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

Studies from Brazil and Peru report roots to be an important component of the diet
of white-lipped peccaries (Olmos 1993; Bodmer et al. 1997b: 18). Anecdotal
information concerning consumption of crops apparently applies to both species of
Tayassu (Sowls 1984: 196). Data on consumption of animal foods included
earthworms, but at a lower frequency than insects, molluscs and uniramians, none of
which were mentioned in the present study aside from the insect larva yapun. The
proportion of reptile flesh was also lower than would be consistent with the
ethnoecological data, and fish were not mentioned at all, although over 20 percent of
animal foods could not be identified (Bodmer et al. 1997b: 25).
Overall, the ethnoecological data on diet concords well with the published data, if
the geographical differences are again taken into account. Of twenty-five food
species in the ethnoecological data set for which I have botanical glosses, twenty-
three are corroborated to family level, and eight to genus or species. The
ethnoecological data set does not include several types of animal food reported to be
eaten in Peru. How much of this discrepancy is due to ecological differences and how
much to methodology is difficult to determine. The greater overlap in identity of plant
foods compared with those of collared peccary is the result largely of the inclusion in
the ethnoecological data set of several of the relatively small number of food species
identified in ecological studies for both species of Tayassu but not mentioned here as
being foods for T. tajacu.
As table 7.4 indicates, ethnoecological data on other aspects of ecology is also
closely consistent with the published data. The only apparent contradiction is a
calculation of home range sizes from the only study to have radio-collared white-
lipped peccaries (Fragoso 1998), which is somewhat smaller than the reports of
collaborators in the present study would suggest. However, there are two key factors
that might account for this. Firstly, the duration of Fragoso’s study was one year, and
historical accounts recorded in the present study suggests that white-lipped peccary
presence at particular sites varies over far longer time-scales. Secondly, Fragoso
studied animals in a protected area free from hunting pressure, which is significant in
the light of the observation in the present study that hunting may be a key factor in
the migration of white-lipped peccary herds. The results of various other studies
appear to contradict Fragoso’s, although radio-tracking was not employed in any of
these (Kiltie and Terborgh 1983: 248-251; Hernandez et al. 1995; Peres 1996:
120-121). With regards to reproductive behaviour, one study in Peru reported there
not to be any seasonal birth peak, but took place in a much less seasonal habitat than
that of the present study (Gottdenker and Bodmer 1998).