in Europe, and also best known among children, because
encounters with this plant are painful (Scherf, 1988). Both cactus and garabato (Acacia
furcatispina) might also be regarded as “weeds” as they are rarely grazed by cows, goats or
sheep due to their thorns.
The cactus also belongs to a group of plants which might be considered as “socially
dangerous and harmful”. These are plants which can be transformed into or directly used as
drugs such as Erythroxylum coca, Cannabis sativa, some cacti and hallucinogenic fungi
(Blais & Bourget, 1986; Moyano & Daniele, 2003; Cabrera & Carod, 2006). Both mass media
and school education in Argentina place great care on informing students about the danger of
drugs and their misuse (Livingstone, 2007; López de la Roche, 2007). It is remarkable that
most plants perceived as dangerous and harmful are native ones. Students might have frequent
(negative) contact with these species and, in consequence, know them (see Lindemann-
54
Matthies, 2005). However, most of the best liked plants were introduced ones. If biodiversity
education should take place in the region of Valle Fértil, the negative image of local wild
plants and the positive image of introduced domestic ones (Campos et al., 2007) has to be
taken into account.
Perception and knowledge of (local) useful species
It has already been noticed that children and adults from traditional, rural communities and
less developed countries are quite knowledgeable about (useful) plant and animal species
(Chipeniuk, 1995; Chand & Shukla, 2003; Pilgrim et al., 2007). In the present study, fruit
trees such as mulberry and orange but also native, wild growing trees and herbs such as
mesquite (Prosopis spp.) and chinchil (Tagetes spp.) were frequently perceived as useful and,
in case of the mesquite, also strongly liked. The mesquite was also the wild plant which
students could identify best in the picture test, and which was also well-known. It is used for
construction work and tool making, whereas the chinchil is used as a spice of the mate
(traditional drink) and as medicinal plant. Both plants are common in the Valle Fértil and
students might have been introduced to these species by their families or in school. In case of
the mesquite, school education was more likely than family the source of knowledge.
Animals perceived as useful were either economically important or had a defined role in the
farming system (Begon et al. 1986); other animals were rarely mentioned. Most often, dog
and horse were named as useful animals. Dogs are present in virtually all houses in the Valle
Fértil, and are important to guard the house against thieves and predators of livestock, but also
for hunting and as company. The horse is one of the most common means of transport to
access the most remote areas of the Valle Fértil, and students (most often boys) frequently
reported to the researcher to come to school on horseback. This might explain why girls less
often than boys named the horse as a useful animal, and also were less fond of it. The short
list of local native animals which were considered as useful included the guanaco and other
species which are hunted or used as food. However, when students could choose (picture test),
the guanaco – although well-known - was hardly considered as a useful animal.
When students were asked to assign a use to those animals and plants they had named as most
common in the Valle Fértil, the use as food was most often mentioned. In contrast to children
and adolescents in other countries, the importance of animals as pets (Switzerland,
Lindemann-Matthies, 2005) or as medicine (Chipeniuk, 1995) was only of minor importance.
It is remarkable that among the most common uses conservation was named, and that it was
55
assigned to the cóndor and puma. This might be due to current conservation campaigns in the
region and the result of lectures at school as already discussed above.
Knowledge of local species and their adaptations
In contrast to the use of local plants and animals, students had difficulties to imagine and
name typical adaptations of species to the arid conditions of the Valle Fértil. Most often, they
mentioned the ability of species to store water and, in case of animals, food for the dry season.
These are indeed typical adaptations of species in the region (Campos & De Pedro, 2001;
Campos et al., 2007). The rata cola de pincel (Octomys mimax), for instance, collects seeds
when they are abundant and stores them for the dry season when resources are limited
(Sanabria et al., 2006). It is interesting that students described the adaptations not only with
species of the region, but also with exotic ones such as the camel. One explanation could be
that hardly any textbooks or other material exist which informs students about the regional
conditions (teacher comment during the survey) and that, in general, the ecological
knowledge of the students was poor. However, with increasing age and thus school education,
the knowledge about adaptations increased.
56
5. Summary and conclusions
Throughout the study, students named a variety of plants and animals. It is especially
remarkable that overall more plant than animal species were named (Wandersee & Schussler,
1999; Lindemann-Matthies, 2005). However, local wild plants were mentioned less often than
local wild animals, and local wild animals less often than introduced domestic ones
(exception: puma). However, students who preferred a native animal also preferred a native
plant. Such a relationship was also found in one other study (Lindemann-Matthies, 2005).
Both guanaco and cóndor, i.e. typical local wild animals, were hardly in the mind of the
students, although they were well-known to the study participants (picture test). The
perception of students was strongly directed towards useful plants and animals, which is in
line with other studies from rural areas and less developed countries (Chipeniuk, 1995; Chand
& Shukla, 2003; Pilgrim et al., 2007).
Local wild plant species were hardly known to the students (picture test). Animals were
preferred over plants (e.g. Wandersee & Schussler, 1999; Lindemann-Matthies, 2005), and
cartoon figures better known (Balmford, 2002), and considered as more beautiful than local
wild species (picture test). This shows that even in remote areas such as the Valle Fértil,
children are closer to the virtual world created by TV and other mass media than to the real
world around them. Similar results were found in a British study. Eight year old children were
much more able to identify and name cartoon figures than local wild plant and animal species
(Balmford, 2002). This was not due to children’s inability to remember (taxonomic) names, as
the Pokémon figures presented had rather complicated ones which, however, could be easily
recalled. It was more likely that neither family members nor school had introduced children to
local organisms.
The role of women and men in the farming communities of the Valle Fértil is strongly
determined. While boys help their fathers with the farming labours, the girls stay at home and
help their mothers with the home duties. In consequence, preferences and familiarity with
species also reflect the domain of each gender. This explains why in the present study girls
preferred species which are present in the proximity of the houses such as dogs and roses,
whereas boys preferred species which are dispersed over the fields such as horses and
mesquite, but also local native shrubs and herbs. Young children explore the near
environment which explains why their perception of species was directed towards non-native
domestic ones, whereas older children’s perception focused on local native species. As
children get older, they develop confidence and explore environments further off their homes.
57
By doing so, they develop a greater familiarity with local organisms but also fears of local
wild species such as snakes.
Research has shown that the particular physical and behavioral characteristics of organisms
shape people’s attitudes towards them (Morris & Morris, 1966; Wandersee & Schussler,
2001). As shown in the present study, people judge the value of organisms by their beauty and
usefulness. Moreover, the visual attractiveness of a species strongly influences people’s
opinion of whether it should be protected or not (Ashworth et al., 1995). However, in view of
the alarming loss of biodiversity (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003), it is essential to
educate people about the value of the diversity of organisms, including less attractive ones
such as wild plants and insects. The cóndor, for instance, a rare and endangered species in the
Andean region, was perceived as rather ugly in the present study (picture test). As perceptions
and preferences are closely linked (Lindemann-Matthies, 2005), this is not encouraging in
terms of nature conservation. The present study is linked to an educational project which aims
to increase the awareness of local biodiversity in the Parque Provincial Ischigualasto,
Argentina. The present results show that, as already expressed by community members and
teachers of the region, a need to educate children and adolescents about the biodiversity of
local native wild species and their conservation, but also ecology exists. The attractiveness of
the puma and the usefulness of the mesquite and other local plants could be good starting
points.
58
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank all students who took part in this research for their collaboration. A big
thank you also to the schools and teachers that cooperated and made me realize this study. I
want to extent this gratefulness to the educational supervisors of the province who gave the
permit to work in the schools.
Additionally, I want to thank the teachers and students of the National University of San Juan,
researchers and doctoral students from the Institute and Museum of Natural Science (UNSJ)
who helped logistically, discussing my project and supporting me emotionally during the field
work. I want to thank Stella Giannoni - director of the project in Argentina, Manuel Olivos for
his help with the questionnaires, Eduardo Sanabria for the poster and Valeria Campos and her
family for accommodation during my time in Argentina.
I am especially grateful with my supervisors Petra Lindemann-Matthies and Claudia Campos
for all her support, guidance and patience during this project. I also want to thank all members
of the Institute of Environmental Sciences.
Finally, I want to thank all my friends, collegueas and my family for the great time, support
and most of all their tolerance.
59
7. References
Acosta, J.C., Murúa, F. 1999. Lista preliminar y estado de conservación de la mastofauna del
Parque Natural Ischigualasto, San Juan- Argentina. Multequina 8: 121-129.
Ashworth, S., Boyes, E., Paton, R., satnisstreet, M., 1995. Conservation of endangered
species: what do children think?. Journal of Environmental Education and Information 14:
229-244.
Balmford, A. & W. Bond. 2005. Trends in the state of nature and implications for human
well-being. Ecology Letters. 8: 1218-1234.
Balmford, A., Clegg, L., Coulson, T., Taylor, J. 2002. Why conservationists should heed
Pokemon. Science 295: 2367.
Balvanera, P., Buchmann, N., He J.S., Nakashizuka, T., Raffaelli, D., Schimd, B. 2006.
Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services.
Ecology Letters 9: 1146-1156.
Bebbington, A. 2005. The ability of A-level students to name plants. Journal of Biological
Education 39: 62-67.
Begon, M., Harper, J.l., Townsend, C.R., 1986. Ecology. Blancwell Scientific Publications,
Oxford.
Bell, B.F., 1981. When is an animal, not an animal?. Journal of Biological Education 15: 213218.
Blais, J. & Bourget, S. 1986. San Pedro magical cactus. Psychotropes 3: 27-32.
Cabrera Vázquez, C. B. & Carod Artal, F.J.2006. Mescalina y ritual del cactus de san pedro:
evidencias arqueológicas y etnográficas en el norte de Perú. Revista de neurología.
Universidad de la Rioja Argentina 42: 489-498.
Cabrera, A. L. 1994. Enciclopedia Argentina de Agricultura y Jardinería, Tomo II, Regiones
Fitogeográficas Argentinas. ACME S.A.C.I.. Buenos Aires. 115.
Campos, C. M. & De Pedro, M.C., 2001. La vida en las zonas áridas: el desierto mendocino.
Zeta Editores.
Campos, C. M., Borghi, C. E., Giannoni, S. M., Ortiz, G. y Pastrán, G. (eds). 2007. La fauna
en los desiertos de altura: características, usos y potencialidades en la zona de influencia
de San Guillermo. Zeta Editores.
60
Caughley G.; Gunn, A. 1996. Conservation Biology in theory and practice. Blackwell
Science.
CBD (Global Convention on Biodiversity) 2002. Global strategy for plant conservation.
Montreal, Canada: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Cei, J.M. 1980. Amphibians of Argentina. Monit. Zool. Italiano, Monogr. Nº 2, 609.
Cei, J.M. 1986. Reptiles del centro, centro-oeste y sur de la Argentina. Herpetofauna de las
zonas áridas y semiáridas. Mus. Reg. Sci. Nat. Torino, Monogr. 4. 527.
Chand, V.S., & Shukla S.R., 2003. Biodiversity Contests': Indigenously informed and
transformed
environmental
education.
Applied
Environmental
Education
&
Communication 2: 229-236.
Chipeniuk, R. 1995. Childhood foraging as a means of acquiring competent human cognition
about biodiversity. Environment and Behaviour 27: 490-512.
Colton, T. F., Alpert, P. 1998. Lack of public awareness of biological invasions by plants.
Natural Areas Journal 18: 262-266.
Eagles, P.F.J., Muffitt, S., 1990. An analysis of children's attittudes towards animals. Journal
of Environmentala Education 21: 41-44.
Eagly, A. H. & Chaiken, S. 1993. The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich College Publishers.
Flannery, M.C. 1991.Considering plants. The American Biology Teacher 53: 306-309.
Heerwagen, J.H. & Orians, G.H. 1993. Humans, habitats, and aesthetics. In: Kellert, S.R.,
Wilson, E.O. (eds): The biophilia hypothesis (pp 138-172) Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Hershey, D.R. 1996. A historical perspective on problems in botany teaching. The American
Biology Teacher 58: 340-347.
Heywood, V.H., 1995.Global biodiversity assessment. Cambrige University Press,
Cambridge.
Hooper, D. U., Chapin 9III, F. S., EWEL, J. J., Hector, A., Inchausti, P., Lavorel, S., Lawton,
J. H., Lodge, D. M., Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Schmid, B., Setälä, H., Symstad, A. J.,
Vandermeer, J., Wardle, D. A. 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning.
Ecological Monographs 75: 3-35.
Images. http://www.argentina.gov.ar/argentina/portal/paginas.dhtml?pagina=294
61
IUCN, The World Conservation Union, Biodiversity –“what is it and why is it being lost?”
2007.
Biodiversity
in
Development.
Biodivesrity
Brief
19.
http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/ pubs/pdfs/biodiversity/biodiv_brf_19.pdf
Katcher, A., Wilkins, G. 1993. Dialogue with animals: its nature and culture. In S. R. Kellert
and E. O. Wilson (eds.): The biophilia hypothesis (pp 173-197) Island Press. Washington,
D.C.
Kellert, S.R. 1980. American´s attitudes and knowledge of animals. Wildlife Management
Institute, Washington, D.C.
Kellert, S.R., 1985. Attitudes toward animals: age-related development among children.
Journal of Environmental Education 16: 29-39.
Kellert, S.R., 1993a. The biological base for human values of nature. In Kellert, S.R., Wilson,
E.O. (eds): The biophilia hypothesis (pp 43-69) Island Press. Washington, D.C.
Kellert, S.R., 1993b. Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviour toward wildlife among the
industrial superpowers: United States, Japan and Germany. Journal of Social Issues 49:
53-69.
Kellert, S.R., 1996. The Value of the Life. Island Press. Washington, D.C.
Kinchin, I.M. 1999. Investigating secondary-school girls' preferences for animals or plants: a
simple ‘head-to-head' comparison using two unfamiliar organisms. Journal of Biological
Education 33: 95-99.
Lindemann-Matthies, P., Kirchhein, J., Matthies, D. 2004. Perception of plant diversity by
children and their parents. Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft für Ökologie 34: 416.
Lindemann-Matthies, P. 2002. The influence of an educational program on children's
perception of biodiversity. The Journal of Environmental Education 33: 22-31.
Lindemann-Matthies, P. 2005. ‘Loveable’ mammals and ‘lifeless’ plants: how children’s
interest in common local organisms can be enhanced through observation of nature,
International Journal of Science Education 27: 655-677.
Lindemann-Matthies, P. 2006. Investigating nature on the way to school: responses to an
educational programme by teachers and their pupils. International Journal of Science
Education 28: 895 – 918.
Lindenmann-Matthies; P, & Bose, B., 2008. How many species are there? Public
Understanding and awareness of biodiversity in Switzerland. Human Ecology 36: 731 62
742.
Livingstones, S. 2007. Do the media harm children?. Reflections on new approaches to an
Old Problem. Journal of Children and Media1 1: 1798-2798.
Lock, 1995. Biology and the environment – a changing perspective? or “ there´s wolves in
tehm there Woods!. Journal of Biological Education 29: 3-4.
López de la Roche, M. 2007. Aprenden las audiencias infantiles con los medios?. Revista
Cientifica de Comunicación y educación 30: 55-59.
Lucherini, M. & Merino, J. 2008. Perceptions of Human-Carnivore Conflicts in the High
Andes of Argentina. Mountain Research and Development, 28: 81- 85.
Márquez, J. 1999. Las áreas protegidas de la provincia de San Juan. Multequina Latin
American Journal of Natural Resources.
Márquez, J.; Carreretero, E.; Dalmasso, A.; Pástran, G. ;Ortiz, G. 2005. Las areas protegidas
de la provincial de San Juan (Argentina) II. La vegetación del Parque Provincial
Ischigualasto. Multequina Latin American Journal of Natural Resources.
Mayer, J. 1992. Formenvielfalt im Biologieunterricht. Kiel: IPN.
McKnight, T., Hess, D. 2000. Climate zones and types: The Köppen System. Physical
geography: a landscape appreciation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall: 200-201.
Medicos Sin Fronteras, 2008. www.msf.es.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment , 2003. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems
and Human Well-being: A framework for assessment. World Resources Institute,
Washington, DC.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity
Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
Morris, D. 1982 Der Mensch mit dem wir leben [Manwatching].München: Droemersche
Verlagsanstalt.
Morris, R. & Morris, D. 1966. Men and pandas. Sphere Books Limited, London.
Morris, R., & Morris, D., 1965. Men and snakes. Hutchinson & Co., London.
Moyano, A.J., Daniele, G.M. 2003. Nuevo registro de PSILOCYBE (Fungi, Basidiomycotina,
Agaricales) en Argentina. Acta Botanica Mexicana 64: 25-29.
63
Palafox, J.L., Figuero Gutiérrez, A. H., Gómez Gómez, J.V. 2003. Tripanosomiasis
Americana o “mal de Chagas”; Otras Enfermedad de la Pobreza. Elementos 49: 13-21.
Pilgrim, S.E., Cullen, C., Smith, D.J., Pretty J. 2007. Ecological knowledge in lost in
wealthier communities and countries. Environmental science & Technology 42: 10041009.
Purvis, A., Hector, A. 2000. Getting the measure of biodiversity. Nature 405: 212-219.
Sanabria & Quiroga. Actualización de la herpetofauna del Parque Provincial Ischigualasto:
comentarios sobre su distribución. Cuadernos de Herpetología, in press.
Sanabria, E., Giannoni, S., (compilers). 2006. ”Parque Provincial Ischigualasto, curso flora y
fauna del desierto”. UNSJ. Didactic material for lectures.
Scherf, G. 1988. Kenntnis Häufiger Pflanzen des Strassenrandes und Vorstellungen über
Pflanzen bei 9 – 12 jährigen Schülern und bei jungen Erwachsenen (Lehramtstudenten und
Schülern einer Fachakademie für Sozialpädagogik). Sachunterricht und Mathematik in der
Primarstufe 16: 196-204.
Schulz, W. 1985. Einstellungen zur Natur- eine empirische Untersuchung. Dissertation.
München.
Shepard, L.A. 1997. Measuring Achievement: What does it mean to test for robust
understanding? . Princenton, NJ: Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service.
Sill, W., 2007. La importancia Científica de Ischigualasto. http://www.Ischigualasto.com/es
/ischigualasto.htm
Spehn, E.M., Hector, A., Joshi, J., Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Schmid, B. et al. 2005. Ecosystem
effects of biodiversity manipulations in European grasslands. Ecological Monographs
75: 37-63.
SPSS for Windows 12.0.1. Chicago.
Thomas, C.D., Cameron, A., Rhys, E., Green, M., Bakkenes, L. J. et al. 2004. Extinction risk
from climate change. Nature 427: 145-148.
Thomas, J.A., Telfer, M.G., Roy, D.B., Preston, C.D., Greenwood, J.J.D. et al. 2004.
Comparative losses of British butterflies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis.
Science 303: 1879-1881.
64
Trombulak, S., Omland, K., Robinson, J., Lusk, J., Fleischner, T. et al. 2004. Conservation
education: Principles of conservation biology. Conservation Biology 18: 1180-1190.
Tunnicliffe, S. D. 2001. Talking about plants - comments of primary school groups looking at
plant exhibits in a botanical garden. Journal of Biological Education 36: 27-34.
UNESCO. 1973. Programme on man and the biosphere (MAB). Expert panel on project 13:
Perception of environmental quality. Unesco, Paris, 76 p.
Vilá, M.; Weiner, J. 2004. Are invasive plant species better competitors than native plant
species?- evidence from pair-wise experiments. OIKOS 105: 229-238.
Wals, A.E.J., 1994. Pollution stinks!. Academic Book Center. De Lier, The Netherlands.
Wandersee, J.H. 1986. Plants or animals - which do junior high school students prefer to
study? Journal of Research in Science Teaching 23: 415-426.
Wandersee, J.H., Schussler, E.E. 1999. Preventing plant blindness. The American Biology
Teacher 61: 84-86.
Wandersee, J.H., Schussler, E.E. 2001. Toward a theory of plant blindness. Plant Science
Bulletin, 47: 2-9.
Ward, P.I., Mosberger, N., Kistler, C., Fischer, O. 1998. The relationship between popularity
and body size in zoo animals. Conservation Biology 12: 1408-1411.
Weilbacher, M. 1993. The renaissance of the naturalist. The Journal of Environmental
Education 25: 4-7.
Wilson, E. O. 1992. The diversity of life. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.
Wilson, E.O. 1984. Biophilia: the human bond with other species. Harvard University Press,
Cambringe.
65
8. Apendices
Appendix 1. Questionnaire
Cuestionario. Animales y plantas. ¿Cuáles conoces?
Primera parte
Fecha______________
1. ¿Cuál es tu nombre?_________________________
2. ¿Qué edad tienes? _______________________
3. ¿Eres niña o niño?
Niña ____ Niño ____
4. ¿Vives en el pueblo o en el campo? Pueblo _______ Campo _______
5. ¿Cuál es el nombre de tu escuela? _____________________
6. ¿Cuál es el nombre de tu maestra/o: _______________________
7. ¿En qué año estás? _____________________
8. ¿Quién te enseña más acerca de las plantas y animales? Marca una sola opción.
¿Tus maestros? ___ ¿Tu familia? ____ ¿Tus amigos? ____ ¿Otros? ___ Si son otros, ¿Quienes?__________
9. ¿Cuál es el animal que más te gusta? _______________________
10. ¿Cuál es la planta que más te gusta? ________________________
11. ¿Cuál planta no te gusta? _________________________
12. ¿Cuál animal no te gusta? ________________________
13. ¿Cuál es la planta y el animal más dañino?
_________________________ y ___________________________
14. ¿Cuál es la planta y el animal más peligroso para el hombre?
__________________________ y ___________________________
15. ¿Cuál es la planta y el animal más usado?
__________________________ y ___________________________
16. Escribe 5 nombres de plantas que viven en el Valle. Si sabes para qué se usan escríbelo.
1._____________________ Uso_____________________________
2._____________________ Uso_____________________________
3._____________________ Uso_____________________________
4._____________________ Uso_____________________________
5._____________________ Uso_____________________________
66
17. Escribe 5 nombres de animales que viven en el Valle. Si sabes para qué se usan escríbelo.
1._____________________ Uso_____________________________
2._____________________ Uso_____________________________
3._____________________ Uso_____________________________
4._____________________ Uso_____________________________
5._____________________ Uso_____________________________
18. ¿Cómo hacen las plantas para poder vivir en el desierto?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
19. ¿Cómo hacen los animales para poder vivir en el desierto?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Segunda parte. Responde de acuerdo a las cartas:
20. Escribe el nombre de la figura que aparece en la carta
A. _____________________ F. _____________________ K. ______________________
B.______________________ G. _____________________ L. ______________________
C.______________________ H. _____________________ M. ______________________
D.______________________ I. _____________________ N. ______________________
E.______________________ J. _____________________ O._______________________
67
21. Marca con una X en el cuadro
Figura
A
B
C
D
E
F
G H
I
J
K
L
M N
Marca cuáles están en el Valle
Marca cuáles has visto vivos alguna vez
Marca cuál te gusta más
Marca cuál te gusta menos
Marca cuál te gustaría tener como mascota
Marca las tres que más se usan
Marca las tres más peligrosas para las personas
Marca las tres más bonitas
Marca las tres más feas
Marca las tres más dañinas para tus animales y
huertas
68
O
Appendix 2. Pictures of the Questionnaire
Appendix 3. Pictures Cards
69
Appendix 4. Poster
70
Appendix 5. Full list of favourite animals
Common name
in the region
perro
caballo
gato
conejo
puma
leon
tigre
cabra
gallina
loro
burro
delfin
guanaco
leopardo
liebre
mono
zorro
pajaro
pantera
tortuga
vaca
condor
anaconda
cardenal
cata
ñandu
pato
cebra
elefante
hipocampo
leonblanco
oso
pavo real
quirquincho
rey del bosque
serpiente
chancho
felino
hipopotamo
lampalagua
pingüino
ponny
raton
zorzal
canario
cocodrilo
conejo del palo
ganso
Common name
(English)
dog
horse
cat
rabbit
puma
leon
tiger
goat
hen
parrot
donkey
dolphin
guanaco
leopard
hare
monkey
pampas fox
bird
panther
turtle
cow
condor
anaconda
red crested cardinal
monk parakeet
ñandu
duck
zebra
elephant
hippocampus
leonblanco
bear
peacock
quirquincho
black-backed grosbeak
snake
pig
feline
hipopotamo
lampalagua
penguin
ponny
mouse
zorzal
canary
crocodile
conejo del palo
goose
Scientific name
Canis lupus familiaris
Equus equus
Felis catus
Oryctolagus cuniculus
Puma concolor
Felis leo
Panthera tigris
Capra hircus
Gallus gallus
Psitacidos spp.
Equus asinus
Tursiops truncatus
Lama guanicoe
Panthera pardus
Lepus europaeus
Ateles spp.
Lycalopex gymnocercus
*
Panthera spp.
Chelonoidis chilensis
Bos taurus
Vultur gryphus
Eunectes murinus
Paroaria coronata
Myiopsita monachus
Rhea americana
Anas spp.
Equus quagga
Elephas maximus
Hippocampus sp.
Panthera leo krugeri
Ursus spp.
Pavo spp.
Zaedyus pichiy
Pheucticus aureoventris
Serpentes spp.
Sus spp.
*
Hippopotamus spp.
Boa constrictor
Spheniscidae
Equus caballus
Mus musculus
Turdus rufiventris
Laurus azorica
Crocodylus acutus
Pediolagus salinicola
Anser anser
Native or nonnative of Valle
Fértil
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
*
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Native
Native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Native
Native
Non-native
*
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
71
iguana
iguana
jirafa
giraffe
llama
llama
paloma
dove
papagallo
papagallo
pescado
fish
rana
frog
tarantula
tarantula
tiburon martillo
hammerhead shark
suricata
suricate
* Denotes unspecific or unknown taxa
Iguana iguana
Giraffa camelopardalis
Lama spp.
Columba livia domestica
Psittacidae
*
Chaunus arenarum
Brachypelma mesomelas
Sphyrna mokarran
Suricata suricatta
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
*
Native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Appendix 6. Full list of dislike animals
Common name
in the region
gato
serpiente
chancho
sapo
araña
zorro
rata
perro
zorrino
caballo
burro
puma
leon
vaca
gallina
mono
quirquincho
raton
cabra
comadreja
chinchimolle
escorpion
loro
mosca
gusano
cocodrilo
conejo
iguana
liebre
lobo
matuasto
rana
jote
murcielago
Common name
(English)
cat
snake
pig
toad
spider
pampas fox
rat
dog
skunk
horse
donkey
puma
leon
cow
hen
monkey
quirquincho
mouse
goat
weasel
chinchimolle
scorpion
parrot
fly
worm
crocodile
rabbit
iguana
hare
wolf
matuasto
frog
jote
bat
Scientific name
Fértil
Non-native
Felis catus
Serpentes spp.
Native
Sus spp.
Non-native
Bufo spp.
Native
Pholcus spp.
Native
Native
Non-native
Rattus norvegicus
Non-native
Native
Conepatus chinga
Non-native
Equus equus
Non-native
Equus asinus
Native
Puma concolor
Non-native
Felis leo
Non-native
Bos taurus
Non-native
Gallus gallus
Non-native
Ateles spp.
Native
Zaedyus pichiy
Non-native
Mus musculus
Non-native
Capra hircus
Native
Didelphis albiventris
Native
Agathemera crassa
Timogenes spp. / Tityus spp.
Native
Psitacidae
Native
Native
Musca domestica
Native
*
Non-native
Crocodylus acutus
Non-native
Native
Iguana iguana
Non-native
Lepus europaeus
Non-native
Canis lupus
Native
Phymaturus palluma
Native
Chaunus arenarum
Native
Coragyps atratus
Phyllostomidae, Noctilionidae, Native
72
pajaro
topo
vizcacha de la sierra
cascabel
cata
hiena
hipopotamo
insecto
oso hormiguero
pato
pajaro
bullet
mountain viscacha
rattlesnake
monk parakeet
hyena
hipopotamo
insect
anteater
duck
pecari
peccary
pescado
fish
tiburon
shark
tortuga
turtle
vinchuca
vinchuca
abeja
bee
aguila
aguila
araña pollito
spider chick
armadillo
armadillo
caracol
snail
mono
monkey
cobra
cobra
condor
condor
elefante
elephant
ganso
goose
garrapata
tick
golondrina
swallow
guanaco
guanaco
hamster
hamster
ornitorringo
hornitorringo
lagarto
lizard
leopardo
leopard
llama
llama
lobo marino
sea lion
manati
manati
mosquito
mosquito
oso
bear
oveja
sheep
paloma
dove
pantera
panther
pavo real
peacock
picaflor
picaflor
piraña
piranha
puercoespin
puercoespin
rey del bosque
rinoceronte
rhinoceros
tarantula
tarantula
Vespertilionidae
*
Talpa europaea
Lagidium viscacia
Crotalus durissus
Myiopsita monachus
Crocuta crocuta
Hippocampus sp.
*
Myrmecophaga tridactyla
Anas spp.
Tayassu tajacu / Catagonus
wagneri
*
Carcharodon carcharias
Triatoma infestans
Apis mellifera
Aguila crysaetus
Grammostola mollicoma
Dasypus novemcinctus
Helix aspersa
Ateles spp.
Ophiophagus hannah
Vultur gryphus
Elephas maximus
Anser anser
Boophilus microplus
Notiochelidon cyanoleuca
Lama guanicoe
Cricetus spp.
Ornithorhynchus anatinus
Liolaeurus spp.
Panthera pardus
Lama spp.
Otaria flavescens
Trichechus manatus
Pargo spp.
Ursus spp.
Ovis spp.
Panthera spp.
Pavo spp.
Sapho sparganura
Serrasalmus Rhombeus
Erethizontidae
Ceratotherium simun
*
Non-native
Native
Native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
*
Non-native
Non-native
Native
*
Non-native
Native
Native
Non-native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Non-native
Native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Native
73
Appendix 7. Full list of harmful animals
Common name
in the region
Common name
(English)
puma
zorro
leon
rata
perro
burro
hormiga
gato
comadreja
serpiente
caballo
cabra
escorpion
tigre
puma
pampas fox
leon
rat
dog
donkey
ant
cat
weasel
snake
horse
goat
scorpion
tiger
pecari
peccary
vinchuca
araña
langosta
loro
chancho
polilla
raton
topo
vaca
hombre
tiburon
cernicola
condor
gallina
mosca
paloma
chinchimolle
grillo
hiena
insecto
liebre
lobo
mapache
mono
oso
zorrino
ardilla
buitre
cascabel
cata
chimango
cochinilla
vinchuca
spider
lobster
parrot
pig
moth
mouse
bullet
cow
man
shark
cernicola
condor
hen
fly
dove
chinchimolle
cricket
hyena
insect
hare
wolf
raccoon
monkey
bear
skunk
squirrel
vulture
rattlesnake
monk parakeet
chimango
cochinilla
Scientific name
Puma concolor
Felis leo
Rattus norvegicus
Equus asinus
Formicidae
Felis catus
Serpentes spp.
Equus equus
Capra hircus
Timogenes spp. / Tityus spp.
Panthera tigris
Tayassu tajacu / Catagonus
wagneri
Triatoma infestans
Pholcus spp.
Palinurus elephas
Psitacidae
Sus spp.
Chryptotermis spp.
Mus musculus
Talpa europaea
Bos taurus
Homo sapiens sapiens
Falco sparerius
Vultur gryphus
Gallus gallus
Musca domestica
Agathemera Crassa
Acheta domesticus
Crocuta crocuta
*
Lepus europaeus
Canis lupus
Procyon Lotor
Ateles spp.
Ursus spp.
Conepatus chinga
Sciurus vulgaris
Gyps fulvus
Crotalus durissus
Myiopsita monachus
Milvago chimango
Maconellicoccus hirsutus
Fértil
Native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Native
Native
Native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
*
Non-native
Native
Native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Native
Native
Non-native
*
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
74
cocodrilo
crocodile
conejo
rabbit
elefante
elephant
gorila
gorilla
iguana
iguana
jirafa
giraffe
jote
jote
lagarto
lizard
lampalagua
lampalagua
mosca de frutos
fruit fly
oveja
sheep
puercoespin
puercoespin
rey del bosque
vizcacha
viscacha
Crocodylus acutus
Elephas maximus
Gorilla gorilla
Iguana iguana
Coragyps atratus
Liolaeurus spp.
Boa constrictor
Anastrepha ludens
Ovis spp.
Erethizontidae
Lagostomus maximus
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Native
Appendix 8. Full list of dangerous animals
Common name
in the region
Common name
(English)
puma
serpiente
leon
escorpion
tigre
araña
cascabel
vaca
vinchuca
tiburon
coral
lampalagua
puma
snake
leon
scorpion
tiger
spider
rattlesnake
cow
vinchuca
shark
coral
lampalagua
pecari
peccary
burro
caballo
perro
leopardo
zorro
cobra
matuasto
medusa
oso
rata
viuda negra
yarara
anaconda
buey
cabra
chinche
cocodrilo
elefante
donkey
horse
dog
leopard
pampas fox
cobra
matuasto
medussa
bear
rat
black widow
yarara
anaconda
ox
goat
bedbug
crocodile
elephant
Scientific name
Puma concolor
Serpentes spp.
Felis leo
Buthus occitanus
Panthera tigris
Pholcus spp.
Crotalus durissus
Bos taurus
Triatoma infestans
Micrurus pyrrhocryptus
Boa constrictor
Tayassu tajacu / catagonus
wagneri.
Equus asinus
Equus equus
Panthera pardus
Ophiophagus hannah
Homonota spp.
Chrysaora spp.
Ursus spp.
Rattus norvegicus
Latrodectus mactans
Bothrops spp.
Eunectes murinus
Ovibos moschatus
Capra hircus
Chinche besucona
Crocodylus acutus
Elephas maximus
Fértil
Native
Native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Native
Native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Native
Native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
75
gato
cat
iguana
iguana
jote
jote
lobo
wolf
mosquito
mosquito
aguila
aguila
chancho
pig
comadreja
weasel
felino
feline
liebre
hare
loro
parrot
microorganismo
microorganism
murcielago
bat
pantera
panther
pez globo
blowfish
raton
mouse
raya
skate
sapo
toad
tarantula
tarantula
tiburon blanco
white shark
Felis catus
Iguana iguana
Coragyps atratus
Canis lupus
Pargo spp.
Aguila crysaetus
Sus spp.
*
Lepus europaeus
Psitacidae
*
Alouatta coibensis
Panthera spp.
Tetraodon fluvitalis
Mus musculus
Dipturus chilensis
Bufo spp.
Non-native
Native
Native
Non-native
Native
Native
Non-native
Native
*
Non-native
Native
*
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Native
Non-native
Appendix 9. Full list of useful animals
Common name
in the region
caballo
perro
burro
vaca
gato
liebre
cabra
guanaco
zorro
gallina
cata
chancho
cocodrilo
elefante
leon
puma
serpiente
benteveo
lechuza
leopardo
loro
oveja
quirquincho
tigre
Common name
(English)
horse
dog
donkey
cow
cat
hare
goat
guanaco
pampas fox
hen
monk parakeet
pig
crocodile
elephant
leon
puma
snake
benteveo
owl
leopard
parrot
sheep
quirquincho
tiger
Scientific name
Equus equus
Equus asinus
Bos taurus
Felis catus
Lepus europeus
Capra hircus
Lama guanicoe
Crocuta crocuta
Myiopsita monachus
Sus spp.
Crocodylus acutus
Elephas maximus
Felis leo
Puma concolor
Serpentes spp.
Pitangus sulphuratus
Athene cunicularia
Panthera pardus
Psitacidae
Ovis spp.
Zaedyus pichiy
Panthera tigris
Fértil
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
76
vizcacha
viscacha
Lagostomus maximus / Lagidium
viscacia
Native
Appendix 10. Full list of animals from Valle Fértil
Common name
in the region
Common name
(English)
caballo
vaca
burro
cabra
perro
liebre
zorro
gato
puma
gallina
guanaco
chancho
conejo
quirquincho
horse
cow
donkey
goat
dog
hare
pampas fox
cat
puma
hen
guanaco
pig
rabbit
quirquincho
vizcacha
viscacha
oveja
serpiente
leon
loro
mara
pajaro
cata
rey del bosque
condor
pescado
jote
iguana
paloma
llama
pecari
avestruz
lagarto
benteveo
ñandu
conejo de cerco
reinamora
tigre
raton
abeja
armadillo
gusano
pato
pavo real
sheep
snake
leon
parrot
mara
bird
monk parakeet
condor
fish
jote
iguana
dove
llama
peccary
ostrich
lizard
benteveo
ñandu
conejo del cerco
reina mora
tiger
mouse
bee
armadillo
worm
duck
peacock
Scientific name
Equus equus
Bos taurus
Equus asinus
Capra hircus
Lepus europaeus
Felis catus
Puma concolor
Crocuta crocuta
Lama guanicoe
Sus spp.
Zaedyus pichiy
Lagostomus maximus /
Lagidium viscacia
Ovis spp.
Serpentes spp.
Felis leo
Psitacidae
Dolichotis patagonum
*
Myiopsita monachus
Vultur gryphus
*
Coragyps atratus
Iguana iguana
Lama spp.
Tayassu spp.
Struthio camelus
Liolaeurus spp.
Pitangus sulphuratus
Rhea americana
Microcavia australis
Spindalis portoricensis
Panthera tigris
Mus musculus
Apis mellifera
Dasypus novemcinctus
*
Anas spp.
Pavo spp.
Fértil
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Native
Native
*
Native
Native
Native
*
Native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
cascabel
rattlesnake
escorpion
scorpion
pejerrey
smelt
picaflor
picaflor
araña
spider
chamuchina
chamuchina
chuña
*
comadreja
weasel
lobo
wolf
lombriz
earthworm
matuasto
matuasto
oso
bear
pavo real
peacock
perdiz
partridge
vinchuca
vinchuca
aguila
aguila
cardenal
red crested cardinal
elefante
elephant
ganso
goose
hormiga
ant
jirafa
giraffe
lampalagua
lampalagua
maizal
*
martineta
elegant crested tinamou
mono
monkey
mosca
fly
pito juan
*
raton cola de pincel
raton cola de pincel
sapo
toad
tortuga
turtle
zorrino
skunk
zorzal
zorzal
Crotalus durissus
Buthus occitanus
Odonthesthes regia
Sapho sparganura
Pholcus spp.
Sicalis olivascens
*
Mustela spp.
Canis lupus
Lumbricus terrestris
Homonota spp.
Ursus spp.
Pavo spp.
Notoprocla perdicana
Triatoma infestans
Aguila crysaetus
Paroaria coronata
Elephas maximus
Anser anser
Formicidae
Boa constrictor
*
Eudromia elegans
Ateles spp..
Musca domestica
*
Octomys mimax
Bufo spp.
Conepatus suffocans
Turdus rufiventris
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
*
Native
Non-native
Native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Native
*
Native
Non-native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Appendix 11. Full list of liked plants
Common name
in the region
rosal
algarrobo
margarita
morera
jazmín
cactus
duraznero
naranjo
clavel
álamo
mandarino
sauce
paraíso
pino
Common name
(English)
rose
mesquite
daisy
mulberry tree
jasmine
cactus
peach tree
orange tree
carnation
poplar
mandarin tree
willow
paraíso
pine
Scientific name
Rosa spp.
Prosopis spp.
Bellis perennis
Morus spp.
Jasminus sp.
Cactaceae
Prunus persica
Citrus spp.
Caryophyllaceae
Populus sp.
Citrus sp.
Salix humboldtiana
Melia azedarach
Pinaceae
Fértil
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
78
quebracho blanco
quebracho blanco
eucalipto
girasol
lima
manzano
siempreverde
garabato
jarilla
damasco
enredadera
menta
palo borracho
retamo-a
dalia
palmera
peral
chinchil
higuera
poleo
tala
vid
bonsai
castor, ricino
chañar
limonero
malvón, geranio
eucalyptus
sunflower
lime
apple tree
siempreverde
garabato
jarilla
apricot tree
climbing plant
peppermint
palo borracho, ceiba
retamo-a
dahlia
palm tree
pear tree
chinchil
fig tree
poleo
tala
vine
bonsai
castor-oil plant
chañar
lemon tree
geranium
pichana
pichana
rayo de sol
repollo
tomate
bananero
cedrón
cidra
clavel del aire
dama de noche
lirio
marihuana
orquídea
quebracho colorado
salvia
tulipán
aguaribay
alelí
aloe vera
arrayán
azalea
cala
ciruelo
cítrico
flor roja
gladiolo
sunbeam
cabbage
tomato
banana tree
cedrón
cidra
clavel del aire
lady night
iris
marijuana
orchid
quebracho colorado
sage
tulip
alelí
aloe vera
arrayán
azalea
cala
plum tree
citrus
flor roja
gladiolus
Aspidosperma quebrachoblanco
Eucalyptus sp.
Helianthus annus
Citrus sp.
Malus domestica
*
Acacia furcatispina
Larrea spp.
Prunus armeniaca
*
Mentha piperita
Ceiba speciosa
Bulnesia retama
Dahlia sp.
Palmaceae
Pyrus sp.
Tagetes sp.
Ficus carica
Lippia turbinata
Celtis tala
Vitis vinifera
*
Ricinus communus
Geoffroea decorticans
Citrus sp.
Geranium spp.
Ephedra ochreata o Psila
spartioides
Aptenia cordifolia
Brassica oleracea
Lycopersicum esculentum
Musa spp.
Lippia triphilla
Citrus sp.
Tillandsia spp.
Mirabilis jalapa
Iris sp.
Cannabis sativa
*
Schinopsis sp.
Salvia gilliessi
Tulipa sp.
Schinus areira
Matthiola sp.
Aloe vera
Aloysia gratisima
Rhododendron sp.
Zantedeschia aethiopica
Prunus sp.
Citrus spp.
*
Gladiolus spp.
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Native
Non-native
*
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Native
Native
Non-native
*
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
*
Native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
*
Non-native
79
hierba medicinal
medicinal herb
jacarandá
jacarandá
júpiter
jupiter
lavanda
lavender
lechuga
lettuce
ligustro
ligustro
membrillo
quince tree
nogal
walnut
olmo
elm
papa
potato
pimpollo
*
planta carnívora
canivorous plant
roble
oak
romero
rosemary
ruda
rude
sauce llorón
weeping willow
te de burro
té de burro
tomillo
thyme
zanahoria
carrot
*
Jacaranda mimosifolia
*
Lavandula sp.
Lactuca sativa
Ligustrum sp.
Cydonia oblonga
Juglans regia
Ulmus sp..
Solanum tuberosum
*
*
Quercus sp.
Rosmarinus officinalis
Ruta chalepensis
Salix sp..
Balbisia aphanifolia
Acantholippia seriphioides
Daucus carota
*
Non-native
*
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
*
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Native
Non-native
Appendix 12. Full list of dislike plants
Common name
in the region
Common name
(English)
cactus
garabato
aguaribay
algarrobo
ruda
morera
paraíso
jarilla
rosal
eucalipto
enredadera
margarita
malvón, geranio
álamo
girasol
ortiga
pomelo
clavel
cactus
garabato
mesquite
rude
mulberry tree
paraíso
jarilla
rose
eucalyptus
climbing plant
daisy
geranium
poplar
sunflower
nettle
grapefruit tree
carnation
pichana
pichana
higuera
pino
amor seco
duraznillo
ají
castor, ricino
olivo
fig tree
pine
amor seco, cadillo
duraznillo
pepper
castor-oil plant
olive
Scientific name
Cactaceae
Acacia furcatispina
Schinus areira
Prosopis spp.
Ruta chalepensis
Morus spp.
Melia azedarach
Larrea spp.
Rosa spp.
Eucalyptus sp.
*
Bellis perennis
Geranium spp.
Populus sp.
Helianthus annus
Urtica spp.
Citrus paradisi
Caryophyllaceae
spartioides
Ficus carica
Pinaceae
Acaena magellanica
*
Capsicum annuum
Ricinus communus
Olea europaea
Fértil
Native
Native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
*
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
*
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
80
sauce
clavel del aire
espinas
limonero
matagusanos
(atamisque)
willow
clavel del aire
thorns
lemon tree
quebracho blanco
quebracho blanco
ajenjo
chilca
jazmín
lima
molle
retamo-a
chañar
chinchil
hongo
incayuyo
palmera
poleo
romero
roseta
tala
totora
cedrón
dalia
damasco
hiedra
manzano
mistol
monteseco
palo borracho
pasto
repollo
rosa oliva
santa rita
vid
acacia
achira
albaricoque
alcaucil
alelí
aloe vera
árbol de espina
arroz
bananero
brócoli
café
cala
cardumen
carqueja
chica
cidra
ajenjo
chilca
jasmine
lime
molle
retamo-a
chañar
chinchil
fungus
incayuyo
palm tree
poleo
rosemary
roseta
tala
reed mace
cedrón
dahlia
apricot tree
ivy
apple tree
mistol
monteseco
grass
cabbage
olive-green rose
Santa Rita
vine
acacia
achira
albaricoque
artichoke
alelí
aloe vera
tree with thorns
rice
banana tree
broccoli
café
cala
cardumen
carqueja
chica
cidra
matagusanos (atamisque)
Salix humboldtiana
Tillandsia spp.
*
Citrus sp.
Capparis atamisquea
Native
Native
*
Non-native
Native
Artemisa sp.
Baccharis (salcifolia) spp.
Jasminus sp.
Citrus sp.
Schinus sp.
Bulnesia retama
Tagetes sp.
*
Lippia integrifolia
Palmaceae
Lippia turbinata
*
Celtis tala
*
Lippia triphilla
Dahlia sp.
Prunus armeniaca
Hedera helix
Malus domestica
Ziziphus mistol
*
Ceiba speciosa
*
Brassica oleracea
Rosaceae
Bougainvillea spp.
Vitis vinifera
Acacia spp.
Canna indica
Ximena americana
Cynara scolymus
Matthiola sp.
Aloe vera
*
Oryza sativa
Musa spp.
Brassica oleracea
Sesbania virgata
Zantedeschia aethiopica
*
Portulaca oleracea
Ramorinoa girolae
Citrus sp.
Native
Native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Native
Native
Native
*
Native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
*
Native
*
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
*
Non-native
*
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
*
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
*
Non-native
Native
Non-native
81
ciprés
cypress
coca
coca
crisantemo
chrysanthemum
daitillo
daitillo
dama de noche
lady night
espino
espino
flor de papel
flor de papel
helecho
fern
hierba del pollo, yerba hierba del pollo, yerba
del pollo
del pollo
lechuga
lettuce
maleza
weed
marihuana
marijuana
marte
marte
menta
peppermint
naranjo
orange tree
nogal
walnut
olmo
elm
pacta
pacta
planta toxica
poisonous plant
rayo de sol
sunbeam
salvia
sage
soja
soya
tamarindo
tamarisk
trébol
clover
yerba de sapo
yerba del sapo
yuyo
yuyo
yuyo dulce
yuyo dulce
zapallo
pumpkin
Cupresus sempervirens
Erythoroxylum coca
Chrysanthemum sp.
*
Mirabilis jalapa
Acacia caven
Portulaca sp.
*
Alternanthera pungens
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
*
Non-native
Native
Native
Native
Native
Lactuca sativa
*
Cannabis sativa
*
Mentha piperita
Citrus spp.
Juglans regia
Ulmus sp.
*
*
Aptenia cordifolia
Salvia gilliessi
Glycine max
Tamarix ramosissima
Trifolium sp.
Marrubium vulgare
*
*
Cucurbita spp.
Non-native
*
Non-native
*
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
*
*
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
*
*
Non-native
Appendix 13. Full list of harmful plants
Common name
in the region
cactus
garabato
duraznillo
enredadera
ortiga
hongo
chipica
morera
amor seco
coca
pasto
marihuana
molle
algarrobo
espinas
yuyo
planta carnívora
Common name
(English)
cactus
garabato
duraznillo
climbing plant
nettle
fungus
grass
mulberry tree
amor seco, cadillo
coca
grass
marijuana
molle
mesquite
thorns
yuyo
carnivorous plant
Scientific name
Cactaceae
Acacia furcatispina
*
*
Urtica spp.
*
Gramineae
Morus spp.
Acaena magellanica
Erythoroxylum coca
*
Cannabis sativa
Schinus sp.
Prosopis spp.
*
*
*
Fértil
Native
Native
*
*
Native
*
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
*
Non-native
Native
Native
*
*
*
82
maleza
paraíso
weed
paraíso
quebracho blanco
quebracho blanco
soja
aguaribay
ají
clavel del aire
espino
hiedra
hierba venenosa
planta toxica
rosa oliva
tabaco
chilquilla
hierba
higuera
liga
pino
brea
duraznero
incayuyo
jarilla
matagusanos
(atamisque)
membrillo
planta parásita
soya
pepper
clavel del aire
espino
ivy
poisonous herb
poisonous plant
olive-green rose
tobacco
chilquilla
herb
fig tree
liga
pine
brea
peach tree
incayuyo
jarilla
pichana
pichana
roseta
ruda
saitilla
acacia
ajenjo
alga
aloe vera
cañota
castor, ricino
chañar
chica
ciprés
clavel amarillo
dama de noche
eucalipto
higuera de zorro
hortaliza
mármol
ojo del hada
peral
quillo-quillo
romero
rosal
sandilllo
roseta
rude
saitilla
acacia
ajenjo
alga
aloe vera
cañota
castor-oil plant
chañar brea
chica
cypress
carnation
lady night
eucalyptus
higuera del zorro
vegetable
mármol
ojo del hada
pear tree
quillo-quillo
rosemary
rose
sandillo
quince tree
parasite plant
*
Melia azedarach
Glycine max
Schinus areira
Capsicum annuum
Tillandsia spp.
Acacia caven
Hedera helix
*
*
Rosaceae
Nicotiana tabacum
Wedellia glauca
*
Ficus carica
Loranthaceae
Pinaceae
Cercidium praecox
Prunus persica
Lippia integrifolia
Larrea spp.
Capparis atamisquea
Cydonia oblonga
*
spartioides
*
Ruta chalepensis
Asistida spp.
Acacia spp.
Artemisa sp.
*
Aloe vera
Sorghum hallepense
Ricinus communus
Cercidium praecox
Ramorinoa girolae
Cupresus sempervirens
Caryophyllaceae
Mirabilis jalapa
Eucalyptus sp.
Jatropha excisa
*
*
*
Pyrus sp.
Solanum eleagnifolium
Rosa spp.
*
*
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Native
Non-native
*
*
Non-native
Non-native
Native
*
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Native
Native
Native
Non-native
*
Native
*
Non-native
Native
Native
Native
*
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
*
*
*
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
*
83
solos
solos
totora
reed mace
vid
vine
*
*
Vitis vinifera
*
*
Non-native
Appendix 14. Full list of dangerous plants
Common name
in the region
cactus
ortiga
garabato
hongo
coca
duraznillo
marihuana
planta carnívora
eucalipto
higuera de zorro
molle
planta toxica
algarrobo
enredadera
espinas
tabaco
espino
ají
amor seco, cadillo
hiedra venenosa
hierba venenosa
tala
yuyo
aguaribay
castor, ricino
chañar
espinaca
hiedra
mármol
morera
ruda
soja
brea
chala
chilquilla
cítrico
clavel
droga
hierba
higuera
jarilla
lechuga
matagusanos
Common name
(English)
cactus
nettle
garabato
fungus
coca
duraznillo
marijuana
carnivorous plant
eucalyptus
higuera del zorro
molle
poisonous plant
mesquite
climbing plant
thorns
tobacco
espino
pepper
amor seco, cadillo
poisonous ivy
poisonous herb
tala
yuyo
castor-oil plant
chañar
spinach
ivy
mármol
mulberry tree
rude
soya
brea
chala
chilquilla
citrus
carnation
droga
herb
fig tree
jarilla
lettuce
Scientific name
Cactaceae
Urtica spp.
Acacia furcatispina
*
Erythoroxylum coca
*
Cannabis sativa
*
Eucalyptus sp.
Jatropha excisa
Schinus sp.
*
Prosopis spp.
*
*
Nicotiana tabacum
Acacia caven
Capsicum annuum
Acaena magellanica
Rhus toxicodendron
*
Celtis tala
*
Schinus areira
Ricinus communus
Spinacia oleracea
Hedera helix
*
Morus spp.
Ruta chalepensis
Glycine max
Cercidium praecox
*
Wedellia glauca
Citrus spp.
Caryophyllaceae
*
*
Ficus carica
Larrea spp.
Lactuca sativa
Capparis atamisquea
Fértil
Native
Native
Native
*
Non-native
*
Non-native
*
Non-native
Native
Native
*
Native
*
*
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
*
Native
*
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
*
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
*
Native
Non-native
Non-native
*
*
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Native
84
(atamisque)
morsillo
palmera
palo borracho
morsillo
palm tree
pichana
pichana
pisgo
pisgo
quillo-quillo
quillo-quillo
retamo
retamo-a
saitilla
saitilla
sandia de zorro
sandia de zorro
totora
reed mace
zarzamora
blackberry bush
*
Palmaceae
Ceiba speciosa
spartioides
*
Bulnesia retama
Asistida spp.
Cucurbitella asperata
*
Rubís ulmifolius
*
Non-native
Non-native
Native
*
Native
Native
Native
Native
*
Non-native
Appendix 15. Full list of useful plants
Common name
in the region
Common name
(English)
rosal
algarrobo
morera
chinchil
poleo
cítrico
menta
álamo
jarilla
cactus
rose
mesquite
mulberry tree
chinchil
poleo
citrus
peppermint
poplar
jarilla
cactus
quebracho blanco
quebracho blanco
vid
ruda
olivo
cedrón
duraznero
barba de piedra
enredadera
incayuyo
naranjo
paraíso
carqueja
aloe vera
laurel
lechuga
membrillo
orégano
pino
salvia
árbol frutal
vine
rude
olive
cedrón
peach tree
barba de piedra
climbing plant
incayuyo
orange tree
paraíso
carqueja
aloe vera
laurel
lettuce
quince tree
oregano
pine
sage
fruti tree
pichana
pichana
Scientific name
Rosa spp.
Prosopis spp.
Morus spp.
Tagetes sp.
Lippia turbinata
Citrus spp.
Mentha piperita
Populus sp.
Larrea spp.
Cactaceae
Vitis vinifera
Ruta chalepensis
Olea europaea
Lippia triphilla
Prunus persica
Usnea durietzii
*
Lippia integrifolia
Citrus spp.
Melia azedarach
Portulaca oleracea
Aloe vera
Laurus nobilis
Lactuca sativa
Cydonia oblonga
Oreganum vulgare
Pinaceae
Salvia gilliessi
*
spartioides
Fértil
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Native
*
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
*
Native
85
soja
yerba mate
aguaribay
eucalipto
lima
tala
cidra
damasco
girasol
manzano
margarita
pasto
retamo
ajenjo
árbol blanco
arrayán
azafrán
clavel
palo azul
papa
perejil
romero
acelga
ají
albahaca
árbol
bananero
chañar
coca
conejito
dalia
flor de papel
hierbas aromáticas
higuera
hongo
hortaliza
limoncillo
limonero
maíz
malvón, geranio
matagusanos
(atamisque)
mistol
orquídea
paja
palitos
pasto coirón
planta comestible
hierbas medicinales
pomelo
tabaco
té de burro
tomate
soya
yerba mate
eucalyptus
lime
tala
cidra
apricot tree
sunflower
apple tree
daisy
grass
retamo-a
ajenjo
white tree
arrayán
saffron
carnation
palo azul
potato
parsley
rosemary
chard
pepper
basila
tree
banana tree
chañar
coca
conejito
dahlia
flor de papel
aromatic herb
fig tree
fungus
vegetable
limoncillo
lemon tree
maize
geranium
mistol
orchid
straw
stick
pasto coirón
edible plant
medicinal herb
grapefruit tree
tobacco
té de burro
tomato
Glycine max
Ilex paraguariensis
Schinus areira
Eucalyptus sp.
Citrus sp.
Celtis tala
Citrus sp.
Prunus armeniaca
Helianthus annus
Malus domestica
Bellis perennis
*
Bulnesia retama
Artemisa sp.
*
Aloysia gratisima
Crocus sativus
Caryophyllaceae
Cyclolepis genistoides
Solanum tuberosum
Petroselinum crispum
Beta vulgaris
Capsicum annuum
Ocimum basilicum
*
Musa spp.
Erythoroxylum coca
Antirrhinum majus
Dahlia sp.
Portulaca sp.
*
Ficus carica
*
*
Pectis odorata
Citrus sp.
Zea mays
Geranium spp.
Capparis atamisquea
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
*
Native
*
*
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
*
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
*
Non-native
*
*
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Ziziphus mistol
*
*
*
Stipa spp.
*
*
Citrus paradisi
Nicotiana tabacum
Lycopersicum esculentum
Native
*
*
*
Native
*
*
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
86
totora
reed mace
yuyo
yuyo
zanahoria
carrot
*
*
Daucus carota
*
*
Non-native
Appendix 16. Full list of plants from Valle Fértil
Common name
in the region
Common name
(English)
algarrobo
chinchil
poleo
jarilla
cactus
mesquite
chinchil
poleo
jarilla
cactus
quebracho blanco
quebracho blanco
morera
álamo
chañar
menta
eucalipto
mulberry tree
poplar
chañar
mint
eucalyptus
pichana
pichana
garabato
salvia
duraznero
rosal
vid
lima
retamo-a
paraíso
pino
ruda
incayuyo
barba de piedra
naranjo
cedrón
olivo
mistol
cidra
membrillo
tala
aloe vera
ajenjo
aguaribay
higuera
pomelo
tomate
laurel
té de burro
damasco
orégano
garabato
sage
peach tree
rose
vine
lime
retamo-a
paraíso
pine
rude
incayuyo
barba de piedra
orange tree
cedrón
olive
mistol
cidra
quince tree
tala
aloe vera
ajenjo
fig tree
grapefruit tree
tomato
laurel
té de burro
apricot tree
oregano
Scientific name
Fértil
Prosopis spp.
Native
Tagetes sp.
Native
Native
Lippia turbinata
Larrea spp.
Native
Cactaceae
Native
Aspidosperma quebracho- Native
blanco
Morus spp.
Non-native
Populus sp.
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Mentha piperita
Eucalyptus sp.
Non-native
Ephedra ochreata o Psila Native
spartioides
Native
Acacia furcatispina
Native
Salvia gilliessi
Non-native
Prunus persica
Non-native
Rosa spp.
Non-native
Vitis vinifera
Citrus sp.
Non-native
Native
Bulnesia retama
Non-native
Melia azedarach
Non-native
Pinaceae
Non-native
Ruta chalepensis
Native
Lippia integrifolia
Native
Usnea durietzii
Citrus spp.
Non-native
Native
Lippia triphilla
Non-native
Olea europaea
Native
Ziziphus mistol
Citrus sp.
Non-native
Non-native
Cydonia oblonga
Native
Celtis tala
Non-native
Aloe vera
Artemisa sp.
Native
Non-native
Schinus areira
Non-native
Ficus carica
Non-native
Citrus paradisi
Lycopersicum esculentum Non-native
Non-native
Laurus nobilis
Native
Non-native
Prunus armeniaca
Non-native
Oreganum vulgare
87
romero
mandarino
rosemary
mandarin tree
matico
matico
manzano
apple tree
tomillo
tomillo
palo azul
peral
matagusanos
(atamisque)
palmera
chilca
girasol
cola de caballo
tilo
pasto coirón
sauce
árbol
chica
cítrico
enredadera
lechuga
limonero
perejil
zapallo
arrayán
carqueja
chipica
ortiga
pasto
repollo
acelga
ají
bananero
brea
frutilla
hierba del pollo, yerba
del pollo
limoncillo
margarita
toronjil (melisa)
viravira
yuyo
amor seco, cadillo
clavel
sanalotodo, cadillo
totora
ajo
albahaca
alfalfa
cebolla
palo azul
pear tree
palm tree
chilca
sunflower
cola de caballo
tila
pasto coirón
willow
tree
chica
citrus
climbing plant
lettuce
lemon tree
parsley
pumpkin
arrayán
carqueja
grass
nettle
grass
cabbage
chard
pepper
banana tree
brea
strawberry
hierba del pollo, yerba del
pollo
limoncillo
daisy
toronjil (melisa)
viravira
yuyo
amor seco, cadillo
carnation
sanalotodo, cadillo
reed mace
garlic
basila
alfalfa
onion
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Citrus sp.
Chenopodium
ambrossioides
Malus domestica
Acantholippia
seriphioides
Cyclolepis genistoides
Pyrus sp.
Capparis atamisquea
Native
Non-native
Native
Palmaceae
Baccharis (salcifolia) spp.
Helianthus annus
Equisetum giganteum
Ceiba speciosa
Tilia sp.
Stipa spp.
Salix humboldtiana
*
Ramorinoa girolae
Citrus spp.
*
Lactuca sativa
Citrus sp.
Petroselinum crispum
Cucurbita spp.
Aloysia gratisima
Portulaca oleracea
Gramineae
Urtica spp.
*
Brassica oleracea
Beta vulgaris
Capsicum annuum
Musa spp.
Cercidium praecox
Fragaria vesca
Alternanthera pungens
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Native
*
Native
Non-native
*
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
*
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Native
Pectis odorata
Bellis perennis
Melisa officinalis
*
*
Acaena magellanica
Caryophyllaceae
Acaena myriophylla
*
Allium sativum
Ocimum basilicum
Medicago sativa
Allium cepa
Native
Non-native
Non-native
*
*
Native
Non-native
Native
*
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
88
chinche
clavel del aire
duraznillo
maíz
manzanilla
chinche
clavel del aire
duraznillo
maize
camomile
paico
paico
quebracho colorado
quebracho colorado
rabanito
radish
siempreverde
siempreverde
trigo
wheat
acacia
acacia
achira
achira
alcanfor
camphor
alcayota
alcayota
berenjena
aubergine
cararbán
cararbán
castor, ricino
castor-oil plant
cata
monk parakeet
ciruelo
plum tree
cola de zorro
cola de zorro
coliflor
cauliflower
espinas
thorns
espino
espino
espinudo
espinudo
espuela del diablo
espuela del diablo
flor
flower
helecho
fern
hierba
herb
jacarandá
jacarandá
kinoto
kinoto
liga
liga
malvón, geranio
geranium
mango
mango
matitas
matitas
molle
molle
monteseco
monteseco
nogal
walnut
pasionaria
pasionaria
perlilla
perlilla
pollo chadel
pollo chadel
quillo-quillo
quillo-quillo
rábano
radish
salvialora
salvialora
sandía
watermelon
sauce llorón
weeping willow
sorro
sorro
vero
vero
vica
vica
zanahoria
carrot
*
Tillandsia spp.
*
Zea mays
Chamomilla rucutita
Chenopodium
ambrosioides
Schinopsis sp.
Raphanus sativus
*
Triticum aestivum
Acacia spp.
Canna indica
Cynammomum canphora
Cucurbita ficifolia
Solanum melongena
*
Ricinus communus
*
Prunus sp.
Trichocereus strigosus
Brassica sp.
*
Acacia caven
*
Ibicella parodii
*
*
*
Jacaranda mimosifolia
Citrus sp.
Loranthaceae
Geranium spp.
Mangifera sp.
*
Schinus sp.
*
Juglans regia
Passiflora caerulea
Tymophylla benellidium
*
Raphanus sativus
Lippia junelliana
Citrullus lanatus
Salix spp.
*
*
*
Daucus carota
*
Native
*
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
*
Non-native
*
Non-native
Native
Non-native
*
Native
*
Native
*
*
*
Non-native
Non-native
Native
Non-native
Non-native
*
Native
*
Non-native
Non-native
Native
*
Native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
Non-native
*
*
*
Non-native
89

Children`s perception of native and introduced

Transcription

Similar documents

Introduction to the SETL Project

view - City of Fort Collins Public Records

Planting Under Trees - University of Minnesota

vertical heterophoria and postural deficiency syndrome (pds)

Rapid Response - GB non-native species secretariat

PARAGUAY

Preserving the Wild - Florida Native Plant Society