Towards Biocultural Conservation of Chilean Palm Landscapes: Expanding Perspectives from Historical Ecology

Abstract

The Chilean palm (Jubaea chilensis) is an endangered and culturally important species from central Chile. We studied the Ocoa palm landscape (OPL), which is currently part of a protected area that harbors the largest Chilean palm population where local peasant practices have been excluded and conflict with biodiversity conservation strategies. We explored how human–landscape relationships over time have shaped present conditions and the implications for biocultural conservation. Methods included a review of archaeobotanical and historical records, and a qualitative study focused on local peasants’ perspectives. We reported the uses of J. chilensis and the OPL since pre-Hispanic times. For the last 400 years, these uses have involved important differences between landowners and local peasants in terms of power dynamics, access to the land, and intensity of use. The current palm landscape structure directly responds to past human activities, such as palm felling and agriculture. Also, we explain peasant practices linked to the OPL as ways of resisting cultural homogenization and marginalization associated with reductive conservation approaches and other presses and pulses. Chilean palm conservation can be improved by considering ecological legacies to inform future conservation strategies and adding a biocultural approach that respectfully integrates local peasant knowledge systems and worldviews.

1. Introduction

The Chilean palm (Jubaea chilensis (Molina) Baill.) is an endemic species of the Mediterranean-type ecosystems of central Chile (31°–37° S) [1,2]. At present, J. chilensis is considered endangered in the IUCN’s Red List [3], and the main populations of this species are restricted to three locations: Ocoa (32° S), Cocalán (34° S), and El Salto (33° S) palm forests [4,5].

J. chilensis is one of the largest palm species in the world [6]. Its fruits are ovoid–spherical drupes with a green to yellow exocarp (depending on the maturation stage) and a fleshy fibrous mesocarp. The hard endocarp containing the seed inside is edible, and it is commonly known throughout South America as coco chileno or coquito in Spanish (Chilean coconut or small coconut) [6,7,8]. The best-known uses of Chilean palms are the production of syrup made from the sap, commonly known as miel de palma (palm honey), and coconut consumption as food.

Palm forests (locally known as palmares) are described as mixed sclerophyllous forests with abundant populations of J. chilensis. These evergreen forests occur mainly on slopes and valleys of the Coastal Cordillera of central Chile [1], and they are currently under threat due to several reasons, such as land-use changes, deforestation, fires, invasive species, and various pressures associated with the unsustainable use of J. chilensis [9,10].

Previous studies on the Chilean palm show the need to further understand this species’ reproductive dynamics, ecological interactions, and conservation problems [2,7,9,11,12]. However, despite being considered an endangered and culturally important species, the human dimensions of Chilean palm conservation have barely been studied. Most previous research has set humans aside or reduced human presence to a mere threat, except for a few works that have explored human–Chilean palm relationships (e.g., [13,14]). Moreover, the perspectives of local peasant communities on Chilean palm conservation and forest management are in conflict with those of Western science and Chilean state institutions [13,15], which accentuates the need to explore the epistemological and ontological dimensions of conservation challenges of this endangered and culturally important species [16,17,18,19].

In addition, as many scholars have pointed out, historical perspectives bring helpful and necessary insights for environmental research, conservation, and ecological restoration [20,21,22,23]. Furthermore, ecological legacies, as persistent signatures of past human activities on a landscape, are crucial to understanding the modern composition, structure, and function of ecosystems [24,25], and they are essential for biocultural heritage conservation [26,27]. From this perspective, it is impossible to gain a deep understanding of the biophysical landscape, and the relationships humans create and recreate over time as part of landscape transformation without looking at the past. Studies involving a long time span (for example, millennia) are important for understanding disturbance histories, landscape connectivity, and responses to climatic change and for informing better conservation strategies [20]. Thus, the integration of several sources, including archeological and historical records, can significantly improve our understanding of landscape dynamics [28,29].

In this study, we analyzed the Ocoa palm landscape (OPL) (see Figure 1) as a case study. In this adaptive socio-ecological system or palmscape, a long history of human presence and several land uses has been followed by the creation of a protected area, La Campana National Park (LCNP). The establishment and subsequent implementation of LCNP between 1968 and 1985 involved the exclusion of local inhabitants, prohibition of productive activities [13], and some conflicts over land property rights [30], which led to tensions between local rural communities [15] that persist to the present.

Thus, in this study, we explored the relationships between humans and J. chilensis over time, focusing on the case of OPL, where ecological legacies have been commonly overlooked in LCNP management, and local peasant practices conflict with biodiversity conservation strategies developed by the Chilean state. We aimed to answer the main research question: How have the relationships between humans and the OPL over time shaped present conditions? Our main goal was to contribute information about past and present human–palmscape relationships to inform future conservation and ecological restoration strategies, overcoming reductive conservation approaches that have commonly excluded local peasant communities and ignored past landscape trajectories.

There are several approaches for landscape-level studies that aim to provide a holistic understanding of human–environment relationships [31,32,33,34,35,36,37]. In this study, we took the framework of historical ecology, which is an integrative research program that seeks to understand interactions between humans and other agents active in a landscape by paying attention to changes over time [38,39,40,41]. From this perspThis information is in the simbology. The lines are actually the outer boundary of polygons. In this case, the green solid line is the outer boundary of La Campana National Park and the brown dash line is the outer boundary of La Campana-El Roble Mountain Rangeective, landscapes are more than mere spaces where human–environment relationships occur. Rather, landscapes are seen as constantly changing over time and encompassing several active agents and their relationships: humans shape the landscape and, simultaneously, the landscape and its components actively shape human lives [42]. Historical ecology is a collaborative and transdisciplinary research framework that draws on a broad spectrum of concepts, methods, theories, and evidence taken from biological, physical, and social sciences, as well as from the humanities [43]. Furthermore, aligned with other transdisciplinary approaches for studying human–environment interactions [44,45,46], historical ecology creates space for both Western scientific knowledge and local knowledge to provide a holistic understanding of human–environment relationships over time and in a particular locale [31]. Moreover, historical ecology provides an integrative framework for the construction of an evidence-validated, open-ended narrative of landscape evolution and transformation in which the landscape is understood to be a complex system [41]. This perspective considers not only those human actions that have caused environmental degradation but also reciprocal contributions between people and nature [47,48].

Study Area

The study area is La Campana El Roble Mountain Range (CRMR), which is part of the Coastal Cordillera of central Chile. Within this zone, the OPL currently harbors the largest Chilean palm population, with an estimated 70,000 palms, which represents more than 50% of the total surviving palms of this species [5]. Most of the OPL is protected inside the LCNP, which is administered by the National Forestry Corporation (CONAF) as part of the Chilean National System of State Protected Areas.

On the flanks of CRMR and around LCNP are several villages where rural communities live (Figure 1). The conservation model applied by CONAF for the LCNP, and more broadly for Chilean national parks, is based on mainstream biodiversity conservation approaches rooted in European and North American 19th Century conservation movements [49,50,51,52] described by some authors as the “Yellowstone model” [53,54]. These conservation perspectives see humans as separate from nature [55] and tend to obscure vital links between biological and cultural diversity [56,57]. This preservationist model also has had consequences for those communities inside or around protected areas worldwide, in some regrettable cases producing local displacement, dispossession, and marginalization in the name of biodiversity conservation [51,58,59,60,61].

The OPL was part of a large single estate (Ocoa estate) in the 17th century. Later, in 1822, the property was subdivided into five holdings; the area where the palm landscape is located at present became the Las Palmas de Ocoa estate [62] (see Figure 2). These properties were structured under the logic of the Chilean land tenure system prevailing from colonial times until the second half of the 20th century, which concentrated land and agricultural production in a few landowner families [63]. In 1967, the LCNP was created to support an idea that had been promoted by conservation scientists concerned about the ecological degradation of CRMR and the Ocoa palm forest [30,64]. Additionally, the Chilean Agrarian Reform was initiated in 1962 and involved expropriations of estates and land distribution to laborers. In the midst of this sociopolitical context, the landowners donated most parts of the OPL to the Chilean state for conservation purposes in 1968 [13,62]. However, the LCNP was progressively implemented as a new protected area, and its administration as a national park by CONAF began only in the 1980s when its boundaries were defined and park rangers were introduced.

LCNP has also been part of a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve (La Campana–Peñuelas Biosphere Reserve), whose framework aims to reconcile biodiversity conservation with socioeconomic development and the protection of cultural values, since 1984 [65]. However, as in other Chilean biosphere reserves, the model has not been effectively implemented; indeed, the main threats to biodiversity persist in La Campana–Peñuelas’ transition and buffer zones and state institutions have not improved the inclusiveness of local communities in conservation strategies [66,67,68].

2. Methods

The methods involved a review of previous archaeobotanical records and historical documents and a qualitative study using ethnographic techniques, which were conducted as follows:

2.1. Review of Previous Archaeobotanical Data

Information on micro- and macro-remains of Jubaea chilensis in archeological contexts is very scarce. Hence, our review focused on both indexed publications and grey literature, attempting to include as many sources as possible, which were critically analyzed. We considered peer-reviewed articles, books, conference proceedings, theses, and unpublished reports (see Appendix A for details). We found a total of 16 publications and documents reporting micro- or macro-remains associated with J. chilensis in archeological contexts. For the analysis of the data, we organized the information according to the type of palm remains (e.g., phytolith or carbonized coconuts) and their sources (e.g., bedrock mortars, dental calculus, etc.). We also added a summary of each document, highlighting the context, purpose of the research, and the methods used by each author.

2.2. Review of Historical Records

We searched documents and archival materials produced before 1960 containing information about geographical or botanical descriptions of South America and the environmental history of central Chile. These sources were obtained mainly from online and physical archives and from local libraries such as the National Library of Chile, the Chilean Historical Museum, and other local libraries from towns surrounding LCNP (e.g., Limache and Quillota public libraries). Within these archives, we searched for keywords in Spanish such as “palma chilena” (Chilean palm), “Jubaea”, “coco chileno” (Chilean cococonut), “Ocoa”, etc. Through this search, we aimed to include historical information about J. chilensis not commonly found in peer-reviewed articles. We found a total of 33 written historical documents containing information about Chilean palm populations and uses of the species, ranging from 1558 to 1958 (see Appendix B for details). We also reviewed 65 non-written visual historical documents containing information about the Chilean palm (photographs archived in the Chilean Historical Museum and illustrations associated with the written documents). Documents or information containing data after 1960 were not considered historic but were included as part of the literature review. For analysis of these data, we focused on information on past uses of J. chilensis, which were classified according to 8 categories of uses and the part of the plant utilized.

2.3. Qualitative Study Using Ethnographic Techniques

We used this approach to incorporate local knowledge, memories, and perspectives of local peasant inhabitants. During two months of fieldwork in the villages surrounding LCNP and within the protected area, the first author carried out twelve semi-structured interviews and participant observation in the villages surrounding LCNP following the guidelines by Guber [69] and Patton [70]. The first author also participated in two guided tours [39] to CRMR led by one of the research participants, where we combined techniques for ethnoecological research applied to historical ecology and guidelines for walking interviews [39,71]. These guided tours were focused on recording information about activities carried out at the OPL before LCNP creation and current peasants’ practices linked to palms. Informal interviews were also relevant to delve into local peasant–palm landscape relationships; these were conducted following the guidelines by Guber [69] and Kemp & Ellen [72].

For participant selection, we employed purposive sampling (i.e., snowball or chain sampling) [70,73], as appropriate for small populations and recommended when looking for information-rich cases for in-depth studies [74,75]. In this case, we had specific selection criteria, i.e., people from villages surrounding the LCNP whose livelihoods were or are connected to the OPL, in addition to people who have lived or worked there in the past, or whose family members did so. All research participants were adult local inhabitants who have lived in the villages surrounding LCNP (or within the former Las Palmas de Ocoa estate) for their entire lives or since childhood.

This research was approved by the University of Georgia Institutional Review Board (IRB). Free, prior, and informed consent was obtained from all research participants. Regarding confidentiality, participants agreed to the publication of the results of this research project and quotes from the interviews; however, their names and other information enabling personal identification are not disclosed.

Interviews were conducted, transcribed, and analyzed in Spanish. Transcribed data were coded and analyzed using an abductive approach [76]. According to the coding methods described by Skjott Linneberg & Korsgaard [76] and Saldaña [77], we conducted a descriptive first coding cycle, followed by a second cycle of categorization. The software ATLAS.ti 24 was used to facilitate this process of analysis and to integrate data from interviews with data from historical documents and archival materials (e.g., historical photographs). Selected quotes from interview fragments were translated into English for inclusion as part of this article.

3. Results

3.1. Humans and the Chilean Palm in Archeological Contexts

The presence of plant remains attributed to J. chilensis is very uncommon in archeological contexts [78]. Additionally, the data available from previous works have been generated and analyzed from different perspectives and with diverse purposes to answer broader archaeological or paleoenvironmental questions rather than directly focusing on the Chilean palm or on the relationships between humans and this species.

The archeological data reviewed for this work are summarized in Table 1 and presented in more detail in Appendix A. The evidence corresponds to micro- and macro-remains associated with the Chilean palm, or in some cases at the family level (i.e., Arecaceae), which all authors interpret as J. chilensis since this is the only native palm species found in continental Chile. These records show evidence of pre-Hispanic uses of the species in particular sites of what today is Chile, ranging from La Serena (29°49′ S) to the Maule River (35°25′ S). Micro-remains correspond to phytoliths associated with leaves, while macro-remains are carbonized coconuts (see Table 1). The time spans from the Late Archaic period (ca. 3000 to ca. 300 years BCE) to the Late Intermediate period (1000/1200 years CE to 1450 years CE) (cultural periods sensu Falabella et al. [79]).

Particularly for LCNP, Inostroza [80] has reported at least sixteen archaeological sites in the area; however, at present, there are no subsequent publications about these sites nor available dating or archaeobotanical studies.

The available archaeobotanical data presented below shed some light on the uses of the Chilean palm in archeological contexts and on locations where these plant materials were processed or directly used. However, there is still an important research gap, and more data are required to better understand how this plant was used by pre-Hispanic populations, where provision sites were located, and the role of humans in shaping J. chilensis palmscapes in pre-Hispanic times.

Table 1. Evidence of Jubaea chilensis remains in archaeological contexts.

Latitude	Type of Evidence	Source of Remains	Reference
29° S	Phytoliths	Remains adhered to bedrock mortars and from dental calculus of human individuals	[81]
30° S	Phytoliths	Remains adhered to bedrock mortars	[82,83]
31° S	Phytolith	Sediments present inside smoking pipes	[84]
32° S	Phytoliths	Sediment inside a ceramic vessel	[85]
32° S	Phytoliths	Remains adhered to mortars	[86,87]
33° S	Phytoliths	Remains adhered to pestle and mortars	[78]
33° S	Phytolith	Remains adhered to lithic instruments	[88]
33° S	Phytoliths	Remains adhered to ceramic vessels	[89]
33° S	Carbonized coconuts	No information	[90]
33° S	Carbonized coconuts	Burning area	[91]
34° S	Phytoliths	Lake sediment cores	[92]
35° S	Carbonized coconuts	Burning area and sediments	[93]

Table 1. Evidence of Jubaea chilensis remains in archaeological contexts.

Latitude	Type of Evidence	Source of Remains	Reference
29° S	Phytoliths	Remains adhered to bedrock mortars and from dental calculus of human individuals	[81]
30° S	Phytoliths	Remains adhered to bedrock mortars	[82,83]
31° S	Phytolith	Sediments present inside smoking pipes	[84]
32° S	Phytoliths	Sediment inside a ceramic vessel	[85]
32° S	Phytoliths	Remains adhered to mortars	[86,87]
33° S	Phytoliths	Remains adhered to pestle and mortars	[78]
33° S	Phytolith	Remains adhered to lithic instruments	[88]
33° S	Phytoliths	Remains adhered to ceramic vessels	[89]
33° S	Carbonized coconuts	No information	[90]
33° S	Carbonized coconuts	Burning area	[91]
34° S	Phytoliths	Lake sediment cores	[92]
35° S	Carbonized coconuts	Burning area and sediments	[93]

3.2. Uses of Palm Landscapes over Time

From our historical ecology perspective, our interest is not only in the relationships between humans and J. chilensis but also in the landscape on which Chilean palm and humans have continuously interacted in the last millennia. Although information about pre-Hispanic times is scarce for the OPL, for central Chile, evidence showing human occupation during the last 12,000 years exists [94]. Furthermore, according to Inostroza [80], 70% of the archeological sites reported in the CRMR also presented evidence of occupation during colonial times.

OPL and CRMR have had several uses over time. Most of them have to do with J. chilensis, but there are several other uses associated broadly with the sclerophyllous forests and, more broadly, with the multiple dimensions of the mountainscape [95]. Since colonial times, these uses have involved significant differences among actors in terms of power and access to the land and resources. In the last 400 years, the OPL has been exploited in several ways by its landowners, being a source of wealth for a few proprietor families. At the same time, this landscape has also supported local subsistence economies for peasants living in the OPL or in the surrounding rural areas (see below).

Most of the information about the relationships between humans and Chilean palm landscapes in historical records was produced from a utilitarian perspective, with a focus on the uses of J. chilensis. The best known of these uses are coconut consumption as food and the production of syrup (miel de palma), whose extraction at OPL in the past involved cutting the palms down, resulting in their subsequent death. In Appendix B, we present the results of the review of historical documents, showing a description of Chilean palm uses reported. In addition, a synthesis of Chilean palm uses integrating several sources of information is presented in Table 2 (also see Figure 3) according to the part of the plant utilized and categories of use. We also added details on the time, reasons, and actors engaged [96,97].

Figure 3. Examples of uses of different parts of the Chilean palm. (a) Method for sap extraction involving palm felling. Image extracted from the film made in 1966 by Aguilera & Weisser [98] (with permission from TIB-Leibniz Information Centre for Science and Technology and University Library). (b) J. chilensis coconuts. (c) Coconuts found in a placeta (resting zones of cattle). (d,e) Huts in Ocoa; walls and roofs made with Chilean palm leaves. Photo (d) by Einar Altschwager circa 1930, Copyright© Chilean National Historical Museum Collection, authorized use [99]. Photo (e) by a non-identified author from a non-identified date, Copyright© Chilean National Historical Museum Collection [100], authorized use. (f,g) Bailes chinos (traditional dancing musician troupes from central Chile) in Las Palmas village, where Chilean palm leaves were used for decoration (April 2022). (h) Raceme of J. chilensis. (i) Cord made with raceme fibers following the directions of a research participant.

Figure 3. Examples of uses of different parts of the Chilean palm. (a) Method for sap extraction involving palm felling. Image extracted from the film made in 1966 by Aguilera & Weisser [98] (with permission from TIB-Leibniz Information Centre for Science and Technology and University Library). (b) J. chilensis coconuts. (c) Coconuts found in a placeta (resting zones of cattle). (d,e) Huts in Ocoa; walls and roofs made with Chilean palm leaves. Photo (d) by Einar Altschwager circa 1930, Copyright© Chilean National Historical Museum Collection, authorized use [99]. Photo (e) by a non-identified author from a non-identified date, Copyright© Chilean National Historical Museum Collection [100], authorized use. (f,g) Bailes chinos (traditional dancing musician troupes from central Chile) in Las Palmas village, where Chilean palm leaves were used for decoration (April 2022). (h) Raceme of J. chilensis. (i) Cord made with raceme fibers following the directions of a research participant.

Table 2. Uses of the Chilean palm. AR: archeological records; HR: historical records; PA: participants’ accounts from this work; ES: one or more previous ethnographic studies [13,101,102]. For references on AR and HR, see Appendix A and Appendix B.

Category of Use	Plant Part	By Whom? (for What?)	When?	Source
Food 1 (external markets or industrial production)	Sap (palm honey)	Landowners or businessmen. (From the 19th century, palm honey production became an important industrial activity controlled by landowners).	Second half of the 17th century to the 20th century	HR; PA; ES
	Coconuts	Jesuits and other landowners (for sale and export to South American cities);	From the 17th century to the 20th century	HR; PA; ES
		Sailors of ships voyaging from the port of Valparaíso, who purchased coconuts from palm forest landowners.	From the 17th century to ?	HR
Food 2 (own consumption or local subsistence economies)	Sap (palm honey)	Laborers of Las Palmas de Ocoa estate (limited amount, as food provided by the landowner)	Second half of the 20th century	PA; ES
	Coconuts	Indigenous peoples from central Chile	At least from the Late Archaic period to the 15th century;	AR
		Peasant communities	At least from the 17th century to the present	HR; PA; ES
	Palm heart	Spaniard conquistadors (?)	16th and 17th centuries;	HR
		Landowners, “rich people”	Second half of the 20th century	ES
Recreational	Coconuts	Children from local communities and from other South American cities where coconuts were exported (for playing marbles and other games)	From the 17th (at least) to the 20th century	HR; PA
	Bracts	Children from peasant communities (as sleds)	Second half of the 20th century	PA
Home Building	Leaves	Local peasant communities (for roofs and walls of homes)	From the 18th century (at least) to the second half of the 20th century;	HR; PA; ES
		Laborers of Las Palmas de Ocoa estate (for constructing huts used for sap extraction activities)	20th century (at least).	HR; PA; ES
Domestic	Bracts	Local peasant communities (as containers for several purposes and hanging cribs for babies)	At least from the 18th century to the present	HR; PA; ES
	Other fibers, likely from leaves or racemes	Indigenous people from semi-arid north and central Chile;	At least from the Late Archaic period to the 15th century;	AR
		Local peasant communities (for making cords, brooms, baskets, mats, among other utensils)	At least from the 18th to the 20th century	HR; PA
Spiritual-Religious	Leaves (?)	Indigenous people (associated with smoking practices and as part of offerings in mortuary practices)	Early Ceramic and Late Intermediate periods	AR
	Leaves	Outsiders from Santiago (they went to La Dormida estate to obtain leaves for Palm Sunday celebrations);	18th century	HR
		Local peasant communities (As decorations for religious ceremonies and for bailes chinos, traditional dancing musician troupes of central Chile)	At least from the 19th century to the present	HR; PA
Ornamental	Whole tree	In several Chilean public spaces (e.g., main plazas of urban and rural settlements) and historic estates and churches.	At least from the 17th century to the present	HR; ES
		In other countries with Mediterranean climates and botanical gardens around the world	From the 19th century to the present	[6,103,104]
Other	Oil from coconuts	Jesuits? (medicine or food)	17th and 18th centuries	HR

Table 2. Uses of the Chilean palm. AR: archeological records; HR: historical records; PA: participants’ accounts from this work; ES: one or more previous ethnographic studies [13,101,102]. For references on AR and HR, see Appendix A and Appendix B.

Category of Use	Plant Part	By Whom? (for What?)	When?	Source
Food 1 (external markets or industrial production)	Sap (palm honey)	Landowners or businessmen. (From the 19th century, palm honey production became an important industrial activity controlled by landowners).	Second half of the 17th century to the 20th century	HR; PA; ES
	Coconuts	Jesuits and other landowners (for sale and export to South American cities);	From the 17th century to the 20th century	HR; PA; ES
		Sailors of ships voyaging from the port of Valparaíso, who purchased coconuts from palm forest landowners.	From the 17th century to ?	HR
Food 2 (own consumption or local subsistence economies)	Sap (palm honey)	Laborers of Las Palmas de Ocoa estate (limited amount, as food provided by the landowner)	Second half of the 20th century	PA; ES
	Coconuts	Indigenous peoples from central Chile	At least from the Late Archaic period to the 15th century;	AR
		Peasant communities	At least from the 17th century to the present	HR; PA; ES
	Palm heart	Spaniard conquistadors (?)	16th and 17th centuries;	HR
		Landowners, “rich people”	Second half of the 20th century	ES
Recreational	Coconuts	Children from local communities and from other South American cities where coconuts were exported (for playing marbles and other games)	From the 17th (at least) to the 20th century	HR; PA
	Bracts	Children from peasant communities (as sleds)	Second half of the 20th century	PA
Home Building	Leaves	Local peasant communities (for roofs and walls of homes)	From the 18th century (at least) to the second half of the 20th century;	HR; PA; ES
		Laborers of Las Palmas de Ocoa estate (for constructing huts used for sap extraction activities)	20th century (at least).	HR; PA; ES
Domestic	Bracts	Local peasant communities (as containers for several purposes and hanging cribs for babies)	At least from the 18th century to the present	HR; PA; ES
	Other fibers, likely from leaves or racemes	Indigenous people from semi-arid north and central Chile;	At least from the Late Archaic period to the 15th century;	AR
		Local peasant communities (for making cords, brooms, baskets, mats, among other utensils)	At least from the 18th to the 20th century	HR; PA
Spiritual-Religious	Leaves (?)	Indigenous people (associated with smoking practices and as part of offerings in mortuary practices)	Early Ceramic and Late Intermediate periods	AR
	Leaves	Outsiders from Santiago (they went to La Dormida estate to obtain leaves for Palm Sunday celebrations);	18th century	HR
		Local peasant communities (As decorations for religious ceremonies and for bailes chinos, traditional dancing musician troupes of central Chile)	At least from the 19th century to the present	HR; PA
Ornamental	Whole tree	In several Chilean public spaces (e.g., main plazas of urban and rural settlements) and historic estates and churches.	At least from the 17th century to the present	HR; ES
		In other countries with Mediterranean climates and botanical gardens around the world	From the 19th century to the present	[6,103,104]
Other	Oil from coconuts	Jesuits? (medicine or food)	17th and 18th centuries	HR

In the next subsections, we analyze palmscape uses over time, distinguishing between landowners and local peasants. We made this distinction because there are important differences in terms of power dynamics, access to the land, intensity of the use of resources, and local social impacts of conservation measures.

3.2.1. Uses of the Palm Landscape by Landowners

Palm landscape uses by landowners over time in the Ocoa and Las Palmas de Ocoa estate are summarized in Figure 2. The historical records describe different agricultural activities and, in some cases, give information about the intensity of those practices and the trade markets involved.

In 1634, the landowner of the Ocoa estate developed several crops and raised livestock for carrying resources extracted from the mountains, such as minerals and firewood [62]. Later, at the beginning of the 18th century, the estate was acquired by Jesuits, who raised livestock in the forests on the property. They had 6000 cattle in the area, wheat plantations, and sheep. They also harvested coconuts, which were sent to the port of Valparaíso.

Later, in 1771, after the expulsion of the Jesuits by the Spanish monarchy, the estate was acquired by a family of the ruling class. In 1822, after the subdivision of the Ocoa estate, the area currently constituting the palm landscape became the Las Palmas de Ocoa estate, which maintained former uses [62]. Some decades later, the arrival of the railroad in Ocoa in 1863 increased the flux of products from the estate to the port of Valparaíso and, consequently, to other destinations [105]. In the 1880s, coconuts were intensively harvested, and the first records of palm honey production at OPL date back to this time. During this decade, palms were felled in Ocoa at an average rate of ca. 280 individuals per year [106].

Historical records suggest that felling for sap extraction occurred earlier at the southern flank of CRMR (where palms are scarce and scattered at present) in the second half of the 18th century [107]. However, this practice became more intensely developed from the 19th century onwards. In the second half of the 19th century, palm honey production was an activity carried out by landowners at industrial scales, as occurred in the case of OPL. Although palm felling and sap harvesting were activities carried out manually by estate laborers, the sap obtained was used for industrial production and trade, which was controlled by a few estate owners. We did not find historical records or ethnographic evidence of artisanal palm honey production for local peasant communities’ consumption.

For the first decades of the 20th century, we could not find information about the activities carried out at the estate, until 1948, when Raúl Ovalle, the last landowner before the LCNP creation, acquired the property. Not only were palm honey and coconuts produced during this time, but many other agricultural activities were developed in the OPL as part of the estate’s operations, which, according to participants’ memories and some publications [64,108], included raising livestock, firewood extraction, charcoal production, and wheat cultivation. Research participants’ memories, in addition to other sources [64,98,101,108], allow an understanding of the process of palm felling for syrup production during this time at the OPL. Participants explain that over the years, palms were cut down, mainly in the highlands of La Cortadera and El Cuarzo ravines (Figure 1). These areas were deliberately selected by the landowner, as coconut extraction was not profitable in these locations due to difficult access conditions combined with the occurrence of coconut harvesting by people coming from surrounding villages located in the southern flank of CRMR, which made palm honey production a more profitable activity for landowners in those areas. Hence, the selection of places for palm cutting in the past has had an impact on the composition and structure of the forest now. This ecological legacy must be factored in when managing the palm forest today and when researching the reproductive success and structure of the palmscape.

Although the LCNP was created in 1967, research participants recalled that palm felling continued in Ocoa as part of the estate activities at least until 1978, a fact that is supported by Rundel & Weisser [64], who reported that palm cutting had been prohibited in Ocoa at the time of their publication, with the exception of an annual quota of 150 trees.

Small and medium-scale mining has also been carried out in CRMR since at least the 18th century [109]. There are also records showing mining activities during the 1920s and later in the 1970s when LCNP had already been created [62]. These operations progressively declined until the last exploitation activities were closed in 1994.

3.2.2. Uses of the Palm Landscape by Local Peasants

The OPL has been a source of livelihood for local peasants, including those living within the estate as laborers and those living in surrounding villages. Historical records give limited information about local peasants’ livelihoods, but research participants recall memories of their experiences in the palm landscape for at least the past 80 years.

Peasant families living on the Las Palmas de Ocoa estate as laborers during the 20th century carried out subsistence agriculture for their own consumption, as participants recalled (also see section 5 in Appendix C).

“My dad made a wheat harvest every year (…). He didn’t sell it, he kept it for consumption, mom for breeding, she bred all kinds of poultry. Chicken, goose, ducks (…). They planted pumpkins, onions, everything was harvested, potatoes. You almost didn’t have to buy those vegetables (…). And as I told you, the harvest they made of bee honey, very pure”.

(Former estate laborer who lived in El Amasijo ravine for 30 years)

Wheat cultivation involved clearing some areas, which are now mostly shrublands predominantly composed of Acacia caven. At present, local peasants identify these sites with the name of the person or family who cultivated each of them in the past (see topic 7 in Appendix C).

In addition, historical records and participants’ accounts show that homebuilding was an important use of palm leaves by peasants. This has been reported since the end of the 18th century, mainly for thatching (see Appendix B). For OPL, historical photographs from the 1920s and 1930s and other ethnographic works [13,98] show the use of leaves for homebuilding (Figure 3d,e). According to participants’ accounts, the same construction technique was used until the end of the 20th century, both for local inhabitants’ homes (locally called rucos) and for the bodegas (huts constructed at basecamps used in sap extraction activities in the estate).

Historical records show that coconut harvesting is one of the main peasant livelihoods linked to Chilean palm landscapes, and there are records of this practice since colonial times [107]. At present, this is still an important livelihood for local peasants, but it is in conflict with current biodiversity conservation goals defined by CONAF for LCNP [110,111]. In addition, cattle raising is also a significant, but disputed, activity historically developed by local peasants in the LCNP and broadly in the CRMR. Both practices are at the center of current tensions between local peasants and biodiversity conservation strategies defined by CONAF for OPL. Consequently, in the next sections, we delve into these practices and analyze the main controversies about coconut harvesting and cattle raising in the OPL.

3.3. Coconut Harvesting and Cattle Raising at the OPL: Linked and Controversial Historical Peasant Practices

At present, local drovers (arrieros in Spanish) maintain a particular mountain cattle system with free-range management [13]. Within this system, the land is considered a common-use space, while each animal has specific owners. This is a practice passed through generations; local arrieros recall their ancestors’ raising cattle in the CRMR. Before LCNP creation, the estate’s last landowner allowed the presence of outsiders’ cattle in the area, but they had to pay a fee for “releasing” their animals within his property. Cattle belonged mainly to arrieros from the surrounding villages (for example, Las Palmas and Granizo, see Figure 1), who went across the mountain from their homes, as they still do today. A local arriero explains as follows:

“In the estate, they made surround all Ocoa to be able to count the animals [cattle] that were there (…). People from the estate sent arrieros, and the people, the animal owners from here, from Las Palmas. We surrounded for eight days”.

(Arriero from Los Claveles village)

From the perspective of Western science and CONAF, the cow is an exotic species representing a threat to LCNP’s natural ecosystems. However, none of the scientific studies that point to cattle as one of the main threats to Chilean palm conservation have specifically studied cattle’s ecological role. Several works have mentioned that cattle feed on Chilean palm seedlings, but previous work on the effects of herbivory on Jubaea chilensis only experimentally studied and reported the negative effect of lagomorphs [7,112]. Cattle have been present in the OPL for the last 400 years, and further research is needed to understand the ecological dynamics associated with this species at present.

From the perspective of arrieros, cattle have an ecological role. First, they perceive cattle as important for fire prevention, as they feed on grass, herbs, and other potentially flammable materials. They also see cattle as a source of food for native carnivorous [15] and a source of manure for the forest. They also argue that cattle have a crucial role in palm seed dispersion, an idea that has been previously reported in other ethnographic works [13,101]. Participants explain that cattle feed on palm fruit peels, which they ruminate and consequently transport, and then leave the coconut on the ground, which in some cases is also buried by trampling, an idea that is consistent with observations by Cabello [8]. Most research participants described some of the ecological roles of cattle from the arriero’s perspective (also see topic 6 in Appendix C).

“(…) Then we had another meeting [with CONAF], in Olmué. I got there. And I was defending the animals [cattle], and them too, because the animal does a special job within the park, I told them. Because the animal feeds on the grass for you, and the manure, it goes manuring the land. Cows eat coconuts, they ruminate it, new palms sprout”.

(Arriero from La Peña village)

Moreover, exotic/native and domestic/wild distinctions are not relevant for local peasants. Cattle raising has a cultural significance, being part of local worldviews about the landscape and the community [13,15].

Regarding coconut harvesting, this is a peasant practice that has historically involved conflicts around access to resources and land, as it is reported to have occurred in the 17th century in the southern flank of CRMR [107,113]. This practice has been carried out at Ocoa over time, independent of the land ownership, including when it was an estate; some participants recall harvesting as estate laborers, others irregularly, not having authorization from the landowner (Appendix C, section 2). After the LCNP creation, the practice continued. Since 1986, agreements for harvesting have been made between CONAF and local communities surrounding the LCNP [15]. However, the agreements ended in 2017, and coconut harvesting was completely banned inside LCNP. This happened after a significant increase in the activity due to higher demand from international markets [111]. The higher demand caused a drastic rise in coconut prices, and more people, both locals and outsiders, came to LCNP to harvest them. This increased both the number of harvesters and the collected amounts, causing CONAF to lose its control capacity. Nonetheless, external pressures associated with international demand were not regulated at that time, and the responsibility for the conflict fell mainly on local harvesters.

At present, many local peasants go to Ocoa every fall season for coconut harvesting despite the prohibitions. The participants who maintain this practice at present see it as their livelihood and an inherited tradition that is part of their lives. They do not consider the practice as detrimental to the forest, which contrasts with CONAF’s perspective; rather, some participants point to rodents as having a more significant role in palm regeneration problems due to seed predation.

“I have always told them [to CONAF], that mice eat them [coconuts], there are mice in large amounts! (…) They are waiting for it, and they carry them immediately. They carry 20 and we harvest 5, because there are many mice”.

(Local harvester)

Many authors have stated that coconut harvesting could be one of the main causes of Chilean palm conservation problems. However, only one recent study directly focused on seed dispersal and recruitment of J. chilensis [9]. These authors studied the J. chilensis recruitment process in the Ocoa palm forest, and their results show that within the LCNP, local harvesters remove ~1% of the fruits produced by adult palms. Although they state that these estimations based on official management reports were probably underestimated, their experiments conducted in Ocoa showed that more than 90% of palm fruits produced were predated by both exotic (Rattus rattus) and native (Octodon spp.) rodents during the dispersal stage. The local peasant perspective is consistent with these results, as local harvesters see rodents as competitors in the harvesting process. Also, they see cattle as their collaborators. As explained before, cows eat coconuts to consume their peels. This process involves rumination, after which these animals leave many peeled coconuts in specific sites. These usually are the resting zones for cows, which coconut harvesters call “placetas”. Gatherers usually follow cows, looking for these cow resting sites where they can easily find clumps of peeled coconuts available for collection (see topic 6 in Appendix C).

Notably, in some of the areas with placetas, located far from the park trails, where it is evident that cattle usually pass and rest (tracks, large amounts of manure, and resting places were visible), and where coconut harvesting occurs, we observed common presence of infantile and juvenile individuals in some locations (Figure 4) (we follow Michea [114] for classifying J. chilensis’ growth stages). Although systematic characterization of the forest structure in those areas goes beyond the scope of this study, these observations were at odds with our previous knowledge from most scientific publications on J. chilensis recruitment and CONAF reports. However, these observations were consistent with some participants’ answers after asking about Chilean palm conservation problems. They pointed out that “small palms” are abundant in some distant areas inside LCNP, and they argued that these areas are not frequently visited by tourists, park rangers, or scientists nor considered in palm inventories.

The conflicts between Western science, CONAF, and local peasants’ perspectives show the need to consider local knowledge in conservation and restoration actions, as well as in future research about Chilean palm as an endangered and culturally important species.

3.4. “One Has Ocoa in the Blood”: Palms, Peasants, and Cattle as a Multidimensional Relational Assemblage

As explained above, local peasants have created and recreated utilitarian relationships with the Chilean palm and with the OPL. However, there are several more dimensions of these relationships that are uncovered through participant’s narrations, local knowledge, and life experiences.

Relationships between local peasants and the palm landscape involve multiple agents. During interviews and informal conversations, local peasants described several local animal and plant species, mostly native. They also showed sophisticated knowledge about the local mountainscape, involving an intricate system of toponomy (arrieros’ toponomy) and other related ecological knowledge (see topic 7 in Appendix C).

The relationship with the OPL is also subjective, creative, and liberating [13], which was evident in participants’ accounts, who expressed feelings of liberation and wellbeing as part of their experiences in the Ocoa palm forest and in the CRMR.

“I feel so good going to Ocoa. That’s why I’ll departure tomorrow at 5 am, I’ll go to catch some animals that I have there, I’ll go with some friends and my son-in-law. And I’ll stay there. I’ll spend two days. But yes, you are there…it is a different world. I stop thinking in things, because these days I have had bad times (…). So, I go there, and everything is forgotten. It is very nice, feeling the palm leaves with the breeze in the afternoon. It’s something special, it’s something very nice”.

(Arriero from La Peña village)

Participants also express that humans should have an active role in maintaining the landscape. For them, CONAF management is too passive, which they perceive as careless. From their perspective, the no-intervention approach, or letting nature self-regenerate, is not beneficial for the forest. Interestingly, for some participants, palms, similar to humans, need to be spruced up, cared for, and helped (also see Appendix C, quotes 8.1).

“A palm is same as a person, same as a man or a woman. If the woman doesn’t comb her hair, she doesn’t look pretty. Same as me. And I tell them [to CONAF], there is no point in going to the hill and looking at the palms and they are being dirty and I am dirty too. It is the same as if I let my beard grow and I say—No, I will just let the hair fall by itself—. No, one doesn’t let the hair fall on its own, neither does the palm. The leaves absorb all the sap until the end, when the last leaves get dry, just then the leaves fall. Then, the palm forest is getting too old (…) the palm gets yellow (…) Because the palm doesn’t have a proper grooming, but they [CONAF] don’t understand. They say that’s nature. No, nature is very wise, but we need to help her too… Because we must comb ourselves, because if we don’t comb our hair, tell me, if we don’t take a bath, what would we do. It’s the same with the palm”.

(Arriero from La Peña village)

Moreover, it is also evident that the OPL is socially important, as it constitutes a meeting space and sustains social relationships associated with peasant practices. Notably, these land-based social relationships encompass not only humans but also non-human agents. For the arrieros, palms and cattle are significant agents involved in these relationships.

Local peasants’ understanding of the landscape contrasts with Western science narratives and CONAF policies not only because the latter sees humans and cattle as external and harmful agents but also because these have typically understood peasants’ practices as mere economic activities. From arrieros’ perspectives, the mountain and the palm landscape are constituted by relationships with utilitarian dimensions (livelihoods), but these relationships are also complex networks involving ecological interactions, worldviews, and local or context-specific knowledge [46], affections among humans and non-human beings, stories, and memories of individuals, families, and communities.

“Well, for us…it is important because we have cattle, we have animals there and it is like having money in the bank. Because if you have a hardship, you have someone ill, you say “ok, I’ll go there to catch that cow”, you catch it and sell it and you get money. On the one hand it is like business. And on the other it is something that one has like…one has Ocoa in the blood! You have to go to Ocoa. I mean…to look, to see, and every time you see something new. And walk around, I know…I don’t want to sound like bragging, but I blindly know where I am. Because since I was a child, I have known every corner of Ocoa. There is no place I haven’t been there, in the highlands, on the peaks, everywhere. I can stop going for a year, two years, and then I go there, and I know where the trail is, I know what is there. You know what…It is like a life history. Local people, it is like… how can I explain you…It is like a history, and everyone, my age or older, say the same”.

(Arriero from Los Claveles village)

We argue that “having Ocoa in the blood” and the idea that “the palm is same as a person” are not only bodily metaphors or proverbial illustrative examples. Indeed, the landscape, encompassing several active agents, both humans and non-humans, shapes human lives, at the same time the landscape is part of family and community histories, memories, livelihoods, and local identities. This relational assemblage can be understood as a place-based collective in the sense of Blaser [115], which is defined as a network of (human and non-human) persons, “who are entangled through social and even familial bonds”. Blaser [115] emphasized that what modern institutions usually understand as territories composed of resources and people are, from this perspective, “complex relational assemblages of human and non-human persons”.

4. Discussion

4.1. Ecological Legacies: Human Presence in the OPL

Although there is a research gap in terms of the pre-Hispanic occupation of the Ocoa valley and the CRMR, the available data do reveal that humans have been linked to J. chilensis and the OPL for thousands of years. Further archaeobotanical research is required to better understand how this plant was used by pre-Hispanic populations and the role of humans in shaping J. chilensis palmscapes from a long-term perspective (i.e., thousands of years).

The historical record shows a variety of uses of J. chilensis and the OPL in the last 400 years, including several intensities of uses by different actors and diverse related scales of production, consumption, and trade markets.

Humans have occupied the Ocoa for millennia, and cattle have roamed it for the last 400 years, with implications in terms of ecological legacies in the OPL. The relationships, created and transformed over time among human and non-human agents, have influenced forest composition, structure, and functionality. For instance, landowners’ decisions from the past have directly shaped Ocoa palm forest structure, as palm felling for industrial palm honey production during the times of the Las Palmas de Ocoa estate was practiced in targeted areas (e.g., highlands of La Cortadera and El Cuarzo ravine basins). Current palm forest structures in these sites directly respond to past human decisions and actions, not only to biophysical factors, as previous studies assume when analyzing Chilean palm reproduction and forest structures.

Additionally, cattle have been raised in the OPL for at least 400 years, which means that bovines were present even before most current adult individuals were seedlings or infantiles. Since LCNP creation, cattle have been considered an exotic species threatening LCNP ecosystems [110]. We argue that further research is needed to understand the impact of cattle presence in the last four centuries, not only for the Chilean palm but also for other species and for the integrity of the landscape. Moreover, not only is new scientific knowledge needed, local knowledge and peasant worldviews should be respected and considered vital in this endeavor. According to local knowledge, cattle act as J. chilensis seed dispersers and should be contemplated in future research on Chilean palm recruitment dynamics and in LCNP management decisions, looking for dialogue among perspectives.

Future research should aim to delve further into the ecological legacies that have been continuously overlooked since LCNP creation, which are necessary for guiding conservation and restoration strategies, overcoming the pristine myth that has implicitly guided conservation in most protected areas in the world and particularly in Chilean national parks [52,59,116,117]. Adding a biocultural perspective is particularly needed, as the OPL involves a complex socio-ecological system where relationships among landscape agents have been created, adapted, and recreated over time. This requires transdisciplinary perspectives that respect local peasant worldviews and knowledge systems in their own terms, which means encompassing epistemological pluralism and multiple ontologies [17,19].

From historical and utilitarian perspectives, we consider important not only how the species and the landscape have been used over time but also the differences among users, which involve issues of power dynamics, access to the land, use of resources, and local social impacts of conservation measures, both positive and negative.

It is important to keep in mind that the historical documents we have reviewed are frequently recorded by or centered around religious or political authorities, landowners, or businessmen. They are made from the perspective of people with certain levels of political and economic power, such as ecclesiastic authorities or renowned intellectuals of the upper classes, some of them with negative impressions of the peasantry and their ways of living, or even with colonial, hegemonic, or racist understanding of local rural contexts and the peasantry. These records do not provide much evidence of the way peasant communities experienced the transformations occurring over time in CRMR and the way they made meaning of their experiences as OPL co-inhabitants. Only some recent historical and ethnographic studies shed some light on these issues [13,30,101,118]; our qualitative study contributes in the same direction.

4.2. ‘Local Peasants–Palm Landscape’ Relationships

Local peasant practices, such as their mountain cattle system with free range management and coconut harvesting during fall seasons, are ways peasants deploy to (a) sustain their local economies, (b) recreate socio-ecological relationships, and (c) maintain their local knowledge systems and ways of life. These practices, involving relationships, are ways to keep co-inhabiting CRMR and be part of the OPL [119], which have been understood as common use space, independently of the ownership or legally permitted uses of the land [13].

These peasant practices have been very controversial and conflict with conventional biodiversity conservation approaches. We also understand those practices, and the relationships involved, as a process of resistance; paradoxically, these practices allow them to resist cultural homogenization and marginalization associated with reductive conservation approaches [59]. Additionally, through the constant transformation of their practices, local peasants are able to adapt and resist, in their own terms, other presses and pulses affecting the OPL and, more broadly, mountain socio-ecological systems in South America and worldwide [120]. For example, local arrieros made changes to their livestock-raising techniques to ensure cattle survival during the severe mega-drought that affected central Chile in the last decade [121]. They have also adapted to shifts in land property and top–down regulations imposed on the LCNP [13].

‘Local peasants–palm landscape’ relationships are complex and encompass multiple dimensions—utilitarian, ecological, social (inter-species), and place-based from the perspective of relational ontologies [115,122]. These relationships involve livelihoods, local worldviews, knowledge systems, memories, affections, and identities. We understand this relational assemblage involving local peasants, palms, cattle, and other agents of the landscape as a place-based collective [115] that is highly context-specific, only existing in relation to place.

4.3. Historical Ecology Informing Biocultural Conservation

The ecological legacies of the OPL associated with dynamic ‘human–palm landscape’ relationships over time need to be considered in LCNP conservation to overcome static understandings of the landscape and the pristine nature myth. The ecological legacies in the OPL encompass complex combinations of temporal and spatial scales. The available archeological information sheds some light on human–palm landscape relationships at millennium time scales, but these records are still very incomplete locally. While historical records contributing to a better understanding of these relationships on centennial scales are more abundant, they are strongly mediated by power dynamics and the sociopolitical contexts in which they were created.

Moreover, our qualitative study contributes to understanding local peasants’ perspectives of the palmscape, exploring their epistemological and ontological dimensions. A better understanding of local epistemologies and ontologies is an important step toward improving the relationship between conservation practitioners and local communities [16,17]. Approaches that integrate local or Indigenous communities in conservation actions and governance of protected areas have been shown to be more effective, both in terms of biodiversity conservation and the well-being of local human communities [123].

The framework of historical ecology considers a relational and historical perspective with the aim of understanding landscape changes while involving multiple temporal scales (millennia, centuries, decades). From this approach, we argue that landscape configurations in terms of structure, composition, and functionality are products of ecological legacies, which, at the OPL, involve dynamic and complex human–landscape relationships over time for at least the last millennia.

Moreover, when analyzing changes in the OPL at centennial or decadal time scales, a distinction is needed between large-scale exploitation by landowners and other uses associated with local subsistence economies by local peasant communities, some of which are still important today but mediated by political decisions and power relations. Additionally, the relationships that these local communities have created and maintained with the landscape over time are not only utilitarian but have multiple other dimensions that take part of the biocultural heritage of the landscape [26].

We posit that the conservation of the LCNP, and more broadly of Chilean palm landscapes, can be improved by adding perspectives from historical ecology and a biocultural approach. This means acknowledging ecological legacies while respectfully considering local knowledge systems and worldviews, setting ‘local peasants-palm landscape’ relationships as part of the landscape’s biocultural heritage. We argue that this approach is needed to overcome conventional biodiversity conservation approaches that have imposed homogenizing visions of cultures while separating humans from nature or reducing access to nature only to touristic and scientific activities. This biocultural approach could be better aligned with the conservation model proposed for UNESCO biosphere reserves, which would be more appropriate for the LCNP as part of the La Campana-Peñuelas Biosphere Reserve.

5. Conclusions

Most previous studies on the Chilean palm have focused on the biophysical landscape, overlooking the long history of human presence in central Chile for at least the past 12,000 years and disregarding the multiple dimensions of human–palm landscape relationships over time. Particularly for the OPL, the available data point to human occupation since pre-Hispanic times and cattle raising over the last 400 years.

A review of archeological and historical records involving the Chilean palm, combined with our qualitative study, reveals several categories of uses of J. chilensis and palmscapes over time, showing significant differences among landowners and local peasants in terms of scales of production, consumption, and trade markets for the last 400 years.

The current palm landscape structure directly responds to past human decisions and actions, as observed in those areas selected by landowners for intensive palm felling during the second half of the 20th century and in those allotments that were cleared in the past for agricultural activities, both by landowners and by peasant families living in the OPL.

At present, local peasants’ understanding of the landscape contrasts with Western science narratives and CONAF policies, not only because the latter sees humans and cattle as external and harmful agents but also because they understand peasants’ practices as mere economic activities. For local arrieros, the mountain palmscape is constituted by relationships between palms, cattle, humans, and other agents of the landscape, which we understand to be a multidimensional and complex relational assemblage.

We also understand local peasants’ practices in the OPL and their involved relationships as adaptive and as processes of resistance. Through their practices, local peasants can keep co-inhabiting the CRMR and resist the cultural homogenization and marginalization associated with reductive and top–down conservation approaches.

Chilean palm conservation can be improved by looking to the past to understand present landscape conditions, which is needed to inform future conservation and ecological restoration strategies. It is also imperative to add a biocultural approach, which, in the case of the OPL, should respectfully integrate local knowledge systems and worldviews with the aim of developing more effective and equitable conservation strategies that consider not only the biophysical landscape but also the biocultural heritage of the landscape.

Furthermore, these approaches can be applied in other contexts globally, where insights from the past can improve our understanding of present landscapes to plan sustainable futures. Also, our study case contributes to understanding the human management of mountainscapes beyond utilitarian perspectives and the unidirectional flow of nature–people relationships. This also shows the need for exploring the contributions to nature by those human communities that have created long-lasting relationships with landscapes.