Use of the palm Euterpe edulis martius in landscape units managed by migrants of German origin in Southern Brazil

Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine

Maurício Sedrez dos Reis²  Nivaldo Peroni³  Lucas de Souza Milanesi¹ 

[1]Biologist, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC), Florianopolis, SC, Brazil

[2]Researcher at Departamento de Fitotecnia, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC), Florianopolis, SA, Brazil

[3]Researcher at Departamento de Ecologia, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC), Florianopolis, SC, Brazil

关键词: Secondary forest;    Homegardens;    Atlantic Rainforest;    German migrants;    Ethnoecology;    Landscape management;   

Others  :  862294
DOI  :  10.1186/1746-4269-9-47

 received in 2012-12-17, accepted in 2013-06-24,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

People influence their environments through the manipulation of landscapes and species. Human influence on the landscape may lead to the development of differentiated landscape units that originate from past use and may be related to the presence of certain species. This study investigated the presence of the palm Euterpe edulis and its current and past importance in landscape units established by a community of German descendants located in southern Brazil. The objectives of this study were to characterize the use of the species, to identify the importance of E.edulis for the German immigrant community, to identify past and current uses of E.edulis, to describe the historical use of the landscape, and lastly, to identify landscape units in which E.edulis is found.

Methods

The researched community is composed of people of German descent residing in southern Brazil. A variety of research tools were used to achieve the objectives of the research. Semi-structured interviews and free-listings were conducted in all family units. The interviews focused on groups of people in the community who had current or historical connection with the species. Group workshops and guided tours were conducted to identify different landscape units. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, use-value index, citation frequency, salience index, and informant perception analysis.

Results

Over the historical period studied, the community demonstrated changes with respect to economic activities. These changes are reflected in the transformation of the landscape. The species E.edulis was and still is very important for people in the community; its importance is reflected in its high use value, citation frequency and salience. The species is found within various landscape units in the community as well as in homegardens and in secondary forests.

Conclusions

The landscape heterogeneity of this community is influenced by changes in economic activities and by the relationship with the conservation unit. Landscape units resulting from this relationship may be identified. The species E.edulis is found within these landscape units and is integrated into the livelihood of the community.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Milanesi et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Gardner TZ, Barlow J, Chazdon R, Ewers RM, Harvey CA, Peres CA, Sodhi NS: Prospects for tropical forest biodiversity in a human-modified world. Ecol Lett 2009, 12:561-582.
• [2]Moran E: Interação Homem- Ambiente em ecossistemas florestais: uma Introdução. In Ecosssistemas Florestais, interação Homem – Ambiente. Edited by Moran EF, Ostrom E. São Paulo: Senac, EDUSP; 2009:19-40.
• [3]Medeiros PM, Soldati GT, Alencar NL, Vandebroek I, Pieroni A, Hanazaki N, Albuquerque UP: The use of medicinal plants by migration people: Adaptation. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Maintenance and Replacement; 2012.
• [4]Foster D, Swanson F, Aber J, Burke I, Brokaw N, Tilman N, Knapp AA: The importance of land-use legacies to ecology and conservation. Bioscience 2003, 53(1):77-88.
• [5]Parra F, Blancas JJ, Casas A: Landscape management and domestication of Stenocereus pruinosus (Cactaceae) in the Tehuacan Valley:human guided selection and gene flow. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 2012, 8:32. BioMed Central Full Text
• [6]Brondízio ES: Agriculture intensification, economic identity, and shared invisibility in Amazonian Peasantry: Caboclos and Colonists in comparative perspective. Cult Agric 2004, 26(1–2):1-24.
• [7]Barbosa AM, Fontaneto D, Marini L, Pautasso M: Positive regional species–people correlations:a sampling artefactor a key issue for sustainable development? Anim Conserv 2010, 13:446-447.
• [8]Moran E, Brondízio ES, VanWey LK: Population and Environment in Amazônia: Landscape and Household Dynamic. In Population, Land Use, and Environment: Research Directions. Edited by Entiwsile B, Stern P. Washington: National Academic Press; 2005:106-134.
• [9]Pinedo-Vasquez M, Zarin DJ, Coffey K, Padoch C, Rabelo F: Post-boom logging in amazonia. Hum Ecol 2001, 29(2):219-239.
• [10]Aide T, Grau HR: Globalization, migration, and latin american ecosystems. Ecology 2004, 35:1915-1916.
• [11]Hecth SB, Saatchi SS: Globalization and forest resurgence: changes in forest cover in el salvador. Bioscience 2007, 57(8):663-672.
• [12]Arce-Nazario JA: Human landscapes have complex trajectories: reconstructing Peruvian Amazon landscape history from1948 to 2005. Landsc Ecol 2007, 22:89-101.
• [13]Grau HR, Aide M: Globalization and land use transition in Latin America. Ecol Soc 2008, 13(2):16.
• [14]Baptista SR: Metropolitanization and forest recovery in southern brazil: a multiscale analysis of the florianópolis city-region, santa catarina state, 1970 to 2005. Ecol Soc 2008, 13(2):5.
• [15]Nassauer JI: Culture and changing landscape structure. Landsc Ecol 1995, 10(4):229-237.
• [16]Johnson LM, Hunn ES: Introduction. In Landscape Ethnoecology, concepts of biotic and physical space. Edited by Jonhson LM, Hunn ES. New York: Berghan Books; 2010:1-14.
• [17]Ladio A, Lozada M: Patterns of use and knowledge of wild edible plants in distinct ecological environments:a case study of a Mapuche community from northwestern Patagonia. Biodivers Conserv 2004, 13(6):1153-1173.
• [18]Barroso RM, Reis A, Hanazaki N: Etnoecologia e etnobotânica da palmeira juçara (Euterpe edulis Martius) em comunidades quilombolas do Vale do Ribeira, São Paulo. Acta botanica brasilica 2010, 24(2):518-528.
• [19]Hanazaki N, Mazzeo R, Duarte AR, Souza VC, Rodrigues RR: Ecologic salience and agreement on the identifcation of tree species from Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Biota Neotropropica 2010, 10(1):1-8.
• [20]Junqueira AB, Shepard GH Jr, Clement RC: Secondary forests on anthropogenic soils in Brazilian Amazonia conserve agrobiodiversity. Biodivers Conserv 2010, 19(7):1933-1961.
• [21]Bernal R, Torres C, García N, Isaza C, Navarro J, Vallejo MI, Galeano G, Baslev H: Palm management in south america. Bot Rev 2011, 77(4):607-646.
• [22]Macía MJ, Armesilla PJ, Cámara-Leret R, Paniagua-Zambrana N, Villalba S, Baslev H, Pardo-de-Santayana M: Palm uses in northwestern south america: a quantitative review. Bot Rev 2011, 77(4):462-570.
• [23]Pinatud J, Galenano G, Baslev H, Bernal R, Borchsenius F, Ferreira E, Granville J, Mejía K, Millán B, Moraes M, Noblick L, Stauffer FW, Kahn F: Las palmeras de América del Sur: diversidad, distribución e historia Evolutiva. Rev Peru Biol 2008, 15:007-029.
• [24]Clement C: Domesticated Palms. Príncipes 1992, 36(2):70-78.
• [25]Byg A, Baslev H: Palms indigenous and settler communities in southeastern Ecuador: farmers’perceptions and cultivation practices. Agrofor Syst 2006, 67:147-158.
• [26]Baslev H: Palm harvest impacts in north-western south america. Bot Rev 2011, 77(4):370-380.
• [27]Reis MS, Fantini AC, Nodari RO, Guerra MP, Mantovani A: Management and conservation of natural populations in atlantic rain forest: the case study of palm heart (Euterpe edulis Martius). Biotropica 2000, 32(4b):894-902.
• [28]Scheel-Ybert R, Caromaro CF, Cascon LM, Bianchini GF, Beauclair M: Estudos de paleoetnobotânica, paleoambiente e paisagem na Amazônia Central e o exemplo do sudeste-sul do Brasil. In Arqueologia Amazônica. 2nd edition. Edited by Pereira E, Guapindaia VB. Brasil: Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi; 2010:909-935.
• [29]Filgueras TS, Peixoto AL: Flora e vegetação do Brasil na Carta de Pero Vaz de Caminha. Acta botanica brasílica 2002, 16(3):263-272.
• [30]Rodrigues AS, Durigan ME: O agronegócio do palmito no Brasil Londrina. IAPAR 2007, 130:1-131.
• [31]MMA - Ministério do Meio Ambiente: Reconhece as espécies da flora brasileira ameaçadas de extinção no Brasil. Brasil: Ministério do Meio Ambiente; 2008.
• [32]Hanazaki N, Souza VC, Rodrigues RR: Ethnobotany of rural people from the boundaries of Carlos Botelho State Park, São Paulo State, Brazil. Acta botanica brasílica 2006, 20(4):899-909.
• [33]Miranda TM, Hanazaki N: Conhecimento e uso de recursos vegetais de restinga por comunidades das ilhas do Cardoso (SP) e de Santa Catarina (SC), Brasil. Acta botanica brasílica 2008, 22(1):203-215.
• [34]Borges R, Peixoto AL: Conhecimento e uso de plantas em uma comunidade caiçara do litoral sul do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Acta botanica brasílica 2009, 23(3):769-779.
• [35]Miranda TM, Hanazaki N, Govone JS, Alves DMM: Existe utilização efetiva dos recursos vegetais em comunidades na Ilha do Cardoso, estado de São Paulo, Brasil. Rodriguésia 2011, 62(1):153-169.
• [36]Fossari TD: A população pré-colonial Jê na paisagem da Ilha de Santa Catarina. Santa Catarina: Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina; 2004.
• [37]Richter KA: sociedade colonizadora Hanseática de 1897 e a colonização do interior de Joinville e Blumenau. Blumenau: Ed. Furb e UFSC; 1992.
• [38]IBGE 2007: Censo agropecuário 2006: resultados preliminares. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE; 2007.
• [39]Kageyama P, Reis A: Areas of Secondary Vegetation in the Itajaí Valley Santa Catarina, Brazil. In Perspectives for management and conservation. Roma: FAO, Forest Genetic Resources Information; 1993:21.
• [40]Vibrans AC, Pellerin JRGM: Espaço Rural: de espaço de vida a produto de consumo urbano? Observações sobre a bacia do Itajaí. Geosul 2004, 19(38):99-113.
• [41]Bernard HR: Research Methods in Anthropology, qualitative and quantitative approaches. Lanham: Altamira Press; 2006.
• [42]Smith JJ: Using ANTHROPAC 3.5 and a spreadsheet to compute a freelist salience index. Cultural Anthropology Methodology Newsletter 1993, 5(3):1-3.
• [43]Quinlan M: Considerations for Collecting Freelists in the Field: Examples from Ethnobotany. Field Methods 2005, 17(3):1-16.
• [44]Poderoso RA;Hanazaki N;JAD: How is local knowledge about plants distributed among residents near a protected area? Ethnobiology and Conservation 2012, 1:8.
• [45]Marcos CS, Matos DMS: Estrutura de populações de palmiteiro (Euterpe edulis M.) em áreas dom diferentes graus de impactação na Floresta da Tijuca, RJ. Floresta e Ambiente 2003, 10(1):27-37.
• [46]Fernandes ECM, Nair PKR: An Evaluation of the Structure and Function of Tropical Homegardens. Agr Syst 1986, 21:279-310.
• [47]Kumar BM, Nair PKR: The enigma of tropical homegardens. Agrofor Syst 2004, 61:135-152.
• [48]Huai H, Hamilton A: Characteristics and functions of traditional homegardens: a review. Frontiers of Biology in China 2009, 4(2):151-157.
• [49]Geilfus F: 80 herramientas para el desarrollo participativo. San Salvador: IICA, GTZ; 1997.
• [50]Boef WS, Thijssen MH: Ferramentas participativas no trabalho com cultivos, variedades e sementes. Wagening International: Wageningen; 2007.
• [51]Rossato SC, Leitão-Filho HS, Begossi A: Ethnobotany of caiçaras of the atlantic Forest Coast (Brazil). Econ Bot 1999, 53(4):387-395.
• [52]Berlin B: Ethnobiological Classification - Principles of Categorization of Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1992.
• [53]Borgatti SP: Anthropac 4.0. Analytic Technologies: Natick, MA; 1996.
• [54]INCRA: Estabelece o Módulo Fiscal de cada Município no Brasil. Brasil: Instrução Especial de nº20; 1980.
• [55]Menezes ECO, Vieira PHF: Aglomeração industrial e meio ambiente em debate: o caso do segmento têxtil-vestuarista da microrregião do Alto Vale do Itajaí – Santa Catarina. Política e Sociedade 2010, 9(16):225-255.
• [56]Padoch C, Brondizio E, Costa S, Pinedo-Vasquez M, Sears RR, Siqueira A: Urban Forest and Rural Cities: Multi-sited Households, Consumption Patterns, and Forest Resources in Amazonia. Ecol Soc 2008, 13(2):2.
• [57]Winklerpins AMGA: House-lot gardens in Santarém, Pará, Brazil:linking rural with urban. Urban Ecosystems 2002, 6:43-65.
• [58]Wright SJ, Samaniego MJ: Historical, demographic, and economic correlates of land-use change in the republic of panama. Ecol Soc 2008, 13(2):17.
• [59]Perz SG, Skole DL: Secondary forest expansion in the brazilian amazon and the re¢nement of forest transition theory. Soc Nat Resour 2003, 16:277-294.
• [60]Liebsch D, Marques MDM, Goldenberg R: How long does the Atlantic Rain Forest take to recover after a disturbance? Changes in species composition and ecological features durings econdary succession. Biol Conserv 2008, 141:1717-1725.
• [61]Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica: Atlas dos remanescentes florestais da Mata Atlântica período 2008–2010. São Paulo: SOS Mata Atlântica; 2010.
• [62]Moutinho S: Inventário Minuncioso das Florestas. Ciência Hoje 2011, 282:56-57.
• [63]Chazdon RL, Coe FG: Ethnobotany of Woody Species in Second-Growth, Old-Growth, and Selectively Logged Forests of Northeastern Costa Rica. Conserv Biol 1999, 13(6):1312-1322.
• [64]Toledo M, Salick J: Secondary Succession and Indigenous Management in Semideciduous Forest Fallows of the Amazon Basin. Biotropica 2006, 38(2):161-170.
• [65]Siminski A, Fantini AC: Roça-de-toco uso de recursos florestais e dinâmica da paisagem rural no litoral de Santa Catarina. Ciência Rural 2007, 37(3):690-696.
• [66]Gavin MC: Conservation implications of rainforest use patterns:Mature forests provide more resources but secondary forests supply more medicine. J Appl Ecol 2009, 46:1275-1282.
• [67]Engels J: Home gardens—a genetic resources perspective. In In Home gardens and in situ conservation of plant genetic resources in farming systems. Edited by Watson JW, Eyzaguirre PB. Witzenhausen, Federal Republic of Germany: IPGRI Proceedings of the Second International Home Gardens Workshop; 2001.
• [68]Fu Y, Guo H, Chen A, Cui J, Padoch C: Relocating plants from swidden fallows to gardens in southwestern China. Econ Bot 2003, 57(3):389-402.
• [69]Albuquerque UP, Andrade LHC, Caballero J: Structure and floristics of homegardens in Northeastern Brazil. J Arid Environ 2005, 62:491-506.
• [70]Galuzzi G, Eyzaguirre P, Negri V: Homegardens:neglected hotspots of agro-biodiversity and cultural diversity. Biodivers Conserv 2010, 19:3635-3654.
• [71]Corlett JL, Dean EA, Grivetti LE: Hmong gardens: Botanical Diversity in an urban setting. Econ Bot 2003, 57(3):365-379.
• [72]Florentino ATN, Araújo EL, Albuquerque UP: Contribuição de quintais agroflorestais na conservação de plantas da Caatinga, Município de Caruaru, PE, Brasil. Acta botanica brasilica 2007, 21(1):37-47.
• [73]Fraser JA, Junqueira AB, Clement CR: Homegardens on Amazonian Dark Earths, Non-anthropogenic Upland, and Floodplain Soils along the Brazilian Middle Madeira River Exhibit Diverging Agrobiodiversity. Econ Bot 2010, 65:1-12.
• [74]Clement CR, Cristo-Araujo M, D’Eeckenbrugge GC, Pereira AA, Picanço-Rodrigues D: Origin and domestication of native amazonian crops. Diversity 2010, 2:72-106.
• [75]Carniello MA, Silva RS, Cruz MAP, Neto GG: Quintais urbanos de Mirassol D’Oeste-MT, Brasil: uma abordagem etnobotânica. Acta Amazônica 2010, 40(3):451-470.
• [76]Lamont SR, Eshbaubaugh WH, Greenberg AM: Species composition diversity and use of homegardens among three Amazonian villages. Econ Bot 1999, 53(3):312-326.
• [77]Eichemberg MT, Amorozo MCM, Moura LC: Species composition and plant use in old urban homegardens in Rio Claro, Southeast of Brazil. Acta botanica brasilica 2009, 23(4):1057-1075.
• [78]Amaral CN, Neto GG: Os quintais como espaços de conservação e cultivo de alimentos: um estudo na cidade de Rosário Oeste (Mato Grosso, Brasil). Boletim Museu Paranaense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas 2008, 3(3):329-341.
• [79]Akinnifesi FK, Sileshi GW, Ajayi OC, Akinnifesi AI, Moura EG, Linhares JPF, Rodrigues I: Biodiversity of the urban homegardens of São Luís city, Northeastern Brazil. Urban Ecosystem 2010, 13:129-146.
• [80]Scoles R: El Quintal y Las Frutas: Recursos Económicos y Alimentares en la Comunidad Negra de Itacoã, Acará, Pará, Brasil. Acta Amazonica 2009, 39(1):1-12.
• [81]Hanazaki N, Tamashiro JY, Leitão-Filho HF, Begossi A: Diversity of plant uses in two Caiçara communities from the Atlantic Forest coast, Brazil. Biodivers Conserv 2000, 9:597-615.
• [82]Begossi A: Caiçaras, caboclos and natural resources: rules and scale pattern. Ambiente & Sociedade 1999, 5:55-67.
• [83]Reis MS, Conte R, Fantini AC, Guerra MP: Extrativismo e manejo de populações do palmiteiro (Euterpe edulis Martius) na Mata Atlântica. In In Sustentável Mata Atlântica, a exploração de seus recursos florestais. Edited by Simões, LL, Lino CF. Editora Senac: São Paulo; 2003.
• [84]Orlande T, Laarman J, Mortimer J: Palmito sustainability and economics in Brazil’s Atlantic coastal forest. For Ecol Manage 1996, 80:257-265.
• [85]Galetti M, Fernandez JC: Palm heart harvesting in the Brazilian Atlantic forest changes inindustry structure and the illegal trade. J Appl Ecol 1998, 35:294-301.
• [86]Freckleton RP, Matos DMS, Bovi MLA, Watinkson AR: Predicting the impacts of harvesting using structured population models: the importance of density-dependence and timing of harvest for a tropical palm tree. J Appl Ecol 2003, 40:846-858.
• [87]Sylvester O, Avalos G: Illegal Palm Heart (Geonoma edulis) Harvest in Costa Rican National Parks: Patterns of Consumption and Extraction. Econ Bot 2009, 63(2):179-189.