↓ Skip to main content

Learning to hunt Crocodiles: social organization in the process of knowledge generation and the emergence of management practices among Mayan of Mexico

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Learning to hunt Crocodiles: social organization in the process of knowledge generation and the emergence of management practices among Mayan of Mexico
Published in
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/1746-4269-9-35
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fernando Zamudio, Eduardo Bello-Baltazar, Erin IJ Estrada-Lugo

Abstract

New kinds of knowledge, usage patterns and management strategies of natural resources emerge in local communities as a way of coping with uncertainty in a changing world. Studying how human groups adapt and create new livelihoods strategies are important research topics for creating policies in natural resources management. Here, we study the adoption and development of lagartos (Crocodylus moreletii) commercial hunting by Mayan people from a communal land in Quintana Roo state. Two questions guided our work: how did the Mayan learn to hunt lagartos? And how, and in what context, did knowledge and management practices emerge? We believe that social structures, knowledge and preexisting skills facilitate the hunting learning process, but lagarto ecological knowledge and organizational practice were developed in a "learning by doing" process.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 77 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 15%
Researcher 12 15%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 21 26%
Unknown 11 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 26%
Environmental Science 16 20%
Social Sciences 11 14%
Engineering 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 13 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 July 2013.
All research outputs
#15,273,442
of 22,712,476 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#511
of 731 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,365
of 195,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#16
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,712,476 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 731 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 195,243 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.