Ethnoecology, Resource Use, Conservation And Development In A ...

evealed information about this important area of human subsistence that augments
that already incorporated into the model of human synecology, and which is
summarised in tables 6.2 and 6.3.
Table 6.3. Plants indicated to be characteristic of late succession in old farms. (* indicates
species reported to be largely or wholly restricted to old farms)
Name Human
use
Animal use
Mapuza
E, T, C Fruits eaten by Tayassu spp., Mazama
(Oenocarpus bacaba)
americana, Dasyprocta agouti and Agouti paca
Ochoro
E, T, C Fruits eaten by Tapirus terrestris, Tayassu spp.,
(Oenocarpus bataua)
Mazama americana, Dasyprocta agouti and
Agouti paca
Kawarori
E Fruits eaten by Tapirus terrestris, Tayassu spp.,
(Anacardium giganteum)
Mazama americana, Dasyprocta agouti and
Agouti paca
Dyakara (Inga sp.) E Fruits eaten by Aratinga leucophthalmus, Ara
macao, Ara ararauna, Cebus apella, Chiropotes
satanas, Tayassu spp., Tinamus, Crax alector,
Saguinus midas, Saimiri sciureus.
Zuum C, T Fruits eaten by Ara macao, Ara chloroptera, Ara
ararauna.
Mashimkara None reported
*Omaatukun C Fruits eaten and dispersed by pigeons (Columba
spp. and Geotrygon montana) and Geocheleone
spp.
*Katubara T None reported
Kokirai N None reported
Waazu (Astrocaryum
aculeatum)
Kodoi autakan
(‘tapir guava’)
Kumitii N None reported
Toizau (Astrocaryum sp.) N None reported
Itki'izi N None reported
T, E Fruits eaten by Cebus apella and various species
of murid. Fallen seeds eaten by Tayassu spp. and
Dasyprocta agouti.
N Fruits eaten by Tapirus terrestris.
6.5 Comments on the ethnoecological data set
One of the most striking features of the dietary information is the low frequency with
which most food items were mentioned for particular animal species. A high
proportion of the food items recorded for each animal were each named by only a
single interviewee, for example 49 of the 97 food items mentioned for red brocket
deer, and 43 of 70 in the case of tapir (see summary table in chapter 7.14.1 for
figures for all species). I suggest three major factors that might explain this:
1. Limitations of the interview context.
The formal interview setting is one that was unfamiliar to most participants, and for
this reason may not have been conducive to the recall of all pertinent information.