The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru: I. Statistical hypotheses tests with a new quantitative technique

This paper describes a new, simple, quantitative technique for evaluating the relative usefulness of plants to people. The technique is then compared to the quantitative approaches in ethnobotany that have been developed recently. Our technique is used to calculate the importance of over 600 species of woody plants to non-indigenous mestizo people in Tambopata, Amazonian Peru. Two general classes of hypotheses are formulated and tested statistically, concerning (1) the relative importance of different species, and (2) the importance of different families. The plant families are compared with respect to all uses, and with respect to five broad groups of uses. Palms, Annonaceae, and Lauraceae were found to be the most useful woody plant families. On average, the 20 largest woody plant families are most important to mestizos for subsistence construction materials, followed in descending order by commercial, edible, technological, and medicinal uses.ResumenEn éste estudio se describe una nueva técnica cuantitativa para la evaluation de la relativa utilidad de plantas a la gente. Esta técnica se compara con aquellas técnicas cuantitativas recientemente desarrolladas en etnobotánica. Con ésta técnica nosotros estimamos la importantia que las plantas lenosas, más de 600 especies, tienenpara los mestizos de Tambopata de la Amazonia del Peru. Estadisticamente, se prueban dos hipótesis generates concernientes a (1) la relativa importantia de especies diferentes, y a (2) la importantia de diferentes familias. Las familias de plantas son comparadas entre ellas en relation a todos los usos, y con respecto a cinco grupos amplios de usos. Se descubrió que lasfamilias leńosas mas útiles son las palmeras, Annonaceas, y Lauraceas. En término promedio, las 20 familias mas grandes de plantas leñosas tienen prioridad como materiales de constructión de subsistencia, seguidas en orden descendiente por sus usos comerciales, comestibles, tecnológicos, y medicinales.

[1]  Miller Kr,et al.  Conserving the worlds biological diversity. , 1990 .

[2]  Walter V. Reid,et al.  Conserving the World's Biological Diversity , 1990 .

[3]  O. Phillips The potential for harvesting fruits in tropical rainforests: new data from Amazonian Peru , 1993, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[4]  P. Stevens Character States, Morphological Variation, and Phylogenetic Analysis: A Review , 1991 .

[5]  M. Balick,et al.  Brazilian palms : notes on the uses and vernacular names compiled and translated from Pio Corrêa's "Dicionário das plantas úteis do Brazil e das exóticas cultivadas" with updated nomenclature and added illustrations , 1987 .

[6]  A. Anderson Extraction and forest management by rural inhabitants in the Amazon estuary. , 1990 .

[7]  J. Kokwaro,et al.  Herbal remedies of the Luo of Siaya District, Kenya: Establishing quantitative criteria for consensus , 1990, Economic Botany.

[8]  John K. Smith,et al.  Closing Down the Conversation: The End of the Quantitative-Qualitative Debate Among Educational Inquirers , 1986 .

[9]  Henrik Balslev,et al.  Aspectos etnobotánicos de las lianas utilizadas por los indígenas Siona-Secoya de la Amazonía del Ecuador , 1991 .

[10]  D. Lieberman,et al.  Chewing stick usage in Southern Ghana , 1979, Economic Botany.

[11]  F. W. Preston The Canonical Distribution of Commonness and Rarity: Part I , 1962 .

[12]  M. Balick,et al.  Useful plants of the Panare Indians of the Venezuelan Guayana. , 1990 .

[13]  P. But,et al.  Vascular plants used in Chinese medicine. , 1980 .

[14]  R. T. Trotter,et al.  Informant Consensus: A New Approach for Identifying Potentially Effective Medicinal Plants , 1986 .

[15]  D. Moerman,et al.  The medicinal flora of Majouri-Kirchi forests (Jammu and Kashmir State), India. , 1992, Journal of ethnopharmacology.

[16]  W. Balée,et al.  Quantitative Ethnobotany and the Case for Conservation in Ammonia , 1987 .

[17]  A. Dafni,et al.  A preliminary classification of the healing potential of medicinal plants, based on a rational analysis of an ethnopharmacological field survey among Bedouins in the Negev desert, Israel. , 1986, Journal of ethnopharmacology.

[18]  F. W. Preston The Commonness, And Rarity, of Species , 1948 .

[19]  W. Balée,et al.  Management of a tropical scrub savanna by the Gorotire Kayapó of Brazil. , 1989 .

[20]  Daniel E. M Er An SYMBOLS AND SELECTIVITY: A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF NATIVE AMERICAN MEDICAL ETHNOBOTANY , 1979 .

[21]  K. Popper,et al.  Conjectures and refutations;: The growth of scientific knowledge , 1972 .

[22]  C. Padoch,et al.  Santa Rosa: the impact of the forest products trade on an Amazonian place and population. , 1990 .

[23]  D. Moerman The medicinal flora of Native North America: an analysis. , 1991, Journal of ethnopharmacology.

[24]  O. Phillips,et al.  The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru: II. Additional hypothesis testing in quantitative ethnobotany , 2008, Economic Botany.

[25]  J. Salick Amuesha forest use and management: an integration of indigenous use and natural forest management. , 1992 .

[26]  A. J. Gilmartin EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEMATICS TODAY , 1986 .

[27]  P. Jipp,et al.  Use‐Values of Tree Species in a Communal Forest Reserve in Northeast Peru , 1990 .

[28]  A. Gentry,et al.  Changes in Plant Community Diversity and Floristic Composition on Environmental and Geographical Gradients , 1988 .

[29]  G. Prance What is ethnobotany today? , 1991, Journal of ethnopharmacology.

[30]  M. Duryea,et al.  Tapping women’s knowledge: Plant resource use in extractive reserves, acre, Brazil , 1992, Economic Botany.

[31]  M. Hammersley What's Wrong With Ethnography? , 1991 .

[32]  N. Turner “The Importance of a Rose”: Evaluating the Cultural Significance of Plants in Thompson and Lillooet Interior Salish , 1988 .

[33]  M. Balick,et al.  Useful palms of the world: a synoptic bibliography. , 1990 .

[34]  E. Hunn,et al.  The Utilitarian Factor in Folk Biological Classification , 1982 .