Classification of pasture habitats by Hungarian herders in a steppe landscape (Hungary)

Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine

Volumn 8, Issue , 2012, Pages

  Molnár, Zsolt ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE   (Hungary)

Author keywords

Folk biological classification; Phytosociology; Picture sort; Salt steppe; Vegetation continua; Vegetation perception

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; ARTICLE; BOTANY; CLASSIFICATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ECOSYSTEM; FLOODING; HUMAN; HUNGARY; PHYSIOLOGICAL STRESS; PLANT; POACEAE; SALINITY; WETLAND;

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; ANIMALS; BOTANY; ECOSYSTEM; FLOODS; HUMANS; HUNGARY; PLANTS; POACEAE; SALINITY; STRESS, PHYSIOLOGICAL; WETLANDS;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84871773418     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17464269     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1746-4269-8-28     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Berlin B. Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of Categorization of Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies 1992, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
2. Medin DL, Atran S. Folkbiology 1999, Bradford Book, Cambridge-London.
3. Berlin B, Breedlove DA, Raven PH. General principles of classification and nomenclature in folk biology. American Anthropologist 1973, 75:214-242.
4. Hunn ES. Utilitarian / adaptationist explanations of folk biological classification: some cautionary notes. Journal of Ethnobiology 1982, 2:89-94.
5. Péntek J, Szabó TA. Ember és növényvilág. Kalotaszeg növényzete és népi növényismerete (Man and plant life. Vegetation and ethnovegetational knowledge in Kalotaszeg) 1985, Kriterion Könyvkiadó, Bukarest.
6. Shepard G, Yu DW, Lizarralde M, Italiano M. Rain Forest Habitat Classification among the Matsigenka of the Peruvian Amazon. Journal of Ethnobiology 2001, 21:1-38.
7. Hunn ES, Meilleur BA. Towards a Theory of Landscape Ethnoecological Classification. Landscape Ethnoecology, Concepts of Physical and Biotic Space 2010, 15-26. Berghahn Books, New York and Oxford, Johnson LM, Hunn ES.
8. Johnson LM, Hunn ES. Introduction. Landscape ethnoecology. Concepts of Biotic and Physical Space. Landscape ethnoecology. Concepts of Biotic and Physical Space 2010, 1-11. Berghahn Books, New York and Oxford, Johnson LM, Hunn ES.
9. Johnson LM. Trail of Story, Traveller's Path, Reflections on Ethnoecology and Landscape 2010, AU Press, Athabasca.
10. Landscape in Language, Transdisciplinary perspectives Culture and Language Use 4 2010, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Mark DM, Turk AG, Burenhult N, Stea D.
11. Sillitoe P. An ethnobotanical account of the vegetation communities of the Wola region, Southern Highlands Province, Papua New Guinea. Journal of Ethnobiology 1998, 18:103-128.
12. Fleck DJ, Farder JD. Matses Indian Rainforest Habitat Classification and Mammalian Diversity in Amazonian Peru. Journal of Ethnobiology 2000, 20:1-36.
13. Abraão MB, Shepard GH, Nelson BW, Baniwa JC, Andrello G, Yu DW. Baniwa Vegetation Classification in the White-Sand Campinarana Habitat of the Northwest Amazon, Brazil. Landscape Ethnoecology. Concepts of Biotic and Physical Space 2010, 83-115. Berghahn Books, New York and Oxford, Johnson LM, Hunn ES.
14. Verlinden A, Dayot B. A comparison between indigenous environmental knowledge and a conventional vegetation analysis in north central Namibia. Journal Arid Environments 2005, 62:143-175.
15. Meilleur B. The structure and role of folk ecological knowledge in Les Allues, Savoie (France). Landscape ethnoecology. Concepts of Biotic and Physical Space 2010, 159-174. Berghahn Books, New York and Oxford, Johnson LM, Hunn ES.
16. Landscape ethnoecology. Concepts of Biotic and Physical Space 2010, Berghahn Books, New York and Oxford, Johnson LM, Hunn ES.
17. Whittaker RH. Gradient analysis of vegetation. Biological Review 1967, 42:207-264.
18. Moravec J. Influences of the individualistic concept of vegetation on syntaxonomy. Vegetatio 1989, 81:29-39.
19. Rugg G, McGeorge P. The sorting techniques: a tutorial paper on card sorts, picture sorts and item sorts. Expert Systems 1997, 14:80-93.
20. Mark DM, Turk AG, Stea D. Ethnophysiography of Arid Lands: Categories for Landscape Features. Landscape Ethnoecology, Concepts of Physical and Biotic Space 2010, 27-45. Berghahn Books, New York and Oxford, Johnson LM, Hunn ES.
21. Ellen RF. Why aren't the Nuaulu like the Matsigenka?. Landscape Ethnoecology, Concepts of Physical and Biotic Space 2010, 116-140. Berghahn Books, New York and Oxford, Johnson LM, Hunn ES.
22. Borhidi A. Magyaroszág növénytársulásai (Plant associations of Hungary) 2003, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
23. Molnár Z, Borhidi A. Continental alkali vegetation in Hungary: syntaxonomy, landscape history, vegetation dynamics, and conservation. Phytocoenologia 2003, 21:235-245.
24. Sümegi P, Molnár A, Szilágyi G. Szikesedés a Hortobágyon. (Salinization in the Hortobágy.). Természet Világa 2000, 131:213-216.
25. Blaskó L. A tiszántúli szikes talajok szántókénti és gyeppel történo hasznosítása. (Use of saline soils of the Tiszántúl by arable agriculture or managed grasslands.). Ohattól-Farkasszigetig 2003, 175-188. Tóth A. Budapest-Kisújszállás: xxkiadó.
26. Király G(. Új magyar füvészkönyv. Magyarország hajtásos növényei. Határozókulcsok. (New Hungarian herbal. The vascular plants of Hungary. Identification key.) 2009, Aggteleki Nemzeti Park Igazgatóság. Jósvafo.
27. Barna G. Néphit és népszokások a Hortobágy vidékén. (Folk believes and customs in the Hortobágy.) 1979, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
28. Molnár Z. A hortobágyi pásztorok növényosztályozása, a vadon termo növények ismertsége, néven nevezettsége. (Folk taxonomy of herdsmen in the Hortobágy steppe.). Crisium 2011, 7:153-207.
29. Molnár Z. A Hortobágy pásztorszemmel. A puszta növényvilága. (Traditional ecological knowledge of herders on the flora and vegetation of the Hortobágy.) 2012, Hortobágy Természetvédelmi Közalapítvány, Debrecen.
30. Boster JS, Johnson JC. Form or function: a comparison of expert and novice judgments of similarity among fish. Am Anthropol 1989, 91:866-889.
31. Romney AK, Weller SC, Batchelder WH. Culture as consensus: a theory of culture and informant accuracy. Am Anthropol 1986, 88:313-338.
32. Bodrogközy G. A pannonicum halophyton társulásainak rendszere és synökológiája. (Phytosociology and synecology of Pannonian halophytic vegetation.) PhD thesis 1977, József Attila University, Department of Botany.
33. Atran S. Itzaj Maya folkbiological taxonomy: cognitive universals and cultural particulars. Folkbiology 1999, 119-203. MIT Press, Cambridge, Medin DL, Scott A.
34. Bailenson JN, Shum MS, Atran S, Medin DL, Coley JD. A bird's eye view: biological categorization and reasoning within and across cultures. Cognition 2002, 84:1-53. 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00011-2, 12062146.
35. Bölöni J, Molnár Z, Kun A. Magyarország élohelyei. A hazai vegetációtípusok leírása és határozója (Habitats of Hungary. Description and identification guide of Hungarian vegetation types) 2011, MTA ÖBKI, Vácrátót.
36. Tüxen R. Das System der nordwestdeutschen Pflanzengesellschaften. Mitteilungen der Floristische-Soziologische Arbeitsgemeinschaft, N.F. 1955, 5:155-176.
37. Rosch E. Principles of categorization. Cognition and categorization 1978, 27-48. John Wiley and Sons, New York, Rosch E, Lloyd B.
38. Babai D, Molnár Z. Népi növényzetismeret Gyimesben II.: termohely- és élohelyismeret. (Traditional ecological knowledge in Gyimes II.: knowledge on habitats.). Botanikai Közlemények 2009, 96:145-173.
39. Molnár Z, Horváth F, Kertész M, Kun A. A vegetáció térképezésének objektivitása. (Objectivity of vegetation mapping.). Kitaibelia 1998, 3:307-308.
40. Scarpa GF, Arenas P. Vegetation units of the Argentine semi-arid Chaco: the Toba-Pilaga'perception. Phytocoenologia 2004, 34:133-161.
41. Molnár Z, Bartha S, Seregélyes T, Illyés E, Tímár G, Horváth F, Révész A, Kun A, Botta-Dukát Z, Bölöni J, Biró M, Bodonczi L, Deák J, Fogarasi P, Horváth A, Isépy I, Karas L, Kecskés F, Molnár C, Ortmann-né Ajkai A, Rév S. A grid-based, satellite-image supported, multi-attributed vegetation mapping method (MÉTA). Folia Geobotanica 2007, 42:225-247.
42. Casagrande DG. Conceptions of Primary Forest in a Tzeltal Maya Community: Implications for Conservation. Human Organization 2004, 63:189-292.
43. Diamond J, Bishop KD. Ethno-ornithology of the Ketengban people, Indonesian New Guinea. Folkbiology 1999, 17-45. MIT Press, Cambridge, Medin DL, Scott A.
44. Newmaster SG, Subramanyam R, Ivanoff RF, Balasubramaniam NC. Mechanisms of ethnobiological classifications. Ethnobotany 2006, 18:4-26.
45. Mirkin BM. Plant taxonomy and syntaxonomy: a comparative analysis. Vegetatio 1989, 82:35-40.
46. Molnár Z, Bartha S, Babai D. Traditional Ecological Knowledge as a Concept and Data Source for Historical Ecology, Vegetation Science and Conservation Biology: A Hungarian Perspective. Human Nature. Studies in Historical Ecology and Environmental History 2008, 14-27. Institute of Botany of the ASCR, Brno, Szabó P, Hedl R.
47. Johnson LM, Hunn ES. Landscape ethnoecology: Reflections. Landscape ethnoecology. Concepts of Biotic and Physical Space 2010, 279-297. Berghahn Books, New York and Oxford, Johnson LM, Hunn ES.