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

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Quantitative ethnobotany and the case for conservation in amazonia



Published in Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. Society for Conservation Biology Quantitative Ethnobotany and the Case for Conservation in Amazonia Author(s): G. T. Prance, W. Balee, B. M. Boom, R. L. Carneiro Source: Conservation Biology, Vol. 1, No. 4 (Dec., 1987), pp. 296-310 Published by: Blackwell Publishing for Society for Conservation Biology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2386015 . Accessed: 31/05/2011 18:03 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may 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 printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Blackwell Publishing and Society for Conservation Biology are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Conservation Biology. http://www.jstor.org
  • 2. ContributedPapers QuantitativeEtlnobotanyandtheCase forConservationinAmazonia* G. T. PRANCEt W. BALEE B. M. BOOM InstituteofEconomicBotany New YorkBotanicalGarden Bronx,NewYork10458 R. L. CARNEIRO DepartmentofAnthropology AmericanMuseumofNaturalHistory CentralParkWestat 79thStreet NewYork,NewYork10024 Abstract:Quantitativedata arepresentedon theuse of treesin terrafirmedenseforestbyfour indigenous Amazonian groups:theKa'apor and Tembe,bothTupi- Guarani-speakinggroupsofBrazil; thePanare, a Car- iban-speakinggroupofVenezuela;and theChacobo,a Panoan-speaking group of Bolivia In each case, an ethnoecologicalforestinventorywas conductedof a 1-hectareparcel offorestAll treesat least 10 centime- tersdiameterat breastheight(DBH) weremarked,and botanical specimens were collected.Specimenswere presentedto indigenousinformantstogatherdata on use.Based on theseinterviewsand theidentificationof specimens collected,it was possible to calculate the percentage of treespecies on each hectarethat was useful to each group: Ka'apor, 768 percent;Tembe, 61.3 percent;Panare, 48.6 percent;Chacobo, 78.7per- cent Furthermore,by dividingthetreesinto various use categories(food,construction,technology,remedy, commerce,and other),and designatingthecultural importanceof each species as "major" or "minor,"it was possible to devisea "use value" for each species, and by summation,for each plant family.Based on thesecalculations, itwas determinedthatthePalmae was the most usefulfamilyfor all four indigenous groups. Our data supporttheassertionthattheterra *Thispaper ispublication No. 54 of theNew YorkBotanical Gar- den'sInstituteofEconomic Botany. t Correspondenceand requestsfor reprintsshould be addressedto thisauthor PapersubmittedMarch5, 1987; revisedmanuscriptacceptedJulv31, 1987. Resumen: Se presentandatos cuantitativossobre el uso de arboles en bosques densos de terrafirme,por cuatrogruposde indi'genasamazonicos: los Ka'apory los Tembe,brasileniosde la familia lingui'sticaTupi- 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 se hizo un inventarioforestaletnoecologicoen una par- cela de bosque de una hectarea;se marcarontodoslos arbolesdepor lo menos10 cmde diametroa la altura delpecho (DAP), se colectaronmuestrasbotanicasy se mostrarona los indg'enaspara obtenerdatos acerca de su uso. Basados en las entrevistasy la identifica- cion de los especi'menescolectadosfueposible calcular los siguientesporcentajes de especies arboreas uttiles para cada grupo: 768% para los Ka'apor, 61.3% para los Tembe,48.6% para los Panare y 78.7% para los Chacobo.Ademas,dividiendolos arbolesen variascat- egorias de uso (alimento, construccion,tecnologi'a, medicina,comercioy otros),y designando la impor- tancia cultural de cada especie como "mayor" o "menor"fue posible estimarun "valor de uso" para cada especiey un "valor total"para cada familia de plantas. Estosdatos indicanque lafamilia Palmae era la mas uttilparalos cuatrogrupos.Nuestrosdatossus- tentanla afirmacionde que los bosques lluviosos de terrafirmecontienen un numero excepcionalmente grande de especies uttilesy que ciertasfamilias de plantas (e.g.,Palmae) merecenespecial atencion en terminosde conservacion.El hechode que cada grupo indg'ena tenga diferentescolecciones de especies es mas un reflejode endemismovegetalen laAmazoni'a 296 ConservationBiology Volume 1,No. 4, December 1987
  • 3. Pranceetal QuantitativeEthnobotanyinAmazonia 297 firmerainforestsofAmazonia contain an exception- ally large numberof usefulspecies and thatcertain plantfamilies (e.g.,Palmae) deservespecial consider- ation in termsof conservation.Thefact thateach in- digenousgrouphas differentsuitesofmostusefulspe- cies is, in fact, more a reflectionofplant endemism withinAmazonia thaninterculturaldifferencesperse. High indigenousplant use combinedwithhighende- mism has importantimplicationsfor conservation policy: many reservesare needed throughoutAmazo- nia Introduction The usefulnessofAmazonianforestsas demonstratedby indigenouspeopleswhodependon themhasoftenbeen cited as one reason,amongothers,forconservationof theseforests(e.g., Myers1982, Fearnside1985). Upon searchingtheliterature,however,we foundfewquan- titativedata to supportthisclaim.We designed,there- fore,a quantitativestudytoshowhowusefulAmazonian forestsareto indigenousAmazonianpeoples intermsof thenumberand proportionofusefulspecies and fami- liestherein.The purposeofthisarticleis topresentour quantitativedata on theuse oftreesin four1-hectare plotsofterrafirmedenseforestbyfourindigenousAm- azoniangroups,and to show thevalue ofthesedata to the fieldof conservation.We have also attemptedto quantifytheusefulnessoftheprincipalspeciesandplant familiesinvolvedinourstudy.Forestinventoriesof1ha were taken in the habitats of the Ka'apor, Tembe, Chacobo,andPanareIndians.Herewe reporttheutility oftreesgreaterthanor equal to 10 centimetersdiame- terat breastheight(DBH) fromtheseplotsto each of thefourgroups.Some oftheseresultshave been else- where discussed (Balee 1986, 1987; Boom 1985, 1986a, 1986b, 1987), emphasizingextraordinarilyhigh percentagesoftreespeciesandindividualtreesfromthe plotsthatareusefulinone or morewaysto theIndians concerned. In these earlier studies,uses were very broadlydefined,such thatany species thatcould be usedforfirewoodandanyspeciesthatborepartsedible forgame animals,ifusefulfornothingelse (such as supplyingediblepartsforpeople,constructionmaterial, technologicalitems,and medicine) were also consid- ered to be useful,atleastin one or bothoftheseways. Thus,Balee (1986, 1987) found 100 percentuse for both terrafirmeplots by the Ka'apor and Tembe,and Boom (1987, personalcommunication)found82 per- centuse fortheChacobo and49 percentforthePanare, usingthesecategories.We define"use" morenarrowly here. In thispaperwe do notdiscussplantsthatsupplyonly fuel and/orattractgame animals,upon which indige- nous diets depend,not because theseare not a priori que diferenciasinterculturalesper se. El gran uso de plantas nativas combinado con el alto endemismo tieneimplicacionespara la poli'tica de conservacion: se necesitanmuchasreservasa trave'sde la Amazoni'a useful,butratherbecause thevastmajorityoftreesfall intoone orbothofthesecategoriesanyway.Instead,we would attempttocalculatethevalueoftreespecies and familiesin termsof indigenouslyrecognizeduses less regularlydistributedthroughoutthecorpusofour eth- nographicdataandbotanicalcollections.The objective is to evaluatethetreespecies andfamiliesthatseem to be mostusefulto allfourindigenousgroupsand to rec- ommendmeasuresto protectthese species and their associatedhabitats. MaterialsandMethods The fourgroups on which this paper focuses speak languagesof three differentlinguisticfamilies:Tupi- Guarani(Ka'apor and Tembe), Panoan(Ch'acobo), and Cariban(Panare). They reside withinthe frontiersof threedifferentAmazoniancountries:Brazil(Ka'apor and Tembe), Bolivia (Chacobo), and Venezuela (Panare). Theircontacthistoriesandpopulationsareall different. The Ka'aporwere pacifiedin 1928 (Ribeiro 1970), and theTembe inthe 1850's (Wagley& Galvao 1949). The SummerInstituteof Linguisticsfirsteffectivelycon- tactedtheChacobo in 1955 (Prost 1970). The Panare have been more or less in contact with non-Indians sincethefirstSpanishexplorersenteredthemiddleOri- noco regionin the 1600s (Henley 1982). Grouppopulationsare:Ka'apor(ca 500), Tembe (ca 156), Chacobo (ca 400), and Panare(ca 2000). With theexceptionoftheKa'aporandTembe,who residein adjacentterritories,thesegroupsoccupydifferenttypes of forestin termsof species compositionand domi- nance.Despite thesedifferences,we believe thatthere arebroadsimilaritiesin termsofthewaysthesepeople use theforestandthefamilies,ifnotgeneraandspecies, oftreesthatare mostusefulto them. The methodcommon to all these studieswas the hectare forestinventory(cf Boom 1986b). Kroeber (1920), in a critiqueof ethnobotanicalstudiesof his time,suggestedthatsuch studiesbecome morequanti- tative.Carneiro(1978) was the firstto estimatethe percentageofusefultreesper plot ofland to the Car- Conser-vationBiology Volume 1,No. 4, December 1987
  • 4. 298 QuantitativeEthnobotanyinAmazonia Pranceetal. iban-speakingKuikuruoftheupperXinguRiverbasin,in BrazilianAmazonia.One can inferthatthepercentageof usefultreesnamedbytheKuikurufromthisplotwas 76 percent,accordingto Carneiro'sdata(Carneiro 1978). Since Carneiro did not, however, obtain herbarium specimens,one cannotdeterminetheactualpercentage of usefulspecies to the Kuikuru.The currentproject originatedas an attemptto combineethnologicaldata onplantutilitywiththebotanicaldocumentationofher- bariumvouchers. CategoriesofPlantUse The data on plantutilityreflectdeclarationsmade by indigenousinformantscombinedwithour own obser- vationsoftheculturaldeploymentofplantsineach eth- nographiccase. In no case, incidentally,do informants' accountsdisagreewithsuch observations. To compare the resultsof these studies,we divide uses oftreesfromthe inventoryplots intothesecate- gories:a) "edible"(includingparts,suchas fruits,seeds, and latex,which people consume), b) "construction material"(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"(for sinusitis,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 intheindigenousclassificationof uses, ifsuch a classificationwould be reflectedin the lexiconsoftheselanguages,aswe believeitis(cfBerlin et al. 1974). In fact,onlyone categorymaybe consideredto be readilyrecognizedby the Indiansthemselves,as dem- onstratedin the indigenouslexicons.This categoryis "edible."The Ka'aporand Tembe,forexample,readily identifythiscategoryas ma'e u'u awa ("what people eat") or awa mi'u ("people's food") and distinguishit from,forexample,so'o mi'u ("game animalfood" in Ka'apor) and miyar mi'u ("game animal food" in Tembe). The othercategoriesmaybe consideredto be artificialconstructsbased on our own collapsingofin- digenoususe categories,since thesecategoriesare not readilynamed in anyof thefourlanguagesexcept by circumlocutions(see Berlinet al. 1974). No singleor shortset of termscoversthe semantic rangeof"constructionmaterial,"as heredefined,inany of these languages.Rather,house beams,posts,ridge- poles, thatchingmaterial,canoe-buildingmaterial,and thelike,are all individuallynamed.No indigenousterm inanyofthefourlanguagesapproximateswhatwe term "technology."Rather,arrow points,lashing material fromthebarkoftrees,glues,dyes,soaps,and so on are individuallynamed.One ofthemostdifflcultcategories to defineis thatof"remedy."The mostcommonAmer- ican Englishsense oftheterm"remedy"is "something, suchas medicationor therapy,thatrelievespain,cures disease,or correctsa disorder"(Morris 1973). Such is notthecase withtherangeofmeaningoftermssuchas puhan (Ka'apor) and pohang (Tembe), which cover notonlythe mostcommonAmericanEnglishsense of "remedy,"but much more. The best gloss for these termsis, in fact,"catalyst"(i.e., thatwhich induces change). Thus,forexample,the wood of Tetragastris altissima is believed by the Ka'apor to be a Kawii- puhan ("beer catalyst"),insofaras when itis added to thebrewingceremonialbeer (kawi), it is believed to effecta stronger,morepotentbrew.Thisuse oftheterm puhan seemsto go beyondtheAmericanEnglishsense ofthenoun "remedy."Atthesame time,however,pu- han refersto "remedy"in a conventionalsense. Drink- ing a decoction of the barkofFusaea longifolia,for example,is believed by the Ka'apor to be a "diarrhea remedy"(marikahipuhan). We includeunderthecat- egory"remedy"onlythosespeciesforwhichinformants statea testableapplicationtoa humanillness;thatis,the culturallyprescribedapplication,processualtreatment, and effectsoftheplanton a givenillnessare statedby informantsin such a way as to be falsifiable.Plantuses thatare untestablein termsoftheindigenousformula- tionoftheirapplication,givenlimitationsinthepresent toolsofethnobotanicalscience,are placed in thecate- gory"magic"or "other." The category"commerce" is not lexically distin- guishedin theselanguagesfromeconomic reciprocity. In Ka'apor,forexample,thewordfor"giving"(me'e) is thesame as thatfor"selling." Havingdefinedthe range of meaningof these use categories,bothintermsofindigenousperceptions(Al- corn 1981) and our own observations,we would dis- tinguishquantitativelythe relativeutilityof specific plantsingivensituationsinthesameterms.Someplants are clearlymore usefulthan othersforspecificpur- poses,thatis,theyare explicitlypreferredby theIndi- ans themselvesfora givenpurpose over otherplants thatcan also fulfillthatpurpose,but to a less desirable degree.For example,the Ka'apor distinguishbetween "quite edible" (u'u-ate-awa) and "less edible" (u'u- we-awa). Thus,itseems illogicalto weigh equally,for example,thesmall,insignificantyetsweetfruitsofPro- tiumspp. (Burseraceae),whichin Ka'apor societyare generallyeatenonlybychildrenand are nevertheob- jectsofintensivegatheringandeconomicexchangeand thesubstantialfruitsofTheobromagrandiflorum(Ster- culiaceae), which are muchsoughtafteritemsoffood distributionamongtheKa'apor.In otherwords,Theo- bromagrandiflorumfruitsare moreimportantto the ConservationBiology Volume 1,No. 4, December 1987
  • 5. Pranceetal. QuantitativeEthnobotanyinAmazonia 299 Ka'apor thanProtiumspp. fruitsin an indigenousand objectivesense,thatis,in termsoftheiredibility.The same distinction-moreimportantversusless impor- tant-can be appliedto plantsin each oftheothercat- egoriesof use, accordingto indigenousaccounts and our own observationsof the extentto which people seek out certainplantsvis-a-visothersthatare never- thelessall usefulforapproximatelythesame ends. Therefore,in evaluatingand comparingtheutilityof species,each majoruse ofa plantis countedas 1.0 and each minoruse as 0.5. We woulddefinetheuse valueof a species as thesumofthevaluescorrespondingto its major and/orminoruse(s) in each culture.Thus,ifa species (i.e., some ofitsparts)can be used as a major technologicalitem and at the same time serves as a minorremedy,possessingno otherknownuses to the culturein question,thentheuse valueofthespeciesis 1.5 (1 + 0.5). To calculate thefamilialuse value per hectareplot,we sumtheuse valuesofeach speciesina familyand divideby the numberofall species in that family,whetherusefulor not,occurringon the plot (althoughspecieswithno use value,asheredefined,are excluded fromour species listotherwise).This is di- videdto counterthehighfamilialuse valuesthatwould accruetofamiliesthatcontainmanyspeciesusefulonly in minorways(as withBurseraceaeto theKa'apor). ResultsandDiscussion Table 1 shows the resultsof the hectareinventories among the Ka'apor,Tembe, Ch'acobo,and Panare,re- spectively.Collectionnumbersonlyforusefulspecies occurringon each oftheplotsaregiven.In thecolumn "uses," codes forthe major and minoruses are indi- cated.Majoruses,whichareassigneda use valueof1.0, are indicatedbya capitalletter;minoruses,whichare assigneda use value of 0.5, are indicatedby a small letter. Most species of treesoccurringon the Ka'apor and Tembeplotswereuseful,as heredefined,inatleastone way.Ofthe99 speciesoccurringon theKa'aporplot,76 (76.8% ) wereusefulinsomeway;ofthe119 specieson theTembeplot,73 (61.3% ) wereusefulinsomeway;of the94 species on theChacobo plot,74 (78.7% ) were usefulinsomeway;ofthe70 specieson thePanareplot, 34 (48.6% ) were usefulinsomeway.The specificuses ofspeciesfromthefourplotsarenowdiscussed,details ofwhichare all summarizedin Table 1. Food Ofthe99 species on theKa'aporplot,34 (34.3% ) are majoror minorfoodplants;themoreimportantspecies include Euterpe oleracea (Palmae) and Theobroma grandiflorum(Sterculiaceae). Of the 199 species oc- curringon the Tembe plot,26 (21.8%) are majoror minorfoodplants;themoreimportantspecies include Oenocarpus distichus(Palmae) and Pourouma guia- nensis(Moraceae). Of the94 species on the Chacobo plot,38 (40.4% ) are major or minorfood plants;the moreimportantspeciesarefivepalms,Astrocaryumac- uleatum, Jessenia bataua, Maximiliana maripa, Oenocarpus mapora, and Scheeleaprinceps,and four Moraceae,Pourouma cecropi i folia, P. guianensis, Pseudolmedia laevis, and P. macrophylla.Of the 70 species occurringon the Panareplot,24 (34.3% ) are major or minorfood plants;the more importantare Mauritiaflexuosa (Palmae), Parinari excelsa (Chryso- balanaceae), and an as-yet-unidentifiedspecies in the Sapotaceae. ConstructionMaterial Speciesusefulinmajorandminorwaysforconstruction accountfor20.2 percent(20 /99) ofthe species from the Ka'apor plot; the more importantspecies include Fusea longifolia (Annonaceae) and Licania spp. (Chrysobalanaceae),which are used as raftersand tie- beams.The reasonforuse ofLicania spp. is clear:itis rot-resistantpartlybecause of the abundance of silica foundin theraysofitswood (Prance 1972, terWelle 1976), which discouragestermiteinfestations.In the Tembe plot,30.3 percent(36 /119) species are useful forconstruction;themoreimportantspecies areMin- quartia guianensis (Olacaceae), which is one ofonly two species used forhouse posts and Xylopia nitida (Annonaceae), commonly used for ridgepoles. The Tembeso valueMinquartiaguianensis forhouseposts thatthereis a taboo on itsuse as firewood:ifburned,it is believed thatnumerousvillagedeathswould ensue. On theChacobo plot,17.0 percent(16 /94) ofthespe- cies are sources of constructionmaterials.The more importantChacobo speciesforhousepostsareLindack- eria paludosa (Flacourtiaceae),Amaioua guianensis (Rubiaceae),Mezilaurus itauba (Lauraceae), andthree species of Sclerolobium (Leguminosae); Vochysia vismiifolia(Vochysiaceae) and Diplotropispurpurea (Leguminosae)furnishdurablewood fortheconstruc- tionofsimplebridgesoversmallstreams.In thePanare plot,only2.9 percent(2 /70) ofthespecies areused in construction;Mauritia flexuosa (Palmae) furnishes leavesforroofthatchon houses,andAmaioua corym- bosa (Rubiaceae) isa preferredspeciesforhouseframe- workconstructionbecause ofitsdurablewood. Technology Species used in major or minorways fortechnology account for 19.2 percent (19/99) of the species in Ka'aporplot;themoreimportantspecies includeLica- nia membranacea (Chrysobalanaceae), the ashes of whichareused inmakingpotterytemper,andLecythis idatimon (Lecythidaceae),fromthe barkof which is madehighqualitylashingmaterial.On theTembe plot, ConservationBiology Volume 1,No. 4, December 1987
  • 6. 300 QuantitativeEthnobotanyinAmazonia Pranceetal. Table 1. Ka'apor, Tembe, Chacobo, and Panare useful tree species in 1-ha forestplots. Voucher numbers are forcollections of W. 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 terra firmeforest,with a dagger (t). Ka'apor Tembe Chacobo Panare Taxon Voucher(s) Use Value Use Value Use Value Use Value Anacardiaceae Anacardiumgiganteum WB1122 A 1.0 A microsepalum WB1472 b 0.5 A parvifolium WB225,WB1175 a 0.5 b 0.5 Astroniumsp. BB6687 a 0.5 Tapiriraguianensis BB6629 a 0.5 Thyrsodiumspruceanum WB437 d 0.5 Use value subtotal 1.0 2.0 1.0 No. species on plot 3 6 3 Familialuse value 0.33 0.33 0.33 Annonaceae Anaxagorea brevipest WB1349 a,B, d 2.0 Fusaea longifolia WB155,WB1319 a, B, D 2.5 a, B, d 2.0 Guatteriadiscolor BB4486 c, d 1.0 Guatteriahyposericea BB4444 c 0.5 Xylopia nitida WB344,WB1103 B 1.0 B 1.0 Xylopiapolyantha BB4954 C 1.0 Xylopia sericea BB6624 a 0.5 Use value subtotal 3.5 5 2.5 0.5 No. species on plot 5 4 4 1 Familialuse value 0.70 1.25 0.63 0.50 Apocynaceae Aspidospermadesmanthum WB1150 c 0.5 A megalocarpon BB4202 d 0.5 Lacmellea aculeata WB277,WB1091t a, C, D 2.5 a, C 1.5 Parahancornia amapa WB332,WB1193 D 1.0 D 1.0 Genus indetermined1 BB4398 d 0.5 Genus indetermined2 BB6611 a 0.5 Use value subtotal 3.5 3.0 1.0 0.5 No. species on plot 2 4 2 2 Familialuse value 1.75 0.75 0.50 0.25 Araliaceae Didymopanax morototoni BB4468 d 0.5 Use value subtotal 0.5 No. species on plot 1 Familialuse value 0.50 Bignoniaceae Jacaranda copaia BB4094 d 0.5 Tabebuia serratifolia BB6704 D 1.0 Use value subtotal 0.5 1.0 No. species on plot 1 1 Familialuse value 0.50 1.00 Bixaceae Cochlospermumorinocense BB6654 C 1.0 Use value subtotal 1.0 No. species on plot 1 Familialuse value 1.00 Bombacaceae Eriothecaglobosa BB4275 c 0.5 Use value subtotal 0.5 No. species on plot 1 ConservationBiology Volume 1,No. 4, December 1987
  • 7. Pranceetal. QuantitativeEthnobotanyinAmazonia 301 Table 1. Continued Ka'apor Tembe Chacobo Panare Taxon Voucher(s) Use Value Use Value Use Value Use Value Familialuse value 0.50 Boraginaceae Cordia bicolor WBI90, BB6625 c 0.5 a 0.5 Use value subtotal 0.5 0.5 No. species on plot 1 1 Familialuse value 0.50 0.50 Burseraceae Crepidospermum goudotianum BB4133 d 0.5 Protiumaltsonii WB184,WB1141 d 0.5 d 0.5 P. aracouchini WB1214 a, b 1.0 P. decandrum WB122,WB1089 a, d 1.0 a, b 1.0 P. heptaphyllum BB6563 a 0.5 P. insigne WB1216 b, e 1.0 P. niloi WB1391 f 0.5 P. pallidum WB5,WB1114 a, d 1.0 a, b, e 1.5 P. polybotryum var.polybotryum WB98,WB1257 f 0.5 f 0.5 P. sagotianum WB855,BB6655 a, d 1.0 a 0.5 Protiumspruceanum WB1192 E 1.0 P. tenuifolium WB157,WB1276 d 0.5 b 0.5 P. trifoliolatum WB116, WB1184 a, b 1.0 a, b 1.0 Tetragastris altissimat WB8, WB1376, a, b, F 2.0 a, b, F 2.0 a 0.5 BB6691 T panamensis WB451 a 0.5 Trattinnickia burserifolia WB1408 e, f 1.0 T peruviana BB4236 C 1.0 Use value subtotal 8.0 11.5 1.5 1.5 No. species on plot 9 13 2 3 Familial use value 0.88 0.88 0.75 0.50 Caryocaraceae Caryocar glabrum WBI 14 a 0.5 Use value subtotal 0.5 No. species in plot 1 Familial use value 0.50 Chrysobalanaceae Couepia guianensis subsp. guianensis WB17, WB1156t a, B 1.5 a 0.5 C guianensis WB1088 a, B 3.0 subsp. indetermined C, e Exellodendrom barbatum WB326 a 0.5 Hirtella lightioides BB4167 a 0.5 Licania canescens WB45, WB1439 a, B 1.5 a, B 1.5 L. heteromorphat WB175 B, C 3.0 var. heteromorpha d, e L hypoleuca BB6677 a 0.5 L. kunthiana WB174 a, B 1.5 L. macrophylla WB1116 B, d 1.5 L. membranacea* WB46 C 1.0 L. octandra BB4335 a,C,d 2.0 subsp. pallida L. sp. 1 WB1275 B 1.0 L. sp. 2 WB1107 B 1.0 L. sp. 3t WB1451 a, B, C, e 3.0 Parinari excelsa BB6587 A 1.0 P. sp. 1 WB1272 B 1.0 Use valuesubtotal 9.0 12.5 2.5 1.5 No. species on plot 7 9 3 5 Familialuse value 1.29 1.39 0.83 0.33 Combretaceae ConservationBiology Volume1,No. 4, December1987
  • 8. 302 QuantitativeEthnobotanyinAmazonia Pranceetal. Table 1. Continued Ka'apor Tembe Chacobo Panare Taxon Voucher(s) Use Value Use Value Use Value Use Value Buchenavia capitata WB1435 f 0.5 Combretumlaxum BB4366 d 0.5 Use value subtotal 0.5 0.5 No. species on plot 1 1 Familialuse value 0.50 0.50 Elaeocarpaceae Sloanea eichleri BB4522 d 0.5 d 0.5 Use value subtotal 0.5 No. species on plot 2 Familialuse value 0.25 Euphorbiaceae Aparisthmiumcordatum BB4049 d 0.5 Hevea brasiliensis* BB4166 c,E 1.5 Mabea caudata WB41,WB1326 c 0.5 c 0.5 Sagotia racemosa WB31,WB1151 f 0.5 f 0.5 Sapium sp. BB6673 a 0.5 Genus indetermined1 BB4459 a 0.5 Use value subtotal 1.0 1.0 2.5 0.5 No. species on plot 5 8 3 4 Familialuse value 0.20 0.13 0.83 0.13 Flacourtiaceae Banara guianensis BB6712 a 0.5 Casearia combaymensis BB4258 A,d 1.5 C javitensis BB4295 d 0.5 C mariquitensis BB4016 d 0.5 C sylvestris BB6570 e 0.5 Laetia procera WB382 d 0.5 Lindackeriapaludosa BB4332 B 1.0 Use value subtotal 0.5 3.5 1.0 No. species on plot 1 4 2 Familialuse value 0.5 0.88 0.50 Guttiferae Caraipa grandiflora WB1253 d 0.5 Oedematopussp. BB6690 a 0.5 Rheedia brasiliensis WB233 A 1.0 Symphoniaglobulifera* WB102 a, D, e 2.0 Tovomitaschomburgkii BB4350 a 0.5 Use value subtotal 3.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 No. species on plot 2 3 1 1 Familialuse value 1.50 0.17 0.50 0.50 Humiriaceae Sacoglottissp. 2 WB369,*WB1530 a 0.5 b 0.5 Use value subtotal 0.5 0.5 No. species on plot 1 1 Familialuse value 0.50 0.50 Lauraceae Endlicheriamacrophylla BB4499 d 0.5 Mezilaurus ilauba BB4529 B 1.0 Nectandraacutifolia WB1154 a, b, c 1.5 Nectandracuspidata WB1108 b,c 1.0 Nectandrapurusensis WB1118 b,c 1.0 Nectandrasp. BB4558 d 0.5 Ocoteaabbreviata WB1076 b,c 1.0 Ocotea canaliculata WB329 c 0.5 Ocoteacaudata WB1095 b,c 1.0 Ocotearubra WB1236 b,c 1.0 Use value subtotal 0.5 6.5 2.0 No. species on plot 3 6 3 ConservationBiology Volume1,No. 4,December1987
  • 9. Pranceetal. QuantitativeEthnobotanyin Amazonia 303 Table 1. Continued Ka'apor Tembe Chacobo Panare Taxon Voucher(s) Use Value Use Value Use Value Use Value Familialuse value 0.17 1.08 0.67 Lecythidaceae Eschweileracoriacea WB1Ot,WB1077 b, c, D 2.0 b,c 1.0 Eschweileraparvifolia BB4311 a 0.5 Gustavia augusta WB193 D 1.0 Lecythischartacea WB19 b,C 1.5 Lecythiscorrugata BB6647 C 1.0 Lecythisidatimon WB76,WB1278 b, C 1.5 C, d 1.5 Lecythislurida WB1383 c 0.5 Use value subtotal 6.0 3.0 0.5 1.0 No. species on plot 6 4 1 1 Familialuse value 1.00 0.75 0.50 1.00 Leguminosae Dialium guianense WB1146 a 0.5 Dinizia excelsa WB s.n. B 1.0 Diplotropispurpurea WB111,BB4242 b, c 1.0 B 1.0 Dipteryxodorata* WB1113 B, D, F 3.0 D. punctata* BB6674 E 1.0 Inga alba WB1307 A,C, e 2.5 I. capitata WB297,WB1102 A 1.0 a 0.5 I. ingoides BB6697 a 0.5 I. marginata WB443 a 0.5 I. cf.ruziana BB4317 a 0.5 I. splendens WB505 a 0.5 I. stipularis WB260 a 0.5 L thibaudiana WB1513 a 0.5 I. cf.umbellata BB6634 a 0.5 I sp. 1 WB153 a 0.5 I. sp. 2 BB4401 a 0.5 I. sp. 3 BB6670 a 0.5 Parkia paraensis WB379 C 1.0 Poecilantheeffusa WB178 D 1.0 Sclerolobium chrysophyllum BB4237 B 1.0 Sclerolobiumsp. 1 WB606 D, f 1.5 Sclerolobiumsp. 2 BB4356 B 1.0 Sclerolobiumsp. 3 BB4368 B 1.0 Sclerolobiumsp. 4 BB6678 d 0.5 Senna silvestris BB6588 d 0.5 Swartzia laevicarpa BB6554 d,e 1.0 Tachigalia macrostachya WB1456 D 1.0 T myrmecophila WB39,WB1508 D, f 1.5 D 1.0 T paniculata WBI88 D,f 1.5 Use value subtotal 10.5 10.0 5.0 4.5 No. species on plot 16 18 9 12 Familialuse value 0.66 0.56 0.56 0.38 Malphigiaceae Byrsonimaaerugo WB1110 A 1.0 B. laevigata WB337 A 1.0 B. spicata BB6707 a 0.5 Use value subtotal 1.0 1.0 0.5 No. species on plot 1 1 1 Familialuse value 1.00 1.00 0.25 Melastomataceae Bellucia aequiloba BB4490 a 0.5 B. grossularioides BB4285 a 0.5 Miconia affinis BB4008 a,d 1.0 M. holosericea BB4282 a 0.5 M. kiugii BB4294 a 0.5 M. Iongispicata BB4445 a 0.5 ConservationBiology Volumei, No. 4,December1987
  • 10. 304 QuantitativeEthnobotanyinAmazonia Pranceeta]. Table 1. Continued Ka'apor Tembe Chacobo Panare Taxon Voucher(s) Use Value Use Value Use Value Use Value M.poeppigii BB4535 a 0.5 M.punctata BB4425 a 0.5 M splendens BB4283 a, d 1.0 Use value subtotal 5.5 No. species on plot 12.5 Familialuse value 0.46 Meliaceae Carapaguianensis* WB279,WB1244 C, D 2.0 B, C, D 3.0 Trichilialecointei WB1096 c 0.5 T micrantha WB1288 c 0.5 T cf.pleeana WB1210 c 0.5 T schomburgkii subsp.schomburgkii WB1305 c 0.5 Use value subtotal 2.0 5.0 No. species on plot 3 5 Familialuse value 0.66 1.00 Moraceae Bagassa guianensis WB523 a 0.5 Brosimumacutifolium BB4276 a 0.5 B. lactescens BB4308 a 0.5 B. utile subsp.ovatifolium BB4334 B, C 2.0 Cecropiaficifolia BB4264 C 1.0 C sciadophylla BB4257 C 1.0 Ficus nymphiifolia BB4322 B, C 2.0 Helicostylispedunculata WB333 b 0.5 H. tomentosa BB4313 a 0.5 Perebea mollis BB4505 a 0.5 Pourouma cecropiifolia BB4203 A 1.0 P.guianensis WB1331, BB4501 A 1.0 A 1.0 Pseudolmedia laevis BB4363 A 1.0 Pseudolmedia macrophylla BB4364 A,d 1.5 Use value subtotal 1.0 1.0 12.5 No. species on plot 5 2 14 Familialuse value 0.20 0.50 0.89 Myristicaceae Compsoneurasp. BB4437 A,d 1.5 Iryantherajuruensis WB1245,BB4138 d 0.5 d 0.5 I. tessmannii BB4291 d 0.5 Virola michelii* WB255 D 1.0 Use value subtotal 1.0 0.5 2.5 No. species on plot 2 2 6 Familialuse value 0.50 0.25 0.42 Myrtaceae Eugenia brachypoda WB1135 b,c, e 1.5 Eugenia sp. BB4432 a, d 1.0 Genus indeterminedI BB4449 a 0.5 Use value subtotal 1.5 1.5 No. species on plot 2 3 Familialuse value 0.75 0.50 Olacaceae Minquartia guianensis WB .... B 1.0 Genus indetermined BB6656 a 0.5 Use value subtotal 1.0 0.5 No. species on plot 1 2 Familialuse value 1.00 0.25 Opiliaceae Agonandra brasiliensis WB1I363 c 0.5 ConservationBiology Volume1,No. 4, December1987
  • 11. Pranceetal. QuantitativeEthnobotanyinAmazonia 305 Table 1. Continued Ka'apor Tembe Chacobo Panare Taxon Voucher(s) Use Value Use Value Use Value Use Value Use value subtotal 0.5 No. species on plot 1 Familialuse value 0.50 Palmae Astrocaryumaculeatum BB4159 A,C 2.0 A mumbaca WB1406 a 0.5 Euterpeoleracea* WB531 A,B, 3.5 C, f E precatoria BB4151 A,B,c,d 3.0 Jesseniabataua BB4538 A,b 1.5 Mauritiaflexuosa* BB s.n. A,B 2.0 Maximiliana maripa* BB4573, BB s.n. A,b,f 2.0 A,C 2.0 Oenocarpusdistichus WB530,WBIIOI A,b, C 2.5 A,b, C 2.5 0. mapora BB4152 A,b, d 2.0 Scheeleaprinceps BB4145 A,b,C,d 3.0 Socratea exorrhiza BB4155 B, C, d 2.5 Syagrusorinocensis BB6616 A 1.0 Use value subtotal 6.0 3.0 16.0 5.0 No. species on plot 2 2 7 4 Familialuse value 3.00 1.50 2.29 1.25 Quiinaceae Lacunaria jemani WB220 b 0.5 Use value subtotal 0.5 No. species on plot 1 Familialuse value 0.50 Rubiaceae Amaioua corymbosa BB6603 B 1.0 A guianensis BB4300 B,d 1.5 Calycophyllumacreanum BB4419 d 0.5 Capirona decorticans BB4288 d 0.5 Guettardaspruceana BB6652 a 0.5 Palicourea grandifolia BB4106 d 0.5 Use value subtotal 3.0 1.5 No. species on plot 4 3 Familialuse value 0.75 0.50 Rutaceae Fagara tenuifolia WB1298 b,c 1.0 Use value subtotal 1.0 No. species on plot 2 Familialuse value 0.50 Sapindaceae Cupania scrobiculata WB11 a, c 1.0 Talisia retusa WB506 a 0.5 Use value subtotal 1.5 No. species on plot 2 Familialuse value 0.75 Sapotaceae Achrouteriasp. 1 WB1 a 0.5 Achrouteriasp. 2 WB522 a 0.5 Franchetellaanibifolia WB250,WB1093 a, B 1.5 a, B 1.5 F. gongrijpii WB215,WB1302 a, B 1.5 a,B 1.5 F.sp. I WB8 a, B 1.5 Manilkara huberi WB1157 a,B 1.5 Micropholisguyanensis* BB4526 a,C, d 2.0 Neoxythececladantha WB30 a, c, f 1.5 N. elegans WB130 a,c 1.0 Planchonella oblanceolata WB14 A,c 1.5 Pouteria caimito WB349 A,c 1.5 P. laurifoiza WB267 b 0.5 ConservationBiology Volume1,No. 4, December1987
  • 12. 306 QuantitativeEthnobotanyinAmazonia Pranceetal. Table 1. Continued Ka'apor Tembe Chacobo Panare Taxon Voucher(s) Use Value Use Value Use Value Use Value P Sp. 1 WB412 b 0.5 P. sp. 2 WB49 a 0.5 Radlkoferellamacrocarpa WB1461 A,B 2.0 Sprucella aerana WB144 a 0.5 S guianensis WB238 a 0.5 Genusindetermined1 WB519 a 0.5 Genusindetermined2 BB6705 A 1.0 Genusindetermined3 BB6681 A 1.0 Use value subtotal 14.0 6.5 2.0 2.0 No. species on plot 17 18 1 4 Familialuse value 0.82 0.36 2.00 0.50 Simaroubaceae Simaba cedron WB1094 D 1.0 Simarouba amara BB6630 d 0.5 Use value subtotal 1.0 0.5 No. species on plot 2 1 Familialuse value 0.50 0.50 Sterculiaceae Sterculiapruriens WB2,WB1260 c 0.5 c 0.5 Theobromagrandiflorum WB478,*WB1117 A 1.0 A 1.( T.speciosum BB4275 A,d 1.5 Use value subtotal 1.5 1.5 1.5 No. species on plot 2 2 1 Familial use value 0.75 0.75 1.50 Tiliaceae Apeiba burchellii WB1536 c 0.5 A echinata WB491, BB4259 c 0.5 c 0.5 Use value subtotal 0.5 0.5 0.5 No. species on plot 1 2 2 Familialuse value 0.50 0.25 0.25 Ulmaceae Ampeloceraedentula WB77 d 0.5 Use value subtotal 0.5 No. species on plot 1 Familialuse value 0.50 Violaceae Rinoreaflavescens WB1172 c 0.5 Use value subtotal 0.5 No. species on plot 1 Familialuse value 0.50 Vochysiaceae Qualea paraensis BB4298 a 0.5 Vochysiavismiifolia BB4198 a, B, d 2.0 Use value subtotal 2.5 No. species on plot 2 Familialuse value 1.25 21.0 percent(25 /119) ofthespecies areused intech- nology;themoreimportantspecies areInga alba (Le- guminosae),fromthebarkofwhichisproduceda black dyeforpaintingtheshaman'sgourdrattler,andLacmel- lea aculeata (Apocynaceae),thewood ofwhichisused formakingspoonsand ladles.Speciesused fortechnol- ogyin theChacobo plotaccountfor18.1 percent( 17/ 94) ofthe species. The moreimportanttechnological species of the Chacobo includeAstrocaryumaculea- tum(Palmae), the"wood" ofwhichis carvedintohunt- ingbows andarrowpoints;Brosimumutile(Moraceae), the innerbark of which is made into barkcloth;and severalspeciesthatsupplya fibrousinnerbarkforlash- ing material:Guatteria discolor, G. hyposericea,and Xylopiapolyantha (Annonaceae),and Cecropiaficifo- lia andC. sciadophylla(Moraceae). In thePanareplot, ConservationBiology Volume 1,No. 4, December 1987
  • 13. Pranceetal. QuantitativeEthnobotanyinAmazonia 307 4.3 percent(3 /70) ofthe species are usefulfortech- nology; Cochlospermumorinocense (Bixaceae) and Lecythiscorrugata(Lecythidaceae) provide a fibrous innerbarkthatis used to make tumplinesforburden baskets,and the leaves ofMaximiliana maripa (Pai- mae) arewoven intotheburdenbasketsthemselves. Remedy Speciesusefulinmajororminorwaysinthepreparation of remediesaccount for21.2 percent(21 /99) of the species on theKa'aporplot;importantremediescome fromspecies such as Parahancornia amapa (Apocyn- aceae), thelatexofwhichis takenorallyto treatstom- ach ailments,and Virola michelii(Myristicaceae),the sapofwhichisused totreatcankersores.On theTembe plot,10.9percent( 13/119) ofthespecieshavemedic- inal application;importantspecies include Dipteryx odorata (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 usefulas remedies;examplesinclude two species ofRubiaceae, Calycophyllumacreanum and Capirona decorticans, the barksof which are dried,powdered,mixed with waterto forma paste,and applied to skinwounds to preventor 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 a remedyforstomachailments,and Simarouba amara (Simaroubaceae),whichis employedto treatsnakebite. Commerce Relativelyfew species of plants are commercialized fromthe forestplots of any of the fourindigenous groupsstudied,because oftheirrelativelyisolatedsitu- ations.In the cases of the Ka'apor and Tembe, these species are used in minorcommercialways,while for theChacobo andPanare,thecommercializationofsome speciesisa majorpartoftheirpresentculture.Fromthe Table 2. Most importantspecies to the Ka'apor (with use values of 2 or more). Nonsubstitutable species (*); species exclusively of terrafirmedense forest(t). Species and Family Use Value Euterpe oleracea (Palmae)* 3.5 Licania heteromorpha (Chrysobalanaceae)t 3.0 Oenocarpus distichus (Palmae) 2.5 Fusaea longifolia (Annonaceae)t 2.5 Lacmellea aculeata (Apocynaceae)t 2.5 Tetragastris altissima (Burseraceae)t 2.0 Symphonia globulifera (Guttiferae)* 2.0 Eschweilera coriacea (Lecythidaceae)t 2.0 Carapa guianensis (Meliaceae)* 2.0 Table 3. Most importantspecies to the Tembe (with use values of 2 or more). Nonsubstitutable species (*); species exclusively of terrafirmedense forest(t). Speciesand Family Use Value Dipteryxodorata (Leguminosae)* 3.0 Carapa guianensis (Meliaceae)* 3.0 Couepia guianensis (Chrysobalanaceae)t 3.0 Licania sp. 3 (Chrysobalanaceae)t 3.0 Inga alba (Leguminosae) 2.5 Oenocarpusdistichus(Palmae) 2.5 Anaxagorea brevipes(Annonaceae)t 2.0 Fusaea longifolia(Annonaceae)t 2.0 Tetragastrisaltissima (Burseraceae)t 2.0 Radlkoferellamacrocarpa (Sapotaceae) 2.0 Ka'aporplot,2.0 percent(2 /99) ofthe species are in this category. These are Licania heteromorpha (Chrysobalanaceae),the dye obtainedis used to paint Crescentiacujete(Bignoniaceae) bowls,which in turn aresoldas souvenirson a verysmallscale,andSympho- nia globulifera(Guttiferae),thelatexofwhichis used to glueandblackenpartsofarrows,whicharealso sold on a verysmallscale as souvenirs.In theTembeplot,5.0 percent(6 /119) ofthespeciesarecommercialized;ex- amplesincludeProtiumspp. (Burseraceae), theresins ofwhicharesold on a smallscale forboatcaulking,and Licania sp. 3 (Chrysobalanaceae),the dye obtainedis used to decorateCrescentiacujetebowls sold as souve- nirs.In no case does commercializationof these tree speciesinvolvedestructionofthetreeitself.Collection oflatexfromSymphoniaglobuliferainvolvesnonlethal scoringofthetree;resinfromProtiumspp.is collected fromthe groundafterit is naturallyexuded fromthe tree.ObtainingbarkfromLicania spp.tobe used inthe preparationofdye does notinvolvethegirdlingofthe tree;theIndiansaffirmthattheirpracticeofstrippingoff barkpieces on one sideofthetreedoes notkillit.Inthe case of the Ch'acobo,only 1.1 percent(1 /94) of the species are commercialized;thelatexfromHevea bra- siliensis(Euphorbiaceae) is collected and,aftercuring and coagulatingtheliquidrubberoverfireandforming itintolarge,oblongballs,itis takento marketforsale. Table 4. Most importantspecies to the Chacobo (with use values of 2 or more). Nonsubstitutable species (*). Speciesand Families Use Value Euterpeprecatoria(Palmae) 3.0 Scheeleaprinceps(Palmae) 3.0 Socratea exorrhiza(Palmae) 2.5 Astrocaryumaculeatum (Palmae) 2.0 Maximiliana maripa (Palmae)* 2.0 Oenocarpusmapora (Palmae) 2.0 Licania octandra (Chrysobalanaceae) 2.0 Brosimumutile(Moraceae) 2.0 Ficus nymphaeifolia(Moraceae) 2.0 Micropholisguyanensis(Sapotaceae)* 2.0 Vochysiavismiifolia(Vochysiaceae) 2.0 ConservationBiology Volume1,No.4,December1987
  • 14. 308 QuantitativeEthnobotanyinAmazonia Pranceetal. Table 5. Most importantspecies to the Panare (with use values of 2 or more). Nonsubstitutable species (*). Speciesand Family Use Value Mauritiaflexuosa (Palmae)* 2.0 Maximiliana maripa (Palmae)* 2.0 This rubberis the Chacobo's principalsource ofcash; Brazilnuts(Bertholletiaexcelsa) are also collectedfor salebutbecausenotreesofthisspeciesoccurredinthein- ventoryplot,theseare not consideredhere.Fromthe Panareplot,4.3 percent(3 /70) ofthespeciesareinthe commercialcategory;the most importantof these is Dipteryxpunctata (Leguminosae),theseeds ofwhich are collected and sold forthe extractionofcoumarin. The othertwo Panarecommercialtreespecies are less important:the red exudate fromSwartzia laevicarpa (Leguminosae) is used to paintdecorativebasketsthat aresold as souvenirs,whilethebarkofCasearia sylves- tris(Flacourtiaceae) is burnedtoproducea blackpaint thatis likewiseappliedto decorativebaskets. Other Species in the "other"categoryofuse accountfor8.5 percent(9 /99) ofthespecies on theKa'aporplot;an example is Tetragastrisaltissima (Burseraceae), the wood ofwhichis used as a fermentationcatalyst(see above). On theTembeplot 4.2 percent(5 /119) ofthe species areinthiscategory;an exampleisSagotia race- mosa (Euphorbiaceae),thefragrantrootsofwhichthe hunterrubson hisbody to become luckyin thehunt. On theChacobo plot 1.1percent(1 /94) ofthespecies areinthe"other"category;thespatheofMaximiliana maripa(Palmae) isusedas a toybychildren.Inthecase ofthePanaretherewere no usefultreespecies in the plot thatwere not includedin the categoriesalready discussedabove. FromTable 1 it is possible to summarizethe most usefulspecies andfamiliesto each groupfromtheplots studied.Tables 2-5 listthe mostusefulspecies (with valuesof2 ormore) foreach group.Those species that are not substitutable,insofaras no otherplantspecies can be used in place ofthemfora givenpurposein a givenculture,areindicated,as arethoseamongthenon- substitutablefoundonlyin terrafirmedense forest.Of Table 6. Most importantfamilies to the Ka'apor (with familial use values of 1 or more). Family Familial Use Values Palmae 3.00 Apocynaceae 1.75 Guttiferae 1.50 Chrysobalanaceae 1.29 Malpighiaceae 1.00 Lecythidaceae 1.00 Table 7. Most importantfamilies to the Tembe (with familial use values of 1 or more). Family Familial Use Value Palmae 1.50 Chrysobalanaceae 1.39 Annonaceae 1.25 Lauraceae 1.08 Malpighiaceae 1.00 Meliaceae 1.00 the9 species listedin Table 2, whichare thosewitha use valueof2.0 ormoretotheKa'apor,5 (55.5 percent) seem to be exclusivelyofterrafirmedense forest(i.e., theyarenotencounteredin old swiddens,swiddenfal- lows,or theswampforest).Of the 10 species listedin Table 3,whicharethosewitha use valueof2.0 ormore to theTembe,5 (50 percent)seem tobe exclusivelyof terrafirmedenseforest.Tables6-9 listthefamilieswith the highestfamilialuse values (with values of 1 or more). ExamplesofnonsubstitutablespeciesincludeEuterpe oleracea (Palmae), used for bench making by the Ka'apor; Symphonia globulifera (Guttiferae),which servesas a contraceptive;and Carapa guianensis (Me- liaceae), whichis used as an insectrepellent(Table 2). To theTembe,onlyDipteryxodorata (Leguminosae)is used to relieveearache,and onlyCarapa guianensis is usefulas an insectrepellent.Ofthemostimportantspe- cies to theKa'apor,8 (88.8 percent)are exclusivelyof terrafirmedenseforestand/ornonsubstitutable;ofthe mostimportantspecies to the Tembe, 7 (70 percent) are exclusivelyofterrafirmedense forestand/or non- substitutable.The totalnumberofnonsubstitutabletree speciesfromtheKa'aporplotis 6 (6 percentofall spe- cies), and thetotalnumberofnonsubstitutablespecies fromthe Tembe plot is 2 (1.7 percentof all species) (see Table 1). The overallresultsofour analysisare summarizedin Tables 10 and 11. Table 10 shows the percentagesof usefultreespecies,arrangedbycategoryofuse,ineach ofthefourinventoryplots.Table 11 showsthepercent- age oftotalusefultreespecies,irrespectiveofcategory ofuse, in each ofthefourinventoryplots. Conclusions Our datadefinitelyconfirmtheassertionthattheterra firmerainforestsofAmazoniacontainan exceptionally Table 8. Most importantfamilies to the Chacobo (with familial use values of 1 or more). Family Familial Use Value Palmae 2.29 Sapotaceae 2.00 Sterculiaceae 1.50 Vochysiaceae 1.25 ConservationBiology Volume 1,No. 4, December 1987
  • 15. Pranceetal. QuantitativeEthnobotanyinAmazonia 309 Table 9. Most importantfamilies to the Panare (with familial use values of 1 or more). Family Familial Use Value Palmae 1.25 Bignoniaceae 1.00 Bixaceae 1.00 Lecythidaceae 1.00 large numberof usefulspecies. The majorityof tree species fromfourterrafirmeplots of 1 ha each are usefulto fourrespectiveindigenousgroups,at leastin theuse categorieswe have definedhere.Our datafur- thershow thatsome ofthe treespecies ofterrafirme forestareusefultotheIndiansinnonsubstitutableways. Some species,in otherwords,are irreplaceableinsofar as theyarethesole speciesemployedtoachievecultur- allydesirableends. Ofcourse,thenotionof"useful"species variesfrom culturetoculture:forexample,numerousspeciesinour data are also high-qualitytimberspecies (such as Mez- ilaurus itauba, Carapa guianensis,and Tabebuia ser- ratifolia), which outside of indigenouscontextsare used on an industrialbasis.Our datadeal onlywiththe uses nonindustrial,indigenousAmazonianshave for thesespecies,whicharefarmorediversethantheuses to which thesespecies are put in Westernsociety.Al- thoughwe have not discussedtreesforfirewoodand treesthatattractgame,whichaccountforthevastma- jorityof the species on the Ka'apor and Tembe plots (Balee 1986, 1987), it is neverthelessinterestingthe extentto whichall fourplotsofforestare usefulto all groupsin waysthatare less commonlyrepresented. Species usefulforidenticalpurposesamongdifferent groupscertainlyvary,partlyas a functionofphytogeo- graphicdifferences.For example,theKa'aporuse spe- cies ofTabebuia andBrosimumin makingtheirbows, whiletheChacobo useAstrocaryumaculeatum forthis purpose(see above). Astrocaryumaculeatum has not yet been collected in the Ka'apor region,ifindeed it existsthere.In otherwords,differentsuitesofspecies (i.e., endemism)withingivenAmazonianforestsdo not affecttheutilityof theseforestsper se to comparable indigenouscultures.Rather,endemismcombinedwith the highindigenousutilityof all forestsin thissurvey suggeststhattheconservationofonlyone ora fewblocs Table 10. Percentage of useful tree species of all species on plots foreach indigenous group by use categories. Use Category Ka'apor Tembe Chdcobo Panare food 34.3 21.8 40.4 34.3 construction 20.2 30.3 17.0 2.9 technology 19.2 21.0 18.1 4.3 remedy 21.2 10.9 35.1 7.1 commerce 2.0 5.0 1.1 4.3 other 8.1 4.2 1.1 0.0 Table 11. Percentage of useful species (in all categories specified) per hectare plot to the indigenous groups studied. Percentageof usefultree Indigenousgroup speciesfrominventorysites Ka'apor 76.8 Tembe 61.3 Chacobo 78.7 Panare 48.6 offorestwouldpreserve,infact,manyusefulAmazonian species oftrees.The implicationsforconservationpol- icyareinescapable:manyreservesare needed through- outAmazonia. Finally,our resultssuggestthatcertainplantfamilies andtheforesttypeterrafirmedenseforestshouldbe of highpriorityforconservation.Itis quiteinterestingthat thepalmfamilyranksconsistentlyamongthosefamilies withthe highestuse values forall fourgroups.Palms have often been described as the "grasses of the tropics,"so usefulare theyto those who depend on them.We have offeredherea positivequantitativetest of this intuitivestatement.Other familiesthat rank amongthehighestin termsoffamilialuse valuesforat least two of the fourgroups include Lecythidaceae (Ka'apor and Panare), Chrysobalanaceae(Ka'apor and Tembe),andMalpighiaceae(Ka'apor andTembe). Some of the most importantplant familiesare distributed mostlyinterrafirmeforest,meaningthatthisforesttype shouldbe a priorityforconservation.These important familiescontainmanyoutstandingusefulspecieswhich, inadditionto otherusefulspecieswithhighuse values and nonsubstitutablespecies not of these families, shouldbe carefullystudied,withthe aim ofmanaging andperhapsdomesticatingthem. LiteratureCited Alcorn,J.B. 1981. Some factorsinfluencingbotanical re- sources perception among the Haustec. J. Ethnobiology 1:221-230. Balee, W. 1986. Analisepreliminarde inventarioflorestale a etnobotanicaKa'apor(Maranhao).Boletimdo MuseuParaense EmilioGoeldi 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. Principlesof Tzeltalplantclassification.Academic Press,New York,New York,USA. Boom,B.M. 1985. AmazonianIndiansand theforestenviron- ment.Nature314:324. . 1986a The Chacobo Indiansand theirpalms.Prin- cipes 30:63-70. ConservationBiology Volume 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 rainforest treesbytheKuikuruIndiansofCentralBrazil.Pages201-216 in 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.K Henley,P. 1982. The Panare,traditionandchangeon theAm- azonianfrontier.Yale UniversityPress,New Haven,Connect- icut,USA. Kroeber,A.L. 1920. Reviewofuses ofplantsbytheIndiansof theMissouriRiverregion,byMelvinRandolphGilmore.Amer- ican Anthropologist22:384-385. Morris,W.,editor.1973. TheAmericanHeritageDictionaryof theEnglishLanguage.HoughtonMifflinCo.,Boston,Massachu- setts,USA. Myers,N. 1982. Deforestationin thetropics:who wins,who loses.Pages 1-24 inV.H. Sutliveetal.,editors.Wherehaveall theflowersgone?DeforestationintheThirdWorld.Studiesin ThirdWorldSocieties,no. 13. College ofWilliamand Mary, Williamsburg,Virginia,USA. Prance,G.T. 1972. An ethnobotanicalcomparisonof four tribesofAmazonianIndians.ActaAmazonica2(2):7-27. Prost,M.D. 1970.Costumbres,habilidades,ycuadrode la vida humanaentrelos Chacobos. InstitutoLinguisticodel Verano; Riberalta,Bolivia. Ribeiro,D. 1970. Os indios e a civilizacao:a integracAaodas populac6es indigenasno Brasilmoderno.EditoraCivilizacao Brasileira,Rio de Janeiro,Brasil. terWelle,B.J.H. 1976. On theoccurrenceofsilicagrainsin the secondaryxylem of Chrysobalanaceae.IAWA Bulletin 2:19-29. Wagley,C. & E. Glavao. 1949. The TeneteharaIndiansofBra- zil: a culturein transition.Columbia UniversityPress,New York,New York,USA. ConservationBiology Volume 1,No. 4, December 1987