You are on page 1of 24

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

the complex successional mosaic of present and previous floodplains occupy.J/ ' L/--.-. this kind of informa- z(mica (5) Reserva Lago Sandovat (6) Santuario Nacional del Heath.?.x. 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. Reproduced with permission from Duellman and Koechlin (1991). personal I/"/jl'/ ii'iii 711 710 6~9 10- communication. and makes it an ideal site for comparing the usefulness of different ecosystems to tropical forest people. e ) are within the contemporary floodplain of the Tambopata and La Torte rivers. all western Amazonian forest was probably flooded at least o n c e during the Tertiary and -ii ... g) are within the rivers' Holocene and late Quaternary floodplain (see Salo et al. f. and why. ancient floodplain of Tambopata river Term Firme ~ndy-Clay: sandy-clay soil..0% and 14. Salo et al. In fact.. illustrating the wide variety of vegetation potentially available for local people's use. 6 1. to apply this dichotomy to most of western Amazonia would be inappropriate. based mostly on frequency of flood712 5 0. respectively.._.. We have defined nine forest types in the original reserve (Table 1." Forest Type Permanently Water.. A brief account of our research methods is given below. II- Figure 1. The lowland climate and moist forest is described in detail by Erwin (1984).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. includes the 5500-ha Zona Reservada Tambopata and surrounding area (Fig. 1986. 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). in the southeastern Peruvian department of Madre de Dios.. (1986). 1992). 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. flooded occasionally upper Floodplain Forest: tall forest. partly because it denies the enormous influence of past flooding o n vegetation. Three of the forest types (c.j- ". and Rasanen et al.. d. Eamobo~y and Conserv~on Table 1. b.4-km z area along the lower Tambopata river is mapped in Figure 2 (based on a ground-truthed 1991 false color Iandsat image). No...5 ha 4 0 1 3. 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).6% of the lowland forest (Salo et al.0 ha *Forest ~pes with tnventoryplots are highlighted in bold ing and the dominant species (Elisb~n Armas. Jos~ Armas. Foster (1990). March1994 . Fore~typesoftheZoaaLumrvadaTambopata. Phillips). In Peruvian Amazonia as a whole. highly weathered sandy soil Plot Number 227 Area 2 0.0 ha 2. Four more (a. By so doing. 12. which covers nearly 1. Quaternary. The whole area is part of the recently declared Zona Reservada Tambopata-Candamo. 1. Wilfredo Torres. ComervationBiotow yolnme8. little or no indication of past flooding Terra Firme UltrasarwL. personal communication).0 ha 1. 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. w e aim to demonstrate that quantitative ethnobotanical surveys can b e powerfifl diagnostic tools for conservationists. Erwin (1984).---._.. Reynel & Gentry 1994)..6 ha Methods Ecologicaland £ulmral Setfl-e= The research area. The distribution of these forest types in a 112. In addition. types are most useful.5 million ha of lowland and montane forest. Local people also recognize similar forest types. 1986).Ph////ps et 2/.. The reader is referred to Phillips and Gentry ( 1 9 9 3 a ) for a detailed discussion of our methods. We then discuss the implications of our results for the practical problem of setting priorities in conservation. Rasanen et al. personal communication.0 ha 1. 1).. 1991. (1992).

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. c. of La T o m river and (b) east of Tambopata river is protected in the Zona Reservada Tambopata Vegetation: (a) Perma. No.? def bf gh ef g b bfs . and who. 83% w e r e b o r n in Madre de Dios. Use of two or more letters indicates that the forest types could not be resolved. 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. each is considered to contribute equally in the area calculations (Table 7). 6) to include a representative Conservation Biology Volume 8. are linked historically to native Amerindian cultures (Parker 1989). Data Collection We worked in seven 1. The Tambopata river flows approximately southwest to northeast.ha plots at Tambopata. nentiy Water-Logged Swamp Forest. (h) Terra Ftrme Sandy-Clay Soil Forest. 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. Of our adult informants. March 1994 . 3. 09 Old Floodplain Forest. (g) Previous Floodplain Forest.. Large-scale map of the study area based on a ground-truthedJuly 1991 Landsat image Solid black represents waterbodies (rivers and oxbow lakes).. (i) Terra Firme Ultrasand Soil Forest. (c) Lower Floodplain Forest. like the caboclos of Brazil and the rtbere~os of northern Peru. hi Figure 2. (b) Seasonally Water-Logged Swamp Forest. or up to 1 k m west.228 Edmobotany Conservation and Ph~ps et sd.. La Torre river flows southeast to northwest All forest that is (a) north. (v) Floating herbaceous vegetatiorL ~ f. Most of the current inhabitants of the Tambopata area are mestizo~ The t e r m mestizo covers a broad cultural spectrum. ag b. 2.977. (d) Middle Floodplain Forest. 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. i). representing the six forest types highlighted in bold in Table I. a~ e = Present Floodplain (Salo et aL 1986). T?. (e) Upper Floodplain Forest. g = Previous Floodplain (Salo et aL 1986). f. 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. Hatching represents forest that shows little or no topographic evidence of succession from a riverbed (h. g = Mature Floodplain Forests. 4. Stippling represents deforested area up to July 1991. 5. 1.

March 1994 . and reasonably h o m o g e n o u s sample of each forest type. Large lianas are included. a m o n g previous hectare-plot ethnobotanical analyses. and vines. 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. The data w e r e analyzed with a technique that shares some features with other informant-driven. 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." 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 assigned each use to one of five broad categories: edible. No. Mistakes or very minor uses contribute little. w e r e c o r d e d use data from 1604 plant-specific "events". v o u c h e r e d plants. H. Conservation Biology Volume 8. three w o m e n . More statistical information is contained in continuous data than in comparable discrete data. ( T h e definition of an individual "use" is discussed in Phillips and Gentry [1993a]. but all share the valuable properties that ( 1 ) they directly reflect the importance of plants to the informants. C. Trotter & Logan 1986. with Proyecto Flora del Peril botanists (see Acknowledgments). Reynel. Phillips. (1991). working with P. C. 1979. Every interview contributes directly to the usevalue calculations. Johns et al. Gentry. (In contrast to the findings of Prance et al. and technology and crafts. -indexing. six children and youths). these minor categorical differences have little effect on either most species' use value calculations or on our overall conclusions. from the l o w e r T a m b o p a t a river. Collections. It makes efficient use of all av_ajlable information. The tagged. Friedman et al. aged bet w e e n five and 67 years. and that just five species are useful solely for hunting or fuel. 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. In any case. aiming to minimize the influence of investigators' value-judgements. 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. 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. although some minor differences should be noted. medicinal. Etimobol~ and Gonser~on 229 category "other. (1990). We also included "firewood" and "charcoal" species in the category technology and crafts. w e found that the species used at Tambopata for hunting or fuel constitute only 12. identified trees and lianas in a total of 6. This approach discriminates against herbs.1 ha w e r e used for the ethnobotanical study. Phillips. w h e n a plant is claimed to have no use or is apparently misidentified. Galvez-Durand B. Use values are unbiased by the intensity of research.) Finally. In total. and ( 2 ) they facilitate statistical analyses of ethnobotanical data. important uses contribute significantly. or -consensus methods (Adu-Tutu et al. even if it provides only negative data.7% of all useful species. 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. UVs. Wilkin. for four indigenous Amazonian groups that most tree species are used for fuel and/or to attract game. ( 1 9 8 7 ) and PinedoV ~ q u e z et al. 1. We interviewed 29 mestizo informants ( 2 0 men. and assistants. 1986. 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. shrubs. and O. construction.1 ha of plots. These categories are similar to those used by Prance et al. epiphytes. Most interviews took place in the forest." because a broad range of miscellaneous m e s t i z o uses can b e considered technological. The distribution of use values generated is continuous. 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. each "event" being the process of discussing one species with one informant on one day. Ethnobotanical data w e r e collected b e t w e e n 1986 and 1991 by O. and Pinedo-V~squez et al. Each of the techniques is designed to address different questions.P h ~ et ~. 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. We included in the edible category the use "hunting-wait tree. among the tagged. 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. c o m m e r c e . they w e r e only considered by Boom ( 1 9 8 9 ) and Paz y Mifio et al. 1990) used to estimate noumarket direct usefulness ( r e v i e w e d in Phillips 1993a).

Each species' estimated use value can be improved by resampling techniques such as bootstrapping or jack-knifing (see Efron 1982. 1 9 7 9 : 3 2 3 ) . 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). each plot was first divided into 20 × 50 m ( = 1000 m 2) subplots. a best-estimate use value was calculated as the mean of the genus or family use values (minus the edible component. Thus. On balance. 1990) are evaluated simultaneously by the same measure. if the fruit and seed are k n o w n to b e inedible). In order to c o m p a r e the usefulness of the forest types. and because it permits the testing of a broad range of specific.39 stems/ha) and infrequent (all but t w o are in only one plot). 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. 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. Used properly. March 1994 . Direct subsistence and commercial uses (respectively. For 25 species that w e never found with informants. w e derived 272 "folk species" ( m e a n n u m b e r of events p e r folk species = 5. 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. Similarly. therefore. although the small sample sizes m e a n that the possibility remains of a very w e a k distance effect. m e a n n u m b e r of informants per botanical species = 2. consumptive use value and productive use value.959(3) 5.431 0.143 (2) 3. To test the hypothesis for each plot. 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 ). 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. Here. 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. These species are all very rare ( m e a n density = 0.978 (3) 2. mean n u m b e r of informants p e r folk species = 2.90. so inaccuracy in these estimates will have a negligible effect on the overall plot-level comparisons. Thus.113 0. each category's results w e r e compared simultaneously by the nonparametric KruskallWalEs test (Table 2). d e v e l o p m e n t projects that might actually reduce living standards may be apparently justifiable.14). Results of testing the null hypothesis that distance between subplots has no effect on the similarity between subplots' =. allowing comparison of the importance of each form of production to local people. see McNeely et al. 1. at least for the distances tested. 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.erquJ use y a w . w e believe the results support the view that the lO00-m 2 subplots are essentially independent samples. 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. 3) similarity decreased with increasing distance b e t w e e n subplots. 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. the effect was slight. ( 2 ) subplots share a corner.343 0. 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. This property is vital: by their nature. w e needed to test w h e t h e r the subplots represent sufficiently independent samples. 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. 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.74). For each inventory plot. the same n a m e s and uses (Phillips & Gentry 1993a). although for three of the seven plots (0. Magurran 1988). Table 2. Only o n e p value is significant at the 10% level. 2. ( 4 ) subplots are at least 40 m apart (category 2 was not used for plots 2 and 5 because the inventoried area was smaller).791 (2) 1. 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.645 5 6 10 45 3 4 1. For e x a m p l e . ( 3 ) subplots are at least 20 m apart.759(3) 0. 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). without techniques to evaluate subsistence and commercial value simultaneously.230 (5) Edmobo~y Conse~on and Statistical confidence intervals can b e stated for each use value.343 0. all S a l a c i a (Hippocrateaceae) liana species that reach 10 c m diameter share. subsistence economies are invisible under financial accounting procedures. falsifiable null hypotheses ( P o p p e r 1963). (6) (7) (8) Secondary Data Analysis A modified version of the raw use-value data was used to make between-plot comparisons. Phillips et al.331 (3) 2. 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 = 3.23.073 0. There is no evidence to reject the null hypothesis.253(3) ConservationBiology Volume& No.408 0. Similarly.

0 ~ o n Blok~y Volume8. is an i m p r o v e m e n t on simple "percentage useful" calculations. It is apparent. turns out to be the least useful by averaging UVs values. and the fact that these forests share the properties of being physiognomically well developed (with canopies of 25 to 35 m Table 3.2 90.8 96. 1991. In fact. yet e a c h c o u n t s as equal in percentage useful calculations. 66. Tiliaceae.4% of individual trees. In fact. These inconsistencies reflect the fact that most tropical forest cultures have at least occasional uses for most trees. ( 1 9 9 0 ) r e c o r d e d that r / b e r ~ o s in northern Peru use 60.Phillips et al. The table displays each plot's m e a n use value p e r stem. 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.1% of tree species. 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. and 36 w o o d y families in 7. 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. 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. Grenand 1992. the data for Tambopata m e s t i z o forest use appear even m o r e impressive: up to 97.33 1.2% of species and 98. there is no apparent congruence b e t w e e n the different measures.2 91. Figure 3 shows the wide range in use values for the 496 useful species.5 ha of advanced secondary forest. 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. Thus. Most important. 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. Anderson 1991 ).067) (Appendix 1). but only a few species are exceptionally useful and intensely used.6% to 100% of tree species used from mostly 1-ha inventory plots (see B o o m 1985. On a slightly smaller scale. but.5).73 1. equivalent to 94. [ 1987] and Pinedo-V~squez et al..413 versus 0. many of the differences ( o r similarities) between reported results in the literature are likely to be artifacts. three forest types---upper.6 ha are useful (Table 3).8% of stems in 0. l r t a r t e a d e l t o i d e a IL & P. however. B e n n e t t 1992). swamp forest. 1987.4 89.P ~ t In 0. BaiZe 1986. Estimates for other Amerindians range from 48. Because of these similarities. together with the percentage values of useful species and stems. 1987.0 91. it has several drawbacks c o m p a r e d to informant indexing techniques.8 93. Pinedo-V~squez et al.86 1. 1. 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. No. so it is hard to c o m p a r e resuits using this technique. March 1994 .. average use values differ by a factor of nearly two. While the percentage useful values are remarkably uniform b e t w e e n forest types.6 ha P ~ t and S e m i . Moreover.31 1. Rico-Gray et al.88 97.3 85. Prance et al.2% of the tree and liana species in the c o m b i n e d 6.98 1. Consequently. with information on their distribution and density. Tambopata Forest Types Compared By contrast to the percentage useful results. Forest-typeusefulness with percentage useful and informant-derived use value techniques. illustrating the point that only a few species are outstandingly useful.2 92. the m o s t useful forest type by percentage useful calculations.1-ha inventory plots. the m e t h o d of assigning importance is a posteriori and sensitive to investigators' value judgments. Eamobolany and Co~¢encttioa 231 Results and Discussion Measur~ of Usefulness Compared Appendix 1 lists the useful species in the inventory plots. as discussed above.2 98.0% of w o o d y stems. and the n u m b e r of interviews and informants on which the use values are based.) Table 3 shows w h y w e believe that percentage Useful results need to be inter- preted with care. ( T h e ordinal ranking system used b y Prance et al. Thus. 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. Anderson and Posey ( 1 9 8 9 ) found that Kayap6 use over 98% of collected plants in an unspecified area of managed tropical scrub.2 88.15 1. the m o s t useful folk species.5 95. 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. w h o distinguish bet w e e n major and m i n o r uses. [1990].7 91. old. 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 1989.5 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. w h i c h comprises 68% of the plot's stems but has a use value of only 0. 1990.0 96. 1989.

162 3. By contrast._ 0 c_ m > 0. Cedrelinga cateniiforrais Ducke Aniba canelilla (HBK) Mez Bertholletia excelsa BonpL Jessenia bataua (Mart.35. z n~ Oenocarpus sp. No. calophylla Xylopia sp. simply totalling the n u m b e r of species that are edible. that important edible. nov. therefore.. and Myristicaceae. Figure 4 Forest-type u s e f u l n e s s c o m p a r e d . 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. There are strong indications. 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 . which displays the averaged use-value range and median for 1000-m 2 subplots in each forest Genu~ Species IrlarCea deltotdea 1~ & P.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 8.299 3.357 3. however.5 OLO FLOODPLAIN g c.41.1 Arecaceac Arecaccae Arecaccae Arecaceae Fab: Mimosoid Lauraceae Lecythidaceae Arecaceae Arecaceae Lauraceae Annonaceae Annonaceae huasai aguaje ungurahuillo tornillo. and T h e o b r o m a (Sterculiaceae).120 3.000 3.0 or more.000 3. are m u c h m o r e evenly distributed b e t w e e n most of the Tambopata forest types. s q u a r e d = 28.) tn "~ 0.5 Use Value Figure 3. 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. p l a i n .001 ( K r u s k a l l .1_ co ¢.f. I.3_ t.J ¢o C.0 or more.z- FLDOOPLAIN L ~ S~AM~. e v e n though there are many taxa that c a n be used in every forest type. 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 .58)..250 3. G a r c i n i a (Clusiaceae).t ) (Phillips 1993a).1 ) and upland terra firme (43 h a . I r i a r t e a d e l t o l d e a R.250 3. m e d i a n UV s = 1. & P. six of the 12 are palms. March 1994 . Lauraceae. fleshy fruited genera such as Brosim u m and P s e u d o l m e d i a (Moraceae). C i n n a m o m u m spa Xylopia aft. Family Mestizo N a m e pOtla n (stems) Plots Use Value n. S p o n d i u s (Anacardiaceae). nel & Gentry in preparation) or m o r e fecund (Phillips unpublished data) in Tambopata mature floodplain forests than in upland terra firme forests. All species with a use value of 3. c h i .232 Edmobo~y Conservation and Plfflllps et aL g PREVIOUS FLOODPLAIN (D 0. P o u t e r i a (Sapotaceae). Euterpe precatoria Marl Maurttta flexuosa L. t. W a l l t s c o m p a r i s o n .413 4. bacaba Mart. In general. w h e t h e r important or otherwise. 2 L5 ± TERRA FIRME SANOY SOIL ~ UPPER PLAIN 0. The most important of these species. O l d Floodplain. s u c h as A n n o naceae. has a dense population in all m a t u r e floodplain forests. 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. 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.167 3. are either m o r e numerous and speciose (data from Gentry 1988a.24. c~ 2. Table 4 lists all species with a use value of 3. m e a n UV s = 1.2_ N-- ~.) Burret Oenocarpus c. ReyTable 4. The significance of mature floodplain forests to mest i z o people shown by Table 3 is demonstrated graphically by Figure 4. w e will discuss them together as mature floodplain forests (note that this t e r m includes forests that are no longer flooded). and numerous large lianas).000 3. yields a similar result for mature floodplain forests ( 4 4 to 53 ha . 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.

Hymenaea spp. Forest-type usefulness compared. it still makes a vital contribution to mestizo health. inevitably. Although there are no inventory plots in the three remaining Tambopata forest types. insipida and another indispensable medicinal species. 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. and commercial use dominates for most forest types~ reflecting the contribution of palms. the male bias in our informant sample (discussed in Phillips & Gentry 1993a).6 0. Salick ( 1 9 9 2 ) found no significant differences in the uses that one Amuesha herbalist knew of in five different forest types. No. Arg.~ce 233 • me£1tc~nel • techno]ooJcal ^ L6 L2 g o. furniture. In fact. which enumerates the results of each statistical comparison for each category. One obvious bias is that only trees and lianas w e r e inventoried. edible oils. 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. due largely to a dense population of the important medicinal tree Ficus insiptda Willd. and Burseraceae p r o d u c e resin sometimes burnt as a kerosene substitute). By contrast. non-native people are ubiquitous in the region. Annonaceae. and an apparently negligible production of edible fruit.2 TERRA FIRNE SANDY SOIL PREVIOUS OLD FLOODPLAIN UPPER LOWER FLOODPLAIN SWAMP Figure 5. roundwood. there are grounds for some confidence in extrapolating our broad conclusions about the relative importance of different forest types to elsewhere in Amazonia. Terra firme sandy-day forest is more important than two mature floodplain forests for technological uses (for example.Phillips et al. of the approximately 45 species wild at Tambopata that are also listed Conservation Biology Volume 8. and upper floodplain forests are each more useful than all three of the other inventoiled forest types at Tambopata. which shows each significant between-plot difference in usefulness. and statistically by Table 5. 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. Grenand ( 1 9 9 2 ) listed the number of useful species for Wayapi Indians in small plots of different secondary forests. In contrast. First. medicinal uses are disproportionately important in l o w e r floodplain forest. and they are culturally less heterogeneous than are native people. specific to the mestizo people of the lower Tambopata river. 1. this forest type remains significantly less useful than all three mature floodplain forests. Croton lechleri Muell. terra firme ultrasand forest has few palms. but in no case is one mature floodplain forest significantly more useful than another.. and Previous Floodplain = Mature Floodplain Forests type. 5). thatching. These patterns are reflected in Table 6. Construction. The relative preponderance of medicinal uses among herbs. few trees large enough to provide sawn timber. canoes. and huntingwait trees). but they are joined by swamp forest in commercial usefidness comparisons. with any inventory technique. edible.. only regenerate in lower floodplain forest. March 1994 . Old Floodplain. and technological (Fig. the notion of what is useful varies from culture to culture. Lauraceae. esrs averaged usefulness displayed by component use category. Upper Floodplain.. palm-hearts. both F.. mostly because of its dense population of the occasionally commercialized Luehop$is hoe~meg Lower floodplain forest wins all six medicinal comparisons.o o.e o. As a measure of this. Another problem. shrubs. The three mature floodplain forests prevail in most pairwise comparisons for construction and edible usefulness. so w e suppose it to be less useful than terra firme sandy-clay forest. Although w e recognize this problem. medicinal. each for. • conetruction ~ eOble Etlmohota~ and ~ o n • co. sampling from 50 m 2 to 225 m 2 for each forest type. two aspects of our sampling methodology may have caused us to underestimate the importance of medicinal uses for all forest types. 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. old floodplain. and split-palm w o o d and w n w o o d for walls). Stoffle et al. One possible limit on the broader significance of our results is that.4 . Finally. so that although the forest type as a whole is less useful than most others. whose latex is a widely used anthelmintic (Phillips 1990). and of mostly palms and Moraceae to subsistence food (especially fruits. Previous floodplain. but because this category makes a minimal contribution to total usefulness. ( 1 9 9 0 ) found differences in the cultural significance of local use areas for native North Americans of Yucca Mountain. Therefore. and vines would elevate this category's importance for most forest types. it is possible that the data presented here may be of only local relevance. edible. commercial.

95"* XXXXX NS 3. ~ f. extinctions than those of the m o r e extensive uplands.08* 2.05 lem z ( o f w h i c h 4.06** 3.45* 2.25** 3. Second. Kalliola et al. UF = Upper Floodplain (e). w e sampled a contrasting set of six different forest types. . No. First. 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 .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. LF = L o w e r Floodplain (c). the rate for n o n p r o t e c t e d mature floodplain forest in Figure 2 was about 1. such a pattern w o u l d have important implications for Amazonian conservation and development. species unique to mature floodplain forests are presumably m o r e vulnerable to local. Thus. But other.78*** XXXXX NS NS 3. For b o t h these reasons. OF = Old Floodplain (j~. Salo et al. the most species-rich forest reported to date is old floodplain at Yanamono.01. 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. TF2 = Terra Firme s a n d y cla~.33*** 3. Moreover. therefore. and most share substantial floristic similarities with vegetation elsewhere in lowland Madre de Dins ( T e r b o r g h 1983. 1992. Gentry 1993).02"* 2.25** 3. 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. 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.7% (Myers 1990). Total deforested area = 5.4 krr~. Sequential Conservation Biology Volume 8. and perhaps global. Most of the very useful species at Tambopata (Table 4) are also important species for traditional peoples throughout the rest of Peruvian Amazonia. T~te 5. ** = p < 0.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 . and m u c h m o r e diverse than Amazonian s w a m p forests. with 300 species at least 10 cm dbh in 1 ha (Gentry 1988b). It is interesting to c o m p a r e these findings with the conclusion of Prance et al. . S W = P e r m a n e n t l y Water-Losged S w a m p (a). If confirmed. March 1994 . * = p < 0. p l o t H (h). 1986. ( 1 9 8 7 ) that terra firme forest should be a priority for conservation.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: . 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. 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. they did not attempt comparisons of direct use value b e t w e e n local forest types. s a n d y c ~ . 1986). SW 1 TF11 TF21 pF 1 OF 1 UF1 LF~ SW1 XXXXX NS XXXXX 2.06"* 3. while the deforestation rate for Amazonian Peru was conservatively estimated at 0. while there is a clear need for m o r e studies from elsewhere.66%. a n d g in Figure 2).001.234 Edmobotany Conserv'a~n and Pl~ps et ~1. Rasanen et al. and there are clear utilitarian arguments for conserving all forest types. w e do not m e a n to imply that less useful forest types b e overlooked. 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 . Foster 1990. Second. Indeed. While these authors demonstrated a high degree of use and/or m a n a g e m e n t of these forests.60 k n ~ is m a t u r e f l o o d p l a i n fomst---~ f. w e tentatively predict that our observation that mature floodplain forests---and not upland terra firme f o r e s t s . 1987). ( 1 9 8 9 b ) of potentially large market returns from harvesting edible fruit from some low-diversity forests. 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.60** 2. 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 1985.70"** 3. personal c o m m u n i c a t i o n ) . Third.05.63%. 38 species share similar or identical m e s t i z o n a m e s .25"* XXXXX 3.06** 3. and the annual conversion rate between 1986 and 1991 for all forest adjacent to the original reserve was about 0. Original area o f unprotected forest = 79. In proposing that utility b e a major criterion in setting conservation priorities.4 k m z. p l o t I (h). mature present and previous floodplain forests are at least as diverse as upland terra fuane forests (see Table 3). 1 1 Total area o f m a p = 112. near Iquitos in northern Amazonian Peru. given sufficient climatic and edaphic similarity (Gentry 1988g. By contrast. Martin Timan~i. Even the least useful forest types may be culturally valuable. p < 0. and with the calculations of Peters et al. not Amerindian (Hiraoka 1992). Gentry & Terborgh 1990. Phillips 1993a. Indeed. . the floodplains are less extensive than upland terra firme (see Salo et al. 1991.71"* 3. 1. PF = Previous Floodplain clay soil (g). o u r comparative results suggest strongly that mature floodplain forests should be a main focus of conservationists' efforts.

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. o d o r a t a tree. making land close to the rivers e v e n m o r e attractive. plot I (H). Forest ~ aM c o ~ o n z35 Forest type ~ cmapatt~ between-plot dMget~ces in compmtel category mefaim~.'0. H e n c e they have not only b e e n favored by subsistence farmers for thousands of years (Denevan 1976. and technological categories. For example.'0:2. LF = Lower Floodplain (C). A recent gold rush along the Madre de Dios. ( 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.'0 0.'0:2. OF = Old Floodplain (F). and apparently refute the notion that simply increasing the value of tropical forests to local people will necessarily result in their conservation (Table 7).'0 0:0:1:5 0:1:0:5 2:0:1:3 2:1. Phillips found just one C.~:3 0:0:3:3 4:2. PF = Previous Floodplain clay soil (G).1-ha inventory plot area.'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. O. Therefor~ estimiat~ annual deforestation rate o f all unprotected forest 1986-1991 = 066%. 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. 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. Timber harvesting in tropical forest n e e d not necessarily lead to forest destruction (Putz 1992). 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).Logged Swamp (A).'0 4. Ifiambari.Zoodplain forest = 1. implying that the lower Tambopata river has already b e e n highgraded. although their collection certainly has a less conspicuous impact o n the forest. (Celastraceae) trees had b e e n felled by 1970 b y outsiders for one-time commercial extraction of their medicinal products (Jos¢~ Armas. medicinal. 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.. 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. personal communication). timber extraction as practiced in m o s t of Amazonia is nonsnstainable. Rivers provide the only form of transp o r t for m o s t of the region. F. Padoch & de Jong 1992).'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~. No. 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. Recent conservationist support for Amazonian p e o p l e ComervaOonBiology Volume8. but also recently by better capitalized individuals and corporations growing staples for local urban markets or raising cattle for b e e f exports.'0 4:1:1.'0. Most uses in the dominant commercial and construction categories involve felling the tree for w o o d products. however. plot II (H). Eximages were not availabl¢ but based on field experience we esti. 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.'0 4:1:1.. e v e n though destruction of its resources m a y ultimately impoverish families and c o m m u nities. F. At the level of individual species' populations. in surveying a total of 36. In such situations. Phillips 1993~ 1993b).'0 4. the very uses that make mature floodplain forests important m a y also contribute to their degradation. and thereby reduces the overall usefulness of the remaining forest. w h e t h e r from trees or the smaller plants that our inventory overlooked. Because p e o p l e are concentrated close to rivers. Not one adult or juvenile of any of these four species was found in the 6. or access to agricultural credit being prorated by the quantity of forest cut d o w n . are not i m m u n e to the p r o b l e m of destructive harvesting (Vfisquez & Gentry 1989.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.Phi~s e t a Table 6. SW = Permanently Water. Perverse incentives (for example.~:0:6 1:0:0:5 0:3. 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. 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. UF = Upper Floodplain (E).25 pairwise comparisons to be significant at 596 leve~. obsertmd result = 79. Deforestation is not the sole threat to mature floodplain forests.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. and G are Mature Floodplain Forest~ Rapid floodplain deforestation has several causes. By chance along expect 5/100 x (3 x 7 x 6) = 5.'0:3 4:2. estimated annual deforestation rate o f matum . 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. March 1994 .'0 4:1:1. one of the area's oldest residents told . mate that 5096 o f this deforestation occurred between 1986 and 1991.'0:2. Also. 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~. The relative importance of these uses to m e s t i z o s parallels the findings of Pinedo-Vfisquez et al. I. TF2 = Terra Firme sandy clay.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. traction has already affected Tambopata's forests. as well as leaf thatch in the construction category). and T a m b o p a t a rivers has boosted the riverside population.'0.'0 4.6396.

however: given opportunities and incentives. replicable. 5). In particular. and only some of this represents nationally or internationally traded products.752 1. 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. 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.39 0. calculation from totals). k m 2 Mean Use Value p e r Stem Mature Floodplain Forests (Previous Floodplain. and in the absence of threats of resource expropriation by powerful outsiders (see May 1992). commercial uses represent only 20.58 4. These findings. On a species-by-species basis. Mature forests of the present and previous floodplains are especially useful. then. averaged by stem. While w e affirm our support for these efforts. Alcorn 1991). 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. Pinedo-Vfisquez et al. Etlmoboemy and C o . In particular.40 O.661 1.10 0 0 0 0. Unfortunately.15 1.6. 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.9% of the use value of the Tambopata forest (Appendix 1.] Muell. Juss.236 Table 7. 1990.63 0. 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. 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. this study has demonstrated the value of continued access to present and previous floodplain forest for harvesting many products essential to the household economy. No.42 1. March 1994 .37 0.03 79A1 1. 1989. 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. the commercial contribution to plot use value falls to 18. To this end. 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. Arg. By contrast. Old Floodplain. 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.002 1.84 1. intensify. 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.o n Phillips et al. 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.5 . and add value to the productivity of already deforested floodplain areas. Time is short.74 28.12 0.561 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. people tend to w o r k together to conserve comm o n resources by regulating their use (see Berkes et al. This is not an inevitable process. A priority for funding organizations.). 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 2.24 0. are strong evidence for the thesis that the river-influenced forests of the ConservationBiology Volume8.32 0. the application of m o r e objective. and.34 8.98 1. 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). for conservationists.63 0. 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.752 1. although other forest types also contain species with important nonsubstitutable uses.8% (Fig. and supporting agroforestry to prolong..97 7.. 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. 1.

BaiZe. Texas. However. C. Par~). 1991. M. Boulder. 1989. B. H. McCay. Mternatives to deforestation. B. B. Oldlield and J. Alcoru. Hall. Extraction and forest management by rural inhabitants in the Amazon estuary. social. M. Lawrence. W. Alcorn. Anderson. conservation. Advances in Economic Botany 7:1-21. and Gavin Nicholson helped with ethnobotanical data collection.B. A. and M. Rogcrio Castro.. Anderson. A. March 1994 . Advances in Economic Botany 8:57-76.S.A. Berkes. Posey. Stanley Sawyer gave us advice on statistical methodology. Advances in Economic Botany 7:159-173. Bal6e. Columbia University Press. and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier versions. BaiZe. and Rodolfo Vfisquez helped with v o u c h e r collection. BioScience 42:599-607. conservation.A. O. Nature 314:324. The benefits of the commons. 1987. The aboriginal population of Amazonia. W. I~ Asanti-Appiah. R. editor. and a Conservation international Plants Program Grant ( 1 9 9 0 . Pages 317-348 in M. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi 3:29-50. 1984. D. and especially to mature forests of the present and previous floodplain... Huastec Mayan ethnobotany. Paris. Pages 65-85 in A. A. M. Biodiversity: Culture. Plants and people of the Amazonian rainforests. Acheson. 1989. 1976. Management of a tropical scrub savanna by the Gorotire Kayap6 of Brazil. We thank Max Gunther.~e preliminar de invent~rio florestal e a etnobot~nica Ka'apor (Maranhao). No. Use of plant resources by the Chacabo. Pages 209-234 in W. our data highlight the need for peasant access to all forest types. Literature Cited Adu-Tutu. B. New York Anderson. 1) from Duellman and Koechlin ( 1991).H. M. 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. 1985. We thank Michel Alexiades. J. University of Wisconsin Press. and M. Flor Cl~vez. Useful plants of the Panare Indians of the Venezuelan Guayana. University of Kansas. D. Marcia Morrow.. 1989.J. Boom. Austin. A.. and J. and L Moya I. Nestor Jaramillo. J. editors. Economic Botany 33:320-328. F. Madison. J. W. and the staff at the Explorer's Inn for invaluable logistical help. W. Denevan.M. and ecodevelopment.M. region should be a prime conservation priority. Chewing stick usage in southern Ghana. M. Whitmore. A. Anderson. Advances in Economic Botany 7:78-96. Phillips and P. G. B. and D. Boom. 1986. C. ConservationBiology Volume8. Percy Nufiez. Advances in Economic Botany 7:129-158. Peru: Biological investigation. Bennett. Hadley. The native population of the Americas in 1492. Boom. Managed forest succession in Amazonia: The Ka'apor case. University of Texas. "extractive reserves. Feeny. Scientific and Cultural Organization. Pages 351-360 in A. Westview Press. Fieldwork and herbarium w o r k by C. 2) was prepared with Kate Johnson. and A. 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. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi 2:141-167. the second map (Fig. A.B. Camilo Diaz. Duellman. 1992. T. Fang. Amazonian Indians and the forest environment. 1990. 199 I. and economic context. Wisconsin.Phillips et al. J. 1991. Denevan. Bodmer. Management programmes and protected areas: The case of the Reserva Comunal Tamshiyacu-Tahuayo. Kansas. France. 1979. Koechlin yon Stein. United Nations Educational. Wilkin were also funded for grants to the Tambopata Flora Study Group. W. Gentry was a Pew Scholar in Conservation and Environment.A. the results from quantitative ethnobotany need to be interpreted in their political. 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. 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. was supported by the Tambopata Reserve Society and Peruvian Safaris S. Eamobotm~ and Omser~on 237 Alcorn. W. B. Rain forest regeneration and management. Museum of Natural History. The Landsat image of the region is copyright of the EOSAT corporation and is supplied courtesy of Conservation International. and ecotourism.1 9 9 2 ) . Penn. Elvin-Lewis. a W o r l d Wildlife Fund-U. 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). G6mez-Pompa. Reynel and A. Walter Lewis. From the conservationist perspective. Parks 1:21-25. Garden Club of America Award (1991). Llebetman. Bill Duellman and Linda Trueb gave permission to reproduce the first map (Fig. if the subsistence and trading requirements of Amazonian people are to be met. Ethics. B. O. O. Gely. 1990. 1989. and J. The culture of Amazonian forests. Thus. Nature 340:91-93. Colorado. Michel Alexiades. A emobotfinica quantitativa dos indios Temb~ (Rio Gurupi. Forest management strategies by rural inhabitants in the Amazon estuary. C. 1989. Anili. Peru. editor. editors. Reserva Cuzco Amaz6nico." and equivalents) are most likely to c o m e from a focus on recent and contemporary floodplain forest. and conservation. 1. T. Occasional paper 142. BaiZe. economies. 1990. B. C~vez-Durand B.

Gentry. D. H. O . Princeton University Press. Gentry. and A. New Haven. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 31:1-42. Peru: History and description of the reserve. A. Pages 565-572 in A.'655-656. Introducci6n a ia flora y vegetaci6n de ia Amazonia peruana: Estado actual de los estudios.. K. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 85:156-159. 1989a Valuation of an Amazonian rainforest. St. Palewitch. Bi6tica 11:113-125. C. A~H. F. Ph. Reid. Quantification in cultural anthropology. Ecuador. Composition and dynamics of the Cocha Cashu "mature" floodplain forest. I. M. California.H. P. Plotkin and L Famolare. editor. C. May. and an action agend~ Pages 359-378 in IL H. T. Anderson. and change in riberefio agriculture. M. New Haven. Dafni. Peters. D.H. J.P. 1991. Pennsylvania. Stanford University Press.. G6mez Campos. 1986. A. Friedman. A. Economic B o t any 44:354-356. Washington. and J. 1993a. Gentry. the bootstrap and other resampiing plans. The use and cultural significance of the secondary forest among the Wayapi Indians. The medicinal flora of native North America: An analysis.. Missouri.238 Eamobolanyand CotlsermSon ~ et ai. A. England. Lianas utilizadas por los indigenas Siona-Secoya de la Amazonia del Ecuador. L B. Gentry. Global warming. Encarnaci6n. World Bank. L B.. Gentry. Columbia University Press. Effort. Madre de Dios. M. and D. A. 1990. A preliminary classification of the healing potential of medicinal plants. Conservation of neotropical forests: Working from traditional resource use. G. Phillips. 1989b. Long-term change in the successional forest community of the Rio Manu floodplain. Erwin. and W. Myers. Yale University Press. Grenand. thesis. 1985. The jackknife. Columbia University Press. Diversity and floristic composition of lowland forest in Africa and South America. Kokwaro. 1988. IC 1~ Miller.. 1991. B. 1992. variation. N. H. Gentry. Oligarchic forests of economic plants in Amazonia: UtiliT~ttton and conservation of an important tropical resource. A neglected htnnan resource in Amazonia: The Amazon caboclo. Oxford. Nature 339. Hiraoka. J. Z. management progress. Foster. 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. F. Yale University Press. Reportes T~cnictm 1.C. and IL M e n d d ~ h n . W. Kenya: Establishirtg quantitative criteria for consensus. Mittermcier.. Connecticut.D. transmisi6n y colectivaci6n del conocimiento vegetal. Comparative valuation of tropical forests in Amazonian Peru. versity Press. McNeely. editors. C.V. Four neotropical forests.. Stanford.. Werner. Washington University. Economic Botany 44:369-381. Kimanani. 1989. 1988~ Changes in plant community diversity and floristic composition on environmental and geographical gradients. Plantas medicihales silvestres: El proceso de adquisici6n. Louis. editor. E c o c i e n c ~ Quito. Pages 5 4 2 564 in A. Conservation Biology 3:341-349. Rcdford and C. editors.J. 1 9 9 ~ .C. Santa Rosa: The impact of the forest products trade on an Amazonian place and population. Redford and C. H. Pages 372-399 in J. T. L B.H. Princeton. Connecticut. and A.B. New York. Four nentropical forests. New York Mocrman. Sustainable harvest and marketing of rain forest products. de Jon& 1990. Conservation of neotropical forests: Working from traditional resource use. 1988/7. Magurran. March 1994 . Ecological diversity and its measurement. Oxford University Press. Connecticut. editor. Gispert C. Padoch. Balick. based on a rational analysis of an ethnopharmacologlcal field survey among Bedouins in the Ncgev Desert.E. Parker. Gentry. O. Padoch. Biogeogsaphy of Africa and South America. Goldbiatt. 1Z 1990. 1993. editor. O. Philli!~. M. Leggett. Tree species richness of upper Amazonian forests. niok~ Volume 8. and W. Tropical forests. 1992.. New Haven. Advances in Economic Botany 8:151--158. Peters. W. Paz y Mifio C. Mena V. PadoclL editors. Ficus ins~ida (Moraceae): Ethnobotany and ecology of an Amazonian antheimintic. B. D. Padoch. Diversity. Terborgh. Pages 27-40 in M. Phillips O . Herbal remedies of the Luo of Siaya District. Common property resources in the neotropies: Theory. World Resources Institute. 1990. P. Kahn.E. 1990. Tambopata Reserved Zone. 1990.J. medio natural y ensayo de una clave de determinaci6n de las formaciones vegetales de la llanura amaz6nica. Conservation International. New Jersey. E. editors. Redford and C. New York Johns. 1978. Israel. Candollea 40:237252. Island Press. C. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 16:275-287. Padoch. P. Biodiversity and Conservation 2:18-38. and World Wildlife Fund. Conserving the world's biological diversity. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 75:1-34. Columbia University Press. M. Philadelphia. and T. 1982. Advances in Economic Botany 7 : 2 4 9 259.A. A. & H. 1990. A. Pages 134-175 in IL H. Caboc/o and r / b e r ~ o resource management in Amazonia: A review. Washington. and E. In P. Balslev. de J o n g 1992. 1984. International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Johnson. IZ Valencia IL. Pages 158-174 in K. No. P. 1992... Yale Uni. Revista Peruana de Entomologia 27:1-8. Yaniv.. Conservation of neotropical forests: Working from traditional resource use. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. 1986.

g duplicates o f all vouchers are deposited at lifo a n d fJSM. 6 = nfo~mndy. L B.500 0. Princeton. Los tipos de bosque en Tambopata In C. M. Quantitative ethnobotany and the case for conservation in Amazonia. Flora de Tamhopata. Conjecture and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge.. 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. all vouchers greater than 30000 are Gentry collection~ all vouchers less than 1000 are PhiH~Os collectiop. = 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 $. H. Recent and a n d e n t fluvial deposition systems in the Amazonian foreland basin. = use ~ . Halmo. Evans. Peru. Columbia University Press. R. 1991.~ oUV = commercial component. mOV = m e d t c i n ~ componong ~ V = U. D. M. Neller.. Boom. Hakkinen. J. P.. Niemela. 4 S~em~ Votal m a n b r r o f stems . Evolution of the western Amazon lowland relief: Impact of Andean foreland dynamics. Conservation of neotropical forests: Working from traditional resource use. and L. and A. D. S. 1989. E. 1993a The useful plants of Tambopata. Missouri. Trotter.. Terra Nova 2:320-332. 1993. "Conservation Biology 4:405-416.~ lO c m d h h in t h e 6 1 ha o f inventoffed forest • UV. M. St. D. and H. 17. H. and A.em~ a ] t " = ed~ate compcme. Stoifle. New York.000 0. Amuesha forest use and management: An integration of indigenous forest use and natural forest management.500 0. Romero Pittman.Phigips et al. Princeton University Press. F. IL galliola. Peru. 1986. St. C. L. Conservation Biology 1:296-310. Geological Magazine 129:293-306. editors. J. Forest-dwelling native . American Anthropologist 92:416-432. Salick. and P.. E. Gentry. Gentry. Rico-Gray. 1992. G.500 0.T. G.944 1. Steadman. River dynamics and the diversity of Amazon lowland forest.distribution. and M.250 0. Chota-Inum& 1990. Pl~illins.amoioglcal ¢ ~ t m ~ ' n t 7 . Missouri. Bedford Hill. J. and S. Appendix The tmefulwoodyplot species at Tambopata:scientificand vernacularnames. Jungner. Terborgh.. andJ. M.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. 1986. B. II: Additional hypothesis testing in quantitative etlmobotany. Gentry. BaiZe. New York Salo. Calculating the cultural significance of american indian plants: Paiute and Shoshone ethnobotany at Yucca Mountain.~ 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~.250 0. I. Conservation Biology 6:301302. . Popper. Economic Botany 47:15-32. and ethnobota~calresearch ¢~ort. Redford and C.H.S. M e ~ 1994 .. Carneiro. What is ethnobotany today? Journal of Ethnopharmacology 32:209-216. J..667 0. M. Harper and Row.. and J. Mandujano.4. l.750 0. I ~ (Informant derlved~ 6 dlV = c o ~ compo.500 0. Louis. Redford. A. Conservation Biology 7:248-255. Salo. 1988.000 1. Use-values of tree species in a communal forest reserve in northeast Peru. Missouri Botanical Gardens. Fluvial perturbance in the western Amazon basin: Regulation by long-term sub-Ande tectonics.. Pinedo-Vlsquez. J. 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.. Alcorn. H. R. Relative dominance of the useful component in young managed fallows.density. B. B. editors. and A. 1991. Agroforestry Systems 14:149-161. T. Logan.4. = .. use values. J. Science 238:1398-1341.Ama-onians and the conservation of biodiversity: Interests in common or in collision. J. and A. 1987. Rasanen. Informant consensus: A new approach for identifying potentially effective medicinal plants. P. R. 1987. B. Conservation Biology 3:350-361. No. Makinen.. Louis. W. 1992. Y. FL H. Reynel. L.250 0. Redgrave Publishing Company. 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.833 0.. M. Salo. H. Flora de Tambopata. Salo. O. Use and misuse of forestharvested fruits in the Iquitos area.333 0. V. Rasanen. ~ ~d Consen~on 239 Pbillins. Reynel and A. IC I~ 1963. New Jersey. Jungner. I: Statistical hypothesis tests with a new quantitative technique. 1993& The useful plants of Tambopata.056 0. M. Pages 305-332 in K. O. W. New York Prance. Uses of tropical deciduous forest species by the Yucatecan Maya. Missouri Botanical Garden. Zarin. E. lk~p~a~. Unnecessary rifts. S. foetlda . Vfisquez. Peru. 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 . Five new world primates. and R. Uuruh. Economic Botany 47:33-43. Gentry. Advances in Economic Botany 5:47-52. editor. and J.333 0.E. Jipp. Prance. OlmstecL 1990. L Etldn. Rasanen. 1992. Chetmts.. Nature 322:254-258. 1983.. E. I. Coley. Kalfiois. Putz. Plants in indigenous medicine and diet. 1991. and R. Puhakka. Nevada. T. M. Gentry. and A. Padoch. O.J. Pl~illins. Pages 91-112 in N.

s p a [cs ~Imana [es~Intana mara~on de monte marafion de monte ma_. aft.500 0.000 0.000 1.040 1. spa Unonopsis mathewsit U.182 0.182 0.000 0.593 1.000 2.675 0.333 0.333 0.333 0.333 0.429 0.000 1.037 0. 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. s p a G. No.240 ~q/mobomy and Conserv~on ~ et al.000 2. mttceae Adenoca/ymna impresum Amphilophium pantculatum C~ptdarfa florl~nda Jaoffranda ¢opala j.063 0. oaoram D spLvlana aft.139 1.143 1.500 0.593 1.583 0. calopl~lla X spa [eshMntana Genus indet.389 2. o~tu.000 1. sp.000 0.500 0.812 3.022 0. March 1994 .7 G. nov.306 2.300 2.333 0.120 3.417 1.¢oUa Roentgen/a b r a c t e o m a n a Tabebu/a incana Xylophragma pratense 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.2 Genus indet.675 0.333 1.222 1.017 0. sp.667 0.179 0. spa Genus lndet. sp.111 1.040 1. veneflaorum U.083 0.495 0.857 1.3 A sp.000 0.830 0.000 1. ma~.750 0.350 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.500 Conservation Biology Volume 8.222 1.000 1.000 1.675 0.000 2. r/edel/ana carahuasca carahuasca carahuasca carahuasca carahuasca carahuasca carahuasca carahuasca carahuasca marafion de monte [es]pintana negra [es]pintana negra [es~intana negra 1.017 0.000 2.143 1.333 0.333 0.500 0.017 0.111 1.830 0.857 1.300 3.675 0. s p a A sp.521 0. sp.800 1.381 2.976 2.857 1.857 1.000 3.083 0.037 0.139 0.022 1. xylopioides Pseudoxandra polyphleba Rollinia centrantha £ aft.000 1.964 0.500 1.182 0.037 0. sp.083 Apocynaceae Asp~osperma tambopateme .000 1.495 1.840 eVV ~ o U V 3 m U V a 0. 1 U. sp.436 4.250 3.3 0.830 0.200 0. sp.2 U.700 1.625 0.976 1.017 0.253 0.125 1.583 1.250 0.000 1.5 G sp.040 1.000 O.671 1.182 0. 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. sp.182 0.f.000 1. mapcm~ O.000 1.000 1.000 0.857 1.675 0.600 1.143 1.800 1.569 1.333 0.253 0.253 0.333 0.593 1.8 G.830 0. 1.976 1.410 0. luada D.000 tU~ 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 . Dt4guetia [es ]pintana [es )ptnmna [es]pintana [es]pinmna [es]pintana negra Guatterla scytot~ylla G xylopotdes G spa G sp.675 0.037 0.000 2.673 1.045 0.300 2.500 0.083 0. sp.646 0.857 1.089 0.429 1.222 1.500 0.500 huamanzamana huangana huasca tahuari huansana huasca 0.182 0.000 2.222 1.810 0. aft.250 0.857 2.200 0.000 1.040 1.750 1.553 0.214 0.778 1.143 0.000 1.050 0.040 1.111 1.222 1.200 0.591 1.040 2.410 0.984 0.389 1.000 2.714 1.143 0.675 0.000 0.830 0.083 1.675 0.500 c U Va 1.000 1.6 G.675 0.2 G sp.367 1.017 0.299 4.182 0. m/crocarpa [es~intana carahuasca anoniUa paujil ruru 1.333 0.3 G.000 0.182 0.583 0.300 2. cX.182 0.000 0.509 0.410 0.593 1.410 1.300 2.000 1.000 Ruixodendron ovale Trlgynaea dueka T.250 1.537 0.333 0.wsii u.444 0.017 0.357 1.095 0.830 0. O.857 1.410 0.854 2.182 0.000 1.857 1.389 1.9 Oxandra a c u m l n a t a O. sp.857 1.667 2.500 0.000 0.300 2.675 0.000 2.017 Xylopia aft.300 2.306 2.2 A sp.675 0.000 1.040 1.830 0.306 2.410 0.~on de monte marafion de monte marafion de monte marafion de monte marafion de monte [es]pintana [blanca] 0. n .250 2. 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 1.417 2.037 0.413 3.3 U.000 1.333 1.417 0.111 0.667 1.214 Maurirta flexuosa Maximiliana maripa bacaba c.182 0.4.410 0.857 2.593 1.4 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 1.495 0.

317 0.810 0.750 0.810 11 0.500 1.250 0. 0.O9O 0.200 0.389 0.200 0.55O 0.090 0.000 1.30o 1.000 1.000 0.ns 4 3 5 14 4 w.500 0.500 0.000 2.750 0. s p a copal caspi copal caspi copal caspt copal caspi Tetragastris alHssima T.200 0.090 0. a n g u s t / f o l / a Combremeeae 04 O4 5 4 1.167 0.5~ 0.333 0.500 0.000 1.500 0.sifolia C myr/c/o/des C sp.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. apacharama apacharama apacharama 1.2 Genus tndet.200 0.150 1.317 0.000 1.090 0. baJ~o] colorada Voucbe~ 45943 46245 Forest 0'1~ s~. sp.317 0.1 1.556 0.75o 0.750 0. l Hirtella racemosa L/can/a b r / t t e n / a n a L canescens 0. spa Cluslaceae Calophyllum c.500 0.150 1.00o 0.OOO 0.333 1.000 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. brasiliense Caraipa d~.ooo 1.111 0.317 0.000 1.250 evv 5 0.317 0.333 1.317 0.000 1. nov.125 m V V~ ~v ~ n.Ph/H/ps e t a / .750 0.333 0. &iabfescens R punct/culatum P.667 c V V5 0.7~ 0.000 1.333 2.200 0.667 aJ# 0.7~ 1 1 Mat/sia ochrocalyx Q u a r a r / b e a c.167 0.000 0.375 0.150 1.590 0.590 0.angulosa C.250 1.3o0 0.090 0.6OO 1.o00 1.667 0.389 0.333 1.667 1.25O 1.500 0.250 o.500 0.090 o.000 1. oblonga yacushapana yacuahagmna 01 0 2 2 1 1 4 m ~ itauba? caimito? 14 0236 5 5 4 4 6 2 2 2 2 5 Tapuracorlacea T.750 0.000 0.~t~.090 0.000 1. 1.167 0.317 0.667 o. Edmohoga~ and ~ 241 Appendix continued Taxon B~x~eeae i Mestizo Nagate I achiote de monte [de la almra] achiote de monte [de.omo.250 1.000 1.000 1.5~ ~5~ 0.090 ~1.667 2.200 0.590 o.667 0.250 0.500 1.750 0.000 0.f.000 0.317 0.000 1.000 1.200 0.5OO 3 2 6 0.317 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.875 1.200 0.000 0.e Hirtella excelsa Hirtella sp.333 0.25o 0.£ w/t// Q.6OO 0.000 1.550 0.500 Terminalta amaxonica T.167 0.o9o ~090 o.500 0.000 2.333 1.500 0.500 0. p e m v / a n a T.000 1.667 1.550 0. beteromorpba L c.550 0.000 C~ysob~mce.500 0.500 0.000 1.150 1.000 1.500 0. panamenas Tratt/nickia aspera T.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.l L sp.667 0.f.patZida apachara~ apacharama apacharama apacharama a~eharama L sp.250 0. j u r u a n a Ebenaceae Dtospyr¢~ melinonii 7 Conservation Biology Volume 8.200 0.~ 6 4 n ff 4 3 Bixa arborea R p/atycarpa Bombacaceae Chor/Ma sp.p~ cL L beWromorpha L octaru~ ssO.444 1.667 0.f.2 punga lupuna colorada? sapote sapote sapote carahuasca carahuasca? 1.590 0.111 0.500 0.75O 0.590 0.00O 0..500 2.200 0.444 0.500 0.500 0. 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.000 0.556 1.317 0.667 0. 1 P.200 0.317 0..590 1.09o 0.5~ 0. Match 1994 .500 1.5~ 0.000 1.000 1.167 0.000 ~ 1.500 0.167 L ~t/nga L het~mor~Oa L aft. No. s p a copal caspi copal caspl copal caspi? copal caspl? copal caspi? 0.200 0.875 2.000 2.167 0. c.667 0. 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 0.333 0.

120 0.250 1.500 0.281 1.778 0.500 0.017 1. 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. $p. Tamtng./mCes ~ ~ / c u m Hkwtmyma ob/onga G yutobanco? yutobanco? stdra? cumal~ 0.286 0.057 0.125 0.¢hlmlKUo ~limblllo 0.146 0.146 0.267 0.057 0. .167 0.451 3.583 0. m t ~ h m a L ptmam~ L seto~ a~nbmo ~mmMllo ~nbmo _thtmbillo 1.286 0.833 0.4OO 0.898 1.871 1.063 0.167 1.167 1.000 0.011 0.200 0.011 0.500 0.3 palo santo [ ~ n c o ] palo santo [blanco] x sp. o ~ r~.000 0.250 1.333 0.247 1.167 0.000 0.500 0.146 0.4OO 0.244 1.031 1.061 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.944 1.011 0.944 1.625 0.733 2.500 1.000 1.429 0.011 0~11 0~11 0.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 ~ 0.143 1.1 Cearet#~ c a t m ~ f o o ~ Bnt~t~btum ~ u m ~ t lnsa ~ L ~ba L mwts~lae pastuquma • p.000 0.011 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 ~ etot~ volume 8.Appendix continued Taxon Mestizo Name ~ voua.167 0. parv~folia Sa~roio~um ~ Scleroiobtum/mm~o.167 0.500 0.167 1.-um £ spa azucar huayo [peque~o] pashaco blanco palo santo [tlanco] palo santo [blanco] x sp.057 0.944 1.944 1.031 0. o # ~ ¢ m .2 u ~ m~u~ ~d~ma~a Pera &labrata p.149 0.4OO 0.4 s oz.778 0.031 1.500 0. tomentosa aft.000 0.429 0.2 S.057 0.244 1.281 1.4OO 0.333 0./Zg.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 ~¢.146 0.056 1.200 0.031 1.167 1.500 0.067 0.057 0.244 1.000 0.146 0.057 0.167 0.244 0./an.333 0.871 2.467 0.017 0. m m ' m ~ d X ~. Peru Sasoua racemom Saptum ~ m a s e n s e S.167 0.500 0.031 1.917 0. 0.333 1.1 vat~.898 2.500 1.500 1.833 0.333 0.146 0.146 0.286 0.f.167 1.037 0.500 0. Ncx 1.778 0.500 0.167 0.~ po~t~ cl.l sp.500 0.778 0.944 1.244 L244 1.244 1.l"~.944 1.586 [pequam] H..209 0.057 0.000 1.500 0.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.p.500 0.400 Cur a 0.167 0.4OO 0.359 0.057 0.333 0.833 0.750 1.039 0.167 1.500 1.011 0.000 0.167 0.000 1.011 0.500 0.400 0. S~ st~ttata ~_%--b_ otblaceae Acaypea tacumna A ~Unenaa O r 3 ~ amazon/ca c.167 0.125 0.000 1.750 0. March 1994 .167 1.2 £ 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 0.125 0.286 1.031 L031 1.500 0.auquma pa~aco tomillo yernoprueba yemoprueba .146 0.250 0.500 0.167 0.778 0.244 1.500 0.500 0.781 0.500 u.250 1.500 0.355 0.400 1.244 1.031 1.057 0.778 0.167 0.722 1.125 0.200 copaiba blanca sitka? palo santo tomcat huayo 0.250 1.146 0..031 1.030 0.833 0.286 1.286 0.146 0.244 1.333 X kublmannit x rOar~ x ~ro~ A ~ i ~ i a sp.~ umO~ra X spa £ *p.031 1.781 0.586 0.021 aft.267 0.167 0.167 Hevea &utanensis Hum crepttans Ma~ea ~ u ~ shirinsa catahua 0.011 0.

111 0.857 0.057 0. ~ a a.857 1.722 0. cU~ 0.500 0.869 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.042 P~ta.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.000 0.406 0.011 0.250 1.144 0.000 2.417 1.000 1. 1 of.146 0.667 0.875 0.390 0.031 1.729 0.350 0.714 0. s p a o.011 0. rohr// P.031 1.454 0.000 0.714 0.454 [colorado] tcoto=doI L chartacm L e~u//s L ~p.061 0.524 0.143 1.011 0.~Ocg on~ata D u m a sp.965 1.500 0. pacae de monte Smlm de m o m e pacae demonte pa~haco [on4m-.611 0.208 1. attla2~qum P.150 0.857 1.m / m ' u m sp.083 0.041 1.061 3 3 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 Amd/ra/nerm/t D ~ r o p ~ purpsnu DO.150 0.P ~ .031 1.143 1.500 1.061 0. s p a c.833 0.244 1.250 0.450 0.857 1.150 0.143 1.611 0.965 1.062 0.057 0.667 0.500 0.~ 1.714 0.890 0.600 0.370 0.833 0.424 1.116 " 0.011 0.143 0.'g de t:ogo 0 3 6 4 4 1 0.244 1.063 1.244 1.167 o U ~ mUV~ 0.667 0.146 0.500 1.041 1.oxMo.083 1.000 1.083 0.371 0.150 0.l Fabaceae sp.011 0.083 0.143 1.500 0.146 0.x ~ casp~? ~ehuahuaco muqgre d e t o m 58O03 57981 u3~.666 0.454 0.536 0.500 1.2 c~.857 1.058 0.333 0. a a k m m ~ c£ panamm~ o.000 0.244 1.000 1.000 0.imt4.~ 2.127 0.3 Su.000 0.057 0.350 0.500 1.~ 1.116 1.11o ah~mmllo *htmhiilo shkmla411o ~am~Mdlo shtm~ Vou~ 45627 Stems ~ 4 3 4 0 1 1 UV.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 1.250 0.500 1. L ~urgomii Z nobtl/s L unu~pu/a Namd ~. ~ ~ Conmv~ 243 Appendix continued Mest~o Forest Taxon L spimdm~ L tomentom L umbeilifmr~P L $p.390 0.167 0.~ 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 0.890 1.SdJ0 0.500 1.057 0.666 0.~ 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.143 1.248 0.350 ~ F a ~ Papilionoid ~p.714 0.000 0.146 0.244 1.167 1.750 O.t~] 54179 576O2 57649 57785 58O73 51071 57784 0. 1.2 Fl~gougllaceme Ca~w~ ja~tem~ C ulmtfolta C u/tuna Euawam n/t/da deeme deems? aim 3 O24 1 0.057 0.144 0.050 0.057 0.248 0.50O moenaamarllla? tamarindo remo caWl? blanqumo? ~ ilave 57803 57645 46021 57734 57734 13 0 1 1 2. March 1994 .583 1.2 P/aO.125 0.390 0.031 1.146 0.146 0.150 0. 1.750 O.666 0.~ 1.143 1.l Palmceae: at&mitres Fabaceawsp.750 0.244 1.500 0.000 1.714 0.714 0.714 0.245 eU~ 1.500 0.057 0.600 1.~ 1.722 1.500 1.125 0.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 1.857 1. nov.833 0.146 0.524 1.500 1.113 0. P ~ sp.714 0.370 0. a r p m aft.666 0.424 1.150 0.011 0.714 0.011 0.144 tUV~ 0.500 0.031 1.714 0.150 0.500 0.096 0.745 0.150 0.031 1.~ mam.~m Pt~m~/o~um Ju~mm/m s ~ yemo pmetm 016 Ol 1 25 06 4 2 1 14 3 0.3 P w k / a nat~/a ca'.167 0.250 0. ~ ap.600 0.875 0.041 1.031 1.127 0.111 0.424 . P ~ o c a v p u ~ sp.857 1.artW/a m. u/e/ P.749 0.698 2.333 0.890 0.244 1.666 0.f.524 0.150 0.x P t m w .2 L ~ .965 2. sp.184 0.666 0.

500 0.500 1.000 1.375 1.500 0.5OO 0. pulverulenta N.375 1.233 1.5 Lauraceae sp.375 1.500 0.1 A sp.000 2.4.000 0.500 2.500 1.000 0.250 2. sp. R spa canelon moena mocha moena moena palo al camfor palo al camfor moena [negra] moena [negra] Cinnamoraum sp. ~ 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 2.500 0.375 1.500 0.000 0.500 1.000 mUV 5 tU~ n/ ni 7 Dendrobangia boliviensis Laclatemataceae Lacistema aggregatum L nena Lauraceae almendrillo Aniba caneliila A guiatwnsis .375 1.000 3. aft.375 1.767 1.000 1.17 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 Comervadon Biology Volume 8. Appendix continued Taxon Icactnaceae Mestizo Name ~ itauba? Voucher 2 51086 57935 54172 46126 57736 57747 57872 51194 45693 51196 54196 45728 Forest 0.250 2.875 2.500 0.375 1.667 0.8 LauraCeae sp.000 2.500 0.375 1.375 1.875 0.12 Lauraceae sp.875 0.12 Lauraceae sp.375 1.f.375 1.667 0.000 0.3 O.000 2.500 0.250 1.167 2.667 0.000 1.500 O.000 2.5OO 0.167 2.000 2. cuprea O.167 2.000 1.375 1.500 0.000 0.500 1.000 1.375 1.500 0.500 0.000 0.000 1.875 0.750 1.500 0.250 0.375 2. bofo O.375 1. 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. 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. 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. taubert/ana A sp.500 1. P.875 1.500 2.375 1.000 0.000 1.714 0.875 0.375 1.16 Lauraceae sp.375 1.625 1.022 1.375 1.875 0.000 1.875 2.14 Lauraceae sp. nov.333 0.875 0.625 2.5OO 0.875 0.875 1. nov.500 0.875 0.000 1.375 1.500 0. s p a O. No.500 2.000 2. sericea K williarasii L/car/a a r m e n / a c a L aurea L canel/a L c.250 0.000 1.000 1.3 Ocotea bofo O.500 1.600 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~.875 0.875 0.875 0. s p a O.625 1. c~.500 0. sp.000 1.875 0.000 2.875 0.375 2.250 0. sp.375 1.875 0. sp. spa N.500 1.375 1.375 1.~.875 0.5OO 0. sp.244 E g m o b o ~ y ~ d Conservation Phillips et ~.500 3.750 1.11 Lauraceae sp.000 1.000 1.875 0.875 0.000 1.375 1.7 Lauraceae sp.500 0.500 O.375 2.800 eOV" oU~ 1.500 O.5 Persea spa P / e u r o I ~ r / u m sp.000 1.022 2.9 Lauraceae sp.5OO 1. 1.2 O.2 A panurens/s .000 2.875 0.500 2.500 0.875 0.875 0.500 0.l Endlicheriaformosa K verticellata !~.3 Lauraceae s p a / a u r a c e a e sp.875 0.500 0.2 Lauraceae sp.000 2.400 cUV ~ 1.022 0.875 0.571 0.000 1. grac/i/s Lauraceae s p a • Lauraceae sp.500 0.500 0.15 Lauraceae sp.3 Bellschmiedia sp.6 Lauraceae sp.5OO O.500 2.000 O.375 1.022 1.750 1.875 2.500 0.000 1.10 Lauraceae sp.167 2.000 2.2 N.500 1.500 2.000 1.4.500 0.875 0. sp.875 0. March 1994 .375 1.875 2.375 2.375 1.000 2. canei/a Mexilaurus longipetiolata 3£.5OO 0.500 0.000 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. v/burno/des N.375 1.375 1.000 2.500 0. globosa N.375 1.286 1.

~ 0.667 0.063 0. m a x i m a E/~'tusa P.19 Lauraccme sp.500 1. s p a M.111 0. c£pyrifolia 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 0.067 0.067 0.857 0.333 1.929 0.250 1.500 1.333 1.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 1.905 0.528 0. gomma G.167 0.500 0.429 0.~ cUVa e U # 1.~ 2. 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.000 1.857 0.143 0.500 1.143 0.000 0.905 0.000 1.333 2.750 2.500 0.037 0.286 0.333 0.833 1.20 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.208 2.500 1.~ 1.333 0.633 1. schu/tes// E spa F.250 0.500 1.143 0.007 0.333 0.167 0.286 0.037 Trichilia micrantha T.167 0.000 1.429 0.000 1.167 1. sp.302 1.857 0.389 0.877 0. t r / ~ M.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 .667 1.167 0.~ oU~ m g ~ 1.306 0.250 0.262 2.500 Brosimum guianense B c. sp.429 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.~ 1.929 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.667 0.2 18 6 9 6 98 1 11 16 9 9 22 1 1.000 0.333 0. k u n ~ / a n a G.£ ut//e machinga manchinga 45592 45861 57802 51473 57591 45937 45590 46069 652 31998 45655 45692 46154 646 45639 45601 45622 45920 51129 0. /actescem B.083 0.833 2.222 G.333 0.500 1.262 2. C sctadophylla C/ar/s/a b/flora C racemosa Coussapoa trinervta F/cus lns/p/da F.375 0. bolivarense R c.500 0.302 1.167 0.429 0.000 0.333 1.522 1.083 0.877 1.037 0.286 0.000 0.~ 3.167 0.333 0.429 1.M~ ser/cea M.500 0.667 0.111 0.000 1.000 0.389 0.500 1 2 2 2 11 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Malp~aceae Byrsontma poeppigiana R aft.250 2.667 0.389 0. g u / a n e n s e R /actescens R c.444 1.000 0.000 0.333 0.000 1.333 0.300 1.300 0.262 0.583 1.083 5 5 8 8 2 2 2 2 5 5 1 1 Batocarp~ amazonicus Brosimura alicastrura ssp.877 0. 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 2.389 0.429 0.286 0. 8uidonia G.042 0.528 0.000 1.083 0.286 1.667 0. septentronalis T.f.389 0. s p a Monimlaceae Mollinedia ktlliptt Slparuna decipiens Moraceae 0.208 1.000 1.250 0.500 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 8.250 0.000 1.857 0.750 1.333 0.877 0. ru/Tra T. 2.063 0. BOm~ and Conser~on 245 Appendix continued Taxon Lauraceae sp.667 2.f.429 0. c.000 1.500 0.667 1.162 2.333 0.000 0.3 M.500 0.500 1.429 0.167 1.~ tU~ n.302 1.857 0.500 0.302 1.ef al.750 0.929 0.857 2.857 0.375 0.f.333 0.143 0.333 1.500 0.100 0.143 0. 1.2 M.000 1.500 0.429 0.500 1.667 1. nov.286 0.18 Lauraceae sp.042 0.833 0.905 0.750 0.333 0.000 0.667 1.000 37 2 4 2 5 1 0.750 0.286 0. No.143 0.000 1.083 0.429 0.~ 1.533 0.037 0.083 0.111 0. pallida T.222 12 12 3 8 7 8 7 9 13 5 13 4 1 1 1 1 0. m a c r o p h y l / a requia requia requia requia reqnia requia requia requia reqnia para para? huarmi huayo? 0.500 0.333 0.400 0.877 0.302 1. sp.143 0.944 1. March 1994 .250 1.037 0.300 0.500 1.667 1.

467 0.9OO 1. 1 Moraceae sp.f.500 0. P.200 2.167 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] 2.427 1.500 1.000 1.467 0.708 0.200 2.3(30 1.500 0.600 1.086 0.em juruem/s L aff.059 0 5 5 5 1 1 Mymceae Eu~enta c.708 0.500 0.007 1.167 O.000 2. ~ l l a N.000 1.600 0.000 0.944 0.600 0.3 uvlna [~ca] uvilla [seca] uvflla [seca] uviUa [seca] uvtlla [seca] 51511 51553 4562. c. c.600 0.518 0.200 1.000 1.757 0.115 0. I Neea dtvaricata 45653 45679 45955 43743 5 3 4 01346 4 1236 4 4 3 1 1 14 4 4 1 1 0. r a / n o s u s 0.013 1.115 0.113 0.222 0. ~ P.450 wrr~mceae Cy~m~us aft.427 1.467 0.f.500 0.500 1.121 0.000 ot~ mUV ~ tUV ~ n. 1 Otoba parvtfolta cumala cumala Irmna.076 0.000 1.000 2.000 0. c~.944 0.930 1. m a c r o p ~ U a P..076 0.000 1.930 0.667 0.080 2.000 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.000 1.167 0.200 1.200 2.4OO 0.a] uvflla [seca] uvilla chimicua [mancaI chimtcua patna patna chlmicua tormga caspi? 1.60O 0.200 1.6OO 0.juruenas L /aev/s /.000 1.076 0.000 1.869 1.000 1.9OO 0.944 0. c. m u r w e P.094 0.000 1.200 2.944 0.t .080 2.074 0.167 O.500 1.000 0.930 0.600 0. / s /. p a m a t a P.222 0. y m a Potwouma cec3ropitfolia patna chimicua? dflnflcu~ uvilla p. m ~ M: s p a M~ s p a ~ayavma guayavilla guayavflla 57606 51483 461O4 58151 22462 46O31 236 1 6 2 0.000 2.u~t~ylta N. lo~tens/s V.930 0.400 0.6OO 0.500 1 0 8 8 8 8 8 1 0 2 2 2 2 2 ~.000 0. aft.000 2.0O0 1.350 0.930 0.354 0.222 0. villosa P..222 0. su~tr/8osa P. minor P.708 0.7.360 1.600 1.013 1.000 2.6OO 1.076 0. ovalifoiia sk~y V ~ u m e IK No.467 0.000 M ~ .354 0. x a n ~ .f / o r ~ ~sp.066 0.5OO O . e/ongata V.467 0.2 guayav~ ~yavma guayavilla Myraa gta.121 1.000 1.222 0.467 0.f.46 ~ w ~ d Coamva~ Ph~ aa Appendix ~ n ~ u ~ i Mestizo Taxon Helicostylis tomentosa 1t. c £ / a e t .167 et~ 0.708 0.200 2.708 0.076 0. seb/fera V.013 1.375 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. c.222 0.708 0.467 0.184 0.000 1. March 1994 .000 1. s p a P.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.000 1.250 0. l ~ t e n t o s a P~.500 O4 136 012346 0136 0 16 O4 3 1 8 25 47 35 1 3 7 1 1 0.500 0.4OO 0.833 0.467 0. 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 0.708 0.5OO 0.467 0.500 0. 5 O O O.2 Moraceae sp.500 0. f ~ m u n a a N. seb/fera V.000 1.167 0.000 1..167 0.667 0.007 2.222 0.000 0. sur/namenMs V.050 0. o/aco/des L c £ te~mmnn// Virola c a / o p h y l / a V.875 1. 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. /aev/s P.750 1.000 1.200 1. 0.944 0.000 1. f / e x u o s a V.000 1.350 0.400 0.000 1.f.222 0.1 K sp. gu/anena.930 0.167 0.667 0.f.757 0.013 1.000 1.750 0.600 0.50O 0.000 1.074 0.518 0.930 0.000 ~ 0. elonRata V.250 P.000 1.833 0.050 0. teumannu P. 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.708 0.000 0.013 1.500 1.930 0.6OO 0.udo~ned/a U m . r/g/da Sorocea ptleata Tropb/s sp. 1 Moraceae sp. / s a t a P. I.500 1.467 0.

homelta sp.667 0.133 346 134 O46 3 034 01346 014 1 0.500 Warscewtcxia coccinea ICutaceae Zantl~xylum acreanum Sablaceae 58098 tongui sacha 45697 4 0136 3 3 O. sp. sp.467 0.467 0.944 1. s p a N.333 Potyatmace~ Tr/p/ar~ eL sa~fera Qum~¢te L a c u n a r ~ acnmmum tan$arana coloradfllo coloradfllo coloradfllo 45640 57623 51233 57619 45763 0.000 0.1 Gen/pa a m e r / c a n a capirona capirona [del bajio] palo de agua huito 46004 5822 45661 45862 136 5 4 5 245 1 1.059 0.000 1. rorfa P trH.233 0.556 1.4 P.000 0.417 1.l S a p o f a f l ~ sp.333 0.113 0.920 2.389 0.400 1.387 1.300 0.467 0.525 1. sp.037 0.2 Sapotaceae sp. p r o c e r a P tampotenM$ P.444 0.208 14 4 1 0.833 0.556 0.167 0.467 0.000 0.333 2.222 0.444 10 6 5 0 8 1 2 2 vtwtot~e Gai/es/a/ntegr/foi/a Tetrastignm ocA~mb'um 0.167 1.5OO 1.ocu/ar/a P spa P sp.450 0.083 caimito? quinllla blanca quInilla blanca? qjuntlla blanca? qninilla blanca? 4 0134 6 6 6 2 0.000 1.3 N.667 1.000 0.467 0.5 N.389 0.167 1. nov. 0.037 0.467 0.273 0. 1.667 1.500 36 01 bkmquill~ blanquma? blanquilla? quinflla blanca qutnilla [colorada] 36 0 O4 014 T.667 0.429 1.750 2.333 1.133 0.6 Ochnaceae O u r a ~ a sp.000 0.2 P sp.869 0.adan #Ja P sp.467 0.667 0. $1).389 0.833 1.429 0.833 0.333 0. c £ v/r/d/folta Neea sp.500 0.833 0.360 0.000 Meliosma herber~i 46086 46237 46217 46237 57571 46237 57690 45636 45595 swmdaceae Cupan/a scrob/cu/ata Dilodendron elegans Matayba purgans TaltMa cerasina T. caimito P c/.3 P.467 0.595 0.500 0. 1 N.000 0.000 1.833 1.833 0.367 1.500 0.127 1.000 1.500 1. nitida gmaceae Prunus amplifolia Rumaceae Ama/oua corymbosa canllla de vieja 0.194 0.3 SapO#~ ~.444 0.429 0.000 0.2 N.833 0.452 0.000 1.500 0.833 0.533 0.100 0.444 0.833 0. sp.444 1.000 0.286 Qutina florida Q. 1 i i i ii Mestizo Name' Voudm ~ 186 57672 58107 Forest ~vl'~ s ~ m s * 1 1 0 1 4 4 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 27 12 7 4 1 1 1 2 2 1 18 7 19 4 3 3 2 1 16 1 1 5 4 7 1 5 6 18 4 10 5 3 3 1 3 20 5 1 3 2 2 1 5 1 1 2 I ug.000 0.000 1.781 1.5 Sarcau/us bras/l/ens/s ~70tZ~'lPt~ sp.4 0.029 1.450 0.667 0.944 1.667 0.067 0.833 0.833 1.917 0.571 1.167 0.667 0.467 2.Phiff~s et a/.333 0.301 0.000 1.833 1.4OO 0.000 cur~ ~ 0.667 0.000 0.000 0..000 0.500 0.062 0.000 1.667 1. sp.667 1.5OO 0 3 15 8 2 0 12 3 5 8 1 0 1 8 8 8 3 45896 CaOmophyilgtm acreanum C spruceanum Chimarrhts booker// C.962 1. molHs Sapotaceae (Tarysophyllum pom/#rum Manilkara sur/tmmens/s Mtcrop~lls guyanen~ M venu/osa qulnflla blanca quinilla blanca catmito? caimtto caimito? sachavaca papaya quinilla blanca h~cuma caimito? caimito? quina-qulna caimito 4606O 51124 45779 46191 45735 45874 46235 45593 45768 45625 58123 45880 45631 58153 45638 51369 51196 51293 51550 236 026 014 PouWria bang ii P.083 2.000 1.333 1.500 O.079 1.667 1.200 0.783 0.250 0.500 0.667 0.000 1.042 0.333 0.467 0.467 0. ~ N.467 0. P.250 0.689 0.000 our ~ m~ ~ n6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 3 n/ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 0 4 1 1 1 0 2 5 5 1 0 7 2 3 2 1 0 1 3 3 3 1 5 1 1 5 6 3 5 3 2 5 2 2 7 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 5776O 58039 coloradfllo yutobanco? huacapd ajosquiro 45936 261 45892 45737 45765 36 0136 1346 O4 4 4 0 6 0 4 01346 Oiacaceae He/ster/a a c u m / n a t a Minquartia gu/anens£$ 0. ~bnobot~ mJ Consefv~ 247 Appendix mn~u~ Taxon N.467 0.467 0.000 1.467 0.098 0.467 O.611 0.467 2.857 1.000 1.117 0.667 0.185 1. Mm:h 1994 .089 0. c u p u / a r / s 0.000 1.500 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.

exylum sp~ Vitex triflora Violaceae Gloeospermum ~xina seca 0.833 0.333 0.mcar/n~ Leonia glycicarpa L aft.S00 eU~ oUV a m U ~ 1.125 0. March 1994 .472 2. / ~ g Vochys~eae Q.250 Sparrea schtppa Trema tntegerrlma Verbenaceae Ci~m.250 0.317 0.000 #U~ n/ n.750 0.OOO 1.500 0. 2.750 0.250 0.000 0.4 Conservation Biology Volume 8.000 1.4O3 1.1 128.2 . 1.000 0.500 0.472 0.125 0.250 0.000 0. 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.000 0.500 1.750 0.000 1.4.375 0. g r a n d l f o l / a 20 20 1 1604 1 29 TOT: 3415 673.9 40.750 0.750 0.~__~.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 1.333 0.750 0.~ aft.000 317. ae sp.250 0.000 1.000 1.750 0.000 1. No.0OO 1.3 0.069 12 6 0.5 1.661 1.248 ~ m £ ~ Consem~n P h / ~ et aL Appem~ continued Taxon S a p o t a c .000 1.375 0.518 1.317 0.833 0.069 0.750 0.875 0.403 O.000 140.000 cU~ 1.750 0.5 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.6 46.sp.179 palo de agua isula caspi? coto runto coto runto requw O~.