Skip to main content
. 2017 Jun 2;13:32. doi: 10.1186/s13002-017-0160-0

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