Hindawi Publishing CorporationISRN Soil ScienceVolume 2013 Article ID 634260 10 pageshttpdxdoiorg1011552013634260

Research ArticleMaya and WRB Soil Classification in Yucatan MexicoDifferences and Similarities

Heacutector Estrada-Medina1 Francisco Bautista2 Juan Joseacute Mariacutea Jimeacutenez-Osornio1

Joseacute Antonio Gonzaacutelez-Iturbe3 and Wilian de Jesuacutes Aguilar Cordero1

1 Departamento de Manejo y Conservacion de Recursos Naturales Tropicales (PROTROPICO)Campus de Ciencias Biologicas y Agropecuarias (CCBA) Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan (UADY)Km 155 Carretera Merida - Xmatkuil Merida Yucatan 97315 Mexico

2 Centro de Investigaciones en Geografıa Ambiental (CIGA) Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM)Antigua Carretera a Patzcuaro No 8701 Col Ex-Hacienda de San Jose de La Huerta Morelia Michoacan 58190 Mexico

3 Facultad de Arquitectura (UADY) Calle 50 SN x 57 y 59 Ex-Convento de La Mejorada Merida Yucatan 97000 Mexico

Correspondence should be addressed to Hector Estrada-Medina hectorestradauadymx

Received 11 October 2013 Accepted 10 November 2013

Academic Editors M B Adams and C Martius

Copyright copy 2013 Hector Estrada-Medina et alThis is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons AttributionLicense which permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properlycited

Soils of the municipality of Hocaba Yucatan Mexico were identified according to both Mayan farmersrsquo knowledge and the WorldReference Base for Soil Resources (WRB) To identify Maya soil classes field descriptions made by farmers and semistructuredinterviews were utilized WRB soils were identified by describing soil profiles and analyzing samples in the laboratory Mayanfarmers identified soils based on topographic position and surface properties such as colour and amount of rock fragments andoutcrops Farmers distinguished two main groups of soils Krsquoankab or soils of plains and Boxlursquoum or soils of mounds Krsquoankab is agroup of red soils with two variants (Krsquoankab and Haylursquoum) whereas Boxlursquoum is a group of dark soils with five variants (TsekrsquoelChrsquoichrsquolursquoum Chaltun Puslursquoum and Chrsquoochrsquool) Soils on the plains were identified as Leptosoils Cambisols and Luvisols Soilsidentified in mounds were Leptosols and Calcisols Many soils identified by farmers could be more than one WRB unit of soil andvice versa in these cases no direct relationship between both classification systems was possible Mayan and WRB soil types arecomplementary they should be used together to improve regional soil classifications help transference of agricultural technologiesand make soil management decisions

1 Introduction

Local soil classification systems play an important role inmany agricultural sites throughout the world but they havenot considered to construct scientific classification systems[1] Opportunities to use traditional systems to improvescientific soil classifications mapping and environmentalimpact monitoring are not fully exploited [2] In countrieslike Mexico indigenous soil knowledge of ancestral groups[3ndash7] need to be understood to facilitate planning transmis-sion and implementation of new agricultural technologies[3 8]

Local knowledge is restricted geographically dynamiccollective diachronic and holistic it is the product of a long

observation history analysis and management of the naturalresources transmitted orally from generation to generation[9] Traditional soil classification systems created by theusers have a local importance and are based on propertieseasily affected bymanagement [10]This knowledge is enoughto understand and manage the soil in a local way to solveshort term specific problems [2 11 12] On the other handscientific soil classification systems are based in measur-able and observable soil characteristics defined in terms ofdiagnostic properties materials and horizons related to thesoil morphology [13] Traditional knowledge is being lostbecause these new regionally applied scientific schemes donot consider it Incorporation of both types of knowledgeinto a more useful scheme requires the development of a

2 ISRN Soil Science

91∘00

99840099840090

∘00

99840099840089

∘00

99840099840088

∘00

99840099840087

∘00

998400998400

22∘00

998400998400

21∘00

998400998400

20∘00

998400998400

19∘00

998400998400

0 50 100Graphic scale

(km)

Yucatan

Yucatan

Merida

Mexico

Hocaba

N

of AmericaUnited States

Figure 1 Study zone

common language among farmers extensionists techniciansand researchers

In Yucatan farmers descended from the old Mayanculture still have a great quantity of knowledge about soilswhich they continue using for their agricultural practices[5 8 14] studies concerning this matter are descriptive andonly a few have attempted to systematize this knowledgeand relate it to scientific soil classification systems [15ndash17] Inthis study the soils of the municipality of Hocaba YucatanMexico were identified according to the Mayan farmersrsquoknowledge and theWRB systemThe differences and similar-ities between the two systems were analyzed in order to iden-tify the best correspondence between them

2 Materials and Methods

21 Study Zone Themunicipality of Hocaba is located in thecentral region of the state of Yucatan at 20∘ 491015840Nand 89∘ 151015840Wwithin the geomorphologic landscape defined by Lugo [18] asa ldquostructural plain almost horizontal marginal to the coastrdquowith up to 10m of altitude (Figure 1) Hocaba occupies anarea of 8175 km2 that represents 018 of the state territory[19] The climate is subhumid tropical with a summer rainseason Aw

1(i1015840)g [20 21] The dominant vegetation is low

deciduous forest [22] and the main crops of the land are sisal(Agave fourcroydes Lem) and corn [23] Two geologic zonesconverge in this area a 58 million years ago limestone zonewith fine grain silicated and scarce presence of fossils in themajority of the municipality and a 13 to 25 million yearsago limestone zone in the southeast part of the municipalitywith cream and brownish microcrystalline grey rocks withgreat amount of fossils [24] Intercalated zones of plains andmounds compound the topographyMounds reach diametersof 3 to 10m and heights up to 3m the plains usually have adiameter of 10 to 30m [14]

Forty semistructured interviews with Mayan farmerswere carried out in order to obtain information aboutthe Mayan soil knowledge of the municipality of HocabaInterviewed farmers were ldquomilperosrdquo (farmers who grow

Table 1 Characterization of interviewed farmers from HocabaYucatan Mexico

Farmer age Years doingmilpa Number ofmecateslowast

Range (years) 119899 Range 119899 Range 119873

20ndash29 3 1ndash9 6 1ndash9 330ndash39 1 10ndash19 7 10ndash19 640ndash49 8 20ndash29 6 20ndash29 1250ndash59 7 30ndash39 4 30ndash39 660ndash69 10 40ndash49 4 40ndash49 570ndash80 8 50ndash59 9 50ndash59 3gt80 3 gt60 4 gt60 5lowast1mecate = 400m2

milpamdashassociation of corn bean and pumpkin) because theyare the ones who have more contact and experience usingthe soil resource Interviews were conducted directly on theparcel of each farmer where they were asked to mention andshow the types of soils they knew their properties or waysto recognize them and their abundance and distributionFarmers were also asked about types of crops they prefer togrow on each kind of soil type of management fertilizingmainweeds and typical problemsThe only criterion to selecta farmer to be interviewed was the occurrence of their parcelin any of the two main areas of corn production withinthe municipality [23] Farmers that only spoke Maya wereinterviewed with the help of a translator Based mainly onthe predominant responses obtained during the interviewsas well as the observations made on the field the schemeof the Mayan soil classification for this area was built OncetheMayan soils types were recognized representative pits foreach Mayan soil identified were excavated and profiles weredescribed [25] sampled analysed and classified using theWRB classification system [13] A comparative approach wasused to establish similarities and differences between Mayanknowledge and WRB system

3 Results

The 40 interviewed farmers (4 of the milperos of themunicipality) recognized 11 different classes of soils Most ofthe interviewed farmers of the study area were older than 40years with variable experience on makingmilpa and workedan average area of 1 ha per year (Table 1) Farmers from 60 to69 years old provided the majority of information about therecognition of the soils identifying eight classes Farmers ofthe three older ranges of age recognized all the types of soilsfound on the municipality (Table 2) There were only 2 outof 11 classes of soils recognized by all the farmers (BoxlursquoumandKrsquoankab) the other 9 classes were recognized only by 25or less of the farmers The soil properties that Mayan farmersconsidered to classify their soils are very easy to be observedthese properties included topographic position and colourfollowed by amount of rock fragments outcrops and waterretention (Table 3)

Farmers also recognized differences between soils accord-ing to the crops they prefer to grow on each class of soil

ISRN Soil Science 3

Table 2 Number of soils recognized by the interviewed farmers from Hocaba Yucatan Mexico

NameAge range

20ndash29 30ndash39 40ndash49 50ndash59 60ndash69 70ndash80 gt80 119899 = 3 119899 = 1 119899 = 8 119899 = 7 119899 = 10 119899 = 8 119899 = 3 119873 = 40

Krsquoankab 3 1 8 7 10 8 3 100Boxlursquoum 3 1 8 7 10 8 3 100Puslursquoum 4 3 3 250Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum 1 1 2 1 125Muluch bukrsquotun 2 2 1 125Ekrsquolursquoum 1 1 1 75Chrsquoochrsquool 1 25Tsekrsquoel 1 25Chaltun 1 25Chaklursquoum 1 25Haylursquoum 1 25

Table 3 Characteristics of the Mayan soils of the municipality of Hocaba Yucatan Mexico

Name Visual characteristicsSoil color Topographic position Superficial rock fragments Outcrops Water retention

Krsquoankab Chaklursquoum Red Only on plains Low or none Low or none Good

HaylursquoumBrown or

reddish-brown (darkcolors)

Base of the mounds Low amount of finegravels or none

Hard rock within first10 cm Bad

Chichlursquoum Clear brown or black On the flat top of themounds A lot of fine gravels Low Good

Puslursquoum Black Mounds Low amount of gravels ornone

Hard rock within first10 cm Very bad

Chrsquoochrsquool Black Base of the mounds Piles of cobbles None GoodTsekrsquoel Yan yantunichirsquo Mulursquochbukrsquotun

Black Mounds High in gravels stonesand cobbles High Bad

Chaltun Black Mounds Low or none Very high Bad

and the agronomic problems they perceive (Table 4) Theydo milpa in any type of soil without discriminating betweenmound or plain soils Specifically they usually prefer sowingvarieties of local chilli (Capsicum spp) in the mound soilscalled Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum Similarly vegetable crops and other greatdiversity of crops are usually sowed in the plain soils free ofrock fragments and outcrops called Krsquoankab Weeds developquicker on plain soils because there aremore seeds there thanin the mound soils and they can germinate at any momentwhen conditions become favourable Among the plants thatare exclusive or develop quicker on mound soils are Chichibe(Sida acuta Burm) and Sac kaatzim (Mimosa bahamensisBenth) while on plain soils Sacchiu (Abutilon permolle(willd) Sweet) and other grasses Habın (Piscidia piscipulaSarg) Tzalam (Lysiloma latisiliquum (L) Benth) Tsotskrsquoab(Mentzelia aspera L) Kiintal (Desmodium purpureum (Mill)Fawe) and Tajonal (Viguiera dentata (Cav)) were also men-tioned

Farmers pointed out the following problems remarkingthat they are present with different intensity in each soilclass Generally mound soils have lower water retention and

incidence of gophers raccoons and weeds than red soilsThesum of all these factors results according to farmers in lowyields

Farmers also use the type of rock associated with soilsto classify them Even more farmers classify and use thosedifferent types of rocks according to their properties and use(Table 5) Farmers recognized five types of rocks from thosetwo of them have relevant properties to agriculture as theyappear to have good water retention

According to the WRB soil units identified on the plainswere Chromic Luvisols (LVcr) characterized by the presenceof a Bt horizon and CEC gt 24 cmol kgminus1 through the wholeprofile Epileptic Cambisols (lep-CM) Endoleptic Cambisols(len-CM) and Endoskeletic Cambisols (skn-CM) havinga Bw horizon but varying in depth and amount of rockfragments and Lithic Leptosols (li-LP) which are soils up to10 cm depth (Table 6)

On the mounds the soil groups were Leptosols (LP) andCalcisols (CL) Both are dark colored (chroma less than 3)and have high organic matter contents from 23 to 50 (Table7) Both groups have minimal amounts of fine earth due to

4 ISRN Soil Science

Table 4 Crops and agronomic problems of the soils of Hocaba Yucatan Mexico

Maya soil name Preferred cropslowast Detected problems

Krsquoankab

Jamaica (Hibiscus sp)macal (Xanthosomayucatanense) jicama (Pachyrhizus erosus) yuca(Manihot esculenta) and sweet potato (Ipomoeabatatas)

Weeds grow faster Tuzas (Dasyprocta mexicana)and raccoons (Procycon spp) are more frequents

Haylursquoum Maize (Zea mays) beans (Phaseolus spp Vignaspp) and pumpkins (Cucurbita spp) As they are shallow soils maize falls down easily

Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum Chili pepper (Capsicum spp) and sometimes sweetpotato Tuzas (less frequent)

Puslursquoum Maize beans and pumpkins Shallow soils low water retention

Chrsquoochrsquool None Little surface for planting (too many rockfragments)

Tsekrsquoel Yan yan tunichirsquoMulursquoch bukrsquotun Maize beans and pumpkins Little surface for planting (many rock fragments)

Presence of weeds

Chaltun Maize beans and pumpkins Little surface for planting (too much rock)Very shallow soils

lowastFarmers do not have any preference to where to grow Sisal (Agave fourcroydes) they all agreed that the more rock fragments and outcrops in the soil the betterthe growth of Sisal

Table 5 Types of rock and their characteristics according to the farmers of Hocaba Yucatan Mexico

Maya name Spanish namelowast Use Characteristics

Saktunich o Sascab Creta To build roads It converts in powder and absorbs muchwater

Xuxtunich Roca desgranableLike sandpaper to cleaning

animals to completealbarradaslowastlowast

It breaks easily even by hand or when it isburned and absorbs water

Toktunich Roca fracturable To build albarradasVery hard when it is buried is not brokenonly turns black and does not absorb

water

Sakalbox Roca soluble To make hand grinders andalbarradas

It is the hardest one and does not absorbwater

Haysaltunich Laja Piblowastlowastlowast to complete albarradas Does not absorb waterlowastOnly laja is a common name among farmers the other 4 names were derived from observations of their properties lowastlowastAlbarrada is a wall made of rockslowastlowastlowastPibmeans cooking in pits

the high content of rock fragments There are three differenttypes of Leptosols (1) Hyperskeletic Leptosol (LPhsk) havingmore than 80 by weight of rock fragments (2) Nudilithicand Lithic Leptosol (LPli) having a depth less than 5 and10 cm respectively and (3) Calcaric Humic Leptosol (LPca-hu) more than 10 cm in depth high organic matter contentand calcium carbonate content less than 40 Two types ofCalcisols were recognized (CL) (1) Epipetric Skeletic Calcisol(CLptpsk) and (2) Epileptic Skeletic Calcisol (CLlepsk) bothof them differing in their depth

4 Discussion

41 Soils Identification In Hocaba Yucatan soil knowledgeis being lost because there are less young people interestedin making milpa the main activity that relates farmers tosoil Whit each generation fewer young people engage inthis activity because most of them prefer a salaried work orstudying Moreover most of the adults younger than 50 yearsold performmilpa in an intermittent way combining it with asalaried work [26] The reduction of the available forest area

to make milpa is also a factor in the abandonment of thisactivity [23] All these causes are promoting the loss of thetraditional soil knowledge this is supported in this study bythe observed relationship between farmersrsquo age and numberof soils they recognize Loss of traditional soil knowledge isoccurring similar to other parts of the world [2]

No classification system is static [12] and the Mayan soilclassification is not an exception Synonymies and differencesin the descriptions given by the interviewed farmers con-firmed this situation In this study four cases of possiblesynonymies were found Puslursquoum and Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum Krsquoankaband Chaklursquoum Boxlursquoum and Eklursquoum and Muluch bukrsquotunand Tsekrsquoel The first three cases are reported by [8 15] asdifferent soil classes

Soil names and descriptions provided by the farmerswere contrasted with those of previous works [15 17] allof them presented a similar number of soil classes and thedescriptions were highly consistent although some namesvaried (Table 8) In those works done at state and regionallevels only three additional soils were reported for the studyarea (Yarsquoaxhom Akrsquoalche and Kacab) suggesting that Mayan

ISRN Soil Science 5

Table6Ch

emicalandph

ysicalprop

ertie

sofsoilslocatedin

plains

atHocabaYu

catan

Mexico

Soil

horiz

onDepth

cmDry

color

StructureA

SASi

PSD

TCFg

rCg

rCO

3

pHOM

CE

Ccm

ol+kgminus1

Exchange

catio

nscm

ol+kgminus1

BS

Sand

Clay

Silt

Ca

Mg

Na

KLithicLeptosolRh

odic

A0ndash

95Y

R44

SBK

VF-M

430

190

380

L0

004

74140

472

236

166

01

28

100

LepticCa

mbisol

A0ndash

115Y

R33

SBK

F-H

488

206

314

L0

001

76158

397

315

27

03

08

89Bw

111ndash

235Y

R33

SBK

F-H

480

196

324

L0

001

76138

478

310

29

01

44

81Bw

223ndash38

5YR32

ABK

VF-L

461

245

294

L0

001

75117

292

258

32

02

04

100

Endo

skeletalCa

mbisol

A1

0ndash9

5YR33

SBK

VF-M

4226

32L

00

01

72172

512

320

214

01

08

100

A2

9ndash17

5YR44

SBK

VF-L

5022

28L

00

01

70110

499

278

253

07

06

100

Bw1

17ndash39

5YR46

ABK

VF-L

5121

28L

00

01

69

100

432

305

159

01

03

100

Bw2

39ndash56

5YR46

ABK

VF-L

5816

26CL

020

01

7069

441

292

188

002

100

C56ndash100

5YR46

ABK

VF-L

4719

33L

2367

01

7272

292

205

122

01

03

100

Endo

lepticCa

mbisol

A1

0ndash4

5YR43

GR

F-H

451

216

333

L5

005

74188

460

390

36

02

23

100

A2

4ndash22

5YR44

SBK

VF-M

490

196

314

L0

001

73123

332

385

23

01

10100

Bw1

22ndash33

5YR36

ABK

VF-M

549

157

255

CL5

001

7381

290

300

25

01

04

100

Bw2

33ndash55

5YR43

ABK

VF-L

618

165

225

CL3

004

7591

255

195

1201

03

100

Bw3

55ndash75

5YR43

ABK

VF-L

510

175

325

L2

015

7555

348

355

1001

02

100

Haplic

LuvisolR

hodic

A1

0ndash6

5YR253

GR

F-H

471

255

275

L0

001

74114

362

216

36

01

1173

A2

6ndash20

5YR33

SBK

F-M

480

260

260

L0

001

66

81

255

126

25

03

03

61Bt1

20ndash4

525Y

R36

ABK

M-L

402

377

221

CL0

001

67

38

249

153

09

02

03

67Bt2

45ndash85

25Y

R36

ABK

M-L

304

477

225

C0

001

7031

190

162

1804

03

97Bt3

85ndash109

25Y

R46

ABK

M-L

368

392

240

CL0

001

7133

151

162

1003

03

100

Bt4

109ndash

150

25Y

R46

ABK

M-L

343

373

284

CL0

001

7227

104

148

32

03

03

100

PSDpartic

lesiz

edistrib

ution

ASaggregates

shape(

GR

granularSBK

sub

angularb

lockyABK

ang

ular

blocky)ASiaggregatessize(

VFvery

fineFfin

eMm

edium)Stability(Llow

Mm

oderateHhigh)

Lloam

CLcla

yloam

CclayTC

texturalclassFgrfine

gravels

(lt2c

m)Cg

rcoarse

gravels

(gt2c

m)OMorganicmatterCE

Ccatio

nexchange

capacityB

Sbase

saturatio

n

6 ISRN Soil Science

Table7Prop

ertie

sofsoilslocatedin

mou

ndsa

tHocabaYu

catan

Mexico

Soilho

rizon

Depth

cmDry

color

StructureA

SASi

PSD

TCGr

St

CO3

pHOM

CE

Ccm

ol+kgminus1

Exchange

Catio

nscm

ol+kgminus

BS

Sand

Clay

Silt

CaMg

Na

KHyperskele

ticLeptosol

A0ndash

1075

YR251

GR

VF-M

706

157

137

SL50

3012

80

450

662

540

1801

33

89AkC

10ndash4

575

YR31

GR

VF-L

588

176

235

SL67

254

80

364

19192

54

04

31

100

Rend

zicH

yperskeleticLeptosol

A0ndash

710YR

251

GR

F-M

637

157

206

SL51

4031

78345

541

384

126

02

09

100

AC

7ndash23

10YR

251

GR

VF-M

716

137

147

SL51

4543

77286

244

390

270

02

10100

LepticSkele

talC

alcisol

A0-1

75YR

251

GR

VF-L

550

200

250

SCL

3010

4180

306

407

386

07

02

28

100

AkCk

1ndash15

75YR

43

GR

VF-M

627

137

235

SL36

1734

81

194

322

353

11ND

06

100

CkA

k15ndash50

75YR

43

SBK

VF-L

627

157

216

SL34

2042

80

195

267

353

09

05

06

100

Epipetric

Skele

ticCa

lciso

lAk

0ndash4

10YR

33

GR

F-H

490

196

314

L22

030

80

213

355

254

40

03

18100

Bk1

4ndash20

10YR

43

SBK

F-M

539

314

147

SCL

2515

3582

113

167

149

1103

10100

Bk2

20ndash35

10YR

41

SBK

VF-L

529

216

256

SCL

2120

3683

129

182

165

1103

08

100

Ckm

35ndash4

0gt50

IIAk

40ndash6

010YR

51

GR

VF-L

598

196

206

SL22

1537

86

106

144

121

04

02

05

100

Hum

ic-H

yperskeletalLeptosol

Ak1

0ndash2

75YR

251

GR

VF-M

690

110

200

SL31

036

75499

599

328

341

01

11100

Ak2

2ndash22

75YR

351

GR

VF-L

670

130

200

SL0

9044

77426

376

418

223

01

12100

CA

22ndash80

75YR

41

SBK

VF-L

710

120

170

SL0

9547

78180

286

211

84

01

02

100

PSDpartic

lesiz

edistrib

ution

ASaggregates

shape(

GR

granularSBK

sub

angularb

lockyABK

ang

ular

blocky)ASiaggregatessize(

VFvery

fineFfin

eMm

edium)Stability(Llow

Mm

oderateHhigh)

Lloam

CLcla

yloam

CclayTC

texturalclassG

rgravels

Ststo

nesOMorganicmatterCE

Ccatio

nexchange

capacityB

Sbase

saturatio

n

ISRN Soil Science 7

Table 8 Comparison between the descriptions of the soils found in the municipality of Hocaba Yucatan Mexico and those presented inothers studies

Maya namelowast Aguilera (1958) [31] Duch (1988 1991) [15 16] This study

Krsquoankab Light red deep soils Reddish brown color Found it in plainterrains Red soil

Boxlursquoum mdash Black color Black or dark soil

Puslursquoum mdash Remarkable less amount of rockfragments than Boxlursquoum

Black soil soft with no rockfragments It dries out quickly

Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum mdash Very hard and gravel aggregates Soil with abundant amount of gravelsMuluch bukrsquotun mdash mdash Soil with a lot of rock fragments

Ekrsquolursquoum Organic soil on calcareous rock(Ekrsquolursquoum Tsekrsquoel) mdash Black soil

Chrsquoochrsquool Soil with calcareous rocks alongprofile

Soil with abundant rock fragments onthe surface Soil under piled rock fragments

Tsekrsquoel Calcareous rock with a thin layerof soil

Shallow soil with abundant rockfragments Soil with abundant rock fragments

Chaltun Soil over laja rock Soil with calcareous armour exposed Black shallow soilwith cracked or holed rock

Chaklursquoum mdash Soil more red than Krsquoankab Dark red soil

Haylursquoum mdash mdash Very shallow soil Less than 10 cmdepth

lowastWriting of the Maya names is according to the Porrua dictionary [32]

knowledge of soils is similar in the whole state Typicallyfarmer classifications are highly variable or they have littleconsistency from region to region [8 12 27] however itseems that the Mayan soil knowledge is quite homogeneouseven at regional level [8] This homogeneity can help tofacilitate its systematization

On the other hand this apparent homogeneity couldalso indicate a loss of the soil knowledge This statementis supported by the results of this work in which only twoclasses of soils were recognized by all the interviewed farmers(Boxlursquoum and Krsquoankab) and these two terms were used torefer to the rest of the soils when they did not know them

Most of the classification systems reflect the priorities ofwho propose them [28] Characteristics that Mayan farmersuse to classify soils are mainly visual and intimately related totheir agricultural activities

Farmers recognized colour differences among soils how-ever it was observed that there are different tones that farmersdo not consider as distinctive elements A particular caseis the Mayan term Box that means black or dark Manyfarmers referred the soil called Chichlursquoum that is usuallylight brown to dark brown as simply Boxlursquoum Howeverapparently this is related to the absence of a Mayan wordto designate brown color although some farmers used theSpanish term ldquoachocolatadordquo (colored as chocolate) to referto this colour Another special case is the soil called Krsquoankabwhose common translation is ldquoyellow place at the bottomrdquo inattention to subsuperficial soils horizons [8]TheMayanwordChakmeans red thusChaklursquoum are red soilsThese soils aredarker than other red top soils such as Krsquoankab

Soil depth was only an important characteristic forfarmers to differentiate between shallow (soils lt 10 cm) anddeep soils (soils gt 10 cm) Farmers recognized these soils

empirically during sowing when they insert their sowingstick by observation of aerial roots on maize plants or whenmaize plants fall down due to the wind action because rootslack deep anchorage Farmers affirmed that mound soils arenot very deep but they pointed out that roots always findcracks in the rocks to continue growing Shallow soils arecalled Haylursquoum in both plains and mounds and correspondto Nudilithic Leptosols Farmers judge the depth of Krsquoankabby its surface color the darker the soil is the shallower it isand the lighter the soil is the deeper it is Bautista and Zinck[8] reported these differences in deepness for Krsquoankab soils

The microtopographic position superficial amount ofrock fragments and outcrops are three characteristics that thefarmers always consider together We found five rock typeswith different uses and it is possible that they influence soilcharacteristics and soil genesis [14 26] For example soilscalled Chrsquoochrsquool can only be found at the base of the moundsunder stone accumulations (Hyperskeletic Leptosols) whilesoils designated Chaltun are almost always near the moundsbut present bedrock very near to the surface (NudilithicLeptosols)

Water retention is a characteristic that many farmersrecognized but their comments relative to this property wereinconsistent For many farmers soils that do not retain water(they dried out first) were those on themounds while othersassured that it was the soils on the plains This disagreementcan be due to the farmers not considering the variability in theamount of rock fragments or the depth of the soils as factorsthat determine the water retention In fact this characteristicwas only relevant to recognize the soil called Puslursquoum whichfarmers consistently designated as the soil that dried out first

Other studies have found that soil texture is an importantproperty for local classifications [11 29] but it seems that this

8 ISRN Soil Science

is not the case of the Mayan classification because none oftheir agricultural practices requires a direct physical contactwith the deeper layers of soil

42 Soils Uses Preferences for growing crops were mainlylinked to the more availability of workable surface for sowingin plain soils Farmers like to grow most of their crops onthe Krsquoankab soils because the absence of rock fragmentsand outcrops makes field operations easier and quicker Theone clear exception is the soil called Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum in whichfarmers prefer to sow peppers and sweet potato arguing thatthey only grow well in that class of soil It is possible thata nutritional reason exists to explain the best developmentof those crops in that class of soil but this remains to beconfirmed with soil fertility analyses

Although some farmers said that with good rain themound soils give better production most of them assuredthat crops on mound soils as well as plain soils grow wellif it has rained well and on time On the other hand whenrain is not good some farmers said that the mound soilsproduce higher yields while others argue that the plain soilsdo The reason for these inconsistencies could be the depthof the soils and the amount of rock fragments and outcropsComparatively shallow soils can store less water than deepsoils but amount of rocks and stones on mound soils help toconserve the humidity better than in shallow plain soils

Soil water content is a property associated by farmerswiththe presence of weeds In this regard they said that they havemany problems to control weeds because as soon as it rainsweeds appear in the soil They also pointed out differences inweed composition and abundance between mound and plainsoils A farmer makingmilpa in the same place for five yearsin a row said that every year he had to usemore herbicide anddedicate more hours to remove weeds than the earlier year

In contrast to what the authors of [16 17] found thefarmers interviewed in this study did not use any terms torefer to soil fertility This is perhaps because these authorsdid their studies using a deeper anthropologic approachThe author of [16] developed the hierarchical classificationof the soils of the Puuc region of the state of Yucatan andoutlined a classification departed from a linguistic point ofview grouping the soil classes according to the meaning ofthe Mayan names as well as some management aspects Suchresearch is important to obtain information that may nolonger exist among the contemporary inhabitants of a region

5 Comparison and Systematization

Our results suggest that Mayan soils knowledge is given atthree levels (Figure 2) In level one topographic positionmound (Muluch) or plain (Krsquoankabal) Mound soils are darkgenerally black grey or brown while plain soils are red tored-brown which makes a first division among soil classesresulting in a general designation for soils according to theircolor Dark soils are designated as Boxrsquoluum and red soils asKrsquoankab The prefix Box means literally black but it is usedto refer to all classes of dark colours On the other hand theprefix Krsquoan means literally yellow but is used to designatelight red soils on plains Level two is almost exclusive for

mound soils since in the plains the amount of rock fragmentsand outcrops are nearly absent However in some cases redmound soils having abundant amount of rock fragments andoutcrops were observed and recognized by farmers asChrsquoich-Krsquoankab or Tsekrsquoel-Krsquoankab This was the only case wherefarmers used a compound name mixing two single names

In level three variations of soils from the second levelwere recognized according to their association with specifictopographic position Here there were two subdivisions(1) soil names ending with the Mayan word lursquoum whichmeans soil for example Chrsquoichrsquolursquoummdashsoil with gravelsmdash(Hsk-LP) or Haylursquoummdashvery shallow soilmdash(Nu-LP) and(2) soils that were designated according to the specificmicrotopographic positions on which they occur for exam-ple Chrsquoochrsquoolmdashsoil under piled rock fragmentsmdash(Hsk-LP)Tsekrsquoelmdashsoil among rock fragmentsmdash(Nu-LP) Chaltunmdashsoilbetween outcropsmdash(Nu-LP) At this level soils in moundswere recognized as Krsquoankab Haylursquoum Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum TsekrsquoelChaltun Puslursquoum Chrsquoochrsquool and so on In the case of theplain soils farmers only recognized two variantsKrsquoankab andHayrsquolursquoum In both cases when farmers were not sure of thespecific nameof the soil they designate asBoxluursquom to all soilsin mounds and Krsquoankab to all soils in plains

Following this scheme it can be seen that level one(mound soils and plain soils) is the most studied level so far[5 14 15] It is in the second and third levels that researchis needed It is in those levels where the participation of thefarmers is important in order to better understand each oneof the elements of the landscape and topography that theyrecognize and use to identify soils

Mayan soil types and WRB units cannot be directlyrelated to each other because these systems share few diag-nostic properties and assign them different relative impor-tance [8] Many soils identified by farmers relate with morethan one WRB group of soil and vice versa in these casesno direct relationship between both classification systems ispossible (Table 9)

Peoplersquos understanding of soils constitutes a complexknowledge system with some categories similar or com-plementary to those used by modern soil science [8 30]For example even though hierarchical levels of the WRBsystem are based on qualitative and quantitative data theyuse qualifiers to distinguish soils at secondary levels Someof those characteristics that is gravels or rock fragmentspercentage are related to the Mayan approach For instanceamount of rock fragments is a very important property forbuilding hierarchal levels in the Mayan soil nomenclature(eg Chrsquoochrsquool) as well as in the WRB classification at thequalifier level (eg Hyperskeletic and Skeletic Leptosols)

6 Conclusions

In Hocaba Yucatan farmers distinguished two main groupsof soils Krsquoankab or soils of plains and Boxlursquoum or soils ofmounds Krsquoankab is a group of red soils with two variants(Krsquoankab and Haylursquoum) whereas Boxlursquoum is a group ofdark soils with five variants (Tsekrsquoel Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum ChaltunPuslursquoum and Chrsquoochrsquool) Soils on the plains were identifiedas Leptosols Cambisols Cambisols and Luvisols Soils

ISRN Soil Science 9

Mayan soil typesLevel

0

1

2

3

Soils in plains (Krsquoankabal)(Krsquoankab)

Krsquoankab

Soils in mounds (Muluch)(Boxluursquom)

Mounds dominated byrock fragments

Mounds dominated byoutcrops

Deep soils (less than 10 cm)

(color red orreddish brown)

(less than 10 cm)(color red orreddish brown)

Shallow soils Soils with abundantfine gravels

(color lightbrown grey

or black)

Soilsfree of rockfragments

(color grey

Soils in betweenoutcrops

(color black)

Soils in piles ofstones and cobbles

(color black)

Soils containedin rock holes(color black)

Shadow soils(less than 10 cm)

(color black)

HaylursquoumChrsquoichrsquolursquoum

Puslursquoum Tsekrsquoel Chrsquoochrsquool Chaltun

or black)

Figure 2 Mayan soil types in Hocaba Yucatan

Table 9 Relationship between WRB soil units and Mayan soil types

WRB soil group Dominant kind of rock Topographic position Mayan soil classChromic LuvisolsEutric CambisolsMollic Leptosol

Fracturable Any part of the plains Krsquoankab

Nudilithic Leptosol Fracturable Base of the mounds HaylursquoumHyperskeletic Leptosol ChrsquoichrsquolursquoumHaplic CalcisolHyperskeletic Leptosol Graintable and powderable Flat tops of the mounds Puslursquoum

ChrsquoichrsquolursquoumPetrocalcic Calcisol Fracturable and grainable Top of the mounds Puslursquoum

Nudilithic LeptosolHyperskeletic Leptosol

FracturableFracturableFracturable

Top of the moundsSides of the moundsBase of the mounds

BoxlursquoumTsekrsquoelChrsquoochrsquool

Rendzic LeptosolNudilithic Leptosol Fracturable Top of the mounds

Sides of the moundsBoxlursquoumTsekrsquoel

Nudilithic LeptosolLithic LeptosolNudilithic Leptosol

SolubleSoluble

Fracturable

Top of the moundsSides of the moundsBase of the mounds

ChaltunBoxlursquoumHaylursquoum

identified in mounds were Leptosols and Calcisols Mayansoil types and WRB groups are complementary they shouldbe used together in order to improve both soil classificationsto help transference of agricultural technologies and makesoil management decisions Soil characteristics that shouldbe considered for a local soil classification system aretopographic position (plain or mound) colour amount ofrock fragments and outcrops and soil depth or effectiverooting depth

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments are due to the Science and TechnologyNational Council (CONACyT) for the scholarship grantedto the first author for his master degree studies to CONA-CyT project Base de datos para la penınsula de Yucatanincluyendo nomenclatura maya y FAO Convenio R31624-B to the American Institute for Global Change Research(IAI) project Biogeochemical cycles under land use change

in the semiarid Americas to Dr Steve Gliessman Dr RobertGraham and MSc Arturo Caamal Maldonado for theircomments and corrections to the paper to Wendy Huchimand Miguel Huicab for their collaboration on some of thetables and figures This paper is dedicated to the memory ofmy friend Mr Pedro Canche farmer from Hocaba who withhis wide knowledge of soils roads and people helped me asguide and Mayan-Spanish translator and in contacting otherfarmers

References

[1] A M G A Winklerprins ldquoLocal soil knowledge a tool forsustainable land managementrdquo Society and Natural Resourcesvol 12 no 2 pp 151ndash161 1999

[2] P V Krasilnikov and J A Tabor ldquoPerspectives on utilitarianethnopedologyrdquo Geoderma vol 111 no 3-4 pp 197ndash215 2003

[3] N Barrera-Bassols and J A Zinck ldquoEthnopedology a world-wide view on the soil knowledge of local peoplerdquo Geodermavol 111 no 3-4 pp 171ndash195 2003

10 ISRN Soil Science

[4] N Barrera-Bassols ldquoEtnoedafologıa purhepechardquo MexicoIndıgena vol 6 no 24 pp 47ndash52 1988

[5] F Bautista J Jimenez J Navarro A Manu and R LozanoldquoMicrorelieve y color del suelo como propiedades de diag-nostico en Leptosoles carsticosrdquo Terra vol 21 no 1 pp 1ndash122003

[6] B J Williams ldquoAztec soil sciencerdquo Boletın del Instituto deGeografıa vol 7 pp 115ndash120 1975

[7] B J Williams and C A Ortiz-Solorio ldquoMiddle American folksoil taxonomyrdquo Annals Association of American Geographersvol 71 no 3 pp 335ndash358 1981

[8] F Bautista and J A Zinck ldquoConstruction of an Yucatec Mayasoil classification and comparison with the WRB frameworkrdquoJournal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine vol 6 article 7 2010

[9] V Toledo ldquoIndigenous knowledge on soils an ethnoecologicalconceptualizationrdquo in Ethnopedology in A Worldwide Perspec-tives An Annotated Bibliography N Barrera-Bassols and J AZinck Eds International Institute for Aerospace Survey andEarth Science Enschede The Netherlands 2000

[10] A J Tabor ldquoSoil classification systemsrdquo in Soil of Arid Regionsof the US and Israel 1997 httpcalsarizonaeduoalssoilsclassifsystemshtml

[11] J A Sandor and L Furbee ldquoIndigenous knowledge and clas-sification of soils in the Andes of Southern Perurdquo Soil ScienceSociety of America Journal vol 60 no 5 pp 1502ndash1512 1996

[12] A J Tabor ldquoSoil surveys and indigenous soil classificationrdquoIndigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor vol 1 no 11993

[13] IUSS-ISRIC-FAO ldquo2006World reference base for soil resources2006 A framework for international classification correlationand communicationrdquo World Soil Resour Report 103 FAORome Italy

[14] F Bautista H Estrada-Medina J Jimenez-Osornio and JGonzalez-Iturbe ldquoRelacion entre relieve y suelos en zonascarsticasrdquo Terra vol 22 no 3 pp 243ndash254 2004

[15] G J Duch La conformacion territorial del estado de YucatanmdashLos componentes del medio fısico Centro Regional de laPenınsula de Yucatan CRUPY Universidad Autonoma deChapingo Mexico Mexico 1988

[16] G J Duch Fisiografıa del estado de Yucatanmdashsu relacion conla agricultura Centro Regional de la Penınsula de YucatanCRUPY Universidad Autonoma de Chapingo Mexico Mexico1991

[17] P N Dunning ldquoSoils and vegetationrdquo in Lords of the HillsAncient Maya Settement in the Puuc Region Yucatan Mexicovol 15 of Monographs in World Archaeology Prehistory PressMadison Wis USA 1992

[18] J Lugo ldquoGeomorfologıardquo in Atlas de Procesos Territoriales deYucatan P P Chico Ed Universidad Autonoma de YucatanYucatan Mexico 1999

[19] Gobierno Constitucional del Estado de Yucatan ldquoPrograma dedesarrollo regional de la zona Henequenera de Yucatan 1992ndash1994rdquo Mexico 1992

[20] INEGI ldquoAnuario estadıstico del estado de Yucatanrdquo Gobiernodel estado de Yucatan 1995

[21] R Orellana ldquoEvaluacion Climatica (Climatologıa de laPenınsula de Yucatan)rdquo in Atlas de Procesos Territoriales deYucatan A Garcıa de Fuentes C Y Ordonez and P ChicoPonce de Leon Eds pp 162ndash182 Facultad de ArquitecturaUniversidad Autonoma de Yucatan Merida Mexico 2000

[22] S J Flores andC I Espejel ldquoTipos de vegetacion de la penınsulade Yucatanrdquo Fascıculo 3 Sostenibilidad Maya UniversidadAutonoma de Yucatan Mexico Mexico 1994

[23] L Cano Cambio del uso del suelo en el municipio de HocabaYucatan Mexico [Tesis de maestrıa en Manejo y Conservacionde Recursos Naturales Tropicales] Facultad de Medicina Veteri-naria y Zootecnia Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan 2000

[24] INEGI ldquoInstituto Nacional de Estadıstica Geografıa e Infor-maticardquo Carta Geologica 1250000 Secretarıa de Programaciony Presupuesto Mexico Mexico 1983

[25] C Siebe R Janh and K Stahr ldquoManual para la descripciony evaluacion ecologica de suelos en el campordquo PublicacionEspecial 4 Sociedad Mexicana de la Ciencia del Suelo A CEdo de Mexico Mexico Mexico 1996

[26] F Bautista J Garcia and A Mizrahi ldquoDiagnostico campesinode la situacion agrıcola en Hocaba Yucatanrdquo Terra Latinoamer-icana vol 23 no 4 2005

[27] E Habarurema and K G Steiner ldquoSoil suitability classificationby farmers in southern Rwandardquo Geoderma vol 75 no 1-2 pp75ndash87 1997

[28] M Corbeels A Shiferaw and M Haile ldquoFarmersrsquo knowledgeof soil fertility and local managament strategies in TigrayEthiopiardquo Managing Africarsquos Soils 10 IIED London UK 2000

[29] L Pool-Novelo E Cervantes-Trejo and S Mesa-Dıaz ldquoLaclasificacion Tsotsil de soils en el paisaje carstico de la subregionSan Cristobal de las casas Chiapas Mexicordquo Terra vol 9 no 1pp 11ndash23 1991

[30] N Barrera-Bassols and A J Zinck Ethnopedology in a World-wide Perspectives An Annotated Bibliography InternationalInstitute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Science EnschedeThe Netherlands 2000

[31] N Aguilera Herrera ldquoSuelosrdquo in Los recursos naturales del Sur-este y su aprovechamiento E Beltran Ed InstitutoMexicano deRecursos Naturales Renovables Mexico City Mexico 1958

[32] PorruaDicccionarioMaya Editorial Porrua Mexico Mexico 2edition 1991

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Forestry ResearchInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Environmental and Public Health

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

EcosystemsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

MeteorologyAdvances in

EcologyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Marine BiologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Applied ampEnvironmentalSoil Science

Volume 2014

Advances in

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Environmental Chemistry

Atmospheric SciencesInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Waste ManagementJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal of

Geophysics

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Geological ResearchJournal of

EarthquakesJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

BiodiversityInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

ScientificaHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

OceanographyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of Computational Environmental SciencesHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

ClimatologyJournal of

2 ISRN Soil Science

91∘00

99840099840090

∘00

99840099840089

∘00

99840099840088

∘00

99840099840087

∘00

998400998400

22∘00

998400998400

21∘00

998400998400

20∘00

998400998400

19∘00

998400998400

0 50 100Graphic scale

(km)

Yucatan

Yucatan

Merida

Mexico

Hocaba

N

of AmericaUnited States

Figure 1 Study zone

common language among farmers extensionists techniciansand researchers

In Yucatan farmers descended from the old Mayanculture still have a great quantity of knowledge about soilswhich they continue using for their agricultural practices[5 8 14] studies concerning this matter are descriptive andonly a few have attempted to systematize this knowledgeand relate it to scientific soil classification systems [15ndash17] Inthis study the soils of the municipality of Hocaba YucatanMexico were identified according to the Mayan farmersrsquoknowledge and theWRB systemThe differences and similar-ities between the two systems were analyzed in order to iden-tify the best correspondence between them

2 Materials and Methods

21 Study Zone Themunicipality of Hocaba is located in thecentral region of the state of Yucatan at 20∘ 491015840Nand 89∘ 151015840Wwithin the geomorphologic landscape defined by Lugo [18] asa ldquostructural plain almost horizontal marginal to the coastrdquowith up to 10m of altitude (Figure 1) Hocaba occupies anarea of 8175 km2 that represents 018 of the state territory[19] The climate is subhumid tropical with a summer rainseason Aw

1(i1015840)g [20 21] The dominant vegetation is low

deciduous forest [22] and the main crops of the land are sisal(Agave fourcroydes Lem) and corn [23] Two geologic zonesconverge in this area a 58 million years ago limestone zonewith fine grain silicated and scarce presence of fossils in themajority of the municipality and a 13 to 25 million yearsago limestone zone in the southeast part of the municipalitywith cream and brownish microcrystalline grey rocks withgreat amount of fossils [24] Intercalated zones of plains andmounds compound the topographyMounds reach diametersof 3 to 10m and heights up to 3m the plains usually have adiameter of 10 to 30m [14]

Forty semistructured interviews with Mayan farmerswere carried out in order to obtain information aboutthe Mayan soil knowledge of the municipality of HocabaInterviewed farmers were ldquomilperosrdquo (farmers who grow

Table 1 Characterization of interviewed farmers from HocabaYucatan Mexico

Farmer age Years doingmilpa Number ofmecateslowast

Range (years) 119899 Range 119899 Range 119873

20ndash29 3 1ndash9 6 1ndash9 330ndash39 1 10ndash19 7 10ndash19 640ndash49 8 20ndash29 6 20ndash29 1250ndash59 7 30ndash39 4 30ndash39 660ndash69 10 40ndash49 4 40ndash49 570ndash80 8 50ndash59 9 50ndash59 3gt80 3 gt60 4 gt60 5lowast1mecate = 400m2

milpamdashassociation of corn bean and pumpkin) because theyare the ones who have more contact and experience usingthe soil resource Interviews were conducted directly on theparcel of each farmer where they were asked to mention andshow the types of soils they knew their properties or waysto recognize them and their abundance and distributionFarmers were also asked about types of crops they prefer togrow on each kind of soil type of management fertilizingmainweeds and typical problemsThe only criterion to selecta farmer to be interviewed was the occurrence of their parcelin any of the two main areas of corn production withinthe municipality [23] Farmers that only spoke Maya wereinterviewed with the help of a translator Based mainly onthe predominant responses obtained during the interviewsas well as the observations made on the field the schemeof the Mayan soil classification for this area was built OncetheMayan soils types were recognized representative pits foreach Mayan soil identified were excavated and profiles weredescribed [25] sampled analysed and classified using theWRB classification system [13] A comparative approach wasused to establish similarities and differences between Mayanknowledge and WRB system

3 Results

The 40 interviewed farmers (4 of the milperos of themunicipality) recognized 11 different classes of soils Most ofthe interviewed farmers of the study area were older than 40years with variable experience on makingmilpa and workedan average area of 1 ha per year (Table 1) Farmers from 60 to69 years old provided the majority of information about therecognition of the soils identifying eight classes Farmers ofthe three older ranges of age recognized all the types of soilsfound on the municipality (Table 2) There were only 2 outof 11 classes of soils recognized by all the farmers (BoxlursquoumandKrsquoankab) the other 9 classes were recognized only by 25or less of the farmers The soil properties that Mayan farmersconsidered to classify their soils are very easy to be observedthese properties included topographic position and colourfollowed by amount of rock fragments outcrops and waterretention (Table 3)

Farmers also recognized differences between soils accord-ing to the crops they prefer to grow on each class of soil

ISRN Soil Science 3

Table 2 Number of soils recognized by the interviewed farmers from Hocaba Yucatan Mexico

NameAge range

20ndash29 30ndash39 40ndash49 50ndash59 60ndash69 70ndash80 gt80 119899 = 3 119899 = 1 119899 = 8 119899 = 7 119899 = 10 119899 = 8 119899 = 3 119873 = 40

Krsquoankab 3 1 8 7 10 8 3 100Boxlursquoum 3 1 8 7 10 8 3 100Puslursquoum 4 3 3 250Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum 1 1 2 1 125Muluch bukrsquotun 2 2 1 125Ekrsquolursquoum 1 1 1 75Chrsquoochrsquool 1 25Tsekrsquoel 1 25Chaltun 1 25Chaklursquoum 1 25Haylursquoum 1 25

Table 3 Characteristics of the Mayan soils of the municipality of Hocaba Yucatan Mexico

Name Visual characteristicsSoil color Topographic position Superficial rock fragments Outcrops Water retention

Krsquoankab Chaklursquoum Red Only on plains Low or none Low or none Good

HaylursquoumBrown or

reddish-brown (darkcolors)

Base of the mounds Low amount of finegravels or none

Hard rock within first10 cm Bad

Chichlursquoum Clear brown or black On the flat top of themounds A lot of fine gravels Low Good

Puslursquoum Black Mounds Low amount of gravels ornone

Hard rock within first10 cm Very bad

Chrsquoochrsquool Black Base of the mounds Piles of cobbles None GoodTsekrsquoel Yan yantunichirsquo Mulursquochbukrsquotun

Black Mounds High in gravels stonesand cobbles High Bad

Chaltun Black Mounds Low or none Very high Bad

and the agronomic problems they perceive (Table 4) Theydo milpa in any type of soil without discriminating betweenmound or plain soils Specifically they usually prefer sowingvarieties of local chilli (Capsicum spp) in the mound soilscalled Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum Similarly vegetable crops and other greatdiversity of crops are usually sowed in the plain soils free ofrock fragments and outcrops called Krsquoankab Weeds developquicker on plain soils because there aremore seeds there thanin the mound soils and they can germinate at any momentwhen conditions become favourable Among the plants thatare exclusive or develop quicker on mound soils are Chichibe(Sida acuta Burm) and Sac kaatzim (Mimosa bahamensisBenth) while on plain soils Sacchiu (Abutilon permolle(willd) Sweet) and other grasses Habın (Piscidia piscipulaSarg) Tzalam (Lysiloma latisiliquum (L) Benth) Tsotskrsquoab(Mentzelia aspera L) Kiintal (Desmodium purpureum (Mill)Fawe) and Tajonal (Viguiera dentata (Cav)) were also men-tioned

Farmers pointed out the following problems remarkingthat they are present with different intensity in each soilclass Generally mound soils have lower water retention and

incidence of gophers raccoons and weeds than red soilsThesum of all these factors results according to farmers in lowyields

Farmers also use the type of rock associated with soilsto classify them Even more farmers classify and use thosedifferent types of rocks according to their properties and use(Table 5) Farmers recognized five types of rocks from thosetwo of them have relevant properties to agriculture as theyappear to have good water retention

According to the WRB soil units identified on the plainswere Chromic Luvisols (LVcr) characterized by the presenceof a Bt horizon and CEC gt 24 cmol kgminus1 through the wholeprofile Epileptic Cambisols (lep-CM) Endoleptic Cambisols(len-CM) and Endoskeletic Cambisols (skn-CM) havinga Bw horizon but varying in depth and amount of rockfragments and Lithic Leptosols (li-LP) which are soils up to10 cm depth (Table 6)

On the mounds the soil groups were Leptosols (LP) andCalcisols (CL) Both are dark colored (chroma less than 3)and have high organic matter contents from 23 to 50 (Table7) Both groups have minimal amounts of fine earth due to

4 ISRN Soil Science

Table 4 Crops and agronomic problems of the soils of Hocaba Yucatan Mexico

Maya soil name Preferred cropslowast Detected problems

Krsquoankab

Jamaica (Hibiscus sp)macal (Xanthosomayucatanense) jicama (Pachyrhizus erosus) yuca(Manihot esculenta) and sweet potato (Ipomoeabatatas)

Weeds grow faster Tuzas (Dasyprocta mexicana)and raccoons (Procycon spp) are more frequents

Haylursquoum Maize (Zea mays) beans (Phaseolus spp Vignaspp) and pumpkins (Cucurbita spp) As they are shallow soils maize falls down easily

Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum Chili pepper (Capsicum spp) and sometimes sweetpotato Tuzas (less frequent)

Puslursquoum Maize beans and pumpkins Shallow soils low water retention

Chrsquoochrsquool None Little surface for planting (too many rockfragments)

Tsekrsquoel Yan yan tunichirsquoMulursquoch bukrsquotun Maize beans and pumpkins Little surface for planting (many rock fragments)

Presence of weeds

Chaltun Maize beans and pumpkins Little surface for planting (too much rock)Very shallow soils

lowastFarmers do not have any preference to where to grow Sisal (Agave fourcroydes) they all agreed that the more rock fragments and outcrops in the soil the betterthe growth of Sisal

Table 5 Types of rock and their characteristics according to the farmers of Hocaba Yucatan Mexico

Maya name Spanish namelowast Use Characteristics

Saktunich o Sascab Creta To build roads It converts in powder and absorbs muchwater

Xuxtunich Roca desgranableLike sandpaper to cleaning

animals to completealbarradaslowastlowast

It breaks easily even by hand or when it isburned and absorbs water

Toktunich Roca fracturable To build albarradasVery hard when it is buried is not brokenonly turns black and does not absorb

water

Sakalbox Roca soluble To make hand grinders andalbarradas

It is the hardest one and does not absorbwater

Haysaltunich Laja Piblowastlowastlowast to complete albarradas Does not absorb waterlowastOnly laja is a common name among farmers the other 4 names were derived from observations of their properties lowastlowastAlbarrada is a wall made of rockslowastlowastlowastPibmeans cooking in pits

the high content of rock fragments There are three differenttypes of Leptosols (1) Hyperskeletic Leptosol (LPhsk) havingmore than 80 by weight of rock fragments (2) Nudilithicand Lithic Leptosol (LPli) having a depth less than 5 and10 cm respectively and (3) Calcaric Humic Leptosol (LPca-hu) more than 10 cm in depth high organic matter contentand calcium carbonate content less than 40 Two types ofCalcisols were recognized (CL) (1) Epipetric Skeletic Calcisol(CLptpsk) and (2) Epileptic Skeletic Calcisol (CLlepsk) bothof them differing in their depth

4 Discussion

41 Soils Identification In Hocaba Yucatan soil knowledgeis being lost because there are less young people interestedin making milpa the main activity that relates farmers tosoil Whit each generation fewer young people engage inthis activity because most of them prefer a salaried work orstudying Moreover most of the adults younger than 50 yearsold performmilpa in an intermittent way combining it with asalaried work [26] The reduction of the available forest area

to make milpa is also a factor in the abandonment of thisactivity [23] All these causes are promoting the loss of thetraditional soil knowledge this is supported in this study bythe observed relationship between farmersrsquo age and numberof soils they recognize Loss of traditional soil knowledge isoccurring similar to other parts of the world [2]

No classification system is static [12] and the Mayan soilclassification is not an exception Synonymies and differencesin the descriptions given by the interviewed farmers con-firmed this situation In this study four cases of possiblesynonymies were found Puslursquoum and Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum Krsquoankaband Chaklursquoum Boxlursquoum and Eklursquoum and Muluch bukrsquotunand Tsekrsquoel The first three cases are reported by [8 15] asdifferent soil classes

Soil names and descriptions provided by the farmerswere contrasted with those of previous works [15 17] allof them presented a similar number of soil classes and thedescriptions were highly consistent although some namesvaried (Table 8) In those works done at state and regionallevels only three additional soils were reported for the studyarea (Yarsquoaxhom Akrsquoalche and Kacab) suggesting that Mayan

ISRN Soil Science 5

Table6Ch

emicalandph

ysicalprop

ertie

sofsoilslocatedin

plains

atHocabaYu

catan

Mexico

Soil

horiz

onDepth

cmDry

color

StructureA

SASi

PSD

TCFg

rCg

rCO

3

pHOM

CE

Ccm

ol+kgminus1

Exchange

catio

nscm

ol+kgminus1

BS

Sand

Clay

Silt

Ca

Mg

Na

KLithicLeptosolRh

odic

A0ndash

95Y

R44

SBK

VF-M

430

190

380

L0

004

74140

472

236

166

01

28

100

LepticCa

mbisol

A0ndash

115Y

R33

SBK

F-H

488

206

314

L0

001

76158

397

315

27

03

08

89Bw

111ndash

235Y

R33

SBK

F-H

480

196

324

L0

001

76138

478

310

29

01

44

81Bw

223ndash38

5YR32

ABK

VF-L

461

245

294

L0

001

75117

292

258

32

02

04

100

Endo

skeletalCa

mbisol

A1

0ndash9

5YR33

SBK

VF-M

4226

32L

00

01

72172

512

320

214

01

08

100

A2

9ndash17

5YR44

SBK

VF-L

5022

28L

00

01

70110

499

278

253

07

06

100

Bw1

17ndash39

5YR46

ABK

VF-L

5121

28L

00

01

69

100

432

305

159

01

03

100

Bw2

39ndash56

5YR46

ABK

VF-L

5816

26CL

020

01

7069

441

292

188

002

100

C56ndash100

5YR46

ABK

VF-L

4719

33L

2367

01

7272

292

205

122

01

03

100

Endo

lepticCa

mbisol

A1

0ndash4

5YR43

GR

F-H

451

216

333

L5

005

74188

460

390

36

02

23

100

A2

4ndash22

5YR44

SBK

VF-M

490

196

314

L0

001

73123

332

385

23

01

10100

Bw1

22ndash33

5YR36

ABK

VF-M

549

157

255

CL5

001

7381

290

300

25

01

04

100

Bw2

33ndash55

5YR43

ABK

VF-L

618

165

225

CL3

004

7591

255

195

1201

03

100

Bw3

55ndash75

5YR43

ABK

VF-L

510

175

325

L2

015

7555

348

355

1001

02

100

Haplic

LuvisolR

hodic

A1

0ndash6

5YR253

GR

F-H

471

255

275

L0

001

74114

362

216

36

01

1173

A2

6ndash20

5YR33

SBK

F-M

480

260

260

L0

001

66

81

255

126

25

03

03

61Bt1

20ndash4

525Y

R36

ABK

M-L

402

377

221

CL0

001

67

38

249

153

09

02

03

67Bt2

45ndash85

25Y

R36

ABK

M-L

304

477

225

C0

001

7031

190

162

1804

03

97Bt3

85ndash109

25Y

R46

ABK

M-L

368

392

240

CL0

001

7133

151

162

1003

03

100

Bt4

109ndash

150

25Y

R46

ABK

M-L

343

373

284

CL0

001

7227

104

148

32

03

03

100

PSDpartic

lesiz

edistrib

ution

ASaggregates

shape(

GR

granularSBK

sub

angularb

lockyABK

ang

ular

blocky)ASiaggregatessize(

VFvery

fineFfin

eMm

edium)Stability(Llow

Mm

oderateHhigh)

Lloam

CLcla

yloam

CclayTC

texturalclassFgrfine

gravels

(lt2c

m)Cg

rcoarse

gravels

(gt2c

m)OMorganicmatterCE

Ccatio

nexchange

capacityB

Sbase

saturatio

n

6 ISRN Soil Science

Table7Prop

ertie

sofsoilslocatedin

mou

ndsa

tHocabaYu

catan

Mexico

Soilho

rizon

Depth

cmDry

color

StructureA

SASi

PSD

TCGr

St

CO3

pHOM

CE

Ccm

ol+kgminus1

Exchange

Catio

nscm

ol+kgminus

BS

Sand

Clay

Silt

CaMg

Na

KHyperskele

ticLeptosol

A0ndash

1075

YR251

GR

VF-M

706

157

137

SL50

3012

80

450

662

540

1801

33

89AkC

10ndash4

575

YR31

GR

VF-L

588

176

235

SL67

254

80

364

19192

54

04

31

100

Rend

zicH

yperskeleticLeptosol

A0ndash

710YR

251

GR

F-M

637

157

206

SL51

4031

78345

541

384

126

02

09

100

AC

7ndash23

10YR

251

GR

VF-M

716

137

147

SL51

4543

77286

244

390

270

02

10100

LepticSkele

talC

alcisol

A0-1

75YR

251

GR

VF-L

550

200

250

SCL

3010

4180

306

407

386

07

02

28

100

AkCk

1ndash15

75YR

43

GR

VF-M

627

137

235

SL36

1734

81

194

322

353

11ND

06

100

CkA

k15ndash50

75YR

43

SBK

VF-L

627

157

216

SL34

2042

80

195

267

353

09

05

06

100

Epipetric

Skele

ticCa

lciso

lAk

0ndash4

10YR

33

GR

F-H

490

196

314

L22

030

80

213

355

254

40

03

18100

Bk1

4ndash20

10YR

43

SBK

F-M

539

314

147

SCL

2515

3582

113

167

149

1103

10100

Bk2

20ndash35

10YR

41

SBK

VF-L

529

216

256

SCL

2120

3683

129

182

165

1103

08

100

Ckm

35ndash4

0gt50

IIAk

40ndash6

010YR

51

GR

VF-L

598

196

206

SL22

1537

86

106

144

121

04

02

05

100

Hum

ic-H

yperskeletalLeptosol

Ak1

0ndash2

75YR

251

GR

VF-M

690

110

200

SL31

036

75499

599

328

341

01

11100

Ak2

2ndash22

75YR

351

GR

VF-L

670

130

200

SL0

9044

77426

376

418

223

01

12100

CA

22ndash80

75YR

41

SBK

VF-L

710

120

170

SL0

9547

78180

286

211

84

01

02

100

PSDpartic

lesiz

edistrib

ution

ASaggregates

shape(

GR

granularSBK

sub

angularb

lockyABK

ang

ular

blocky)ASiaggregatessize(

VFvery

fineFfin

eMm

edium)Stability(Llow

Mm

oderateHhigh)

Lloam

CLcla

yloam

CclayTC

texturalclassG

rgravels

Ststo

nesOMorganicmatterCE

Ccatio

nexchange

capacityB

Sbase

saturatio

n

ISRN Soil Science 7

Table 8 Comparison between the descriptions of the soils found in the municipality of Hocaba Yucatan Mexico and those presented inothers studies

Maya namelowast Aguilera (1958) [31] Duch (1988 1991) [15 16] This study

Krsquoankab Light red deep soils Reddish brown color Found it in plainterrains Red soil

Boxlursquoum mdash Black color Black or dark soil

Puslursquoum mdash Remarkable less amount of rockfragments than Boxlursquoum

Black soil soft with no rockfragments It dries out quickly

Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum mdash Very hard and gravel aggregates Soil with abundant amount of gravelsMuluch bukrsquotun mdash mdash Soil with a lot of rock fragments

Ekrsquolursquoum Organic soil on calcareous rock(Ekrsquolursquoum Tsekrsquoel) mdash Black soil

Chrsquoochrsquool Soil with calcareous rocks alongprofile

Soil with abundant rock fragments onthe surface Soil under piled rock fragments

Tsekrsquoel Calcareous rock with a thin layerof soil

Shallow soil with abundant rockfragments Soil with abundant rock fragments

Chaltun Soil over laja rock Soil with calcareous armour exposed Black shallow soilwith cracked or holed rock

Chaklursquoum mdash Soil more red than Krsquoankab Dark red soil

Haylursquoum mdash mdash Very shallow soil Less than 10 cmdepth

lowastWriting of the Maya names is according to the Porrua dictionary [32]

knowledge of soils is similar in the whole state Typicallyfarmer classifications are highly variable or they have littleconsistency from region to region [8 12 27] however itseems that the Mayan soil knowledge is quite homogeneouseven at regional level [8] This homogeneity can help tofacilitate its systematization

On the other hand this apparent homogeneity couldalso indicate a loss of the soil knowledge This statementis supported by the results of this work in which only twoclasses of soils were recognized by all the interviewed farmers(Boxlursquoum and Krsquoankab) and these two terms were used torefer to the rest of the soils when they did not know them

Most of the classification systems reflect the priorities ofwho propose them [28] Characteristics that Mayan farmersuse to classify soils are mainly visual and intimately related totheir agricultural activities

Farmers recognized colour differences among soils how-ever it was observed that there are different tones that farmersdo not consider as distinctive elements A particular caseis the Mayan term Box that means black or dark Manyfarmers referred the soil called Chichlursquoum that is usuallylight brown to dark brown as simply Boxlursquoum Howeverapparently this is related to the absence of a Mayan wordto designate brown color although some farmers used theSpanish term ldquoachocolatadordquo (colored as chocolate) to referto this colour Another special case is the soil called Krsquoankabwhose common translation is ldquoyellow place at the bottomrdquo inattention to subsuperficial soils horizons [8]TheMayanwordChakmeans red thusChaklursquoum are red soilsThese soils aredarker than other red top soils such as Krsquoankab

Soil depth was only an important characteristic forfarmers to differentiate between shallow (soils lt 10 cm) anddeep soils (soils gt 10 cm) Farmers recognized these soils

empirically during sowing when they insert their sowingstick by observation of aerial roots on maize plants or whenmaize plants fall down due to the wind action because rootslack deep anchorage Farmers affirmed that mound soils arenot very deep but they pointed out that roots always findcracks in the rocks to continue growing Shallow soils arecalled Haylursquoum in both plains and mounds and correspondto Nudilithic Leptosols Farmers judge the depth of Krsquoankabby its surface color the darker the soil is the shallower it isand the lighter the soil is the deeper it is Bautista and Zinck[8] reported these differences in deepness for Krsquoankab soils

The microtopographic position superficial amount ofrock fragments and outcrops are three characteristics that thefarmers always consider together We found five rock typeswith different uses and it is possible that they influence soilcharacteristics and soil genesis [14 26] For example soilscalled Chrsquoochrsquool can only be found at the base of the moundsunder stone accumulations (Hyperskeletic Leptosols) whilesoils designated Chaltun are almost always near the moundsbut present bedrock very near to the surface (NudilithicLeptosols)

Water retention is a characteristic that many farmersrecognized but their comments relative to this property wereinconsistent For many farmers soils that do not retain water(they dried out first) were those on themounds while othersassured that it was the soils on the plains This disagreementcan be due to the farmers not considering the variability in theamount of rock fragments or the depth of the soils as factorsthat determine the water retention In fact this characteristicwas only relevant to recognize the soil called Puslursquoum whichfarmers consistently designated as the soil that dried out first

Other studies have found that soil texture is an importantproperty for local classifications [11 29] but it seems that this

8 ISRN Soil Science

is not the case of the Mayan classification because none oftheir agricultural practices requires a direct physical contactwith the deeper layers of soil

42 Soils Uses Preferences for growing crops were mainlylinked to the more availability of workable surface for sowingin plain soils Farmers like to grow most of their crops onthe Krsquoankab soils because the absence of rock fragmentsand outcrops makes field operations easier and quicker Theone clear exception is the soil called Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum in whichfarmers prefer to sow peppers and sweet potato arguing thatthey only grow well in that class of soil It is possible thata nutritional reason exists to explain the best developmentof those crops in that class of soil but this remains to beconfirmed with soil fertility analyses

Although some farmers said that with good rain themound soils give better production most of them assuredthat crops on mound soils as well as plain soils grow wellif it has rained well and on time On the other hand whenrain is not good some farmers said that the mound soilsproduce higher yields while others argue that the plain soilsdo The reason for these inconsistencies could be the depthof the soils and the amount of rock fragments and outcropsComparatively shallow soils can store less water than deepsoils but amount of rocks and stones on mound soils help toconserve the humidity better than in shallow plain soils

Soil water content is a property associated by farmerswiththe presence of weeds In this regard they said that they havemany problems to control weeds because as soon as it rainsweeds appear in the soil They also pointed out differences inweed composition and abundance between mound and plainsoils A farmer makingmilpa in the same place for five yearsin a row said that every year he had to usemore herbicide anddedicate more hours to remove weeds than the earlier year

In contrast to what the authors of [16 17] found thefarmers interviewed in this study did not use any terms torefer to soil fertility This is perhaps because these authorsdid their studies using a deeper anthropologic approachThe author of [16] developed the hierarchical classificationof the soils of the Puuc region of the state of Yucatan andoutlined a classification departed from a linguistic point ofview grouping the soil classes according to the meaning ofthe Mayan names as well as some management aspects Suchresearch is important to obtain information that may nolonger exist among the contemporary inhabitants of a region

5 Comparison and Systematization

Our results suggest that Mayan soils knowledge is given atthree levels (Figure 2) In level one topographic positionmound (Muluch) or plain (Krsquoankabal) Mound soils are darkgenerally black grey or brown while plain soils are red tored-brown which makes a first division among soil classesresulting in a general designation for soils according to theircolor Dark soils are designated as Boxrsquoluum and red soils asKrsquoankab The prefix Box means literally black but it is usedto refer to all classes of dark colours On the other hand theprefix Krsquoan means literally yellow but is used to designatelight red soils on plains Level two is almost exclusive for

mound soils since in the plains the amount of rock fragmentsand outcrops are nearly absent However in some cases redmound soils having abundant amount of rock fragments andoutcrops were observed and recognized by farmers asChrsquoich-Krsquoankab or Tsekrsquoel-Krsquoankab This was the only case wherefarmers used a compound name mixing two single names

In level three variations of soils from the second levelwere recognized according to their association with specifictopographic position Here there were two subdivisions(1) soil names ending with the Mayan word lursquoum whichmeans soil for example Chrsquoichrsquolursquoummdashsoil with gravelsmdash(Hsk-LP) or Haylursquoummdashvery shallow soilmdash(Nu-LP) and(2) soils that were designated according to the specificmicrotopographic positions on which they occur for exam-ple Chrsquoochrsquoolmdashsoil under piled rock fragmentsmdash(Hsk-LP)Tsekrsquoelmdashsoil among rock fragmentsmdash(Nu-LP) Chaltunmdashsoilbetween outcropsmdash(Nu-LP) At this level soils in moundswere recognized as Krsquoankab Haylursquoum Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum TsekrsquoelChaltun Puslursquoum Chrsquoochrsquool and so on In the case of theplain soils farmers only recognized two variantsKrsquoankab andHayrsquolursquoum In both cases when farmers were not sure of thespecific nameof the soil they designate asBoxluursquom to all soilsin mounds and Krsquoankab to all soils in plains

Following this scheme it can be seen that level one(mound soils and plain soils) is the most studied level so far[5 14 15] It is in the second and third levels that researchis needed It is in those levels where the participation of thefarmers is important in order to better understand each oneof the elements of the landscape and topography that theyrecognize and use to identify soils

Mayan soil types and WRB units cannot be directlyrelated to each other because these systems share few diag-nostic properties and assign them different relative impor-tance [8] Many soils identified by farmers relate with morethan one WRB group of soil and vice versa in these casesno direct relationship between both classification systems ispossible (Table 9)

Peoplersquos understanding of soils constitutes a complexknowledge system with some categories similar or com-plementary to those used by modern soil science [8 30]For example even though hierarchical levels of the WRBsystem are based on qualitative and quantitative data theyuse qualifiers to distinguish soils at secondary levels Someof those characteristics that is gravels or rock fragmentspercentage are related to the Mayan approach For instanceamount of rock fragments is a very important property forbuilding hierarchal levels in the Mayan soil nomenclature(eg Chrsquoochrsquool) as well as in the WRB classification at thequalifier level (eg Hyperskeletic and Skeletic Leptosols)

6 Conclusions

In Hocaba Yucatan farmers distinguished two main groupsof soils Krsquoankab or soils of plains and Boxlursquoum or soils ofmounds Krsquoankab is a group of red soils with two variants(Krsquoankab and Haylursquoum) whereas Boxlursquoum is a group ofdark soils with five variants (Tsekrsquoel Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum ChaltunPuslursquoum and Chrsquoochrsquool) Soils on the plains were identifiedas Leptosols Cambisols Cambisols and Luvisols Soils

ISRN Soil Science 9

Mayan soil typesLevel

0

1

2

3

Soils in plains (Krsquoankabal)(Krsquoankab)

Krsquoankab

Soils in mounds (Muluch)(Boxluursquom)

Mounds dominated byrock fragments

Mounds dominated byoutcrops

Deep soils (less than 10 cm)

(color red orreddish brown)

(less than 10 cm)(color red orreddish brown)

Shallow soils Soils with abundantfine gravels

(color lightbrown grey

or black)

Soilsfree of rockfragments

(color grey

Soils in betweenoutcrops

(color black)

Soils in piles ofstones and cobbles

(color black)

Soils containedin rock holes(color black)

Shadow soils(less than 10 cm)

(color black)

HaylursquoumChrsquoichrsquolursquoum

Puslursquoum Tsekrsquoel Chrsquoochrsquool Chaltun

or black)

Figure 2 Mayan soil types in Hocaba Yucatan

Table 9 Relationship between WRB soil units and Mayan soil types

WRB soil group Dominant kind of rock Topographic position Mayan soil classChromic LuvisolsEutric CambisolsMollic Leptosol

Fracturable Any part of the plains Krsquoankab

Nudilithic Leptosol Fracturable Base of the mounds HaylursquoumHyperskeletic Leptosol ChrsquoichrsquolursquoumHaplic CalcisolHyperskeletic Leptosol Graintable and powderable Flat tops of the mounds Puslursquoum

ChrsquoichrsquolursquoumPetrocalcic Calcisol Fracturable and grainable Top of the mounds Puslursquoum

Nudilithic LeptosolHyperskeletic Leptosol

FracturableFracturableFracturable

Top of the moundsSides of the moundsBase of the mounds

BoxlursquoumTsekrsquoelChrsquoochrsquool

Rendzic LeptosolNudilithic Leptosol Fracturable Top of the mounds

Sides of the moundsBoxlursquoumTsekrsquoel

Nudilithic LeptosolLithic LeptosolNudilithic Leptosol

SolubleSoluble

Fracturable

Top of the moundsSides of the moundsBase of the mounds

ChaltunBoxlursquoumHaylursquoum

identified in mounds were Leptosols and Calcisols Mayansoil types and WRB groups are complementary they shouldbe used together in order to improve both soil classificationsto help transference of agricultural technologies and makesoil management decisions Soil characteristics that shouldbe considered for a local soil classification system aretopographic position (plain or mound) colour amount ofrock fragments and outcrops and soil depth or effectiverooting depth

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments are due to the Science and TechnologyNational Council (CONACyT) for the scholarship grantedto the first author for his master degree studies to CONA-CyT project Base de datos para la penınsula de Yucatanincluyendo nomenclatura maya y FAO Convenio R31624-B to the American Institute for Global Change Research(IAI) project Biogeochemical cycles under land use change

in the semiarid Americas to Dr Steve Gliessman Dr RobertGraham and MSc Arturo Caamal Maldonado for theircomments and corrections to the paper to Wendy Huchimand Miguel Huicab for their collaboration on some of thetables and figures This paper is dedicated to the memory ofmy friend Mr Pedro Canche farmer from Hocaba who withhis wide knowledge of soils roads and people helped me asguide and Mayan-Spanish translator and in contacting otherfarmers

References

[1] A M G A Winklerprins ldquoLocal soil knowledge a tool forsustainable land managementrdquo Society and Natural Resourcesvol 12 no 2 pp 151ndash161 1999

[2] P V Krasilnikov and J A Tabor ldquoPerspectives on utilitarianethnopedologyrdquo Geoderma vol 111 no 3-4 pp 197ndash215 2003

[3] N Barrera-Bassols and J A Zinck ldquoEthnopedology a world-wide view on the soil knowledge of local peoplerdquo Geodermavol 111 no 3-4 pp 171ndash195 2003

10 ISRN Soil Science

[4] N Barrera-Bassols ldquoEtnoedafologıa purhepechardquo MexicoIndıgena vol 6 no 24 pp 47ndash52 1988

[5] F Bautista J Jimenez J Navarro A Manu and R LozanoldquoMicrorelieve y color del suelo como propiedades de diag-nostico en Leptosoles carsticosrdquo Terra vol 21 no 1 pp 1ndash122003

[6] B J Williams ldquoAztec soil sciencerdquo Boletın del Instituto deGeografıa vol 7 pp 115ndash120 1975

[7] B J Williams and C A Ortiz-Solorio ldquoMiddle American folksoil taxonomyrdquo Annals Association of American Geographersvol 71 no 3 pp 335ndash358 1981

[8] F Bautista and J A Zinck ldquoConstruction of an Yucatec Mayasoil classification and comparison with the WRB frameworkrdquoJournal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine vol 6 article 7 2010

[9] V Toledo ldquoIndigenous knowledge on soils an ethnoecologicalconceptualizationrdquo in Ethnopedology in A Worldwide Perspec-tives An Annotated Bibliography N Barrera-Bassols and J AZinck Eds International Institute for Aerospace Survey andEarth Science Enschede The Netherlands 2000

[10] A J Tabor ldquoSoil classification systemsrdquo in Soil of Arid Regionsof the US and Israel 1997 httpcalsarizonaeduoalssoilsclassifsystemshtml

[11] J A Sandor and L Furbee ldquoIndigenous knowledge and clas-sification of soils in the Andes of Southern Perurdquo Soil ScienceSociety of America Journal vol 60 no 5 pp 1502ndash1512 1996

[12] A J Tabor ldquoSoil surveys and indigenous soil classificationrdquoIndigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor vol 1 no 11993

[13] IUSS-ISRIC-FAO ldquo2006World reference base for soil resources2006 A framework for international classification correlationand communicationrdquo World Soil Resour Report 103 FAORome Italy

[14] F Bautista H Estrada-Medina J Jimenez-Osornio and JGonzalez-Iturbe ldquoRelacion entre relieve y suelos en zonascarsticasrdquo Terra vol 22 no 3 pp 243ndash254 2004

[15] G J Duch La conformacion territorial del estado de YucatanmdashLos componentes del medio fısico Centro Regional de laPenınsula de Yucatan CRUPY Universidad Autonoma deChapingo Mexico Mexico 1988

[16] G J Duch Fisiografıa del estado de Yucatanmdashsu relacion conla agricultura Centro Regional de la Penınsula de YucatanCRUPY Universidad Autonoma de Chapingo Mexico Mexico1991

[17] P N Dunning ldquoSoils and vegetationrdquo in Lords of the HillsAncient Maya Settement in the Puuc Region Yucatan Mexicovol 15 of Monographs in World Archaeology Prehistory PressMadison Wis USA 1992

[18] J Lugo ldquoGeomorfologıardquo in Atlas de Procesos Territoriales deYucatan P P Chico Ed Universidad Autonoma de YucatanYucatan Mexico 1999

[19] Gobierno Constitucional del Estado de Yucatan ldquoPrograma dedesarrollo regional de la zona Henequenera de Yucatan 1992ndash1994rdquo Mexico 1992

[20] INEGI ldquoAnuario estadıstico del estado de Yucatanrdquo Gobiernodel estado de Yucatan 1995

[21] R Orellana ldquoEvaluacion Climatica (Climatologıa de laPenınsula de Yucatan)rdquo in Atlas de Procesos Territoriales deYucatan A Garcıa de Fuentes C Y Ordonez and P ChicoPonce de Leon Eds pp 162ndash182 Facultad de ArquitecturaUniversidad Autonoma de Yucatan Merida Mexico 2000

[22] S J Flores andC I Espejel ldquoTipos de vegetacion de la penınsulade Yucatanrdquo Fascıculo 3 Sostenibilidad Maya UniversidadAutonoma de Yucatan Mexico Mexico 1994

[23] L Cano Cambio del uso del suelo en el municipio de HocabaYucatan Mexico [Tesis de maestrıa en Manejo y Conservacionde Recursos Naturales Tropicales] Facultad de Medicina Veteri-naria y Zootecnia Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan 2000

[24] INEGI ldquoInstituto Nacional de Estadıstica Geografıa e Infor-maticardquo Carta Geologica 1250000 Secretarıa de Programaciony Presupuesto Mexico Mexico 1983

[25] C Siebe R Janh and K Stahr ldquoManual para la descripciony evaluacion ecologica de suelos en el campordquo PublicacionEspecial 4 Sociedad Mexicana de la Ciencia del Suelo A CEdo de Mexico Mexico Mexico 1996

[26] F Bautista J Garcia and A Mizrahi ldquoDiagnostico campesinode la situacion agrıcola en Hocaba Yucatanrdquo Terra Latinoamer-icana vol 23 no 4 2005

[27] E Habarurema and K G Steiner ldquoSoil suitability classificationby farmers in southern Rwandardquo Geoderma vol 75 no 1-2 pp75ndash87 1997

[28] M Corbeels A Shiferaw and M Haile ldquoFarmersrsquo knowledgeof soil fertility and local managament strategies in TigrayEthiopiardquo Managing Africarsquos Soils 10 IIED London UK 2000

[29] L Pool-Novelo E Cervantes-Trejo and S Mesa-Dıaz ldquoLaclasificacion Tsotsil de soils en el paisaje carstico de la subregionSan Cristobal de las casas Chiapas Mexicordquo Terra vol 9 no 1pp 11ndash23 1991

[30] N Barrera-Bassols and A J Zinck Ethnopedology in a World-wide Perspectives An Annotated Bibliography InternationalInstitute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Science EnschedeThe Netherlands 2000

[31] N Aguilera Herrera ldquoSuelosrdquo in Los recursos naturales del Sur-este y su aprovechamiento E Beltran Ed InstitutoMexicano deRecursos Naturales Renovables Mexico City Mexico 1958

[32] PorruaDicccionarioMaya Editorial Porrua Mexico Mexico 2edition 1991

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Forestry ResearchInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Environmental and Public Health

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

EcosystemsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

MeteorologyAdvances in

EcologyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Marine BiologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Applied ampEnvironmentalSoil Science

Volume 2014

Advances in

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Environmental Chemistry

Atmospheric SciencesInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Waste ManagementJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal of

Geophysics

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Geological ResearchJournal of

EarthquakesJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

BiodiversityInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

ScientificaHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

OceanographyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of Computational Environmental SciencesHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

ClimatologyJournal of

ISRN Soil Science 3

Table 2 Number of soils recognized by the interviewed farmers from Hocaba Yucatan Mexico

NameAge range

20ndash29 30ndash39 40ndash49 50ndash59 60ndash69 70ndash80 gt80 119899 = 3 119899 = 1 119899 = 8 119899 = 7 119899 = 10 119899 = 8 119899 = 3 119873 = 40

Krsquoankab 3 1 8 7 10 8 3 100Boxlursquoum 3 1 8 7 10 8 3 100Puslursquoum 4 3 3 250Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum 1 1 2 1 125Muluch bukrsquotun 2 2 1 125Ekrsquolursquoum 1 1 1 75Chrsquoochrsquool 1 25Tsekrsquoel 1 25Chaltun 1 25Chaklursquoum 1 25Haylursquoum 1 25

Table 3 Characteristics of the Mayan soils of the municipality of Hocaba Yucatan Mexico

Name Visual characteristicsSoil color Topographic position Superficial rock fragments Outcrops Water retention

Krsquoankab Chaklursquoum Red Only on plains Low or none Low or none Good

HaylursquoumBrown or

reddish-brown (darkcolors)

Base of the mounds Low amount of finegravels or none

Hard rock within first10 cm Bad

Chichlursquoum Clear brown or black On the flat top of themounds A lot of fine gravels Low Good

Puslursquoum Black Mounds Low amount of gravels ornone

Hard rock within first10 cm Very bad

Chrsquoochrsquool Black Base of the mounds Piles of cobbles None GoodTsekrsquoel Yan yantunichirsquo Mulursquochbukrsquotun

Black Mounds High in gravels stonesand cobbles High Bad

Chaltun Black Mounds Low or none Very high Bad

and the agronomic problems they perceive (Table 4) Theydo milpa in any type of soil without discriminating betweenmound or plain soils Specifically they usually prefer sowingvarieties of local chilli (Capsicum spp) in the mound soilscalled Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum Similarly vegetable crops and other greatdiversity of crops are usually sowed in the plain soils free ofrock fragments and outcrops called Krsquoankab Weeds developquicker on plain soils because there aremore seeds there thanin the mound soils and they can germinate at any momentwhen conditions become favourable Among the plants thatare exclusive or develop quicker on mound soils are Chichibe(Sida acuta Burm) and Sac kaatzim (Mimosa bahamensisBenth) while on plain soils Sacchiu (Abutilon permolle(willd) Sweet) and other grasses Habın (Piscidia piscipulaSarg) Tzalam (Lysiloma latisiliquum (L) Benth) Tsotskrsquoab(Mentzelia aspera L) Kiintal (Desmodium purpureum (Mill)Fawe) and Tajonal (Viguiera dentata (Cav)) were also men-tioned

Farmers pointed out the following problems remarkingthat they are present with different intensity in each soilclass Generally mound soils have lower water retention and

incidence of gophers raccoons and weeds than red soilsThesum of all these factors results according to farmers in lowyields

Farmers also use the type of rock associated with soilsto classify them Even more farmers classify and use thosedifferent types of rocks according to their properties and use(Table 5) Farmers recognized five types of rocks from thosetwo of them have relevant properties to agriculture as theyappear to have good water retention

According to the WRB soil units identified on the plainswere Chromic Luvisols (LVcr) characterized by the presenceof a Bt horizon and CEC gt 24 cmol kgminus1 through the wholeprofile Epileptic Cambisols (lep-CM) Endoleptic Cambisols(len-CM) and Endoskeletic Cambisols (skn-CM) havinga Bw horizon but varying in depth and amount of rockfragments and Lithic Leptosols (li-LP) which are soils up to10 cm depth (Table 6)

On the mounds the soil groups were Leptosols (LP) andCalcisols (CL) Both are dark colored (chroma less than 3)and have high organic matter contents from 23 to 50 (Table7) Both groups have minimal amounts of fine earth due to

4 ISRN Soil Science

Table 4 Crops and agronomic problems of the soils of Hocaba Yucatan Mexico

Maya soil name Preferred cropslowast Detected problems

Krsquoankab

Jamaica (Hibiscus sp)macal (Xanthosomayucatanense) jicama (Pachyrhizus erosus) yuca(Manihot esculenta) and sweet potato (Ipomoeabatatas)

Weeds grow faster Tuzas (Dasyprocta mexicana)and raccoons (Procycon spp) are more frequents

Haylursquoum Maize (Zea mays) beans (Phaseolus spp Vignaspp) and pumpkins (Cucurbita spp) As they are shallow soils maize falls down easily

Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum Chili pepper (Capsicum spp) and sometimes sweetpotato Tuzas (less frequent)

Puslursquoum Maize beans and pumpkins Shallow soils low water retention

Chrsquoochrsquool None Little surface for planting (too many rockfragments)

Tsekrsquoel Yan yan tunichirsquoMulursquoch bukrsquotun Maize beans and pumpkins Little surface for planting (many rock fragments)

Presence of weeds

Chaltun Maize beans and pumpkins Little surface for planting (too much rock)Very shallow soils

lowastFarmers do not have any preference to where to grow Sisal (Agave fourcroydes) they all agreed that the more rock fragments and outcrops in the soil the betterthe growth of Sisal

Table 5 Types of rock and their characteristics according to the farmers of Hocaba Yucatan Mexico

Maya name Spanish namelowast Use Characteristics

Saktunich o Sascab Creta To build roads It converts in powder and absorbs muchwater

Xuxtunich Roca desgranableLike sandpaper to cleaning

animals to completealbarradaslowastlowast

It breaks easily even by hand or when it isburned and absorbs water

Toktunich Roca fracturable To build albarradasVery hard when it is buried is not brokenonly turns black and does not absorb

water

Sakalbox Roca soluble To make hand grinders andalbarradas

It is the hardest one and does not absorbwater

Haysaltunich Laja Piblowastlowastlowast to complete albarradas Does not absorb waterlowastOnly laja is a common name among farmers the other 4 names were derived from observations of their properties lowastlowastAlbarrada is a wall made of rockslowastlowastlowastPibmeans cooking in pits

the high content of rock fragments There are three differenttypes of Leptosols (1) Hyperskeletic Leptosol (LPhsk) havingmore than 80 by weight of rock fragments (2) Nudilithicand Lithic Leptosol (LPli) having a depth less than 5 and10 cm respectively and (3) Calcaric Humic Leptosol (LPca-hu) more than 10 cm in depth high organic matter contentand calcium carbonate content less than 40 Two types ofCalcisols were recognized (CL) (1) Epipetric Skeletic Calcisol(CLptpsk) and (2) Epileptic Skeletic Calcisol (CLlepsk) bothof them differing in their depth

4 Discussion

41 Soils Identification In Hocaba Yucatan soil knowledgeis being lost because there are less young people interestedin making milpa the main activity that relates farmers tosoil Whit each generation fewer young people engage inthis activity because most of them prefer a salaried work orstudying Moreover most of the adults younger than 50 yearsold performmilpa in an intermittent way combining it with asalaried work [26] The reduction of the available forest area

to make milpa is also a factor in the abandonment of thisactivity [23] All these causes are promoting the loss of thetraditional soil knowledge this is supported in this study bythe observed relationship between farmersrsquo age and numberof soils they recognize Loss of traditional soil knowledge isoccurring similar to other parts of the world [2]

No classification system is static [12] and the Mayan soilclassification is not an exception Synonymies and differencesin the descriptions given by the interviewed farmers con-firmed this situation In this study four cases of possiblesynonymies were found Puslursquoum and Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum Krsquoankaband Chaklursquoum Boxlursquoum and Eklursquoum and Muluch bukrsquotunand Tsekrsquoel The first three cases are reported by [8 15] asdifferent soil classes

Soil names and descriptions provided by the farmerswere contrasted with those of previous works [15 17] allof them presented a similar number of soil classes and thedescriptions were highly consistent although some namesvaried (Table 8) In those works done at state and regionallevels only three additional soils were reported for the studyarea (Yarsquoaxhom Akrsquoalche and Kacab) suggesting that Mayan

ISRN Soil Science 5

Table6Ch

emicalandph

ysicalprop

ertie

sofsoilslocatedin

plains

atHocabaYu

catan

Mexico

Soil

horiz

onDepth

cmDry

color

StructureA

SASi

PSD

TCFg

rCg

rCO

3

pHOM

CE

Ccm

ol+kgminus1

Exchange

catio

nscm

ol+kgminus1

BS

Sand

Clay

Silt

Ca

Mg

Na

KLithicLeptosolRh

odic

A0ndash

95Y

R44

SBK

VF-M

430

190

380

L0

004

74140

472

236

166

01

28

100

LepticCa

mbisol

A0ndash

115Y

R33

SBK

F-H

488

206

314

L0

001

76158

397

315

27

03

08

89Bw

111ndash

235Y

R33

SBK

F-H

480

196

324

L0

001

76138

478

310

29

01

44

81Bw

223ndash38

5YR32

ABK

VF-L

461

245

294

L0

001

75117

292

258

32

02

04

100

Endo

skeletalCa

mbisol

A1

0ndash9

5YR33

SBK

VF-M

4226

32L

00

01

72172

512

320

214

01

08

100

A2

9ndash17

5YR44

SBK

VF-L

5022

28L

00

01

70110

499

278

253

07

06

100

Bw1

17ndash39

5YR46

ABK

VF-L

5121

28L

00

01

69

100

432

305

159

01

03

100

Bw2

39ndash56

5YR46

ABK

VF-L

5816

26CL

020

01

7069

441

292

188

002

100

C56ndash100

5YR46

ABK

VF-L

4719

33L

2367

01

7272

292

205

122

01

03

100

Endo

lepticCa

mbisol

A1

0ndash4

5YR43

GR

F-H

451

216

333

L5

005

74188

460

390

36

02

23

100

A2

4ndash22

5YR44

SBK

VF-M

490

196

314

L0

001

73123

332

385

23

01

10100

Bw1

22ndash33

5YR36

ABK

VF-M

549

157

255

CL5

001

7381

290

300

25

01

04

100

Bw2

33ndash55

5YR43

ABK

VF-L

618

165

225

CL3

004

7591

255

195

1201

03

100

Bw3

55ndash75

5YR43

ABK

VF-L

510

175

325

L2

015

7555

348

355

1001

02

100

Haplic

LuvisolR

hodic

A1

0ndash6

5YR253

GR

F-H

471

255

275

L0

001

74114

362

216

36

01

1173

A2

6ndash20

5YR33

SBK

F-M

480

260

260

L0

001

66

81

255

126

25

03

03

61Bt1

20ndash4

525Y

R36

ABK

M-L

402

377

221

CL0

001

67

38

249

153

09

02

03

67Bt2

45ndash85

25Y

R36

ABK

M-L

304

477

225

C0

001

7031

190

162

1804

03

97Bt3

85ndash109

25Y

R46

ABK

M-L

368

392

240

CL0

001

7133

151

162

1003

03

100

Bt4

109ndash

150

25Y

R46

ABK

M-L

343

373

284

CL0

001

7227

104

148

32

03

03

100

PSDpartic

lesiz

edistrib

ution

ASaggregates

shape(

GR

granularSBK

sub

angularb

lockyABK

ang

ular

blocky)ASiaggregatessize(

VFvery

fineFfin

eMm

edium)Stability(Llow

Mm

oderateHhigh)

Lloam

CLcla

yloam

CclayTC

texturalclassFgrfine

gravels

(lt2c

m)Cg

rcoarse

gravels

(gt2c

m)OMorganicmatterCE

Ccatio

nexchange

capacityB

Sbase

saturatio

n

6 ISRN Soil Science

Table7Prop

ertie

sofsoilslocatedin

mou

ndsa

tHocabaYu

catan

Mexico

Soilho

rizon

Depth

cmDry

color

StructureA

SASi

PSD

TCGr

St

CO3

pHOM

CE

Ccm

ol+kgminus1

Exchange

Catio

nscm

ol+kgminus

BS

Sand

Clay

Silt

CaMg

Na

KHyperskele

ticLeptosol

A0ndash

1075

YR251

GR

VF-M

706

157

137

SL50

3012

80

450

662

540

1801

33

89AkC

10ndash4

575

YR31

GR

VF-L

588

176

235

SL67

254

80

364

19192

54

04

31

100

Rend

zicH

yperskeleticLeptosol

A0ndash

710YR

251

GR

F-M

637

157

206

SL51

4031

78345

541

384

126

02

09

100

AC

7ndash23

10YR

251

GR

VF-M

716

137

147

SL51

4543

77286

244

390

270

02

10100

LepticSkele

talC

alcisol

A0-1

75YR

251

GR

VF-L

550

200

250

SCL

3010

4180

306

407

386

07

02

28

100

AkCk

1ndash15

75YR

43

GR

VF-M

627

137

235

SL36

1734

81

194

322

353

11ND

06

100

CkA

k15ndash50

75YR

43

SBK

VF-L

627

157

216

SL34

2042

80

195

267

353

09

05

06

100

Epipetric

Skele

ticCa

lciso

lAk

0ndash4

10YR

33

GR

F-H

490

196

314

L22

030

80

213

355

254

40

03

18100

Bk1

4ndash20

10YR

43

SBK

F-M

539

314

147

SCL

2515

3582

113

167

149

1103

10100

Bk2

20ndash35

10YR

41

SBK

VF-L

529

216

256

SCL

2120

3683

129

182

165

1103

08

100

Ckm

35ndash4

0gt50

IIAk

40ndash6

010YR

51

GR

VF-L

598

196

206

SL22

1537

86

106

144

121

04

02

05

100

Hum

ic-H

yperskeletalLeptosol

Ak1

0ndash2

75YR

251

GR

VF-M

690

110

200

SL31

036

75499

599

328

341

01

11100

Ak2

2ndash22

75YR

351

GR

VF-L

670

130

200

SL0

9044

77426

376

418

223

01

12100

CA

22ndash80

75YR

41

SBK

VF-L

710

120

170

SL0

9547

78180

286

211

84

01

02

100

PSDpartic

lesiz

edistrib

ution

ASaggregates

shape(

GR

granularSBK

sub

angularb

lockyABK

ang

ular

blocky)ASiaggregatessize(

VFvery

fineFfin

eMm

edium)Stability(Llow

Mm

oderateHhigh)

Lloam

CLcla

yloam

CclayTC

texturalclassG

rgravels

Ststo

nesOMorganicmatterCE

Ccatio

nexchange

capacityB

Sbase

saturatio

n

ISRN Soil Science 7

Table 8 Comparison between the descriptions of the soils found in the municipality of Hocaba Yucatan Mexico and those presented inothers studies

Maya namelowast Aguilera (1958) [31] Duch (1988 1991) [15 16] This study

Krsquoankab Light red deep soils Reddish brown color Found it in plainterrains Red soil

Boxlursquoum mdash Black color Black or dark soil

Puslursquoum mdash Remarkable less amount of rockfragments than Boxlursquoum

Black soil soft with no rockfragments It dries out quickly

Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum mdash Very hard and gravel aggregates Soil with abundant amount of gravelsMuluch bukrsquotun mdash mdash Soil with a lot of rock fragments

Ekrsquolursquoum Organic soil on calcareous rock(Ekrsquolursquoum Tsekrsquoel) mdash Black soil

Chrsquoochrsquool Soil with calcareous rocks alongprofile

Soil with abundant rock fragments onthe surface Soil under piled rock fragments

Tsekrsquoel Calcareous rock with a thin layerof soil

Shallow soil with abundant rockfragments Soil with abundant rock fragments

Chaltun Soil over laja rock Soil with calcareous armour exposed Black shallow soilwith cracked or holed rock

Chaklursquoum mdash Soil more red than Krsquoankab Dark red soil

Haylursquoum mdash mdash Very shallow soil Less than 10 cmdepth

lowastWriting of the Maya names is according to the Porrua dictionary [32]

knowledge of soils is similar in the whole state Typicallyfarmer classifications are highly variable or they have littleconsistency from region to region [8 12 27] however itseems that the Mayan soil knowledge is quite homogeneouseven at regional level [8] This homogeneity can help tofacilitate its systematization

On the other hand this apparent homogeneity couldalso indicate a loss of the soil knowledge This statementis supported by the results of this work in which only twoclasses of soils were recognized by all the interviewed farmers(Boxlursquoum and Krsquoankab) and these two terms were used torefer to the rest of the soils when they did not know them

Most of the classification systems reflect the priorities ofwho propose them [28] Characteristics that Mayan farmersuse to classify soils are mainly visual and intimately related totheir agricultural activities

Farmers recognized colour differences among soils how-ever it was observed that there are different tones that farmersdo not consider as distinctive elements A particular caseis the Mayan term Box that means black or dark Manyfarmers referred the soil called Chichlursquoum that is usuallylight brown to dark brown as simply Boxlursquoum Howeverapparently this is related to the absence of a Mayan wordto designate brown color although some farmers used theSpanish term ldquoachocolatadordquo (colored as chocolate) to referto this colour Another special case is the soil called Krsquoankabwhose common translation is ldquoyellow place at the bottomrdquo inattention to subsuperficial soils horizons [8]TheMayanwordChakmeans red thusChaklursquoum are red soilsThese soils aredarker than other red top soils such as Krsquoankab

Soil depth was only an important characteristic forfarmers to differentiate between shallow (soils lt 10 cm) anddeep soils (soils gt 10 cm) Farmers recognized these soils

empirically during sowing when they insert their sowingstick by observation of aerial roots on maize plants or whenmaize plants fall down due to the wind action because rootslack deep anchorage Farmers affirmed that mound soils arenot very deep but they pointed out that roots always findcracks in the rocks to continue growing Shallow soils arecalled Haylursquoum in both plains and mounds and correspondto Nudilithic Leptosols Farmers judge the depth of Krsquoankabby its surface color the darker the soil is the shallower it isand the lighter the soil is the deeper it is Bautista and Zinck[8] reported these differences in deepness for Krsquoankab soils

The microtopographic position superficial amount ofrock fragments and outcrops are three characteristics that thefarmers always consider together We found five rock typeswith different uses and it is possible that they influence soilcharacteristics and soil genesis [14 26] For example soilscalled Chrsquoochrsquool can only be found at the base of the moundsunder stone accumulations (Hyperskeletic Leptosols) whilesoils designated Chaltun are almost always near the moundsbut present bedrock very near to the surface (NudilithicLeptosols)

Water retention is a characteristic that many farmersrecognized but their comments relative to this property wereinconsistent For many farmers soils that do not retain water(they dried out first) were those on themounds while othersassured that it was the soils on the plains This disagreementcan be due to the farmers not considering the variability in theamount of rock fragments or the depth of the soils as factorsthat determine the water retention In fact this characteristicwas only relevant to recognize the soil called Puslursquoum whichfarmers consistently designated as the soil that dried out first

Other studies have found that soil texture is an importantproperty for local classifications [11 29] but it seems that this

8 ISRN Soil Science

is not the case of the Mayan classification because none oftheir agricultural practices requires a direct physical contactwith the deeper layers of soil

42 Soils Uses Preferences for growing crops were mainlylinked to the more availability of workable surface for sowingin plain soils Farmers like to grow most of their crops onthe Krsquoankab soils because the absence of rock fragmentsand outcrops makes field operations easier and quicker Theone clear exception is the soil called Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum in whichfarmers prefer to sow peppers and sweet potato arguing thatthey only grow well in that class of soil It is possible thata nutritional reason exists to explain the best developmentof those crops in that class of soil but this remains to beconfirmed with soil fertility analyses

Although some farmers said that with good rain themound soils give better production most of them assuredthat crops on mound soils as well as plain soils grow wellif it has rained well and on time On the other hand whenrain is not good some farmers said that the mound soilsproduce higher yields while others argue that the plain soilsdo The reason for these inconsistencies could be the depthof the soils and the amount of rock fragments and outcropsComparatively shallow soils can store less water than deepsoils but amount of rocks and stones on mound soils help toconserve the humidity better than in shallow plain soils

Soil water content is a property associated by farmerswiththe presence of weeds In this regard they said that they havemany problems to control weeds because as soon as it rainsweeds appear in the soil They also pointed out differences inweed composition and abundance between mound and plainsoils A farmer makingmilpa in the same place for five yearsin a row said that every year he had to usemore herbicide anddedicate more hours to remove weeds than the earlier year

In contrast to what the authors of [16 17] found thefarmers interviewed in this study did not use any terms torefer to soil fertility This is perhaps because these authorsdid their studies using a deeper anthropologic approachThe author of [16] developed the hierarchical classificationof the soils of the Puuc region of the state of Yucatan andoutlined a classification departed from a linguistic point ofview grouping the soil classes according to the meaning ofthe Mayan names as well as some management aspects Suchresearch is important to obtain information that may nolonger exist among the contemporary inhabitants of a region

5 Comparison and Systematization

Our results suggest that Mayan soils knowledge is given atthree levels (Figure 2) In level one topographic positionmound (Muluch) or plain (Krsquoankabal) Mound soils are darkgenerally black grey or brown while plain soils are red tored-brown which makes a first division among soil classesresulting in a general designation for soils according to theircolor Dark soils are designated as Boxrsquoluum and red soils asKrsquoankab The prefix Box means literally black but it is usedto refer to all classes of dark colours On the other hand theprefix Krsquoan means literally yellow but is used to designatelight red soils on plains Level two is almost exclusive for

mound soils since in the plains the amount of rock fragmentsand outcrops are nearly absent However in some cases redmound soils having abundant amount of rock fragments andoutcrops were observed and recognized by farmers asChrsquoich-Krsquoankab or Tsekrsquoel-Krsquoankab This was the only case wherefarmers used a compound name mixing two single names

In level three variations of soils from the second levelwere recognized according to their association with specifictopographic position Here there were two subdivisions(1) soil names ending with the Mayan word lursquoum whichmeans soil for example Chrsquoichrsquolursquoummdashsoil with gravelsmdash(Hsk-LP) or Haylursquoummdashvery shallow soilmdash(Nu-LP) and(2) soils that were designated according to the specificmicrotopographic positions on which they occur for exam-ple Chrsquoochrsquoolmdashsoil under piled rock fragmentsmdash(Hsk-LP)Tsekrsquoelmdashsoil among rock fragmentsmdash(Nu-LP) Chaltunmdashsoilbetween outcropsmdash(Nu-LP) At this level soils in moundswere recognized as Krsquoankab Haylursquoum Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum TsekrsquoelChaltun Puslursquoum Chrsquoochrsquool and so on In the case of theplain soils farmers only recognized two variantsKrsquoankab andHayrsquolursquoum In both cases when farmers were not sure of thespecific nameof the soil they designate asBoxluursquom to all soilsin mounds and Krsquoankab to all soils in plains

Following this scheme it can be seen that level one(mound soils and plain soils) is the most studied level so far[5 14 15] It is in the second and third levels that researchis needed It is in those levels where the participation of thefarmers is important in order to better understand each oneof the elements of the landscape and topography that theyrecognize and use to identify soils

Mayan soil types and WRB units cannot be directlyrelated to each other because these systems share few diag-nostic properties and assign them different relative impor-tance [8] Many soils identified by farmers relate with morethan one WRB group of soil and vice versa in these casesno direct relationship between both classification systems ispossible (Table 9)

Peoplersquos understanding of soils constitutes a complexknowledge system with some categories similar or com-plementary to those used by modern soil science [8 30]For example even though hierarchical levels of the WRBsystem are based on qualitative and quantitative data theyuse qualifiers to distinguish soils at secondary levels Someof those characteristics that is gravels or rock fragmentspercentage are related to the Mayan approach For instanceamount of rock fragments is a very important property forbuilding hierarchal levels in the Mayan soil nomenclature(eg Chrsquoochrsquool) as well as in the WRB classification at thequalifier level (eg Hyperskeletic and Skeletic Leptosols)

6 Conclusions

In Hocaba Yucatan farmers distinguished two main groupsof soils Krsquoankab or soils of plains and Boxlursquoum or soils ofmounds Krsquoankab is a group of red soils with two variants(Krsquoankab and Haylursquoum) whereas Boxlursquoum is a group ofdark soils with five variants (Tsekrsquoel Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum ChaltunPuslursquoum and Chrsquoochrsquool) Soils on the plains were identifiedas Leptosols Cambisols Cambisols and Luvisols Soils

ISRN Soil Science 9

Mayan soil typesLevel

0

1

2

3

Soils in plains (Krsquoankabal)(Krsquoankab)

Krsquoankab

Soils in mounds (Muluch)(Boxluursquom)

Mounds dominated byrock fragments

Mounds dominated byoutcrops

Deep soils (less than 10 cm)

(color red orreddish brown)

(less than 10 cm)(color red orreddish brown)

Shallow soils Soils with abundantfine gravels

(color lightbrown grey

or black)

Soilsfree of rockfragments

(color grey

Soils in betweenoutcrops

(color black)

Soils in piles ofstones and cobbles

(color black)

Soils containedin rock holes(color black)

Shadow soils(less than 10 cm)

(color black)

HaylursquoumChrsquoichrsquolursquoum

Puslursquoum Tsekrsquoel Chrsquoochrsquool Chaltun

or black)

Figure 2 Mayan soil types in Hocaba Yucatan

Table 9 Relationship between WRB soil units and Mayan soil types

WRB soil group Dominant kind of rock Topographic position Mayan soil classChromic LuvisolsEutric CambisolsMollic Leptosol

Fracturable Any part of the plains Krsquoankab

Nudilithic Leptosol Fracturable Base of the mounds HaylursquoumHyperskeletic Leptosol ChrsquoichrsquolursquoumHaplic CalcisolHyperskeletic Leptosol Graintable and powderable Flat tops of the mounds Puslursquoum

ChrsquoichrsquolursquoumPetrocalcic Calcisol Fracturable and grainable Top of the mounds Puslursquoum

Nudilithic LeptosolHyperskeletic Leptosol

FracturableFracturableFracturable

Top of the moundsSides of the moundsBase of the mounds

BoxlursquoumTsekrsquoelChrsquoochrsquool

Rendzic LeptosolNudilithic Leptosol Fracturable Top of the mounds

Sides of the moundsBoxlursquoumTsekrsquoel

Nudilithic LeptosolLithic LeptosolNudilithic Leptosol

SolubleSoluble

Fracturable

Top of the moundsSides of the moundsBase of the mounds

ChaltunBoxlursquoumHaylursquoum

identified in mounds were Leptosols and Calcisols Mayansoil types and WRB groups are complementary they shouldbe used together in order to improve both soil classificationsto help transference of agricultural technologies and makesoil management decisions Soil characteristics that shouldbe considered for a local soil classification system aretopographic position (plain or mound) colour amount ofrock fragments and outcrops and soil depth or effectiverooting depth

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments are due to the Science and TechnologyNational Council (CONACyT) for the scholarship grantedto the first author for his master degree studies to CONA-CyT project Base de datos para la penınsula de Yucatanincluyendo nomenclatura maya y FAO Convenio R31624-B to the American Institute for Global Change Research(IAI) project Biogeochemical cycles under land use change

in the semiarid Americas to Dr Steve Gliessman Dr RobertGraham and MSc Arturo Caamal Maldonado for theircomments and corrections to the paper to Wendy Huchimand Miguel Huicab for their collaboration on some of thetables and figures This paper is dedicated to the memory ofmy friend Mr Pedro Canche farmer from Hocaba who withhis wide knowledge of soils roads and people helped me asguide and Mayan-Spanish translator and in contacting otherfarmers

References

[1] A M G A Winklerprins ldquoLocal soil knowledge a tool forsustainable land managementrdquo Society and Natural Resourcesvol 12 no 2 pp 151ndash161 1999

[2] P V Krasilnikov and J A Tabor ldquoPerspectives on utilitarianethnopedologyrdquo Geoderma vol 111 no 3-4 pp 197ndash215 2003

[3] N Barrera-Bassols and J A Zinck ldquoEthnopedology a world-wide view on the soil knowledge of local peoplerdquo Geodermavol 111 no 3-4 pp 171ndash195 2003

10 ISRN Soil Science

[4] N Barrera-Bassols ldquoEtnoedafologıa purhepechardquo MexicoIndıgena vol 6 no 24 pp 47ndash52 1988

[5] F Bautista J Jimenez J Navarro A Manu and R LozanoldquoMicrorelieve y color del suelo como propiedades de diag-nostico en Leptosoles carsticosrdquo Terra vol 21 no 1 pp 1ndash122003

[6] B J Williams ldquoAztec soil sciencerdquo Boletın del Instituto deGeografıa vol 7 pp 115ndash120 1975

[7] B J Williams and C A Ortiz-Solorio ldquoMiddle American folksoil taxonomyrdquo Annals Association of American Geographersvol 71 no 3 pp 335ndash358 1981

[8] F Bautista and J A Zinck ldquoConstruction of an Yucatec Mayasoil classification and comparison with the WRB frameworkrdquoJournal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine vol 6 article 7 2010

[9] V Toledo ldquoIndigenous knowledge on soils an ethnoecologicalconceptualizationrdquo in Ethnopedology in A Worldwide Perspec-tives An Annotated Bibliography N Barrera-Bassols and J AZinck Eds International Institute for Aerospace Survey andEarth Science Enschede The Netherlands 2000

[10] A J Tabor ldquoSoil classification systemsrdquo in Soil of Arid Regionsof the US and Israel 1997 httpcalsarizonaeduoalssoilsclassifsystemshtml

[11] J A Sandor and L Furbee ldquoIndigenous knowledge and clas-sification of soils in the Andes of Southern Perurdquo Soil ScienceSociety of America Journal vol 60 no 5 pp 1502ndash1512 1996

[12] A J Tabor ldquoSoil surveys and indigenous soil classificationrdquoIndigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor vol 1 no 11993

[13] IUSS-ISRIC-FAO ldquo2006World reference base for soil resources2006 A framework for international classification correlationand communicationrdquo World Soil Resour Report 103 FAORome Italy

[14] F Bautista H Estrada-Medina J Jimenez-Osornio and JGonzalez-Iturbe ldquoRelacion entre relieve y suelos en zonascarsticasrdquo Terra vol 22 no 3 pp 243ndash254 2004

[15] G J Duch La conformacion territorial del estado de YucatanmdashLos componentes del medio fısico Centro Regional de laPenınsula de Yucatan CRUPY Universidad Autonoma deChapingo Mexico Mexico 1988

[16] G J Duch Fisiografıa del estado de Yucatanmdashsu relacion conla agricultura Centro Regional de la Penınsula de YucatanCRUPY Universidad Autonoma de Chapingo Mexico Mexico1991

[17] P N Dunning ldquoSoils and vegetationrdquo in Lords of the HillsAncient Maya Settement in the Puuc Region Yucatan Mexicovol 15 of Monographs in World Archaeology Prehistory PressMadison Wis USA 1992

[18] J Lugo ldquoGeomorfologıardquo in Atlas de Procesos Territoriales deYucatan P P Chico Ed Universidad Autonoma de YucatanYucatan Mexico 1999

[19] Gobierno Constitucional del Estado de Yucatan ldquoPrograma dedesarrollo regional de la zona Henequenera de Yucatan 1992ndash1994rdquo Mexico 1992

[20] INEGI ldquoAnuario estadıstico del estado de Yucatanrdquo Gobiernodel estado de Yucatan 1995

[21] R Orellana ldquoEvaluacion Climatica (Climatologıa de laPenınsula de Yucatan)rdquo in Atlas de Procesos Territoriales deYucatan A Garcıa de Fuentes C Y Ordonez and P ChicoPonce de Leon Eds pp 162ndash182 Facultad de ArquitecturaUniversidad Autonoma de Yucatan Merida Mexico 2000

[22] S J Flores andC I Espejel ldquoTipos de vegetacion de la penınsulade Yucatanrdquo Fascıculo 3 Sostenibilidad Maya UniversidadAutonoma de Yucatan Mexico Mexico 1994

[23] L Cano Cambio del uso del suelo en el municipio de HocabaYucatan Mexico [Tesis de maestrıa en Manejo y Conservacionde Recursos Naturales Tropicales] Facultad de Medicina Veteri-naria y Zootecnia Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan 2000

[24] INEGI ldquoInstituto Nacional de Estadıstica Geografıa e Infor-maticardquo Carta Geologica 1250000 Secretarıa de Programaciony Presupuesto Mexico Mexico 1983

[25] C Siebe R Janh and K Stahr ldquoManual para la descripciony evaluacion ecologica de suelos en el campordquo PublicacionEspecial 4 Sociedad Mexicana de la Ciencia del Suelo A CEdo de Mexico Mexico Mexico 1996

[26] F Bautista J Garcia and A Mizrahi ldquoDiagnostico campesinode la situacion agrıcola en Hocaba Yucatanrdquo Terra Latinoamer-icana vol 23 no 4 2005

[27] E Habarurema and K G Steiner ldquoSoil suitability classificationby farmers in southern Rwandardquo Geoderma vol 75 no 1-2 pp75ndash87 1997

[28] M Corbeels A Shiferaw and M Haile ldquoFarmersrsquo knowledgeof soil fertility and local managament strategies in TigrayEthiopiardquo Managing Africarsquos Soils 10 IIED London UK 2000

[29] L Pool-Novelo E Cervantes-Trejo and S Mesa-Dıaz ldquoLaclasificacion Tsotsil de soils en el paisaje carstico de la subregionSan Cristobal de las casas Chiapas Mexicordquo Terra vol 9 no 1pp 11ndash23 1991

[30] N Barrera-Bassols and A J Zinck Ethnopedology in a World-wide Perspectives An Annotated Bibliography InternationalInstitute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Science EnschedeThe Netherlands 2000

[31] N Aguilera Herrera ldquoSuelosrdquo in Los recursos naturales del Sur-este y su aprovechamiento E Beltran Ed InstitutoMexicano deRecursos Naturales Renovables Mexico City Mexico 1958

[32] PorruaDicccionarioMaya Editorial Porrua Mexico Mexico 2edition 1991

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Forestry ResearchInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Environmental and Public Health

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

EcosystemsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

MeteorologyAdvances in

EcologyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Marine BiologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Applied ampEnvironmentalSoil Science

Volume 2014

Advances in

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Environmental Chemistry

Atmospheric SciencesInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Waste ManagementJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal of

Geophysics

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Geological ResearchJournal of

EarthquakesJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

BiodiversityInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

ScientificaHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

OceanographyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of Computational Environmental SciencesHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

ClimatologyJournal of

4 ISRN Soil Science

Table 4 Crops and agronomic problems of the soils of Hocaba Yucatan Mexico

Maya soil name Preferred cropslowast Detected problems

Krsquoankab

Jamaica (Hibiscus sp)macal (Xanthosomayucatanense) jicama (Pachyrhizus erosus) yuca(Manihot esculenta) and sweet potato (Ipomoeabatatas)

Weeds grow faster Tuzas (Dasyprocta mexicana)and raccoons (Procycon spp) are more frequents

Haylursquoum Maize (Zea mays) beans (Phaseolus spp Vignaspp) and pumpkins (Cucurbita spp) As they are shallow soils maize falls down easily

Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum Chili pepper (Capsicum spp) and sometimes sweetpotato Tuzas (less frequent)

Puslursquoum Maize beans and pumpkins Shallow soils low water retention

Chrsquoochrsquool None Little surface for planting (too many rockfragments)

Tsekrsquoel Yan yan tunichirsquoMulursquoch bukrsquotun Maize beans and pumpkins Little surface for planting (many rock fragments)

Presence of weeds

Chaltun Maize beans and pumpkins Little surface for planting (too much rock)Very shallow soils

lowastFarmers do not have any preference to where to grow Sisal (Agave fourcroydes) they all agreed that the more rock fragments and outcrops in the soil the betterthe growth of Sisal

Table 5 Types of rock and their characteristics according to the farmers of Hocaba Yucatan Mexico

Maya name Spanish namelowast Use Characteristics

Saktunich o Sascab Creta To build roads It converts in powder and absorbs muchwater

Xuxtunich Roca desgranableLike sandpaper to cleaning

animals to completealbarradaslowastlowast

It breaks easily even by hand or when it isburned and absorbs water

Toktunich Roca fracturable To build albarradasVery hard when it is buried is not brokenonly turns black and does not absorb

water

Sakalbox Roca soluble To make hand grinders andalbarradas

It is the hardest one and does not absorbwater

Haysaltunich Laja Piblowastlowastlowast to complete albarradas Does not absorb waterlowastOnly laja is a common name among farmers the other 4 names were derived from observations of their properties lowastlowastAlbarrada is a wall made of rockslowastlowastlowastPibmeans cooking in pits

the high content of rock fragments There are three differenttypes of Leptosols (1) Hyperskeletic Leptosol (LPhsk) havingmore than 80 by weight of rock fragments (2) Nudilithicand Lithic Leptosol (LPli) having a depth less than 5 and10 cm respectively and (3) Calcaric Humic Leptosol (LPca-hu) more than 10 cm in depth high organic matter contentand calcium carbonate content less than 40 Two types ofCalcisols were recognized (CL) (1) Epipetric Skeletic Calcisol(CLptpsk) and (2) Epileptic Skeletic Calcisol (CLlepsk) bothof them differing in their depth

4 Discussion

41 Soils Identification In Hocaba Yucatan soil knowledgeis being lost because there are less young people interestedin making milpa the main activity that relates farmers tosoil Whit each generation fewer young people engage inthis activity because most of them prefer a salaried work orstudying Moreover most of the adults younger than 50 yearsold performmilpa in an intermittent way combining it with asalaried work [26] The reduction of the available forest area

to make milpa is also a factor in the abandonment of thisactivity [23] All these causes are promoting the loss of thetraditional soil knowledge this is supported in this study bythe observed relationship between farmersrsquo age and numberof soils they recognize Loss of traditional soil knowledge isoccurring similar to other parts of the world [2]

No classification system is static [12] and the Mayan soilclassification is not an exception Synonymies and differencesin the descriptions given by the interviewed farmers con-firmed this situation In this study four cases of possiblesynonymies were found Puslursquoum and Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum Krsquoankaband Chaklursquoum Boxlursquoum and Eklursquoum and Muluch bukrsquotunand Tsekrsquoel The first three cases are reported by [8 15] asdifferent soil classes

Soil names and descriptions provided by the farmerswere contrasted with those of previous works [15 17] allof them presented a similar number of soil classes and thedescriptions were highly consistent although some namesvaried (Table 8) In those works done at state and regionallevels only three additional soils were reported for the studyarea (Yarsquoaxhom Akrsquoalche and Kacab) suggesting that Mayan

ISRN Soil Science 5

Table6Ch

emicalandph

ysicalprop

ertie

sofsoilslocatedin

plains

atHocabaYu

catan

Mexico

Soil

horiz

onDepth

cmDry

color

StructureA

SASi

PSD

TCFg

rCg

rCO

3

pHOM

CE

Ccm

ol+kgminus1

Exchange

catio

nscm

ol+kgminus1

BS

Sand

Clay

Silt

Ca

Mg

Na

KLithicLeptosolRh

odic

A0ndash

95Y

R44

SBK

VF-M

430

190

380

L0

004

74140

472

236

166

01

28

100

LepticCa

mbisol

A0ndash

115Y

R33

SBK

F-H

488

206

314

L0

001

76158

397

315

27

03

08

89Bw

111ndash

235Y

R33

SBK

F-H

480

196

324

L0

001

76138

478

310

29

01

44

81Bw

223ndash38

5YR32

ABK

VF-L

461

245

294

L0

001

75117

292

258

32

02

04

100

Endo

skeletalCa

mbisol

A1

0ndash9

5YR33

SBK

VF-M

4226

32L

00

01

72172

512

320

214

01

08

100

A2

9ndash17

5YR44

SBK

VF-L

5022

28L

00

01

70110

499

278

253

07

06

100

Bw1

17ndash39

5YR46

ABK

VF-L

5121

28L

00

01

69

100

432

305

159

01

03

100

Bw2

39ndash56

5YR46

ABK

VF-L

5816

26CL

020

01

7069

441

292

188

002

100

C56ndash100

5YR46

ABK

VF-L

4719

33L

2367

01

7272

292

205

122

01

03

100

Endo

lepticCa

mbisol

A1

0ndash4

5YR43

GR

F-H

451

216

333

L5

005

74188

460

390

36

02

23

100

A2

4ndash22

5YR44

SBK

VF-M

490

196

314

L0

001

73123

332

385

23

01

10100

Bw1

22ndash33

5YR36

ABK

VF-M

549

157

255

CL5

001

7381

290

300

25

01

04

100

Bw2

33ndash55

5YR43

ABK

VF-L

618

165

225

CL3

004

7591

255

195

1201

03

100

Bw3

55ndash75

5YR43

ABK

VF-L

510

175

325

L2

015

7555

348

355

1001

02

100

Haplic

LuvisolR

hodic

A1

0ndash6

5YR253

GR

F-H

471

255

275

L0

001

74114

362

216

36

01

1173

A2

6ndash20

5YR33

SBK

F-M

480

260

260

L0

001

66

81

255

126

25

03

03

61Bt1

20ndash4

525Y

R36

ABK

M-L

402

377

221

CL0

001

67

38

249

153

09

02

03

67Bt2

45ndash85

25Y

R36

ABK

M-L

304

477

225

C0

001

7031

190

162

1804

03

97Bt3

85ndash109

25Y

R46

ABK

M-L

368

392

240

CL0

001

7133

151

162

1003

03

100

Bt4

109ndash

150

25Y

R46

ABK

M-L

343

373

284

CL0

001

7227

104

148

32

03

03

100

PSDpartic

lesiz

edistrib

ution

ASaggregates

shape(

GR

granularSBK

sub

angularb

lockyABK

ang

ular

blocky)ASiaggregatessize(

VFvery

fineFfin

eMm

edium)Stability(Llow

Mm

oderateHhigh)

Lloam

CLcla

yloam

CclayTC

texturalclassFgrfine

gravels

(lt2c

m)Cg

rcoarse

gravels

(gt2c

m)OMorganicmatterCE

Ccatio

nexchange

capacityB

Sbase

saturatio

n

6 ISRN Soil Science

Table7Prop

ertie

sofsoilslocatedin

mou

ndsa

tHocabaYu

catan

Mexico

Soilho

rizon

Depth

cmDry

color

StructureA

SASi

PSD

TCGr

St

CO3

pHOM

CE

Ccm

ol+kgminus1

Exchange

Catio

nscm

ol+kgminus

BS

Sand

Clay

Silt

CaMg

Na

KHyperskele

ticLeptosol

A0ndash

1075

YR251

GR

VF-M

706

157

137

SL50

3012

80

450

662

540

1801

33

89AkC

10ndash4

575

YR31

GR

VF-L

588

176

235

SL67

254

80

364

19192

54

04

31

100

Rend

zicH

yperskeleticLeptosol

A0ndash

710YR

251

GR

F-M

637

157

206

SL51

4031

78345

541

384

126

02

09

100

AC

7ndash23

10YR

251

GR

VF-M

716

137

147

SL51

4543

77286

244

390

270

02

10100

LepticSkele

talC

alcisol

A0-1

75YR

251

GR

VF-L

550

200

250

SCL

3010

4180

306

407

386

07

02

28

100

AkCk

1ndash15

75YR

43

GR

VF-M

627

137

235

SL36

1734

81

194

322

353

11ND

06

100

CkA

k15ndash50

75YR

43

SBK

VF-L

627

157

216

SL34

2042

80

195

267

353

09

05

06

100

Epipetric

Skele

ticCa

lciso

lAk

0ndash4

10YR

33

GR

F-H

490

196

314

L22

030

80

213

355

254

40

03

18100

Bk1

4ndash20

10YR

43

SBK

F-M

539

314

147

SCL

2515

3582

113

167

149

1103

10100

Bk2

20ndash35

10YR

41

SBK

VF-L

529

216

256

SCL

2120

3683

129

182

165

1103

08

100

Ckm

35ndash4

0gt50

IIAk

40ndash6

010YR

51

GR

VF-L

598

196

206

SL22

1537

86

106

144

121

04

02

05

100

Hum

ic-H

yperskeletalLeptosol

Ak1

0ndash2

75YR

251

GR

VF-M

690

110

200

SL31

036

75499

599

328

341

01

11100

Ak2

2ndash22

75YR

351

GR

VF-L

670

130

200

SL0

9044

77426

376

418

223

01

12100

CA

22ndash80

75YR

41

SBK

VF-L

710

120

170

SL0

9547

78180

286

211

84

01

02

100

PSDpartic

lesiz

edistrib

ution

ASaggregates

shape(

GR

granularSBK

sub

angularb

lockyABK

ang

ular

blocky)ASiaggregatessize(

VFvery

fineFfin

eMm

edium)Stability(Llow

Mm

oderateHhigh)

Lloam

CLcla

yloam

CclayTC

texturalclassG

rgravels

Ststo

nesOMorganicmatterCE

Ccatio

nexchange

capacityB

Sbase

saturatio

n

ISRN Soil Science 7

Table 8 Comparison between the descriptions of the soils found in the municipality of Hocaba Yucatan Mexico and those presented inothers studies

Maya namelowast Aguilera (1958) [31] Duch (1988 1991) [15 16] This study

Krsquoankab Light red deep soils Reddish brown color Found it in plainterrains Red soil

Boxlursquoum mdash Black color Black or dark soil

Puslursquoum mdash Remarkable less amount of rockfragments than Boxlursquoum

Black soil soft with no rockfragments It dries out quickly

Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum mdash Very hard and gravel aggregates Soil with abundant amount of gravelsMuluch bukrsquotun mdash mdash Soil with a lot of rock fragments

Ekrsquolursquoum Organic soil on calcareous rock(Ekrsquolursquoum Tsekrsquoel) mdash Black soil

Chrsquoochrsquool Soil with calcareous rocks alongprofile

Soil with abundant rock fragments onthe surface Soil under piled rock fragments

Tsekrsquoel Calcareous rock with a thin layerof soil

Shallow soil with abundant rockfragments Soil with abundant rock fragments

Chaltun Soil over laja rock Soil with calcareous armour exposed Black shallow soilwith cracked or holed rock

Chaklursquoum mdash Soil more red than Krsquoankab Dark red soil

Haylursquoum mdash mdash Very shallow soil Less than 10 cmdepth

lowastWriting of the Maya names is according to the Porrua dictionary [32]

knowledge of soils is similar in the whole state Typicallyfarmer classifications are highly variable or they have littleconsistency from region to region [8 12 27] however itseems that the Mayan soil knowledge is quite homogeneouseven at regional level [8] This homogeneity can help tofacilitate its systematization

On the other hand this apparent homogeneity couldalso indicate a loss of the soil knowledge This statementis supported by the results of this work in which only twoclasses of soils were recognized by all the interviewed farmers(Boxlursquoum and Krsquoankab) and these two terms were used torefer to the rest of the soils when they did not know them

Most of the classification systems reflect the priorities ofwho propose them [28] Characteristics that Mayan farmersuse to classify soils are mainly visual and intimately related totheir agricultural activities

Farmers recognized colour differences among soils how-ever it was observed that there are different tones that farmersdo not consider as distinctive elements A particular caseis the Mayan term Box that means black or dark Manyfarmers referred the soil called Chichlursquoum that is usuallylight brown to dark brown as simply Boxlursquoum Howeverapparently this is related to the absence of a Mayan wordto designate brown color although some farmers used theSpanish term ldquoachocolatadordquo (colored as chocolate) to referto this colour Another special case is the soil called Krsquoankabwhose common translation is ldquoyellow place at the bottomrdquo inattention to subsuperficial soils horizons [8]TheMayanwordChakmeans red thusChaklursquoum are red soilsThese soils aredarker than other red top soils such as Krsquoankab

Soil depth was only an important characteristic forfarmers to differentiate between shallow (soils lt 10 cm) anddeep soils (soils gt 10 cm) Farmers recognized these soils

empirically during sowing when they insert their sowingstick by observation of aerial roots on maize plants or whenmaize plants fall down due to the wind action because rootslack deep anchorage Farmers affirmed that mound soils arenot very deep but they pointed out that roots always findcracks in the rocks to continue growing Shallow soils arecalled Haylursquoum in both plains and mounds and correspondto Nudilithic Leptosols Farmers judge the depth of Krsquoankabby its surface color the darker the soil is the shallower it isand the lighter the soil is the deeper it is Bautista and Zinck[8] reported these differences in deepness for Krsquoankab soils

The microtopographic position superficial amount ofrock fragments and outcrops are three characteristics that thefarmers always consider together We found five rock typeswith different uses and it is possible that they influence soilcharacteristics and soil genesis [14 26] For example soilscalled Chrsquoochrsquool can only be found at the base of the moundsunder stone accumulations (Hyperskeletic Leptosols) whilesoils designated Chaltun are almost always near the moundsbut present bedrock very near to the surface (NudilithicLeptosols)

Water retention is a characteristic that many farmersrecognized but their comments relative to this property wereinconsistent For many farmers soils that do not retain water(they dried out first) were those on themounds while othersassured that it was the soils on the plains This disagreementcan be due to the farmers not considering the variability in theamount of rock fragments or the depth of the soils as factorsthat determine the water retention In fact this characteristicwas only relevant to recognize the soil called Puslursquoum whichfarmers consistently designated as the soil that dried out first

Other studies have found that soil texture is an importantproperty for local classifications [11 29] but it seems that this

8 ISRN Soil Science

is not the case of the Mayan classification because none oftheir agricultural practices requires a direct physical contactwith the deeper layers of soil

42 Soils Uses Preferences for growing crops were mainlylinked to the more availability of workable surface for sowingin plain soils Farmers like to grow most of their crops onthe Krsquoankab soils because the absence of rock fragmentsand outcrops makes field operations easier and quicker Theone clear exception is the soil called Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum in whichfarmers prefer to sow peppers and sweet potato arguing thatthey only grow well in that class of soil It is possible thata nutritional reason exists to explain the best developmentof those crops in that class of soil but this remains to beconfirmed with soil fertility analyses

Although some farmers said that with good rain themound soils give better production most of them assuredthat crops on mound soils as well as plain soils grow wellif it has rained well and on time On the other hand whenrain is not good some farmers said that the mound soilsproduce higher yields while others argue that the plain soilsdo The reason for these inconsistencies could be the depthof the soils and the amount of rock fragments and outcropsComparatively shallow soils can store less water than deepsoils but amount of rocks and stones on mound soils help toconserve the humidity better than in shallow plain soils

Soil water content is a property associated by farmerswiththe presence of weeds In this regard they said that they havemany problems to control weeds because as soon as it rainsweeds appear in the soil They also pointed out differences inweed composition and abundance between mound and plainsoils A farmer makingmilpa in the same place for five yearsin a row said that every year he had to usemore herbicide anddedicate more hours to remove weeds than the earlier year

In contrast to what the authors of [16 17] found thefarmers interviewed in this study did not use any terms torefer to soil fertility This is perhaps because these authorsdid their studies using a deeper anthropologic approachThe author of [16] developed the hierarchical classificationof the soils of the Puuc region of the state of Yucatan andoutlined a classification departed from a linguistic point ofview grouping the soil classes according to the meaning ofthe Mayan names as well as some management aspects Suchresearch is important to obtain information that may nolonger exist among the contemporary inhabitants of a region

5 Comparison and Systematization

Our results suggest that Mayan soils knowledge is given atthree levels (Figure 2) In level one topographic positionmound (Muluch) or plain (Krsquoankabal) Mound soils are darkgenerally black grey or brown while plain soils are red tored-brown which makes a first division among soil classesresulting in a general designation for soils according to theircolor Dark soils are designated as Boxrsquoluum and red soils asKrsquoankab The prefix Box means literally black but it is usedto refer to all classes of dark colours On the other hand theprefix Krsquoan means literally yellow but is used to designatelight red soils on plains Level two is almost exclusive for

mound soils since in the plains the amount of rock fragmentsand outcrops are nearly absent However in some cases redmound soils having abundant amount of rock fragments andoutcrops were observed and recognized by farmers asChrsquoich-Krsquoankab or Tsekrsquoel-Krsquoankab This was the only case wherefarmers used a compound name mixing two single names

In level three variations of soils from the second levelwere recognized according to their association with specifictopographic position Here there were two subdivisions(1) soil names ending with the Mayan word lursquoum whichmeans soil for example Chrsquoichrsquolursquoummdashsoil with gravelsmdash(Hsk-LP) or Haylursquoummdashvery shallow soilmdash(Nu-LP) and(2) soils that were designated according to the specificmicrotopographic positions on which they occur for exam-ple Chrsquoochrsquoolmdashsoil under piled rock fragmentsmdash(Hsk-LP)Tsekrsquoelmdashsoil among rock fragmentsmdash(Nu-LP) Chaltunmdashsoilbetween outcropsmdash(Nu-LP) At this level soils in moundswere recognized as Krsquoankab Haylursquoum Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum TsekrsquoelChaltun Puslursquoum Chrsquoochrsquool and so on In the case of theplain soils farmers only recognized two variantsKrsquoankab andHayrsquolursquoum In both cases when farmers were not sure of thespecific nameof the soil they designate asBoxluursquom to all soilsin mounds and Krsquoankab to all soils in plains

Following this scheme it can be seen that level one(mound soils and plain soils) is the most studied level so far[5 14 15] It is in the second and third levels that researchis needed It is in those levels where the participation of thefarmers is important in order to better understand each oneof the elements of the landscape and topography that theyrecognize and use to identify soils

Mayan soil types and WRB units cannot be directlyrelated to each other because these systems share few diag-nostic properties and assign them different relative impor-tance [8] Many soils identified by farmers relate with morethan one WRB group of soil and vice versa in these casesno direct relationship between both classification systems ispossible (Table 9)

Peoplersquos understanding of soils constitutes a complexknowledge system with some categories similar or com-plementary to those used by modern soil science [8 30]For example even though hierarchical levels of the WRBsystem are based on qualitative and quantitative data theyuse qualifiers to distinguish soils at secondary levels Someof those characteristics that is gravels or rock fragmentspercentage are related to the Mayan approach For instanceamount of rock fragments is a very important property forbuilding hierarchal levels in the Mayan soil nomenclature(eg Chrsquoochrsquool) as well as in the WRB classification at thequalifier level (eg Hyperskeletic and Skeletic Leptosols)

6 Conclusions

In Hocaba Yucatan farmers distinguished two main groupsof soils Krsquoankab or soils of plains and Boxlursquoum or soils ofmounds Krsquoankab is a group of red soils with two variants(Krsquoankab and Haylursquoum) whereas Boxlursquoum is a group ofdark soils with five variants (Tsekrsquoel Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum ChaltunPuslursquoum and Chrsquoochrsquool) Soils on the plains were identifiedas Leptosols Cambisols Cambisols and Luvisols Soils

ISRN Soil Science 9

Mayan soil typesLevel

0

1

2

3

Soils in plains (Krsquoankabal)(Krsquoankab)

Krsquoankab

Soils in mounds (Muluch)(Boxluursquom)

Mounds dominated byrock fragments

Mounds dominated byoutcrops

Deep soils (less than 10 cm)

(color red orreddish brown)

(less than 10 cm)(color red orreddish brown)

Shallow soils Soils with abundantfine gravels

(color lightbrown grey

or black)

Soilsfree of rockfragments

(color grey

Soils in betweenoutcrops

(color black)

Soils in piles ofstones and cobbles

(color black)

Soils containedin rock holes(color black)

Shadow soils(less than 10 cm)

(color black)

HaylursquoumChrsquoichrsquolursquoum

Puslursquoum Tsekrsquoel Chrsquoochrsquool Chaltun

or black)

Figure 2 Mayan soil types in Hocaba Yucatan

Table 9 Relationship between WRB soil units and Mayan soil types

WRB soil group Dominant kind of rock Topographic position Mayan soil classChromic LuvisolsEutric CambisolsMollic Leptosol

Fracturable Any part of the plains Krsquoankab

Nudilithic Leptosol Fracturable Base of the mounds HaylursquoumHyperskeletic Leptosol ChrsquoichrsquolursquoumHaplic CalcisolHyperskeletic Leptosol Graintable and powderable Flat tops of the mounds Puslursquoum

ChrsquoichrsquolursquoumPetrocalcic Calcisol Fracturable and grainable Top of the mounds Puslursquoum

Nudilithic LeptosolHyperskeletic Leptosol

FracturableFracturableFracturable

Top of the moundsSides of the moundsBase of the mounds

BoxlursquoumTsekrsquoelChrsquoochrsquool

Rendzic LeptosolNudilithic Leptosol Fracturable Top of the mounds

Sides of the moundsBoxlursquoumTsekrsquoel

Nudilithic LeptosolLithic LeptosolNudilithic Leptosol

SolubleSoluble

Fracturable

Top of the moundsSides of the moundsBase of the mounds

ChaltunBoxlursquoumHaylursquoum

identified in mounds were Leptosols and Calcisols Mayansoil types and WRB groups are complementary they shouldbe used together in order to improve both soil classificationsto help transference of agricultural technologies and makesoil management decisions Soil characteristics that shouldbe considered for a local soil classification system aretopographic position (plain or mound) colour amount ofrock fragments and outcrops and soil depth or effectiverooting depth

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments are due to the Science and TechnologyNational Council (CONACyT) for the scholarship grantedto the first author for his master degree studies to CONA-CyT project Base de datos para la penınsula de Yucatanincluyendo nomenclatura maya y FAO Convenio R31624-B to the American Institute for Global Change Research(IAI) project Biogeochemical cycles under land use change

in the semiarid Americas to Dr Steve Gliessman Dr RobertGraham and MSc Arturo Caamal Maldonado for theircomments and corrections to the paper to Wendy Huchimand Miguel Huicab for their collaboration on some of thetables and figures This paper is dedicated to the memory ofmy friend Mr Pedro Canche farmer from Hocaba who withhis wide knowledge of soils roads and people helped me asguide and Mayan-Spanish translator and in contacting otherfarmers

References

[1] A M G A Winklerprins ldquoLocal soil knowledge a tool forsustainable land managementrdquo Society and Natural Resourcesvol 12 no 2 pp 151ndash161 1999

[2] P V Krasilnikov and J A Tabor ldquoPerspectives on utilitarianethnopedologyrdquo Geoderma vol 111 no 3-4 pp 197ndash215 2003

[3] N Barrera-Bassols and J A Zinck ldquoEthnopedology a world-wide view on the soil knowledge of local peoplerdquo Geodermavol 111 no 3-4 pp 171ndash195 2003

10 ISRN Soil Science

[4] N Barrera-Bassols ldquoEtnoedafologıa purhepechardquo MexicoIndıgena vol 6 no 24 pp 47ndash52 1988

[5] F Bautista J Jimenez J Navarro A Manu and R LozanoldquoMicrorelieve y color del suelo como propiedades de diag-nostico en Leptosoles carsticosrdquo Terra vol 21 no 1 pp 1ndash122003

[6] B J Williams ldquoAztec soil sciencerdquo Boletın del Instituto deGeografıa vol 7 pp 115ndash120 1975

[7] B J Williams and C A Ortiz-Solorio ldquoMiddle American folksoil taxonomyrdquo Annals Association of American Geographersvol 71 no 3 pp 335ndash358 1981

[8] F Bautista and J A Zinck ldquoConstruction of an Yucatec Mayasoil classification and comparison with the WRB frameworkrdquoJournal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine vol 6 article 7 2010

[9] V Toledo ldquoIndigenous knowledge on soils an ethnoecologicalconceptualizationrdquo in Ethnopedology in A Worldwide Perspec-tives An Annotated Bibliography N Barrera-Bassols and J AZinck Eds International Institute for Aerospace Survey andEarth Science Enschede The Netherlands 2000

[10] A J Tabor ldquoSoil classification systemsrdquo in Soil of Arid Regionsof the US and Israel 1997 httpcalsarizonaeduoalssoilsclassifsystemshtml

[11] J A Sandor and L Furbee ldquoIndigenous knowledge and clas-sification of soils in the Andes of Southern Perurdquo Soil ScienceSociety of America Journal vol 60 no 5 pp 1502ndash1512 1996

[12] A J Tabor ldquoSoil surveys and indigenous soil classificationrdquoIndigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor vol 1 no 11993

[13] IUSS-ISRIC-FAO ldquo2006World reference base for soil resources2006 A framework for international classification correlationand communicationrdquo World Soil Resour Report 103 FAORome Italy

[14] F Bautista H Estrada-Medina J Jimenez-Osornio and JGonzalez-Iturbe ldquoRelacion entre relieve y suelos en zonascarsticasrdquo Terra vol 22 no 3 pp 243ndash254 2004

[15] G J Duch La conformacion territorial del estado de YucatanmdashLos componentes del medio fısico Centro Regional de laPenınsula de Yucatan CRUPY Universidad Autonoma deChapingo Mexico Mexico 1988

[16] G J Duch Fisiografıa del estado de Yucatanmdashsu relacion conla agricultura Centro Regional de la Penınsula de YucatanCRUPY Universidad Autonoma de Chapingo Mexico Mexico1991

[17] P N Dunning ldquoSoils and vegetationrdquo in Lords of the HillsAncient Maya Settement in the Puuc Region Yucatan Mexicovol 15 of Monographs in World Archaeology Prehistory PressMadison Wis USA 1992

[18] J Lugo ldquoGeomorfologıardquo in Atlas de Procesos Territoriales deYucatan P P Chico Ed Universidad Autonoma de YucatanYucatan Mexico 1999

[19] Gobierno Constitucional del Estado de Yucatan ldquoPrograma dedesarrollo regional de la zona Henequenera de Yucatan 1992ndash1994rdquo Mexico 1992

[20] INEGI ldquoAnuario estadıstico del estado de Yucatanrdquo Gobiernodel estado de Yucatan 1995

[21] R Orellana ldquoEvaluacion Climatica (Climatologıa de laPenınsula de Yucatan)rdquo in Atlas de Procesos Territoriales deYucatan A Garcıa de Fuentes C Y Ordonez and P ChicoPonce de Leon Eds pp 162ndash182 Facultad de ArquitecturaUniversidad Autonoma de Yucatan Merida Mexico 2000

[22] S J Flores andC I Espejel ldquoTipos de vegetacion de la penınsulade Yucatanrdquo Fascıculo 3 Sostenibilidad Maya UniversidadAutonoma de Yucatan Mexico Mexico 1994

[23] L Cano Cambio del uso del suelo en el municipio de HocabaYucatan Mexico [Tesis de maestrıa en Manejo y Conservacionde Recursos Naturales Tropicales] Facultad de Medicina Veteri-naria y Zootecnia Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan 2000

[24] INEGI ldquoInstituto Nacional de Estadıstica Geografıa e Infor-maticardquo Carta Geologica 1250000 Secretarıa de Programaciony Presupuesto Mexico Mexico 1983

[25] C Siebe R Janh and K Stahr ldquoManual para la descripciony evaluacion ecologica de suelos en el campordquo PublicacionEspecial 4 Sociedad Mexicana de la Ciencia del Suelo A CEdo de Mexico Mexico Mexico 1996

[26] F Bautista J Garcia and A Mizrahi ldquoDiagnostico campesinode la situacion agrıcola en Hocaba Yucatanrdquo Terra Latinoamer-icana vol 23 no 4 2005

[27] E Habarurema and K G Steiner ldquoSoil suitability classificationby farmers in southern Rwandardquo Geoderma vol 75 no 1-2 pp75ndash87 1997

[28] M Corbeels A Shiferaw and M Haile ldquoFarmersrsquo knowledgeof soil fertility and local managament strategies in TigrayEthiopiardquo Managing Africarsquos Soils 10 IIED London UK 2000

[29] L Pool-Novelo E Cervantes-Trejo and S Mesa-Dıaz ldquoLaclasificacion Tsotsil de soils en el paisaje carstico de la subregionSan Cristobal de las casas Chiapas Mexicordquo Terra vol 9 no 1pp 11ndash23 1991

[30] N Barrera-Bassols and A J Zinck Ethnopedology in a World-wide Perspectives An Annotated Bibliography InternationalInstitute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Science EnschedeThe Netherlands 2000

[31] N Aguilera Herrera ldquoSuelosrdquo in Los recursos naturales del Sur-este y su aprovechamiento E Beltran Ed InstitutoMexicano deRecursos Naturales Renovables Mexico City Mexico 1958

[32] PorruaDicccionarioMaya Editorial Porrua Mexico Mexico 2edition 1991

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Forestry ResearchInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Environmental and Public Health

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

EcosystemsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

MeteorologyAdvances in

EcologyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Marine BiologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Applied ampEnvironmentalSoil Science

Volume 2014

Advances in

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Environmental Chemistry

Atmospheric SciencesInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Waste ManagementJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal of

Geophysics

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Geological ResearchJournal of

EarthquakesJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

BiodiversityInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

ScientificaHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

OceanographyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of Computational Environmental SciencesHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

ClimatologyJournal of

ISRN Soil Science 5

Table6Ch

emicalandph

ysicalprop

ertie

sofsoilslocatedin

plains

atHocabaYu

catan

Mexico

Soil

horiz

onDepth

cmDry

color

StructureA

SASi

PSD

TCFg

rCg

rCO

3

pHOM

CE

Ccm

ol+kgminus1

Exchange

catio

nscm

ol+kgminus1

BS

Sand

Clay

Silt

Ca

Mg

Na

KLithicLeptosolRh

odic

A0ndash

95Y

R44

SBK

VF-M

430

190

380

L0

004

74140

472

236

166

01

28

100

LepticCa

mbisol

A0ndash

115Y

R33

SBK

F-H

488

206

314

L0

001

76158

397

315

27

03

08

89Bw

111ndash

235Y

R33

SBK

F-H

480

196

324

L0

001

76138

478

310

29

01

44

81Bw

223ndash38

5YR32

ABK

VF-L

461

245

294

L0

001

75117

292

258

32

02

04

100

Endo

skeletalCa

mbisol

A1

0ndash9

5YR33

SBK

VF-M

4226

32L

00

01

72172

512

320

214

01

08

100

A2

9ndash17

5YR44

SBK

VF-L

5022

28L

00

01

70110

499

278

253

07

06

100

Bw1

17ndash39

5YR46

ABK

VF-L

5121

28L

00

01

69

100

432

305

159

01

03

100

Bw2

39ndash56

5YR46

ABK

VF-L

5816

26CL

020

01

7069

441

292

188

002

100

C56ndash100

5YR46

ABK

VF-L

4719

33L

2367

01

7272

292

205

122

01

03

100

Endo

lepticCa

mbisol

A1

0ndash4

5YR43

GR

F-H

451

216

333

L5

005

74188

460

390

36

02

23

100

A2

4ndash22

5YR44

SBK

VF-M

490

196

314

L0

001

73123

332

385

23

01

10100

Bw1

22ndash33

5YR36

ABK

VF-M

549

157

255

CL5

001

7381

290

300

25

01

04

100

Bw2

33ndash55

5YR43

ABK

VF-L

618

165

225

CL3

004

7591

255

195

1201

03

100

Bw3

55ndash75

5YR43

ABK

VF-L

510

175

325

L2

015

7555

348

355

1001

02

100

Haplic

LuvisolR

hodic

A1

0ndash6

5YR253

GR

F-H

471

255

275

L0

001

74114

362

216

36

01

1173

A2

6ndash20

5YR33

SBK

F-M

480

260

260

L0

001

66

81

255

126

25

03

03

61Bt1

20ndash4

525Y

R36

ABK

M-L

402

377

221

CL0

001

67

38

249

153

09

02

03

67Bt2

45ndash85

25Y

R36

ABK

M-L

304

477

225

C0

001

7031

190

162

1804

03

97Bt3

85ndash109

25Y

R46

ABK

M-L

368

392

240

CL0

001

7133

151

162

1003

03

100

Bt4

109ndash

150

25Y

R46

ABK

M-L

343

373

284

CL0

001

7227

104

148

32

03

03

100

PSDpartic

lesiz

edistrib

ution

ASaggregates

shape(

GR

granularSBK

sub

angularb

lockyABK

ang

ular

blocky)ASiaggregatessize(

VFvery

fineFfin

eMm

edium)Stability(Llow

Mm

oderateHhigh)

Lloam

CLcla

yloam

CclayTC

texturalclassFgrfine

gravels

(lt2c

m)Cg

rcoarse

gravels

(gt2c

m)OMorganicmatterCE

Ccatio

nexchange

capacityB

Sbase

saturatio

n

6 ISRN Soil Science

Table7Prop

ertie

sofsoilslocatedin

mou

ndsa

tHocabaYu

catan

Mexico

Soilho

rizon

Depth

cmDry

color

StructureA

SASi

PSD

TCGr

St

CO3

pHOM

CE

Ccm

ol+kgminus1

Exchange

Catio

nscm

ol+kgminus

BS

Sand

Clay

Silt

CaMg

Na

KHyperskele

ticLeptosol

A0ndash

1075

YR251

GR

VF-M

706

157

137

SL50

3012

80

450

662

540

1801

33

89AkC

10ndash4

575

YR31

GR

VF-L

588

176

235

SL67

254

80

364

19192

54

04

31

100

Rend

zicH

yperskeleticLeptosol

A0ndash

710YR

251

GR

F-M

637

157

206

SL51

4031

78345

541

384

126

02

09

100

AC

7ndash23

10YR

251

GR

VF-M

716

137

147

SL51

4543

77286

244

390

270

02

10100

LepticSkele

talC

alcisol

A0-1

75YR

251

GR

VF-L

550

200

250

SCL

3010

4180

306

407

386

07

02

28

100

AkCk

1ndash15

75YR

43

GR

VF-M

627

137

235

SL36

1734

81

194

322

353

11ND

06

100

CkA

k15ndash50

75YR

43

SBK

VF-L

627

157

216

SL34

2042

80

195

267

353

09

05

06

100

Epipetric

Skele

ticCa

lciso

lAk

0ndash4

10YR

33

GR

F-H

490

196

314

L22

030

80

213

355

254

40

03

18100

Bk1

4ndash20

10YR

43

SBK

F-M

539

314

147

SCL

2515

3582

113

167

149

1103

10100

Bk2

20ndash35

10YR

41

SBK

VF-L

529

216

256

SCL

2120

3683

129

182

165

1103

08

100

Ckm

35ndash4

0gt50

IIAk

40ndash6

010YR

51

GR

VF-L

598

196

206

SL22

1537

86

106

144

121

04

02

05

100

Hum

ic-H

yperskeletalLeptosol

Ak1

0ndash2

75YR

251

GR

VF-M

690

110

200

SL31

036

75499

599

328

341

01

11100

Ak2

2ndash22

75YR

351

GR

VF-L

670

130

200

SL0

9044

77426

376

418

223

01

12100

CA

22ndash80

75YR

41

SBK

VF-L

710

120

170

SL0

9547

78180

286

211

84

01

02

100

PSDpartic

lesiz

edistrib

ution

ASaggregates

shape(

GR

granularSBK

sub

angularb

lockyABK

ang

ular

blocky)ASiaggregatessize(

VFvery

fineFfin

eMm

edium)Stability(Llow

Mm

oderateHhigh)

Lloam

CLcla

yloam

CclayTC

texturalclassG

rgravels

Ststo

nesOMorganicmatterCE

Ccatio

nexchange

capacityB

Sbase

saturatio

n

ISRN Soil Science 7

Table 8 Comparison between the descriptions of the soils found in the municipality of Hocaba Yucatan Mexico and those presented inothers studies

Maya namelowast Aguilera (1958) [31] Duch (1988 1991) [15 16] This study

Krsquoankab Light red deep soils Reddish brown color Found it in plainterrains Red soil

Boxlursquoum mdash Black color Black or dark soil

Puslursquoum mdash Remarkable less amount of rockfragments than Boxlursquoum

Black soil soft with no rockfragments It dries out quickly

Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum mdash Very hard and gravel aggregates Soil with abundant amount of gravelsMuluch bukrsquotun mdash mdash Soil with a lot of rock fragments

Ekrsquolursquoum Organic soil on calcareous rock(Ekrsquolursquoum Tsekrsquoel) mdash Black soil

Chrsquoochrsquool Soil with calcareous rocks alongprofile

Soil with abundant rock fragments onthe surface Soil under piled rock fragments

Tsekrsquoel Calcareous rock with a thin layerof soil

Shallow soil with abundant rockfragments Soil with abundant rock fragments

Chaltun Soil over laja rock Soil with calcareous armour exposed Black shallow soilwith cracked or holed rock

Chaklursquoum mdash Soil more red than Krsquoankab Dark red soil

Haylursquoum mdash mdash Very shallow soil Less than 10 cmdepth

lowastWriting of the Maya names is according to the Porrua dictionary [32]

knowledge of soils is similar in the whole state Typicallyfarmer classifications are highly variable or they have littleconsistency from region to region [8 12 27] however itseems that the Mayan soil knowledge is quite homogeneouseven at regional level [8] This homogeneity can help tofacilitate its systematization

On the other hand this apparent homogeneity couldalso indicate a loss of the soil knowledge This statementis supported by the results of this work in which only twoclasses of soils were recognized by all the interviewed farmers(Boxlursquoum and Krsquoankab) and these two terms were used torefer to the rest of the soils when they did not know them

Most of the classification systems reflect the priorities ofwho propose them [28] Characteristics that Mayan farmersuse to classify soils are mainly visual and intimately related totheir agricultural activities

Farmers recognized colour differences among soils how-ever it was observed that there are different tones that farmersdo not consider as distinctive elements A particular caseis the Mayan term Box that means black or dark Manyfarmers referred the soil called Chichlursquoum that is usuallylight brown to dark brown as simply Boxlursquoum Howeverapparently this is related to the absence of a Mayan wordto designate brown color although some farmers used theSpanish term ldquoachocolatadordquo (colored as chocolate) to referto this colour Another special case is the soil called Krsquoankabwhose common translation is ldquoyellow place at the bottomrdquo inattention to subsuperficial soils horizons [8]TheMayanwordChakmeans red thusChaklursquoum are red soilsThese soils aredarker than other red top soils such as Krsquoankab

Soil depth was only an important characteristic forfarmers to differentiate between shallow (soils lt 10 cm) anddeep soils (soils gt 10 cm) Farmers recognized these soils

empirically during sowing when they insert their sowingstick by observation of aerial roots on maize plants or whenmaize plants fall down due to the wind action because rootslack deep anchorage Farmers affirmed that mound soils arenot very deep but they pointed out that roots always findcracks in the rocks to continue growing Shallow soils arecalled Haylursquoum in both plains and mounds and correspondto Nudilithic Leptosols Farmers judge the depth of Krsquoankabby its surface color the darker the soil is the shallower it isand the lighter the soil is the deeper it is Bautista and Zinck[8] reported these differences in deepness for Krsquoankab soils

The microtopographic position superficial amount ofrock fragments and outcrops are three characteristics that thefarmers always consider together We found five rock typeswith different uses and it is possible that they influence soilcharacteristics and soil genesis [14 26] For example soilscalled Chrsquoochrsquool can only be found at the base of the moundsunder stone accumulations (Hyperskeletic Leptosols) whilesoils designated Chaltun are almost always near the moundsbut present bedrock very near to the surface (NudilithicLeptosols)

Water retention is a characteristic that many farmersrecognized but their comments relative to this property wereinconsistent For many farmers soils that do not retain water(they dried out first) were those on themounds while othersassured that it was the soils on the plains This disagreementcan be due to the farmers not considering the variability in theamount of rock fragments or the depth of the soils as factorsthat determine the water retention In fact this characteristicwas only relevant to recognize the soil called Puslursquoum whichfarmers consistently designated as the soil that dried out first

Other studies have found that soil texture is an importantproperty for local classifications [11 29] but it seems that this

8 ISRN Soil Science

is not the case of the Mayan classification because none oftheir agricultural practices requires a direct physical contactwith the deeper layers of soil

42 Soils Uses Preferences for growing crops were mainlylinked to the more availability of workable surface for sowingin plain soils Farmers like to grow most of their crops onthe Krsquoankab soils because the absence of rock fragmentsand outcrops makes field operations easier and quicker Theone clear exception is the soil called Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum in whichfarmers prefer to sow peppers and sweet potato arguing thatthey only grow well in that class of soil It is possible thata nutritional reason exists to explain the best developmentof those crops in that class of soil but this remains to beconfirmed with soil fertility analyses

Although some farmers said that with good rain themound soils give better production most of them assuredthat crops on mound soils as well as plain soils grow wellif it has rained well and on time On the other hand whenrain is not good some farmers said that the mound soilsproduce higher yields while others argue that the plain soilsdo The reason for these inconsistencies could be the depthof the soils and the amount of rock fragments and outcropsComparatively shallow soils can store less water than deepsoils but amount of rocks and stones on mound soils help toconserve the humidity better than in shallow plain soils

Soil water content is a property associated by farmerswiththe presence of weeds In this regard they said that they havemany problems to control weeds because as soon as it rainsweeds appear in the soil They also pointed out differences inweed composition and abundance between mound and plainsoils A farmer makingmilpa in the same place for five yearsin a row said that every year he had to usemore herbicide anddedicate more hours to remove weeds than the earlier year

In contrast to what the authors of [16 17] found thefarmers interviewed in this study did not use any terms torefer to soil fertility This is perhaps because these authorsdid their studies using a deeper anthropologic approachThe author of [16] developed the hierarchical classificationof the soils of the Puuc region of the state of Yucatan andoutlined a classification departed from a linguistic point ofview grouping the soil classes according to the meaning ofthe Mayan names as well as some management aspects Suchresearch is important to obtain information that may nolonger exist among the contemporary inhabitants of a region

5 Comparison and Systematization

Our results suggest that Mayan soils knowledge is given atthree levels (Figure 2) In level one topographic positionmound (Muluch) or plain (Krsquoankabal) Mound soils are darkgenerally black grey or brown while plain soils are red tored-brown which makes a first division among soil classesresulting in a general designation for soils according to theircolor Dark soils are designated as Boxrsquoluum and red soils asKrsquoankab The prefix Box means literally black but it is usedto refer to all classes of dark colours On the other hand theprefix Krsquoan means literally yellow but is used to designatelight red soils on plains Level two is almost exclusive for

mound soils since in the plains the amount of rock fragmentsand outcrops are nearly absent However in some cases redmound soils having abundant amount of rock fragments andoutcrops were observed and recognized by farmers asChrsquoich-Krsquoankab or Tsekrsquoel-Krsquoankab This was the only case wherefarmers used a compound name mixing two single names

In level three variations of soils from the second levelwere recognized according to their association with specifictopographic position Here there were two subdivisions(1) soil names ending with the Mayan word lursquoum whichmeans soil for example Chrsquoichrsquolursquoummdashsoil with gravelsmdash(Hsk-LP) or Haylursquoummdashvery shallow soilmdash(Nu-LP) and(2) soils that were designated according to the specificmicrotopographic positions on which they occur for exam-ple Chrsquoochrsquoolmdashsoil under piled rock fragmentsmdash(Hsk-LP)Tsekrsquoelmdashsoil among rock fragmentsmdash(Nu-LP) Chaltunmdashsoilbetween outcropsmdash(Nu-LP) At this level soils in moundswere recognized as Krsquoankab Haylursquoum Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum TsekrsquoelChaltun Puslursquoum Chrsquoochrsquool and so on In the case of theplain soils farmers only recognized two variantsKrsquoankab andHayrsquolursquoum In both cases when farmers were not sure of thespecific nameof the soil they designate asBoxluursquom to all soilsin mounds and Krsquoankab to all soils in plains

Following this scheme it can be seen that level one(mound soils and plain soils) is the most studied level so far[5 14 15] It is in the second and third levels that researchis needed It is in those levels where the participation of thefarmers is important in order to better understand each oneof the elements of the landscape and topography that theyrecognize and use to identify soils

Mayan soil types and WRB units cannot be directlyrelated to each other because these systems share few diag-nostic properties and assign them different relative impor-tance [8] Many soils identified by farmers relate with morethan one WRB group of soil and vice versa in these casesno direct relationship between both classification systems ispossible (Table 9)

Peoplersquos understanding of soils constitutes a complexknowledge system with some categories similar or com-plementary to those used by modern soil science [8 30]For example even though hierarchical levels of the WRBsystem are based on qualitative and quantitative data theyuse qualifiers to distinguish soils at secondary levels Someof those characteristics that is gravels or rock fragmentspercentage are related to the Mayan approach For instanceamount of rock fragments is a very important property forbuilding hierarchal levels in the Mayan soil nomenclature(eg Chrsquoochrsquool) as well as in the WRB classification at thequalifier level (eg Hyperskeletic and Skeletic Leptosols)

6 Conclusions

In Hocaba Yucatan farmers distinguished two main groupsof soils Krsquoankab or soils of plains and Boxlursquoum or soils ofmounds Krsquoankab is a group of red soils with two variants(Krsquoankab and Haylursquoum) whereas Boxlursquoum is a group ofdark soils with five variants (Tsekrsquoel Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum ChaltunPuslursquoum and Chrsquoochrsquool) Soils on the plains were identifiedas Leptosols Cambisols Cambisols and Luvisols Soils

ISRN Soil Science 9

Mayan soil typesLevel

0

1

2

3

Soils in plains (Krsquoankabal)(Krsquoankab)

Krsquoankab

Soils in mounds (Muluch)(Boxluursquom)

Mounds dominated byrock fragments

Mounds dominated byoutcrops

Deep soils (less than 10 cm)

(color red orreddish brown)

(less than 10 cm)(color red orreddish brown)

Shallow soils Soils with abundantfine gravels

(color lightbrown grey

or black)

Soilsfree of rockfragments

(color grey

Soils in betweenoutcrops

(color black)

Soils in piles ofstones and cobbles

(color black)

Soils containedin rock holes(color black)

Shadow soils(less than 10 cm)

(color black)

HaylursquoumChrsquoichrsquolursquoum

Puslursquoum Tsekrsquoel Chrsquoochrsquool Chaltun

or black)

Figure 2 Mayan soil types in Hocaba Yucatan

Table 9 Relationship between WRB soil units and Mayan soil types

WRB soil group Dominant kind of rock Topographic position Mayan soil classChromic LuvisolsEutric CambisolsMollic Leptosol

Fracturable Any part of the plains Krsquoankab

Nudilithic Leptosol Fracturable Base of the mounds HaylursquoumHyperskeletic Leptosol ChrsquoichrsquolursquoumHaplic CalcisolHyperskeletic Leptosol Graintable and powderable Flat tops of the mounds Puslursquoum

ChrsquoichrsquolursquoumPetrocalcic Calcisol Fracturable and grainable Top of the mounds Puslursquoum

Nudilithic LeptosolHyperskeletic Leptosol

FracturableFracturableFracturable

Top of the moundsSides of the moundsBase of the mounds

BoxlursquoumTsekrsquoelChrsquoochrsquool

Rendzic LeptosolNudilithic Leptosol Fracturable Top of the mounds

Sides of the moundsBoxlursquoumTsekrsquoel

Nudilithic LeptosolLithic LeptosolNudilithic Leptosol

SolubleSoluble

Fracturable

Top of the moundsSides of the moundsBase of the mounds

ChaltunBoxlursquoumHaylursquoum

identified in mounds were Leptosols and Calcisols Mayansoil types and WRB groups are complementary they shouldbe used together in order to improve both soil classificationsto help transference of agricultural technologies and makesoil management decisions Soil characteristics that shouldbe considered for a local soil classification system aretopographic position (plain or mound) colour amount ofrock fragments and outcrops and soil depth or effectiverooting depth

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments are due to the Science and TechnologyNational Council (CONACyT) for the scholarship grantedto the first author for his master degree studies to CONA-CyT project Base de datos para la penınsula de Yucatanincluyendo nomenclatura maya y FAO Convenio R31624-B to the American Institute for Global Change Research(IAI) project Biogeochemical cycles under land use change

in the semiarid Americas to Dr Steve Gliessman Dr RobertGraham and MSc Arturo Caamal Maldonado for theircomments and corrections to the paper to Wendy Huchimand Miguel Huicab for their collaboration on some of thetables and figures This paper is dedicated to the memory ofmy friend Mr Pedro Canche farmer from Hocaba who withhis wide knowledge of soils roads and people helped me asguide and Mayan-Spanish translator and in contacting otherfarmers

References

[1] A M G A Winklerprins ldquoLocal soil knowledge a tool forsustainable land managementrdquo Society and Natural Resourcesvol 12 no 2 pp 151ndash161 1999

[2] P V Krasilnikov and J A Tabor ldquoPerspectives on utilitarianethnopedologyrdquo Geoderma vol 111 no 3-4 pp 197ndash215 2003

[3] N Barrera-Bassols and J A Zinck ldquoEthnopedology a world-wide view on the soil knowledge of local peoplerdquo Geodermavol 111 no 3-4 pp 171ndash195 2003

10 ISRN Soil Science

[4] N Barrera-Bassols ldquoEtnoedafologıa purhepechardquo MexicoIndıgena vol 6 no 24 pp 47ndash52 1988

[5] F Bautista J Jimenez J Navarro A Manu and R LozanoldquoMicrorelieve y color del suelo como propiedades de diag-nostico en Leptosoles carsticosrdquo Terra vol 21 no 1 pp 1ndash122003

[6] B J Williams ldquoAztec soil sciencerdquo Boletın del Instituto deGeografıa vol 7 pp 115ndash120 1975

[7] B J Williams and C A Ortiz-Solorio ldquoMiddle American folksoil taxonomyrdquo Annals Association of American Geographersvol 71 no 3 pp 335ndash358 1981

[8] F Bautista and J A Zinck ldquoConstruction of an Yucatec Mayasoil classification and comparison with the WRB frameworkrdquoJournal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine vol 6 article 7 2010

[9] V Toledo ldquoIndigenous knowledge on soils an ethnoecologicalconceptualizationrdquo in Ethnopedology in A Worldwide Perspec-tives An Annotated Bibliography N Barrera-Bassols and J AZinck Eds International Institute for Aerospace Survey andEarth Science Enschede The Netherlands 2000

[10] A J Tabor ldquoSoil classification systemsrdquo in Soil of Arid Regionsof the US and Israel 1997 httpcalsarizonaeduoalssoilsclassifsystemshtml

[11] J A Sandor and L Furbee ldquoIndigenous knowledge and clas-sification of soils in the Andes of Southern Perurdquo Soil ScienceSociety of America Journal vol 60 no 5 pp 1502ndash1512 1996

[12] A J Tabor ldquoSoil surveys and indigenous soil classificationrdquoIndigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor vol 1 no 11993

[13] IUSS-ISRIC-FAO ldquo2006World reference base for soil resources2006 A framework for international classification correlationand communicationrdquo World Soil Resour Report 103 FAORome Italy

[14] F Bautista H Estrada-Medina J Jimenez-Osornio and JGonzalez-Iturbe ldquoRelacion entre relieve y suelos en zonascarsticasrdquo Terra vol 22 no 3 pp 243ndash254 2004

[15] G J Duch La conformacion territorial del estado de YucatanmdashLos componentes del medio fısico Centro Regional de laPenınsula de Yucatan CRUPY Universidad Autonoma deChapingo Mexico Mexico 1988

[16] G J Duch Fisiografıa del estado de Yucatanmdashsu relacion conla agricultura Centro Regional de la Penınsula de YucatanCRUPY Universidad Autonoma de Chapingo Mexico Mexico1991

[17] P N Dunning ldquoSoils and vegetationrdquo in Lords of the HillsAncient Maya Settement in the Puuc Region Yucatan Mexicovol 15 of Monographs in World Archaeology Prehistory PressMadison Wis USA 1992

[18] J Lugo ldquoGeomorfologıardquo in Atlas de Procesos Territoriales deYucatan P P Chico Ed Universidad Autonoma de YucatanYucatan Mexico 1999

[19] Gobierno Constitucional del Estado de Yucatan ldquoPrograma dedesarrollo regional de la zona Henequenera de Yucatan 1992ndash1994rdquo Mexico 1992

[20] INEGI ldquoAnuario estadıstico del estado de Yucatanrdquo Gobiernodel estado de Yucatan 1995

[21] R Orellana ldquoEvaluacion Climatica (Climatologıa de laPenınsula de Yucatan)rdquo in Atlas de Procesos Territoriales deYucatan A Garcıa de Fuentes C Y Ordonez and P ChicoPonce de Leon Eds pp 162ndash182 Facultad de ArquitecturaUniversidad Autonoma de Yucatan Merida Mexico 2000

[22] S J Flores andC I Espejel ldquoTipos de vegetacion de la penınsulade Yucatanrdquo Fascıculo 3 Sostenibilidad Maya UniversidadAutonoma de Yucatan Mexico Mexico 1994

[23] L Cano Cambio del uso del suelo en el municipio de HocabaYucatan Mexico [Tesis de maestrıa en Manejo y Conservacionde Recursos Naturales Tropicales] Facultad de Medicina Veteri-naria y Zootecnia Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan 2000

[24] INEGI ldquoInstituto Nacional de Estadıstica Geografıa e Infor-maticardquo Carta Geologica 1250000 Secretarıa de Programaciony Presupuesto Mexico Mexico 1983

[25] C Siebe R Janh and K Stahr ldquoManual para la descripciony evaluacion ecologica de suelos en el campordquo PublicacionEspecial 4 Sociedad Mexicana de la Ciencia del Suelo A CEdo de Mexico Mexico Mexico 1996

[26] F Bautista J Garcia and A Mizrahi ldquoDiagnostico campesinode la situacion agrıcola en Hocaba Yucatanrdquo Terra Latinoamer-icana vol 23 no 4 2005

[27] E Habarurema and K G Steiner ldquoSoil suitability classificationby farmers in southern Rwandardquo Geoderma vol 75 no 1-2 pp75ndash87 1997

[28] M Corbeels A Shiferaw and M Haile ldquoFarmersrsquo knowledgeof soil fertility and local managament strategies in TigrayEthiopiardquo Managing Africarsquos Soils 10 IIED London UK 2000

[29] L Pool-Novelo E Cervantes-Trejo and S Mesa-Dıaz ldquoLaclasificacion Tsotsil de soils en el paisaje carstico de la subregionSan Cristobal de las casas Chiapas Mexicordquo Terra vol 9 no 1pp 11ndash23 1991

[30] N Barrera-Bassols and A J Zinck Ethnopedology in a World-wide Perspectives An Annotated Bibliography InternationalInstitute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Science EnschedeThe Netherlands 2000

[31] N Aguilera Herrera ldquoSuelosrdquo in Los recursos naturales del Sur-este y su aprovechamiento E Beltran Ed InstitutoMexicano deRecursos Naturales Renovables Mexico City Mexico 1958

[32] PorruaDicccionarioMaya Editorial Porrua Mexico Mexico 2edition 1991

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Forestry ResearchInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Environmental and Public Health

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

EcosystemsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

MeteorologyAdvances in

EcologyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Marine BiologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Applied ampEnvironmentalSoil Science

Volume 2014

Advances in

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Environmental Chemistry

Atmospheric SciencesInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Waste ManagementJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal of

Geophysics

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Geological ResearchJournal of

EarthquakesJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

BiodiversityInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

ScientificaHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

OceanographyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of Computational Environmental SciencesHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

ClimatologyJournal of

6 ISRN Soil Science

Table7Prop

ertie

sofsoilslocatedin

mou

ndsa

tHocabaYu

catan

Mexico

Soilho

rizon

Depth

cmDry

color

StructureA

SASi

PSD

TCGr

St

CO3

pHOM

CE

Ccm

ol+kgminus1

Exchange

Catio

nscm

ol+kgminus

BS

Sand

Clay

Silt

CaMg

Na

KHyperskele

ticLeptosol

A0ndash

1075

YR251

GR

VF-M

706

157

137

SL50

3012

80

450

662

540

1801

33

89AkC

10ndash4

575

YR31

GR

VF-L

588

176

235

SL67

254

80

364

19192

54

04

31

100

Rend

zicH

yperskeleticLeptosol

A0ndash

710YR

251

GR

F-M

637

157

206

SL51

4031

78345

541

384

126

02

09

100

AC

7ndash23

10YR

251

GR

VF-M

716

137

147

SL51

4543

77286

244

390

270

02

10100

LepticSkele

talC

alcisol

A0-1

75YR

251

GR

VF-L

550

200

250

SCL

3010

4180

306

407

386

07

02

28

100

AkCk

1ndash15

75YR

43

GR

VF-M

627

137

235

SL36

1734

81

194

322

353

11ND

06

100

CkA

k15ndash50

75YR

43

SBK

VF-L

627

157

216

SL34

2042

80

195

267

353

09

05

06

100

Epipetric

Skele

ticCa

lciso

lAk

0ndash4

10YR

33

GR

F-H

490

196

314

L22

030

80

213

355

254

40

03

18100

Bk1

4ndash20

10YR

43

SBK

F-M

539

314

147

SCL

2515

3582

113

167

149

1103

10100

Bk2

20ndash35

10YR

41

SBK

VF-L

529

216

256

SCL

2120

3683

129

182

165

1103

08

100

Ckm

35ndash4

0gt50

IIAk

40ndash6

010YR

51

GR

VF-L

598

196

206

SL22

1537

86

106

144

121

04

02

05

100

Hum

ic-H

yperskeletalLeptosol

Ak1

0ndash2

75YR

251

GR

VF-M

690

110

200

SL31

036

75499

599

328

341

01

11100

Ak2

2ndash22

75YR

351

GR

VF-L

670

130

200

SL0

9044

77426

376

418

223

01

12100

CA

22ndash80

75YR

41

SBK

VF-L

710

120

170

SL0

9547

78180

286

211

84

01

02

100

PSDpartic

lesiz

edistrib

ution

ASaggregates

shape(

GR

granularSBK

sub

angularb

lockyABK

ang

ular

blocky)ASiaggregatessize(

VFvery

fineFfin

eMm

edium)Stability(Llow

Mm

oderateHhigh)

Lloam

CLcla

yloam

CclayTC

texturalclassG

rgravels

Ststo

nesOMorganicmatterCE

Ccatio

nexchange

capacityB

Sbase

saturatio

n

ISRN Soil Science 7

Table 8 Comparison between the descriptions of the soils found in the municipality of Hocaba Yucatan Mexico and those presented inothers studies

Maya namelowast Aguilera (1958) [31] Duch (1988 1991) [15 16] This study

Krsquoankab Light red deep soils Reddish brown color Found it in plainterrains Red soil

Boxlursquoum mdash Black color Black or dark soil

Puslursquoum mdash Remarkable less amount of rockfragments than Boxlursquoum

Black soil soft with no rockfragments It dries out quickly

Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum mdash Very hard and gravel aggregates Soil with abundant amount of gravelsMuluch bukrsquotun mdash mdash Soil with a lot of rock fragments

Ekrsquolursquoum Organic soil on calcareous rock(Ekrsquolursquoum Tsekrsquoel) mdash Black soil

Chrsquoochrsquool Soil with calcareous rocks alongprofile

Soil with abundant rock fragments onthe surface Soil under piled rock fragments

Tsekrsquoel Calcareous rock with a thin layerof soil

Shallow soil with abundant rockfragments Soil with abundant rock fragments

Chaltun Soil over laja rock Soil with calcareous armour exposed Black shallow soilwith cracked or holed rock

Chaklursquoum mdash Soil more red than Krsquoankab Dark red soil

Haylursquoum mdash mdash Very shallow soil Less than 10 cmdepth

lowastWriting of the Maya names is according to the Porrua dictionary [32]

knowledge of soils is similar in the whole state Typicallyfarmer classifications are highly variable or they have littleconsistency from region to region [8 12 27] however itseems that the Mayan soil knowledge is quite homogeneouseven at regional level [8] This homogeneity can help tofacilitate its systematization

On the other hand this apparent homogeneity couldalso indicate a loss of the soil knowledge This statementis supported by the results of this work in which only twoclasses of soils were recognized by all the interviewed farmers(Boxlursquoum and Krsquoankab) and these two terms were used torefer to the rest of the soils when they did not know them

Most of the classification systems reflect the priorities ofwho propose them [28] Characteristics that Mayan farmersuse to classify soils are mainly visual and intimately related totheir agricultural activities

Farmers recognized colour differences among soils how-ever it was observed that there are different tones that farmersdo not consider as distinctive elements A particular caseis the Mayan term Box that means black or dark Manyfarmers referred the soil called Chichlursquoum that is usuallylight brown to dark brown as simply Boxlursquoum Howeverapparently this is related to the absence of a Mayan wordto designate brown color although some farmers used theSpanish term ldquoachocolatadordquo (colored as chocolate) to referto this colour Another special case is the soil called Krsquoankabwhose common translation is ldquoyellow place at the bottomrdquo inattention to subsuperficial soils horizons [8]TheMayanwordChakmeans red thusChaklursquoum are red soilsThese soils aredarker than other red top soils such as Krsquoankab

Soil depth was only an important characteristic forfarmers to differentiate between shallow (soils lt 10 cm) anddeep soils (soils gt 10 cm) Farmers recognized these soils

empirically during sowing when they insert their sowingstick by observation of aerial roots on maize plants or whenmaize plants fall down due to the wind action because rootslack deep anchorage Farmers affirmed that mound soils arenot very deep but they pointed out that roots always findcracks in the rocks to continue growing Shallow soils arecalled Haylursquoum in both plains and mounds and correspondto Nudilithic Leptosols Farmers judge the depth of Krsquoankabby its surface color the darker the soil is the shallower it isand the lighter the soil is the deeper it is Bautista and Zinck[8] reported these differences in deepness for Krsquoankab soils

The microtopographic position superficial amount ofrock fragments and outcrops are three characteristics that thefarmers always consider together We found five rock typeswith different uses and it is possible that they influence soilcharacteristics and soil genesis [14 26] For example soilscalled Chrsquoochrsquool can only be found at the base of the moundsunder stone accumulations (Hyperskeletic Leptosols) whilesoils designated Chaltun are almost always near the moundsbut present bedrock very near to the surface (NudilithicLeptosols)

Water retention is a characteristic that many farmersrecognized but their comments relative to this property wereinconsistent For many farmers soils that do not retain water(they dried out first) were those on themounds while othersassured that it was the soils on the plains This disagreementcan be due to the farmers not considering the variability in theamount of rock fragments or the depth of the soils as factorsthat determine the water retention In fact this characteristicwas only relevant to recognize the soil called Puslursquoum whichfarmers consistently designated as the soil that dried out first

Other studies have found that soil texture is an importantproperty for local classifications [11 29] but it seems that this

8 ISRN Soil Science

is not the case of the Mayan classification because none oftheir agricultural practices requires a direct physical contactwith the deeper layers of soil

42 Soils Uses Preferences for growing crops were mainlylinked to the more availability of workable surface for sowingin plain soils Farmers like to grow most of their crops onthe Krsquoankab soils because the absence of rock fragmentsand outcrops makes field operations easier and quicker Theone clear exception is the soil called Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum in whichfarmers prefer to sow peppers and sweet potato arguing thatthey only grow well in that class of soil It is possible thata nutritional reason exists to explain the best developmentof those crops in that class of soil but this remains to beconfirmed with soil fertility analyses

Although some farmers said that with good rain themound soils give better production most of them assuredthat crops on mound soils as well as plain soils grow wellif it has rained well and on time On the other hand whenrain is not good some farmers said that the mound soilsproduce higher yields while others argue that the plain soilsdo The reason for these inconsistencies could be the depthof the soils and the amount of rock fragments and outcropsComparatively shallow soils can store less water than deepsoils but amount of rocks and stones on mound soils help toconserve the humidity better than in shallow plain soils

Soil water content is a property associated by farmerswiththe presence of weeds In this regard they said that they havemany problems to control weeds because as soon as it rainsweeds appear in the soil They also pointed out differences inweed composition and abundance between mound and plainsoils A farmer makingmilpa in the same place for five yearsin a row said that every year he had to usemore herbicide anddedicate more hours to remove weeds than the earlier year

In contrast to what the authors of [16 17] found thefarmers interviewed in this study did not use any terms torefer to soil fertility This is perhaps because these authorsdid their studies using a deeper anthropologic approachThe author of [16] developed the hierarchical classificationof the soils of the Puuc region of the state of Yucatan andoutlined a classification departed from a linguistic point ofview grouping the soil classes according to the meaning ofthe Mayan names as well as some management aspects Suchresearch is important to obtain information that may nolonger exist among the contemporary inhabitants of a region

5 Comparison and Systematization

Our results suggest that Mayan soils knowledge is given atthree levels (Figure 2) In level one topographic positionmound (Muluch) or plain (Krsquoankabal) Mound soils are darkgenerally black grey or brown while plain soils are red tored-brown which makes a first division among soil classesresulting in a general designation for soils according to theircolor Dark soils are designated as Boxrsquoluum and red soils asKrsquoankab The prefix Box means literally black but it is usedto refer to all classes of dark colours On the other hand theprefix Krsquoan means literally yellow but is used to designatelight red soils on plains Level two is almost exclusive for

mound soils since in the plains the amount of rock fragmentsand outcrops are nearly absent However in some cases redmound soils having abundant amount of rock fragments andoutcrops were observed and recognized by farmers asChrsquoich-Krsquoankab or Tsekrsquoel-Krsquoankab This was the only case wherefarmers used a compound name mixing two single names

In level three variations of soils from the second levelwere recognized according to their association with specifictopographic position Here there were two subdivisions(1) soil names ending with the Mayan word lursquoum whichmeans soil for example Chrsquoichrsquolursquoummdashsoil with gravelsmdash(Hsk-LP) or Haylursquoummdashvery shallow soilmdash(Nu-LP) and(2) soils that were designated according to the specificmicrotopographic positions on which they occur for exam-ple Chrsquoochrsquoolmdashsoil under piled rock fragmentsmdash(Hsk-LP)Tsekrsquoelmdashsoil among rock fragmentsmdash(Nu-LP) Chaltunmdashsoilbetween outcropsmdash(Nu-LP) At this level soils in moundswere recognized as Krsquoankab Haylursquoum Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum TsekrsquoelChaltun Puslursquoum Chrsquoochrsquool and so on In the case of theplain soils farmers only recognized two variantsKrsquoankab andHayrsquolursquoum In both cases when farmers were not sure of thespecific nameof the soil they designate asBoxluursquom to all soilsin mounds and Krsquoankab to all soils in plains

Following this scheme it can be seen that level one(mound soils and plain soils) is the most studied level so far[5 14 15] It is in the second and third levels that researchis needed It is in those levels where the participation of thefarmers is important in order to better understand each oneof the elements of the landscape and topography that theyrecognize and use to identify soils

Mayan soil types and WRB units cannot be directlyrelated to each other because these systems share few diag-nostic properties and assign them different relative impor-tance [8] Many soils identified by farmers relate with morethan one WRB group of soil and vice versa in these casesno direct relationship between both classification systems ispossible (Table 9)

Peoplersquos understanding of soils constitutes a complexknowledge system with some categories similar or com-plementary to those used by modern soil science [8 30]For example even though hierarchical levels of the WRBsystem are based on qualitative and quantitative data theyuse qualifiers to distinguish soils at secondary levels Someof those characteristics that is gravels or rock fragmentspercentage are related to the Mayan approach For instanceamount of rock fragments is a very important property forbuilding hierarchal levels in the Mayan soil nomenclature(eg Chrsquoochrsquool) as well as in the WRB classification at thequalifier level (eg Hyperskeletic and Skeletic Leptosols)

6 Conclusions

In Hocaba Yucatan farmers distinguished two main groupsof soils Krsquoankab or soils of plains and Boxlursquoum or soils ofmounds Krsquoankab is a group of red soils with two variants(Krsquoankab and Haylursquoum) whereas Boxlursquoum is a group ofdark soils with five variants (Tsekrsquoel Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum ChaltunPuslursquoum and Chrsquoochrsquool) Soils on the plains were identifiedas Leptosols Cambisols Cambisols and Luvisols Soils

ISRN Soil Science 9

Mayan soil typesLevel

0

1

2

3

Soils in plains (Krsquoankabal)(Krsquoankab)

Krsquoankab

Soils in mounds (Muluch)(Boxluursquom)

Mounds dominated byrock fragments

Mounds dominated byoutcrops

Deep soils (less than 10 cm)

(color red orreddish brown)

(less than 10 cm)(color red orreddish brown)

Shallow soils Soils with abundantfine gravels

(color lightbrown grey

or black)

Soilsfree of rockfragments

(color grey

Soils in betweenoutcrops

(color black)

Soils in piles ofstones and cobbles

(color black)

Soils containedin rock holes(color black)

Shadow soils(less than 10 cm)

(color black)

HaylursquoumChrsquoichrsquolursquoum

Puslursquoum Tsekrsquoel Chrsquoochrsquool Chaltun

or black)

Figure 2 Mayan soil types in Hocaba Yucatan

Table 9 Relationship between WRB soil units and Mayan soil types

WRB soil group Dominant kind of rock Topographic position Mayan soil classChromic LuvisolsEutric CambisolsMollic Leptosol

Fracturable Any part of the plains Krsquoankab

Nudilithic Leptosol Fracturable Base of the mounds HaylursquoumHyperskeletic Leptosol ChrsquoichrsquolursquoumHaplic CalcisolHyperskeletic Leptosol Graintable and powderable Flat tops of the mounds Puslursquoum

ChrsquoichrsquolursquoumPetrocalcic Calcisol Fracturable and grainable Top of the mounds Puslursquoum

Nudilithic LeptosolHyperskeletic Leptosol

FracturableFracturableFracturable

Top of the moundsSides of the moundsBase of the mounds

BoxlursquoumTsekrsquoelChrsquoochrsquool

Rendzic LeptosolNudilithic Leptosol Fracturable Top of the mounds

Sides of the moundsBoxlursquoumTsekrsquoel

Nudilithic LeptosolLithic LeptosolNudilithic Leptosol

SolubleSoluble

Fracturable

Top of the moundsSides of the moundsBase of the mounds

ChaltunBoxlursquoumHaylursquoum

identified in mounds were Leptosols and Calcisols Mayansoil types and WRB groups are complementary they shouldbe used together in order to improve both soil classificationsto help transference of agricultural technologies and makesoil management decisions Soil characteristics that shouldbe considered for a local soil classification system aretopographic position (plain or mound) colour amount ofrock fragments and outcrops and soil depth or effectiverooting depth

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments are due to the Science and TechnologyNational Council (CONACyT) for the scholarship grantedto the first author for his master degree studies to CONA-CyT project Base de datos para la penınsula de Yucatanincluyendo nomenclatura maya y FAO Convenio R31624-B to the American Institute for Global Change Research(IAI) project Biogeochemical cycles under land use change

in the semiarid Americas to Dr Steve Gliessman Dr RobertGraham and MSc Arturo Caamal Maldonado for theircomments and corrections to the paper to Wendy Huchimand Miguel Huicab for their collaboration on some of thetables and figures This paper is dedicated to the memory ofmy friend Mr Pedro Canche farmer from Hocaba who withhis wide knowledge of soils roads and people helped me asguide and Mayan-Spanish translator and in contacting otherfarmers

References

[1] A M G A Winklerprins ldquoLocal soil knowledge a tool forsustainable land managementrdquo Society and Natural Resourcesvol 12 no 2 pp 151ndash161 1999

[2] P V Krasilnikov and J A Tabor ldquoPerspectives on utilitarianethnopedologyrdquo Geoderma vol 111 no 3-4 pp 197ndash215 2003

[3] N Barrera-Bassols and J A Zinck ldquoEthnopedology a world-wide view on the soil knowledge of local peoplerdquo Geodermavol 111 no 3-4 pp 171ndash195 2003

10 ISRN Soil Science

[4] N Barrera-Bassols ldquoEtnoedafologıa purhepechardquo MexicoIndıgena vol 6 no 24 pp 47ndash52 1988

[5] F Bautista J Jimenez J Navarro A Manu and R LozanoldquoMicrorelieve y color del suelo como propiedades de diag-nostico en Leptosoles carsticosrdquo Terra vol 21 no 1 pp 1ndash122003

[6] B J Williams ldquoAztec soil sciencerdquo Boletın del Instituto deGeografıa vol 7 pp 115ndash120 1975

[7] B J Williams and C A Ortiz-Solorio ldquoMiddle American folksoil taxonomyrdquo Annals Association of American Geographersvol 71 no 3 pp 335ndash358 1981

[8] F Bautista and J A Zinck ldquoConstruction of an Yucatec Mayasoil classification and comparison with the WRB frameworkrdquoJournal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine vol 6 article 7 2010

[9] V Toledo ldquoIndigenous knowledge on soils an ethnoecologicalconceptualizationrdquo in Ethnopedology in A Worldwide Perspec-tives An Annotated Bibliography N Barrera-Bassols and J AZinck Eds International Institute for Aerospace Survey andEarth Science Enschede The Netherlands 2000

[10] A J Tabor ldquoSoil classification systemsrdquo in Soil of Arid Regionsof the US and Israel 1997 httpcalsarizonaeduoalssoilsclassifsystemshtml

[11] J A Sandor and L Furbee ldquoIndigenous knowledge and clas-sification of soils in the Andes of Southern Perurdquo Soil ScienceSociety of America Journal vol 60 no 5 pp 1502ndash1512 1996

[12] A J Tabor ldquoSoil surveys and indigenous soil classificationrdquoIndigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor vol 1 no 11993

[13] IUSS-ISRIC-FAO ldquo2006World reference base for soil resources2006 A framework for international classification correlationand communicationrdquo World Soil Resour Report 103 FAORome Italy

[14] F Bautista H Estrada-Medina J Jimenez-Osornio and JGonzalez-Iturbe ldquoRelacion entre relieve y suelos en zonascarsticasrdquo Terra vol 22 no 3 pp 243ndash254 2004

[15] G J Duch La conformacion territorial del estado de YucatanmdashLos componentes del medio fısico Centro Regional de laPenınsula de Yucatan CRUPY Universidad Autonoma deChapingo Mexico Mexico 1988

[16] G J Duch Fisiografıa del estado de Yucatanmdashsu relacion conla agricultura Centro Regional de la Penınsula de YucatanCRUPY Universidad Autonoma de Chapingo Mexico Mexico1991

[17] P N Dunning ldquoSoils and vegetationrdquo in Lords of the HillsAncient Maya Settement in the Puuc Region Yucatan Mexicovol 15 of Monographs in World Archaeology Prehistory PressMadison Wis USA 1992

[18] J Lugo ldquoGeomorfologıardquo in Atlas de Procesos Territoriales deYucatan P P Chico Ed Universidad Autonoma de YucatanYucatan Mexico 1999

[19] Gobierno Constitucional del Estado de Yucatan ldquoPrograma dedesarrollo regional de la zona Henequenera de Yucatan 1992ndash1994rdquo Mexico 1992

[20] INEGI ldquoAnuario estadıstico del estado de Yucatanrdquo Gobiernodel estado de Yucatan 1995

[21] R Orellana ldquoEvaluacion Climatica (Climatologıa de laPenınsula de Yucatan)rdquo in Atlas de Procesos Territoriales deYucatan A Garcıa de Fuentes C Y Ordonez and P ChicoPonce de Leon Eds pp 162ndash182 Facultad de ArquitecturaUniversidad Autonoma de Yucatan Merida Mexico 2000

[22] S J Flores andC I Espejel ldquoTipos de vegetacion de la penınsulade Yucatanrdquo Fascıculo 3 Sostenibilidad Maya UniversidadAutonoma de Yucatan Mexico Mexico 1994

[23] L Cano Cambio del uso del suelo en el municipio de HocabaYucatan Mexico [Tesis de maestrıa en Manejo y Conservacionde Recursos Naturales Tropicales] Facultad de Medicina Veteri-naria y Zootecnia Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan 2000

[24] INEGI ldquoInstituto Nacional de Estadıstica Geografıa e Infor-maticardquo Carta Geologica 1250000 Secretarıa de Programaciony Presupuesto Mexico Mexico 1983

[25] C Siebe R Janh and K Stahr ldquoManual para la descripciony evaluacion ecologica de suelos en el campordquo PublicacionEspecial 4 Sociedad Mexicana de la Ciencia del Suelo A CEdo de Mexico Mexico Mexico 1996

[26] F Bautista J Garcia and A Mizrahi ldquoDiagnostico campesinode la situacion agrıcola en Hocaba Yucatanrdquo Terra Latinoamer-icana vol 23 no 4 2005

[27] E Habarurema and K G Steiner ldquoSoil suitability classificationby farmers in southern Rwandardquo Geoderma vol 75 no 1-2 pp75ndash87 1997

[28] M Corbeels A Shiferaw and M Haile ldquoFarmersrsquo knowledgeof soil fertility and local managament strategies in TigrayEthiopiardquo Managing Africarsquos Soils 10 IIED London UK 2000

[29] L Pool-Novelo E Cervantes-Trejo and S Mesa-Dıaz ldquoLaclasificacion Tsotsil de soils en el paisaje carstico de la subregionSan Cristobal de las casas Chiapas Mexicordquo Terra vol 9 no 1pp 11ndash23 1991

[30] N Barrera-Bassols and A J Zinck Ethnopedology in a World-wide Perspectives An Annotated Bibliography InternationalInstitute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Science EnschedeThe Netherlands 2000

[31] N Aguilera Herrera ldquoSuelosrdquo in Los recursos naturales del Sur-este y su aprovechamiento E Beltran Ed InstitutoMexicano deRecursos Naturales Renovables Mexico City Mexico 1958

[32] PorruaDicccionarioMaya Editorial Porrua Mexico Mexico 2edition 1991

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Forestry ResearchInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Environmental and Public Health

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

EcosystemsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

MeteorologyAdvances in

EcologyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Marine BiologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Applied ampEnvironmentalSoil Science

Volume 2014

Advances in

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Environmental Chemistry

Atmospheric SciencesInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Waste ManagementJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal of

Geophysics

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Geological ResearchJournal of

EarthquakesJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

BiodiversityInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

ScientificaHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

OceanographyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of Computational Environmental SciencesHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

ClimatologyJournal of

ISRN Soil Science 7

Table 8 Comparison between the descriptions of the soils found in the municipality of Hocaba Yucatan Mexico and those presented inothers studies

Maya namelowast Aguilera (1958) [31] Duch (1988 1991) [15 16] This study

Krsquoankab Light red deep soils Reddish brown color Found it in plainterrains Red soil

Boxlursquoum mdash Black color Black or dark soil

Puslursquoum mdash Remarkable less amount of rockfragments than Boxlursquoum

Black soil soft with no rockfragments It dries out quickly

Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum mdash Very hard and gravel aggregates Soil with abundant amount of gravelsMuluch bukrsquotun mdash mdash Soil with a lot of rock fragments

Ekrsquolursquoum Organic soil on calcareous rock(Ekrsquolursquoum Tsekrsquoel) mdash Black soil

Chrsquoochrsquool Soil with calcareous rocks alongprofile

Soil with abundant rock fragments onthe surface Soil under piled rock fragments

Tsekrsquoel Calcareous rock with a thin layerof soil

Shallow soil with abundant rockfragments Soil with abundant rock fragments

Chaltun Soil over laja rock Soil with calcareous armour exposed Black shallow soilwith cracked or holed rock

Chaklursquoum mdash Soil more red than Krsquoankab Dark red soil

Haylursquoum mdash mdash Very shallow soil Less than 10 cmdepth

lowastWriting of the Maya names is according to the Porrua dictionary [32]

knowledge of soils is similar in the whole state Typicallyfarmer classifications are highly variable or they have littleconsistency from region to region [8 12 27] however itseems that the Mayan soil knowledge is quite homogeneouseven at regional level [8] This homogeneity can help tofacilitate its systematization

On the other hand this apparent homogeneity couldalso indicate a loss of the soil knowledge This statementis supported by the results of this work in which only twoclasses of soils were recognized by all the interviewed farmers(Boxlursquoum and Krsquoankab) and these two terms were used torefer to the rest of the soils when they did not know them

Most of the classification systems reflect the priorities ofwho propose them [28] Characteristics that Mayan farmersuse to classify soils are mainly visual and intimately related totheir agricultural activities

Farmers recognized colour differences among soils how-ever it was observed that there are different tones that farmersdo not consider as distinctive elements A particular caseis the Mayan term Box that means black or dark Manyfarmers referred the soil called Chichlursquoum that is usuallylight brown to dark brown as simply Boxlursquoum Howeverapparently this is related to the absence of a Mayan wordto designate brown color although some farmers used theSpanish term ldquoachocolatadordquo (colored as chocolate) to referto this colour Another special case is the soil called Krsquoankabwhose common translation is ldquoyellow place at the bottomrdquo inattention to subsuperficial soils horizons [8]TheMayanwordChakmeans red thusChaklursquoum are red soilsThese soils aredarker than other red top soils such as Krsquoankab

Soil depth was only an important characteristic forfarmers to differentiate between shallow (soils lt 10 cm) anddeep soils (soils gt 10 cm) Farmers recognized these soils

empirically during sowing when they insert their sowingstick by observation of aerial roots on maize plants or whenmaize plants fall down due to the wind action because rootslack deep anchorage Farmers affirmed that mound soils arenot very deep but they pointed out that roots always findcracks in the rocks to continue growing Shallow soils arecalled Haylursquoum in both plains and mounds and correspondto Nudilithic Leptosols Farmers judge the depth of Krsquoankabby its surface color the darker the soil is the shallower it isand the lighter the soil is the deeper it is Bautista and Zinck[8] reported these differences in deepness for Krsquoankab soils

The microtopographic position superficial amount ofrock fragments and outcrops are three characteristics that thefarmers always consider together We found five rock typeswith different uses and it is possible that they influence soilcharacteristics and soil genesis [14 26] For example soilscalled Chrsquoochrsquool can only be found at the base of the moundsunder stone accumulations (Hyperskeletic Leptosols) whilesoils designated Chaltun are almost always near the moundsbut present bedrock very near to the surface (NudilithicLeptosols)

Water retention is a characteristic that many farmersrecognized but their comments relative to this property wereinconsistent For many farmers soils that do not retain water(they dried out first) were those on themounds while othersassured that it was the soils on the plains This disagreementcan be due to the farmers not considering the variability in theamount of rock fragments or the depth of the soils as factorsthat determine the water retention In fact this characteristicwas only relevant to recognize the soil called Puslursquoum whichfarmers consistently designated as the soil that dried out first

Other studies have found that soil texture is an importantproperty for local classifications [11 29] but it seems that this

8 ISRN Soil Science

is not the case of the Mayan classification because none oftheir agricultural practices requires a direct physical contactwith the deeper layers of soil

42 Soils Uses Preferences for growing crops were mainlylinked to the more availability of workable surface for sowingin plain soils Farmers like to grow most of their crops onthe Krsquoankab soils because the absence of rock fragmentsand outcrops makes field operations easier and quicker Theone clear exception is the soil called Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum in whichfarmers prefer to sow peppers and sweet potato arguing thatthey only grow well in that class of soil It is possible thata nutritional reason exists to explain the best developmentof those crops in that class of soil but this remains to beconfirmed with soil fertility analyses

Although some farmers said that with good rain themound soils give better production most of them assuredthat crops on mound soils as well as plain soils grow wellif it has rained well and on time On the other hand whenrain is not good some farmers said that the mound soilsproduce higher yields while others argue that the plain soilsdo The reason for these inconsistencies could be the depthof the soils and the amount of rock fragments and outcropsComparatively shallow soils can store less water than deepsoils but amount of rocks and stones on mound soils help toconserve the humidity better than in shallow plain soils

Soil water content is a property associated by farmerswiththe presence of weeds In this regard they said that they havemany problems to control weeds because as soon as it rainsweeds appear in the soil They also pointed out differences inweed composition and abundance between mound and plainsoils A farmer makingmilpa in the same place for five yearsin a row said that every year he had to usemore herbicide anddedicate more hours to remove weeds than the earlier year

In contrast to what the authors of [16 17] found thefarmers interviewed in this study did not use any terms torefer to soil fertility This is perhaps because these authorsdid their studies using a deeper anthropologic approachThe author of [16] developed the hierarchical classificationof the soils of the Puuc region of the state of Yucatan andoutlined a classification departed from a linguistic point ofview grouping the soil classes according to the meaning ofthe Mayan names as well as some management aspects Suchresearch is important to obtain information that may nolonger exist among the contemporary inhabitants of a region

5 Comparison and Systematization

Our results suggest that Mayan soils knowledge is given atthree levels (Figure 2) In level one topographic positionmound (Muluch) or plain (Krsquoankabal) Mound soils are darkgenerally black grey or brown while plain soils are red tored-brown which makes a first division among soil classesresulting in a general designation for soils according to theircolor Dark soils are designated as Boxrsquoluum and red soils asKrsquoankab The prefix Box means literally black but it is usedto refer to all classes of dark colours On the other hand theprefix Krsquoan means literally yellow but is used to designatelight red soils on plains Level two is almost exclusive for

mound soils since in the plains the amount of rock fragmentsand outcrops are nearly absent However in some cases redmound soils having abundant amount of rock fragments andoutcrops were observed and recognized by farmers asChrsquoich-Krsquoankab or Tsekrsquoel-Krsquoankab This was the only case wherefarmers used a compound name mixing two single names

In level three variations of soils from the second levelwere recognized according to their association with specifictopographic position Here there were two subdivisions(1) soil names ending with the Mayan word lursquoum whichmeans soil for example Chrsquoichrsquolursquoummdashsoil with gravelsmdash(Hsk-LP) or Haylursquoummdashvery shallow soilmdash(Nu-LP) and(2) soils that were designated according to the specificmicrotopographic positions on which they occur for exam-ple Chrsquoochrsquoolmdashsoil under piled rock fragmentsmdash(Hsk-LP)Tsekrsquoelmdashsoil among rock fragmentsmdash(Nu-LP) Chaltunmdashsoilbetween outcropsmdash(Nu-LP) At this level soils in moundswere recognized as Krsquoankab Haylursquoum Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum TsekrsquoelChaltun Puslursquoum Chrsquoochrsquool and so on In the case of theplain soils farmers only recognized two variantsKrsquoankab andHayrsquolursquoum In both cases when farmers were not sure of thespecific nameof the soil they designate asBoxluursquom to all soilsin mounds and Krsquoankab to all soils in plains

Following this scheme it can be seen that level one(mound soils and plain soils) is the most studied level so far[5 14 15] It is in the second and third levels that researchis needed It is in those levels where the participation of thefarmers is important in order to better understand each oneof the elements of the landscape and topography that theyrecognize and use to identify soils

Mayan soil types and WRB units cannot be directlyrelated to each other because these systems share few diag-nostic properties and assign them different relative impor-tance [8] Many soils identified by farmers relate with morethan one WRB group of soil and vice versa in these casesno direct relationship between both classification systems ispossible (Table 9)

Peoplersquos understanding of soils constitutes a complexknowledge system with some categories similar or com-plementary to those used by modern soil science [8 30]For example even though hierarchical levels of the WRBsystem are based on qualitative and quantitative data theyuse qualifiers to distinguish soils at secondary levels Someof those characteristics that is gravels or rock fragmentspercentage are related to the Mayan approach For instanceamount of rock fragments is a very important property forbuilding hierarchal levels in the Mayan soil nomenclature(eg Chrsquoochrsquool) as well as in the WRB classification at thequalifier level (eg Hyperskeletic and Skeletic Leptosols)

6 Conclusions

In Hocaba Yucatan farmers distinguished two main groupsof soils Krsquoankab or soils of plains and Boxlursquoum or soils ofmounds Krsquoankab is a group of red soils with two variants(Krsquoankab and Haylursquoum) whereas Boxlursquoum is a group ofdark soils with five variants (Tsekrsquoel Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum ChaltunPuslursquoum and Chrsquoochrsquool) Soils on the plains were identifiedas Leptosols Cambisols Cambisols and Luvisols Soils

ISRN Soil Science 9

Mayan soil typesLevel

0

1

2

3

Soils in plains (Krsquoankabal)(Krsquoankab)

Krsquoankab

Soils in mounds (Muluch)(Boxluursquom)

Mounds dominated byrock fragments

Mounds dominated byoutcrops

Deep soils (less than 10 cm)

(color red orreddish brown)

(less than 10 cm)(color red orreddish brown)

Shallow soils Soils with abundantfine gravels

(color lightbrown grey

or black)

Soilsfree of rockfragments

(color grey

Soils in betweenoutcrops

(color black)

Soils in piles ofstones and cobbles

(color black)

Soils containedin rock holes(color black)

Shadow soils(less than 10 cm)

(color black)

HaylursquoumChrsquoichrsquolursquoum

Puslursquoum Tsekrsquoel Chrsquoochrsquool Chaltun

or black)

Figure 2 Mayan soil types in Hocaba Yucatan

Table 9 Relationship between WRB soil units and Mayan soil types

WRB soil group Dominant kind of rock Topographic position Mayan soil classChromic LuvisolsEutric CambisolsMollic Leptosol

Fracturable Any part of the plains Krsquoankab

Nudilithic Leptosol Fracturable Base of the mounds HaylursquoumHyperskeletic Leptosol ChrsquoichrsquolursquoumHaplic CalcisolHyperskeletic Leptosol Graintable and powderable Flat tops of the mounds Puslursquoum

ChrsquoichrsquolursquoumPetrocalcic Calcisol Fracturable and grainable Top of the mounds Puslursquoum

Nudilithic LeptosolHyperskeletic Leptosol

FracturableFracturableFracturable

Top of the moundsSides of the moundsBase of the mounds

BoxlursquoumTsekrsquoelChrsquoochrsquool

Rendzic LeptosolNudilithic Leptosol Fracturable Top of the mounds

Sides of the moundsBoxlursquoumTsekrsquoel

Nudilithic LeptosolLithic LeptosolNudilithic Leptosol

SolubleSoluble

Fracturable

Top of the moundsSides of the moundsBase of the mounds

ChaltunBoxlursquoumHaylursquoum

identified in mounds were Leptosols and Calcisols Mayansoil types and WRB groups are complementary they shouldbe used together in order to improve both soil classificationsto help transference of agricultural technologies and makesoil management decisions Soil characteristics that shouldbe considered for a local soil classification system aretopographic position (plain or mound) colour amount ofrock fragments and outcrops and soil depth or effectiverooting depth

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments are due to the Science and TechnologyNational Council (CONACyT) for the scholarship grantedto the first author for his master degree studies to CONA-CyT project Base de datos para la penınsula de Yucatanincluyendo nomenclatura maya y FAO Convenio R31624-B to the American Institute for Global Change Research(IAI) project Biogeochemical cycles under land use change

in the semiarid Americas to Dr Steve Gliessman Dr RobertGraham and MSc Arturo Caamal Maldonado for theircomments and corrections to the paper to Wendy Huchimand Miguel Huicab for their collaboration on some of thetables and figures This paper is dedicated to the memory ofmy friend Mr Pedro Canche farmer from Hocaba who withhis wide knowledge of soils roads and people helped me asguide and Mayan-Spanish translator and in contacting otherfarmers

References

[1] A M G A Winklerprins ldquoLocal soil knowledge a tool forsustainable land managementrdquo Society and Natural Resourcesvol 12 no 2 pp 151ndash161 1999

[2] P V Krasilnikov and J A Tabor ldquoPerspectives on utilitarianethnopedologyrdquo Geoderma vol 111 no 3-4 pp 197ndash215 2003

[3] N Barrera-Bassols and J A Zinck ldquoEthnopedology a world-wide view on the soil knowledge of local peoplerdquo Geodermavol 111 no 3-4 pp 171ndash195 2003

10 ISRN Soil Science

[4] N Barrera-Bassols ldquoEtnoedafologıa purhepechardquo MexicoIndıgena vol 6 no 24 pp 47ndash52 1988

[5] F Bautista J Jimenez J Navarro A Manu and R LozanoldquoMicrorelieve y color del suelo como propiedades de diag-nostico en Leptosoles carsticosrdquo Terra vol 21 no 1 pp 1ndash122003

[6] B J Williams ldquoAztec soil sciencerdquo Boletın del Instituto deGeografıa vol 7 pp 115ndash120 1975

[7] B J Williams and C A Ortiz-Solorio ldquoMiddle American folksoil taxonomyrdquo Annals Association of American Geographersvol 71 no 3 pp 335ndash358 1981

[8] F Bautista and J A Zinck ldquoConstruction of an Yucatec Mayasoil classification and comparison with the WRB frameworkrdquoJournal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine vol 6 article 7 2010

[9] V Toledo ldquoIndigenous knowledge on soils an ethnoecologicalconceptualizationrdquo in Ethnopedology in A Worldwide Perspec-tives An Annotated Bibliography N Barrera-Bassols and J AZinck Eds International Institute for Aerospace Survey andEarth Science Enschede The Netherlands 2000

[10] A J Tabor ldquoSoil classification systemsrdquo in Soil of Arid Regionsof the US and Israel 1997 httpcalsarizonaeduoalssoilsclassifsystemshtml

[11] J A Sandor and L Furbee ldquoIndigenous knowledge and clas-sification of soils in the Andes of Southern Perurdquo Soil ScienceSociety of America Journal vol 60 no 5 pp 1502ndash1512 1996

[12] A J Tabor ldquoSoil surveys and indigenous soil classificationrdquoIndigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor vol 1 no 11993

[13] IUSS-ISRIC-FAO ldquo2006World reference base for soil resources2006 A framework for international classification correlationand communicationrdquo World Soil Resour Report 103 FAORome Italy

[14] F Bautista H Estrada-Medina J Jimenez-Osornio and JGonzalez-Iturbe ldquoRelacion entre relieve y suelos en zonascarsticasrdquo Terra vol 22 no 3 pp 243ndash254 2004

[15] G J Duch La conformacion territorial del estado de YucatanmdashLos componentes del medio fısico Centro Regional de laPenınsula de Yucatan CRUPY Universidad Autonoma deChapingo Mexico Mexico 1988

[16] G J Duch Fisiografıa del estado de Yucatanmdashsu relacion conla agricultura Centro Regional de la Penınsula de YucatanCRUPY Universidad Autonoma de Chapingo Mexico Mexico1991

[17] P N Dunning ldquoSoils and vegetationrdquo in Lords of the HillsAncient Maya Settement in the Puuc Region Yucatan Mexicovol 15 of Monographs in World Archaeology Prehistory PressMadison Wis USA 1992

[18] J Lugo ldquoGeomorfologıardquo in Atlas de Procesos Territoriales deYucatan P P Chico Ed Universidad Autonoma de YucatanYucatan Mexico 1999

[19] Gobierno Constitucional del Estado de Yucatan ldquoPrograma dedesarrollo regional de la zona Henequenera de Yucatan 1992ndash1994rdquo Mexico 1992

[20] INEGI ldquoAnuario estadıstico del estado de Yucatanrdquo Gobiernodel estado de Yucatan 1995

[21] R Orellana ldquoEvaluacion Climatica (Climatologıa de laPenınsula de Yucatan)rdquo in Atlas de Procesos Territoriales deYucatan A Garcıa de Fuentes C Y Ordonez and P ChicoPonce de Leon Eds pp 162ndash182 Facultad de ArquitecturaUniversidad Autonoma de Yucatan Merida Mexico 2000

[22] S J Flores andC I Espejel ldquoTipos de vegetacion de la penınsulade Yucatanrdquo Fascıculo 3 Sostenibilidad Maya UniversidadAutonoma de Yucatan Mexico Mexico 1994

[23] L Cano Cambio del uso del suelo en el municipio de HocabaYucatan Mexico [Tesis de maestrıa en Manejo y Conservacionde Recursos Naturales Tropicales] Facultad de Medicina Veteri-naria y Zootecnia Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan 2000

[24] INEGI ldquoInstituto Nacional de Estadıstica Geografıa e Infor-maticardquo Carta Geologica 1250000 Secretarıa de Programaciony Presupuesto Mexico Mexico 1983

[25] C Siebe R Janh and K Stahr ldquoManual para la descripciony evaluacion ecologica de suelos en el campordquo PublicacionEspecial 4 Sociedad Mexicana de la Ciencia del Suelo A CEdo de Mexico Mexico Mexico 1996

[26] F Bautista J Garcia and A Mizrahi ldquoDiagnostico campesinode la situacion agrıcola en Hocaba Yucatanrdquo Terra Latinoamer-icana vol 23 no 4 2005

[27] E Habarurema and K G Steiner ldquoSoil suitability classificationby farmers in southern Rwandardquo Geoderma vol 75 no 1-2 pp75ndash87 1997

[28] M Corbeels A Shiferaw and M Haile ldquoFarmersrsquo knowledgeof soil fertility and local managament strategies in TigrayEthiopiardquo Managing Africarsquos Soils 10 IIED London UK 2000

[29] L Pool-Novelo E Cervantes-Trejo and S Mesa-Dıaz ldquoLaclasificacion Tsotsil de soils en el paisaje carstico de la subregionSan Cristobal de las casas Chiapas Mexicordquo Terra vol 9 no 1pp 11ndash23 1991

[30] N Barrera-Bassols and A J Zinck Ethnopedology in a World-wide Perspectives An Annotated Bibliography InternationalInstitute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Science EnschedeThe Netherlands 2000

[31] N Aguilera Herrera ldquoSuelosrdquo in Los recursos naturales del Sur-este y su aprovechamiento E Beltran Ed InstitutoMexicano deRecursos Naturales Renovables Mexico City Mexico 1958

[32] PorruaDicccionarioMaya Editorial Porrua Mexico Mexico 2edition 1991

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Forestry ResearchInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Environmental and Public Health

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

EcosystemsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

MeteorologyAdvances in

EcologyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Marine BiologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Applied ampEnvironmentalSoil Science

Volume 2014

Advances in

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Environmental Chemistry

Atmospheric SciencesInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Waste ManagementJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal of

Geophysics

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Geological ResearchJournal of

EarthquakesJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

BiodiversityInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

ScientificaHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

OceanographyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of Computational Environmental SciencesHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

ClimatologyJournal of

8 ISRN Soil Science

is not the case of the Mayan classification because none oftheir agricultural practices requires a direct physical contactwith the deeper layers of soil

42 Soils Uses Preferences for growing crops were mainlylinked to the more availability of workable surface for sowingin plain soils Farmers like to grow most of their crops onthe Krsquoankab soils because the absence of rock fragmentsand outcrops makes field operations easier and quicker Theone clear exception is the soil called Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum in whichfarmers prefer to sow peppers and sweet potato arguing thatthey only grow well in that class of soil It is possible thata nutritional reason exists to explain the best developmentof those crops in that class of soil but this remains to beconfirmed with soil fertility analyses

Although some farmers said that with good rain themound soils give better production most of them assuredthat crops on mound soils as well as plain soils grow wellif it has rained well and on time On the other hand whenrain is not good some farmers said that the mound soilsproduce higher yields while others argue that the plain soilsdo The reason for these inconsistencies could be the depthof the soils and the amount of rock fragments and outcropsComparatively shallow soils can store less water than deepsoils but amount of rocks and stones on mound soils help toconserve the humidity better than in shallow plain soils

Soil water content is a property associated by farmerswiththe presence of weeds In this regard they said that they havemany problems to control weeds because as soon as it rainsweeds appear in the soil They also pointed out differences inweed composition and abundance between mound and plainsoils A farmer makingmilpa in the same place for five yearsin a row said that every year he had to usemore herbicide anddedicate more hours to remove weeds than the earlier year

In contrast to what the authors of [16 17] found thefarmers interviewed in this study did not use any terms torefer to soil fertility This is perhaps because these authorsdid their studies using a deeper anthropologic approachThe author of [16] developed the hierarchical classificationof the soils of the Puuc region of the state of Yucatan andoutlined a classification departed from a linguistic point ofview grouping the soil classes according to the meaning ofthe Mayan names as well as some management aspects Suchresearch is important to obtain information that may nolonger exist among the contemporary inhabitants of a region

5 Comparison and Systematization

Our results suggest that Mayan soils knowledge is given atthree levels (Figure 2) In level one topographic positionmound (Muluch) or plain (Krsquoankabal) Mound soils are darkgenerally black grey or brown while plain soils are red tored-brown which makes a first division among soil classesresulting in a general designation for soils according to theircolor Dark soils are designated as Boxrsquoluum and red soils asKrsquoankab The prefix Box means literally black but it is usedto refer to all classes of dark colours On the other hand theprefix Krsquoan means literally yellow but is used to designatelight red soils on plains Level two is almost exclusive for

mound soils since in the plains the amount of rock fragmentsand outcrops are nearly absent However in some cases redmound soils having abundant amount of rock fragments andoutcrops were observed and recognized by farmers asChrsquoich-Krsquoankab or Tsekrsquoel-Krsquoankab This was the only case wherefarmers used a compound name mixing two single names

In level three variations of soils from the second levelwere recognized according to their association with specifictopographic position Here there were two subdivisions(1) soil names ending with the Mayan word lursquoum whichmeans soil for example Chrsquoichrsquolursquoummdashsoil with gravelsmdash(Hsk-LP) or Haylursquoummdashvery shallow soilmdash(Nu-LP) and(2) soils that were designated according to the specificmicrotopographic positions on which they occur for exam-ple Chrsquoochrsquoolmdashsoil under piled rock fragmentsmdash(Hsk-LP)Tsekrsquoelmdashsoil among rock fragmentsmdash(Nu-LP) Chaltunmdashsoilbetween outcropsmdash(Nu-LP) At this level soils in moundswere recognized as Krsquoankab Haylursquoum Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum TsekrsquoelChaltun Puslursquoum Chrsquoochrsquool and so on In the case of theplain soils farmers only recognized two variantsKrsquoankab andHayrsquolursquoum In both cases when farmers were not sure of thespecific nameof the soil they designate asBoxluursquom to all soilsin mounds and Krsquoankab to all soils in plains

Following this scheme it can be seen that level one(mound soils and plain soils) is the most studied level so far[5 14 15] It is in the second and third levels that researchis needed It is in those levels where the participation of thefarmers is important in order to better understand each oneof the elements of the landscape and topography that theyrecognize and use to identify soils

Mayan soil types and WRB units cannot be directlyrelated to each other because these systems share few diag-nostic properties and assign them different relative impor-tance [8] Many soils identified by farmers relate with morethan one WRB group of soil and vice versa in these casesno direct relationship between both classification systems ispossible (Table 9)

Peoplersquos understanding of soils constitutes a complexknowledge system with some categories similar or com-plementary to those used by modern soil science [8 30]For example even though hierarchical levels of the WRBsystem are based on qualitative and quantitative data theyuse qualifiers to distinguish soils at secondary levels Someof those characteristics that is gravels or rock fragmentspercentage are related to the Mayan approach For instanceamount of rock fragments is a very important property forbuilding hierarchal levels in the Mayan soil nomenclature(eg Chrsquoochrsquool) as well as in the WRB classification at thequalifier level (eg Hyperskeletic and Skeletic Leptosols)

6 Conclusions

In Hocaba Yucatan farmers distinguished two main groupsof soils Krsquoankab or soils of plains and Boxlursquoum or soils ofmounds Krsquoankab is a group of red soils with two variants(Krsquoankab and Haylursquoum) whereas Boxlursquoum is a group ofdark soils with five variants (Tsekrsquoel Chrsquoichrsquolursquoum ChaltunPuslursquoum and Chrsquoochrsquool) Soils on the plains were identifiedas Leptosols Cambisols Cambisols and Luvisols Soils

ISRN Soil Science 9

Mayan soil typesLevel

0

1

2

3

Soils in plains (Krsquoankabal)(Krsquoankab)

Krsquoankab

Soils in mounds (Muluch)(Boxluursquom)

Mounds dominated byrock fragments

Mounds dominated byoutcrops

Deep soils (less than 10 cm)

(color red orreddish brown)

(less than 10 cm)(color red orreddish brown)

Shallow soils Soils with abundantfine gravels

(color lightbrown grey

or black)

Soilsfree of rockfragments

(color grey

Soils in betweenoutcrops

(color black)

Soils in piles ofstones and cobbles

(color black)

Soils containedin rock holes(color black)

Shadow soils(less than 10 cm)

(color black)

HaylursquoumChrsquoichrsquolursquoum

Puslursquoum Tsekrsquoel Chrsquoochrsquool Chaltun

or black)

Figure 2 Mayan soil types in Hocaba Yucatan

Table 9 Relationship between WRB soil units and Mayan soil types

WRB soil group Dominant kind of rock Topographic position Mayan soil classChromic LuvisolsEutric CambisolsMollic Leptosol

Fracturable Any part of the plains Krsquoankab

Nudilithic Leptosol Fracturable Base of the mounds HaylursquoumHyperskeletic Leptosol ChrsquoichrsquolursquoumHaplic CalcisolHyperskeletic Leptosol Graintable and powderable Flat tops of the mounds Puslursquoum

ChrsquoichrsquolursquoumPetrocalcic Calcisol Fracturable and grainable Top of the mounds Puslursquoum

Nudilithic LeptosolHyperskeletic Leptosol

FracturableFracturableFracturable

Top of the moundsSides of the moundsBase of the mounds

BoxlursquoumTsekrsquoelChrsquoochrsquool

Rendzic LeptosolNudilithic Leptosol Fracturable Top of the mounds

Sides of the moundsBoxlursquoumTsekrsquoel

Nudilithic LeptosolLithic LeptosolNudilithic Leptosol

SolubleSoluble

Fracturable

Top of the moundsSides of the moundsBase of the mounds

ChaltunBoxlursquoumHaylursquoum

identified in mounds were Leptosols and Calcisols Mayansoil types and WRB groups are complementary they shouldbe used together in order to improve both soil classificationsto help transference of agricultural technologies and makesoil management decisions Soil characteristics that shouldbe considered for a local soil classification system aretopographic position (plain or mound) colour amount ofrock fragments and outcrops and soil depth or effectiverooting depth

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments are due to the Science and TechnologyNational Council (CONACyT) for the scholarship grantedto the first author for his master degree studies to CONA-CyT project Base de datos para la penınsula de Yucatanincluyendo nomenclatura maya y FAO Convenio R31624-B to the American Institute for Global Change Research(IAI) project Biogeochemical cycles under land use change

in the semiarid Americas to Dr Steve Gliessman Dr RobertGraham and MSc Arturo Caamal Maldonado for theircomments and corrections to the paper to Wendy Huchimand Miguel Huicab for their collaboration on some of thetables and figures This paper is dedicated to the memory ofmy friend Mr Pedro Canche farmer from Hocaba who withhis wide knowledge of soils roads and people helped me asguide and Mayan-Spanish translator and in contacting otherfarmers

References

[1] A M G A Winklerprins ldquoLocal soil knowledge a tool forsustainable land managementrdquo Society and Natural Resourcesvol 12 no 2 pp 151ndash161 1999

[2] P V Krasilnikov and J A Tabor ldquoPerspectives on utilitarianethnopedologyrdquo Geoderma vol 111 no 3-4 pp 197ndash215 2003

[3] N Barrera-Bassols and J A Zinck ldquoEthnopedology a world-wide view on the soil knowledge of local peoplerdquo Geodermavol 111 no 3-4 pp 171ndash195 2003

10 ISRN Soil Science

[4] N Barrera-Bassols ldquoEtnoedafologıa purhepechardquo MexicoIndıgena vol 6 no 24 pp 47ndash52 1988

[5] F Bautista J Jimenez J Navarro A Manu and R LozanoldquoMicrorelieve y color del suelo como propiedades de diag-nostico en Leptosoles carsticosrdquo Terra vol 21 no 1 pp 1ndash122003

[6] B J Williams ldquoAztec soil sciencerdquo Boletın del Instituto deGeografıa vol 7 pp 115ndash120 1975

[7] B J Williams and C A Ortiz-Solorio ldquoMiddle American folksoil taxonomyrdquo Annals Association of American Geographersvol 71 no 3 pp 335ndash358 1981

[8] F Bautista and J A Zinck ldquoConstruction of an Yucatec Mayasoil classification and comparison with the WRB frameworkrdquoJournal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine vol 6 article 7 2010

[9] V Toledo ldquoIndigenous knowledge on soils an ethnoecologicalconceptualizationrdquo in Ethnopedology in A Worldwide Perspec-tives An Annotated Bibliography N Barrera-Bassols and J AZinck Eds International Institute for Aerospace Survey andEarth Science Enschede The Netherlands 2000

[10] A J Tabor ldquoSoil classification systemsrdquo in Soil of Arid Regionsof the US and Israel 1997 httpcalsarizonaeduoalssoilsclassifsystemshtml

[11] J A Sandor and L Furbee ldquoIndigenous knowledge and clas-sification of soils in the Andes of Southern Perurdquo Soil ScienceSociety of America Journal vol 60 no 5 pp 1502ndash1512 1996

[12] A J Tabor ldquoSoil surveys and indigenous soil classificationrdquoIndigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor vol 1 no 11993

[13] IUSS-ISRIC-FAO ldquo2006World reference base for soil resources2006 A framework for international classification correlationand communicationrdquo World Soil Resour Report 103 FAORome Italy

[14] F Bautista H Estrada-Medina J Jimenez-Osornio and JGonzalez-Iturbe ldquoRelacion entre relieve y suelos en zonascarsticasrdquo Terra vol 22 no 3 pp 243ndash254 2004

[15] G J Duch La conformacion territorial del estado de YucatanmdashLos componentes del medio fısico Centro Regional de laPenınsula de Yucatan CRUPY Universidad Autonoma deChapingo Mexico Mexico 1988

[16] G J Duch Fisiografıa del estado de Yucatanmdashsu relacion conla agricultura Centro Regional de la Penınsula de YucatanCRUPY Universidad Autonoma de Chapingo Mexico Mexico1991

[17] P N Dunning ldquoSoils and vegetationrdquo in Lords of the HillsAncient Maya Settement in the Puuc Region Yucatan Mexicovol 15 of Monographs in World Archaeology Prehistory PressMadison Wis USA 1992

[18] J Lugo ldquoGeomorfologıardquo in Atlas de Procesos Territoriales deYucatan P P Chico Ed Universidad Autonoma de YucatanYucatan Mexico 1999

[19] Gobierno Constitucional del Estado de Yucatan ldquoPrograma dedesarrollo regional de la zona Henequenera de Yucatan 1992ndash1994rdquo Mexico 1992

[20] INEGI ldquoAnuario estadıstico del estado de Yucatanrdquo Gobiernodel estado de Yucatan 1995

[21] R Orellana ldquoEvaluacion Climatica (Climatologıa de laPenınsula de Yucatan)rdquo in Atlas de Procesos Territoriales deYucatan A Garcıa de Fuentes C Y Ordonez and P ChicoPonce de Leon Eds pp 162ndash182 Facultad de ArquitecturaUniversidad Autonoma de Yucatan Merida Mexico 2000

[22] S J Flores andC I Espejel ldquoTipos de vegetacion de la penınsulade Yucatanrdquo Fascıculo 3 Sostenibilidad Maya UniversidadAutonoma de Yucatan Mexico Mexico 1994

[23] L Cano Cambio del uso del suelo en el municipio de HocabaYucatan Mexico [Tesis de maestrıa en Manejo y Conservacionde Recursos Naturales Tropicales] Facultad de Medicina Veteri-naria y Zootecnia Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan 2000

[24] INEGI ldquoInstituto Nacional de Estadıstica Geografıa e Infor-maticardquo Carta Geologica 1250000 Secretarıa de Programaciony Presupuesto Mexico Mexico 1983

[25] C Siebe R Janh and K Stahr ldquoManual para la descripciony evaluacion ecologica de suelos en el campordquo PublicacionEspecial 4 Sociedad Mexicana de la Ciencia del Suelo A CEdo de Mexico Mexico Mexico 1996

[26] F Bautista J Garcia and A Mizrahi ldquoDiagnostico campesinode la situacion agrıcola en Hocaba Yucatanrdquo Terra Latinoamer-icana vol 23 no 4 2005

[27] E Habarurema and K G Steiner ldquoSoil suitability classificationby farmers in southern Rwandardquo Geoderma vol 75 no 1-2 pp75ndash87 1997

[28] M Corbeels A Shiferaw and M Haile ldquoFarmersrsquo knowledgeof soil fertility and local managament strategies in TigrayEthiopiardquo Managing Africarsquos Soils 10 IIED London UK 2000

[29] L Pool-Novelo E Cervantes-Trejo and S Mesa-Dıaz ldquoLaclasificacion Tsotsil de soils en el paisaje carstico de la subregionSan Cristobal de las casas Chiapas Mexicordquo Terra vol 9 no 1pp 11ndash23 1991

[30] N Barrera-Bassols and A J Zinck Ethnopedology in a World-wide Perspectives An Annotated Bibliography InternationalInstitute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Science EnschedeThe Netherlands 2000

[31] N Aguilera Herrera ldquoSuelosrdquo in Los recursos naturales del Sur-este y su aprovechamiento E Beltran Ed InstitutoMexicano deRecursos Naturales Renovables Mexico City Mexico 1958

[32] PorruaDicccionarioMaya Editorial Porrua Mexico Mexico 2edition 1991

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Forestry ResearchInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Environmental and Public Health

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

EcosystemsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

MeteorologyAdvances in

EcologyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Marine BiologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Applied ampEnvironmentalSoil Science

Volume 2014

Advances in

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Environmental Chemistry

Atmospheric SciencesInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Waste ManagementJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal of

Geophysics

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Geological ResearchJournal of

EarthquakesJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

BiodiversityInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

ScientificaHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

OceanographyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of Computational Environmental SciencesHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

ClimatologyJournal of

ISRN Soil Science 9

Mayan soil typesLevel

0

1

2

3

Soils in plains (Krsquoankabal)(Krsquoankab)

Krsquoankab

Soils in mounds (Muluch)(Boxluursquom)

Mounds dominated byrock fragments

Mounds dominated byoutcrops

Deep soils (less than 10 cm)

(color red orreddish brown)

(less than 10 cm)(color red orreddish brown)

Shallow soils Soils with abundantfine gravels

(color lightbrown grey

or black)

Soilsfree of rockfragments

(color grey

Soils in betweenoutcrops

(color black)

Soils in piles ofstones and cobbles

(color black)

Soils containedin rock holes(color black)

Shadow soils(less than 10 cm)

(color black)

HaylursquoumChrsquoichrsquolursquoum

Puslursquoum Tsekrsquoel Chrsquoochrsquool Chaltun

or black)

Figure 2 Mayan soil types in Hocaba Yucatan

Table 9 Relationship between WRB soil units and Mayan soil types

WRB soil group Dominant kind of rock Topographic position Mayan soil classChromic LuvisolsEutric CambisolsMollic Leptosol

Fracturable Any part of the plains Krsquoankab

Nudilithic Leptosol Fracturable Base of the mounds HaylursquoumHyperskeletic Leptosol ChrsquoichrsquolursquoumHaplic CalcisolHyperskeletic Leptosol Graintable and powderable Flat tops of the mounds Puslursquoum

ChrsquoichrsquolursquoumPetrocalcic Calcisol Fracturable and grainable Top of the mounds Puslursquoum

Nudilithic LeptosolHyperskeletic Leptosol

FracturableFracturableFracturable

Top of the moundsSides of the moundsBase of the mounds

BoxlursquoumTsekrsquoelChrsquoochrsquool

Rendzic LeptosolNudilithic Leptosol Fracturable Top of the mounds

Sides of the moundsBoxlursquoumTsekrsquoel

Nudilithic LeptosolLithic LeptosolNudilithic Leptosol

SolubleSoluble

Fracturable

Top of the moundsSides of the moundsBase of the mounds

ChaltunBoxlursquoumHaylursquoum

identified in mounds were Leptosols and Calcisols Mayansoil types and WRB groups are complementary they shouldbe used together in order to improve both soil classificationsto help transference of agricultural technologies and makesoil management decisions Soil characteristics that shouldbe considered for a local soil classification system aretopographic position (plain or mound) colour amount ofrock fragments and outcrops and soil depth or effectiverooting depth

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments are due to the Science and TechnologyNational Council (CONACyT) for the scholarship grantedto the first author for his master degree studies to CONA-CyT project Base de datos para la penınsula de Yucatanincluyendo nomenclatura maya y FAO Convenio R31624-B to the American Institute for Global Change Research(IAI) project Biogeochemical cycles under land use change

in the semiarid Americas to Dr Steve Gliessman Dr RobertGraham and MSc Arturo Caamal Maldonado for theircomments and corrections to the paper to Wendy Huchimand Miguel Huicab for their collaboration on some of thetables and figures This paper is dedicated to the memory ofmy friend Mr Pedro Canche farmer from Hocaba who withhis wide knowledge of soils roads and people helped me asguide and Mayan-Spanish translator and in contacting otherfarmers

References

[1] A M G A Winklerprins ldquoLocal soil knowledge a tool forsustainable land managementrdquo Society and Natural Resourcesvol 12 no 2 pp 151ndash161 1999

[2] P V Krasilnikov and J A Tabor ldquoPerspectives on utilitarianethnopedologyrdquo Geoderma vol 111 no 3-4 pp 197ndash215 2003

[3] N Barrera-Bassols and J A Zinck ldquoEthnopedology a world-wide view on the soil knowledge of local peoplerdquo Geodermavol 111 no 3-4 pp 171ndash195 2003

10 ISRN Soil Science

[4] N Barrera-Bassols ldquoEtnoedafologıa purhepechardquo MexicoIndıgena vol 6 no 24 pp 47ndash52 1988

[5] F Bautista J Jimenez J Navarro A Manu and R LozanoldquoMicrorelieve y color del suelo como propiedades de diag-nostico en Leptosoles carsticosrdquo Terra vol 21 no 1 pp 1ndash122003

[6] B J Williams ldquoAztec soil sciencerdquo Boletın del Instituto deGeografıa vol 7 pp 115ndash120 1975

[7] B J Williams and C A Ortiz-Solorio ldquoMiddle American folksoil taxonomyrdquo Annals Association of American Geographersvol 71 no 3 pp 335ndash358 1981

[8] F Bautista and J A Zinck ldquoConstruction of an Yucatec Mayasoil classification and comparison with the WRB frameworkrdquoJournal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine vol 6 article 7 2010

[9] V Toledo ldquoIndigenous knowledge on soils an ethnoecologicalconceptualizationrdquo in Ethnopedology in A Worldwide Perspec-tives An Annotated Bibliography N Barrera-Bassols and J AZinck Eds International Institute for Aerospace Survey andEarth Science Enschede The Netherlands 2000

[10] A J Tabor ldquoSoil classification systemsrdquo in Soil of Arid Regionsof the US and Israel 1997 httpcalsarizonaeduoalssoilsclassifsystemshtml

[11] J A Sandor and L Furbee ldquoIndigenous knowledge and clas-sification of soils in the Andes of Southern Perurdquo Soil ScienceSociety of America Journal vol 60 no 5 pp 1502ndash1512 1996

[12] A J Tabor ldquoSoil surveys and indigenous soil classificationrdquoIndigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor vol 1 no 11993

[13] IUSS-ISRIC-FAO ldquo2006World reference base for soil resources2006 A framework for international classification correlationand communicationrdquo World Soil Resour Report 103 FAORome Italy

[14] F Bautista H Estrada-Medina J Jimenez-Osornio and JGonzalez-Iturbe ldquoRelacion entre relieve y suelos en zonascarsticasrdquo Terra vol 22 no 3 pp 243ndash254 2004

[15] G J Duch La conformacion territorial del estado de YucatanmdashLos componentes del medio fısico Centro Regional de laPenınsula de Yucatan CRUPY Universidad Autonoma deChapingo Mexico Mexico 1988

[16] G J Duch Fisiografıa del estado de Yucatanmdashsu relacion conla agricultura Centro Regional de la Penınsula de YucatanCRUPY Universidad Autonoma de Chapingo Mexico Mexico1991

[17] P N Dunning ldquoSoils and vegetationrdquo in Lords of the HillsAncient Maya Settement in the Puuc Region Yucatan Mexicovol 15 of Monographs in World Archaeology Prehistory PressMadison Wis USA 1992

[18] J Lugo ldquoGeomorfologıardquo in Atlas de Procesos Territoriales deYucatan P P Chico Ed Universidad Autonoma de YucatanYucatan Mexico 1999

[19] Gobierno Constitucional del Estado de Yucatan ldquoPrograma dedesarrollo regional de la zona Henequenera de Yucatan 1992ndash1994rdquo Mexico 1992

[20] INEGI ldquoAnuario estadıstico del estado de Yucatanrdquo Gobiernodel estado de Yucatan 1995

[21] R Orellana ldquoEvaluacion Climatica (Climatologıa de laPenınsula de Yucatan)rdquo in Atlas de Procesos Territoriales deYucatan A Garcıa de Fuentes C Y Ordonez and P ChicoPonce de Leon Eds pp 162ndash182 Facultad de ArquitecturaUniversidad Autonoma de Yucatan Merida Mexico 2000

[22] S J Flores andC I Espejel ldquoTipos de vegetacion de la penınsulade Yucatanrdquo Fascıculo 3 Sostenibilidad Maya UniversidadAutonoma de Yucatan Mexico Mexico 1994

[23] L Cano Cambio del uso del suelo en el municipio de HocabaYucatan Mexico [Tesis de maestrıa en Manejo y Conservacionde Recursos Naturales Tropicales] Facultad de Medicina Veteri-naria y Zootecnia Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan 2000

[24] INEGI ldquoInstituto Nacional de Estadıstica Geografıa e Infor-maticardquo Carta Geologica 1250000 Secretarıa de Programaciony Presupuesto Mexico Mexico 1983

[25] C Siebe R Janh and K Stahr ldquoManual para la descripciony evaluacion ecologica de suelos en el campordquo PublicacionEspecial 4 Sociedad Mexicana de la Ciencia del Suelo A CEdo de Mexico Mexico Mexico 1996

[26] F Bautista J Garcia and A Mizrahi ldquoDiagnostico campesinode la situacion agrıcola en Hocaba Yucatanrdquo Terra Latinoamer-icana vol 23 no 4 2005

[27] E Habarurema and K G Steiner ldquoSoil suitability classificationby farmers in southern Rwandardquo Geoderma vol 75 no 1-2 pp75ndash87 1997

[28] M Corbeels A Shiferaw and M Haile ldquoFarmersrsquo knowledgeof soil fertility and local managament strategies in TigrayEthiopiardquo Managing Africarsquos Soils 10 IIED London UK 2000

[29] L Pool-Novelo E Cervantes-Trejo and S Mesa-Dıaz ldquoLaclasificacion Tsotsil de soils en el paisaje carstico de la subregionSan Cristobal de las casas Chiapas Mexicordquo Terra vol 9 no 1pp 11ndash23 1991

[30] N Barrera-Bassols and A J Zinck Ethnopedology in a World-wide Perspectives An Annotated Bibliography InternationalInstitute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Science EnschedeThe Netherlands 2000

[31] N Aguilera Herrera ldquoSuelosrdquo in Los recursos naturales del Sur-este y su aprovechamiento E Beltran Ed InstitutoMexicano deRecursos Naturales Renovables Mexico City Mexico 1958

[32] PorruaDicccionarioMaya Editorial Porrua Mexico Mexico 2edition 1991

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Forestry ResearchInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Environmental and Public Health

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

EcosystemsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

MeteorologyAdvances in

EcologyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Marine BiologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Applied ampEnvironmentalSoil Science

Volume 2014

Advances in

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Environmental Chemistry

Atmospheric SciencesInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Waste ManagementJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal of

Geophysics

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Geological ResearchJournal of

EarthquakesJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

BiodiversityInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

ScientificaHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

OceanographyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of Computational Environmental SciencesHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

ClimatologyJournal of

10 ISRN Soil Science

[4] N Barrera-Bassols ldquoEtnoedafologıa purhepechardquo MexicoIndıgena vol 6 no 24 pp 47ndash52 1988

[5] F Bautista J Jimenez J Navarro A Manu and R LozanoldquoMicrorelieve y color del suelo como propiedades de diag-nostico en Leptosoles carsticosrdquo Terra vol 21 no 1 pp 1ndash122003

[6] B J Williams ldquoAztec soil sciencerdquo Boletın del Instituto deGeografıa vol 7 pp 115ndash120 1975

[7] B J Williams and C A Ortiz-Solorio ldquoMiddle American folksoil taxonomyrdquo Annals Association of American Geographersvol 71 no 3 pp 335ndash358 1981

[8] F Bautista and J A Zinck ldquoConstruction of an Yucatec Mayasoil classification and comparison with the WRB frameworkrdquoJournal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine vol 6 article 7 2010

[9] V Toledo ldquoIndigenous knowledge on soils an ethnoecologicalconceptualizationrdquo in Ethnopedology in A Worldwide Perspec-tives An Annotated Bibliography N Barrera-Bassols and J AZinck Eds International Institute for Aerospace Survey andEarth Science Enschede The Netherlands 2000

[10] A J Tabor ldquoSoil classification systemsrdquo in Soil of Arid Regionsof the US and Israel 1997 httpcalsarizonaeduoalssoilsclassifsystemshtml

[11] J A Sandor and L Furbee ldquoIndigenous knowledge and clas-sification of soils in the Andes of Southern Perurdquo Soil ScienceSociety of America Journal vol 60 no 5 pp 1502ndash1512 1996

[12] A J Tabor ldquoSoil surveys and indigenous soil classificationrdquoIndigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor vol 1 no 11993

[13] IUSS-ISRIC-FAO ldquo2006World reference base for soil resources2006 A framework for international classification correlationand communicationrdquo World Soil Resour Report 103 FAORome Italy

[14] F Bautista H Estrada-Medina J Jimenez-Osornio and JGonzalez-Iturbe ldquoRelacion entre relieve y suelos en zonascarsticasrdquo Terra vol 22 no 3 pp 243ndash254 2004

[15] G J Duch La conformacion territorial del estado de YucatanmdashLos componentes del medio fısico Centro Regional de laPenınsula de Yucatan CRUPY Universidad Autonoma deChapingo Mexico Mexico 1988

[16] G J Duch Fisiografıa del estado de Yucatanmdashsu relacion conla agricultura Centro Regional de la Penınsula de YucatanCRUPY Universidad Autonoma de Chapingo Mexico Mexico1991

[17] P N Dunning ldquoSoils and vegetationrdquo in Lords of the HillsAncient Maya Settement in the Puuc Region Yucatan Mexicovol 15 of Monographs in World Archaeology Prehistory PressMadison Wis USA 1992

[18] J Lugo ldquoGeomorfologıardquo in Atlas de Procesos Territoriales deYucatan P P Chico Ed Universidad Autonoma de YucatanYucatan Mexico 1999

[19] Gobierno Constitucional del Estado de Yucatan ldquoPrograma dedesarrollo regional de la zona Henequenera de Yucatan 1992ndash1994rdquo Mexico 1992

[20] INEGI ldquoAnuario estadıstico del estado de Yucatanrdquo Gobiernodel estado de Yucatan 1995

[21] R Orellana ldquoEvaluacion Climatica (Climatologıa de laPenınsula de Yucatan)rdquo in Atlas de Procesos Territoriales deYucatan A Garcıa de Fuentes C Y Ordonez and P ChicoPonce de Leon Eds pp 162ndash182 Facultad de ArquitecturaUniversidad Autonoma de Yucatan Merida Mexico 2000

[22] S J Flores andC I Espejel ldquoTipos de vegetacion de la penınsulade Yucatanrdquo Fascıculo 3 Sostenibilidad Maya UniversidadAutonoma de Yucatan Mexico Mexico 1994

[23] L Cano Cambio del uso del suelo en el municipio de HocabaYucatan Mexico [Tesis de maestrıa en Manejo y Conservacionde Recursos Naturales Tropicales] Facultad de Medicina Veteri-naria y Zootecnia Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan 2000

[24] INEGI ldquoInstituto Nacional de Estadıstica Geografıa e Infor-maticardquo Carta Geologica 1250000 Secretarıa de Programaciony Presupuesto Mexico Mexico 1983

[25] C Siebe R Janh and K Stahr ldquoManual para la descripciony evaluacion ecologica de suelos en el campordquo PublicacionEspecial 4 Sociedad Mexicana de la Ciencia del Suelo A CEdo de Mexico Mexico Mexico 1996

[26] F Bautista J Garcia and A Mizrahi ldquoDiagnostico campesinode la situacion agrıcola en Hocaba Yucatanrdquo Terra Latinoamer-icana vol 23 no 4 2005

[27] E Habarurema and K G Steiner ldquoSoil suitability classificationby farmers in southern Rwandardquo Geoderma vol 75 no 1-2 pp75ndash87 1997

[28] M Corbeels A Shiferaw and M Haile ldquoFarmersrsquo knowledgeof soil fertility and local managament strategies in TigrayEthiopiardquo Managing Africarsquos Soils 10 IIED London UK 2000

[29] L Pool-Novelo E Cervantes-Trejo and S Mesa-Dıaz ldquoLaclasificacion Tsotsil de soils en el paisaje carstico de la subregionSan Cristobal de las casas Chiapas Mexicordquo Terra vol 9 no 1pp 11ndash23 1991

[30] N Barrera-Bassols and A J Zinck Ethnopedology in a World-wide Perspectives An Annotated Bibliography InternationalInstitute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Science EnschedeThe Netherlands 2000

[31] N Aguilera Herrera ldquoSuelosrdquo in Los recursos naturales del Sur-este y su aprovechamiento E Beltran Ed InstitutoMexicano deRecursos Naturales Renovables Mexico City Mexico 1958

[32] PorruaDicccionarioMaya Editorial Porrua Mexico Mexico 2edition 1991

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Forestry ResearchInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Environmental and Public Health

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

EcosystemsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

MeteorologyAdvances in

EcologyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Marine BiologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Applied ampEnvironmentalSoil Science

Volume 2014

Advances in

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Environmental Chemistry

Atmospheric SciencesInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Waste ManagementJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal of

Geophysics

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Geological ResearchJournal of

EarthquakesJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

BiodiversityInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

ScientificaHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

OceanographyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of Computational Environmental SciencesHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

ClimatologyJournal of

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Forestry ResearchInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Environmental and Public Health

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

EcosystemsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

MeteorologyAdvances in

EcologyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Marine BiologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Applied ampEnvironmentalSoil Science

Volume 2014

Advances in

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Environmental Chemistry

Atmospheric SciencesInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Waste ManagementJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal of

Geophysics

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Geological ResearchJournal of

EarthquakesJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

BiodiversityInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

ScientificaHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

OceanographyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of Computational Environmental SciencesHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

ClimatologyJournal of