Anthropology
Open Access

The use of Non-Cultigens: Pharmacologic, Environmental, and Economic Consequences

George Steven^{* *}Correspondence: George Steven, Department of Surgery, Kampala International University, Western Campus, Ishaka, Bushenyi, Uganda, Email:

Author info »

Description

In today's relationships between people, plants and wild plants occupy an odd position. The subject has been the focuses of writings that seem to jump, but in reality do not range, from the folksy descriptive style of an older generation of field naturalists to encyclopedic knowledge compendia to technical writings on germplasm research and gene banks. Despite all of this focus, these botanicals have not yet received anything resembling a systematic treatment. The striking nutritive and therapeutic potential of "wild" plants, as well as their cultural ramifications, do emerge from these diverse sources which were developed. The theoretical framework put forth in these connects biology to culture, allowing researchers to understand the dynamics of selection and the physiologic effects of consuming wild plants. These methods covers the entire history of human-plant interactions, drawing on findings from research on nonhuman primates, evidence from ancient populations, and extensive fieldwork with modern populations that represent various subsistence practices. The chapters as a whole emphasize how plant selection occurs in evolution. Last but not least, this book emphasizes the significance of wild plants in the on-going discussion about conserving biodiversity.

Social scientists carelessly refer to very different kinds of plant foods using terms like "wild," "supplementary," and "semicultivated" without taking into account botanical conventions. This lexical association suggests a minor role in diet and comparable nutrient composition, neither of which is true. Even for botanists, it can be challenging to standardize the terms. Researchers trying to comprehend the "origins" of agriculture and the function that "wild" plants play in the modern diet have been significantly hampered by this lack of agreement some insight into this difficulty by using a continuum model of human-plant interaction, which he characterizes as "ecological in that the analytical target is the interaction between people and plants, evolutionary in that the results of the processes involved in domestication and the evolution of domesticated plants." The theory holds that selection acting on biological and cultural variation led to the development of agriculture.

These models have a relatively recent intellectual history. They became popular in those days as explanatory frameworks that highlighted the similarities between farmers' reliance on domesticated species for "food production" and foragers' reliance on wild species for "food procurement." The terms "manipulation" and "transformation" were proposed by Harris to describe two aspects along a continuum of an ecological change symbolized by the increased alteration of natural habitats by human activity; the progression went from hunting and gathering through domestication and agriculture, in that order. In less than ten years, eco-evolutionary researchers expanded and reconfigured the study of early agriculture to address "subsistence systems" through biological and economic paradigms and to look at the changes and continuities of human interaction with "wild" and "domesticated" species.

Limited economic perspectives as they created more complex taxonomies for human-environment relationships, differentiating more gradations, and upholding the custom of explicitly defining domestication and cultivation gathering informally for plants systematic collection restricted agriculture developed agriculture intensive farming. Later intellectually positioned domestication within the context of evolution and proposed a three-part taxonomy, the elements of which are distinguished by the type of human activity and the environment incidental and specialized domestication, which eventually leads to agricultural domestication. Both of these models disallow unidirectional and deterministic progressions and accept fuzzy boundaries between categories. Likewise, so do the theoretical articulations of those who coined the term "domiculture" and who have conceptualized "foraging" and "food production" as two successive stages of obtaining plant foods the latter including "domestication" and "cultivation. A succession of human tasks including tending, tilling, transplanting, sowing, and plant breeding, as well as three different ways of producing food (incipient agriculture, gardening, and field agriculture).

Harris's model assumes that people will generally expend energy only if they consistently receive high caloric value from the foods they procure or produce using that energy, expanding this comprehensive scheme. This model avoids including sociodemographic factors like population pressure, sedentism, and social stratification in its attempt to explain changing trends in plant use. Instead, it is a descriptive model that emphasizes the development of more intimate human-plant relationships and the resulting habitat perturbations the chapters in this volume demonstrate how important wild plants are across the full spectrum of plant-getting technologies, defying a clear logic that places their use in populations that represent the "lowenergy" pole of the continuum. We also broaden Harris's viewpoint to examine foods not only for their caloric content but also for their pharmacologic and another nutrient potential.

Even though scientists generally concur that the wild-domestic continuum described above is the best way to view human-plant interactions, they disagree on the number and makeup of the intergrading categories. Modern schema specifically aims to address the issue that the definition of "cultivated" (sowing in prepared beds) is determined by human activity, whereas the definition of "domestication" refers to the genetic response of plants to human action as a result, wild plants can be cultivated but cultivated plants cannot be domesticated. The chapters in this volume provide examples to demonstrate the on-going challenge of applying general terms to particular cases.

Since they grow fully or predominantly in environments disturbed by human activity and thus significantly contribute to our understanding of human agency and domestication, weeds are challenging to position along a continuum. Weeds that are adapted to a wide range of factors may be rather easily noticed by people. Since they do not require a period of selection to develop allelochemical defense and competitor inhibitors, this "general-purpose genotype" enables weeds to colonize disturbed habitats quickly. They risk being replaced by native plants, which are likely to be better adapted to the majority of local conditions if they don't quickly develop more sophisticated adaptations. However, when weeds grow from domesticated or wild progenitors and are tolerated, encouraged, or harvested, they may become "weed crops" (planted for later harvest) and may develop into genetically modified domesticated animals that are dependent on humans.