The use of quantitative indices to quantify the importance of a plant species to human societies is widespread. While quantification may yield support for standardized methodologies and facilitate generalizations, it is important to examine the potential limitations of these indices. Moreover, because these indices are calculated at the species level, failure to control for phylogenetic relatedness in predictive models may yield misleading conclusions. We test if commonly used cultural importance indices predict species cultural keystone status among the Shipibo-Konibo community of Paoyhan in the Peruvian Amazon. Eleven of the 12 indices were correlated with each other indicating most cultural importance indices are redundant. Most indices did not predict species cultural keystone status. Phylogenetic control improved our models indicating a significant part of the predictive power of even the best index was explained by species shared evolutionary history. Our findings highlight the need for the cautious use of cultural importance indices to infer species cultural keystone status. Newly developed indices should be tested for correlation with existing indices to avoid redundancy.

中文翻译：

---

大多数文化重要性指数不能预测物种的文化基石状态

广泛使用定量指数来量化植物物种对人类社会的重要性。虽然量化可能会支持标准化方法并促进概括，但重要的是检查这些指数的潜在局限性。此外，由于这些指数是在物种水平上计算的，未能控制预测模型中的系统发育相关性可能会产生误导性的结论。我们测试了常用的文化重要性指数是否可以预测秘鲁亚马逊地区 Paoyhan 的 Shipibo-Konibo 社区的物种文化关键地位。12 个指数中有 11 个相互关联，表明大多数文化重要性指数是多余的。大多数指数不能预测物种文化的关键地位。系统发育控制改进了我们的模型，表明即使是最好的指数的预测能力的很大一部分也可以通过物种共享的进化历史来解释。我们的发现强调了谨慎使用文化重要性指数来推断物种文化关键地位的必要性。应测试新开发的指数与现有指数的相关性，以避免冗余。