Abstract
Background
Traditional knowledge (TK) has enabled communities to adapt to changes in life conditions over centuries. However, this local context is being dramatically affected by recent changes through globalization and modernization of societies. In this paper we seek to identify socio-economic factors that are related to the knowledge and use of two palm species in mestizo and indigenous communities in the Amazonian of Peru and Bolivia. Both species are known in the region under the main vernacular name of Asaí, and are source of two highly commercialized resources: palm-hearts and fruits. Euterpe precatoria Mart. is native to the region whereas E. oleracea Mart. is being introduced for the use of both resources.
Methods
We compare TK about the two Euterpe species in both countries in relation to 14 socioeconomic factors in seven use categories. We performed a Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to elucidate the influence of each socioeconomic factor on the overall palm knowledge or on individual use categories.
Results
In the two countries, we found that mestizos, speaking only Spanish, and migrants in the same ecoregion, knew more uses in all use categories for E. precatoria than for E. oleracea, even in use categories such as Medicinal and veterinary and Construction, for which indigenous participants had more uses in case of other species. In Peru, the use of E. precatoria was higher among participants with greater wealth, which could be related to the commercial importance that both the fruits and the palm-hearts have had in the markets of the region. In contrast, in Bolivia, although some income generation from Euterpe sp. was observed, the use of E. precatoria was much more homogeneously distributed. The use of E. oleracea in Bolivia is recent, and although its most important uses are related to the consumption of fruits and palm-hearts (Human food), it is now being slowly used for Medicinal and Construction purposes, similar to E. precatoria.
Conclusions
The use of each of the species forms part of divergent strategies in people’s livelihoods. We show that integration into a market economy does not necessarily erode TK, but can rather stimulate knowledge acquisition and transmission of knowledge, and helps to understand the role and potential of these products to contribute to the livelihoods of households.
Keywords: Agroforestry, Arecaceae, Asaí, Livelihoods, Non timber forest products, Palm-heart, Traditional knowledge
Background
Rural people worldwide depend on forest products and services for their daily income [1, 2]. The importance of these timber and non-timber products for subsistence and welfare is capital as have been documented in various tropical regions (e.g. [3–5]). Besides their importance in daily life, forest resources are also a source of income and livelihoods in times of scarcity and emergency [4, 6]. To increase the revenue from forest products, it has also been perceived as a strategy to improve the income of the poorest households in rural areas [7, 8]. However, market demand for forest products and development of agroforestry systems have been significant elements underlying social and environmental change in the Amazon, with strong implications for resource use strategies and livelihoods of rural populations [9].
Many studies have identified the increasing exposure to market economies as one of the factors that could lead to changes in traditional knowledge (TK in the following) that allows people in rural areas to make use of forest resources [10–12]. This is due to the integration in external markets which leads mostly to specialized extraction concentrated only on certain products, a homogenization in agricultural activities, and the replacement of local products with products from abroad, resulting in a higher socioeconomic heterogeneity and undermining the existence of traditional common knowledge [11–15]. Other researchers have found that the different activities, through which local people are linked to the market, were associated with the conservation of their knowledge [16]. The integration into the market through the sale of timber and non-timber forest products was associated with a greater understanding and use of forest resources [17]. Indeed, the use of resources for income generation also depends on other factors that influence the knowledge and use of resources linked to the household level such family history, availability of labor and capital, or past experiences, and factors linked to the personal level such as gender, age, ethnicity or level of education [12, 18–21]. Understanding how the use of forest resources relates to rural incomes is essential for designing policies to support livelihoods and sustainable development incentives in these regions [22, 23].
Using palms (Arecaceae) as an example, we identified socio-economic factors related to both the knowledge and use of species that are known to be important as a source of products of commercial interest. Many species of palms are locally used for subsistence, without including them in a system of direct income generation [24, 25]. The market for palm products has been very dynamic and difficult to predict. With current trade volumes, several wild species cannot meet demand in a sustainable manner [26]. Thus, there will most likely be an increasing pressure to switch from extraction to agroforestry systems production and plantations [9, 14, 25, 27, 28].
Our research focused on the use of two species of neotropical palms of the genus Euterpe (E. precatoria Mart. and E. oleracea Mart.), which are known in the region under the main vernacular and commercial name Asaí [29, 30]. E. precatoria Mart. (Fig. 1a) is a solitary palm that occurs naturally below 2000 m elevation, on terra firme forests and along river banks, in periodically inundated areas growing from Belize in the North to Brazil and Bolivia in the South [29, 31]. The traditional use of E. precatoria has been reported frequently for house construction (e.g. posts, walls and for thatch), household utensils (e.g. fans, baskets, brooms), as well as medicine, but especially as food source (e.g. fruits and palm-hearts) [24] (Fig. 1d-l). In contrast E. oleracea Mart. (Fig. 1b-c) is a clonal species that grows in periodically inundated areas in Northern South America, in particular the Brazilian Amazon, the Orinoco basin, and in costal swamps of Colombia and Ecuador [29, 31]. Because of its economic importance as a source of palm-heart and fruits [25, 32], it has recently been introduced and used in different regions of Peru and Bolivia, outside its natural range ([32–34], Vincent Boss - Centro de Investigación y Promoción del Campesinado, personal communication). Until the early 1990s, the economic importance of these species was not recognized in Peru and Bolivia. After that, as result of industrial marketing, massive palm-heart exploitation started in natural populations of E. precatoria, until the early 2000s, when the market fell strongly [35–40]. Currently palm harvesting in both countries still exploits mostly the natural populations of E. precatoria, while E. oleracea is more and more cultivated and included in agroforestry systems [32, 33, 41]. Similarly, the market for fruits of both species has become more important during the last decade and asaí has changed from being a food for rural populations to an important product in large urban markets worldwide [25, 42, 43]. Its regional importance (as a raw material for the manufacture of beverages and ice cream) has promoted the commercialization of the fruits of E. precatoria, harvested in wild populations, and cultivation of E. oleracea. They constitute by now an important source of income ([25], Alvaro Torres - Madre Tierra S.L. de Amazonia/Instituto para el Hombre, Agricultura y Ecología, personal communication). The incorporation of E. oleracea arises as a sustainable alternative for the production of palm-hearts, because it is a multicaul species, as well as fruit harvest, because it has a high productivity per plant [33, 44, 45].
Fig. 1.
Presence and use of E. precatoria and E. oleracea in Amazonian communities in Peru and Bolivia. a) Plantation of E. oleracea in fallow field (Mestizos-Riberalta, Bolivia); b) E. oleracea planted as ornamental (Cocama, Peru); c) Individuals of E. precatoria in secondary forest close to the communities (Mestizos-Riberalta, Bolivia); d) House walls made from planks of the trunks of E. precatoria (Cocama, Peru); e) Walls made from split trunks, and roof made from leaves of E. precatoria (Chácobo, Bolivia); f) Edges of roof made from leaves of E. precatoria (Mestizos Riberalta, Bolivia); g ) Palm hearts of E. precatoria cut for sale (Mestizos Iquitos, Peru); h and j) Harvest of ripe fruits of E. precatoria (Mestizos Riberalta, Bolivia); i) Umsha, a carnival ornament made from E. precatoria (Cocama, Peru); k) Dyed seeds of E. precatoria for jewelry production (Cocama, Peru); l) Root of E. precatoria used as medicine
In this study, we comparatively evaluated the influence of 14 socioeconomic factors, at personal and family level, that have been associated with the palm TK in the region [20], on knowledge and uses of two species of Euterpe in indigenous and mestizo communities of Amazonian Peru and Bolivia.
We hypothesized that there would be differences in the use of Euterpe in different indigenous and mestizo communities, that Euterpe use in Peru would be more diverse than in Bolivia because the the native species (E. precatoria) is much more widespread, and the introduction of the commercial species (E. oleracea) occurred earlier, and that the socioeconomic factors affecting knowledge would reflect the differences in commercial importance of the species.
Methods
Data collection
Ethnobotanical data about the two species of Euterpe were gathered through semi-structured interviews using a standardized research protocol [46, 47]. Prior to starting interviews, we obtained collection and interview permits both from the respective national authorities, and each governing body of the indigenous and mestizo groups involved in the study. Before starting interviews prior informed consent was established with the communities in community meetings, and prior informed consent was also established with all individual informants. From March 2010 to December 2011, we interviewed 483 people in 10 communities inhabited by indigenous (n = 5) and mestizo (n = 5) groups in the Amazon of Peru and Bolivia (Fig. 2, Appendix 1).
Fig. 2.
Map of the study areas in Peru and Bolivia showing the 10 communities where Euterpe use-data were recorded
Communities were selected to have a uniform ethnic composition and their divergent proximity to centers of commerce where products of both E. precatoria and E. oleracea were marketed. We divided informants into five age classes, starting at 18 years and using a range of 10 years for each age class (18–30, 31–40, 41–50, 51–60, and >60 years) to achieve an equal representation of all ages. Within the age classes, approximately 50% of people we interviewed were women and 50% were men (Table 1). Interviews were conducted in Spanish. In cases where an informant did not speak Spanish, the interviews were conducted with the help of local interpreters. We gathered socioeconomic information from all informants through structured interviews regarding seven socioeconomic variables concerning personal data: gender, age, ethnicity, education, languages spoken, migration status, time in residence, and seven factors concerning household data: size of family, tenure of farm animals, farm size, tools, transports, house size, house constructions materials (Table 2).
Table 1.
Distribution of the 483 interviews conducted in 10 communities of Amazonian Peru and Bolivia by gender in five age groups. Additional data on the communities are shown in Appendix
| Country | Ethnic group | # communities | Gender | Age (years) | # informants | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men | Women | 18-30 | 31-40 | 41-50 | 51-60 | > 60 | ||||
| Peru | Cocama | 1 | 44 | 43 | 19 | 17 | 24 | 10 | 17 | 87 |
| Mestizo (Iquitos) | 2 | 73 | 95 | 48 | 44 | 31 | 20 | 25 | 168 | |
| Aguaruna | 3 | 35 | 34 | 21 | 17 | 12 | 11 | 8 | 69 | |
| Bolivia | Mestizo (Riberalta) | 2 | 39 | 40 | 10 | 18 | 19 | 14 | 18 | 79 |
| Chácobo | 2 | 40 | 40 | 37 | 21 | 13 | 6 | 3 | 80 | |
| Total | 10 | 231 | 252 | 135 | 117 | 99 | 61 | 71 | 483 | |
Table 2.
Description of the 14 socioeconomic variables gathered from 483 informants in 10 communities of Amazonian Peru and Bolivia
| Independent variable | Variable type | Levels |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | Nominal | 1) Men; 2) Women |
| Age | Continuous | Between 18 and 91 years |
| Ethnicity | Nominal | 1) Indigenous; 2) Mestizo |
| Size of family (number of children) | Continuous | Between 0 and 18 |
| Education (years) | Continuous | Between 0 and 16 years |
| Languages spoken | Nominal | 1) Only native language; 2) Only Spanish; 3) Native language and Spanish |
| Migratory status | Ordinal | 1) Non-migrant; 2) Migrant from other ethnic group in the same ecoregion; 3) Migrant from other ecoregion |
| Time in residence (years) | Continuous | Between 0.17 and 85 years |
| Farm animals | Ordinal | 1) No animals; 2) Subsistence livestock; 3) Commercial livestock |
| Farm size (ha) | Continuous | Between 0 and 10 ha |
| Tools | Ordinal | 1) Low cost (e.g. machetes, axes, bows and arrows, fishhooks, traditional agricultural tools); 2) Average cost (e.g. fishing-nets, carts, shotguns/rifles, plow, mechanical seed distributors); 3) High cost (e.g. fumigators, tractors, chainsaws, water pumps) |
| Transport | Ordinal | 1) No transport; 2) No fuel consumption (e.g. canoe, bicycle); 3) Low fuel consumption (e.g. motorbike, small outboard motor); 4) High fuel consumption (e.g. truck, large outboard motor) |
| House size (m2) | Continuous | Between 10 and 272 m2 |
| House construction materials | Ordinal | 1) Local plant materials ≥50%; 2) Mixed material ≥50%; 3) Foreign commercial materials ≥50% |
Data analysis
We grouped the socioeconomic data obtained in the interviews into three types of variables: nominal (gender, ethnicity, languages spoken), ordinal (migration status, tenure of farm animals, tools, transports, house construction materials), and continuous (age, size of family, educations, time in residence, farm size, house size) (Table 2).
All palm-uses reported for both species of Euterpe in the interviews were classified in seven use categories following the Economic Botany Data Collection Standard [48] with some modifications proposed by Macía et al. [24]: Construction, Cultural, Environmental, Human food, Medicinal and veterinary, Utensils and tools, and Other uses (including indirect uses, especially the use of beetle larvae that develop in rotting trunks). The uses in categories were divided into subcategories to specifically analyze palm-uses. To determine the influence of socioeconomic factors on knowledge of both Euterpe species, we calculated the palm use-reports, representing the sum of all palm-uses reported by an informant for each of the two species of Euterpe. For this purpose, we use the definition of “palm-use” given by [24], which it is defines as the use associated to a use category and use subcategory for a specific plant part. To identify the socioeconomic factors associated to TK about both Euterpe species, we used the following ethnobotanical indicators: 1) Total palm use-reports; 2) The palm use-report in three use-categories in which both species had at least one reported use: a) Construction, b) Human food, and c) Medicinal and veterinary; and 3) The palm use-report in the two use subcategories of Human food: a) Beverage and b) Food, which was the only use-category that showed significant differences in relation to use knowledge.
To describe and compare TK about the both Euterpe species in relation to the 14 socioeconomic factors evaluated, we conducted (1) a descriptive analysis of the data set using a MANOVA (Multivariate analysis of variance) and its corresponding post hoc Tukey test for eight categorical variables (variables pertaining to less than 10 informants were not included in the analyses); and (2) Pearson correlations for the six continuous variables). All analyses were performed using JMP 11.0 (SAS Institute 2013).
Results
Uses of Euterpe precatoria and E. oleracea in Peruvian and Bolivian Amazon
A total of 70 palm-uses distributed in seven use categories and 30 subcategories were reported for the two species evaluated (Table 3). For E. precatoria we found 69 palm-uses (52 in Peru and 27 in Bolivia) and 2147 palm use-reports (63% and 37% in Peru and Bolivia respectively) in seven use categories in Peru and six in Bolivia. For E. oleracea we documented 17 palm-uses (16 in Peru and five in Bolivia) and 223 palm use-reports (64% and 36% in Peru and Bolivia respectively) in five use categories in Peru and three in Bolivia.
Table 3.
Uses of Euterpe precatoria (A) and E. oleracea (B) gathered from 483 informants in 10 amazonian communities in Peru and Bolivia, distributed by ethnic groups and use categories. Use-reports are shown in parenthesis. (*) Local name for an ornament used during carnaval; (**) Axis used to form rubber bales (made from Hymenaea courbaril)
| Palm use category | Palm use sub-category | Part plant used | Peru | Bolivia | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Awajun | Cocama | Mestizo-Iquitos | Chácobo | Mestizo-Riberalta | |||
| A. Uses of Euterpe precatoria | |||||||
| Construction | Houses | Stem | Roof frame (4) / Walls (4) | Floor frame (66) / Walls (87) / Flooring (6) | Roof frame (19) / Floor frame (2) / Walls (138) / Flooring (14) / Stake (6) | Walls (49) | Walls (71) / Flooring (6) |
| Thatch | Entire leaf | Thatch (5) | Thatch (63) | Ridgepole (5) / Thatch (12) | Thatch (72) | Thatch (73) / Roof edge (4) | |
| Stem | - | - | Rods for thatch (6) | - | - | ||
| Environmental | Fences | Stem | - | - | Fences (1) | - | - |
| Human food | Beverages | Fruit | - | Juice (77) | Juice (136) | Juice (71) | Juice (77) |
| Food | Fruit | Edible (39) | Edible (5) | Edible (47) | Edible (19) | Edible (4) | |
| Palm heart | Edible (45) | Edible (83) | Edible (163) | Edible (77) | Edible (79) | ||
| Medicinal and veterinary | Blood and cardiovascular system | Fruit | - | Anemia (4) | Anemia (1) | - | - |
| Root | - | Anemia (1) / Blood pressure (2) | Anemia (3) | Anemia (4) | Anemia (72) | ||
| Digestive system | Fruit | - | - | - | - | Diarrhea (6) | |
| Root | Hepatitis (2) | Liver pain (2) | Colic in babies (2) / Diarrhea (5) / Stomach pain (2) / Hepatitis (5) / Liver pain (2) / Gallbladder (2) | - | - | ||
| Endocrine system | Root | - | Diabetes (3) | Diabetes (2) | - | - | |
| General ailments with unspecific symptoms | Fruit | - | - | Body weakness (2) | - | - | |
| Root | - | Fever (1) | Body pain (3) / Indisposition (2) | - | - | ||
| Infections and infestations | Root | - | Malaria (25) | Malaria (33) | Amoebas (21) | Amoebas (7) | |
| Metabolic system and nutrition | Root | - | - | - | Malnutrition (2) | - | |
| Musculo-skeletal system | Root | - | Rheumatism and arthritis (1) | Hernia (2) / Rheumatism and arthritis (1) | - | - | |
| Poisonings | Stem | - | - | - | Snakebit antidote (7) | - | |
| Root | - | - | - | Snakebit antidote (2) | - | ||
| Pregnancy, birth and puerperial | Root | Galactogogue (3) | Antiabortive (1) | Antiabortive (1) / Childbirth problems (5) | - | - | |
| Reproductive system and sex health | Root | - | - | Uterus infections (3) / Menstrual problems (5) | - | - | |
| Respiratory system | Stem | - | - | - | Pneumonia (1) | - | |
| Root | - | - | Bronchitis (1) / Pneumonia (14) | - | - | ||
| Sensory system | Root | - | Ear ache (5) | - | - | - | |
| Urinary system | Root | - | Inflammation of kidneys (41) | Prostate (4) / Inflammation of kidneys (44) | - | - | |
| Other medicinal uses | Root | - | Hairloss (3) | Hairloss (2) / Stomach cancer (2) | - | - | |
| Not specified at all | Root | - | - | Unspecified (13) | - | - | |
| Cultural uses | Clothes and accessories | Spear leaf | - | Hats (6) | - | - | Hats (8) |
| Cosmetics | Fruit | - | - | - | - | Hair oil (2) | |
| Dyes | Fruit | - | - | Dyes (9) | - | - | |
| Root | - | - | Dyes (2) | - | - | ||
| Spear leaf | - | - | Dyes (1) | - | - | ||
| Personal adornment | Seed | - | Jewellery (9) | Jewellery (18) | - | Jewellery (1) | |
| Ritual | Entire plant | - | “Umsha” (2) (*) | - | - | - | |
| Utensils and tools | Domestic and utensilis | Infrutescense | - | - | - | Broom (1) | - |
| Leaf rachis | - | - | - | Broom (5) | - | ||
| Spear leaf | - | Fan (10) / Basket (2) / Mats (1) | - | - | Fan (25) / Basket (2) / Mats (2) | ||
| Stem | - | - | - | - | Mesons (3) / Shelf (6) / Ceiling (7) | ||
| Hunting and fishing tools | Stem | - | - | Arc (2) | - | - | |
| Labor tools | Stem | - | - | - | - | “Tendal” (2)(**) | |
| Other | Human food | Stem | Larvae edible (2) | - | - | - | - |
| Medicinal | Stem | - | - | - | Larvae cough (7) | - | |
| B. Uses of Euterpe oleracea | |||||||
| Construction | Houses | Stem | - | - | Frame (6) / Walls (8) / Flooring (2) | - | Walls (1) |
| Thatch | Entire leaf | Thatch (2) | - | Thatch (2) | - | Thatch (3) | |
| Environmental | Ornamental | Entire plant | - | Ornamental (27) | - | - | - |
| Human food | Beverages | Fruit | - | - | Juice (8) | Juice (13) | Juice (41) |
| Food | Fruit | Edible (17) | - | Edible (3) | - | - | |
| Palm heart | Edible (37) | - | Edible (10) | - | Edible (21) | ||
| Medicinal and veterinary | Blood and cardiovascular system | Root | - | - | - | - | Anemia (2) |
| Digestive system | Root | - | - | Gallbladder (2) | - | - | |
| General ailments with unspecific symptoms | Fruit | - | - | Body weakness (2) | - | - | |
| Root | - | - | Indisposition (2) | - | - | ||
| Pregnancy, birth and puerperial | Root | Galactogogue (3) | - | - | - | - | |
| Respiratory system | Root | - | - | Pneumonia (2) | - | - | |
| Urinary system | Root | - | - | Inflammation of kidneys (2) | - | - | |
| Not specified at all | Root | - | - | Unspecified (2) | - | - | |
| Other uses | Human food | Stem | Larvae edible (5) | - | - | - | - |
In Peru, for both species, the category Medicinal and veterinary was the one reporting the highest number of uses: 27 uses for E. precatoria and seven uses for E. oleracea (Table 3). In the case of E. oleracea, the use for Construction (four uses) and Human food (three uses), occupied the second and third position in order of importance. In the case of E. precatoria, the use for Construction (eight uses) and Cultural uses (six uses) were the second and third most important.
In Bolivia the use categories with the highest number of uses were Utensils and tools (nine uses), Medicinal and veterinary (seven uses), and Construction (four uses) for E. precatoria whereas for E. oleracea, Construction and Human food (both with two uses) were the most important (Table 3). In both countries, no use for E. oleracea in the use categories Utensils and tools and Cultural use was gathered. Most reported uses for both E. precatoria and E. oleracea were found in the mestizo communities in the region of Iquitos in Peru (43 and 13 uses respectively) and in the region of Riberalta in Bolivia (20 and five uses respectively) (Table 3). In both countries, all uses reported by an ethnic group for E. oleracea were also reported by the same ethnic group for E. precatoria. The only difference was Ornamental use, which was only reported by the Cocama in Peru.
The significance of socio-economic variables in palm-use knowledge
Of the 14 socioeconomic factors assessed in both countries, three of them (gender, farm animals, and house construction materials) showed no significant difference, neither at total knowledge level, nor in the three use-categories (Table 4). In addition, the relationship with age and residence time were not significant in Peru, whereas the ownership of transport and the size of houses were not significant in Bolivia.
Table 4.
Relationship between uses of Euterpe precatoria and E. oleracea (based on palm use-reports) and socioeconomic factors in the 10 Amazonian communities evaluated in Peru (A) and Bolivia (B)
| Euterpe precatoria (Mean ± SD) | Euterpe oleracea (Mean ± SD) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Total palm uses | Construction | Human food | Medicinal and veterinary | Total palm uses | Construction | Human food | Medicinal and veterinary | |
| A. Peru | |||||||||
| Comparison of means (categorical variables) | |||||||||
| Gender | |||||||||
| Male | 152 | 4.0 ± 1.9 | 1.4 ± 1.1 | 1.8 ± 0.7 | 0.8 ± 0.7 | 0.4 ± 1.1 | 0.1 ± 0.4 | 0.3 ± 0.6 | 0.1 ± 0.3 |
| Female | 172 | 3.9 ± 1.7 | 1.3 ± 1.0 | 1.8 ± 0.7 | 0.8 ± 0.7 | 0.3 ± 1.1 | 0.1 ± 0.4 | 0.2 ± 0.6 | 0.1 ± 0.3 |
| Ethnicity | |||||||||
| Indigenous | 118 | 3.2 ± 2.3 b | 1.9 ± 1.3 b | 1.5 ± 0.8 b | 0.5 ± 0.7 b | 0.5 ± 0.8 a | 0.02 ± 0.1 | 0.5 ± 0.7 a | 0.03 ± 0.1 |
| Mestizo | 206 | 4.4 ± 1.3 a | 1.4 ± 0.8 a | 2.0 ± 0.6 a | 1.0 ± 0.6 a | 0.3 ± 1.2 b | 0.1 ± 0.4 | 0.1 ± 0.5 b | 0.1 ± 0.02 |
| Language spoken | |||||||||
| Only native language | 6* | 1.7 ± 1.8 | 0.3 ± 0.5 | 1.3 ± 0.8 | - | 0.5 ± 0.5 | - | 0.5 ± 0.5 | - |
| Only Spanish | 252 | 4.6 ± 1.4 a | 1.6 ± 0.9 a | 2.0 ± 0.5 a | 1.0 ± 0.6 a | 0.2 ± 1.1 b | 0.1 ± 0.4 | 0.1 ± 0.4 b | 0.1 ± 0.3 |
| Native language and Spanish | 66 | 1.7 ± 1.4 b | 0.4 ± 0.8 b | 1.2 ± 0.9 b | 0.1 ± 0.4 b | 0.8 ± 0.9 a | 0.03 ± 0.2 | 0.7 ± 0.8 a | 0.1 ± 0.2 |
| Migration status | |||||||||
| Non-migrant | 212 | 3.5 ± 1.9 b | 1.1 ± 0.9 b | 1.8 ± 0.8 b | 0.7 ± 0.6 b | 0.4 ± 0.9 b | 0.04 ± 0.3 | 0.3 ± 0.6 a | 0.03 ± 0.2 |
| Migrant from other ethnic group in the same ecoregion | 108 | 4.7 ± 1.3 a | 1.8 ± 0.8 a | 1.9 ± 0.5 a | 0.9 ± 0.7 a | 0.2 ± 1.2 a | 0.1 ± 0.4 | 0.1 ± 0.4 b | 0.1 ± 0.4 |
| Migrant from other ecoregion | 4* | 6.3 ± 1.0 | 2.7 ± 0.5 | 2.3 ± 0.5 | 1.2 ± 0.5 b | 1.7 ± 3.5 | 0.7 ± 1.5 | 0.7 ± 1.5 | 0.3 ± 0.5 |
| Farm animal | |||||||||
| No animals | 28 | 4.1 ± 0.3 | 1.3 ± 0.7 | 2.1 ± 0.5 | 0.7 ± 0.6 | 0.2 ± 0.6 | 0.03 ± 0.2 | 0.2 ± 1.1 | - |
| Subsistence livestock | 294 | 3.9 ± 0.1 | 1.4 ± 1.0 | 1.8 ± 0.7 | 0.8 ± 0.7 | 0.3 ± 1.0 | 0.1 ± 0.3 | 0.2 ± 0.6 | 0.1 ± 0.3 |
| Commercial livestock | 2* | 5.0 ± 1.3 | 2.0 ± 0.0 | 2.0 ± 0.0 | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 5.0 ± 0.0 | 2.0 ± 0.0 | 2.0 ± 0.0 | 1.0 ± 0.0 |
| Tools | |||||||||
| Low cost | 58 | 2.5 ± 1.7 b | 0.6 ± 0.7 c | 1.6 ± 0.9 | 0.3 ± 0.5 b | 0.4 ± 0.8 | 0.03 ± 0.2 | 0.4 ± 0.6 | 0.02 ± 0.1 |
| Average cost | 239 | 4.2 ± 1.7 a | 1.4 ± 0.9 b | 1.9 ± 0.6 | 0.9 ± 0.7 a | 0.3 ± 1.2 | 0.1 ± 0.4 | 0.2 ± 0.6 | 0.1 ± 0.3 |
| High cost | 27 | 4.9 ± 1.5 a | 2.1 ± 1.0 a | 1.9 ± 0.6 | 0.8 ± 0.6 a | 0.2 ± 0.9 | 0.1 ± 0.4 | 0.1 ± 0.4 | 0.04 ± 0.2 |
| Transport | |||||||||
| No transport | 88 | 2.3 ± 1.8 b | 0.6 ± 0.8 b | 1.4 ± 0.9 b | 0.3 ± 0.5 b | 0.5 ± 0.8 | 0.01 ± 0.1 | 0.5 ± 0.7 a | 0.03 ± 0.2 |
| Fuel | |||||||||
| No fuel consumption | 108 | 4.6 ± 1.4 a | 1.6 ± 0.9 a | 2.1 ± 0.5 a | 0.9 ± 0.6 a | 0.2 ± 1.1 | 0.1 ± 0.5 | 0.1 ± 0.5 b | 0.03 ± 0.2 |
| Low fuel consumption | 119 | 4.6 ± 1.4 a | 1.7 ± 0.9 a | 1.9 ± 0.5 a | 0.9 ± 0.6 a | 0.3 ± 1.2 | 0.1 ± 0.4 | 0.1 ± 0.5 b | 0.1 ± 0.4 |
| High fuel consumption | 9* | 4.7 ± 2.3 | 1.8 ± 1.4 | 1.8 ± 0.4 | 1.1 ± 1.2 | 0.7 ± 1.0 | - | 0.7 ± 1.0 | - |
| House construction materials | |||||||||
| Local plant materials ≥50% | 274 | 4.1 ± 1.7 | 1.4 ± 1.0 | 1.9 ± 0.6 | 0.8 ± 0.7 | 0.3 ± 0.9 | 0.1 ± 0.3 | 0.2 ± 0.6 | 0.02 ± 0.2 |
| Mixed material ≥50% | 2* | 3.0 ± 0.0 | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 2.0 ± 0.0 | - | 3.0 ± 0.0 | 1.0 ± 0.00 | 2.0 ± 0.0 | - |
| Foreign commercial materials ≥50% | 48 | 3.4 ± 2.3 | 1.1 ± 1.0 | 1.6 ± 0.9 | 0.6 ± 0.7 | 0.6 ± 1.6 | 0.1 ± 0.4 | 0.4 ± 0.7 | 0.2 ± 0.6 |
| Pearson correlation (continuous variables) | |||||||||
| Age | 324 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.01 | 0.06 | −0.09 | −0.01 | −0.1 | 0.02 |
| Size of family (number of children) | 324 | 0.1 | 0.11 | 0.03 | 0.09 | −0.08 | −0.08 | −0.08 | −0.04 |
| Time in residence (years) | 324 | −0.02 | −0.09 | 0.03 | 0.05 | −0.1 | −0.04 | −0.1 | 0.03 |
| Education | 324 | −0.11 | −0.12 | −0.09 | −0.07 | 0.1 | 0.04 | 0.1 | 0.04 |
| Farm size (ha) | 324 | 0.15 | 0.17 | −0.001 | 0.16 | −0.02 | 0.08 | −0.02 | 0.05 |
| House size (m2) | 324 | 0.24 | 0.16 | 0.23 | 0.3 | −0.13 | 0.16 | −0.14 | 0.12 |
| B. Bolivia | |||||||||
| Comparison of means (categorical variables) | |||||||||
| Gender | |||||||||
| Male | 79 | 4.7 ± 1.0 | 1.8 ± 0.5 | 2.1 ± 0.5 | 0.8 ± 0.5 | 0.4 ± 0.9 | 0.04 ± 0.3 | 0.4 ± 0.7 | 0.01 ± 0.1 |
| Female | 80 | 4.4 ± 1.2 | 1.7 ± 0.67 | 2.0 ± 0.1 | 0.7 ± 0.5 | 0.4 ± 0.8 | 0.01 ± 0.1 | 0.4 ± 0.7 | 0.01 ± 0.1 |
| Ethnicity | |||||||||
| Indigenous | 81 | 4.0 ± 1.3 b | 1.5 ± 0.6 b | 2.1 ± 0.6 | 0.5 ± 0.6 b | 0.01 ± 0.1 b | - | 0.01 ± 0.1 b | - |
| Mestizo | 78 | 5.1 ± 0.6 a | 1.9 ± 0.5 a | 2.0 ± 0.3 | 1.1 ± 0.3 a | 0.9 ± 1.0 a | 0.1 ± 0.3 | 0.7 ± 0.8 a | 0.03 ± 0.2 |
| Language spoken | |||||||||
| Only native language | 12 | 3.2 ± 1.9 c | 1.4 ± 0.7 b | 1.6 ± 0.9 b | 0.2 ± 0.4 c | - | - | - | - |
| Only Spanish | 73 | 5.0 ± 0.6 a | 1.9 ± 0.5 a | 2.1 ± 0.3 a | 1.1 ± 0.3 a | 0.9 ± 1.0 a | 0.1 ± 0.3 | 0.8 ± 0.7 a | 0.03 ± 0.2 |
| Native language and Spanish | 74 | 4.3 ± 1.2 b | 1.6 ± 0.7 b | 2.1 ± 0.5 a | 0.6 ± 0.5 b | 0.1 ± 0.3 b | - | 0.1 ± 0.3 b | - |
| Migration status | |||||||||
| Non-migrant | 84 | 4.1 ± 1.2 b | 1.5 ± 0.6 b | 2.1 ± 0.6 | 0.5 ± 0.6 b | 0.01 ± 0.1 b | - | 0.01 ± 0.1 b | - |
| Migrant from other ethnic group in the same ecoregion | 71 | 5.0 ± 0.6 a | 1.9 ± 0.4 a | 2.0 ± 0.3 | 1.1 ± 0.3 a | 0.9 ± 1.0 a | 0.1 ± 0.3 | 0.8 ± 0.7 a | 0.03 ± 0.2 |
| Migrant from other ecoregion | 4* | 5.5 ± 0.6 | 2.5 ± 0.6 | 2.0 ± 0.0 | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 0.5 ± 1.0 | - | 0.5 ± 1.0 | - |
| Farm animal | |||||||||
| No animals | 7* | 4.7 ± 0.5 | 1.8 ± 0.4 | 2.0 ± 0.0 | 0.8 ± 0.4 | 1.0 ± 0.9 | - | 1.0 ± 1.0 | - |
| Subsistence livestock | 145 | 4.5 ± 1.2 | 1.7 ± 0.6 | 2.0 ± 0.5 | 0.8 ± 0.6 | 0.4 ± 0.8 | 0.03 ± 0.02 | 0.3 ± 0.6 | 0.01 ± 0.1 |
| Commercial livestock | 7* | 4.9 ± 0.7 | 1.7 ± 0.5 | 2.4 ± 0.5 | 0.7 ± 0.5 | 1.1 ± 0.9 | - | 1.1 ± 0.9 | - |
| Tools | |||||||||
| Low cost | 3* | 5.0 ± 1.0 | 2.0 ± 0.0 | 2.3 ± 0.6 | 0.7 ± 1.5 | 0.3 ± 0.6 | - | 0.3 ± 0.6 | - |
| Average cost | 139 | 4.5 ± 1.1 | 1.7 ± 0.6 | 2.0 ± 0.5 | 0.7 ± 0.6 | 0.4 ± 0.7 b | 0.01 ± 0.1 | 0.3 ± 0.6 b | 0.01 ± 0.1 |
| High cost | 17 | 5.0 ± 0.9 | 1.9 ± 0.6 | 2.1 ± 0.6 | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 1.2 ± 1.2 a | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 1.1 ± 1.0 a | - |
| Transport | |||||||||
| No transport | 22 | 4.6 ± 0.6 | 1.7 ± 0.5 | 2.1 ± 0.2 | 0.9 ± 0.4 | 0.3 ± 0.63 | - | 0.3 ± 0.6 | - |
| No fuel consumption | 53 | 4.5 ± 1.0 | 1.7 ± 0.6 | 2.0 ± 0.5 | 0.8 ± 0.6 | 0.3 ± 0.5 | - | 0.2 ± 0.4 | - |
| Low fuel consumption | 80 | 4.5 ± 1.3 | 1.7 ± 0.7 | 2.0 ± 0.6 | 0.7 ± 0.5 | 0.0. ± 0.9 | 0.1 ± 0.3 | 0.4 ± 0.8 | 0.03 ± 0.01 |
| High fuel consumption | 4* | 5.5 ± 0.6 | 2.0 ± 0.0 | 2.5 ± 0.6 | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 2.0 ± 0.01 | - | 2.2 ± 0.0 | - |
| House construction materials | |||||||||
| Local plant materials ≥50% | 146 | 4.5 ± 1.1 | 1.7 ± 0.6 | 2.1 ± 0.5 | 0.8 ± 0.6 | 0.4 ± 0.8 | 0.01 ± 0.1 | 0.4 ± 0.7 | 0.01 ± 0.1 |
| Mixed material ≥50% | 4* | 5.5 ± 0.6 | 2.0 ± 0.0 | 2.5 ± 0.6 | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 1.5 ± 0.6 | - | 1.5 ± 0.6 | - |
| Foreign commercial materials ≥50% | 9* | 4.7 ± 0.7 | 2.0 ± 0.0 | 1.7 ± 0.7 | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 0.7 ± 1.4 | 0.2 ± 0.7 | 0.4 ± 0.9 | - |
| Pearson correlation (continuous variables) | |||||||||
| Age | 159 | 0.44 | 0.45 | 0.07 | 0.33 | 0.2 | 0.05 | 0.2 | 0.01 |
| Size of family (number of children) | 159 | 0.42 | 0.28 | 0.15 | 0.36 | 0.34 | 0.08 | 0.34 | 0.07 |
| Time in residence (years) | 159 | −0.09 | −0.12 | 0.16 | −0.15 | −0.26 | −0.07 | −0.26 | −0.05 |
| Education | 159 | −0.09 | −0.16 | −0.03 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.14 | 0.02 | 0.08 |
| Farm size (ha) | 159 | 0.13 | 0.11 | −0.16 | 0.15 | 0.19 | 0.18 | 0.19 | 0.16 |
| House size (m2) | 159 | −0.03 | −0.02 | −0.05 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.15 | 0.04 | 0.13 |
Letters (a, b, c) indicate significantly different means based on a MANOVA analysis and its corresponding post hoc Tukey test (p < 0.05), with the levels indicated by different letters showing significant differences. (*) Levels with less than 10 replicas were not included in the analyses
In Peru, a total of six socioeconomic factors showed a different influence on the TK for both species: 1) ethnicity, with a higher knowledge of E. precatoria amongst mestizos and of E. oleracea among indigenous participants; 2) the language spoken, with higher knowledge of E. precatoria among people who only spoke Spanish and of E. oleracea amongst informants speaking both their native language and Spanish; 3) the possession of tools, with higher knowledge of E. precatoria among people owning average and high cost tools and without significant differences for E. oleracea; 4) ownership of means of transport, with higher knowledge about E. precatoria among participants that had transport means with no- or low- fuel consumption, but without differences in the case of E. oleracea; 5) farm size, with a significantly positive relationship for E. precatoria but non for E. oleracea; and 6) house-size, with a significantly positive relationship for E. precatoria and a negative relationship for E. oleracea (Table 4).
With regard to use-categories, both Construction and Medicinal and Veterinary use of E. precatoria showed a significant relationships with nine and seven factors respectively (Table 4). In both cases we found a higher knowledge among: 1) mestizos; 2) people who only spoke Spanish; 3) migrants from other ethnic groups within the same ecoregion; and among participants with 4) average and high cost tools; 5) transport with low and high fuel consumption; 6) larger farm size; and 7) larger house size. In addition, the use for Construction was higher among participants with larger families (more children) and a lower level of education. In contrast, knowledge of E. oleracea showed significant relationships only with the size of people’s houses, where higher knowledge corresponded to larger house size. Regarding the use for Human food, we found that both species showed the same significant differences for five factors, but with opposite patterns (Table 4). Higher knowledge about E. precatoria corresponded to: 1) mestizo people; 2) people who spoke only Spanish; 3) migrants from other ethnic group in the same ecoregion; 4) people who did own means of transport with fuel consumption; and 5) people with larger houses. The influence of these five factors on the two subcategories of Human food, showed that the knowledge about E. precatoria was clearly related with the use of its fruits to the production of beverages, while in case of E. oleracea the fruit and palm-heart were just used for food (Table 5).
Table 5.
Relationship between two subcategories of Human food use of Euterpe precatoria and E. oleracea (based on palm use-reports) and socioeconomic factors in the 10 Amazonian communities evaluated in Peru and Bolivia
| n | PERU | n | BOLIVIA | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Euterpe precatoria | Euterpe oleracea | Euterpe precatoria | Euterpe oleracea | |||||||
| Beverages | Food | Beverages | Food | Beverages | Food | Beverages | Food | |||
| Comparison of means (categorical variables) | ||||||||||
| Gender | ||||||||||
| Male | 152 | 0.7 ± 0.5 | 1.2 ± 0.6 | 0.02 ± 0.1 | 0.2 ± 0.6 | 79 | 0.9 ± 0.2 | 1.1 ± 0.4 | 0.3 ± 0.5 | 0.1 ± 0.3 |
| Female | 172 | 0.7 ± 0.5 | 1.2 ± 0.6 | 0.03 ± 0.2 | 0.2 ± 0.5 | 80 | 0.9 ± 0.3 | 1.1 ± 0.4 | 0.3 ± 0.4 | 0.1 ± 0.3 |
| Ethnicity | ||||||||||
| Indigenous | 118 | 0.4 ± 0.5 b | 1.1 ± 0.7 | - | 0.5 ± 0.1 a | 81 | 0.9 ± 0.3 b | 1.2 ± 0.5 | 0.01 ± 0.1 b | - |
| Mestizo | 206 | 0.8 ± 0.4 a | 1.2 ± 0.5 | 0.04 ± 0.2 | 0.1 ± 0.03 b | 78 | 0.9 ± 0.2 a | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 0.5 ± 0.4 a | 0.3 ± 0.4ª |
| Language spoken | ||||||||||
| Only native language | 6* | - | 1.3 ± 0.8 | - | 0.5 ± 0.4 | 12 | 0.7 ± 0.5 b | 0.8 ± 0.6 b | - | - |
| Only Spanish | 252 | 0.8 ± 0.4 a | 1.2 ± 0.4 | 0.03 ± 0.2 | 0.1 ± 0.3 b | 73 | 0.9 ± 0.2 a | 1.1 ± 0.2 b | 0.5 ± 0.4 a | 0.3 ± 0.4 a |
| Native language and Spanish | 66 | 0.1 ± 0.2 b | 1.2 ± 0.9 | - | 0.7 ± 0.8 a | 74 | 0.9 ± 0.3 ab | 1.2 ± 0.4 a | 0.04 ± 0.2 b | 0.03 ± 0.2 b |
| Migration status | ||||||||||
| Non-migrant | 212 | 0.6 ± 0.5 b | 1.2 ± 0.6 | 0.01 ± 0.1 | 0.3 ± 0.6 a | 84 | 0.9 ± 0.3 b | 1.2 ± 0.5 | 0.01 ± 0.1 b | - |
| Migrant from other ethnic group in the same ecoregion | 108 | 0.8 ± 0.4 a | 1.1 ± 0.5 | 0.04 ± 0.2 | 0.1 ± 0.2 b | 71 | 0.9 ± 0.1 a | 1.0 ± 0.3 | 0.5 ± 0.4 a | 0.3 ± 0.5 |
| Migrant from other ecoregion | 4* | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 1.3 ± 0.5 | 0.3 ± 0.5 | 0.5 ± 1.0 | 4* | 1.0 ± 0.01 | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 0.3 ± 0.5 | 0.3 ± 0.5 |
| Farm animal | ||||||||||
| No animals | 28 | 0.7 ± 0.5 | 1.4 ± 0.5 | - | 0.2 ± 0.5 | 7* | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 0.4 ± 0.5 | 0.6 ± 0.5 |
| Subsistence livestock | 294 | 0.7 ± 0.5 | 1.2 ± 0.6 | 0.02 ± 0.1 | 0.2 ± 0.5 | 145 | 0.9 ± 0.02 | 1.9 ± 0.4 | 0.2 ± 0.4 | 0.1 ± 0.3 |
| Commercial livestock | 2* | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 7* | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 1.4 ± 0.5 | 0.7 ± 0.5 | 0.4 ± 0.5 |
| Tools | ||||||||||
| Low cost | 58 | 0.3 ± 0.5 b | 1.3 ± 0.7 | - | 0.4 ± 0.6 a | 3* | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 1.3 ± 0.6 | 0.3 ± 0.6 | - |
| Average cost | 239 | 0.7 ± 0.5 a | 1.2 ± 0.5 | 0.03 ± 0.2 | 0.2 ± 0.5 ab | 139 | 0.9 ± 0.2 | 1.1 ± 0.4 | 0.2 ± 0.4 | 0.1 ± 0.3 b |
| High cost | 27 | 0.8 ± 0.4 a | 1.1 ± 0.5 | 0.04 ± 0.2 | 0.04 ± 0.2 b | 17 | 0.9 ± 0.3 | 1.2 ± 0.4 | 0.5 ± 0.4 a | 0.5 ± 0.5 a |
| Transport | ||||||||||
| No transport | 88 | 0.2 ± 0.4 b | 1.2 ± 0.1 | - | 0.5 ± 0.7 a | 22 | 1.0 ± 0.05 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 0.2 ± 0.4 | 0.1 ± 0.3 ab |
| No fuel consumption | 108 | 0.8 ± 0.4 a | 1.2 ± 0.5 | 0.03 ± 0.2 | 0.1 ± 0.3 b | 53 | 0.9 ± 0.03 | 1.0 ± 0.3 | 0.3 ± 0.5 | 0.02 ± 0.1 b |
| Low fuel consumption | 119 | 0.8 ± 0.4 a | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 0.04 ± 0.2 | 0.1 ± 0.3 b | 80 | 0.9 ± 0.03 | 1.2 ± 0.4 | 0.3 ± 0.4 | 0.2 ± 0.4 a |
| High fuel consumption | 9* | 0.7 ± 0.5 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | - | 0.7 ± 1.0 | 4* | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 1.5 ± 0.6 | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 1.0 ± 0.0 |
| House construction materials | ||||||||||
| Local plant materials ≥50% | 274 | 0.7 ± 0.5 | 1.2 ± 0.5 | 0.02 ± 0.1 | 0.2 ± 0.5 | 146 | 0.9 ± 0.2 | 1.1 ± 0.4 | 0.3 ± 0.4 | 0.1 ± 0.3 |
| Mixed material ≥50% | 2* | - | 2.0 ± 0.0 | - | 2.0 ± 0.0 | 4* | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 1.5 ± 0.6 | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 0.5 ± 0.6 |
| Foreign commercial materials ≥50% | 48 | 0.5 ± 0.5 | 1.1 ± 0.7 | 0.04 ± 0.3 | 0.4 ± 0.7 | 9* | 0.8 ± 0.4 | 0.9 ± 0.6 | 0.2 ± 0.4 | 0.2 ± 0.4 |
| Pearson correlation (continuous variables) | ||||||||||
| Age | 324 | 0.02 | 0.1 | −0.03 | −0.1 | 159 | 0.23 | −0.09 | 0.19 | 0.13 |
| Size of family (number of children) | 324 | 0 | 0.21 | −0.1 | −0.07 | 159 | 0.2 | 0.07 | 0.33 | 0.26 |
| Time in residence (years) | 324 | −0.01 | −0.12 | 0.01 | −0.1 | 159 | −0.02 | 0.21 | −0.27 | −0.12 |
| Education | 324 | −0.07 | 0.07 | −0.02 | 0.1 | 159 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.12 |
| Farm size (ha) | 324 | 0.05 | 0.2 | 0.07 | −0.03 | 159 | −0.02 | −0.14 | 0.17 | 0.2 |
| House size (m2) | 324 | 0.33 | 0.16 | 0.11 | −0.15 | 159 | 0.02 | −0.09 | 0.02 | 0.19 |
Letters (a, b, c) indicate significantly different means based on a MANOVA analysis and its corresponding post hoc Tukey test (p < 0.05), with the levels indicated by different letters showing significant differences. (*) Levels with less than 10 replicas, not included in the analyses
In Bolivia, we found six factors with similar patterns for both species: 1) mestizos had a higher knowledge; 2) people who spoke only Spanish had a higher knowledge; 3) people belonging to other ethnic groups who had migrated in the same ecoregion knew more; 4) older participants had higher knowledge than younger; 5) people with larger families showed more knowledge; but 6) there was no significant relationship between knowledge and the level of education people held (Table 4). The three factors that showed a different influence over the total knowledge of both species were: 1) the time of residence, with a significantly negative relationship only in case of E. oleracea; 2) tool-ownership, with higher knowledge about E. oleracea linked to people with high-cost tools, but without significant differences for E. precatoria; and 3) Farm size, with a significantly positive relation only for E. oleracea (Table 4).
With regard to use-categories, both Construction and Medicinal and Veterinary use of E. precatoria showed significant relationships with six and five factors respectively (Table 4). In both cases, higher knowledge was found among: 1) mestizos, 2) people who only spoke Spanish, 3) migrants from other ethnic groups within the same ecoregion, 4) older participants; 5) people with larger families, and only in the case of Construction among people with lower education. In contrast, a high knowledge about E. oleracea was only related to the ownership of larger cultivated areas. The use of E. precatoria for Human food only showed significant differences with relation to two factors, both shared with E. oleracea: 1) language spoken, with more knowledge between people who only spoke Spanish; and 2) time of residence, with more knowledge in informants who actually lived more time in a community, in opposition to the findings in E. oleracea. In addition, E. oleracea showed significant differences with relation to: 1) ethnicity, with a higher knowledge among mestizos; 2) migratory state, with a higher knowledge held by members of other ethnic groups who had migrated within the same ecoregion; 3) age, with higher knowledge linked to increasing age; 4) family size, with more knowledge in people with larger families; 5) tool-ownership, with more knowledge in informants with high-cost tolls; and 6) farm size, with a more extensive knowledge in people with larger land farms (Table 4). The influence of these eight factors on the two subcategories included in Human food showed that the knowledge of E. oleracea was related to the use of its fruits for both the elaboration of beverages as well as the harvest of palm-hearts, in contrast to E. precatoria where the fruits were only used to produce beverages (Table 5).
Discussion
In general, we found that the influence of the 14 socioeconomic factors evaluated on the TK of both Euterpe species showed more differences in Peru than in Bolivia. Our study indicates that the higher use of E. precatoria in the Amazonian areas of Peru and Bolivia occurred mainly among mestizos, even in the categories such as Medicinal use and Construction, which in many other studies have been documented mostly for the indigenous population [21, 49–53]. The ability of the mestizo population to experiment and learn has already been documented in other studies, and has been interpreted as an effect of the extensive experience that mestizos might have with external resources, which could motivate their interest to learn and know about, and experiment with the resources available in their immediate environment [52, 54–57]. This capacity associated with language (Spanish) as a mechanism of socialization and interchange [58], and their capacity of mobility between communities and regions (migrants in the same ecoregion), favored by the experience and familiarity of people with their environment, foster the acquisition of new knowledge that could be useful allowing them adapt to their new environment [51].
In this study we measured wealth primarily as agricultural and livestock assets, to reflect the different productive practices in which people engaged. Socio-economic compensation with regard to investments in introduced agricultural practices, animal husbandry, purchase of tools, capital and labor, are part of the households subsistence strategies, and therefore influence the decision about the removal and use of natural resources as a source of income, and enhance the interests of preserving TK [3, 17, 59]. Many studies from the tropics indicate that the poorest households depend, sometimes entirely, on the extraction of forest resources for their livelihoods, due to low capital requirements of such activities [60]. However, other studies have identified the opposite situation, in which only those households with sufficient capital for equipment, transportation, and labor can have economic benefits to market forest resources [4].
Our results reveal two patterns in relation to the influence of factors related to the wealth of participants on the knowledge of E. precatoria. In Peru, increased knowledge and use of the species was more common among the wealthiest people with greater purchasing power, even with regard to Medicinal and Construction use, although the forest resource could easily be replaced when people have access to external resources or local alternatives such as external construction material, and access to medicines and health centers [49, 50, 61, 62]. This pattern could be interpreted as a result of the attitude of people towards their environment, acquiring and preserving knowledge that potentially could be useful [63]. In this case, it might be related to the influence of the growing market for the products of Euterpe species [64]. However, as in the case of Human food use, including the use of the two commercialized resources (fruits and palm-hearts), this pattern could also be related to the accessibility (type and distance), and market characteristics (size and diversity of products) to which people have access [65]. Communities in Peru needed means to transport products long distances to markets, often using transport with high fuel consumption ([66], see Appendix 1), thus limiting the potential for revenue [1, 67]. This probably caused that knowledge about market use of Euterpe products mainly remained in the hands of people with higher purchase power [14]. Unlike in Peru, we did not find the influence of wealth on knowledge of E. precatoria in Bolivia, probably because livelihood strategies in this region are based on multiple commercialization of forest products, none exclusively extensive, including Asaí, and agriculture surplus [68]. In addition, the conditions of market access were less difficult (time and type of access, see Appendix 1) and markets were smaller (moving less volume). Thus, market access and marketing of products did not require a large capital investment. Generally places where people can sell palm-hearts and fruits of Asaí, are limited in Bolivia [Alvaro Torres - Madre Tierra S.L. de Amazonia / Instituto para el Hombre, Agricultura y Ecología, personal communication].
With regard to E. oleracea, our work indicates that this species is beginning to get incorporated into the body of TK of indigenous and mestizo communities in both Peru and Bolivia. Although uses of both species related to Construction and Medicine have been reported from both countries, the use for Human food, including commercial use (i.e. fruits and palm-hearts) were the most important. In Peru, the knowledge and use of the species by the Aguaruna was only related to the dietary intake of fruits and palm-hearts, similar to E. precatoria. It is noteworthy that he Cocama only knew ornamental uses. This might be due the fact that they live within a protected area (National Park Pacaya Samiria),limiting income development, and projects to introduce new species for commercial exploitation. The use-pattern for E. oleracea found in Bolivia seems to have a clear relation to factors like possession of expensive tools, and larger areas of cultivation, which was not evident in E. precatoria. This might be related to an interest of the specific informants, principally mestizos, in cultivating this species as a source of income ([16], Vincent Vos - Centro de Investigación y Promoción del Campesinado and Alvaro Torres - Madre Tierra S.L. de Amazonia/Instituto para el Hombre, Agricultura y Ecología, personal communication) and the type of land tenure in mestizo communities (parceling) allowing greater possibility of incorporating cultivated species into agroforestry systems [37].
Although other studies have highlighted how particular and localized effects of socioeconomic factors on traditional knowledge can be [20], our present work allows to highlight that these patterns vary even if only analyzing their influence at the level of one species. Therefore, great care has to be taken with generalizations about the importance of different species that are part of the body of TK.
Conclusions
Our work shows that the influence of socioeconomic factors on the traditional knowledge and use of E. precatoria and E. oleracea is highly localized. The differences found in the influence of the factors evaluated in the communities in Peru and Bolivia show how highly variable and dynamic traditional knowledge can be. The importance of E. precatoria in Peru is more related to the commercial importance of its fruits and palm-hearts, in contrast to Bolivia, where, although the commercialization of both resources generates some income, this is still not as important as income generated by other resources or activities. The homogeneity we found in the whole region, and among all ethnic groups with regard to knowledge about E. oleracea and its used in linkage to the socioeconomic factors evaluated, reflects how recent this knowledge really is, and also shows that although some knowledge can be transmitted through the processes of general social interaction (coexistence and knowledge sharing living in the community), other parts are acquired through individual experimentation or interest. This underlines that in this very specific case differences between ethnic groups had no play in the way Euterpe sp. and their uses were introduced in different regions of Amazonia. Our work has shown that integration into a market economy does not necessarily erode TK, but can rather stimulate knowledge acquisition and transmission, and helps to understand the role and potential of these products to contribute to the livelihoods of households. However, the fact that usage patterns are highly localized indicates the need for carefully planned intervention strategies. This suggests that development efforts that aim to improve forest product incomes in rural livelihoods need to consider the diversification in livelihood strategies, the contribution of forest products in each of the livelihood strategies, and the sustainable livelihood assets that characterize a particular livelihood strategy.
Acknowledgments
We express our deep gratitude to the 483 kind and selfless people who agreed to share their time and knowledge with us. The collaboration of representatives of regional and local organizations of the communities visited was essential to obtain work permits. We thank the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, and the Instituto para el desarrollo local y la conservación de la diversidad biológica y cultural andino amazónica (INBIA) in Peru, the Universidad Mayor de San Andrés in Bolivia, and the William L. Brown Center at the Missouri Botanical Garden for devoting resources and efforts to facilitate our work.
Funding
This study was funded by the European Union 7th Framework Programme (contract 212,631), the Russel E. Train Education for Nature Program of the WWF, and the Anne S. Chatham Fellowship of the Garden Clubs of America, and endowment funds of the William L. Brown Center at Missouri Botanical Garden, for which we are grateful.
Availability of data and materials
The raw data contain the names of all participants, and cannot be shared in this form.
Authors’ contributions
NYPZ and MJM designed the study; NYPZ and RBU conducted the fieldwork; NYPZ and RBU analyzed the data and NYPZ, RBU and MJM wrote the manuscript; all authors read, corrected and approved the manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interest.
Consent for publication
This manuscript does not contain any individual person’s data and further consent for publication is not required.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Before conducting interviews, prior informed consent was obtained from all participants. No further ethics approval was required.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Table 6.
Characteristics of the 10 communities in the Amazon of Peru and Bolivia where 483 interviews about Euterpe precatoria and E. oleracea uses were gathered
| N° Comunity | Community (Population) | Ethnic group | Accessibility(a) | Social services available(b) | Number of informants | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nearest town (Population) | Type of access (Distance in hr.) | Electricity | Education | Healthcare | 483 | |||
| Peru | ||||||||
| 1 | San Martín (500) | Cocama | Iquitos (450,000) | Fluvial / Road (19) | 3 | 2 | 3 | 87 |
| 2 | El Chino (550) | Mestizo | Iquitos (450,000) | Fluvial (10) | 1 | 1 | 2 | 79 |
| 3 | Santa Ana (450) | Mestizo | Iquitos (450,000) | Fluvial (5) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 89 |
| 4 | Yamayakat (1000) | Aguaruna | Bagua (74,000) | Fluvial / Road (3) | 3 | 1 | 3 | 36 |
| 5 | Cusu Chico (150) | Aguaruna | Bagua (74,000) | Fluvial / Road (3.5) | 3 | 1 | 3 | 13 |
| 6 | Nueva Samaria (80) | Aguaruna | Bagua (74,000) | Fluvial / Road (3.25) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 20 |
| Bolivia | ||||||||
| 7 | Santa María (250) | Mestizo | Riberalta (90,000) | Loose surface road (1) | 3 | 1 | 3 | 41 |
| 8 | 26 de Octubre (180) | Mestizo | Riberalta (90,000) | Road (1) | 1 | 1 | 2 | 38 |
| 9 | Alto Ivón (500) | Chácobo | Riberalta (90,000) | Road (4) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 56 |
| 10 | Motacuzal (30) | Chácobo | Riberalta (90,000) | Road (3.5) | 1 | 1 | 2 | 24 |
(a)The information about the nearest town and the time to reach it were obtained from the interviews. The data represents the town and the time most frequently reported by the informants; (b)Availability of electricity: (1) no electricity, (2) free electricity, (3) paid electricity. Access to education: (1) primary school, (2) secondary school. Access to healthcare: (1) without health post (only traditional medicine), (2) health post / community nurse, (3) health post / physician
Contributor Information
Narel Paniagua-Zambrana, Email: nyaroslava@yahoo.es.
Rainer W. Bussmann, Email: rainer.bussmann@mobot.org
Manuel J. Macía, Email: manuel.macia@uam.es
References
- 1.Gram S, Kvist LP, Cáseres A. The economic importance of products extracted from Amazonian flood plain forests. Ambio. 2001;30(6):365–368. doi: 10.1579/0044-7447-30.6.365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Vedeld P, Angelsen A, Sjaastad E, Bojö J, Berg GK. Forest environmental incomes and the rural poor. Forest Policy Econ. 2007;9:869–879. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2006.05.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Wiersum KF. Indigenous exploitation and management of tropical forest resources: an evolutionary continuum in forest– people interactions. Agr Ecosyst Enviorn. 1997;63:1–16. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(96)01124-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Neumann RP, Hirsch E. Commercialization of Non–Timber Forest Products: Review and Analysis of Research. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR); 2000.
- 5.Sunderlin WD, Angelsen A, Belcher B, Burgers P, Nasi R, Santoso L, et al. Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in developing countries: an overview. World Dev. 2005;33:1383–402.
- 6.De Sherbinin A, Vanwey L, McSweeney K, Aggrawal R, Barbieri A, Henry S, Hunter LM, Twine W. Rural Household Demographics, Livelihoods and the Environment. CIESIN — Columbia University, New York. 2007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 7.Pokorny B, Johnson J, Medina G, Hoch L. Market–based conservation of the Amazonian forests: revisiting win –win expectations. Geoforum. 2012;43(3):387–401. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2010.08.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Stanley D, Voeks R. Short L. Is non–timber Forest product harvest sustainable in the less developed World? A systematic review of the recent economic and ecological literature. Ethnobio Conserv 2012;1:1–9.
- 9.Brondizio E, Safar CAM, Siqueira AD. The urban market of Açaí fruit (Euterpe oleracea Mart.) and rural land use change: ethnographic insights into the role of price and land tenure constraining agricultural choices in the Amazon estuary. Urban Ecosyst. 2002;6:67–97.
- 10.Brodt S. A systems perspective on the conservation and erosion of indigenous agricultural knowledge in Central India. Hum Ecol. 2001;29(1):99–120. doi: 10.1023/A:1007147806213. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Godoy R, Reyes–García V, Byron E, Leonard WR, Vadez V. The effect of market economies on the well–being of indigenous peoples and on their use of renewable natural resources. Annu Rev Anthropol. 2005;34:121–138.
- 12.Reyes-García V, Vadez V, Byron E, Apaza L, Leonard WR, Perez E, et al. Market Economy and the Loss of Folk Knowledge of Plant Uses: Estimates from the Tsimane’ of the Bolivian Amazon. Curr Anthropol. 2005;46:651–6.
- 13.Godoy R. Indians, markets, and rain forests. New York: Theory Methods, Analysis, Columbia University Press; 2001. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Ruíz-Pérez M, Belcher B, Achdiawan R, Alexiades M, Aubertin C, Caballero J, et al. Markets drive the specialization strategies of forest peoples. Ecol Soc. 2004;9(2):4.
- 15.Vadez V, Reyes-García V, Apaza L, Byron E, Huanca T, Leonard W, et al. Does integration to the market threaten agricultural diversity? Panel and cross–sectional evidence from a horticultural–foraging society in the Bolivian Amazon. Hum Ecol. 2004;32:635–46.
- 16.Godoy R, Brokaw N, Wilkie D, Colón D, Palermo A, Lye S, et al. On trade and cognition: markets and the loss of folk knowledge among the Tawahka Indians. J Anthropol Res. 1998;54:219–33.
- 17.Takasaki Y, Barham BL, Coomes OT. Amazonian peasants, rain forest use and income generation: the role of wealth and geographical factors. Soc Natur Resour. 2001;14:291–308. doi: 10.1080/08941920151080237. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Coomes OT, Barham BL. Rain forest extraction and conservation in Amazonia. Geogr J. 1997;163(2):180–188. doi: 10.2307/3060181. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Coomes OT, Barham BL, Takasaki Y. Targeting conservation–development initiatives in tropical forests: insights from analyses of rain forest use and economic reliance among Amazonian peasants. Ecol Econ. 2004;51:47–64. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.04.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Paniagua-Zambrana N, Cámara-Leret R, Bussmann RW, Macía MJ. The influence of socioeconomic factors on traditional knowledge: a cross scale comparison of palm–use in northwestern South America. Ecol Soc. 2014;19(4):9.
- 21.Byg A, Balslev H. Factors affecting local knowledge of palms in Nangaritza Valley, southeastern Ecuador. J Ethnobiol. 2004;24(2):255–278. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Belcher B, Ruíz-Pérez M, Achdiawan R. Global patterns and trends in the use and Management of Commercial NTFPs: implications for livelihoods and conservation. World Dev 2005; 33(9):1435–1452.
- 23.Kusters K, Achdiawan R, Belcher B, Ruiz M. Balancing development and conservation? An assessment of livelihood and environmental outcomes of non-timber forest product trade in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Ecol Soc. 2006;11(2):20.
- 24.Macía MJ, Armesilla PJ, Cámara-Leret R, Paniagua-Zambrana N, Villalba S, Balslev H, et al. Palm uses in northwestern South America: a quantitative review. Bot Rev. 2011;77(4):462–570.
- 25.Brokamp G, Valderrama N, Mittelbach M, Grandez CA, Barfod A, Weigend M. Trade in palm products in northwestern South America. Bot Rev. 2011;77(4):571–606. doi: 10.1007/s12229-011-9087-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Vallejo MI, Galeano G, Valderrama N, Bernal R. Consumers, the market and the socio-ecological background of Euterpe oleracea palm heart production in Colombia. Bot J Linn Soc. 2016;182:526–535. doi: 10.1111/boj.12451. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Moegenburg SM, Levey DJ. Prospects for conserving biodiversity in the Amazon extractive reserves. Ecol Lett. 2002;5:320–324. doi: 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00323.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Weinstein S, Moegenburg S. Acai palm management in the amazon estuary: course for conservation or passage to plantations? Conserv Soc. 2004;2(2):315–346. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Henderson A, Galeano G, Bernal R. Field guide to the palms of the Americas. New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 1995. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Pintaud J, Galeano G, Balslev H, Bernal R, Borchsenius F, Ferreira E, et al. Las palmeras de América del Sur: diversidad, distribución e historia evolutiva. Rev Per Biol. 2008;5(1):7–29.
- 31.Kahn F. Palms as key swamp forest resources in Amazonia. Forest Ecol Manag. 1991;38:133–142. doi: 10.1016/0378-1127(91)90139-M. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Bernal R, Torres C, García N, Isaza C, Navarro J, Vallejo MI, et al. Palm Management in South America. Bot Rev. 2011;77(4):607–46.
- 33.Velarde MJ, Moraes M. Potencial natural y económico de frutos de Asaí (Euterpe precatoria) en la región norte amazónica de Bolivia. In: Peralta C, Vos V, Llanque O, Zonta A, editors. Productos del bosque. Potencial social, natural y financiero en hogares de pequeños productores de la Amazonia. Proyecto ForLive. Riberalta Bolivia: Universidad Autónoma del Beni José Ballivián; 2009. pp. 34–41. [Google Scholar]
- 34.Bussmann R, Paniagua-Zambrana N. Facing global markets – usage changes in western Amazonian plants: the example of Euterpe precatoria Mart. And E. oleracea Mart. Acta Soc Bot Pol. 2013;81(4):257–261. doi: 10.5586/asbp.2012.032. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Mejía K. Las palmeras en los mercados de Iquitos. Bull Inst fr étud Andin. 1992;21:755–769. [Google Scholar]
- 36.Zonta A, Llanque O. Productos forestales no madereros en Bolivia. La Paz: Plan de Acción Forestal, Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible y Medio Ambiente; 1994. [Google Scholar]
- 37.Ríos M. Compilación y análisis sobre los productos forestales no madereros (PFNM) en el Perú. Información y análisis para el manejo forestal sostenible: Integrando esfuerzos nacionales e internacionales. Estudios nacionales sobre productos no madereros en América Latina. Santiago de Chile: FAO. 2001.
- 38.Stonian D. What goes up must come down: the economy of palm-heart (Euterpe precatoria Mart.) in the northern Bolivian Amazon. In: Alexiades MN, Shanley P, editors. Forest products, livelihoods and conservation – case studies of non–timber forest product systems 3 – Latin America. Indonesia.: CIFOR; 2004. pp. 111–134. [Google Scholar]
- 39.Agrodataperu. 2015. http://www.agrodataperu.com/category/palmitos–preparados–exportacion. Accessed 20 Sep 2015.
- 40.Anonymous. Perfil de Mercado Palmito. Instituto Boliviano de Comercio Exterior. Bolivia (IBCE). 2010.
- 41.Zonta A, Goncalvez AB. Avances de la agroforestería en la region Amazónica de Bolivia. Bol Inf Inst Hombre/Agricult Ecol. 2000;2:7–8. [Google Scholar]
- 42.Ellin A. Pressing açaí for answers. New York Times 11 marzo. 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/fashion/12skin.html?_r=0. Accessed 20 Sep 2015.
- 43.Kugel S. Açaí, a global fruit, is dinner in the Amazon. New York Times 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/dining/24acai.html. Accessed 20 Sep 2015.
- 44.Bovi MLA, de Castro A. Assai. In Clay JW, Clement CR, editors. Income Generating Forests and Conservation in Amazonia. Roma: FAO Forest Paper. 1993. p. 58–67 http://www.fao.org/docrep/v0784e/v0784e0b.htm. Accessed 20 Sep 2015.
- 45.Nogueira OL. Sistema de produção do Açaí. Introdução e importância econômica. EMBRAPA. 2006. http://sistemasdeproducao.cnptia.embrapa.br/FontesHTML/Acai/SistemaProducaoAcai_2ed/paginas/intro.htm. Accessed 20 Sep 2015.
- 46.Paniagua-Zambrana N, Macía MJ, Cámara-Leret R. Toma de datos etnobotánicos de palmeras y variables socioeconómicas en comunidades rurales. Ecol Bolivia. 2010;45(3):44–68. [Google Scholar]
- 47.Cámara-Leret R, Paniagua-Zambrana N, Macía MJ. Standard protocol for gathering palm ethnobotanical data and socioeconomic variables across the tropics. In: Ponman B, Bussmann RW, editors. Medicinal plants and the legacy of Richard E. Schultes. Proceedings of the botany 2011 symposium honoring Richard E Schultes. Trujillo, Peru: Graficart; 2012. pp. 41–72. [Google Scholar]
- 48.Cook FE. Economic botany data collection standard. Kew, Surrey, UK: Royal Botanic Gardens; 1995. [Google Scholar]
- 49.Benz BF, Cevallos EJ, Santana MF, Jesus AR, Graf MS. Losing knowledge about plant use in the sierra de Mazatlan biosphere reserve. Mexico Econ Bot. 2000;52:183–191. doi: 10.1007/BF02907821. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Ladio AH. The maintenance of wild edible plant gathering in a Mapuche community of Patagonia. Econ Bot. 2001;55(2):243–254. doi: 10.1007/BF02864562. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Campos MT, Ehringhaus C. Plant virtues are in the eyes of the beholders: a comparison of known palm uses among indigenous and folk communities of southwestern Amazonia. Econ Bot. 2003;57(3):324–344. doi: 10.1663/0013-0001(2003)057[0324:PVAITE]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Byg A, Vormisto J, Balslev H. Influence of diversity and road access on palm extraction at landscape scale in SE Ecuador. Biodivers Conserv. 2007;16:631–642. doi: 10.1007/s10531-005-1342-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 53.de la Torre L, Calvo-Irabién LM, Salazar C, Balslev H, Borchsenius F. Contrasting palm species and use diversity in the Yucatan peninsula and the Ecuadorian Amazon. Biodiv Cons. 2009;18:2837–2853. doi: 10.1007/s10531-009-9610-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Hanazaki N, Tamashiro JY, Leitão-Filho HF, Begossi HF. Diversity of plant uses in two Caiçara communities from the Atlantic Forest coast, Brazil. Biodiv. Cons. 2000;9:597–615. doi: 10.1023/A:1008920301824. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Paniagua Zambrana NY, Byg A, Svenning JC, Moraes M, Grandez C, Balslev H. Diversity of palm uses in the western Amazon. Biodivers Conserv. 2007;16:2771–2787. doi: 10.1007/s10531-007-9218-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Souto T, Ticking T. Understanding interrelationships among predictors (age, gender, and origin) of local ecological knowledge. Econ Bot. 2012;66(2):149–164. doi: 10.1007/s12231-012-9194-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Cámara-Leret R, Paniagua-Zambrana N, Balslev H, Macía MJ. Ethnobotanical knowledge is vastly under–documented in northwestern South America. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e85794. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085794. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Reyes-García V, Vadez V, Huanca T, Leonard WR, McDade T. Economic development and local ecological knowledge: a deadlock? Quantitative research from a native Amazonian society. Hum Ecol. 2007;35(3):371–377. doi: 10.1007/s10745-006-9069-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Coomes OT. Income formation among Amazonian peasant households in northeastern Peru: empirical observations and implications for market–oriented conservation. Yearb Conf Lat Am Geogr. 1996;22:51–64. [Google Scholar]
- 60.Arnold JEM, Ruiz-Perez M. Analysis can non–timber forest products match tropical forest conservation and development objectives? Ecol Econ. 2001;39:437–447. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00236-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Zent S. Acculturation and ethnobotanical knowledge loss among the Piaroa of Venezuela. In: Maffi L, editor. On biocultural diversity: Linking language, knowledge, and the environment. Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Institution Press; 2001. pp. 190–211. [Google Scholar]
- 62.Byron E. Market integration and health: the impact of markets on the nutritional status, morbidity, and diet of the Tsimane' Amerindians of lowland Bolivia. Ph.D. dissertation. Gainesville: University of Florida; 2003.
- 63.Byg A, Balslev H. Diversity and use of palms in Zahamena, eastern Madagascar. Biodivers Conserv. 2001;10:951–970. doi: 10.1023/A:1016640713643. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Lewis JA. The power of knowledge information transfer and açaí intensification in the peri–urban interface of Belém. Brazil Agrof Syst. 2008;74:293–302. doi: 10.1007/s10457-007-9096-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Salonen M, Toivonen T, Cohalan JM, Coomes OT. Critical distances: comparing measures of spatial accessibility in the riverine landscapes of Peruvian Amazonia. Appl Geogr. 2011;32:501–513. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.06.017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Peters CM, Hammond EJ. Fruits from the flooded forests of Peruvian Amazonia: yield estimates for natural populations of three promising species. Adv Econ Bot. 1990;8:159–176. [Google Scholar]
- 67.Lanjouw P, Feder G. Rural non–farm activities and rural development: from experience towards strategy. Rural Development Strategy Background Paper Number 4. Washington, D.C, USA: World Bank; 2001.
- 68.Zenteno M, Zuidema PA, de Jong W, Boot RGA. Livelihood strategies and forest dependence: new insights from Bolivian forest communities. Forest Policy Econ. 2013;26:12–21. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.09.011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The raw data contain the names of all participants, and cannot be shared in this form.