Biocultural, Productive, and Ecocentric Restoration in La Mintzita Spring-fed Wetland, Michoacán, México

References

1. ↵
   1. Albores Zárate, B.

   1995. Tules y sirenas: El impacto ecológico y cultural de la industrialización en el Alto Lerma. El Colegio Mexiquense, Gobierno del Estado de México.
2. 1. Alvarez-Cobelas, M.,
   2. S. Cirujano and
   3. S. Sánchez-Carrillo

   . 2001. Hydrological and botanical man-made changes in the Spanish wetland of Las Tablas de Daimiel. Biological Conservation 97:89–98.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
3. ↵
   1. Bansal, S.,
   2. S.C. Lishawa,
   3. S. Newman,
   4. B.A. Tangen,
   5. D. Wilcox,
   6. D. Albert et al.

   2019. Typha (cattail) invasion in North American wetlands: Biology, regional problems, impacts, ecosystem services, and management. Wetlands 39:645–684.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
4. ↵
   1. Barnes, T.G.,
   2. L.A. Madison,
   3. J.D. Sole and
   4. M.J. Lacki

   . 1995. An assessment of habitat quality for northern bobwhite in tall fescue-dominated fields. CABI. https://www.cabi.org/isc/abstract/19950712146.
5. ↵
   1. Borda-Niño, M.,
   2. M.C. Santiago,
   3. D. Hernández-Muciño and
   4. M. Muciño-Muciño

   . 2016. Restauración productiva en la práctica: El caso de las comunidades indígenas Me’phaa de la Montaña de Guerrero, México. Pages 245–255 in E. Ceccon and D.R. Perez (eds), Más Allá de la Ecología de la Restauración: Perspectivas Sociales en America Latina y el Caribe. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Vazquez Mazzini.
6. ↵
   1. Bremer, L.,
   2. K. Falinski,
   3. C. Ching,
   4. C.A. Wada,
   5. K.M. Burnett,
   6. K. Kukea-Shultz et al.

   , 2018. Biocultural restoration of traditional agriculture: Cultural, environmental, and economic outcomes of lo’i kalo restoration in He’eia, O’ahu. Sustainability 10:4502.

   OpenUrl
7. ↵
   1. Brun, A.,
   2. O. Campanella,
   3. A. Oggero and
   4. S. Suárez

   . 2012. Cambios en el IVN y su relación con disturbios antrópicos en la vegetación serrana de Córdoba, Argentina. Revista de Teledetección 37:34–41.

   OpenUrl
8. ↵
   1. Calderón de Rzedowski, G. and
   2. J. Rzedowski

   . 2001. Flora fanerogámica del Valle de México. (No. JRZ-1) Comisión Nacional para el Estudio de la Biodiversidad, Instituto de Ecología, México.
9. 1. Calderón de Rzedowski, G. and
   2. J. Rzedowski

   . 2004. Manual de malezas de la región de Salvatierra, Guanajuato. Flora del Bajío y regiones adyacentes. México: INECOL.
10. ↵
    California Invasive Plant Council. 2019. Festuca arundinacea (tall fescue). Centre for Agricultural Bioscience International. https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/23983.
11. ↵
    1. Ceccon, E.

    2013. Restauración en Bosques Tropicales: Fundamentos Ecológicos, Prácticos y Sociales, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México: Ediciones Díaz de Santos.
12. ↵
    1. Ceccon, E. and
    2. D.R. Pérez

    . 2016. Más Allá de la Ecología de la Restauración: Perspectivas Sociales en América Latina y el Caribe. 1a ed. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Vázquez Mazzini.
13. ↵
    1. Chang, K.,
    2. K.B. Winter and
    3. N.K. Lincoln

    . 2019. Hawai’i in focus: Navigating pathways in global biocultural leadership. Special issue on biocultural restoration in Hawai’i. Sustainability 11:283.

    OpenUrl
14. ↵
    1. Cheater. M.

    1992. Alien invasion. Nature Conservancy 42(5):24–29.

    OpenUrl
15. ↵
    1. Clewell, A.F.

    2000. Editorial: Restoration of natural capital. Restoration Ecology 8:1.

    OpenUrl
16. ↵
    1. Colwell, R.K.

    2013. EstimateS: Statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples, version 9.1.0 (accessed August 2, 2018). http://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/estimates/.
17. ↵
    1. Cowardin, L.M.,
    2. V. Carter,
    3. F.C. Goulet and
    4. E.T. Laroe

    . 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. (Report No. FWS/OBS-79/31) Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Office of Biological Services.
18. ↵
    1. Davidson, N.C.

    2014. How much wetland has the world lost? Longterm and recent trends in global wetland area. Marine and Freshwater Research 65:934–941.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
19. ↵
    1. Delfín-Alfonso, C.

    2014. Elaboración de un proyecto de manejo de fauna silvestre: Un acercamiento a su diseño y evaluación. Page 315 in S. Gallina and C. Lopez-Gonzalez (eds), Manual de Técnicas para el Estudio de la Fauna 2nd ed. Mexico City, Mexico: UAQ-INECC-SEMARNAT-INECOL. http://www2.inecc.gob.mx/publicaciones2/libros/717/cap14.pdf.
20. ↵
    1. Escutia-Lara, Y.,
    2. S. Lara-Cabrera and
    3. R. Lindig-Cisneros

    . 2009. Efecto del fuego y dinámica de las hidrófitas emergentes en el humedal de La Mintzita, Michoacán, México. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 80:771–778.

    OpenUrl
21. ↵
    1. Escutia-Lara, Y.,
    2. S. Lara-Cabrera,
    3. M. Gómez-Romero and
    4. R. Lindig-Cisneros

    . 2012. Common reed (Phragmites australis) harvest as a control method in a Neotropical wetland in Western México. Hidrobiológica 22:125–131.

    OpenUrl
22. ↵
    1. Frieswyk, C.B. and
    2. J.B. Zedler

    . 2006. Do seed banks confer resilience to coastal wetlands invaded by Typha x glauca? Canadian Journal of Botany. 84:1882–1893.

    OpenUrl
23. ↵
    1. Frieswyk, C.B.,
    2. C. Johnston and
    3. J.B. Zedler

    . 2007. Quantifying and qualifying dominance in vegetation. Journal of Great Lakes Research 33:125–135.

    OpenUrl
24. ↵
    1. Frieswyk, C.B and
    2. J.B. Zedler

    . 2007. Vegetation change in Great Lakes coastal wetlands: Deviation from the historical cycle. Journal of Great Lakes Research 33:366–380.

    OpenUrl
25. ↵
    1. Gámez, S. and
    2. R. Lindig-Cisneros

    . 2014. Efecto de la profundidad del agua en la germinación de Typha domingensis. Biológicas Revista de la DES Ciencias Biológico Agropecuarias Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo 15:14–18.

    OpenUrl
26. 1. Garcia, E.

    , 1988. Modificaciones al sistema de clasificación climática de Köppen (para adaptarlo a las condiciones de la República Mexicana). Instituto de Geografia, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México.
27. ↵
    1. Hall, S.J.

    2009. Cultural disturbances and local ecological knowledge mediate cattail (Typha domingensis) invasion in Lake Pátzcuaro, México. Human Ecology 37:241–249.

    OpenUrl
28. ↵
    1. Hall, S.J.,
    2. R. Lindig-Cisneros and
    3. J.B. Zedler

    . 2008. Does harvesting sustain plant diversity in central Mexican wetlands? Wetlands 28:776–792.

    OpenUrl
29. 1. Henson, J. and
    2. M. Safley

    . 2009. NRCS plant information and conservation practice standards. Tall Fescue for the Twenty-first Century. 53:483–488.

    OpenUrl
30. ↵
    1. Hernández, E.C.,
    2. K.C. Reiss and
    3. M.T. Brown

    . 2015. Effect of time on consistent and repeatable macrophyte index for wetland condition. Ecological Indicators 52:558–566.

    OpenUrl
31. ↵
    1. Heyden, D.

    1983. Mitología y Simbolismo de la Flora en el México Prehispánico. Ciudad Universitaria, México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
32. Instituto Nacional de Geografía e Informática (INEGI). 1998. Carta Topográfica. Morelia, E14–1. 1:250,000 scale. Michoacán, México.
33. ↵
    1. Jordan W.R. and
    2. G.M. Lubick

    . 2011. Making Nature Whole: A History of Ecological Restoration. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
34. ↵
    1. Kimmerer, R.W.

    2013. Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants. Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions.
35. ↵
    1. Köbbing, J.,
    2. N. Thevs and
    3. S. Zerbe

    . 2013. The utilisation of Reed (Phragmites australis)—a review. Mires and Peat 13:1–14.

    OpenUrl
36. ↵
    1. Kumar, P.

    2011. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. London, UK: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849775489.
37. ↵
    1. Kurashima, N.,
    2. J. Jeremiah and
    3. T. Ticktin

    . 2017. I ka wā ma mua: The value of a historical ecology approach to ecological restoration in Hawai’i. Pacific Science 71:437–456.

    OpenUrl
38. ↵
    1. Landgrave, R. and
    2. P. Moreno-Casasola

    . 2012. Cuantificación de la pérdida de humedales en México. Investigación Ambiental 4:35–51.

    OpenUrl
39. ↵
    1. Lawrence, B.A.,
    2. S.C. Lishawa,
    3. N. Hurst,
    4. B.T. Castillo and
    5. N.C. Tuchman

    . 2017. Wetland invasion by Typha×glauca increases soil methane emissions. Aquatic Botany 137:80–87.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
40. ↵
    1. Lindig Cisneros, R.

    2018. Invasiveness of Phragmites australis in communities dominated by native species after fire disturbance under controlled conditions. Hidrobiológica 28:201–207.

    OpenUrl
41. ↵
    1. Lishawa, S.C.,
    2. B.A. Lawrence,
    3. D.A. Albert,
    4. D.J. Larkin and
    5. N.C. Tuchman

    . 2019. Invasive species removal increases species and phylogenetic diversity of wetland plant communities. Ecology and Evolution 9:6231–6244.

    OpenUrl
42. ↵
    1. Lishawa, S.C.,
    2. E.M. Dunton,
    3. D.R. Pearsall,
    4. A.M. Monks,
    5. K.B. Himmler,
    6. B.D. Carson et al.

    , 2020. Wetland waterbird food resources increased by harvesting invasive cattails. The Journal of Wildlife Management 84:1326–1337.

    OpenUrl
43. ↵
    1. Lot, A.,
    2. A. Novelo and
    3. P. Ramírez-García

    . 1998. Diversidad de la flora acuática mexicana. In T.P. Ramamoorthy, R. Bye, A. Lot and J. Fa (eds), Diversidad Biológica de México: Orígenes y Distribución. México City, Mexico: Instituto de Biología UNAM.
44. 1. Lot, A.,
    2. A. Novelo,
    3. M. Olvera, and
    4. P. Ramírez

    . 1999. Catálogo de Angiospermas Acuáticas de México: Hidrófitas Estrictas Emergentes, Sumergidas y Flotantes. Cuadernos del Instituto de Biología, UNAM 33:7–161.

    OpenUrl
45. ↵
    1. Lot, A.

    2000. Plantas acuáticas en los jardines botánicos: Ideas sobre el desarrollo de las colecciones. Boletín Amaranto 13:13–25.

    OpenUrl
46. ↵
    1. Lot, A. and
    2. A. Novelo

    . 2004. Iconografía y Estudio de Plantas Acuáticas de la Ciudad de México y sus Alrededores. México, D.F.: Instituto de Biología, Dirección de Divulgación Científica, UNAM.
47. ↵
    1. Lyver P.O.B.,
    2. A. Akins,
    3. H. Phipps,
    4. V. Kahui,
    5. D.R. Towns and
    6. M. Henrik

    . 2016. Key biocultural values to guide restoration action and planning in New Zealand. Restoration Ecology 24: 314–323.

    OpenUrl
48. ↵
    1. Marushia, R.G. and
    2. E.B. Allen

    . 2011. Control of exotic annual grasses to restore native forbs in abandoned agricultural land. Restoration Ecology 19:45–54.

    OpenUrl
49. ↵
    1. McMillen, H.,
    2. T. Ticktin,
    3. H.K. Springer

    . 2017. The future is behind us: Traditional ecological knowledge and resilience over time on Hawai’i Island. Regional Environmental Change 17:579–592.

    OpenUrl
50. ↵
    1. Mitsch, W.J. and
    2. J.G. Gosselink

    . 2000. Wetlands, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
51. ↵
    1. Pascua, P.,
    2. H. McMillen,
    3. T. Ticktin,
    4. M. Vaughan and
    5. K.B. Winter

    . 2017. Beyond services: A process and framework for incorporating cultural, genealogical, place-based, and indigenous relationships into ecosystem service assessments. Ecosystem Services 26:465–475.

    OpenUrl
52. ↵
    1. Peters, G.,
    2. K. Morris,
    3. D. Frood,
    4. P. Papas and
    5. J. Roberts

    . 2015. A Guide to Managing Livestock Grazing in Victoria’s Wetlands. Decision Framework and Guidelines—Version 1.0. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 265. Department of Environment. Land, Water and Planning, Heidelberg, Victoria.
53. ↵
    1. Pude, R.,
    2. P. Banaszuk,
    3. R. Trettin,
    4. G Nog

    . 2005. Suitability of Phragmites for lightweight concrete. Journal of Applied Botany and Food Quality 79: 141–146.

    OpenUrl
54. QGIS Association, 2021. QGIS Geographic Information System. http://www.qgis.org.
55. ↵
    1. Ramírez-Herrejón, J.P.R.,
    2. M.M. Nava,
    3. C.I.S. Tinoco and
    4. T.L. Zubieta

    . 2013. Algunos aspectos reproductivos de Zoogoneticus quitzeoensis; Hubbs and Turner (1939) (Osteichthyes-Goodeidae) en la represa La Mintzita Morelia, Michoacán, México. Biológicas Revista de la DES Ciencias Biológico Agropecuarias Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo 9:63–71.

    OpenUrl
56. ↵
    Ramsar. 2012. Ficha Informativa de los Humedales de Ramsar (FIR)—Versión 2009–2012. https://rsis.ramsar.org/RISapp/files/RISrep/MX1919RIS.pdf.
57. ↵
    Ramsar. 2016. La Convención de Ramsar. Pages 9–10 in Manual de la Convenciòn Ramsar 5a edición: Introducción a la convención sobre los humedales. 10. https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/handbook1_5ed_introductiontoconvention_s_final.pdf.

    OpenUrl
58. ↵
    1. Reyes, J.

    1992. La producción artesanal. In Toledo, V.M., A. Arguetsa. and P. Ávila (eds), Plan Pátzcuaro 2000: Investigacion Multi-disciplinaria Para El Desarrollo Sostenido. Mexico City, Mexico: Fundación Freidrich Representación en México.
59. ↵
    1. Rodríguez-Arias, C.,
    2. M. Gómez-Romero,
    3. M.E. Páramo-Pérez and
    4. R. Lindig-Cisneros

    . 2018. Ten-year study of vegetation dynamics in wetlands subject to human disturbance in Western Mexico. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 89:910–920. https://doi.org/10.22201/ib.20078706e.2018.3.1771.

    OpenUrl
60. ↵
    1. Rodríguez, J. and
    2. F. Guevara

    . 2000. Angiospermas: Catálogo de la biodiversidad en Michoacán. Mexico City, Mexico: SEDUE.
61. ↵
    1. Sah, J.P.,
    2. M. Ross,
    3. M.S. Saha,
    4. P. Minchin and
    5. J. Sadle

    . 2014. Trajectories of vegetation response to water management in Taylor Slough, Everglades National Park, Florida. Wetlands 34:65–79.

    OpenUrl
62. Society for Ecological Restoration International Science & Policy Working Group. 2004. The SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration. Tuscon, AZ: Society for Ecological Restoration International.
63. ↵
    1. Swart, J.A.A.,
    2. H.J. Van der Windt and
    3. J. Keulartz

    . 2001. Valuation of nature in conservation and restoration. Restoration Ecology 9:230–238.

    OpenUrl
64. ↵
    1. Tabilo-Valdivieso, E.

    1999. El beneficio de los humedales en Centroamérica. El potentcial de los humedales para el desarrollo. Programa Regional en Manejo de Vida Silvestre. Heredia, WWF, and Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica. www.centroneotropical.org/recsos/benef_hum_amer_centr.pdf.
65. ↵
    1. Tulbure, M.G.,
    2. C.A. Johnston and
    3. D.L. Auger

    . 2007. Rapid invasion of a Great Lakes coastal wetland by non-native Phragmites australis and Typha. Journal of Great Lakes Research 33: 269–279.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
66. ↵
    1. Uddin, M.N. and
    2. R.W. Robinson

    . 2017. Changes associated with Phragmites australis invasion in plant community and soil properties: A study on three invaded communities in a wetland, Victoria, Australia. Limnologica 66:24–30.

    OpenUrl
67. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2015. The Plants database. National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov/index.html.
68. 1. Villaseñor, J.L. and
    2. F.J. Espinosa-García

    . 1998. Catálogo de Malezas de México. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Fondo de Cultura Económica.
69. ↵
    1. Washburn, B.E. and
    2. T.G. Barnes

    . 2000. Postemergence tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) control at different growth stages with glyphosate and AC 263,222. Weed Technology 14:223–230.

    OpenUrl
70. ↵
    1. West, R.C.

    1948. Cultural Geography of The Modern Tarascan Area. Washington, DC: The Smithsonian Institution.
71. ↵
    1. Weidlich, E.W.A.,
    2. F.G. Flórido,
    3. T.B. Sorrini,
    4. P.H.S. Brancalion

    . 2019. Controlling invasive plant species in ecological restoration: A global review. Journal of Applied Ecology 57:1806–1817.

    OpenUrl
72. ↵
    1. Winter, K.B.,
    2. N.K. Lincoln and
    3. K. Berkes

    . 2018. The social ecological keystone concept: A quantifiable metaphor for understanding the structure, function, and resilience of a biocultural system. Sustainability 10:3294.

    OpenUrl