• Save
Quantitative ethnobotany and the case for conservation in amazonia
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Like this? Share it with your network


Quantitative ethnobotany and the case for conservation in amazonia






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Quantitative ethnobotany and the case for conservation in amazonia Document Transcript

  • 1. Society for Conservation BiologyQuantitative Ethnobotany and the Case for Conservation in AmazoniaAuthor(s): G. T. Prance, W. Balee, B. M. Boom, R. L. CarneiroSource: Conservation Biology, Vol. 1, No. 4 (Dec., 1987), pp. 296-310Published by: Blackwell Publishing for Society for Conservation BiologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2386015 .Accessed: 31/05/2011 18:03Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTORs Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTORs Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. .Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.Blackwell Publishing and Society for Conservation Biology are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to Conservation Biology.http://www.jstor.org
  • 2. ContributedPapersQuantitativeEtlnobotanyandtheCaseforConservationinAmazonia*G. T. PRANCEtW. BALEEB. M. BOOMInstituteofEconomicBotanyNew YorkBotanicalGardenBronx,NewYork10458R. L. CARNEIRODepartmentofAnthropologyAmericanMuseumofNaturalHistoryCentralParkWestat 79thStreetNewYork,NewYork10024Abstract:Quantitativedata arepresentedon theuseof treesin terrafirmedenseforestbyfour indigenousAmazonian groups:theKaapor and Tembe,bothTupi-Guarani-speakinggroupsofBrazil; thePanare, a Car-iban-speakinggroupofVenezuela;and theChacobo,aPanoan-speaking group of Bolivia In each case, anethnoecologicalforestinventorywas conductedof a1-hectareparcel offorestAll treesat least 10 centime-tersdiameterat breastheight(DBH) weremarked,andbotanical specimens were collected.Specimenswerepresentedto indigenousinformantstogatherdata onuse.Based on theseinterviewsand theidentificationofspecimens collected,it was possible to calculate thepercentage of treespecies on each hectarethat wasuseful to each group: Kaapor, 768 percent;Tembe,61.3 percent;Panare, 48.6 percent;Chacobo, 78.7per-cent Furthermore,by dividingthetreesinto varioususe categories(food,construction,technology,remedy,commerce,and other),and designatingtheculturalimportanceof each species as "major" or "minor,"itwas possible to devisea "use value" for each species,and by summation,for each plant family.Based onthesecalculations, itwas determinedthatthePalmaewas the most usefulfamilyfor all four indigenousgroups. Our data supporttheassertionthattheterra*Thispaper ispublication No. 54 of theNew YorkBotanical Gar-densInstituteofEconomic Botany.t Correspondenceand requestsfor reprintsshould be addressedtothisauthorPapersubmittedMarch5, 1987; revisedmanuscriptacceptedJulv31,1987.Resumen: Se presentandatos cuantitativossobre eluso de arboles en bosques densos de terrafirme,porcuatrogruposde indigenasamazonicos: los Kaaporylos Tembe,brasileniosde la familia linguisticaTupi-Guarani; los Panare, venezolanos de la familia lin-guistica Cariban;y los Chacobo, bolivianos de la fa-milia linguistica Panoan. En cada uno de los casos sehizo un inventarioforestaletnoecologicoen una par-cela de bosque de una hectarea;se marcarontodoslosarbolesdepor lo menos10 cmde diametroa la alturadelpecho (DAP), se colectaronmuestrasbotanicasy semostrarona los indgenaspara obtenerdatos acercade su uso. Basados en las entrevistasy la identifica-cion de los especimenescolectadosfueposible calcularlos siguientesporcentajes de especies arboreas uttilespara cada grupo: 768% para los Kaapor, 61.3% paralos Tembe,48.6% para los Panare y 78.7% para losChacobo.Ademas,dividiendolos arbolesen variascat-egorias de uso (alimento, construccion,tecnologia,medicina,comercioy otros),y designando la impor-tancia cultural de cada especie como "mayor" o"menor"fue posible estimarun "valor de uso" paracada especiey un "valor total"para cada familia deplantas. Estosdatos indicanque lafamilia Palmae erala mas uttilparalos cuatrogrupos.Nuestrosdatossus-tentanla afirmacionde que los bosques lluviosos deterrafirmecontienen un numero excepcionalmentegrande de especies uttilesy que ciertasfamilias deplantas (e.g.,Palmae) merecenespecial atencion enterminosde conservacion.El hechode que cada grupoindgena tenga diferentescolecciones de especies esmas un reflejode endemismovegetalen laAmazonia296ConservationBiologyVolume 1,No. 4, December 1987
  • 3. Pranceetal QuantitativeEthnobotanyinAmazonia 297firmerainforestsofAmazonia contain an exception-ally large numberof usefulspecies and thatcertainplantfamilies (e.g.,Palmae) deservespecial consider-ation in termsof conservation.Thefact thateach in-digenousgrouphas differentsuitesofmostusefulspe-cies is, in fact, more a reflectionofplant endemismwithinAmazonia thaninterculturaldifferencesperse.High indigenousplant use combinedwithhighende-mism has importantimplicationsfor conservationpolicy: many reservesare needed throughoutAmazo-niaIntroductionThe usefulnessofAmazonianforestsas demonstratedbyindigenouspeopleswhodependon themhasoftenbeencited as one reason,amongothers,forconservationoftheseforests(e.g., Myers1982, Fearnside1985). Uponsearchingtheliterature,however,we foundfewquan-titativedata to supportthisclaim.We designed,there-fore,a quantitativestudytoshowhowusefulAmazonianforestsareto indigenousAmazonianpeoples intermsofthenumberand proportionofusefulspecies and fami-liestherein.The purposeofthisarticleis topresentourquantitativedata on theuse oftreesin four1-hectareplotsofterrafirmedenseforestbyfourindigenousAm-azoniangroups,and to show thevalue ofthesedata tothe fieldof conservation.We have also attemptedtoquantifytheusefulnessoftheprincipalspeciesandplantfamiliesinvolvedinourstudy.Forestinventoriesof1hawere taken in the habitats of the Kaapor, Tembe,Chacobo,andPanareIndians.Herewe reporttheutilityoftreesgreaterthanor equal to 10 centimetersdiame-terat breastheight(DBH) fromtheseplotsto each ofthefourgroups.Some oftheseresultshave been else-where discussed (Balee 1986, 1987; Boom 1985,1986a, 1986b, 1987), emphasizingextraordinarilyhighpercentagesoftreespeciesandindividualtreesfromtheplotsthatareusefulinone or morewaysto theIndiansconcerned. In these earlier studies,uses were verybroadlydefined,such thatany species thatcould beusedforfirewoodandanyspeciesthatborepartsedibleforgame animals,ifusefulfornothingelse (such assupplyingediblepartsforpeople,constructionmaterial,technologicalitems,and medicine) were also consid-ered to be useful,atleastin one or bothoftheseways.Thus,Balee (1986, 1987) found 100 percentuse forboth terrafirmeplots by the Kaapor and Tembe,andBoom (1987, personalcommunication)found82 per-centuse fortheChacobo and49 percentforthePanare,usingthesecategories.We define"use" morenarrowlyhere.In thispaperwe do notdiscussplantsthatsupplyonlyfuel and/orattractgame animals,upon which indige-nous diets depend,not because theseare not a priorique diferenciasinterculturalesper se. El gran uso deplantas nativas combinado con el alto endemismotieneimplicacionespara la politica de conservacion:se necesitanmuchasreservasa travesde la Amazoniauseful,butratherbecause thevastmajorityoftreesfallintoone orbothofthesecategoriesanyway.Instead,wewould attempttocalculatethevalueoftreespecies andfamiliesin termsof indigenouslyrecognizeduses lessregularlydistributedthroughoutthecorpusofour eth-nographicdataandbotanicalcollections.The objectiveis to evaluatethetreespecies andfamiliesthatseem tobe mostusefulto allfourindigenousgroupsand to rec-ommendmeasuresto protectthese species and theirassociatedhabitats.MaterialsandMethodsThe fourgroups on which this paper focuses speaklanguagesof three differentlinguisticfamilies:Tupi-Guarani(Kaapor and Tembe), Panoan(Chacobo), andCariban(Panare). They reside withinthe frontiersofthreedifferentAmazoniancountries:Brazil(Kaapor andTembe), Bolivia (Chacobo), and Venezuela (Panare).Theircontacthistoriesandpopulationsareall different.The Kaaporwere pacifiedin 1928 (Ribeiro 1970), andtheTembe inthe 1850s (Wagley& Galvao 1949). TheSummerInstituteof Linguisticsfirsteffectivelycon-tactedtheChacobo in 1955 (Prost 1970). The Panarehave been more or less in contact with non-IndianssincethefirstSpanishexplorersenteredthemiddleOri-noco regionin the 1600s (Henley 1982).Grouppopulationsare:Kaapor(ca 500), Tembe (ca156), Chacobo (ca 400), and Panare(ca 2000). WiththeexceptionoftheKaaporandTembe,who resideinadjacentterritories,thesegroupsoccupydifferenttypesof forestin termsof species compositionand domi-nance.Despite thesedifferences,we believe thattherearebroadsimilaritiesin termsofthewaysthesepeopleuse theforestandthefamilies,ifnotgeneraandspecies,oftreesthatare mostusefulto them.The methodcommon to all these studieswas thehectare forestinventory(cf Boom 1986b). Kroeber(1920), in a critiqueof ethnobotanicalstudiesof histime,suggestedthatsuch studiesbecome morequanti-tative.Carneiro(1978) was the firstto estimatethepercentageofusefultreesper plot ofland to the Car-Conser-vationBiologyVolume 1,No. 4, December 1987
  • 4. 298 QuantitativeEthnobotanyinAmazonia Pranceetal.iban-speakingKuikuruoftheupperXinguRiverbasin,inBrazilianAmazonia.One can inferthatthepercentageofusefultreesnamedbytheKuikurufromthisplotwas 76percent,accordingto Carneirosdata(Carneiro 1978).Since Carneiro did not, however, obtain herbariumspecimens,one cannotdeterminetheactualpercentageof usefulspecies to the Kuikuru.The currentprojectoriginatedas an attemptto combineethnologicaldataonplantutilitywiththebotanicaldocumentationofher-bariumvouchers.CategoriesofPlantUseThe data on plantutilityreflectdeclarationsmade byindigenousinformantscombinedwithour own obser-vationsoftheculturaldeploymentofplantsineach eth-nographiccase. In no case, incidentally,do informantsaccountsdisagreewithsuch observations.To compare the resultsof these studies,we divideuses oftreesfromthe inventoryplots intothesecate-gories:a) "edible"(includingparts,suchas fruits,seeds,and latex,which people consume), b) "constructionmaterial"(such as wood used in post-and-beamcon-struction,canoes,andbridges,andleavesused forroof-ing thatch),c) "technology"(a verybroad category,which includeslashingmaterial,glue,potterytemper,dye,soap, pipe stem,arrowpoint), d) "remedy"(forsinusitis,congestion,diarrhea,headache,vomiting,fe-ver,unwantedpregnancy,bleedingwounds,snakebite,cradle-cap,cankersores, insect repellent),e), "com-merce" (boat caulking,rubber, souvenirs), and f),"other"(magic, toys,dog-fatteners,fermentationaids,and perfume).These categoriesdo not necessarilyre-flectcategoriesofuse intheindigenousclassificationofuses, ifsuch a classificationwould be reflectedin thelexiconsoftheselanguages,aswe believeitis(cfBerlinet al. 1974).In fact,onlyone categorymaybe consideredto bereadilyrecognizedby the Indiansthemselves,as dem-onstratedin the indigenouslexicons.This categoryis"edible."The Kaaporand Tembe,forexample,readilyidentifythiscategoryas mae uu awa ("what peopleeat") or awa miu ("peoples food") and distinguishitfrom,forexample,soo miu ("game animalfood" inKaapor) and miyar miu ("game animal food" inTembe). The othercategoriesmaybe consideredto beartificialconstructsbased on our own collapsingofin-digenoususe categories,since thesecategoriesare notreadilynamed in anyof thefourlanguagesexcept bycircumlocutions(see Berlinet al. 1974).No singleor shortset of termscoversthe semanticrangeof"constructionmaterial,"as heredefined,inanyof these languages.Rather,house beams,posts,ridge-poles, thatchingmaterial,canoe-buildingmaterial,andthelike,are all individuallynamed.No indigenousterminanyofthefourlanguagesapproximateswhatwe term"technology."Rather,arrow points,lashing materialfromthebarkoftrees,glues,dyes,soaps,and so on areindividuallynamed.One ofthemostdifflcultcategoriesto defineis thatof"remedy."The mostcommonAmer-ican Englishsense oftheterm"remedy"is "something,suchas medicationor therapy,thatrelievespain,curesdisease,or correctsa disorder"(Morris 1973). Such isnotthecase withtherangeofmeaningoftermssuchaspuhan (Kaapor) and pohang (Tembe), which covernotonlythe mostcommonAmericanEnglishsense of"remedy,"but much more. The best gloss for thesetermsis, in fact,"catalyst"(i.e., thatwhich induceschange). Thus,forexample,the wood of Tetragastrisaltissima is believed by the Kaapor to be a Kawii-puhan ("beer catalyst"),insofaras when itis added tothebrewingceremonialbeer (kawi), it is believed toeffecta stronger,morepotentbrew.Thisuse ofthetermpuhan seemsto go beyondtheAmericanEnglishsenseofthenoun "remedy."Atthesame time,however,pu-han refersto "remedy"in a conventionalsense. Drink-ing a decoction of the barkofFusaea longifolia,forexample,is believed by the Kaapor to be a "diarrhearemedy"(marikahipuhan). We includeunderthecat-egory"remedy"onlythosespeciesforwhichinformantsstatea testableapplicationtoa humanillness;thatis,theculturallyprescribedapplication,processualtreatment,and effectsoftheplanton a givenillnessare statedbyinformantsin such a way as to be falsifiable.Plantusesthatare untestablein termsoftheindigenousformula-tionoftheirapplication,givenlimitationsinthepresenttoolsofethnobotanicalscience,are placed in thecate-gory"magic"or "other."The category"commerce" is not lexically distin-guishedin theselanguagesfromeconomic reciprocity.In Kaapor,forexample,thewordfor"giving"(mee) isthesame as thatfor"selling."Havingdefinedthe range of meaningof these usecategories,bothintermsofindigenousperceptions(Al-corn 1981) and our own observations,we would dis-tinguishquantitativelythe relativeutilityof specificplantsingivensituationsinthesameterms.Someplantsare clearlymore usefulthan othersforspecificpur-poses,thatis,theyare explicitlypreferredby theIndi-ans themselvesfora givenpurpose over otherplantsthatcan also fulfillthatpurpose,but to a less desirabledegree.For example,the Kaapor distinguishbetween"quite edible" (uu-ate-awa) and "less edible" (uu-we-awa). Thus,itseems illogicalto weigh equally,forexample,thesmall,insignificantyetsweetfruitsofPro-tiumspp. (Burseraceae),whichin Kaapor societyaregenerallyeatenonlybychildrenand are nevertheob-jectsofintensivegatheringandeconomicexchangeandthesubstantialfruitsofTheobromagrandiflorum(Ster-culiaceae), which are muchsoughtafteritemsoffooddistributionamongtheKaapor.In otherwords,Theo-bromagrandiflorumfruitsare moreimportantto theConservationBiologyVolume 1,No. 4, December 1987
  • 5. Pranceetal. QuantitativeEthnobotanyinAmazonia 299Kaapor thanProtiumspp. fruitsin an indigenousandobjectivesense,thatis,in termsoftheiredibility.Thesame distinction-moreimportantversusless impor-tant-can be appliedto plantsin each oftheothercat-egoriesof use, accordingto indigenousaccounts andour own observationsof the extentto which peopleseek out certainplantsvis-a-visothersthatare never-thelessall usefulforapproximatelythesame ends.Therefore,in evaluatingand comparingtheutilityofspecies,each majoruse ofa plantis countedas 1.0 andeach minoruse as 0.5. We woulddefinetheuse valueofa species as thesumofthevaluescorrespondingto itsmajor and/orminoruse(s) in each culture.Thus,ifaspecies (i.e., some ofitsparts)can be used as a majortechnologicalitem and at the same time serves as aminorremedy,possessingno otherknownuses to theculturein question,thentheuse valueofthespeciesis1.5 (1 + 0.5). To calculate thefamilialuse value perhectareplot,we sumtheuse valuesofeach speciesinafamilyand divideby the numberofall species in thatfamily,whetherusefulor not,occurringon the plot(althoughspecieswithno use value,asheredefined,areexcluded fromour species listotherwise).This is di-videdto counterthehighfamilialuse valuesthatwouldaccruetofamiliesthatcontainmanyspeciesusefulonlyin minorways(as withBurseraceaeto theKaapor).ResultsandDiscussionTable 1 shows the resultsof the hectareinventoriesamong the Kaapor,Tembe, Chacobo,and Panare,re-spectively.Collectionnumbersonlyforusefulspeciesoccurringon each oftheplotsaregiven.In thecolumn"uses," codes forthe major and minoruses are indi-cated.Majoruses,whichareassigneda use valueof1.0,are indicatedbya capitalletter;minoruses,whichareassigneda use value of 0.5, are indicatedby a smallletter.Most species of treesoccurringon the Kaapor andTembeplotswereuseful,as heredefined,inatleastoneway.Ofthe99 speciesoccurringon theKaaporplot,76(76.8% ) wereusefulinsomeway;ofthe119 speciesontheTembeplot,73 (61.3% ) wereusefulinsomeway;ofthe94 species on theChacobo plot,74 (78.7% ) wereusefulinsomeway;ofthe70 specieson thePanareplot,34 (48.6% ) were usefulinsomeway.The specificusesofspeciesfromthefourplotsarenowdiscussed,detailsofwhichare all summarizedin Table 1.FoodOfthe99 species on theKaaporplot,34 (34.3% ) aremajoror minorfoodplants;themoreimportantspeciesinclude Euterpe oleracea (Palmae) and Theobromagrandiflorum(Sterculiaceae). Of the 199 species oc-curringon the Tembe plot,26 (21.8%) are majororminorfoodplants;themoreimportantspecies includeOenocarpus distichus(Palmae) and Pourouma guia-nensis(Moraceae). Of the94 species on the Chacoboplot,38 (40.4% ) are major or minorfood plants;themoreimportantspeciesarefivepalms,Astrocaryumac-uleatum, Jessenia bataua, Maximiliana maripa,Oenocarpus mapora, and Scheeleaprinceps,and fourMoraceae,Pourouma cecropi i folia, P. guianensis,Pseudolmedia laevis, and P. macrophylla.Of the 70species occurringon the Panareplot,24 (34.3% ) aremajor or minorfood plants;the more importantareMauritiaflexuosa (Palmae), Parinari excelsa (Chryso-balanaceae), and an as-yet-unidentifiedspecies in theSapotaceae.ConstructionMaterialSpeciesusefulinmajorandminorwaysforconstructionaccountfor20.2 percent(20 /99) ofthe species fromthe Kaapor plot; the more importantspecies includeFusea longifolia (Annonaceae) and Licania spp.(Chrysobalanaceae),which are used as raftersand tie-beams.The reasonforuse ofLicania spp. is clear:itisrot-resistantpartlybecause of the abundance of silicafoundin theraysofitswood (Prance 1972, terWelle1976), which discouragestermiteinfestations.In theTembe plot,30.3 percent(36 /119) species are usefulforconstruction;themoreimportantspecies areMin-quartia guianensis (Olacaceae), which is one ofonlytwo species used forhouse posts and Xylopia nitida(Annonaceae), commonly used for ridgepoles. TheTembeso valueMinquartiaguianensis forhousepoststhatthereis a taboo on itsuse as firewood:ifburned,itis believed thatnumerousvillagedeathswould ensue.On theChacobo plot,17.0 percent(16 /94) ofthespe-cies are sources of constructionmaterials.The moreimportantChacobo speciesforhousepostsareLindack-eria paludosa (Flacourtiaceae),Amaioua guianensis(Rubiaceae),Mezilaurus itauba (Lauraceae), andthreespecies of Sclerolobium (Leguminosae); Vochysiavismiifolia(Vochysiaceae) and Diplotropispurpurea(Leguminosae)furnishdurablewood fortheconstruc-tionofsimplebridgesoversmallstreams.In thePanareplot,only2.9 percent(2 /70) ofthespecies areused inconstruction;Mauritia flexuosa (Palmae) furnishesleavesforroofthatchon houses,andAmaioua corym-bosa (Rubiaceae) isa preferredspeciesforhouseframe-workconstructionbecause ofitsdurablewood.TechnologySpecies used in major or minorways fortechnologyaccount for 19.2 percent (19/99) of the species inKaaporplot;themoreimportantspecies includeLica-nia membranacea (Chrysobalanaceae), the ashes ofwhichareused inmakingpotterytemper,andLecythisidatimon (Lecythidaceae),fromthe barkof which ismadehighqualitylashingmaterial.On theTembe plot,ConservationBiologyVolume 1,No. 4, December 1987
  • 6. 300 QuantitativeEthnobotanyinAmazonia Pranceetal.Table 1. Kaapor, Tembe, Chacobo, and Panare useful tree species in 1-ha forestplots. Voucher numbers are forcollections ofW. Bakee (WB) and B. Boom (BB); firstset ofvoucher specimens deposited at the New York Botanical Garden. Uses are as follows:A = major food, a = minor food; B = major item of construction,b = minor item of construction; C = major item of technology,c minor item of technology; D = major remedy, d = minor remedy; E = major commerce, e minor commerce; F = major"other use," f = minor "other use." Species without use substitutesare marked with an asterisk (*), or, ifalso confined to terrafirmeforest,with a dagger (t).Kaapor Tembe Chacobo PanareTaxon Voucher(s) Use Value Use Value Use Value Use ValueAnacardiaceaeAnacardiumgiganteum WB1122 A 1.0A microsepalum WB1472 b 0.5A parvifolium WB225,WB1175 a 0.5 b 0.5Astroniumsp. BB6687 a 0.5Tapiriraguianensis BB6629 a 0.5Thyrsodiumspruceanum WB437 d 0.5Use value subtotal 1.0 2.0 1.0No. species on plot 3 6 3Familialuse value 0.33 0.33 0.33AnnonaceaeAnaxagorea brevipest WB1349 a,B, d 2.0Fusaea longifolia WB155,WB1319 a, B, D 2.5 a, B, d 2.0Guatteriadiscolor BB4486 c, d 1.0Guatteriahyposericea BB4444 c 0.5Xylopia nitida WB344,WB1103 B 1.0 B 1.0Xylopiapolyantha BB4954 C 1.0Xylopia sericea BB6624 a 0.5Use value subtotal 3.5 5 2.5 0.5No. species on plot 5 4 4 1Familialuse value 0.70 1.25 0.63 0.50ApocynaceaeAspidospermadesmanthum WB1150 c 0.5A megalocarpon BB4202 d 0.5Lacmellea aculeata WB277,WB1091t a, C, D 2.5 a, C 1.5Parahancornia amapa WB332,WB1193 D 1.0 D 1.0Genus indetermined1 BB4398 d 0.5Genus indetermined2 BB6611 a 0.5Use value subtotal 3.5 3.0 1.0 0.5No. species on plot 2 4 2 2Familialuse value 1.75 0.75 0.50 0.25AraliaceaeDidymopanax morototoni BB4468 d 0.5Use value subtotal 0.5No. species on plot 1Familialuse value 0.50BignoniaceaeJacaranda copaia BB4094 d 0.5Tabebuia serratifolia BB6704 D 1.0Use value subtotal 0.5 1.0No. species on plot 1 1Familialuse value 0.50 1.00BixaceaeCochlospermumorinocense BB6654 C 1.0Use value subtotal 1.0No. species on plot 1Familialuse value 1.00BombacaceaeEriothecaglobosa BB4275 c 0.5Use value subtotal 0.5No. species on plot 1ConservationBiologyVolume 1,No. 4, December 1987
  • 7. Pranceetal. QuantitativeEthnobotanyinAmazonia 301Table 1. ContinuedKaapor Tembe Chacobo PanareTaxon Voucher(s) Use Value Use Value Use Value Use ValueFamilialuse value 0.50BoraginaceaeCordia bicolor WBI90, BB6625 c 0.5 a 0.5Use value subtotal 0.5 0.5No. species on plot 1 1Familialuse value 0.50 0.50BurseraceaeCrepidospermumgoudotianum BB4133 d 0.5Protiumaltsonii WB184,WB1141 d 0.5 d 0.5P. aracouchini WB1214 a, b 1.0P. decandrum WB122,WB1089 a, d 1.0 a, b 1.0P. heptaphyllum BB6563 a 0.5P. insigne WB1216 b, e 1.0P. niloi WB1391 f 0.5P. pallidum WB5,WB1114 a, d 1.0 a, b, e 1.5P. polybotryumvar.polybotryum WB98,WB1257 f 0.5 f 0.5P. sagotianum WB855,BB6655 a, d 1.0 a 0.5Protiumspruceanum WB1192 E 1.0P. tenuifolium WB157,WB1276 d 0.5 b 0.5P. trifoliolatum WB116, WB1184 a, b 1.0 a, b 1.0Tetragastris altissimat WB8, WB1376, a, b, F 2.0 a, b, F 2.0 a 0.5BB6691T panamensis WB451 a 0.5Trattinnickia burserifolia WB1408 e, f 1.0T peruviana BB4236 C 1.0Use value subtotal 8.0 11.5 1.5 1.5No. species on plot 9 13 2 3Familial use value 0.88 0.88 0.75 0.50CaryocaraceaeCaryocar glabrum WBI 14 a 0.5Use value subtotal 0.5No. species in plot 1Familial use value 0.50ChrysobalanaceaeCouepia guianensissubsp. guianensis WB17, WB1156t a, B 1.5 a 0.5C guianensis WB1088 a, B 3.0subsp. indetermined C, eExellodendrom barbatum WB326 a 0.5Hirtella lightioides BB4167 a 0.5Licania canescens WB45, WB1439 a, B 1.5 a, B 1.5L. heteromorphat WB175 B, C 3.0var. heteromorpha d, eL hypoleuca BB6677 a 0.5L. kunthiana WB174 a, B 1.5L. macrophylla WB1116 B, d 1.5L. membranacea* WB46 C 1.0L. octandra BB4335 a,C,d 2.0subsp. pallidaL. sp. 1 WB1275 B 1.0L. sp. 2 WB1107 B 1.0L. sp. 3t WB1451 a, B, C, e 3.0Parinari excelsa BB6587 A 1.0P. sp. 1 WB1272 B 1.0Use valuesubtotal 9.0 12.5 2.5 1.5No. species on plot 7 9 3 5Familialuse value 1.29 1.39 0.83 0.33CombretaceaeConservationBiologyVolume1,No. 4, December1987
  • 8. 302 QuantitativeEthnobotanyinAmazonia Pranceetal.Table 1. ContinuedKaapor Tembe Chacobo PanareTaxon Voucher(s) Use Value Use Value Use Value Use ValueBuchenavia capitata WB1435 f 0.5Combretumlaxum BB4366 d 0.5Use value subtotal 0.5 0.5No. species on plot 1 1Familialuse value 0.50 0.50ElaeocarpaceaeSloanea eichleri BB4522 d 0.5 d 0.5Use value subtotal 0.5No. species on plot 2Familialuse value 0.25EuphorbiaceaeAparisthmiumcordatum BB4049 d 0.5Hevea brasiliensis* BB4166 c,E 1.5Mabea caudata WB41,WB1326 c 0.5 c 0.5Sagotia racemosa WB31,WB1151 f 0.5 f 0.5Sapium sp. BB6673 a 0.5Genus indetermined1 BB4459 a 0.5Use value subtotal 1.0 1.0 2.5 0.5No. species on plot 5 8 3 4Familialuse value 0.20 0.13 0.83 0.13FlacourtiaceaeBanara guianensis BB6712 a 0.5Casearia combaymensis BB4258 A,d 1.5C javitensis BB4295 d 0.5C mariquitensis BB4016 d 0.5C sylvestris BB6570 e 0.5Laetia procera WB382 d 0.5Lindackeriapaludosa BB4332 B 1.0Use value subtotal 0.5 3.5 1.0No. species on plot 1 4 2Familialuse value 0.5 0.88 0.50GuttiferaeCaraipa grandiflora WB1253 d 0.5Oedematopussp. BB6690 a 0.5Rheedia brasiliensis WB233 A 1.0Symphoniaglobulifera* WB102 a, D, e 2.0Tovomitaschomburgkii BB4350 a 0.5Use value subtotal 3.0 0.5 0.5 0.5No. species on plot 2 3 1 1Familialuse value 1.50 0.17 0.50 0.50HumiriaceaeSacoglottissp. 2 WB369,*WB1530 a 0.5 b 0.5Use value subtotal 0.5 0.5No. species on plot 1 1Familialuse value 0.50 0.50LauraceaeEndlicheriamacrophylla BB4499 d 0.5Mezilaurus ilauba BB4529 B 1.0Nectandraacutifolia WB1154 a, b, c 1.5Nectandracuspidata WB1108 b,c 1.0Nectandrapurusensis WB1118 b,c 1.0Nectandrasp. BB4558 d 0.5Ocoteaabbreviata WB1076 b,c 1.0Ocotea canaliculata WB329 c 0.5Ocoteacaudata WB1095 b,c 1.0Ocotearubra WB1236 b,c 1.0Use value subtotal 0.5 6.5 2.0No. species on plot 3 6 3ConservationBiologyVolume1,No. 4,December1987
  • 9. Pranceetal. QuantitativeEthnobotanyin Amazonia 303Table 1. ContinuedKaapor Tembe Chacobo PanareTaxon Voucher(s) Use Value Use Value Use Value Use ValueFamilialuse value 0.17 1.08 0.67LecythidaceaeEschweileracoriacea WB1Ot,WB1077 b, c, D 2.0 b,c 1.0Eschweileraparvifolia BB4311 a 0.5Gustavia augusta WB193 D 1.0Lecythischartacea WB19 b,C 1.5Lecythiscorrugata BB6647 C 1.0Lecythisidatimon WB76,WB1278 b, C 1.5 C, d 1.5Lecythislurida WB1383 c 0.5Use value subtotal 6.0 3.0 0.5 1.0No. species on plot 6 4 1 1Familialuse value 1.00 0.75 0.50 1.00LeguminosaeDialium guianense WB1146 a 0.5Dinizia excelsa WB s.n. B 1.0Diplotropispurpurea WB111,BB4242 b, c 1.0 B 1.0Dipteryxodorata* WB1113 B, D, F 3.0D. punctata* BB6674 E 1.0Inga alba WB1307 A,C, e 2.5I. capitata WB297,WB1102 A 1.0 a 0.5I. ingoides BB6697 a 0.5I. marginata WB443 a 0.5I. cf.ruziana BB4317 a 0.5I. splendens WB505 a 0.5I. stipularis WB260 a 0.5L thibaudiana WB1513 a 0.5I. cf.umbellata BB6634 a 0.5I sp. 1 WB153 a 0.5I. sp. 2 BB4401 a 0.5I. sp. 3 BB6670 a 0.5Parkia paraensis WB379 C 1.0Poecilantheeffusa WB178 D 1.0Sclerolobiumchrysophyllum BB4237 B 1.0Sclerolobiumsp. 1 WB606 D, f 1.5Sclerolobiumsp. 2 BB4356 B 1.0Sclerolobiumsp. 3 BB4368 B 1.0Sclerolobiumsp. 4 BB6678 d 0.5Senna silvestris BB6588 d 0.5Swartzia laevicarpa BB6554 d,e 1.0Tachigalia macrostachya WB1456 D 1.0T myrmecophila WB39,WB1508 D, f 1.5 D 1.0T paniculata WBI88 D,f 1.5Use value subtotal 10.5 10.0 5.0 4.5No. species on plot 16 18 9 12Familialuse value 0.66 0.56 0.56 0.38MalphigiaceaeByrsonimaaerugo WB1110 A 1.0B. laevigata WB337 A 1.0B. spicata BB6707 a 0.5Use value subtotal 1.0 1.0 0.5No. species on plot 1 1 1Familialuse value 1.00 1.00 0.25MelastomataceaeBellucia aequiloba BB4490 a 0.5B. grossularioides BB4285 a 0.5Miconia affinis BB4008 a,d 1.0M. holosericea BB4282 a 0.5M. kiugii BB4294 a 0.5M. Iongispicata BB4445 a 0.5ConservationBiologyVolumei, No. 4,December1987
  • 10. 304 QuantitativeEthnobotanyinAmazonia Pranceeta].Table 1. ContinuedKaapor Tembe Chacobo PanareTaxon Voucher(s) Use Value Use Value Use Value Use ValueM.poeppigii BB4535 a 0.5M.punctata BB4425 a 0.5M splendens BB4283 a, d 1.0Use value subtotal 5.5No. species on plot 12.5Familialuse value 0.46MeliaceaeCarapaguianensis* WB279,WB1244 C, D 2.0 B, C, D 3.0Trichilialecointei WB1096 c 0.5T micrantha WB1288 c 0.5T cf.pleeana WB1210 c 0.5T schomburgkiisubsp.schomburgkii WB1305 c 0.5Use value subtotal 2.0 5.0No. species on plot 3 5Familialuse value 0.66 1.00MoraceaeBagassa guianensis WB523 a 0.5Brosimumacutifolium BB4276 a 0.5B. lactescens BB4308 a 0.5B. utilesubsp.ovatifolium BB4334 B, C 2.0Cecropiaficifolia BB4264 C 1.0C sciadophylla BB4257 C 1.0Ficus nymphiifolia BB4322 B, C 2.0Helicostylispedunculata WB333 b 0.5H. tomentosa BB4313 a 0.5Perebea mollis BB4505 a 0.5Pourouma cecropiifolia BB4203 A 1.0P.guianensis WB1331, BB4501 A 1.0 A 1.0Pseudolmedia laevis BB4363 A 1.0Pseudolmedia macrophylla BB4364 A,d 1.5Use value subtotal 1.0 1.0 12.5No. species on plot 5 2 14Familialuse value 0.20 0.50 0.89MyristicaceaeCompsoneurasp. BB4437 A,d 1.5Iryantherajuruensis WB1245,BB4138 d 0.5 d 0.5I. tessmannii BB4291 d 0.5Virola michelii* WB255 D 1.0Use value subtotal 1.0 0.5 2.5No. species on plot 2 2 6Familialuse value 0.50 0.25 0.42MyrtaceaeEugenia brachypoda WB1135 b,c, e 1.5Eugenia sp. BB4432 a, d 1.0Genus indeterminedI BB4449 a 0.5Use value subtotal 1.5 1.5No. species on plot 2 3Familialuse value 0.75 0.50OlacaceaeMinquartia guianensis WB .... B 1.0Genus indetermined BB6656 a 0.5Use value subtotal 1.0 0.5No. species on plot 1 2Familialuse value 1.00 0.25OpiliaceaeAgonandra brasiliensis WB1I363 c 0.5ConservationBiologyVolume1,No. 4, December1987
  • 11. Pranceetal. QuantitativeEthnobotanyinAmazonia 305Table 1. ContinuedKaapor Tembe Chacobo PanareTaxon Voucher(s) Use Value Use Value Use Value Use ValueUse value subtotal 0.5No. species on plot 1Familialuse value 0.50PalmaeAstrocaryumaculeatum BB4159 A,C 2.0A mumbaca WB1406 a 0.5Euterpeoleracea* WB531 A,B, 3.5C, fE precatoria BB4151 A,B,c,d 3.0Jesseniabataua BB4538 A,b 1.5Mauritiaflexuosa* BB s.n. A,B 2.0Maximiliana maripa* BB4573, BB s.n. A,b,f 2.0 A,C 2.0Oenocarpusdistichus WB530,WBIIOI A,b, C 2.5 A,b, C 2.50. mapora BB4152 A,b, d 2.0Scheeleaprinceps BB4145 A,b,C,d 3.0Socratea exorrhiza BB4155 B, C, d 2.5Syagrusorinocensis BB6616 A 1.0Use value subtotal 6.0 3.0 16.0 5.0No. species on plot 2 2 7 4Familialuse value 3.00 1.50 2.29 1.25QuiinaceaeLacunaria jemani WB220 b 0.5Use value subtotal 0.5No. species on plot 1Familialuse value 0.50RubiaceaeAmaioua corymbosa BB6603 B 1.0A guianensis BB4300 B,d 1.5Calycophyllumacreanum BB4419 d 0.5Capirona decorticans BB4288 d 0.5Guettardaspruceana BB6652 a 0.5Palicourea grandifolia BB4106 d 0.5Use value subtotal 3.0 1.5No. species on plot 4 3Familialuse value 0.75 0.50RutaceaeFagara tenuifolia WB1298 b,c 1.0Use value subtotal 1.0No. species on plot 2Familialuse value 0.50SapindaceaeCupania scrobiculata WB11 a, c 1.0Talisia retusa WB506 a 0.5Use value subtotal 1.5No. species on plot 2Familialuse value 0.75SapotaceaeAchrouteriasp. 1 WB1 a 0.5Achrouteriasp. 2 WB522 a 0.5Franchetellaanibifolia WB250,WB1093 a, B 1.5 a, B 1.5F. gongrijpii WB215,WB1302 a, B 1.5 a,B 1.5F.sp. I WB8 a, B 1.5Manilkara huberi WB1157 a,B 1.5Micropholisguyanensis* BB4526 a,C, d 2.0Neoxythececladantha WB30 a, c, f 1.5N. elegans WB130 a,c 1.0Planchonella oblanceolata WB14 A,c 1.5Pouteria caimito WB349 A,c 1.5P. laurifoiza WB267 b 0.5ConservationBiologyVolume1,No. 4, December1987
  • 12. 306 QuantitativeEthnobotanyinAmazonia Pranceetal.Table 1. ContinuedKaapor Tembe Chacobo PanareTaxon Voucher(s) Use Value Use Value Use Value Use ValueP Sp. 1 WB412 b 0.5P. sp. 2 WB49 a 0.5Radlkoferellamacrocarpa WB1461 A,B 2.0Sprucella aerana WB144 a 0.5S guianensis WB238 a 0.5Genusindetermined1 WB519 a 0.5Genusindetermined2 BB6705 A 1.0Genusindetermined3 BB6681 A 1.0Use value subtotal 14.0 6.5 2.0 2.0No. species on plot 17 18 1 4Familialuse value 0.82 0.36 2.00 0.50SimaroubaceaeSimaba cedron WB1094 D 1.0Simarouba amara BB6630 d 0.5Use value subtotal 1.0 0.5No. species on plot 2 1Familialuse value 0.50 0.50SterculiaceaeSterculiapruriens WB2,WB1260 c 0.5 c 0.5Theobromagrandiflorum WB478,*WB1117 A 1.0 A 1.(T.speciosum BB4275 A,d 1.5Use value subtotal 1.5 1.5 1.5No. species on plot 2 2 1Familial use value 0.75 0.75 1.50TiliaceaeApeiba burchellii WB1536 c 0.5A echinata WB491, BB4259 c 0.5 c 0.5Use value subtotal 0.5 0.5 0.5No. species on plot 1 2 2Familialuse value 0.50 0.25 0.25UlmaceaeAmpeloceraedentula WB77 d 0.5Use value subtotal 0.5No. species on plot 1Familialuse value 0.50ViolaceaeRinoreaflavescens WB1172 c 0.5Use value subtotal 0.5No. species on plot 1Familialuse value 0.50VochysiaceaeQualea paraensis BB4298 a 0.5Vochysiavismiifolia BB4198 a, B, d 2.0Use value subtotal 2.5No. species on plot 2Familialuse value 1.2521.0 percent(25 /119) ofthespecies areused intech-nology;themoreimportantspecies areInga alba (Le-guminosae),fromthebarkofwhichisproduceda blackdyeforpaintingtheshamansgourdrattler,andLacmel-lea aculeata (Apocynaceae),thewood ofwhichisusedformakingspoonsand ladles.Speciesused fortechnol-ogyin theChacobo plotaccountfor18.1 percent( 17/94) ofthe species. The moreimportanttechnologicalspecies of the Chacobo includeAstrocaryumaculea-tum(Palmae), the"wood" ofwhichis carvedintohunt-ingbows andarrowpoints;Brosimumutile(Moraceae),the innerbark of which is made into barkcloth;andseveralspeciesthatsupplya fibrousinnerbarkforlash-ing material:Guatteria discolor, G. hyposericea,andXylopiapolyantha (Annonaceae),and Cecropiaficifo-lia andC. sciadophylla(Moraceae). In thePanareplot,ConservationBiologyVolume 1,No. 4, December 1987
  • 13. Pranceetal. QuantitativeEthnobotanyinAmazonia 3074.3 percent(3 /70) ofthe species are usefulfortech-nology; Cochlospermumorinocense (Bixaceae) andLecythiscorrugata(Lecythidaceae) provide a fibrousinnerbarkthatis used to make tumplinesforburdenbaskets,and the leaves ofMaximiliana maripa (Pai-mae) arewoven intotheburdenbasketsthemselves.RemedySpeciesusefulinmajororminorwaysinthepreparationof remediesaccount for21.2 percent(21 /99) of thespecies on theKaaporplot;importantremediescomefromspecies such as Parahancornia amapa (Apocyn-aceae), thelatexofwhichis takenorallyto treatstom-ach ailments,and Virola michelii(Myristicaceae),thesapofwhichisused totreatcankersores.On theTembeplot,10.9percent( 13/119) ofthespecieshavemedic-inal application;importantspecies include Dipteryxodorata (Leguminosae),theoil ofwhichis used to al-leviate earache, and Carapa guianensis (Meliaceae),theoil ofwhichisrubbedonthebodytorepelblackflies(Simulium spp.). The Chaicoboindicatethat35.1 per-cent (33 /94) of the species on theplot are usefulasremedies;examplesinclude two species ofRubiaceae,Calycophyllumacreanum and Capirona decorticans,the barksof which are dried,powdered,mixed withwaterto forma paste,and applied to skinwounds topreventor cure infections.In thePanareplot,7.1 per-cent(5 /70) ofthespeciesareused medicinally;impor-tantspecies in thiscategoryincludeTabebuia serrati-folia (Bignoniaceae), the barkof which is used as aremedyforstomachailments,and Simarouba amara(Simaroubaceae),whichis employedto treatsnakebite.CommerceRelativelyfew species of plants are commercializedfromthe forestplots of any of the fourindigenousgroupsstudied,because oftheirrelativelyisolatedsitu-ations.In the cases of the Kaapor and Tembe, thesespecies are used in minorcommercialways,while fortheChacobo andPanare,thecommercializationofsomespeciesisa majorpartoftheirpresentculture.FromtheTable 2. Most importantspecies to the Kaapor (with usevalues of 2 or more). Nonsubstitutable species (*); speciesexclusively of terrafirmedense forest(t).Species and Family Use ValueEuterpe oleracea (Palmae)* 3.5Licania heteromorpha (Chrysobalanaceae)t 3.0Oenocarpus distichus (Palmae) 2.5Fusaea longifolia (Annonaceae)t 2.5Lacmellea aculeata (Apocynaceae)t 2.5Tetragastris altissima (Burseraceae)t 2.0Symphonia globulifera (Guttiferae)* 2.0Eschweilera coriacea (Lecythidaceae)t 2.0Carapa guianensis (Meliaceae)* 2.0Table 3. Most importantspecies to the Tembe (with usevalues of 2 or more). Nonsubstitutable species (*); speciesexclusively of terrafirmedense forest(t).Speciesand Family Use ValueDipteryxodorata (Leguminosae)* 3.0Carapa guianensis (Meliaceae)* 3.0Couepia guianensis (Chrysobalanaceae)t 3.0Licania sp. 3 (Chrysobalanaceae)t 3.0Inga alba (Leguminosae) 2.5Oenocarpusdistichus(Palmae) 2.5Anaxagorea brevipes(Annonaceae)t 2.0Fusaea longifolia(Annonaceae)t 2.0Tetragastrisaltissima (Burseraceae)t 2.0Radlkoferellamacrocarpa (Sapotaceae) 2.0Kaaporplot,2.0 percent(2 /99) ofthe species are inthis category. These are Licania heteromorpha(Chrysobalanaceae),the dye obtainedis used to paintCrescentiacujete(Bignoniaceae) bowls,which in turnaresoldas souvenirson a verysmallscale,andSympho-nia globulifera(Guttiferae),thelatexofwhichis usedto glueandblackenpartsofarrows,whicharealso soldon a verysmallscale as souvenirs.In theTembeplot,5.0percent(6 /119) ofthespeciesarecommercialized;ex-amplesincludeProtiumspp. (Burseraceae), theresinsofwhicharesold on a smallscale forboatcaulking,andLicania sp. 3 (Chrysobalanaceae),the dye obtainedisused to decorateCrescentiacujetebowls sold as souve-nirs.In no case does commercializationof these treespeciesinvolvedestructionofthetreeitself.CollectionoflatexfromSymphoniaglobuliferainvolvesnonlethalscoringofthetree;resinfromProtiumspp.is collectedfromthe groundafterit is naturallyexuded fromthetree.ObtainingbarkfromLicania spp.tobe used inthepreparationofdye does notinvolvethegirdlingofthetree;theIndiansaffirmthattheirpracticeofstrippingoffbarkpieces on one sideofthetreedoes notkillit.Inthecase of the Chacobo,only 1.1 percent(1 /94) of thespecies are commercialized;thelatexfromHevea bra-siliensis(Euphorbiaceae) is collected and,aftercuringand coagulatingtheliquidrubberoverfireandformingitintolarge,oblongballs,itis takento marketforsale.Table 4. Most importantspecies to the Chacobo (with usevalues of 2 or more). Nonsubstitutable species (*).Speciesand Families Use ValueEuterpeprecatoria(Palmae) 3.0Scheeleaprinceps(Palmae) 3.0Socratea exorrhiza(Palmae) 2.5Astrocaryumaculeatum (Palmae) 2.0Maximiliana maripa (Palmae)* 2.0Oenocarpusmapora (Palmae) 2.0Licania octandra (Chrysobalanaceae) 2.0Brosimumutile(Moraceae) 2.0Ficus nymphaeifolia(Moraceae) 2.0Micropholisguyanensis(Sapotaceae)* 2.0Vochysiavismiifolia(Vochysiaceae) 2.0ConservationBiologyVolume1,No.4,December1987
  • 14. 308 QuantitativeEthnobotanyinAmazonia Pranceetal.Table 5. Most importantspecies to the Panare (with usevalues of 2 or more). Nonsubstitutable species (*).Speciesand Family Use ValueMauritiaflexuosa (Palmae)* 2.0Maximiliana maripa (Palmae)* 2.0This rubberis the Chacobos principalsource ofcash;Brazilnuts(Bertholletiaexcelsa) are also collectedforsalebutbecausenotreesofthisspeciesoccurredinthein-ventoryplot,theseare not consideredhere.FromthePanareplot,4.3 percent(3 /70) ofthespeciesareinthecommercialcategory;the most importantof these isDipteryxpunctata (Leguminosae),theseeds ofwhichare collected and sold forthe extractionofcoumarin.The othertwo Panarecommercialtreespecies are lessimportant:the red exudate fromSwartzia laevicarpa(Leguminosae) is used to paintdecorativebasketsthataresold as souvenirs,whilethebarkofCasearia sylves-tris(Flacourtiaceae) is burnedtoproducea blackpaintthatis likewiseappliedto decorativebaskets.OtherSpecies in the "other"categoryofuse accountfor8.5percent(9 /99) ofthespecies on theKaaporplot;anexample is Tetragastrisaltissima (Burseraceae), thewood ofwhichis used as a fermentationcatalyst(seeabove). On theTembeplot 4.2 percent(5 /119) ofthespecies areinthiscategory;an exampleisSagotia race-mosa (Euphorbiaceae),thefragrantrootsofwhichthehunterrubson hisbody to become luckyin thehunt.On theChacobo plot 1.1percent(1 /94) ofthespeciesareinthe"other"category;thespatheofMaximilianamaripa(Palmae) isusedas a toybychildren.InthecaseofthePanaretherewere no usefultreespecies in theplot thatwere not includedin the categoriesalreadydiscussedabove.FromTable 1 it is possible to summarizethe mostusefulspecies andfamiliesto each groupfromtheplotsstudied.Tables 2-5 listthe mostusefulspecies (withvaluesof2 ormore) foreach group.Those species thatare not substitutable,insofaras no otherplantspeciescan be used in place ofthemfora givenpurposein agivenculture,areindicated,as arethoseamongthenon-substitutablefoundonlyin terrafirmedense forest.OfTable 6. Most importantfamilies to the Kaapor (withfamilial use values of 1 or more).Family Familial Use ValuesPalmae 3.00Apocynaceae 1.75Guttiferae 1.50Chrysobalanaceae 1.29Malpighiaceae 1.00Lecythidaceae 1.00Table 7. Most importantfamilies to the Tembe (with familialuse values of 1 or more).Family Familial Use ValuePalmae 1.50Chrysobalanaceae 1.39Annonaceae 1.25Lauraceae 1.08Malpighiaceae 1.00Meliaceae 1.00the9 species listedin Table 2, whichare thosewithause valueof2.0 ormoretotheKaapor,5 (55.5 percent)seem to be exclusivelyofterrafirmedense forest(i.e.,theyarenotencounteredin old swiddens,swiddenfal-lows,or theswampforest).Of the 10 species listedinTable 3,whicharethosewitha use valueof2.0 ormoreto theTembe,5 (50 percent)seem tobe exclusivelyofterrafirmedenseforest.Tables6-9 listthefamilieswiththe highestfamilialuse values (with values of 1 ormore).ExamplesofnonsubstitutablespeciesincludeEuterpeoleracea (Palmae), used for bench making by theKaapor; Symphonia globulifera (Guttiferae),whichservesas a contraceptive;and Carapa guianensis (Me-liaceae), whichis used as an insectrepellent(Table 2).To theTembe,onlyDipteryxodorata (Leguminosae)isused to relieveearache,and onlyCarapa guianensis isusefulas an insectrepellent.Ofthemostimportantspe-cies to theKaapor,8 (88.8 percent)are exclusivelyofterrafirmedenseforestand/ornonsubstitutable;ofthemostimportantspecies to the Tembe, 7 (70 percent)are exclusivelyofterrafirmedense forestand/or non-substitutable.The totalnumberofnonsubstitutabletreespeciesfromtheKaaporplotis 6 (6 percentofall spe-cies), and thetotalnumberofnonsubstitutablespeciesfromthe Tembe plot is 2 (1.7 percentof all species)(see Table 1).The overallresultsofour analysisare summarizedinTables 10 and 11. Table 10 shows the percentagesofusefultreespecies,arrangedbycategoryofuse,ineachofthefourinventoryplots.Table 11 showsthepercent-age oftotalusefultreespecies,irrespectiveofcategoryofuse, in each ofthefourinventoryplots.ConclusionsOur datadefinitelyconfirmtheassertionthattheterrafirmerainforestsofAmazoniacontainan exceptionallyTable 8. Most importantfamilies to the Chacobo (withfamilial use values of 1 or more).Family Familial Use ValuePalmae 2.29Sapotaceae 2.00Sterculiaceae 1.50Vochysiaceae 1.25ConservationBiologyVolume 1,No. 4, December 1987
  • 15. Pranceetal. QuantitativeEthnobotanyinAmazonia 309Table 9. Most importantfamilies to the Panare (with familialuse values of 1 or more).Family Familial Use ValuePalmae 1.25Bignoniaceae 1.00Bixaceae 1.00Lecythidaceae 1.00large numberof usefulspecies. The majorityof treespecies fromfourterrafirmeplots of 1 ha each areusefulto fourrespectiveindigenousgroups,at leastintheuse categorieswe have definedhere.Our datafur-thershow thatsome ofthe treespecies ofterrafirmeforestareusefultotheIndiansinnonsubstitutableways.Some species,in otherwords,are irreplaceableinsofaras theyarethesole speciesemployedtoachievecultur-allydesirableends.Ofcourse,thenotionof"useful"species variesfromculturetoculture:forexample,numerousspeciesinourdata are also high-qualitytimberspecies (such as Mez-ilaurus itauba, Carapa guianensis,and Tabebuia ser-ratifolia), which outside of indigenouscontextsareused on an industrialbasis.Our datadeal onlywiththeuses nonindustrial,indigenousAmazonianshave forthesespecies,whicharefarmorediversethantheusesto which thesespecies are put in Westernsociety.Al-thoughwe have not discussedtreesforfirewoodandtreesthatattractgame,whichaccountforthevastma-jorityof the species on the Kaapor and Tembe plots(Balee 1986, 1987), it is neverthelessinterestingtheextentto whichall fourplotsofforestare usefulto allgroupsin waysthatare less commonlyrepresented.Species usefulforidenticalpurposesamongdifferentgroupscertainlyvary,partlyas a functionofphytogeo-graphicdifferences.For example,theKaaporuse spe-cies ofTabebuia andBrosimumin makingtheirbows,whiletheChacobo useAstrocaryumaculeatum forthispurpose(see above). Astrocaryumaculeatum has notyet been collected in the Kaapor region,ifindeed itexiststhere.In otherwords,differentsuitesofspecies(i.e., endemism)withingivenAmazonianforestsdo notaffecttheutilityof theseforestsper se to comparableindigenouscultures.Rather,endemismcombinedwiththe highindigenousutilityof all forestsin thissurveysuggeststhattheconservationofonlyone ora fewblocsTable 10. Percentage of useful tree species of all species onplots foreach indigenous group by use categories.Use Category Kaapor Tembe Chdcobo Panarefood 34.3 21.8 40.4 34.3construction 20.2 30.3 17.0 2.9technology 19.2 21.0 18.1 4.3remedy 21.2 10.9 35.1 7.1commerce 2.0 5.0 1.1 4.3other 8.1 4.2 1.1 0.0Table 11. Percentage of useful species (in all categoriesspecified) per hectare plot to the indigenous groups studied.Percentageof usefultreeIndigenousgroup speciesfrominventorysitesKaapor 76.8Tembe 61.3Chacobo 78.7Panare 48.6offorestwouldpreserve,infact,manyusefulAmazonianspecies oftrees.The implicationsforconservationpol-icyareinescapable:manyreservesare needed through-outAmazonia.Finally,our resultssuggestthatcertainplantfamiliesandtheforesttypeterrafirmedenseforestshouldbe ofhighpriorityforconservation.Itis quiteinterestingthatthepalmfamilyranksconsistentlyamongthosefamilieswiththe highestuse values forall fourgroups.Palmshave often been described as the "grasses of thetropics,"so usefulare theyto those who depend onthem.We have offeredherea positivequantitativetestof this intuitivestatement.Other familiesthat rankamongthehighestin termsoffamilialuse valuesforatleast two of the fourgroups include Lecythidaceae(Kaapor and Panare), Chrysobalanaceae(Kaapor andTembe),andMalpighiaceae(Kaapor andTembe). Someof the most importantplant familiesare distributedmostlyinterrafirmeforest,meaningthatthisforesttypeshouldbe a priorityforconservation.These importantfamiliescontainmanyoutstandingusefulspecieswhich,inadditionto otherusefulspecieswithhighuse valuesand nonsubstitutablespecies not of these families,shouldbe carefullystudied,withthe aim ofmanagingandperhapsdomesticatingthem.LiteratureCitedAlcorn,J.B. 1981. Some factorsinfluencingbotanical re-sources perception among the Haustec. J. Ethnobiology1:221-230.Balee, W. 1986. Analisepreliminarde inventarioflorestale aetnobotanicaKaapor(Maranhao).Boletimdo MuseuParaenseEmilioGoeldi 2(2):141-167.. 1987. A etnobotanicaquantitativados indiosTembe(Rio Gurupi,Para).Boletimdo MuseuParaenseEmilioGoeldi,Botanica,3(1):29-50.Berlin,B.,D. E. Breedlove,andP.H. Raven.1974. PrinciplesofTzeltalplantclassification.Academic Press,New York,NewYork,USA.Boom,B.M. 1985. AmazonianIndiansand theforestenviron-ment.Nature314:324.. 1986a The Chacobo Indiansand theirpalms.Prin-cipes 30:63-70.ConservationBiologyVolume 1,No. 4, December 1987
  • 16. 310 QuantitativeEthnobotanyinAmazonia Pranceetal.. 1986b. A forestinventoryinAmazonianBolivia.Bio-tropica18:287-294.. 1987. EthnobotanyoftheChacobo Indians,Beni,Bo-livia.Advancesin EconomicBotany4:1-68.Carneiro,R.L. 1978. The knowledgeand use of rainforesttreesbytheKuikuruIndiansofCentralBrazil.Pages201-216in R.I. Ford,editor.The natureand statusof ethnobotany.UniversityofMichiganPress,AnnArbor,Michigan,USA.Fearnside,P.M. 1985. Environmentalchange and deforesta-tion in the BrazilianAmazon.Pages 70-89 in J. Hemming,editor.Change in theAmazonbasin,vol. 1. ManchesterUni-versityPress,Manchester,U.KHenley,P. 1982. The Panare,traditionandchangeon theAm-azonianfrontier.Yale UniversityPress,New Haven,Connect-icut,USA.Kroeber,A.L. 1920. Reviewofuses ofplantsbytheIndiansoftheMissouriRiverregion,byMelvinRandolphGilmore.Amer-ican Anthropologist22:384-385.Morris,W.,editor.1973. TheAmericanHeritageDictionaryoftheEnglishLanguage.HoughtonMifflinCo.,Boston,Massachu-setts,USA.Myers,N. 1982. Deforestationin thetropics:who wins,wholoses.Pages 1-24 inV.H. Sutliveetal.,editors.Wherehavealltheflowersgone?DeforestationintheThirdWorld.StudiesinThirdWorldSocieties,no. 13. College ofWilliamand Mary,Williamsburg,Virginia,USA.Prance,G.T. 1972. An ethnobotanicalcomparisonof fourtribesofAmazonianIndians.ActaAmazonica2(2):7-27.Prost,M.D. 1970.Costumbres,habilidades,ycuadrode la vidahumanaentrelos Chacobos. InstitutoLinguisticodel Verano;Riberalta,Bolivia.Ribeiro,D. 1970. Os indios e a civilizacao:a integracAaodaspopulac6es indigenasno Brasilmoderno.EditoraCivilizacaoBrasileira,Rio de Janeiro,Brasil.terWelle,B.J.H. 1976. On theoccurrenceofsilicagrainsinthe secondaryxylem of Chrysobalanaceae.IAWA Bulletin2:19-29.Wagley,C. & E. Glavao. 1949. The TeneteharaIndiansofBra-zil: a culturein transition.Columbia UniversityPress,NewYork,New York,USA.ConservationBiologyVolume 1,No. 4, December 1987