Quantitative Ethnobotany and Amazonian Conservation

O. PHIIJJPS Missouri Botanical Garden Box 299 St. Louis, MO 63166, U.S.A.

A. H. GENTRY* C. REYNEL
Missouri Botanical Garden Box 299 St. Louis, MO 63166, U.S.A.

P. WILKIN
The Herbarium Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AE United Kingdom

C. GALVEZ-DURAND B.
G6mez del Carpio 140 C Barrio M~dico Lima 18, Peru

Abstract: We use quantitative ethnobotanical data to compare the usefulness o f six flortstically distinct forest types to mestizo people at Tambopat4g southeast Perg We aim to evaluate which forest types are most usefu~ arid why. Ethnobotanical data were collected with informants in inventory plots and analyzed using a new technique that uses a two-tier calculation process to derive an "informant indexed" estimate o f each species" use value. Use values are estimated based on the degree o f consistency between re. peated i n t ~ o f each informant and between different informant~ We show that (1) in 6 1 lgt 94% o f woody stems are "useful" to mestizos. (2) Based on ~ t a g e s o f useful plants per plog there is little difference between each forest type (3) Simply calculating the percent o f useful plants is misleading h ~ , because most species have minor use~ and only a f e w are exceptionally useful (4) Using the inf o r m a n t indexing technique, we demonstrate significant differences between each forest type's utility. Mature forests o f
*Deceaseg Paper subraitted November 20, 1992; revised manuscript accepted July 25, 199~

EtnobotMflca cuantitativa y la conservaci6n de la Amazonia R e s u m e n : Se emple6 datos etnobotdnicos cuantitatlvos para comparar la uttlidad de seis tipos de bosques floristtcamente distinto~ con plantas usadas p o r la poblacidn mestiza en Tambopattg sureste de Pertt Datos etnobotdnicos fueron registrados de informantes en parcelas inventarlada~ usando una nueva t&'nica que constdera u n procedimiento simple para obtener un estimado del valor de uso de cada especi~ Los valores de uso se basan en el grado de consistencla de entret~tas m4teradas con uno y ratios informantes (Phillips & Gentry, 1993a). Los resultados muestran que (1) en ~ 1 htg 9496 de individuos arb6reos son "~tiles" a la poblaci6ft (2) Basados en el porcentaJe de plantas ~Hles p o r plog hay mtty escasa diferencia entre Hpos de bosqu~ (3) El porcentaJe de p l a n t a s t~tiles incluye sin embargo u n a mayorla de espectes a l a s que se ies da usos m e m m ~ y son m u y pocas las especies que brtndan mayor uttliddg pot" lo tan$o los calculos de porcentaje de plantas t~tiles son err6nio (4) Empleando la t~'nica del indice de utilida~ se encontraron d i ~ significativas entre la uHlidad de diferentes ttpos de bosqu~ Las dreas de bosque maduro en

225
ConservationBiology,Pages 225-*248 Volume 8, No. 1, March 1994

226

Ethnobotany Conservation and

Phillips et al. zonas con suelos y terrazas aluvlales proveen m~s plantar muy tittles que otros ttpos de bosque, debtdo mayormente a su importancla como fuentes de material de construcct6n y attmento& (5) Las ~ o a s aluvlales nuis bajas ttenen mayor valor como proveedoras de plantas medtctnale~ las dreas pantanosas son gittles para productos comerclales y las de "terra firme" con mayor posthtlidad de uso tecnol6gtco; algunos de estos usos no son factlmente sustttutbles~ (6) En promedto, un 80% del valor de los productos del bosque son valor de subsistencet~ solo 20% del valor del basque es valor comerclal Se obttenen las siguientes conclustones (1) para mantener autonomla culturag la poblact6n amaz6ntca necesita tener acceso a todos los ttpos de bosques locale~ y (2) las zonas de bosques aluvlale~ actuales y pasada~ de la region amaz6nica~ deben priorizarse para la conservaci6rt Arribamos a estas conclusiones ampttas basados em (1) la simtlitud de la etnoecoldgica de la poblaci6n mesttza de la A m a z o n l a Peruana; (2) la similitud floristtca al nivel de familia~ del drea de estudio con el resto de la A m a z o n i a peruana; (3) el rdpido proceso de deforestaci6n en las zonas de bosque aluvial; y (4) sobroexplotact6n de los recursos de las dreas aluviale~ Por tant~ la recomendaci6n a los conservacionistas es ayudar a l a s comuntdades a adquirir el control de los recursos en estas zona~

present and former floodplains are more useful than other forest type~ mostly due to their importance as sources o f construction materials and fooa~ (5) Lower floodplain is more useful medicinally, s w a m p more important commercially, and terra t r i n e sandy more important technologically; they are not easily substituted f o r some o f these use~ (6) On averag 80% o f the value o f forest p l a n t products to mestizos is subsistence value; only 20% is commercial We conclude that (1) to maintain cultural autonomy, Amazonian people may need access to all local forest type~ and (2) present and former floodplain forests in western A m a z o n l a should be a conservation priority. We make these broad conclustons on the basis o f evidence of.. (1) ethnoecological similarittes among mestizo cultures in Peruvian Amazonian. (2) the similarity o f family-level floristtc composition at Tambopata and elsewhere in western Amazonta~ (3) rapid floodplain deforestation; and (4) floodplain resource overextracttort Conservationists shouid focus on helping communities gain control o f floodplain resource~

Introduction
Ethnobotanists have recently used quantitative studies to demonstrate that "natural" and managed Amazonian forests are of vital importance to native and some nonnative cultures (see Boom 1985, 1989, 1990; Bal6e 1986, 1987; Prance et al. 1987; Unruh & Alcorn 1988; Anderson & Posey 1989; Pinedo-Vfisquez et al. 1990). These studies have lent irrefutable evidence to the claim that many Amazonian peoples have a profound knowledge of h o w to extract, and often actively manage, forest resources (Bal6e 1989; Bal6e & Gely 1989; Peters et al. 1989a~ 1989b; Anderson 1991). By highlighting this mutual d e p e n d e n c e b e t w e e n cultural and biological diversity, quantitative ethnobotany has helped to encourage alliances b e t w e e n conservationists and indigenous peoples (but see Redford & Stearman 1993). It has also helped to broaden ethnobotany's scope beyond its traditional compilatory focus, thereby enhancing the scientific status of etlmobotany (MOerman 1991; Prance 1991; Phillips & Gentry 1993a~ 1993b). In spite of these advances, methodological problems plague attempts to apply quantitative analysis to etlmobotany (see Trotter & L o g a n 1986; Johns et al. 1990). For example, research that explicitly tests hypotheses is still rare in ethnobotany, hindering its conceptual development. Moreover, because most studies simply total uses reported by variable numbers of informants, or assign importance values by subjective a posteriori processes, results are hard to replicate and compare. Without increased uniformity in research methods, or at least explicit descriptions of h o w data are gathered and dis-

cussion of how the results are influenced by methodological context, there is little hope of making helpful comparisons between results presented by different researchers (see Johnson 1978; Alcorn 1984). Because of this lack of precision and comparability, and the related problem of an undeveloped conceptual agenda, quantitative ethnobotany has so fax provided little in the way of specific suggestions for conservation and development projects. A technique for estimating use values that is explicit, replicatable, and relatively objective was presented recently (Phillips & Gentry 1993~ 1993b). It overcomes many of the problems associated with most quantitative methods used to date and can be applied to test a range of hypotheses. In this paper, w e use both this technique and the most widely used approach to quantitative ethnobotany----calculating the percentage of useful species and stems in an areamto measure the usefulness of six forest types to m e s t i z o people in Amazonian Peru. To our knowledge, this is the first large-scale comparison of the importance of several different vegetation types to any one traditional tropical cultural group. The data set used is also one of few based on ethnobotanical work with nonnative "peasant" communities, w h o m researchers are recognizing should be a priority for ethnoecological research (see Parker 1989; Anderson 1990, 1991; Prance 1991; Hiraoka 1992; Padoch & de Jong 1992), and it comes from people w h o live more than 800 km away from the nearest p r e v i o u s c a b o c l o / r / h e r e t o study (based on Hiraoka's [1992] map of research sites). Our specific objectives are to evaluate which forest

ConservationBiology Volume8, No. 1, March1994

Ph////ps et 2/. types are most useful, and why. We then discuss the implications of our results for the practical problem of setting priorities in conservation. By so doing, w e aim to demonstrate that quantitative ethnobotanical surveys can b e powerfifl diagnostic tools for conservationists. A brief account of our research methods is given below. The reader is referred to Phillips and Gentry ( 1 9 9 3 a ) for a detailed discussion of our methods.

Eamobo~y and Conserv~on Table 1. Fore~typesoftheZoaaLumrvadaTambopata." Forest Type Permanently Water.Logged Swamp Forest C'Aguajal"): former oxbow lakes still flooded but covered in forest Seasonally Water-Logged Swamp Forest ("Shebonal"): oxbow lakes fitting in Lower Floodplain Forest: lowest floodplain locations with a recognizable forest Middle Floodplain Forest: tall forest, flooded occasionally upper Floodplain Forest: tall forest, very rarely flooded Old Floodplain Forest: subjected to flooding within the last two hundred years P r e v i o u s Floodplain (=Terra Firme Clay): clay soil; ancient floodplain of Tambopata river Term Firme ~ndy-Clay: sandy-clay soil; little or no indication of past flooding Terra Firme UltrasarwL. highly weathered sandy soil Plot Number

227

Area

0.6 ha

Methods Ecologicaland ulmral Setfl-e=

The research area, in the southeastern Peruvian department of Madre de Dios, includes the 5500-ha Zona Reservada Tambopata and surrounding area (Fig. 1). The whole area is part of the recently declared Zona Reservada Tambopata-Candamo, which covers nearly 1.5 million ha of lowland and montane forest. The lowland climate and moist forest is described in detail by Erwin (1984). We have defined nine forest types in the original reserve (Table 1; Phillips), based o n our observations and on earlier descriptions of vegetation and riverine succession in southeast Peru by T e r b o r g h (1983), Erwin (1984), Salo et al. (1986), Foster (1990), and Rasanen et al. (1992). Local people also recognize similar forest types, based mostly on frequency of flood712

0.5 ha

4 0 1 3, 6

1.0 ha 1.0 ha 1.0 ha 2.0 ha

*Forest ~pes with tnventoryplots are highlighted in bold ing and the dominant species (Elisb~n Armas, personal

I/"/jl'/ ii'iii
711 710

6~9 10-

communication; Jos~ Armas, personal communication;

Wilfredo Torres, personal communication). The distribution of these forest types in a 112.4-km z area along the lower Tambopata river is mapped in Figure 2 (based on a ground-truthed 1991 false color Iandsat image), illustrating the wide variety of vegetation potentially available for local people's use. Three of the forest types (c, d, e ) are within the contemporary floodplain of the Tambopata and La Torte rivers. Four more (a, b, f, g) are within the rivers' Holocene and late Quaternary floodplain (see Salo et al. 1986; Rasanen et al. 1991, 1992). In Peruvian Amazonia as a whole, the complex successional mosaic of present and previous floodplains occupy, respectively, 12.0% and 14.6% of the lowland forest (Salo et al. 1986). Amazon forest is often classified simply as vdrzea ( f l o o d e d ) and t e r r a firme ( n o n flooded); to apply this dichotomy to most of western Amazonia would be inappropriate, partly because it denies the enormous influence of past flooding o n vegetation. In fact, all western Amazonian forest was probably flooded at least o n c e during the Tertiary and

-ii ,.?.---._.J/

' L/--.,,...,,._,..,.j-

",- -,,x.

II-

Figure 1. Map o f Madre de Dios showing location o f the Z o n a Reservada Tambopata~ other protected area& and principal riverx (1) Cocha Cashu Biological Statiort (2) Pakitza Biological Statiott (3) Zona Reservada Tambopata (4) Reserva Cuzco Ama.

Quaternary.
The floristic dissimilarities between the nine Tambopata forest types contributes to an unusually large flora for such a small area (at least 1300 flowering species; Reynel & Gentry 1994), and makes it an ideal site for comparing the usefulness of different ecosystems to tropical forest people. In addition, this kind of informa-

z(mica (5) Reserva Lago Sandovat (6) Santuario

Nacional del Heath. Reproduced with permission from Duellman and Koechlin (1991).

ComervationBiotow yolnme8, No. 1, March1994

228

Edmobotany Conservation and

Ph~ps et sd.

T?.?

def bf

gh ef

b bfs .977.

hi

Figure 2. Large-scale map of the study area based on a ground-truthedJuly 1991 Landsat image Solid black represents waterbodies (rivers and oxbow lakes). The Tambopata river flows approximately southwest to northeast; La Torre river flows southeast to northwest All forest that is (a) north, or up to 1 k m west, of La T o m river and (b) east of Tambopata river is protected in the Zona Reservada Tambopata Vegetation: (a) Perma. nentiy Water-Logged Swamp Forest; (b) Seasonally Water-Logged Swamp Forest,. (c) Lower Floodplain Forest; (d) Middle Floodplain Forest; (e) Upper Floodplain Forest; 09 Old Floodplain Forest,. (g) Previous Floodplain Forest; (h) Terra Ftrme Sandy-Clay Soil Forest,. (i) Terra Firme Ultrasand Soil Forest; (v) Floating herbaceous vegetatiorL ~ f, g = Mature Floodplain Forests; c, a~ e = Present Floodplain (Salo et aL 1986); ag b, f, g = Previous Floodplain (Salo et aL 1986). Use of two or more letters indicates that the forest types could not be resolved; each is considered to contribute equally in the area calculations (Table 7). Hatching represents forest that shows little or no topographic evidence of succession from a riverbed (h, i). Stippling represents deforested area up to July 1991.
tion could have a practical application in guiding the process of allocating the entire lowland area of the n e w reserve into different zones for protection and for extractive and agricultural use by local people. Most of the current inhabitants of the Tambopata area are mestizo~ The t e r m mestizo covers a broad cultural spectrum, from very recent migrants from the Andes with little knowledge of their n e w environment to colonists of m o r e than 30 years in the region w h o came from elsewhere in Madre de Dios or further north in Peruvian Amazonia, and who, like the caboclos of Brazil and the rtbere~os of northern Peru, are linked historically to native Amerindian cultures (Parker 1989). Of our adult informants, 83% w e r e b o r n in Madre de Dios, but only about 55% had lived m o r e than half their lives in the immediate area of the newly formed La Torre c o m m u n i t y on the w e s t bank of the Tambopata River. Such mobility is typical a m o n g nonindigenous Amazonians (see Padoch & de Jong 1990) and implies that the conditions that allow a relatively free exchange of ethnobotanical knowledge b e t w e e n m o s t mestizos have existed for a long time.
Data Collection

We worked in seven 1.ha plots at Tambopata, representing the six forest types highlighted in bold in Table I. The plots w e r e originally established by Gary Hartshorn in 1979 (plot 1 ) and Alwyn Gentry and Terry Erwin in 1983 (plots 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) to include a representative

Conservation Biology
Volume 8, No. 1, March 1994

P h ~ et ~. and reasonably h o m o g e n o u s sample of each forest type. Collections, including periodic reinventories and identifications of all tree and liana species of at least 10 c m diameter at breast height ( d b h ) in the plots, w e r e done by A. H. Gentry, C. Reynel, and O. Phillips, with Proyecto Flora del Peril botanists (see Acknowledgments). The tagged, identified trees and lianas in a total of 6.1 ha w e r e used for the ethnobotanical study. This approach discriminates against herbs, shrubs, epiphytes, and vines, but the p r o b l e m s of identifying sterile vouchers make it almost impossible to inventory the ethnobotany of smaller plants comprehensively. Large lianas are included; a m o n g previous hectare-plot ethnobotanical analyses, they w e r e only considered by Boom ( 1 9 8 9 ) and Paz y Mifio et al. (1991). Ethnobotanical data w e r e collected b e t w e e n 1986 and 1991 by O. Phillips, working with P. Wilkin, C. Galvez-Durand B. and assistants. We interviewed 29 mestizo informants ( 2 0 men, three w o m e n , six children and youths), from the l o w e r T a m b o p a t a river, aged bet w e e n five and 67 years. We r e c o r d e d their knowledge of some of the approximately 570 w o o d y species in 6.1 ha of plots. Most interviews took place in the forest, among the tagged, v o u c h e r e d plants. Additional data w e r e gathered in informal interviews for a few welik n o w n trees that have a consistent one-to-one match of botanical species to local names. In total, w e r e c o r d e d use data from 1604 plant-specific "events", each "event" being the process of discussing one species with one informant on one day.

Etimobol~ and Gonser~on

229

category "other," because a broad range of miscellaneous m e s t i z o uses can b e considered technological. In any case, these minor categorical differences have little effect on either most species' use value calculations or on our overall conclusions. The data w e r e analyzed with a technique that shares some features with other informant-driven, -indexing, or -consensus methods (Adu-Tutu et al. 1979; Friedman et al. 1986; Trotter & Logan 1986; Johns et al. 1990) used to estimate noumarket direct usefulness ( r e v i e w e d in Phillips 1993a). Each of the techniques is designed to address different questions, but all share the valuable properties that ( 1 ) they directly reflect the importance of plants to the informants, aiming to minimize the influence of investigators' value-judgements, and ( 2 ) they facilitate statistical analyses of ethnobotanical data. Our estimate of the use value of each species s for each informant ~ UV~ is defined as

xu~
UVls?lgs

w h e r e U/s equals the n u m b e r of uses m e n t i o n e d in each event by informant i, a n d n o equals the n u m b e r of events for species s with informant Our estimate of the total use value for each species a; UVs, is then

~i UV~s
ns
#J

Primary Data Analysis

The informants r e p o r t e d over 105 distinct uses for the w o o d y plants of the inventory plot. ( T h e definition of an individual "use" is discussed in Phillips and Gentry [1993a].) We assigned each use to one of five broad categories: edible, construction, c o m m e r c e , medicinal, and technology and crafts. These categories are similar to those used by Prance et al. ( 1 9 8 7 ) and PinedoV ~ q u e z et al. (1990), although some minor differences should be noted. We included in the edible category the use "hunting-wait tree," as a few species w e r e recognized by informants as being w o r t h waiting near w h e n in fruit because their fruits are sought by important game animals. We also included "firewood" and "charcoal" species in the category technology and crafts. (In contrast to the findings of Prance et al. for four indigenous Amazonian groups that most tree species are used for fuel and/or to attract game, w e found that the species used at Tambopata for hunting or fuel constitute only 12.7% of all useful species, and that just five species are useful solely for hunting or fuel.) Finally, w e included u n d e r the category t e c h n o l o g y and crafts uses that Prance et al. and Pinedo-V~squez et al. assigned to the

where

equals the n u m b e r of informants interviewed for species a This informant indexing technique has a n u m b e r of interrelated advantages o v e r p r o c e d u r e s tlmt simD/y total numbers of uses or assign importance values a posteriori:
ns

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Use values reflect the importance of each species to the informants objectively. Mistakes or very minor uses contribute little; important uses contribute significantly. It makes efficient use of all av_ajlable information. Every interview contributes directly to the usevalue calculations, even if it provides only negative data, w h e n a plant is claimed to have no use or is apparently misidentified. The distribution of use values generated is continuous. More statistical information is contained in continuous data than in comparable discrete data. Use values are unbiased by the intensity of research. The n u m b e r of interviews p e r informant p e r species and the n u m b e r of informants giving information on each species are denominators in the two calculation steps.

Conservation Biology Volume 8, No. 1, March 1994

230 (5)

Edmobo~y Conse~on and

Statistical confidence intervals can b e stated for each use value. Similarly, a quantitative description of the relationship b e t w e e n sample size and the accuracy of the use-value estimate can be derived (see Phillips & Gentry 1993~ Fig 3). Each species' estimated use value can be improved by resampling techniques such as bootstrapping or jack-knifing (see Efron 1982; Magurran 1988). Direct subsistence and commercial uses (respectively, consumptive use value and productive use value, see McNeely et al. 1990) are evaluated simultaneously by the same measure, allowing comparison of the importance of each form of production to local people. This property is vital: by their nature, subsistence economies are invisible under financial accounting procedures. Thus, without techniques to evaluate subsistence and commercial value simultaneously, d e v e l o p m e n t projects that might actually reduce living standards may be apparently justifiable. Used properly, the technique is scientifically rigorou~ b o t h because the m e t h o d of assigning importance is explicit and relatively independent of the r e s e a r c h e r ( s o that different r e s e a r c h e r s should generate similar results), and because it permits the testing of a broad range of specific, falsifiable null hypotheses ( P o p p e r 1963).

Phillips et al.

(6)

(7)

(8)

Secondary Data Analysis

A modified version of the raw use-value data was used to make between-plot comparisons. Use data of congeneric species w e r e m e r g e d w h e n those species consistently shared the same m e s t i z o names and uses (see Adu-Tutu et al. 1 9 7 9 : 3 2 3 ) . For e x a m p l e , all S a l a c i a (Hippocrateaceae) liana species that reach 10 c m diameter share, the same n a m e s and uses (Phillips & Gentry 1993a), and w e calculated the modified use value of each species that comprises this one "folk species" from our data on all S a l a c i a species (Appendix 1 ). The principal reason for making this adjustment is to create taxa that reflect m e s t i z o perceptions of their environment m o r e accurately than o u r botanical species concepts do. A secondary benefit is a marked i m p r o v e m e n t in the quantity and quality of ethnobotanical data for each taxon. Thus, f r o m 496 useful plot species with data ( m e a n n u m b e r of interview events per botanical species = 3.23, m e a n n u m b e r of informants per botanical species = 2.14), w e derived 272 "folk species" ( m e a n n u m b e r of events p e r folk species = 5.90, mean n u m b e r of informants p e r folk species = 2.74). For 25 species that w e never found with informants, a best-estimate use value was calculated as the mean of the genus or family use values (minus the edible component, if the fruit and seed are k n o w n to b e inedible). These species are all very rare ( m e a n density = 0.39

stems/ha) and infrequent (all but t w o are in only one plot), so inaccuracy in these estimates will have a negligible effect on the overall plot-level comparisons. In order to c o m p a r e the usefulness of the forest types, each plot was first divided into 20 50 m ( = 1000 m 2) subplots. The use values of each w o o d y s t e m w e r e s u m m e d and divided by the n u m b e r of stems in each subplot. To investigate w h e t h e r the subplot-averaged use values could b e used for comparing the usefulness of forest types, w e needed to test w h e t h e r the subplots represent sufficiently independent samples. Here, statistical independence was partially rephrased in terms of a null hypothesis that w e tested: distance b e t w e e n subplots has no effect on the similarity b e t w e e n the subplots' averaged use values. To test the hypothesis for each plot, w e first calculated the differences b e t w e e n each pair of the subplots' s u m m e d and averaged use values, and then w e assigned these differences to four categories based on the distance b e t w e e n each subplot pair: ( 1 ) subplots are adjacent; ( 2 ) subplots share a corner; ( 3 ) subplots are at least 20 m apart; ( 4 ) subplots are at least 40 m apart (category 2 was not used for plots 2 and 5 because the inventoried area was smaller). For each inventory plot, each category's results w e r e compared simultaneously by the nonparametric KruskallWalEs test (Table 2). The results provide little support for the notion that the distance b e t w e e n subplots affects the difference between subplot usefulness. Only o n e p value is significant at the 10% level, and the overall distribution of the s e v e n p values does not appear to be different from that e x p e c t e d by random. There is no evidence to reject the null hypothesis, at least for the distances tested, although the small sample sizes m e a n that the possibility remains of a very w e a k distance effect. Similarly, although for three of the seven plots (0, 2, 3) similarity decreased with increasing distance b e t w e e n subplots, the effect was slight. On balance, therefore, w e believe the results support the view that the lO00-m 2 subplots are essentially independent samples. This result is not surprising because the location of each plot was originally chosen to include a reasonably h o m o g e n e o u s and representative sample of the distinct forest type.
Table 2. Results of testing the null hypothesis that distance between subplots has no effect on the similarity between

subplots' =,erquJ use y a w .

Plot n (pairwise n (distance Kruskail-Wallis

Number
0 1 2 3 4

c o ~ )
45 45 14 45 45

caUgories)
4 4 3 4 4

Chl-SquamdResult
6.959(3) 5.978 (3) 2.143 (2) 3.331 (3) 2.759(3) 0.073 0.113 0.343 0.343 0.431 0.408 0.645

5
6

10
45

3
4

1.791 (2)
1.253(3)

ConservationBiology Volume& No. 1, March 1994

Phillips et al.

Eamobolany and Co~encttioa

231

Results and Discussion Measur~ of Usefulness Compared

Appendix 1 lists the useful species in the inventory plots, with information on their distribution and density, and the n u m b e r of interviews and informants on which the use values are based. M e s t i z o s in t h e Tambopata area use an estimated 57 w o o d y plant families (counting Fabaceae as one family) and 87.2% of the tree and liana species in the c o m b i n e d 6.1-ha inventory plots, equivalent to 94.0% of w o o d y stems. These results are at the high end of the range of similarly derived results for o t h e r c u l t u r e s in Amazonia. Pinedo-V~squez et al. ( 1 9 9 0 ) r e c o r d e d that r / b e r ~ o s in northern Peru use 60.1% of tree species, 66.4% of individual trees, and 36 w o o d y families in 7.5 ha of advanced secondary forest. Anderson and Posey ( 1 9 8 9 ) found that Kayap6 use over 98% of collected plants in an unspecified area of managed tropical scrub. Estimates for other Amerindians range from 48.6% to 100% of tree species used from mostly 1-ha inventory plots (see B o o m 1985, 1989, 1990; BaiZe 1986, 1987; Grenand 1992; Prance et al. 1987; Rico-Gray et al. 1991; B e n n e t t 1992). On a slightly smaller scale, the data for Tambopata m e s t i z o forest use appear even m o r e impressive: up to 97.2% of species and 98.8% of stems in 0.6 ha are useful (Table 3). Our data apparently confirm the view that tropical forests m a y be utilized as m u c h by s o m e nontribal peoples as by tribal peoples (Parker 1989; Anderson 1991 ). It is apparent, however, that this widely used process of simply totalling useful species in a given area is only a very crude guide to the cultural importance of forests. ( T h e ordinal ranking system used b y Prance et al. [ 1987] and Pinedo-V~squez et al. [1990], w h o distinguish bet w e e n major and m i n o r uses, is an i m p r o v e m e n t on simple "percentage useful" calculations, but, as discussed above, it has several drawbacks c o m p a r e d to informant indexing techniques. Most important, the m e t h o d of assigning importance is a posteriori and sensitive to investigators' value judgments, so it is hard to c o m p a r e resuits using this technique.) Table 3 shows w h y w e believe that percentage Useful results need to be inter-

preted with care. The table displays each plot's m e a n use value p e r stem, together with the percentage values of useful species and stems. While the percentage useful values are remarkably uniform b e t w e e n forest types, average use values differ by a factor of nearly two. Moreover, there is no apparent congruence b e t w e e n the different measures. In fact, the m o s t useful forest type by percentage useful calculations, swamp forest, turns out to be the least useful by averaging UVs values. These inconsistencies reflect the fact that most tropical forest cultures have at least occasional uses for most trees, but only a few species are exceptionally useful and intensely used. Thus, swamp forest is dominated largely by species of minor importance to m e s t i z o s (especially L u e h o p s i s h o e h n e i Bur., Tiliaceae, w h i c h comprises 68% of the plot's stems but has a use value of only 0.5). Figure 3 shows the wide range in use values for the 496 useful species, illustrating the point that only a few species are outstandingly useful. In fact, the m o s t useful folk species, l r t a r t e a d e l t o i d e a IL & P., is nearly two orders of magnitude m o r e useful than M o l t i n e d i a k i l l i p i i (use value: 4.413 versus 0.067) (Appendix 1), yet e a c h c o u n t s as equal in percentage useful calculations. Percentage useful values are as m u c h a function of the level of ethnobotanical research effort as an objective measure of the importance of plants or vegetation types to people. Thus, the m o r e informants interviewed the m o r e likely it is that ethnobotanists will record additional minor uses that make a negligible contribution to use values but swell the numbers of useful species. Consequently, many of the differences ( o r similarities) between reported results in the literature are likely to be artifacts. Tambopata Forest Types Compared By contrast to the percentage useful results, three forest types---upper, old, and previous floodplain f o r e s t m clearly emerge as being the most useful w h e n evaluated by UVs values. Because of these similarities, and the fact that these forests share the properties of being physiognomically well developed (with canopies of 25 to 35 m

Table 3. Forest-typeusefulness with percentage useful and informant-derived use value techniques.
Forest Type Species Inventoried Stems Inventoried Mean Use Value p e r Stem Useful Species % Useful Stems %

Swamp Lower Floodplain Terra Firme Sandy (Plot I = 3) Terra Firme Sandy Soil (Plot H = 6) Upper Floodplain Old Floodplain Previous Floodplain Clay Soil
z In 0.6 ha P ~ t and S e m i - P ~ t In 0.5 ha Lower Floodplain forest

47-491 25-282 176-178 164 175-181 181-182 180-186

Swamp foresL

427 z 2252 550 568 530 560 561

0.98 1.15 1.31 1.33 1.73 1.86 1.88

97.2 92.4 89.3 85.7 91.0 91.2 90.2

98.8 93.5 95.2 91.2 88.8 96.0 96.0

~ o n

Blok~y

Volume8, No. 1, March 1994

232

Edmobo~y Conservation and

Plfflllps et aL
g PREVIOUS FLOODPLAIN

(D 0.3_ t.) tn "~ 0.2_ N--

~,
c~

2.5

OLO FLOODPLAIN

g
c.

L5

TERRA FIRME SANOY SOIL

UPPER
PLAIN

0.1_ co

.J o C. t.z-

FLDOOPLAIN L ~

S~AM~.._
0 c_ m > 0.5

Use Value
Figure 3. D i s t r i b u t i o n o f u s e v a l u e s (UV~) f o r the 4 9 6 u s e f u l p l o t species a t T a m b o p a t a M a x i m u m UV s = 4.41; m e a n UV s = 1.35; m e d i a n UV s = 1.24. Figure 4 Forest-type u s e f u l n e s s c o m p a r e d , r a n g e a n d m e d i a n o f s u b p l o t a v e r a g e d u s e v a l u e s Upper F l o o d . p l a i n , O l d Floodplain, a n d P r e v i o u s F l o o d p l a i n = M a t u r e F l o o d p l a i n Forest~ D i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n w h o l e p l o t s are s i g n i f i c a n t a t p < 0.001 ( K r u s k a l l . W a l l t s c o m p a r i s o n , c h i . s q u a r e d = 28.58).

and numerous large lianas), w e will discuss them together as mature floodplain forests (note that this t e r m includes forests that are no longer flooded). The exceptional utility of these forests to m e s t i z o s is due in part to the fact that they share a high density of very useful palm species. Table 4 lists all species with a use value of 3.0 or more; six of the 12 are palms. The most important of these species, I r i a r t e a d e l t o l d e a R. & P., has a dense population in all m a t u r e floodplain forests. Trees of s o m e o t h e r i m p o r t a n t f a m i l i e s , s u c h as A n n o naceae, Lauraceae, and Myristicaceae, are m u c h m o r e evenly distributed b e t w e e n most of the Tambopata forest types. There are strong indications, however, that important edible, fleshy fruited genera such as Brosim u m and P s e u d o l m e d i a (Moraceae), G a r c i n i a (Clusiaceae), P o u t e r i a (Sapotaceae), S p o n d i u s (Anacardiaceae), and T h e o b r o m a (Sterculiaceae), are either m o r e numerous and speciose (data from Gentry 1988a; ReyTable 4. All species with a use value of 3.0 or more.

nel & Gentry in preparation) or m o r e fecund (Phillips unpublished data) in Tambopata mature floodplain forests than in upland terra firme forests. By contrast, simply totalling the n u m b e r of species that are edible, w h e t h e r important or otherwise, yields a similar result for mature floodplain forests ( 4 4 to 53 ha - 1 ) and upland terra firme (43 h a - t ) (Phillips 1993a). In general, therefore, mature floodplain forests are m o r e useful than the other forest types because the most useful taxa t e n d to b e m o r e n u m e r o u s and/or speciose, e v e n though there are many taxa that c a n be used in every forest type. The significance of mature floodplain forests to mest i z o people shown by Table 3 is demonstrated graphically by Figure 4, which displays the averaged use-value range and median for 1000-m 2 subplots in each forest

Genu~ Species IrlarCea deltotdea 1~ & P. Euterpe precatoria Marl Maurttta flexuosa L.

Family

Mestizo N a m e
pOtla

n (stems)

Plots

Use Value

n. z

n~

Oenocarpus sp. nov.

Cedrelinga cateniiforrais Ducke Aniba canelilla (HBK) Mez Bertholletia excelsa BonpL Jessenia bataua (Mart.) Burret

Oenocarpus c.f. bacaba Mart.

C i n n a m o m u m spa Xylopia aft. calophylla Xylopia sp.1

Arecaceac Arecaccae Arecaccae Arecaceae Fab: Mimosoid Lauraceae Lecythidaceae Arecaceae Arecaceae Lauraceae Annonaceae Annonaceae

huasai aguaje ungurahuillo tornillo, cedro macho canelon

castat~

ungurahui sinami
irloena

[~]pim~m

[es]pintana [blanca]

313 32 40 6 7 1 7 19 6 2 7 1

0134 012345 2 16 36 3 1346 6 36 36 36 3

4.413 4.299 3.357 3.250 3.250 3.167 3.162 3.120 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000

23 24 11 7 4 4 13 18 4 3 2 2

12 15 7 4 4 3 7 10 3 2 1 1

z no = number of interview events per spect~ 2 n I = number of informants intemtewed per spectex

Conservation Biology Volume 8, No. I, March 1994

Phillips et al.
conetruction ~ eOble

Etlmohota~ and ~ o n

co,,~ce

233

me1tc~nel

techno]ooJcal

^ L6

L2

o.e o.6

0.4
.o o.2
TERRA FIRNE SANDY SOIL PREVIOUS OLD FLOODPLAIN UPPER LOWER FLOODPLAIN SWAMP

Figure 5. Forest-type usefulness compared,, each for. esrs averaged usefulness displayed by component use category. Upper Floodplain, Old Floodplain, and Previous Floodplain = Mature Floodplain Forests
type, and statistically by Table 5, which shows each significant between-plot difference in usefulness. Previous floodplain, old floodplain, and upper floodplain forests are each more useful than all three of the other inventoiled forest types at Tambopata, but in no case is one mature floodplain forest significantly more useful than another. Although there are no inventory plots in the three remaining Tambopata forest types, we predict that the usefulness of middle floodplain and seasonally water-logged swamp forests may approach that of the mature floodplain forests because they share large numbers of palms and some other floristic similarities. By contrast, terra firme ultrasand forest has few palms, few trees large enough to provide sawn timber, and an apparently negligible production of edible fruit, so w e suppose it to be less useful than terra firme sandy-clay forest. More insight into the nature of the differences between forest types is given by breaking down each subplot's averaged use value into its c o m p o n e n t use categories: construction, edible, commercial, medicinal, and technological (Fig. 5). Construction, edible, and commercial use dominates for most forest types~ reflecting the contribution of palms, Annonaceae, Lauraceae, and Myristicaceae to h o u s e h o l d c o n s t r u c t i o n and commerce (for example, furniture, thatching, canoes, roundwood, and split-palm w o o d and w n w o o d for walls), and of mostly palms and Moraceae to subsistence food (especially fruits, palm-hearts, edible oils, and huntingwait trees). In contrast, medicinal uses are disproportionately important in l o w e r floodplain forest, due largely to a dense population of the important medicinal tree Ficus insiptda Willd., whose latex is a widely used anthelmintic (Phillips 1990). In fact, both F. insipida and another indispensable medicinal species, Croton

lechleri Muell. Arg., only regenerate in lower floodplain forest, so that although the forest type as a whole is less useful than most others, it still makes a vital contribution to mestizo health. These patterns are reflected in Table 6, which enumerates the results of each statistical comparison for each category. The three mature floodplain forests prevail in most pairwise comparisons for construction and edible usefulness, but they are joined by swamp forest in commercial usefidness comparisons, mostly because of its dense population of the occasionally commercialized Luehop$is hoe~meg Lower floodplain forest wins all six medicinal comparisons. Terra firme sandy-day forest is more important than two mature floodplain forests for technological uses (for example, Hymenaea spp, and Burseraceae p r o d u c e resin sometimes burnt as a kerosene substitute), but because this category makes a minimal contribution to total usefulness, this forest type remains significantly less useful than all three mature floodplain forests. Finally, two aspects of our sampling methodology may have caused us to underestimate the importance of medicinal uses for all forest types. One obvious bias is that only trees and lianas w e r e inventoried. The relative preponderance of medicinal uses among herbs, shrubs, and vines would elevate this category's importance for most forest types. Another problem, the male bias in our informant sample (discussed in Phillips & Gentry 1993a), may also reduce our estimate of the importance of medicinal plants (see Gispert & G6mez Campos 1986).
Implications for Conservation in Amazonla
This is the first attempt to directly compare the utility of more than two different forest types at such a scale, with any inventory technique. Grenand ( 1 9 9 2 ) listed the number of useful species for Wayapi Indians in small plots of different secondary forests; Salick ( 1 9 9 2 ) found no significant differences in the uses that one Amuesha herbalist knew of in five different forest types, sampling from 50 m 2 to 225 m 2 for each forest type; Stoffle et al. ( 1 9 9 0 ) found differences in the cultural significance of local use areas for native North Americans of Yucca Mountain. One possible limit on the broader significance of our results is that, inevitably, the notion of what is useful varies from culture to culture. Therefore, it is possible that the data presented here may be of only local relevance, specific to the mestizo people of the lower Tambopata river. Although w e recognize this problem, there are grounds for some confidence in extrapolating our broad conclusions about the relative importance of different forest types to elsewhere in Amazonia. First, non-native people are ubiquitous in the region, and they are culturally less heterogeneous than are native people. As a measure of this, of the approximately 45 species wild at Tambopata that are also listed

Conservation Biology Volume 8, No. 1, March 1994

234

Edmobotany Conserv'a~n and

Pl~ps et ~1.

T~te 5. Foresttwe ~
TI cl 1

co~pm~ r m ~ d ~
TF21

p~e
pF 1

b~m~-ptot t o m t i t ~ ' ~
O1d U1M

d ~

~
Lid

.
SW 1

TF11 TF21 pF 1 OF 1 UF1 LF~ SW1

XXXXX

NS XXXXX

2.08* 2.60**

2.45* 2.71"*

3.70"** 3.78*** XXXXX NS NS 3.06"* 3.25**

3.02"* 2.95"* XXXXX NS 3.06** 3.25**

3.33*** 3.25"* XXXXX 3.06** 3.25**

XXXXX

NS XXXXX

The vertical c o l u m n represents the m o s t useful forest type in each p a t r w i s e c o m p a r l s o ~ A l l values are z values f o r p a i r w l s e W i l c o x o n r a n k s u m comparlsonx Significance levels f o r the z values: . . . . p < 0.001, ** = p < 0.01, * = p < 0.05. Note that these a t e p values f o r i n d i v i d u a l p a i r w l s e co~on,g The true p values f o r the m o s t significant c o l u m n or cell w o u l d be subject to a Bonferroni corteclloet Forest Oppes: TFI = Terra F i r m , s a n d y c ~ . p l o t I (h); TF2 = Terra Firme s a n d y cla~. p l o t H (h); PF = Previous Floodplain clay soil (g); OF = Old Floodplain (j~; UF = Upper Floodplain (e); LF = L o w e r Floodplain (c); S W = P e r m a n e n t l y Water-Losged S w a m p (a); ~ f, a n d g are Mature Floodplain F o r e s ~

by Vgsquez and Gentry ( 1 9 8 9 ) as being edible in the lquitos area about 110 km away, 38 species share similar or identical m e s t i z o n a m e s . Most of the very useful species at Tambopata (Table 4) are also important species for traditional peoples throughout the rest of Peruvian Amazonia, and almost all present-day inhabitants of riverine z o n e s a r e m e s t t z o / r t b e r e ~ o , not Amerindian (Hiraoka 1992). Second, w e sampled a contrasting set of six different forest types, and most share substantial floristic similarities with vegetation elsewhere in lowland Madre de Dins ( T e r b o r g h 1983; Foster 1990; Gentry & Terborgh 1990; Phillips 1993a; Martin Timan~i, personal c o m m u n i c a t i o n ) . Moreover, b e c a u s e similar disturbance and successional processes--involving riverine dynamics and active sub-Andean foreland deformation---operate in most of western Amazonia (Encarnaci6n 1985; Salo et al. 1986; Rasanen et al. 1991, 1992; Kalliola et al. 1987), w e believe that the taxonomic composition of the Tambopata inventory plots may be reasonably representative of m u c h of the seasonal tropical forests in southwestern Amazonia. Indeed, Gentry has shown elsewhere that the composition of lowland neotropical forests is e x t r e m e l y predictable at the family level, given sufficient climatic and edaphic similarity (Gentry 1988g. Gentry 1993). For b o t h these reasons, w e tentatively predict that our observation that mature floodplain forests---and not upland terra firme f o r e s t s - are most useful to m e s t i z o g may hold for the majority of the population in w e s t e r n and southwestern Amazonia. If confirmed, such a pattern w o u l d have important implications for Amazonian conservation and development. It is interesting to c o m p a r e these findings with the conclusion of Prance et al. ( 1 9 8 7 ) that terra firme forest should be a priority for conservation, and with the calculations of Peters et al. ( 1 9 8 9 b ) of potentially large market returns from harvesting edible fruit from some low-diversity forests. While these authors demonstrated a high degree of use and/or m a n a g e m e n t of these forests,

they did not attempt comparisons of direct use value b e t w e e n local forest types. By contrast, while there is a clear need for m o r e studies from elsewhere, o u r comparative results suggest strongly that mature floodplain forests should be a main focus of conservationists' efforts. In proposing that utility b e a major criterion in setting conservation priorities, w e do not m e a n to imply that less useful forest types b e overlooked. Even the least useful forest types may be culturally valuable, and there are clear utilitarian arguments for conserving all forest types. But other, compelling reasons also make the forests of the c o n t e m p o r a r y and recent floodplains a top priority. First, the floodplains are less extensive than upland terra firme (see Salo et al. 1986); therefore, species unique to mature floodplain forests are presumably m o r e vulnerable to local, and perhaps global, extinctions than those of the m o r e extensive uplands. Second, mature present and previous floodplain forests are at least as diverse as upland terra fuane forests (see Table 3), and m u c h m o r e diverse than Amazonian s w a m p forests. Indeed, the most species-rich forest reported to date is old floodplain at Yanamono, near Iquitos in northern Amazonian Peru, with 300 species at least 10 cm dbh in 1 ha (Gentry 1988b). Third, satellite images clearly show that mature floodplain forests in w e s t e r n Amazonia are being deforested faster than other lowland forest types as settlement and agriculture spread outward from riverbanks. Thus, while the deforestation rate for Amazonian Peru was conservatively estimated at 0.7% (Myers 1990), and the annual conversion rate between 1986 and 1991 for all forest adjacent to the original reserve was about 0.66%, the rate for n o n p r o t e c t e d mature floodplain forest in Figure 2 was about 1.63%. 1

1 Total area o f m a p = 112.4 k m z. Original area o f unprotected forest = 79.4 krr~. Total deforested area = 5.05 lem z ( o f w h i c h 4.60 k n ~ is m a t u r e f l o o d p l a i n fomst---~ f, a n d g in Figure 2). Sequential

Conservation Biology Volume 8, No. 1, March 1994

Phi~s e t a
Table 6.
Forest

aM c o ~ o n

z35

Forest type ~

cmapatt~ between-plot dMget~ces in compmtel category mefaim~, tallied by r e s ~

Construction Edible Commerce Medicine Technology

M e a n Use V a l u e

TFI 1 TF2 t PF 1 OF 1 UF1 LFt SWt

2~:1:3 2:1:0:3 4:2.'0.'0 4:1:1.'0 4.'0:2.'0 0:0:1:5 0:1:0:5

2:0:1:3 2:1.'0:3 4:2.'0.'0 4.'0:2.'0 4:1:1.'0 0.~:0:6 1:0:0:5

0:3.~:3 0:0:3:3 4:2.'0.'0 4.'0:2.'0 4:1:1.'0 0:1:2:3 0:2:1:3

1:1:1:3 1:0:1:4 3:1:2:0 3:2:1:0 2:1:2:1 0:0:0:6 4:2.'0:0

0:2:3:1 0:4:1:1 0:4:1:1 0:4:1:1 0:1:4:1 6:0:0:0 0:0:5:1

2:1:2:1 5:0:0:1 2:3:0:1 3:2:1:0 2:0:3:1 0:1:0:5 0:0:1:5

AH comparisons are pairtvis~ using the nonparmc~tric Wilcoxon rank sum test Results are reported in the following forr~. N ( p a i r ~ s e win~ significant at ~ 596 level): N(pairtvise win~ not significant): N(pai~xvise losse~ not significant): N(pairwise losse~ significant at ~ 5% level). By chance along expect 5/100 x (3 x 7 x 6) = 5.25 pairwise comparisons to be significant at 596 leve~, obsertmd result = 79. The most useful forest O~Oes in each category are highlighted in bola~ as are the most useful forest types f o r aH uses combined 1Forest ypes~ TFI = Terra Firme sandy cla~. plot I (H); TF2 = Terra Firme sandy clay. plot II (H); PF = Previous Floodplain clay soil (G); OF = Old Floodplain (F); UF = Upper Floodplain (E); LF = Lower Floodplain (C); SW = Permanently Water.Logged Swamp (A); F, F, and G are Mature Floodplain Forest~

Rapid floodplain deforestation has several causes, including the fact that c o n t e m p o r a r y floodplain soils sustain agricultural productivity longer than do older Amazonian terra firme soils. H e n c e they have not only b e e n favored by subsistence farmers for thousands of years (Denevan 1976; Padoch & de Jong 1992), but also recently by better capitalized individuals and corporations growing staples for local urban markets or raising cattle for b e e f exports. Rivers provide the only form of transp o r t for m o s t of the region, making land close to the rivers e v e n m o r e attractive. A recent gold rush along the Madre de Dios, Ifiambari, and T a m b o p a t a rivers has boosted the riverside population. Because p e o p l e are concentrated close to rivers, perverse e c o n o m i c incenfives that encourage deforestation---such as the e x t r e m e difficulties mest/zo families face in gaining effective title to land without first deforesting it, or access to agricultural credit being prorated by the quantity of forest cut d o w n - - - e x e r t t h e i r m a x i m u m d e s t r u c t i v e effect o n floodplain forest, e v e n though destruction of its resources m a y ultimately impoverish families and c o m m u nities. These forces clearly o v e r w h e l m any incentive to conserve mature forests of the present and former floodplains that w e might anticipate as a result of their usefulness, and apparently refute the notion that simply increasing the value of tropical forests to local people will necessarily result in their conservation (Table 7). Deforestation is not the sole threat to mature floodplain forests. Perverse incentives (for example, difficulty in obtaining access or title to land and ineffective enf o r c e m e n t of conservation regulations) also encourage over-extraction of forest resources. In such situations, the very uses that make mature floodplain forests important m a y also contribute to their degradation. Eximages were not availabl but based on field experience we esti. mate that 5096 o f this deforestation occurred between 1986 and 1991. Therefor~ estimiat~ annual deforestation rate o f all unprotected forest 1986-1991 = 066%; estimated annual deforestation rate o f matum ;Zoodplain forest = 1.6396.

traction has already affected Tambopata's forests, e v e n within the reserve that received some p r o t e c t i o n after its establishment in 1977. For example, one of the area's oldest residents told .us that all the largest C r o t o n l e c h l e r t ( E u p h o r b i a c e a e ) and m a n y M a y t e n u s sp. (Celastraceae) trees had b e e n felled by 1970 b y outsiders for one-time commercial extraction of their medicinal products (Jos~ Armas, personal communication). Also, in surveying a total of 36.5 ha of all the T a m b o p a t a forest types for mature individuals of the valuable Meliaceous timber species, C e d r e l a o d o r a t a L a n d S w i e t e n t a m a c r o p h y l l a King, p r o m i n e n t c o m p o n e n t s of middie and u p p e r floodplain forest in nearby Manu National Park, O. Phillips found just one C. o d o r a t a tree, implying that the lower Tambopata river has already b e e n highgraded. Not one adult or juvenile of any of these four species was found in the 6.1-ha inventory plot area. Most uses in the dominant commercial and construction categories involve felling the tree for w o o d products. The relative importance of these uses to m e s t i z o s parallels the findings of Pinedo-Vfisquez et al. ( 1 9 9 0 ) with r/bere~os in the c o m m u n i t y of San Rafael in northeast Peru. Timber harvesting in tropical forest n e e d not necessarily lead to forest destruction (Putz 1992), and at both Tambopata and San Rafael some timber has b e e n extracted while forest c o v e r has b e e n maintained. At the level of individual species' populations, however, timber extraction as practiced in m o s t of Amazonia is nonsnstainable, and thereby reduces the overall usefulness of the remaining forest. N o n t i m b e r forest products collected by m e s t i z o s ( i n t h e edible, medicinal, and technological categories, as well as leaf thatch in the construction category), w h e t h e r from trees or the smaller plants that our inventory overlooked, are not i m m u n e to the p r o b l e m of destructive harvesting (Vfisquez & Gentry 1989; Phillips 1993~ 1993b), although their collection certainly has a less conspicuous impact o n the forest. Recent conservationist support for Amazonian p e o p l e

ComervaOonBiology Volume8, No. I, March 1994

236
Table 7.

Etlmoboemy and C o - - o n

Phillips et al.

Forest type defogealation rate$ ~

(iafetma~-derived m e vahte)~
Estimated A n n u a l Deforestation Rate 1986-1991 ( % )

Forest Type

E s t i m a t e d Original Protected Area in Figure 2, k m 2

Mean Use Value p e r Stem

Mature Floodplain Forests

(Previous Floodplain, Old Floodplain, and Upper Floodplain) Lower Floodplain Middle Floodplain Unknown Terra Firme Sandy-Clay Permanent Swamp Seasonal Swamp Terra Firme Ultrasand All c o m b i n e d

29.40 O.12 0.97 7.74 28.24 0.34 8.58 4.03 79A1

1.63 0.63 0.39 0.37 0.10 0 0 0 0.661

1.84 1.15 1.752 1.42 1.32 0.98 1.752 1.002 1.561

1 Weighted by relative abundance of each forest type 2 Use value based on estimated species compositiorg not directly measured

has focused on promoting and adding value to nationally and internationally traded nontimber forest products (especially Brazil nuts from B e r t h o l l e t i a e x c e l s a Bonpl., and r u b b e r from H e v e a b r a s i l i e n s t s [A. Juss.] Muell. Arg.). While w e affirm our support for these efforts, detailed quantitative ethnobotanical studies clearly show that the forests provide m a n y other timber and nontimber products that are integral to household economies and that a solely dollar-based perspective grossly undervalues. On a species-by-species basis, commercial uses represent only 20.9% of the use value of the Tambopata forest (Appendix 1, calculation from totals); averaged by stem, the commercial contribution to plot use value falls to 18.5 - 6.8% (Fig. 5), and only some of this represents nationally or internationally traded products. In particular, this study has demonstrated the value of continued access to present and previous floodplain forest for harvesting many products essential to the household economy. Unfortunately, deforestation and over-extraction are rapidly reducing the usefulness of mature floodplain forests to m a n y m e s t i z o and i n ~ g e n o u s communities. This is not an inevitable process, however: given opportunities and incentives, and in the absence of threats of resource expropriation by powerful outsiders (see May 1992), people tend to w o r k together to conserve comm o n resources by regulating their use (see Berkes et al. 1989; Alcorn 1991). Establishment of clear rights to land and resource tenure by local families or communities is a necessary step towards encouraging sustainable levels of extraction and allowing tropical forest dwellers to determine their o w n future. To this end, the communal forest reserves established unilaterally by r/bere~o villages in northern Peru that seek to legitimize informal regulations and traditional usufiamt rights (see Bodmer et al. 1990; Pinedo-Vfisquez et al. 1990) could be a useful model for m e s t i z o p e o p l e elsewhere in Peru w h o need to develop community-level regulations to ensure

conservation and access to their traditional forest resources. A priority for funding organizations, then, is intervention to " p r o m o t e institutional modifications and support refinement of c o m m o n p r o p e r t y managem e n t practices in use by Neotropical forest dwellers" (May 1992:375). Other priorities include preventing highly destructive forms of land use such as cattle ranching---favored by well-capitalized individuals at the expense of communal resourceg providing free access to voluntary family planning, and supporting agroforestry to prolong, intensify, and add value to the productivity of already deforested floodplain areas. Time is short, and, for conservationists, supporting these processes in communities along w e s t e r n Amazonian rivers such as the Tambopata appears to be the best possible investm e n t of all.

Conclusions
We have highlighted some of the p r o b l e m s with the most c o m m o n l y used approaches to quantitative ethnobotany. In particular, w e have s h o w n the calculations of the n u m b e r of useful # a n t s in a given area provide little insight into which species or vegetation types are m o s t important to local people. By contrast, the application of m o r e objective, replicable, and precise techniques to a large ethnobotanical data set has showed that s o m e forest types are m u c h m o r e important than others to mest i z o people living along the lower Tambopata river in southeast Peru. Mature forests of the present and previous floodplains are especially useful, although other forest types also contain species with important nonsubstitutable uses. These findings, c o m b i n e d with the knowledge that floodplain forests are being depleted faster than other forest types in western Amazonia, are strong evidence for the thesis that the river-influenced forests of the

ConservationBiology Volume8, No. 1, March 1994

Phillips et al.
region should be a prime conservation priority. However, the results from quantitative ethnobotany need to be interpreted in their political, social, and economic context. Thus, our data highlight the need for peasant access to all forest types, and especially to mature forests of the present and previous floodplain, if the subsistence and trading requirements of Amazonian people are to be met. The high use values reported for these forests suggest that there is tremendous latent potential for combining local people's legitimate needs with the conservation of floodplain forests. From the conservationist perspective, the greatest gains from social develo p m e n t initiatives that involve establishing locally developed resource-use regulations (such as communal forest reserves, "extractive reserves," and equivalents) are most likely to c o m e from a focus on recent and contemporary floodplain forest. Acknowledgments We are especially indebted to the residents of the community of La Torre and the surrounding area for so generously sharing their knowledge of the Tambopata forest with us. Michel Alexiades, Flor Cl~vez, and Gavin Nicholson helped with ethnobotanical data collection. Camilo Diaz, Nestor Jaramillo, Percy Nufiez, and Rodolfo Vfisquez helped with v o u c h e r collection. We thank Max Gunther, Marcia Morrow, and the staff at the Explorer's Inn for invaluable logistical help. The Landsat image of the region is copyright of the EOSAT corporation and is supplied courtesy of Conservation International. Bill Duellman and Linda Trueb gave permission to reproduce the first map (Fig. 1) from Duellman and Koechlin ( 1991); the second map (Fig. 2) was prepared with Kate Johnson. Stanley Sawyer gave us advice on statistical methodology. We thank Michel Alexiades, Walter Lewis, Rogcrio Castro, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier versions. O. Phillips was funded by Cambridge University grants ( 1 9 8 8 ) and by a National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation I m p r o v e m e n t Award (BSR-9001051), a W o r l d Wildlife Fund-U.S. Garden Club of America Award (1991), and a Conservation international Plants Program Grant ( 1 9 9 0 - 1 9 9 2 ) . A.H. Gentry was a Pew Scholar in Conservation and Environment. Fieldwork and herbarium w o r k by C. Reynel and A. H. Gentry with the Proyecto Flora del Perd was supported by the Mellon F o u n d a t i o n and the MacArthur Foundation. C. C~vez-Durand B. was supported by the Tambopata Reserve Society and Peruvian Safaris S. O. O. Phillips and P. Wilkin were also funded for grants to the Tambopata Flora Study Group. Literature Cited Adu-Tutu, M., I~ Asanti-Appiah, D. Llebetman, J. B. Hall, and M. Elvin-Lewis. 1979. Chewing stick usage in southern Ghana. Economic Botany 33:320-328.

Eamobotm~ and Omser~on

237

Alcorn, J. 1984. Huastec Mayan ethnobotany. University of Texas, Austin, Texas. Alcoru, J. 1991. Ethics, economies, and conservation. Pages 317-348 in M. Oldlield and J. Alcorn, editors. Biodiversity: Culture, conservation, and ecodevelopment. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Anderson, A.B. 1990. Extraction and forest management by rural inhabitants in the Amazon estuary. Pages 65-85 in A. B. Anderson, editor. Mternatives to deforestation. Columbia University Press, New York Anderson, A.B. 1991. Forest management strategies by rural inhabitants in the Amazon estuary. Pages 351-360 in A. G6mez-Pompa, T. C. Whitmore, and M. Hadley, editors. Rain forest regeneration and management. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, France. Anderson, A. B. and D.A. Posey. 1989. Management of a tropical scrub savanna by the Gorotire Kayap6 of Brazil. Advances in Economic Botany 7:159-173. BaiZe, W.A. 1986. Anili.~e preliminar de invent~rio florestal e a etnobot~nica Ka'apor (Maranhao). Boletim do Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi 2:141-167. Bal6e, W.A. 1987. A emobotfinica quantitativa dos indios Temb~ (Rio Gurupi, Par~). Boletim do Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi 3:29-50. BaiZe, W. A. 1989. The culture of Amazonian forests. Advances in Economic Botany 7:1-21. BaiZe, W. A., and A. Gely. 1989. Managed forest succession in Amazonia: The Ka'apor case. Advances in Economic Botany 7:129-158. Bennett, B. C. 1992. Plants and people of the Amazonian rainforests. BioScience 42:599-607. Berkes, F., D. Feeny, B.J. McCay, and J. M. Acheson. 1989. The benefits of the commons. Nature 340:91-93. Bodmer, R., J. Penn, T. G. Fang, and L Moya I. 1990. Management programmes and protected areas: The case of the Reserva Comunal Tamshiyacu-Tahuayo, Peru. Parks 1:21-25. Boom, B. M. 1985. Amazonian Indians and the forest environment. Nature 314:324. Boom, B.M. 1989. Use of plant resources by the Chacabo. Advances in Economic Botany 7:78-96. Boom, B.M. 1990. Useful plants of the Panare Indians of the Venezuelan Guayana. Advances in Economic Botany 8:57-76. Denevan, W. M. 1976. The aboriginal population of Amazonia. Pages 209-234 in W. M. Denevan, editor. The native population of the Americas in 1492. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Duellman, W., and J. Koechlin yon Stein. 199 I. Reserva Cuzco Amaz6nico, Peru: Biological investigation, conservation, and ecotourism. Occasional paper 142. Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.

ConservationBiology Volume8, No. 1, March 1994

238

Eamobolanyand CotlsermSon

et ai.

Effort, B. 1982. The jackknife, the bootstrap and other resampiing plans. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Encarnaci6n, F. 1985. Introducci6n a ia flora y vegetaci6n de ia Amazonia peruana: Estado actual de los estudios, medio natural y ensayo de una clave de determinaci6n de las formaciones vegetales de la llanura amaz6nica. Candollea 40:237252. Erwin, T. 1984. Tambopata Reserved Zone, Madre de Dios, Peru: History and description of the reserve. Revista Peruana de Entomologia 27:1-8. Foster, 1Z 1990. Long-term change in the successional forest community of the Rio Manu floodplain. Pages 565-572 in A. Gentry, editor. Four neotropical forests. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. Friedman, J., Z. Yaniv, A. Dafni, and D. Palewitch. 1986. A preliminary classification of the healing potential of medicinal plants, based on a rational analysis of an ethnopharmacologlcal field survey among Bedouins in the Ncgev Desert, Israel. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 16:275-287. Gentry, & H. 1988~ Changes in plant community diversity and floristic composition on environmental and geographical gradients. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 75:1-34. Gentry, A.H. 1988/7. Tree species richness of upper Amazonian forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 85:156-159. Gentry, A. H. 1993. Diversity and floristic composition of lowland forest in Africa and South America. In P. Goldbiatt, editor. Biogeogsaphy of Africa and South America. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. Gentry, A~H., and J. Terborgh. 1990. Composition and dynamics of the Cocha Cashu "mature" floodplain forest. Pages 5 4 2 564 in A. Gentry, editor. Four nentropical forests. Yale Uni. versity Press, New Haven, Connecticut. Gispert C. M., and A. G6mez Campos. 1986. Plantas medicihales silvestres: El proceso de adquisici6n, transmisi6n y colectivaci6n del conocimiento vegetal. Bi6tica 11:113-125. Grenand, P. 1992. The use and cultural significance of the secondary forest among the Wayapi Indians. Pages 27-40 in M. Plotkin and L Famolare, editors. Sustainable harvest and marketing of rain forest products. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Hiraoka, M. 1992. Caboc/o and r / b e r ~ o resource management in Amazonia: A review. Pages 134-175 in IL H. Rcdford and C. Padoch, editors. Conservation of neotropical forests: Working from traditional resource use. Columbia University Press, New York Johns, T.,J. O. Kokwaro, and E. K. Kimanani. 1990. Herbal remedies of the Luo of Siaya District, Kenya: Establishirtg quantitative criteria for consensus. Economic Botany 44:369-381. Johnson, A. W. 1978. Quantification in cultural anthropology. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

McNeely, J.A., IC 1~ Miller, W.V. Reid, P,. A. Mittermcier, and T.B. Werner. 1990. Conserving the world's biological diversity. World Bank, World Resources Institute, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Conservation International, and World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C. Magurran, A.E. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. May, P.H. 1992. Common property resources in the neotropies: Theory, management progress, and an action agend~ Pages 359-378 in IL H. Redford and C. Padoch, editors. Conservation of neotropical forests: Working from traditional resource use. Columbia University Press, New York Mocrman, D.E. 1991. The medicinal flora of native North America: An analysis. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 31:1-42. Myers, N. 1990. Tropical forests. Pages 372-399 in J. Leggett, editor. Global warming. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England. Padoch, C., and W. de Jon& 1990. Santa Rosa: The impact of the forest products trade on an Amazonian place and population. Advances in Economic Botany 8:151--158. Padoch, C., and W. de J o n g 1992. Diversity, variation, and change in riberefio agriculture. Pages 158-174 in K.H. Redford and C. PadoclL editors. Conservation of neotropical forests: Working from traditional resource use. Columbia University Press, New York. Parker, E.P. 1989. A neglected htnnan resource in Amazonia: The Amazon caboclo. Advances in Economic Botany 7 : 2 4 9 259. Paz y Mifio C., G., H. Balslev, IZ Valencia IL, P. Mena V. 1991. Lianas utilizadas por los indigenas Siona-Secoya de la Amazonia del Ecuador. Reportes T~cnictm 1. E c o c i e n c ~ Quito, Ecuador. Peters, C. M., A. H. Gentry, and IL M e n d d ~ h n . 1989a Valuation of an Amazonian rainforest. Nature 339.'655-656. Peters, C. M., M.J. Balick, F. Kahn, and A. B. Anderson. 1989b. Oligarchic forests of economic plants in Amazonia: UtiliT~ttton and conservation of an important tropical resource. Conservation Biology 3:341-349. Phillips, O . L B. 1990. Ficus ins~ida (Moraceae): Ethnobotany and ecology of an Amazonian antheimintic. Economic B o t any 44:354-356. Phillips O . L B. 1993a. Comparative valuation of tropical forests in Amazonian Peru. Ph.D. thesis. Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. Philli!~, O. L B. 1 9 9 ~ . The potential for l i r v ~ t l ~ fruit in tropical rainforests: New d l ~ from A m ~ 7 o n i i Peru. Biodiversity and Conservation 2:18-38.

niok~
Volume 8, No. I, March 1994

Phigips et al.

~d Consen~on

239

Pbillins, O. L B. Los tipos de bosque en Tambopata In C. Reynel and A. Gentry, editors. Flora de Tamhopata. Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, Missouri. Pl~illins, O. L. B., and A. Gentry. 1993a The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru. I: Statistical hypothesis tests with a new quantitative technique. Economic Botany 47:15-32. Pl~illins, O. L. B., and A. Gentry. 1993& The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru. II: Additional hypothesis testing in quantitative etlmobotany. Economic Botany 47:33-43. Pinedo-Vlsquez, M., D. Zarin, P. Jipp, and J. Chota-Inum& 1990. Use-values of tree species in a communal forest reserve in northeast Peru. "Conservation Biology 4:405-416. Popper, IC I~ 1963. Conjecture and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. Harper and Row, New York Prance, G. T. 1991. What is ethnobotany today? Journal of Ethnopharmacology 32:209-216. Prance, G. T., W. BaiZe, B. M. Boom, and R. I. Carneiro. 1987. Quantitative ethnobotany and the case for conservation in Amazonia. Conservation Biology 1:296-310. Putz, F. 1992. Unnecessary rifts. Conservation Biology 6:301302. Rasanen, M.E., J.S. Salo, and R.J. Kalfiois. 1987. Fluvial perturbance in the western Amazon basin: Regulation by long-term sub-Ande tectonics. Science 238:1398-1341. Rasanen, M. E., J. S. Salo, H. Jungner, and L. Romero Pittman. 1991. Evolution of the western Amazon lowland relief: Impact of Andean foreland dynamics. Terra Nova 2:320-332. Rasanen, M. E., R. Neller, J. S. Salo, and H. Jungner. 1992. Recent and a n d e n t fluvial deposition systems in the Amazonian foreland basin, Peru. Geological Magazine 129:293-306.

Redford, FL H., and A. M. Steadman. 1993. Forest-dwelling native ,Ama-onians and the conservation of biodiversity: Interests in common or in collision. Conservation Biology 7:248-255. Reynel, C. and A.H. Gentry. Flora de Tambopata. Missouri Botanical Gardens, St. Louis, Missouri. Rico-Gray, V., A. Chetmts, and S. Mandujano. 1991. Uses of tropical deciduous forest species by the Yucatecan Maya. Agroforestry Systems 14:149-161. Salick, J. 1992. Amuesha forest use and management: An integration of indigenous forest use and natural forest management. Pages 305-332 in K. H. Redford and C. Padoch, editors. Conservation of neotropical forests: Working from traditional resource use. Columbia University Press, New York Salo, J., IL galliola, I. Hakkinen, Y. Makinen, P. Niemela, M. Puhakka, and P. D. Coley. 1986. River dynamics and the diversity of Amazon lowland forest. Nature 322:254-258. Stoifle, R. W., D. B. Halmo, M. E. Evans, andJ. E. OlmstecL 1990. Calculating the cultural significance of american indian plants: Paiute and Shoshone ethnobotany at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. American Anthropologist 92:416-432. Terborgh, J. 1983. Five new world primates. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Trotter, R.T., and M. H. Logan. 1986. Informant consensus: A new approach for identifying potentially effective medicinal plants. Pages 91-112 in N. L Etldn, editor. Plants in indigenous medicine and diet. Redgrave Publishing Company, Bedford Hill, New York. Uuruh, J., and J. Alcorn. 1988. Relative dominance of the useful component in young managed fallows. Advances in Economic Botany 5:47-52. Vfisquez, 17,, and A. H. Gentry. 1989. Use and misuse of forestharvested fruits in the Iquitos area. Conservation Biology 3:350-361.

Appendix
The tmefulwoodyplot species at Tambopata:scientificand vernacularnames,distribution,density, use values, and ethnobota~calresearch ~ort.
Mestizo Name I Forest type 3 Taxon Voucher 2 Stem s 4 UV~ cUV a ~/V 6 our 6 mU~ tU~

gt#7
3 8
9

nff
1 4
6

Astrcm/smt/ecoini~e/ Tap/r/tugu/anens/s AmlmmKae Annona ambotay cf..4, foetlda .4. hypog/auc4a

tx-quia atxonilla pau|fl ruru paujilrum

45742 31995 46099 45672 45678

0146 146 0136 4 4

4 7 7 1 1

0.667 0.750 0.944 1.000 1.000

0.333 0.250 0.056 0.500 0.500

0.250 0.833 0.500 0.500

0.333 0.250 0.056

3 3

2 2

:Mestizo name: only the most frequent~ recorded local n a m e Is glve~ even where w e have ~ _ ~ OJat m o r e ehan one n a m e Is glt,~ to a s p e a ~ Where a mestizo nmme could not be o o ~ r m ~ tt appears with a question m a r k ~ Vouch~. all vouchers greater than 30000 are Gentry collection~ all vouchers less than 1000 are PhiH~Os collectiop.g duplicates o f all vouchers are deposited at lifo a n d fJSM, a n d in p a r t a t CUZ attd A M A ~ w b e ~ more than one uoucber exist$ only the f i ~ t Gentry collec~on is listed 3 Pio~ 0 = oid j i k ~ t p l a i t g 1 = previous floodplain (clay soii~ 2 = p m n a n e n t l y water-logged s u m m ~ 3 = terra f i r m e sand3 4 = upper j ~ o d p l a ~ 5 = lower , lk~p~a~. 6 = nfo~mndy. 4 S~em~ Votal m a n b r r o f stems ;~ lO c m d h h in t h e 6 1 ha o f inventoffed forest
UV,, = use ~ . I ~ (Informant derlved~

6 dlV = c o ~ compo.em~ a ] t " = ed~ate compcme.~ oUV = commercial component; mOV = m e d t c i n ~ componong ~ V = U,amoioglcal ~ t m ~ ' n t 7 , , = , u m b e r o f i n t m a e w ovems t w r f o l k s p e a m 8 n, = n u m ~ r o f ~ f o r m a m s t ~ r v ~ w ~ por f o l k s p ~

Comerneon m a o ~ VoI~e $, No. l, M e ~ 1994

240

~q/mobomy and Conserv~on

et al.

Appendix continued
Taxon Mestizo Name 2

vouc2~
51092 51271 51299 45786 57765 57617 45841 58125 46216 46221 46178 58095 51123 51101 45771 682 51343 51554 45683 57751 57556 45600 45675 51353 57699 58109 31897 57553 45793 46218 46010 45616 45665

Forest type 3 S t e m s 4
6 6 36 14 01 06 014 4 1 013 3 3 1 6 5 6 4 01 136 2 3 4 0 01 4 34 6 0 1 3 0 4 36 3 2 4 4 0134 0 3 012 6 36 I 4 0123456 0134 01236 2 16 6 01346 016 4 0123456 1 6 4 01346 13 04 1 01 1 1 3 3 3 2 6 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 12 12 1 1 1 1 8 2 5 2 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 2 1 10 2 1 7 1 4 1 16 32 313 19 40 2 6 10 6 7 71 1 1 1 14 3 4 1 4

U Vs
1.593 1.593 1.593 1.593 1.593 1.857 1.857 1.857 1.857 1.857 1.857 1.857 1.857 1.857 1.857 2.857 2.306 2.306 2.306 2.000 2.000 1.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 3.000 3.000 1.976 1.976 1.976 2.417 2.000 0.500 1.778 1.673 1.000 1.000 2.436 4.299 4.413 3.120 3.357 1.250 3.000 2.812 3.250 2.671 1.964 0.500 0.111 0.111 1.700 1.000 0.667 2.000 0.500

c U Va
1.222 1.222 1.222 1.222 1.222 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.389 1.389 1.389 2.000 1.000 1.000 1.800 1.800 1.040 1.040 1.040 1.040 1.040 1.040 1.040 2.000 2.000 1.143 1.143 1.143 1.417 1.000 0.500 0.444 0.840

eVV ~ o U V 3 m U V a
0.333 0.333 0.333 0.333 0.333 0.675 0.675 0.675 0.675 0.675 0.675 0.675 0.675 0.675 0.675 0.675 0.583 0.583 0.583
1.000

tU~
0.037 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.182 0.182 0.182 0.182 0.182 0.182 0.182 0.182 0.182 0.182 0.182 0.333 0.333 0.333

n6
13 13 13 13 13 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 1 10 10 10 1 2 1 1 9 9 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 2 2 0 0 0 5 2 2 6 0 4 4 14 24 23 18 11 11

n, 7
3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 1 2 1 1 3 3 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 1 0 0
0

Duguetta flagellarls D. aft. luada D. oaoram D spLvlana

aft. Dt4guetia

[es ]pintana [es )ptnmna [es]pintana [es]pinmna

[es]pintana negra

Guatterla scytot~ylla G xylopotdes

G spa G sp.2 G sp.3 G. s p a G. sp.5 G sp.6 G. sp.7 G. sp.8 G. sp.9 Oxandra a c u m l n a t a O. aft. r/edel/ana

carahuasca carahuasca
carahuasca carahuasca carahuasca carahuasca carahuasca carahuasca carahuasca marafion de monte [es]pintana negra [es]pintana negra [es~intana negra

1.000

O. xylopioides Pseudoxandra polyphleba Rollinia centrantha

aft. m/crocarpa

[es~intana
carahuasca anoniUa paujil ruru

1.000 1.000 0.200 0.200 0.410 0.410 0.410 0.410 0.410 0.410 0.410 1.000 1.000 0.495 0.495 0.495
1.000

Ruixodendron ovale Trlgynaea dueka T. spa Unonopsis mathewsit U. cX. ma~,wsii u. veneflaorum
U. sp. 1 U. sp.2 U. sp.3 U. s p a

[cs ~Imana

[es~Intana
mara~on de monte marafion de monte ma_,~on de monte marafion de monte marafion de monte marafion de monte marafion de monte [es]pintana [blanca]

0.830 0.830 0.830 0.830 0.830 0.830 0.830

0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017

Xylopia aft. calopl~lla

X spa

[eshMntana

Genus indet, spa

Genus lndet, sp.2 Genus indet, sp.3

0.253 0.253 0.253

0.083 0.083 0.083

Apocynaceae
Asp~osperma tambopateme .4. s p a A sp.2 A sp.3 A sp.4 Gassosperma ret/cu/atum Lacrael/ea arborescens Arecaceae A S ~ murumuru ( = A gratmn f/de Kahn) Etaet/~ precator/a Ir/artea delto/dea Jessenta b a t a u a qutUobord6n pumaquiro remocaspi quina-quina chicle huayo huicungo huasai pona ungurahui aguaje 46176 57566 46095 51543 51133 46008 269 629 631 57654 31997 2 2 1 2 0 4 4 6 15 12 10 7 6 1.000 0.333 0.083 1.000 0.250 1.000 0.250

0.500 0.750

0.367 1.600 1.984 0.139 0.139 1.000 0.646 0.500 0.750 1.429

1.569 1.591 1.381 2.111 1.714 1.111 1.667 1.854 2.125 1.521 0.179

0.083 0.509 0.810 0.333 1.000 0.553 0.095 0.537 0.429 0.333 0.250 0.625 0.050 0.143

0.417 0.045 0.143 0.214

Maurirta flexuosa Maximiliana maripa

bacaba c.f. O. mapcm~ O. sp. nov. fl~e Henderson Schee/ea p h a / e r a t a Socratea exorh/za

inayuga
sinami sinami ungurahuillo shapaja cashapona huangana huasca 51228 634 632 57999 31891 51128 45698 45668 183 31820 58064 57706

4
0.063 0.350 0.214 0.500 0.089 0.089 21 7 31 14 2 0 0 9 2 3 3 3

3
12 4 13 8 2 0 0 3 1 1 3 2

e i . n , mttceae
Adenoca/ymna impresum

Amphilophium pantculatum C~ptdarfa florl~nda Jaoffranda opala j. o~tu,oUa

Roentgen/a b r a c t e o m a n a Tabebu/a incana Xylophragma pratense

0.022 0.022 1.200 0.500 0.333 1.333 0.667 0.500 0.500

huamanzamana
huangana huasca tahuari huansana huasca

0.333 0.500

Conservation Biology Volume 8, No. 1, March 1994

Ph/H/ps e t a / .

Edmohoga~ and ~

241

Appendix continued
Taxon
B~x~eeae

Mestizo Nagate I
achiote de monte [de la almra] achiote de monte [de, baJ~o] colorada

Voucbe~
45943 46245

Forest 0'1~ s~.ns 4

3 5 14 4

w,
0.750 0.667

c V V5
0.250

evv 5
0.375 0.667

aJ#
0.125

m V V~

~v ~

n.~
6 4

n ff
4 3

Bixa arborea
R p/atycarpa Bombacaceae Chor/Ma sp. 1 Huberodendmn

45832 31852 58028 58052 57676 57600 46043 45964 46160 51087 57788 57543 57764 641 31909 46032 58077

4 3 1 5 1 0136 014 34 3 36 06 0 0 0 1246 1345 3 13 4 3 04 046 3 0 14 1 0 2 3 4 036 02 6 6 3 3 3 2 6 36 23

1 1

1 3 2 1 1 15 6 4 9 8 10 1 1 1 27 9 2 4 1 1 7 5 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 13 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 2 10 2 4 3 2 2
1 1

0.500 1.333 0.250 1.000 1.000 0.750 0.556 0.556 1.25O 1.000 1.150 1.150 1.150 1.150 1.667 1.667 2.000 2.000 2.000 0.500
0.810

0.667 0.250

0.500 0.667

2 4 6

2 3 4
1 1

surieWaioides Pachira instsnis

P s e u d o b o m b a x sp. 1 P. sp.2

punga lupuna colorada? sapote sapote sapote carahuasca carahuasca?

1.000 1.000 0.750 0.389 0.389 0.75O 0.500 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.444 0.444 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.167 0.167 0.500 0.500 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.333 0.333 1.000 1.000 0.500 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.550 0.550 0.550 0.55O 0.7~ 0.7~

1 1

Mat/sia ochrocalyx
Q u a r a r / b e a c. w/t// Q. s p a Cord/a m e x / a n a C toquere
~ e a e

5 6 6 4 2 6 6 6 6 7 7
1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1 1

Prot/um aracouchim P. c.f. &iabfescens R punct/culatum

P. s p a

copal caspi copal caspi copal caspt

copal caspi

Tetragastris alHssima T. panamenas Tratt/nickia aspera

T. p e m v / a n a T. s p a

copal caspi copal caspl

copal caspi? copal caspl? copal caspi?

0.111 0.111

0.500 0.500

2
4

1
2

cappa~ saa
Caricaceae

ntna caspi papailla moena amarllla? carahuasca? atmendro

coloradillo coloradillo coloradlllo apacharama apacharama

31833 45620 45875 46042 57737 45669 58070 57677 51556 46170 45582 45932 5154O 51269 46213 46083 45965 51540

Jacarat/a dtgttata

0.810

11 0.667 0.5OO 3 2 6 0.250 0.250 2 2 3 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 3 3 5 5 5 11 2

1 1

7 1 2 5 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 6 2
1 I

~ e a e
Anthodiscus klugii & peruanus Caryocarsp.1
1.333 2.OOO 0.6OO 1.000 1.000 1.250 1.000
1.00o

0.667 1.500 0.6OO 0.75o 0.750 0.500 0.590 0.5~ 0.5~ 0.590 0.590 0.5~ ~5~ 0.590 o.590 0.5~ 0.590 1.000 1.000 0.667 0.667 0.667 0.875 1.500
1.000

C~ysob~mce.e
Hirtella excelsa Hirtella sp. l Hirtella racemosa
L/can/a b r / t t e n / a n a L canescens 0.250 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.09o 0.090 0.090 o.o9o ~090 o.090 0.O9O 0.090 ~1.000 1.000 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.317 0.317 0.317 0.317 0.317 0.317 0.317 0.317 0.317 0.317 0.317 0.500 0.500 0.167 0.167 0.167

L ~t/nga L het~mor~Oa L aft. beteromorpba L c.f.~t~,.omo,,p~ cL L beWromorpha L octaru~ ssO.patZida

apachara~ apacharama

apacharama
apacharama a~eharama

L sp.l
L sp.2 Genus tndet, spa Cluslaceae Calophyllum c.f.angulosa C, brasiliense Caraipa d~.sifolia
C myr/c/o/des C sp. nov.

apacharama
apacharama apacharama

1.000 1.000 1.ooo 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.o00 1.000 2.500 2.500 1.333 1.333 1.333 0.875 2.000 ~
1.000

lagartocaspi
lagarto caspt
blanqutllo blanquilto blanquillo charichuelo palo guacamayo tortuga? 46O79 51541 58043 247 57620 57684 51O66 45666 57550 5754O 51489 626 51477

Garcinia ~
Mar//a/ax/flora V/sm/a cay~nnens/s V. a n g u s t / f o l / a Combremeeae

04 O4 5
4

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.333 1.333 0.30o

1.00O 0.750 0.750 0.667 0.667 o.3o0 0.250 o.25o 0.167 0.167 0.500 0.500

Terminalta amaxonica T. oblonga

yacushapana yacuahagmna

01
0 2

2
1 1 4

~
itauba? caimito? 14 0236

5 5 4 4 6

2 2 2 2 5

Tapuracorlacea
T. j u r u a n a Ebenaceae

Dtospyr~ melinonii

Conservation Biology Volume 8, No. 1, Match 1994

Appendix continued
Taxon Mestizo Name ~

voua, e d
46123 57616 57640 45186 58137

Forest 01~ 3 StUnS 4

3 O1 0 36 1 2 4 34 4 6 236 4 4 1346 36 13 2 4 3 2 5 014 0 0 0 1 5 O4 0 0 3 346 13 36 4 0136 6 1 0 1 0 01236 6 0 36 0 0 2 36 06 013 O4 13 036 3 4 4 016 4 6 1 1 6 2 8 1 1 3 2 1 4 6 3 1 5 5 14 1 12 1 1 6 8 1 1 1 22 8 3 1 1 4 5 2 5 1 13 1 1 3 1 1 22 5 1 4 2 1 4 7 3 4 2 2 5 3 1 3 10 1 2 1

f.l"~,
0.167 0.167 0.167 0.167 0.167 0.167 0.167 0.500 0.209 0.833 0.833 0.500 0.500 1.167 1.000 0.733 2.000
0.400

Cur a
0.167 0.167 0.167 0.167 0.167 0.167

eU~

oU~

n?
6 6 6 6 6 6 4 3 0 4 4 2 2 4 1 7 6 5 5 5 0 11 2 2 2 6 3 10 10 2 3 3 16 16 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
1

ni 7
1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 5 3 3 3 3 0 6 1 1 1 2 2 4 4 2 2 2 8 8 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3
1

Zlaeoctzt~
S / o a n m e/c~/er/

s ~,/an,,~

umO~ra
X spa *p.2 fragmm X pubescens remocmpi peine de motto de hoja ancha

45663 46192 45830 51356 45979 45739 54197 45587 46231 205 45591 46O96 51542 46241 57688 57787 57810 57669 191 46240 45645 57601 57626 45982 45928 46088 45958 45870 46068 51088 58147 57661 58131 57561 51344 51093 57666 45933 57580 57678 51549 46087 57748 46089 37635 46194 57643 46194 46146 57557 1863 51317 58044

0.167 0.500 0.125 0.833 0.833 0.500 0.500 1.000 1.000 0.200 0.917 0.063 0.021

aft. S~ st~ttata ~_%--b_ otblaceae Acaypea tacumna A ~Unenaa

O r 3 ~ amazon/ca c.f,/Zg,/mCes
~ ~ / c u m Hkwtmyma ob/onga G

yutobanco? yutobanco?
stdra? cumal~

0.167

Hevea &utanensis Hum crepttans

Ma~ea ~ u ~

shirinsa catahua

0.067 0.500

u.. ,p.l sp.2 u ~ m~u~ ~d~ma~a Pera &labrata p. tomentosa aft. Peru Sasoua racemom Saptum ~ m a s e n s e S, m m ' m ~ d X ~.1 vat~,ete: Copaif~ra ~ettmlata
c Crud/a D/at/urn g u / a m m s e obiot~0~olia

smring~ma?

sapo~demma

tmo de aSua
cuachotaaa~ cauchomulm c a u ~

0.4OO 0.4OO 0.359 0.125 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.750 1.250 1.898 1.898 2.000 1.500 1.250 1.871 1.871 2.000 1.944 1.944 1.944 1.944 1.944 1.944 1.722
1.000

0.030 0.125 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.625 0.400 0.400 1.500 0.500 1.000 0.286 0.286 1.000 1.167 1.167 1.167 1.167 1.167 1.167 1.056
1.000

0.039

0.149

0.467 0.583 0.4OO 0.4OO 0.4OO 0.120

0.125 0.267 0.267 0.500 0.500 0.250 0.286 0.286 1.000 0.778 0.778 0.778 0.778 0.778 0.778 0.333 1.250 1.017 1.017 0.200 0.200

copaiba blanca
sitka? palo santo tomcat huayo

0.500 0.429 0.429 0.286 0.286

0.586 0.586

[pequam]
H. parv~folia Sa~roio~um ~ Scleroiobtum/mm~o,-um
spa

azucar huayo [peque~o] pashaco blanco

palo santo [tlanco] palo santo [blanco]

x sp.2
S. $p.3

palo santo [ ~ n c o ]
palo santo [blanco]

x sp.4 s oz. o # ~ m , o ~ r~,~ po~t~

cl. Tamtng,a / / a Falmceae: g i m c m e d ~ Acaaa ln~rl

pato santo [manco]

~ santo [tam:o] p~o ~ t o [negro]
htmmnmnmm? tmauquma

0.333

X kublmannit x rOar~ x ~ro~ A ~ i ~ i a sp.1 Cearet#~ c a t m ~ f o o ~ Bnt~t~btum ~ u m ~ t

lnsa ~ L ~ba L mwts~lae

pastuquma p,auquma pa~aco tomillo yernoprueba yemoprueba

.hlmlKUo ~limblllo

0.333 0.333 0.333 0.500 0.451 3.250 1.281 1.281 1.244 1.244 1.244 1.244 1.244 L244 1.244 1.244 1.244 1.244

0.247 1.750 0.781 0.781 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.146 0,146 0.146 0.146 0.146

0.143 1.500 0.500

0.500

0.333 0.355 0.333 0.500 0.061

9 9 9 2 0 4 9 9

3 3 3 2 0 4 2 2
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

L ~v~na
L oa, m t ~ h m a L ptmam~ L seto~

a~nbmo
~mmMllo ~nbmo _thtmbillo

1.031 1.031 1.031 1.031 1.031 1.031 1.031 L031 1.031 1.031

0.057
0.037

0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057

0.011 0.011 0~11 0~11 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011

83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83

etot~

volume 8, Ncx 1, March 1994

P ~ . ~ a a.

Conmv~

243

Appendix continued
Mest~o

Forest

Taxon
L spimdm~ L tomentom L umbeilifmr~P L $p.2 L ~ . nov. L ~urgomii Z nobtl/s L unu~pu/a

Namd
~,imt4,11o ah~mmllo *htmhiilo shkmla411o ~am~Mdlo shtm~

Vou~
45627

Stems ~
4 3 4
0 1 1

UV.
1.244 1.244 1.244 1.244 1.244 1.244 1.244 1.424 .

cU~
0.146 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.167 0.083 1.250 0.333 0.248 0.248 0.245

eU~
1.031 1.031 1.031 1.031 1.031 1.031 1.031 1.041 1.041 1.041 1.250 1.208 1.167

o U ~ mUV~
0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.167 0.083 0.500 0.144 0.144 0.144

tUV~
0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.083 0.083 0.083

n~6
83 83 83 83 83 83 83 20 20 20 11 13
4

nZ
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 5 5 6 6
3

46OO9
45856 57813

51195

6 4 3 135 0345 014

1

[cotmadol
sixtmbillo 46O27 26197 3 9 6 8
I

1.424 1.424 1.583 1.417 1.167 1.750 0.333 0.454 0.454 0.454

[colorado] tcoto=doI
L chartacm L e~u//s L ~p.3 P w k / a nat~/a ca'. pacae de monte Smlm de m o m e pacae demonte pa~haco [on4m-,t~] 54179 576O2 57649 57785 58O73 51071 57784

0.042

P~ta,~ mam,~m Pt~m~/o~um Ju~mm/m s ~

yemo pmetm

016 Ol
1

25 06

4 2 1 14 3

0.061 0.061 0.061

3 3 0 0 0

2 3 0 0 0

Amd/ra/nerm/t

D ~ r o p ~ purpsnu DO,~Ocg on~ata

D u m a sp.x

~ casp~? ~ehuahuaco
muqgre d e t o m

58O03 57981

u3~,oxMo, a a k m m ~
c panamm~ o. s p a o. sp.2 P/aO,m / m ' u m sp.x P t m w . a r p m aft. attla2~qum P. rohr// P. u/e/ P. s p a c.f. P ~ o c a v p u ~ sp. 1 of. ~ ap.2 c~. P ~ sp.3 Su,artW/a m,l k w ~ m s

estoraque
huaynn'u huaymru huayruru ltauba? sangre d e t o m sangre de sangre de san~'~ d e sansge de H ~ r e de tom tofo toro toro tom

57607 45745 58118 57565 57637 45845 45774 57545 58143 57803 45929 51328 45576 45882 58100 46195 51546 58024

6 12 14 14 014 4 16 0 02 4 4 0
1

1 3 2 2 8 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 4 1 I 1 3 1

1.058 0.500 1.698 2.000 2.500 1.965 1.965 1.965 2.000 1.857 1.857 1.857 1.857 1.857 1.857 1.857 0.890 0.890 0.890 1.000 0.500 0.SdJ0

0.536 0.500 0.063 1.000 0.500 0.600 0.600 0.600 1.000 1.143 1.143 1.143 1.143 1.143 1.143 1.143 0.390 0.390 0.390 0.500 0.500

0.371 0.729 0.875 0.500 1.000 0.875 0.524 0.524 0.524 1.000 0.714 0.714 0.714 0.714 0.714 0.714 0.714 0.150 0.150 0.150

0.096

0.050 0.406

0.125 0.714 0.714 0.714

0.125 0.127 0.127 0.127

0 2 14 1 6 10 10 10 1 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 11 11 11 3 2 2

0 2 9 1 4 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 6 6 2 1 2

sanlwe de t o m

~topetala
spa

sanSre de tom
smntp.'g de t:ogo

0 3 6 4 4
1

0.350 0.350 0.350

~
F a ~ Papilionoid ~p.l Palmceae: at&mitres Fabaceawsp.l Fabaceae sp.2 Fl~gougllaceme Ca~w~ ja~tem~ C ulmtfolta C u/tuna Euawam n/t/da

deeme deems?
aim

3 O24
1

0.500 0.50O

moenaamarllla? tamarindo remo caWl? blanqumo? ~ ilave

57803 57645 46021 57734 57734 13

0

1 1

2.~ 2.~

1.~ 1.~

1.~ 1.~

1 1

1 1

45965
57622 55146 45851 679 51205 51205 45803 45913 57684 5808O 57578 45951

Laena~
suat~o/em L ~ a pa/udma

pato nave
palo llave

4 36 01
1

4 01346 6 6 4 56
1 13

2 1 1 14 7 1 1 27 2 1 1 3 ! 2 2

0.500 1.000 1.000 0.750 O.666 0.666 0.666 0.500 1.116 1.116 " 0.722 0.722 1.500 1.500 1.500
0.869

0.500 1.000 1.000 0.750 O.666 0.666 0.666 0.250 0.745 0.749 0.611 0.611 0.833 0.833 0.833
0.450 0.113 0.184

0.250 0.370 0.370 0.111 0.111 0.667 0.667 0.667

0.062 0.059

2 1 1 4 4 4 4 5 0 0 13 13 5 5 5
0

2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 7 7 3 3 3

nttwocrmac,~
Cheaocl/num anoma/um Tonta/m anGnuata s ~ o t e d e liana

z congmufoua?
Sa/a~ &~mtm

sapote de Uam
sapote d e

x ~mana
macrand~a I~wn~mceme SacoMon~

mpote de aam
mqpote d e liana

06

comervmim motow
Volume 8~ No. 1, March 1994

244

E g m o b o ~ y ~ d Conservation

Phillips et ~.

Appendix continued
Taxon
Icactnaceae

Mestizo Name ~
itauba?

Voucher 2
51086 57935 54172 46126 57736 57747 57872 51194 45693 51196 54196 45728

Forest 0,~, ~ Stems ~

6 13 3 2 4 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 2 6 1 2 1 2 1 9 12 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 2 9 1 3 22 2 1 1 1 1 10 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

U Vs
2.000 0.500 0,500 3,167 2.500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2.500 2,500 1.000 1.000 3.000 2.167 2.167 2.875 2.875 2.875 2.875 2,000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 1.375 1.375 1.375 1.375 1.625 1.625 1.625 2.022 2.022 1.375 1.375 1,375 1.375 1,375 1,375 2.000 2,250 2,250 2.000 2,000 2.286 1.375 1.375 1.375 1.375 1.375 1,375 1.375 1,375 1.375 1.375 1,375 1.375 1,375 1.375 1.375 1.375 1.400

cUV ~
1.000 0.500 0.500 1.167 2,000 2,000 2.000 2,000 1,500 1,500 1.000 1.000 1.750 1.500 1.500 2.375 2,375 2.375 2.375 1.000 1.233 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.875 0.875 0,875 0.875 1.375 1.375 1.375 1.022 1.022 0.875 0.875 0.875 0.875 0.875 0.875 1.000 1.750 1.750 1.000 1.000 1,714 0.875 0.875 0.875 0.875 0,875 0.875 0.875 0.875 0,875 0.875 0.875 0.875 0.875 0.875 0.875 0.875 0.800

eOV"

oU~
1,000

mUV 5

tU~

n/

ni 7

Dendrobangia boliviensis
Laclatemataceae

Lacistema aggregatum
L nena Lauraceae

almendrillo

Aniba caneliila A guiatwnsis

.4. taubert/ana A sp.1 A sp.2 A panurens/s ,4. sp.3

Bellschmiedia sp. nov.

R spa

canelon moena mocha moena moena palo al camfor palo al camfor moena [negra] moena [negra]

Cinnamoraum sp.l Endlicheriaformosa K verticellata !~, kna~vii

K ser/cea

moena
m o e n a [ amarilla] moena [amarilla] moena moena moena moena moena palo al camfor moena [negra] moena [amarilla]

51097
45597 57775 45853 45649 58030 51504 51474 51206 46173 46166

E aft. sericea K williarasii

L/car/a a r m e n / a c a L aurea L canel/a L c.f. canei/a

Mexilaurus longipetiolata
3. subconffata Nectandra c/ss/f/ora

ishpingo
ishpingo moena moena moena moena moena [negra] moena [negra] moena [negra] moena [negra] moena [negra] moena moena moena moena moena moena cumala? moena moena moena [ncgra] moena [negra] moena moena moena moena moena moena moena rnoena moena moena moena moena moena moena moena moena moena mocha tamamal

51288
45952 45649 45681 51479 46249 45671 45650 51263 45586 45795 57816 46158 54183 51407 51120 190 57592 58103 45760 57815 57819 185 46053 45603 57648 58005 57634 57739 57700 57790 57604 57728 46232 51312 51354 46o64

N. pulverulenta
N. spa N. sp.2 N. v/burno/des

N. globosa
N. sp.3

Ocotea bofo
O. s p a

O. aft. bofo
O. cuprea O. sp.2 O. sp.3 O. s p a O. sp.5 Persea spa P / e u r o I ~ r / u m sp. nov.

P. c~. cuneifolium?
Rhodostemonodaphne

3 0 01 1 6 046 0 4 4 36 14 0 4 4 1 0 24 36 3 3 6 3 3 4 6 5 346 4 6 0346 04 0 3 3 6 6 1 01 1 04 0 01 1 4 3 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 6 5 3

0.667

0.333 0.500 0.500 0.500 0,500 1.000 1,000

1.000

1.250 0.667 0.667 0.500 0.500 0.500 0,500 1.000 0.767

1.000

4 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5
1

3 2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1

4
1 1

1.000 1.000 1.000 O.5OO 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.250 0.250 0.250 1.000
1.000

0,500 0.500 0.500 0.5OO 0.5OO O.5OO 1,000 0.500 0.500 1.000 1.000 0.571 0.500 O.5OO 0.500 0.500 0.500 O.5OO 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0,500 O.5OO 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.600

2 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 13 13 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 3 3
1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2
1

2 2
1

~and~
R kunl~bt~ma JZ c~. grac/i/s Lauraceae s p a Lauraceae sp.2 Lauraceae sp.3 Lauraceae s p a / a u r a c e a e sp.5 Lauraceae sp.6 Lauraceae sp.7 Lauraceae sp.8 LauraCeae sp.9 Lauraceae sp.10 Lauraceae sp.11 Lauraceae sp,12 Lauraceae sp.12 Lauraceae sp.14 Lauraceae sp.15 Lauraceae sp.16 Lauraceae sp,17

7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6

Comervadon Biology Volume 8, No. 1, March 1994

ef al.

BOm~

and Conser~on

245

Appendix continued
Taxon
Lauraceae sp.18 Lauraceae sp.19 Lauraccme sp.20

Mestizo Name I
moena [negra] moena [negra] moena [negra] castafia misa colorada misa ~

Forest Vouche~
57686 46034 46125 31974 263 45604 45966 57559 45924 51273

tyl~
0 3 3 1346 1 01346 13 0 0136 6

Stems 4
2
1

UV,
2,~
2.~

cUVa e U #
1.~
1.~

oU~ m g ~
1.~
1.~

tU~

n, 6
4
4

ni 7
1
1

2 7 1 24 4 2 35 2 1 2 1 4 2 2
1 18 1 1 1

2,~ 3.162 2.333 2.262 2.262 2.262 0.667 2.000 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.063 0.857 0.857 0.857 0.857 0.857 0.857 0.857 2.000 1.333 1.750 2.944 1.302 1.302 1.302 1.302 1.302 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 0.067 0.833 2.333 1.667 1.667 1.000
1.000

1.~ 0.300 1.000 0.905 0.905 0.905 0.667 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.063 0.143 0.143 0.143 0.143 0.143 0.143 0.143 0.333 1.522

1.~ 1.007 0.667 0.429 0.429 0.429 0.333 0.667 0.929 0.929 0.929

4 13 3 14 " 14 14 10

1 7 3 4 4 4 2 1 1 1 1 8 5 5
5 5 5 5 5

Bertholletia exce/sa Couratari guianensis

Eschu,e//era cor/acea K c ~rfa~a

E cLjumensis
Linaceae R ~ punctata

misa
palo Ilave itaub&7

Lythraceae
Physoca0~mm a s c a b e t ~ m a 1.000 0.500 0.500 0.500 1 2 2 2 11 8 8
8 8 8 8 8

Malp~aceae
Byrsontma poeppigiana R aft.punctata
R spa Melastomataceae

cumala? cumala?
cumala?

25569
57702 45977 46148 51528 46024 46103 51485 46212 46024 46003 46183 57649 58097 51564 45195 51065 45886 45577 31860 45633 51552 45796 51104 46019 45930

6 6
0 36 36 16 6 356 1 3 3 3 23 01 1 014 014 5 4 4 1 4 2 04 6 6 01346 04 034 4 0136 6 0123 01 0136 14 35 0 016 0124 12346 1236 5 4 4 4 3 6

Bellucia pentamera
M/con/a dol/chotyhyncha

guayaba de monte

punctata
,M~ ser/cea M. t r / ~ M. s p a M. sp.2 M. sp,3

M. cpyrifolia Mouriri nigra

Meliaceae Cabra/~ canJerana

requia lanza caspi? huamanzamana? cedro [de la altura} requia

2 4 4 1 5 14 6 1 1 1 2 1 3 1
1

0.429 0.429 0.429 0.429 0.429 0.429 0.429 1.000 0.500 1.500 1.528 0.877 0.877 0.877 0.877 0.877 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

0.286 0.286 0.286 0.286 0.286 0.286 0.286 1.000 0.500 0.250 1.083 0.389 0.389 0.389 0.389 0.389 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.5OO

2 3 3 11 16 16 16 16 16 4 4 4 4 4
7

2 2 2 6 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2
5

Cedmlafissilis
Guarea g/abra

0.111

0.222

G. gomma G. 8uidonia
G. k u n ~ / a n a G. m a c r o p h y l / a

requia
requia requia requia reqnia requia requia requia reqnia para para? huarmi huayo?

0.037 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.037

Trichilia micrantha T. pallida

T. ru/Tra

T. septentronalis
T. s p a Monimlaceae

Mollinedia ktlliptt Slparuna decipiens

Moraceae

0.067 0.667 0.667 0.833 0.833 1.000

1.000

37 2 4 2 5
1

0.167 1.333 0.250 0.250 0.333 0.083 0.083

5 5 8 8 2
2

2 2 5 5
1 1

Batocarp~ amazonicus Brosimura alicastrura ssp. bolivarense

R c. ut//e

machinga
manchinga

45592 45861 57802 51473 57591 45937 45590 46069 652 31998 45655 45692 46154 646 45639 45601 45622 45920 51129

0.500 0.500

Brosimum guianense
B c.f. g u / a n e n s e R /actescens R c.f. /actescem B. rubescens Cat~t/l/a u/e/

tamamuri
tamamuri tamamuri tanmmuri mashonaste caucho cetico [del bajio] shtari cetico [de la altura] mashonaste mashonaste mata pain oj~ [blanco] oj~ [amarillo] renaco renaco renaco renaco

Cecropiaflafolia
C sp. nov.

C sctadophylla
C/ar/s/a b/flora

C racemosa Coussapoa trinervta

F/cus lns/p/da F. m a x i m a E/~'tusa P. c.f. schu/tes// E spa F. sp.2

18 6 9 6 98 1 11 16 9 9 22
1

1.208 1.208 2.333 1.375 0.667 1.250 0.444 1.633 1.750 0.250 2.167
1.000

0.167 0.167

0.750 0.750 1.000 0.375 0.333

0.083 0.083

0.167 0.167 0.667 0.333 0.500 0.167 0.533 0.528 0.250 1.583
1.000

0.042 0.042 0.667 1.000 0.750 0.167 0.300 0.500

0.111 0.300 0.333 0.111

0.400 0.306 0.250

0.100 0.083 0.222

12 12 3 8 7 8 7 9 13 5 13
4

1 1 1 1

0.333 0.333 0.333 0.333

0.333 0.333 0.333 0.333

6 6 6 6

5 5 1 4 4 2 3 5 6 2 11 3 3 3 3 3

Conservation Biology Volume 8, No. 1, March 1994

7,46

~ w

~ d Coamva~

Ph~

aa

Appendix ~ n ~ u ~
i

Mestizo

Taxon
Helicostylis tomentosa 1t. c.f. tomentosa Maquira ~ l l a I~L &utanemis Naucleopsts WmJVtoemtfolta cL Naucleopas Perebea attgu~ifolia

Name I
misho chaqui rniato chaqui chinflcua blanca? chimicua blanca? chimicua?

vouc~
45794 58O68
57535 46198 45857

Forest type ~ Stems 4 o136

1

UV.
0.400 0.400 0.833 0.833 0.750
1.000

~
0.050 0.050 0.167 O.167

et~
0.350 0.350 0.667 0.667 0.500
1.000

ot~

mUV ~

tUV ~

n. 6
11 11 4 4 6
1

n l7
4 4 3 3 2
1

14
1

Ol 036 124 4 0 12 34 26 136

6 3 4 1 1 3 11 2 17

0.250

P. x a n ~ , y m a
Potwouma cec3ropitfolia

patna chimicua? dflnflcu~ uvilla

p. ~ P. gu/anena,
P. minor P. p a m a t a P. su~tr/8osa P. teumannu P. c.f. villosa
P. s p a P. l ~ t e n t o s a P~.udo~ned/a U m , / s a t a P. /aev/s P. m a c r o p ~ U a P. m u r w e P. r/g/da Sorocea ptleata Tropb/s sp. 1 Moraceae sp. 1 Moraceae sp.2 Moraceae sp.3

uvlna [~ca] uvilla [seca]

uvflla [seca] uviUa [seca] uvtlla [seca]

51511 51553 4562.8 45922 46059 45953 51177

O1346 O6
14
1 1 1

89
8
3
1 1 5

45699
273 5756O 39162 31867 31873 57694 51175 45"/78 46O50 58105 46128 51106 45677 45761 45632 57709 45829 45944 51292

uvma [secal
uvtlla [see.a] uvflla [seca] uvilla chimicua [mancaI chimtcua patna patna chlmicua tormga caspi?

1.600 1.6OO 0.757 0.930 0.930 0.930 0.930 0.930 0.930 0.930 0.930
1.000

0.6OO 0.6OO

1.000 1.000 0.757 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222
0.500

O4 136 012346 0136 0 16 O4 3

1

8 25 47 35 1 3 7 1
1

0.708 0.708 0.708 0.708 0.708 0.708 0.708 0.708 0.500 0.066 0.086 0.074 0.074 0.518 0.518 0.354 0.354 0.375

3 6 4 4 01346 O6 12346 034 6 1 136 4 4 0136 3 14 0 02 126 6 O4 2

1 1 1 5 63 6 53 13 1 1 7 7 1 32 2 3 4 8 5 1 3 2

2.080 2.080 2.007 2.007 1.875 1,000 1.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 1.500 1.500 0.9OO 0.9OO 1.200 1.200 1.200 1.200 2.200 2.200 2.200 2.200 2.200
1.750

0.115 0.115 0.121 0.121

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0O0 1.000 0.4OO 0.4OO 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 1.013 1.013 1.013 1.013 1.013
1.000

1.360 1.3(30 1.427 1.427 1.500 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

4 4 15 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 2 2O 2O 22 22 6 2 2
1 1 1

3 3 7 2 2
2

2 2 2 2 2 2 7 7 7 7 4 1 1
1 1 1

~-tmcKeae
C o m p s o n e m u sp. 1 Otoba parvtfolta cumala cumala

Irmna,em juruem/s L aff.juruenas

L /aev/s /. c / a e t , / s /. c~. o/aco/des L c te~mmnn// Virola c a / o p h y l / a V. e/ongata V.. c.f. elonRata V. seb/fera V. c.f. seb/fera V. f / e x u o s a V. lo~tens/s V. sur/namenMs V. muittpiinervia

cumaia [ c o l o r ~ ] cumala [colorada]

cumala [roja] umala [roja] cumala [mja] cumala [roja] cumala [de hoja

189
46147 45670 45874 45935 4598O 45621 57539 57724 51486 51083

0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.500 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.113 0.184

0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.600 0.6OO 0.60O 0.600 0.076 0.076 0.076 0.076 0.076 0.250

0.167 0.167 0.167 O.167 0.167

2 2 12 12 9 9 9 9 20 20 20 20 2O 3 4 4 2

1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 0 2 2 2
1 1

anchal
cumala [de hoja

ancha]
c u m a ~ [de hoja

ancha]
cumala [de hoja

anchal
cumala [de hoja

ancha]
cumala [blanca]' cumala cumala cumala [colorada] 2.000 2.000 2.000 0.869 1.000 1,000 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000 0.450

wrr~mceae
Cy~m~us aft. r a / n o s u s 0.094 0.059 0 5 5 5
1 1

Mymceae Eu~enta c.f.f / o r ~ ~sp.1

K sp.2

guayav~ ~yavma
guayavilla

Myraa gta,t , m ~
M: s p a M~ s p a

~ayavma
guayavilla guayavflla

57606 51483 461O4 58151 22462 46O31

236
1

6
2

0.50O 0.5OO O . 5 O O O.5OO 0.500 0.500

1.000 1.000 1.000

M ~ . I
Neea dtvaricata
45653 45679 45955 43743

5 3 4 01346 4 1236 4 4

3 1 1 14 4 4 1 1

0.667 0.467 0.467 0.467 0.467 0.467

0.167 0.467 0.467 0.467 0.467 0.467

0.500

1 0
8 8 8 8 8

1 0
2 2 2 2 2

~. f ~ m u n a a
N. ~ l l a N.. aft..u~t~ylta N. ovalifoiia

sk~y
V ~ u m e IK No. I, March 1994

Phiff~s et a/.

~bnobot~ mJ Consefv~

247

Appendix mn~u~
Taxon
N. ~ N.. c v/r/d/folta Neea sp. 1 N. sp.2 N. sp.3 N. s p a N. sp.5 N. sp.6 Ochnaceae O u r a ~ a sp. 1

ii

Mestizo Name'

Voudm ~
186 57672 58107

Forest ~vl'~ s ~ m s *
1 1 0 1 4 4 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 27 12 7 4 1 1 1 2 2 1 18 7 19 4 3 3 2 1 16 1 1 5 4 7 1 5 6 18 4 10 5 3 3 1 3 20 5 1 3 2 2 1 5 1 1 2 I

ug.
0.467 0.467 O.467 0.467 0.467 0.467 0.467 0.467 2.000 1.667 1.400 1.167 1.167 1.857 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.869 0.5OO 1.920 2.029 1.000 0.525 1.452 0.500 O.944 1.750 2.000 1.083 2.000 0.833 0.833 0.833 1.333 2.127 1.667 1.667 0.917 0.833 0.833 1.367 1.000 0.667 0.962 1.444 1.667 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.079 1.500 1.000 1,000 1,000 1,000

cur~ ~
0.467 0.467 0.467 0.467 0.467 0.467 0.467 0.467 2.000 0.667 1.000

our ~ m~

n6
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 3

n/
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 0 4 1 1 1 0 2 5 5 1 0 7 2 3 2 1 0 1 3 3 3 1 5 1 1 5 6 3 5 3 2 5 2 2 7 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 1

5776O 58039 coloradfllo yutobanco? huacapd ajosquiro 45936 261 45892 45737 45765

36 0136 1346 O4 4
4 0 6 0 4 01346

Oiacaceae
He/ster/a a c u m / n a t a

Minquartia gu/anens$

0.556 0.4OO 0.833 0.833

0.444

10 6 5 0 8 1 2 2

vtwtot~e
Gai/es/a/ntegr/foi/a

Tetrastignm ocA~mb'um

0.333 0.333

Potyatmace~ Tr/p/ar~ eL sa~fera Qum~te

L a c u n a r ~ acnmmum

tan$arana
coloradfllo coloradfllo coloradfllo

45640
57623 51233 57619 45763

0.571 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.450 0.113 0.185

1.286

Qutina florida Q. nitida

gmaceae

Prunus amplifolia
Rumaceae Ama/oua corymbosa canllla de vieja

0.062

0.059 0.5OO

0 3 15 8 2 0 12 3 5 8 1 0 1 8 8 8 3

45896

CaOmophyilgtm acreanum
C spruceanum Chimarrhts booker// C.homelta sp.1 Gen/pa a m e r / c a n a

capirona
capirona [del bajio] palo de agua huito

46004
5822 45661 45862

136 5 4 5
245 1

1.387 1.429 1.000 0.301

0.533 0.467 0.037 0.595 0.089 0.429

0.133 0.098 0.429 0.500

Warscewtcxia coccinea ICutaceae Zantl~xylum acreanum

Sablaceae

58098
tongui sacha 45697

4
0136 3 3

O.944 1.417 1.000 0.556 1.000 0.444 0.444 0.444 0.667 0.667 0.833 0.833 0.233 0.333 1.000 0.333 1.000

Meliosma herber~i

46086
46237 46217 46237 57571 46237 57690 45636 45595

swmdaceae
Cupan/a scrob/cu/ata

Dilodendron elegans Matayba purgans TaltMa cerasina

T. c u p u / a r / s

0.194 0.389 0.389 0.389 0.667 0.360 0.667 0.667 0.450 0.833 0.833 1.067 0.333 0.667 0.689 0.611 0.667 0.667 1.000 1.000 0.781 1.250 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500

36
01

bkmquill~
blanquma? blanquilla? quinflla blanca qutnilla [colorada]

36
0 O4 014

T. molHs

Sapotaceae
(Tarysophyllum

pom/#rum
Manilkara sur/tmmens/s Mtcrop~lls guyanen~
M venu/osa

qulnflla blanca
quinilla blanca catmito? caimtto caimito? sachavaca papaya quinilla blanca h~cuma caimito? caimito? quina-qulna caimito

4606O
51124 45779 46191 45735 45874 46235 45593 45768 45625 58123 45880 45631 58153 45638 51369 51196 51293 51550

236
026 014

PouWria bang ii P. caimito

P c/.adan #Ja P sp. nov. P. p r o c e r a P tampotenM$ P. rorfa P trH.ocu/ar/a P spa P sp.2 P sp.3 P. $1).4 P. sp.5 Sarcau/us bras/l/ens/s ~70tZ~'lPt~ sp.l S a p o f a f l ~ sp.2 Sapotaceae sp.3 SapO#~ ~.4

0.783 0.167 0.167 0.100

0.200

0.117

0.133

346
134

O46 3
034 01346 014
1

0.300 0.333

0.333 0.273 0.833 1.000 0.208

14 4
1

0.042

0.083

caimito? quinllla blanca quInilla blanca? qjuntlla blanca? qninilla blanca?

4 0134 6 6 6 2

0.222 0.250 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500

0.037

0.040

12 4 4 11 10 5 8 3 3 18 6 4 12 1 1 0 3 2 2 2 2

mo~sy volume & No, 1, Mm:h 1994

248

~ m

Consem~n

P h / ~ et aL

Appem~ continued
Taxon
S a p o t a c , ae sp.5 mmmmdmome

Mestizo Name ~

Forest

vouch~
46O38

tyl~
3 1 1 6 04 04 03 0146 2 0 0 2 4 1236 04 4 5 1 4 01346 4 0

Stems ~
1 1 1 1 4 9 2 14 283 1 1 1 2 22 22 1 9 2 1 79 11 1

UV,
2.OOO 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.500 1.317 0.833 0.250 0.500 0.750 0.750 0.750 0.750 0.750 0.875 0.661 1.000 1.000 0.333 0.472 0.472 2.000

cU~
1.0OO 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.S00

eU~

oUV a m U ~
1.000

#U~

n/

n, 7

Simarouba ~nara Slmaba? s p a

S i m a b ~ sp.2

huamanzamana huamanzamana huamanzamana

58114 58086 51308 45626

stal#tyl~
Turptnta occtdentalis Saetmmaceae Theobronm cacao Z $tm~osum
Tillaceae Apelba ~ Luebops/s h o ~ n a Ulmaeeae Ampe/ocera s p a A sp.2 .4.sp.3 A lattfolia A vea'rucosa

cacao
cacao de monte peine de m o n o sapote de pantano yutobatmo yutobanco yutobanco yutob~nco yutobanco?

45785 46O36 45682 51503 57628 57554 51457 45801 45840 45584 45834 46244 32046 45747 45583 45594 57789

1.317 0.833 0.250 0.250 0.750 0.750 0.750 0.750 0.375 0.250 0.518 1.000 1.000 0.333 0.403 O.4O3 1.000 317.1 128.5 1.000 140.9 40.6 46.3 0.069 0.069

12 6

0.250

Sparrea schtppa Trema tntegerrlma Verbenaceae Ci~m,exylum sp~ Vitex triflora Violaceae Gloeospermum

~xina seca

0.375 0.500 0.125

0.125 0.179

palo de agua
isula caspi? coto runto coto runto requw

O~,mcar/n~
Leonia glycicarpa
L aft. / ~ g Vochys~eae Q,~__~,~ aft. g r a n d l f o l / a

20 20 1 1604 1 29

TOT:

3415

673.4

Conservation Biology Volume 8, No. 1, March 1994