Local and scientific knowledge for assessing the use of fallows and mature forest by large mammals in SE Brazil: identifying singularities in folkecology

Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine

Eduardo Sonnewend Brondizio²  Cristina Adams¹  Rui Sérgio Sereni Murrieta³  Helbert Medeiros Prado⁴ 

[1] Laboratory of Human Ecology and Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Complex Systems (NISC-USP), University of São Paulo, 1000 Arlindo Bétio Ave., São Paulo, SP 03828-000, Brazil;Department of Anthropology, Anthropological Center for Training and Research on Global Environmental Change, Indiana University, 701 E. Kirkwood Ave., Bloomington IN 47405-7100, USA;Laboratory of Human Evolutionary Studies, Department of Genetics and Evolutionary Biology, Biosciences Institute, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil;Laboratory of Human Evolutionary Studies, Department of Ecology, Biosciences Institute, University of São Paulo, 277 Matão Str., São Paulo, SP 05508-090, Brazil

关键词: Brazilian atlantic forest;    Secondary forest;    Camera trap;    Medium and large-bodied mammals;    Shifting cultivation;    Quilombola populations;    Local ecological knowledge;    Ethnoecology;   

Others  :  861852
DOI  :  10.1186/1746-4269-10-7

 received in 2013-07-29, accepted in 2013-12-23,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Local ecological knowledge (LEK) has been discussed in terms of its similarities to and its potential to complement normative scientific knowledge. In this study, we compared the knowledge of a Brazilian quilombola population regarding the habitat use and life habits of large mammals with in situ recordings of the species. We also tested the hypothesis that quilombola LEK has a special focus on the anthropogenic portion of the landscape.

Methods

The habitats investigated were anthropogenic secondary forests and mature forests in the southeastern Atlantic coast of Brazil. We conducted the faunal survey using the camera-trap method. The sampling effort consisted of deploying 1,217 cameras/day in the mature forests and 1,189 cameras/day in the secondary forests. Statistical comparisons regarding the habitat use of the species were based on the randomization procedure. We interviewed 36 men who were more than 40 years old in the three communities studied. Informal, semi-structured and structured interviews were used. Two variables were considered in the LEK analyses: level of internal agreement and level of convergence with the scientific data.

Results

The camera trap sampling resulted in a total of 981 records. Animals such as opossums, tayras, armadillos and deer showed a non-selective pattern in the use of habitats. In contrast, the coati was more common in mature forests. We found that nearly 40% of the interviewees’ responses converged with the scientific data on the use of habitats. However, the LEK on the species’ life habits was highly convergent with the scientific data. The hypothesis that secondary forests would have a greater relevance for local knowledge was validated for four of the five analyzed species.

Conclusions

We suggest two principal considerations of ecological and ethnoecological interest: (1) In the Atlantic Forest of the Ribeira Valley, the secondary forests resulting from shifting cultivation were as attractive to the species as the mature forests; (2) The LEK has a special focus on the more anthropogenic portion of the landscape studied. Finally, we argue that this environmental focus in LEK is part of what makes it different from scientific knowledge and unique in its approach toward local environments.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Prado et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Hibert F, Sabatier D, Andrivot J, Scotti-saintagne C, Gonzalez S, Caron H: Botany, genetics and ethnobotany: a crossed investigation on the elusive Tapir’s diet in French Guiana. PLoS ONE 2011, 6(10):e25850. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025850
• [2]Diamond JM: Zoological classification system of a primitive people [the Fore of Highland Papua New Guinea]. Science 1966, 131:1102-1104.
• [3]Berlin B: Folk systematics in relation to biological classification and nomenclature. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1973, 4:259-271.
• [4]Berlin B: Ethnobiological classification: principles of categorization of plants and animals in traditional societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1992.
• [5]Hunn E: Meeting of minds: how do we share our appreciation of traditional environmental knowledge? J Roy Anthrop Inst 2006, 12(suppl 1):143-160.
• [6]Sturtevant WC: Studies in ethnoscience. Am Anthropol 1964, 66(3):99-131.
• [7]Johnson A: Ethnoecology and planting practices in a swidden agricultural system. Am Ethnol 1974, 1(1):87-101.
• [8]D’Andrade RG: The cultural part of cognition. Cognitive Sci 1981, 5:179-195.
• [9]Romney AK, Weller SC, Batchelder WH: Culture as consensus: a theory of culture and informant accuracy. Am Anthropol 1986, 88(2):313-338.
• [10]Aunger R: Against idealism/contra consensus. Curr Anthropol 1999, 40:93-101.
• [11]Davis A, Ruddle K: Constructing confidence: rational skepticism and systematic enquiry in local ecological knowledge research. Ecol Appl 2010, 20(3):880-894.
• [12]Neis B, Schneider DC, Felt L, Haedrich RL, Fischer J, Hutchings JA: Fisheries assessment: what can be learned from interviewing resource users? Methods 56:1949-1963.
• [13]Aswani S, Hamilton RJ: Integrating indigenous ecological knowledge and customary sea tenure with marine and social science for conservation of bumphead parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum) in the Roviana Lagoon, Solomon Islands. Environ Conserv 2004, 31(1):69-83.
• [14]Bergmann M, Hinz H, Blyth RE, Kaiser MJ, Rogers SI, Armstrong M: Using knowledge from fishers and fisheries scientists to identify possible groundfish “Essential Fish Habitats”. Fish Res 2004, 66:373-379.
• [15]Fraser DJ, Coon T, Prince MR, Dion R, Bernatchez L: Integrating traditional and evolutionary knowledge in biodiversity conservation: a population level case study. Ecol Soc 2006, 11(2):4. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art4/ webcite
• [16]Begossi A, Silvano RA: Ecology and ethnoecology of dusky grouper [garoupa, Epinephelus marginatus (Lowe, 1834)] along the coast of Brazil. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 2008, 4(20):1-14.
• [17]Huntington HP, Suydam RS, Rosenberg DH: Traditional knowledge and satellite tracking as complementary approaches to ecological understanding. Environ Conserv 2004, 31(3):177-180.
• [18]Gilchrist G, Mallory M, Merkel F: Can local ecological knowledge contribute to wildlife management? case studies of migratory birds. Ecol Soc 2005, 10(1):20. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art20/ webcite
• [19]Gagnon CA, Berteaux D: Integrating traditional ecological knowledge and ecological science: a question of scale. Ecol Soc 2009, 14(2):19. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art19/ webcite
• [20]Ferguson MAD, Williamson RG, Messier F: Inuit knowledge of long-term changes in a population of arctic tundra caribou. Arctic 1998, 51(3):201-219.
• [21]Lyver PO’B: Use of traditional knowledge by rakiura Maori to guide sooty shearwater harvests. Wildlife Soc B 2002, 30(1):29-40.
• [22]Moller H, Berkes F, Lyver PO’B, Kislalioglu M: Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge : monitoring populations for Co-management. Ecol Soc 2004, 9(3):2. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art2 webcite
• [23]Mackinson S: Integrating local and scientific knowledge: an example in fisheries science. Environ Manage 2001, 27(4):533-545.
• [24]Huntington H, Callaghan T, Fox S, Krupnik I: Matching traditional and scientific observations to detect environmental change: a discussion on artic terrestrial ecosystems. Ambio 2004, 13:18-23.
• [25]Adams C, Munari LI, Van Vliet N, Murrieta RSS, Piperata BA, Futemma CRT, Predoso NN Jr, Taqueda CS, Crevelaro MA, Prado VLS: Diversifying incomes and losing landscape complexity in quilombola shifting cultivation communities of the Atlantic rainforest (Brazil). Hum Ecol 2013, 41(1):119-137.
• [26]Munari LI: Memória social e ecologia histórica: a agricultura de coivara das populações quilombolas do Vale do Ribeira e sua relação com a formação da mata atlântica local. University of São Paulo, Department of Ecology; 2009. [Master Dissertation]
• [27]Predoso NN Jr, Murrieta RSS, Taqueda CS, Navazinas ND, Ruirvo A, Bernardo DV, Neves WA: A Casa e a Roça: Socioeconomia, demografia e Agricultura em Populações Quilombolas do Vale do Ribeira, São Paulo, Brasil. Bol Mus Para Emílio Goeldi Ciênc Hum 2008, 3(2):227-252.
• [28]Santos KMS, Tatto N: Agenda socioambiental de comunidades quilombolas do Vale do Ribeira. São Paulo: Instituto Socioambiental; 2008.
• [29]Prado HM, Murrieta RSS, Adams C, Brondizio ES: Complementary viewpoints: scientific and local knowledge of ungulates in the Brazilian Atlantic forest. J Ethnobiol 2013, 33(2):180-202.
• [30]Bowen ME, McAlpine CA, House APN, Smith GC: Regrowth forests in abandoned agricultural land: a review of their values for recovering forest fauna. Biol Conserv 2007, 140(3–4):273-296.
• [31]Medellín RA, Equihua M: Mammal species richness and habitat use in rainforest and abandoned agricultural fields in Chiapas, Mexico. J Appl Ecol 1998, 35:13-23.
• [32]Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Da Fonseca GAB, Kent J: Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 2000, 403:853-858.
• [33]Clima dos municípios paulistas – Eldorado: Centro de Pesquisas Meteorológicas e Climáticas Aplicadas à Agricultura, University of Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. [http://www.cpa.unicamp.br/outras-informacoes/clima_muni_165.html webcite]
• [34]Hogan DJ, Carmo RL, Alves HP, Rodrigues IA: Sustentabilidade no Vale do Ribeira (São Paulo): conservação ambiental e melhoria das condições de vida da população. Ambiente & Sociedade 1999, 2(3-4):151-175.
• [35]Andrade T, Pereira CA, Andrade MR: Negros no ribeira: reconhecimento étnico e conquista do território. São Paulo: Páginas e Letras Press; 2000.
• [36]Queiroz RS: Caipiras Negros no Vale do Ribeira: um estudo de antropologia econômica. São Paulo: EDUSP; 2006.
• [37]Conklin HC: The study of shifting cultivation. Curr Anthropol 1961, 2(1):27-61.
• [38]Predoso NN Jr, Murrieta RSS, Adams C: Slash-and-burn agriculture: a system in transformation. In Current Trends in Human Ecology. 1st edition. Edited by Lopes P, Begossi A. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing; 2009:12-34.
• [39]Van Vliet N, Mertz O, Heinimann A, Langanke T, Pascual U, Schmook B, Adams A, Schmidt-Vogt D, Messerli P, Leisz S, Castella J-C, Jørgensen L, Birch-Thomsen T, Hett C, Bech-Bruun T, Ickowitz A, Vu KC, Yasuyuki K, Fox J, Padoch C, Dressler W, Ziegler AD: Trends, drivers and impacts of changes in swidden cultivation in tropical forest-agriculture frontiers: a global assessment. Global Environ Chang 2012, 22(2):418-429.
• [40]Arruti JM: Mocambo: história e antropologia do processo de formação quilombola. Bauru: EDUSC/ANPOCS; 2006.
• [41]Schmitt A, Turatti MCM, De Carvalho MCP: A atualização do conceito de quilombo: identidade e território nas definições teóricas. Ambient Soc 2002, 5:1-10.
• [42]Eisenberg JF, Redford KH: Mammals of the Neotropics: Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Brazil. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1999.
• [43]Redford KH, Robinson JG: The game of choice, patterns of Indian and colonist hunting in the neotropics. Am Athropol 1987, 89(3):650-667.
• [44]Robinson J, Bennett E: Hunting for sustainability in Tropical Forest. New York: Columbia University Press; 2000.
• [45]Hanazaki N, Alves RRN, Begossi A: Hunting and use of terrestrial fauna used by Caiçaras from the Atlantic Forest coast (Brazil). J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 2009, 5(36):1-8.
• [46]Prado HM, Forline LCF, Kipnis R: Hunting pratices among the Awá-guajá: towards a long-term analysis of sustainability in an Amazonian indigenous community. Bol Mus Para Emílio Goeldi Ciênc Hum 2012, 7(2):479-491.
• [47]Gomes EPC, Sugiyama M, Adams C, Prado HM, Oliveira CJF Jr: A sucessão florestal em roças em pousio: a natureza está fora da lei? Scientia Forestalis (IPEF) 2013, 41:343-352.
• [48]Sanderson JG, Trolle M: Monitoring elusive mammals. Am Sci 2005, 93:148-155.
• [49]Srbek-Araújo AC, Chiarello AG: Is camera-trapping an efficient method for surveying mammals in Neotropical forests? A case study in south-eastern Brazil. J Trop Ecol 2005, 21(1):121-125.
• [50]Ohmagari K, Berkes F: Transmission of indigenous knowledge and bush skills among the Western James Bay Cree women of subarctic Canada. Hum Ecol 1997, 25(2)):197-222.
• [51]Hunn E: The value of subsistence for the future of the world. In Ethnoecology: Situated knowledge/located lives. 1st edition. Edited by Tucson NV. The University of Arizona Press; 1999:23-36.
• [52]R Development Core Team. [http://www.R-project.org webcite]
• [53]Dewalt SJ, Maliakal SK, Denslow JS: Changes in vegetation structure and composition along a tropical forest chronosequence: Implications for wildlife. Forest Ecol Manag 2003, 182(1–3):139-151.
• [54]Wright SJ, Muller-Landau HC: The uncertain future of tropical forest species. Biotropica 2006, 38(4):443-445.
• [55]Gardner TA, Barlow J, Parry LW, Peres CA: Predicting the uncertain future of tropical forest species in a data vacuum. Biotropica 2007, 39:25-30.
• [56]Parry L, Barlow J, Peres C: Hunting for sustainability in tropical secondary forests. Conserv Biol 2009, 23(5):1270-1280.
• [57]Parry L, Barlow J, Peres C: Allocation of hunting effort by Amazonian smallholders: Implications for conserving wildlife in mixed-use landscapes. Biol Conservation 2009, 142:1777-1786.
• [58]Andrade GI, Rubio-Torgler H: Sustainable use of the tropical rain forest: evidence from the avifauna in a shifting cultivation habitat mosaic in the Colombian Amazon. Conserv Biol 1994, 8(2):545-554.
• [59]Gupta AK: Shifting cultivation and conservation of biological diversity in Tripura, Northeast India. Hum Ecol 2000, 28(4):605-629.
• [60]Raman TRS: Effect of slash-and-burn shifting cultivation on rainforest birds in Mizoram, Northeast India. Conserv Biol 2001, 15(3):685-698.
• [61]Smith DA: Garden game: shifting cultivation, indigenous hunting and wildlife ecology in Western Panama. Hum Ecol 2005, 33(4):505-537.
• [62]Brady NC: Alternatives to slash and burn: a global perspective. Agriculture, Ecosyst Envir 1996, 58:3-11.
• [63]Tinker PB, Ingram JSI, Struwe S: Effects of slash and burn agriculture and deforestation on climate change. Agr Ecosyst Envir 1996, 58:13-22.
• [64]Padoch C, Pinedo-Vasquez M: Saving slash-and-burn to save biodiversity. Biotropica 2010, 42:550-552.
• [65]Ribeiro CR, Metzger JP, Martensen AC, Ponzoni FJ, Hirota MM: The Brazilian Atlantic forest: how much is left, and how is the remaining forest distributed? implications for conservation. Biol Conserv 2009, 142:1141-1153.
• [66]Chiarello AG: Effects of fragmentation of the Atlantic forest on mammal communities in south-eastern Brazil. Biol Conserv 1999, 89:71-82.
• [67]Michalski F, Peres CA: Anthropogenic determinants of primate and carnivore local extinctions in a fragmented forest landscape of southern Amazonia. Biol Conserv 2005, 124:383-396.
• [68]Espartosa K, Bruno E, Pinotti T, Pardini R: Performance of camera trapping and track counts for surveying large mammals in rainforest remnants. Biodivers Conserv 2011, 20:2815-2829.
• [69]Wilkie DS, Finn JT: Slash-burn cultivation and mammal abundance in the Ituri Forest, Zaire. Biotropica 1990, 22:90-99.
• [70]Naughton-Treves L, Mena JL, Treves A, Alvarez N, Radeloff VC: Wildlife survival beyond park boundaries: the impact of slash-and-burn agriculture and hunting on mammals in tambopata, Peru. Conserv Biol 2003, 17(4):1106-1117.
• [71]Thomas SC: Population densities and patterns of habitat use among anthropoid primates of the Ituri Forest, Zaire. Biotropica 1991, 23:68-83.
• [72]Fimbel C: The relative use of abandoned farm clearings and old forest habitats by primates and a forest antelope at Tiwai, Sierra-Leone, West Africa. Biol Conserv 1994, 70:277-286.
• [73]Renner SC, Waltert M, Mühlenberg M: Comparison of bird communities in primary vs. Young secondary tropical montane cloud forest in Guatemala. Biodivers Conserv 2006, 15:1545-1575.
• [74]Peres CA: Population status of white-lipped Tayassu pecari and collared peccaries T. tajacu in hunted and unhunted Amazonian forests. Biol Conserv 1996, 77:115-123.
• [75]Azevedo FCC, Conforti AC: Decline of peccaries in a protected subtropical forest of Brazil: toward conservation issues. Mammalia 2008, 72:82-88.
• [76]International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN): IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009. [http://www.iucnredlist.org webcite]
• [77]Fragoso JMV: Home range and movement patterns of white-lipped peccary (Tayassu pecari) herds in the northern Brazilian Amazon. Biotropica 1998, 30(3):458-469.
• [78]Fragoso JMV: Perception of scale and resource partitioning by peccaries: behavioral causes and ecological implications. J Mammal 1999, 80(3):993-1003.
• [79]Descola P, Pálsson G: Introduction. In Nature and society: anthropological perspectives. Volume 1. 1st edition. Edited by Descola P, Pálsson G. London: Routledge; 1996::1-21.
• [80]Ingold T: Hunting and gathering as ways of perceiving the environment. In Redefining nature: ecology, culture and domestication. 1st edition. Edited by Ellen RF, Fukui K. London: Berg Publishers; 1996:117-155.
• [81]Ingold T: Culture, perception and cognition. In The perception of the environment: essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill. 1st edition. Edited by Ingold T. London: Routledge; 2000:157-171.
• [82]Ellen R: Omniscience and ignorance: variation in nuaulu knowledge, identification and classification of animals. Lang Soc 1979, 8(3):337-364.
• [83]Garro C: Intracultural variation in folk medical knowledge: a comparison between curers and noncurers. Am Anthropol 1986, 88:351-370.
• [84]Reyes-García V, Martí N, Mcdade T, Tanner S, Vadez V: Concepts and methods in studies measuring individual ethnobotanical knowledge. J Ethnobiol 2007, 27(2):182-203.
• [85]Chalmers N, Fabricius C: Expert and generalist local knowledge about land-cover change on south Africa’s wild coast: Can local ecological knowledge Add value to science? Ecol Soc 2007, 12(1):10. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art10/ webcite
• [86]Nadasdy P: The politics of TEK: power and the “integration” of knowledge. Arctic Anthropol 1999, 36(1/2):1-18.