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

Table 7.25. Comparison of
ethnoecological and ecological
data sets
Species Number of
interviews
Number
food
species in
ecological
studies
Number of food
species in
ethnoecological
interviews
Food species in
ethnoecological data
set corroborated in
ecological studies to
family level
Food species in
ethnoecological
data set
corroborated to
genus level
Number of other Proportion of
ethnoecological observations in
observations for whichprevious
column for
comparable ecological
data available
which observations
compatible
Tayassu
tajacu
10 [*] 85/29
89%
(16/18)
28%
(5/18)
21 1.00
Tayassu
pecari
14 [*] 87/42
92%
(23/25)
32%
(8/25)
15 1.00
Tapirus
terrestris
13 33[1] 70/27
88%
(15/17)
65%
(11/17)
10 1.00
Mazama
americana
13 56[2] 97/48
88%
(23/26)
48%
(12/26)
11 1.00
Dasyprocta
agouti
12 ND 64/37 ND ND 10 0.90
Agouti paca 14 ND 79/35 ND ND 14 1.00
Ateles
paniscus
12 171[3] 48/26
95%
(20/21)
81%
(17/21)
15 0.87
Alouatta
seniculus
9 97 [4] 34/15
73%
(8/11)
36%
(4/11)
18 1.00
Cebus
apella
7 66 [5] 35/18
83%
(10/12)
42%
(5/12)
11 1.00
Cebus
olivaceus
5 20[6] 39/17
82%
(9/11)
64%
(7/11)
8 1.00
Chiropotes
satanas
5 20+[7] 32/15
91%
(10/11)
45%
(5/11)
8 0.88
Pithecia
pithecia
7 17[8] 28/10
83%
(5/6)
50%
(3/6)
7 1.00
TOTALS/AVERAGES
88%
(139/158)
49%
(77/158)
148 0.97
[1]Salas and Fuller 1996 [2]Branan et al. 1985 [3]Roosmalen 1985b [4]Julliot & Sabatier 1993 [5]Guillotin et al. 1994 [6]Wright 2002
[7]Norcock & Kinzey 1994 [8]Buchanan et al. 1981. ND – ecological data not available. [*] for the peccaries, diet has mostly been reported in
terms of plant families.