Use of Terra Firme Forest by Caicubi Caboclos, Middle RioNegro, Amazonas, Brazil. A Quantitative Study1

JUAN GABRIEL SOLER ALARCÓN* AND ARIANE LUNA PEIXOTO

Escola Nacional de Botânica Tropical—JBRJ, Rua Pacheco Leão no. 2040-Solar da Imperatriz, CEP22460-030, Horto-Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil*Corresponding author; e-mail: saracuramuira@yahoo.com

Use of Terra Firme Forest by Caicubi Caboclos, Middle Rio Negro, Amazonas, Brazil. AQuantitative Study. An ethnobotanical study was carried out with caboclos from the villageof Caicubi, Roraima State, Brazil. This village is located between the Rio Negro and RioBranco. The data were collected in 1 ha of terra firme forest and involved caboclo knowledgeof the tree species with individuals dbh ≥ 10 cm. A total of 11 informants between 34 to74 years of age were interviewed. The caboclos used 185 (98%) of the 189 species analyzed.The family with the highest use value for the community was Arecaceae. The species with thehighest use value was Bertholletia excelsa. Arecaceae, Lecythidaceae, and Sapotaceae sho-wed a wide variety of uses. The uses were grouped into eight categories; those with thehighest use values were firewood, technology, and construction. The mean use value forspecies was 1.6. The most intensely used resources in the forest were wood, leaves, spines,and exudates.

Key Words: Ethnobotanical inventory, Caboclos, Amazon forest, Brazil, Traditionalknowledge, Plant use.

IntroductionEthnobotanical studies have attempted to gather

knowledge of plant use by traditional communities.Quantitative ethnobotanical techniques are beingused to analyze traditional knowledge because theyare more reliable for data collection and analysis andfor testing hypotheses (Phillips 1996). In Amazonforests, 1-ha study plots have been used to discoverhow useful the forest is to these communities interms of number and proportion of species andfamilies (Phillips et al. 1994). Although only a fewstudies of this kind exist, most of them have beendone with indigenous communities (Boom 1988,1989, 1990; Balée 1986, 1987; Milliken et al.1992; Prance et al. 1987; Paz y Miño et al. 1995)and traditional nonindigenous communities(Pinedo-Vazquez et al. 1990; Phillips and Gentry1993a, b; Phillips et al. 1994).

Prance (1995) stresses the importance of workingwith traditional nonindigenous communities(campsesinos, caboclos, mestizos, etc.) because thesehave been largely neglected by ethnobotanists.Much of the forest lore of these communitiesprobably came from indigenous cultures, some ofwhich are already extinct (Prance 1995). Further-more, the ethnobotanical knowledge of thesepeople is also threatened by the growth of cattleranching, construction of hydroelectric dams, min-ing activities, and other development projects. Onthe other hand, the lifestyle of these communitiesand their unique knowledge of the forest are fastdisappearing resources that could be used for amore rational development of the region (Prance1995). It is worth emphasizing that part of today’sindigenous knowledge includes elements of folklorethat have been incorporated during the course ofadaptation to a changing world (Campos andEhringhaus 2003).The Brazilian Amazon caboclos are a mixed-blood

population resulting from the intermarriage ofindigenous people and Portuguese settlers and, to alesser extent, people of African descent from north-

Economic Botany, 62(1), 2008, pp. 60–73© 2008, by The New York Botanical Garden Press, Bronx, NY 10458-5126 U.S.A.

1Received 7 December 2006; accepted 17 October2007; published online 3 May 2008.

eastern Brazil (Parker 1989). In spite of the differ-ences between natives and caboclos, widespreadsimilarities indicate commonalities of occupationand resource use (German 2001). Nevertheless,caboclos are not as colorful as indigenous people,and thus may hold less interest for researchers,which may explain why caboclo knowledge, use,and management of natural resources in theAmazon has been poorly studied (Parker 1989).

The aims of this study were to understand andquantify plant use of individuals with dbh (diam-eter breast high) ≥ 10 cm in 1 ha of terra firmeforest by the caboclos of Caicubi village, CaracaraiMunicipality, in the state of Roraima, Brazil.

Study AreaCaicubi village is located on Caicubi Creek, a

tributary of the Jufari River, at the junction of therivers Negro and Branco (01°01′43″S; 62°05′21″W;Fig. 1), Caracarai Municipality, in the state ofRoraima. There are 400 habitants and 72 familiesin the village. The nearest towns are Barcelos (12 hby boat), Manaus (36 h by boat), and Caracaraí(on the Branco River, 70 h by boat), which makestrade between village and town difficult. Trading is

therefore done by middlemen. The village has aprimary school and a public health post with aprecarious service record and an overall lack ofmedicine. The Christian faith predominates; thereis a Catholic church and an evangelical church.The people live mainly from fishing, hunting,subsistence agriculture (cassava), and harvestingforest products. The main source of income duringthe rainy season comes from the sale of Brazil nuts(Bertholletia excelsa) and a liana (Heteropsis spp).During the dry season, ornamental fish make upthe bulk of trade. Craftwork such as baskets andmats made mostly of Ischnosiphon sp. and Philo-dendron sp. are sold occasionally.

The first inhabitants of Caicubí village arrivedin the 1940s to extract Brazil nuts. More peoplegradually arrived from other regions of theAmazon, mainly from the upper and middleNegro and lower Solimões rivers and other areasin Roraima. The main language is Portuguese,but the oldest inhabitants who came from theupper Negro River also speak the “Língua Geral,”which is common in that part of the Amazon(Ricardo et al. 2005).

Study area characteristics, geomorphology, andclimate, as well as floristic and structural analyses

Fig. 1. Location of the village of Caicubi, Caracaraí municipality, Roraima, Brazil.

61SOLER ET AL.: CABOCLOS’ FOREST USE IN BRAZIL2008]

of the terra firme forests, are found in Soler-Alarcon and Peixoto (2007).

MethodsMethodology was adapted from Phillips and

Gentry (1993a, b). It was based on informantconsensus, but varies in that (1) data analysis usedscientific names rather than common names due tothe great variation in the latter between informants,and (2) informants were not chosen randomly—they were selected for their knowledge of the forestas recommended by village inhabitants.Two visits were made between November 2003

and February 2004, for a total of 56 days spent inthe village. The first week was used to becomefamiliar with the trails around the village and to getto know the forest. A trail used by the inhabitants toextract nontimber forest products was chosen forthis study. Along this trail, a 1 h plot (50×200 m)was laid out about 2 km from the village.All trees, lianas, and hemiepiphytes (dbh≥10 cm)

in the plot were numbered. A sample from oneindividual of each species was collected, pressed, andlater preserved in alcohol; a few branches wereplaced beside the tree to help the informants inspecimen identification.The “walk-in-the woods” methodology was used

(Alexiades 1996), whereby each informant is askedto give the name and uses of each specimenpreviously tagged in the plot. In order to reducefatigue during the interviews, the informant wasquestioned about each species but not eachspecimen in the plot. If a species occurred morethan once in the plot, the informant was ques-tioned about that species until it became clear thathis response did not vary. An event was defined asthe process of asking one informant on 1 dayabout the uses of each species (Phillips and Gentry1993a). “This means if in 1 day one species wasencountered more than once, the informants’responses were combined with the other previousinterviews of that species, with the exception whenthe informants gave a different name to the samespecies on the same day, this was consideredanother event” (Phillips and Gentry 1993a).Voucher specimens were deposited in the herbar-ium of Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro (RB),and duplicates of fertile specimens in the herbariumof Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia(INPA). See Soler-Alarcon and Peixoto (2007) forJ. G. Soler’s collection numbers.

Sample collection and interviews took place in twostages. The first stage focused on 0.5 ha, and sixinformants were taken to the plot and questionedabout names, uses, and plant parts utilized (dbh≥10 cm). The second stage focused on the other0.5 ha, and here also there were six informants.However, five of these were different from those inthe first stage because, during the second stage, allbut one of the informants from the first group werebusy tending their crops or were off fishing orhunting. A total of 11 informants (nine men andtwo women) from 34 to 74 years of age wereinterviewed. Each informant was interviewedalone so that his or her responses would not beinfluenced by the others.The data was analyzed from an etic perspective

that categorizes and organizes the ethnobotanicaldata according to the researcher’s point of view(Zent 1996).Uses were grouped into eight categories:

construction, technology, medicine, trade, food,crafts, fuel, and others. The categories construc-tion, medicine, food, and technology are definedaccording to Galeano (2000). The crafts categoryfollows Pinedo-Vazquez et al. 1990, the fuelcategory follows Balée (1987), and the otherscategory, to which “fruits useful for game” wasadded, follows Prance et al. (1987).The categories are defined as follows:

Construction: houses, posts, and fencesTechnology: material for fishing and

hunting, agricultural tools,cooking utensils, canoes,furniture, leaves for smoking

Medicine: substances used to cure oralleviate illness

Trade: economic useFood: food for human beingsCrafts: bark for dying fibers used in

weaving, slats for finishingbaskets, leaves for weaving,seeds for making rings andearrings

Fuel: firewood, charcoal, and volatileresins

Others: ritualistic plants, toys, fruits tofeed wild animals

The species’ use value was calculated according toPhillips and Gentry (1993a) where the use value

62 ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL

(UV) of each species s for each informant i isestimated as UVis ¼

PUis=nis; where Uis is the

number of uses mentioned in each event byinformant i; nis is the number of events for speciess with informant i.

The overall use value for each species s, UVs, iscalculated as UVs ¼

PUVis=ns; where ns is the

total number of informants interviewed for species s.The use value for each family (FUV) was

calculated according to Phillips and Gentry (1993a)as FUV ¼ P

UVs

�nf ; where UVs is the use value

of each species; nf is the number of species in thefamily.

Results and DiscussionIn the 1-ha plot, 98% of the families (42 out of

43), 98% of the species (185 out of 189), and 99%of the individuals with dbh≥10 cm (537 out of541) were used by the Caicubi village informants.When the data are analyzed excluding the fuelcategory, which includes the greatest number ofspecies and individuals, 95% of the species (180),98% of the individuals, and 93% of the families arecited as being useful.

A total of 1,763 events and an average of 5.4 usesper species were recorded. A total of 109 differentuses were registered for the species found in the plot(Table 1). Bertholletia excelsa was cited as havingthe greatest number of uses (14) (Fig. 2).

The 109 uses (Table 2) are distributed in thecategories as follows: technology has the highestnumber of uses (40%), follow by medicine (27%),construction (8%), food (6%), trade (3%), fuel(3%), crafts (3%), and others (6%). Wood is themost intensely used resource, involved in 26% ofthe uses cited. This is followed by exudates (latex,resins, and saps—22%), leaves and spines (21%),bark (15%), fruits and seeds (13%), apicalmeristem (4%), roots (2%), and stipules (2%).

In the technology category, wood (36%) plusleaves and spines (34%) together constitute 70% ofthe uses (Table 2). In the construction category,wood is the most intensely used resource (88% ofthe uses). In the trade category, wood, fruits andseeds, exudates, and the apical meristem areequally used (25% each). In the medicine category:bark and exudates together provide 22 differentuses (74%—11 uses each). Percentages in theremaining categories were as follows: food—fruitsand seeds, exudates, and apical meristem (28.6%each); fuel—wood, fruits and seeds, exudates, and

bark (25% each); and crafts—wood, fruits andseeds, leaves and spines (one use each, 25%).

Phillips et al. (1994) stresses that the totalnumber of useful species and the number of usesper species in a given area is a very crude measureof the cultural importance of forests and that theseresults must be interpreted with care. This is seenif one observes the inconsistent pattern of usevalues of the 30 species with the greatest numberof uses cited by informants (Fig. 3). Some speciesare used by only one or a few informants, whileothers are used by all the informants. Thesedissimilarities show that almost all species haveoccasional uses, but only a few species are intenselyused (Phillips et al. 1994).

Many species (42%) have use values between> 0.5 and 1.5 (Fig. 4). High UVs are concen-trated in a few species. Average UV for all speciesis 1.59. By use category, average UVs are as follows:fuel—0.43; technology—0.43; construction—0.39; food—0.14; medicine—0.13; crafts—0.02; trade—0.02; and others—0.04. The specieswith the highest UV was Bertholletia excelsa,followed by Pouteria glomerata, Eschweilerapedicellata, Eschweilera coriacea, Euterpe precatoria,Licania hirsute, and Bocageopsis multiflora. For thelist of species with UV, relative abundance,number of events, and number of informants,contact the authors.

Four species of lianas (dbh≥10 cm) were foundin the plot with one individual each. Average UVfor these species was 1.12; 48% of this value isattributed to the medicine category, 33% to thefood category, 11% to the technology category,and 8% to the fuel category. There were twospecies of hemiepiphytes, each with one individ-ual. Average UV for these species was 0.42, and100% of this value is attributed to the medicinecategory. For trees, the average UV for the specieswas 1.61 and the most important categories weretechnology, fuel, and construction.

The categories that make the largest contribu-tion to the total UV are fuel, technology, andconstruction. These together contribute 78% ofthe total UV (Table 3). It should be pointed outthat while 91% of the useful species in the plotare used for fuel, 83% for technology, and 75%for construction, very few species are foundexclusively in one category (Table 4).

The categories crafts, trade, and others havelow UV percentages and low number of speciesused (Tables 3, 4), which shows that the species

63SOLER ET AL.: CABOCLOS’ FOREST USE IN BRAZIL2008]

Table 1. USES OF PLANTS FROM THE FOREST BY THE CABOCLOS OF CAICUBI, RORAIMA, BRAZIL.

Categories Uses

Construction Girders, traverses, supports, crossbeamsBark to make wallsSawed wood for walls and roofsLeaves for thatchingRound wood or split trunks for fencesSplit trunk for oven structure, house constructionPlywoodHouse foundations and beamsPosts

Medicine Sap for muscular sprainsRoot for anemiaResin for headacheStipule to mature furuncleResin as anti-inflammatoryOperculum to treat terygiums in the eyeSap, antidote for snake biteBark, antidote for snake biteBark for diarrheaSeeds to cure appendicitisLeaves to improve dogs’ senseof smell for gameBark to cure the kidneyAnti-inflammatory sap for toothacheSap as antiseptic and to aid scar formationSap used to coagulateSeeds used to treat kidney stonesLatex used as venomSap to stop vomitingBark to cure hemorrhoidsBark to stop bleeding in abortionsBark for remedy for children’s mouth virusesBark as remedy for mycosis of the skinBark as remedy for scab in dogsStipule used in a beverage as a diureticBark used against cancerLeaves used in the bath to make children stop cryingLatex to kill lousesBark to kill lousesSap to heal bloodshedBark to help cure diabetes

Fuel Firewood and charcoalResin as fire-starterBark to make firePericarp of the Brazilian nut for charcoal

Crafts Leaves to weave baskets and hatsSeeds to make rings and earringsSplit trunk for baskets’ edgesInner bark to dye fibers

Food FruitsCabbage palmLarva that grows in the apical meristem

(continued)

64 ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL

Table 1. (continued).

Categories Uses

Sap as beverageSeeds to eatLatex as beverageLeaves for making tea

Technology Wood to make tool handles (hoes, axes, machetes, knifes, plow, scythes)Bark for weaving, belt for climbing trees, ropeCoversFurnitureThorns to kill crickets for fishingPetiole to make kitesPetiole to make arrowheadsPetiole to gather latexBowsFishing poleResin to repel bats and mosquitoesResin to caulk canoesCanoe and boat constructionPlug for water bombLeaves to wrap dry meat to protect from fliesBark to dye fishing linesSplit trunk to make tools for fishingLatex used as glueButtresses used as tables for washing clothes, helm boats, and canoe paddlesFruit used as mortarSplit trunk to make structure for head lampFishing and hunting spearsLeaves to cover limekiln to make charcoalTrunk used as small roller to slide boatsLatex used as venom for huntingRaftsThorn to remove another thornSeeds for cultivationWag (Spanish fan)Leaves used for manioc mass to prevent sticking in the pressRifle buttLeaves put on the floor on which to tear off the skin of gamePetiole used as a whistle to call the tapirLatex to make rubberOld trunk used as a humus fertilizer for cultivated plantsLeaves used as sandpaperA larva that grows in the apical meristem used as baitLeaves put over manioc mass with nuts to help with toastingLeaves to smokeTo barbecue fishFruits to bait hooksLeaves to make soapFruit used as fish poison (timbó)Bark (caraipe) to make mud oven

Others Smoke-curingFruits used for gameTrunk to make toysResin to burn when storm comes

(continued)

65SOLER ET AL.: CABOCLOS’ FOREST USE IN BRAZIL2008]

offer the caboclos few resources in these categories(if only individuals with dbh≥10 cm are sam-pled). However, we know that species ofHeteropsis(cipó-titica) and Ischnosiphon (arumã), commonlyfound in the plot, but with dbh≤10 cm, arewidely used for crafts and trade. It would beinteresting to take a sample with smaller dbh toassess the results in these categories.

Families and SpeciesArecaceae has the highest UV of all the

families, a result also found in studies of fourIndian communities and one mestizo communityin the Amazon (Prance et al. 1987; Phillips andGentry 1993a). Here, this is due to the fact thatthis family is used across the board, with highUVs in the categories food, crafts, trade, medi-cine, construction, and technology. Olacaceae and

Strelitziaceae also have high total UVs (second andthird place, respectively), represented by one specieseach. Olacaceae is first in the construction categoryand sixth in the fuel category; Strelitziaceae is firstin the medicine category and in fourth in theconstruction category. Lecythidaceae (fourth placein total UV) is prominent in various categories:trade, technology, crafts, construction, and food.Several families are prominent in various cate-

gories, showing a wide range of uses. Arecaceae andLecythidaceae are prominent in six of the eightcategories; Sapotaceae in five, Celastraceae in four,and Burseraceae in three. Olacaceae, Strelitzeaceae,Annonaceae, Lauraceae and Chrysobalanaceae areprominent in two categories, which shows thatthese families have more specific uses.Bertholletia excelsa had the highest UV of all

species. It was prominent in the categories trade

Table 1. (continued).

Categories Uses

Resin to repel bad spiritsLeaves to harm peopleBark to attract women

Trade SeedsResin and latexCabbage palmPhallic branch to sell to tourists

20 %

20 %

16 %

14 %

12 %

10 %

8 %

6 %

4 %

2 %

2 %

5 %

8 %

10 % 10 % 10 %11 %

13 %

6 %

3 %

18 %

2 %

1 % 1 % 1 %

0 %

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Numbers of uses

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

sp

p.

Fig. 2. Diversity of plant use with DBH≥10 cm of 1 ha of terra firme forest indicated by the caboclos of thevillage of Caicubi, Caracaraí, RR, Brazil.

66 ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL

(first place), medicine (third place), and food (eighthplace). Bocageopsis multiflora (seventh place in totalUV) stood out only in the technology category(fifth place). The other eight species with thehighest UV were prominent in two categories each.

CONSTRUCTION

Of the 139 species included in this category(75% of the useful species),Minquartia guianeneishad the highest UV. This species is well knownthroughout the Amazon and used extensively inconstruction. It is also the most important speciesin the category construction for the native Tembé

(Prance et al. 1987). In Caicubí village, it is usedto build houses (posts, cross beams, tie beams,uprights, and supports) and for poles and fenceposts. Of the ten most important species in thiscategory, four are Lauraceae (Licaria guianensis,Ocotea nigrescens, Aniba aff. williamsii, and Ocoteasp. E), a very important plant family for thetimber industry of the Amazon (Vicentini 1999).The wood of another important species, Crotonlanjouwensis, is highly valued for house construc-tion (posts, tie beams, and crossbeams). However,the informants mentioned that it is not resistantto humidity and is mainly used for interiors.

Table 2. DISTRIBUTION OF PLANT PART USE IN CATEGORIES (CONS, CONSTRUCTION; TRADE; MED, MEDICINE;FOOD; TECH, TECHNOLOGY; FUEL; CRAFT, CRAFTS; OTH, OTHERS) BY THE CABOCLOS OF CAICUBI, RORAIMA,

BRAZIL.

Part Used Cons Trade Med Food Tech Fuel Craft Oth Total Percent total

Wood 8 1 0 0 16 1 1 1 28 26Fruits, seeds 0 1 3 2 5 1 1 1 14 13Exudates 0 1 11 2 4 1 0 3 22 20Leaves and spines 1 0 2 1 15 0 1 1 21 19Bark 0 0 11 0 3 1 1 1 17 15Roots 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1Apical meristem 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 4 4Stipule 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2Total uses 9 4 30 7 44 4 4 7 109 100

Total nu

Bo

ca

ge

op

sis

mu

ltiflo

ra

Po

ute

ria

du

rla

nd

ii

Ing

a a

lba

Esch

we

ile

ra p

ed

ice

lla

ta

Viro

la t

he

iod

ora

Esch

we

ile

ra c

oria

ce

a

Be

rth

ole

tia

exce

lsa

Gu

att

eria

sp

1

Po

uro

um

a cf.

to

me

nto

sa

Xylo

pia

a

ff.

Po

lya

nth

a

Oco

tea

nig

resce

ns

Gu

sta

via

au

gu

sta

Po

ute

ria

ca

imito

Xylo

pia

am

azo

nic

a

Oe

no

ca

rpu

s b

aca

ba

Go

up

ia g

lab

ra

Sym

ph

on

ia g

lob

ulife

ra

Lic

aria

gu

ian

en

sis

Esch

we

ile

ra g

ran

diflo

ra

He

lico

sty

lis t

om

en

tosa

Cre

pid

osp

erm

um

cf.

rh

oifo

liu

m

Irya

nth

era

ju

rue

nsis

Po

ute

ria

glo

me

rata

Att

ale

a m

arip

a

Eu

terp

e p

reca

toria

Ce

cro

pia

dis

tach

ya

Lic

an

ia c

au

da

ta

Lic

an

ia h

irsu

ta

An

iba

aff.

Willia

msii

Oco

tea

rh

od

op

hylla

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Total UV

Values

Fig. 3. Thirty most used species with their respective use value (Total UV) mentioned by the caboclos of thevillage of Caicubi, Caracaraí, RR, Brazil. (Total nu, total number of uses mentioned by all the informants).

67SOLER ET AL.: CABOCLOS’ FOREST USE IN BRAZIL2008]

Pouteria glomerata and P. guianensis are used forbuilding houses and for planks, uprights, andfence posts.

TECHNOLOGY

Of the 153 species included in this category(83% of the useful species), Eschweilera pedicellataand E. coriacea have the highest UVs. From thetrunks of these two species come thin pliable piecesused to make fishing tools known as “cacuri” and“rapiche.” Strips of lath are also used to tie a lightto the head during fishing and hunting activities,to weave together with leaves of Geonoma spp. forroofing, and in structuring mud ovens (included inthe construction category). The stems of these two

species are also used to make spears and toolhandles (for hoes, axes, and cultivators). The barkprovides good-quality cordage (embira), used forbinding and for making a type of sling (peconha)used to climb trees and handles for the baskets thatare used to carry cassava. Boards from these speciesare used to make canoes, but not of good quality.Pouteria glomerata has very durable wood, cited bythe informants as one of the best for making toolhandles, especially axe handles, and also for makingspears and harpoons. It is also used to make boatsbecause it lasts a long time in the water.Other important species in this category are

Fusaea longifolia and Bocageopsis multiflora. Thestems are used to make tool handles (for axes, hoes,

Table 4. DISTRIBUTION OF USEFUL SPECIES AMONG

PLANT USE CATEGORIES FOUND IN 1 HA OF TERRA FIRME

FORESTS BY THE CABOCLOS OF THE VILLAGE OF CAICUBI,CARACARAÍ, RR, BRAZIL.

Use categoryAll species usedin this category

Exclusively usedin this category

Fuel 91% 3%Technology 83% 0%Construction 75% 1%Food 35% 1%Medicine 45% 2%Others 12% 0%Crafts 7% 0%Trade 11% 0%

Table 3. CONTRIBUTION OF USE VALUES PER CATEGORY

FOUND IN 1 HA. OF TERRA FIRME FOREST USE BY THE

CABOCLOS OF THE VILLAGE OF CAICUBI, CARACARAÍ,RR, BRAZIL.

Use Category Percent of use values

Fuel 27Technology 27Construction 24Food 9Medicine 8Others 3Crafts 1Trade 1

Use Value

Pe

rc

en

tag

e o

f u

se

ful

sp

p.

0 %

5 %

10 %

15 %

20 %

25 %

12 %

20 %

15 %

11 %

6 %

8 %

2 %

1 %1 % 1 %

0 %

0,1

7 -

05

>0

,5 -

1

>1

- 1

,5

>1

,5 -

2

>2

- 2

,5

>2

,5 -

3

>3

- 3

,5

>3

,5 -

4

>4

- 4

,5

>4

,5 -

5

>5

- 5

,5

>5

,5 -

6

Fig. 4. Distribution of use values (UV) for the 185 useful species found in 1 ha of terra firme forest indicatedby the caboclos of the village of Caicubi, Caracaraí, RR, Brazil.

68 ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL

and cultivators) and fishing rods; the bark is used ascordage (embira) to make basket handles and tobind things together. It should be noted thatcordage is only taken from young trees of B.multiflora. The trunk of Licania hirsuta is used tomake tool handles and spears, while the bark is usedas a dye to keep fish lines from rotting. Licariaguianensis is used to make canoes and paddles, andalso for tool and spear handles. Bertholletia excelsa isimportant in this category because the bark is usedwith latex to waterproof canoes; the bark of youngspecimens is also used as cordage. The trunk issometimes used to make canoes and paddles. ThreeLauraceae species, Ocotea rhodophylla, O. nigrescens,and Licaria guianensis, are commonly used to makecanoes and other types of boats, paddles, tool andspear handles, and furniture. Although Licaniaoctandra ssp. pallida is not one of the ten specieswith highest UV in this category, its bark is mixedwith clay to make ovens.

FOOD

Arecaceae, with 65 species (35% of the usefulspecies), is the most important family in the foodcategory. Of the ten species with the highest UVsin this category, the village caboclos intensely usethe four palms,Oenocarpus bacaba, Attalea maripa,Astrocaryum aculeatum, and Euterpe precatória.The fruits of O. bacaba and E. precatória are usedto make juice (the villagers call it wine) andcooking oil, the fruits of A. aculeatum are cookedand eaten, and the fruits of A. maripa are eaten innatura. All four species provide palm hearts (theapical meristem). Furthermore, the stem of O.bacaba and the seeds of A. maripa harbor a larvawhich is used for food and to treat asthma. Otherimportant species are Theobroma sylvestris and T.speciosa (cacao); the fruit has edible pulp and theseeds are use to make chocolate. The pulp of T.subincanum is also use for nourishment. Coumaguianensis has an edible fruit, and the latex is mixedwith coffee to drink. According to the informants,the latex must be used in small doses because it is astrong astringent and causes constipation. Borojoaclaviflora fruits are used to make juice. Brazil nuts(Bertholletia excelsa) are used in natura; whencrushed and pressed, they produce “milk” which ismixed with cassava flour to make a cake.

MEDICINE

Of the 82 species recorded as having medicinaluse (44% of the useful species), Clathrotropis

macrocarpa has the highest UV. The bark is usedto treat various skin diseases and diarrhea. It alsoprovides a stimulant for washing the body, and isused to treat mange in dogs. Among the Waimiri-Atroari Indians, the bark is used to poison fish(Milliken et al. 1992). The sap of Phenakospermumguyanense is used as a coagulant to heal woundsand to treat snake-bite (it is taken orally andapplied topically to the bite area). The bark of theBrazil-nut tree (Bertholletia excelsa) is employed totreat diabetes, body aches and pains, and diarrhea.The young roots of Euterpe precatoria are used totreat anemia. The latex of Sorocea guilleminiana is astrong poison (if swallowed, it can kill a person)that is used to eliminate lice and to treat skindiseases. The latex of Odontadenia cognata andClusia grandiflora is employed to treat musclesprains. Virola elongata and V. theiodora have areddish sap used to soothe toothache and to cleanwounds. It is also is taken orally for diarrhea andvomiting. V. theiodora sap also kills lice. TheYanomami use the bark of this species to makehallucinogenic snuff (Prance 1972). From the barkof Bahunia guianensis, they make a beverage that isanti-inflammatory and also treats diarrhea.

TRADE

Of the 21 species in this category (11% of theuseful species), Bertholletia excelsa has the highestUV. It is one of the most important species forproviding community income during the rainyseason. Heteropsis species are essential to theeconomy for the same reason, but they were notsampled in this study. The remaining nine specieswith high UVs in this category have lowcommercial value because the products are notsold outside the community. Dacryodes sclerophyllaand Dacryodes cf. hopkinsii are sold for their resinused to waterproof canoes and in the “defumação”process (this term will be explained later). Thelatex of Couma guianensis was a prized commodityduring the rubber boom, but it has no valuetoday. Pouteria glomerata also produced rubber.Two species of Moraceae,Maquira sclerophylla andHelocostylis tomentosa, are sold to tourists as phallicsymbols because of the shape of the branches.Tourists are rare in this region, however. The seedsof the two Ormosia species are sold for craftwork.The young leaves of Astrocaryum aculeatum areused to make hats and fans, and the seeds aremade into earrings and rings, but these productsare rarely marketed.

69SOLER ET AL.: CABOCLOS’ FOREST USE IN BRAZIL2008]

CRAFTS

Of the 14 species included here (8% of theuseful species), Astrocaryum aculeatum has thehighest UV. New leaves are used to make hats andfans, and the seeds are made into earrings. Thebark of Licania hirsuta, Licania cf. prismatocarpa,Licania heteromorpha ssp. heteromorpha, and Ingaalba are used to dye species of Ischnosiphon andPhilodendron, which are then used for weavingmats and baskets. Lath is extracted from the stemsof the three species of Lecythidaceae, Eschweilerapedicellata, E. coriacea, and Gustavia augusta, andused to finish off the tops of these baskets. Attaleamaripa seeds are used to make rings and earrings.

FUELThis is the largest category, with 168 species (91%

of the useful species), most of them used for firewoodand charcoal. Four species of the family Burseraceaehad the highest UVs (Dacryodes sclerophylla, Protiumhebetatum, Protium opacum subsp. opacum, andTrattinickia glaziovii); the resin of these species is anexcellent fuel and the wood is also good forfirewood and making charcoal.

OTHERS

This category, with some 20 species (11% ofthe useful species), includes a number of uses thatcould not be included in the previous categories.All ten species with the highest UV for thiscategory belong to the Burseraceae and are usedin a ritual called “defumação,” in which a childsick with asthma or infantile paralysis is treated.The ritual is conducted by a person who knowsthe proper prayers, usually passed down fromfather to son. The resin (Protium spp.) is lit at themoment of prayer. It is also lit inside houses toexpel bad spirits. The leaves of Simarouba amaraare also used in the “defumação” ritual, and theleaves of Lindackeria cf paludosa are used inwitchcraft.

Comparison with Other StudiesPrance et al. (1987) compare plant use in 1-ha

plots among four indigenous communities inAmazon terra firme forests including trees withdbh≥10 cm. Data analysis excluded the fuel andgame categories because most species were in-cluded in these categories. Milliken et al. (1992)used the same methodology with the Waimiri-Atroari Indians. The results of Prance et al.

(1987), Milliken et al. (1992), and those of thepresent study (also excluding fuel and otherscategories for a more accurate comparison) arediscussed below (Table 5).The highest percentage of useful plants was found

in the present study, twice as high in the constructionand technology categories. It is important to notethat Prance et al. (1987) and Milliken et al. (1992)group forest uses differently than our study does.Still, the Caicubi caboclos use the forest moreintensely in the construction and technologycategories. The use percentage in the categorymedicine is also higher when compared to otherstudies. Two explanations for this are possible: (1)the caboclos may have misidentified the plants, thusincreasing the use value of some species, but thiscan happen in any study using this methodology;(2) this study’s informants come from variousregions in the Amazon, bringing plant knowledgefrom different places (upper, middle, lower RioNegro, Solimões, Roraima). In contrast, indigenouscommunities are usually from a single locality wherethey have been living much longer. Therefore, thesepeople are probably more familiar with the area andprovide more accurate plant identification. So itseems likely that the Caicubi caboclos are generalistsin their use of forest resources, including differentsources of folklore, while the indigenous communi-ties are specialists in using these resources. However,we emphasize again that according to Phillips et al.(1994), simply summing up the number of usefulspecies in a area is only a very crude guide to thecultural importance of forests and the results mustbe interpreted with care.When comparing a traditional nonindigenous

community of mestizos in Tambopata, Madre deDios, Peru, in two plots of terra firme forest, theuseful species totaled 89.3 and 85.7% of the speciesfound, and the highest UVs were in the construc-tion, food, and crafts categories (Phillips et al.1994). In another study of Afro-Americans on thePacific coast of Colombia (Galeano 2000), 62.8%useful species (for dbh≥5 cm) were found, and themost important categories in UVs were construc-tion, technology, and fuel. The UVs found byGaleano (2000) are similar to those of the presentstudy (Table 6).The results of these studies show the great

amount of knowledge retained by these commu-nities. It should be noted that Neotropical forestsare actually a huge forest mosaic that offer a greatdiversity of resources to these communities. Thus

70 ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL

the plant uses cited by the people of these regionsinvolve two attributes: knowledge of the plantsand the resources available in each forest.

The results of this study show that the Caicubicaboclos are very knowledgeable about the forest,confirming the view of Prance (1995), who statesthat traditional nonindigenous communities under-stand the forests to a great degree, and that it is veryimportant to continue studying these communities.

ConclusionsThe Arecaceae has the highest UV for the

Caicubi caboclos. This family was also cited as beingvery important in other ethnobotanical studies inthe Amazon. The Arecaceae, Lecythidaceae, andSapotaceae were prominent in several categories,showing the importance of these families for theCaicubi community and also for conservation ofthe Amazon rain forest.

Although there are species that are betterknown and more sought after by the community,there are also exclusive-use species that are knownto a small number of people.

Use quantification by the Use–Value method iscomplementary to totaling uses. Use values showthe species most sought after by the community,while the totaling of uses gives a broader spectrumof species use. Both of these methods should beused in establishing conservation priorities.

Ongoing studies of these communities areessential for a better understanding of theirculture and the way they use forest resources. Agreater number of use categories would allow amore accurate quantitative analysis. However, it isimportant to standardize use categories so thatmore detailed comparisons can be made. Repli-

cates should be used in ethnobotanical studies sothat accuracy can be assessed within the commu-nity and in comparisons with other studies.

The results of this study are based on theknowledge that the informants have of the forest.This does not mean that the species and usescited here are part of daily community life. Moredetailed studies are needed to understand whatspecies are used in daily life.

AcknowlegmentsWe thank the Instituto Caiuá for financial

support of field work, especially Walo Leuzinger;the community of Caicubi village for giving usshelter, especially Ernane Fontes Barbosa for hishelp and dedication in the field; Pedrinho JazintoOgasti (Wilson), José dos Santos (Passarinho),Juzelino Ferreira da Silva, Duacir de Melos dasCahagas (Gavião), Elio Brasão (Gary), ArlindoMendes da Costa, Elizabeth Araújo da Costa,Plinia de Melo, Alberto Cerrão dos Santos

Table 5. DIFFERENT VALUES FOR USEFUL PLANTS WITH DBH≥10 CM FOUND IN PLOTS OF 1HA. OF TERRA FIRME

FORESTS IN DIFFERENT TRADITIONAL COMMUNITIES IN THE AMAZONS, WITHOUT ADDING THE SPECIES THAT ARE USE

FOR GAME AND FUEL (WA, WAIMIRI ATROARI; THE CATEGORIES OF TECHNOLOGY AND OTHERS ARE FUSED FOR

PURPOSES OF COMPARISON).

Community Useful spp. Food Construction Technology Medicine Trade

Ka’apora 76.3% 34.3% 20.2% 19.2% 21.2% 2%Tembéa 61.3% 21.8% 30.3% 21% 10.9% 5%Chácaboa 78.7% 40.4% 17% 18.1% 35.1% 1%Panarea 48.6% 34.3% 2.9% 43.0% 7.1% 4%WAb 79% 27% 32% 31%a 15% 0%Caicubi 95% 35% 75% 83% 44% 11%

aData incorporated from Balée and Boom, published in Prance et al. (1987).bData published in Milliken et al. 1992.

Table 6. COMPARISON OF THE SPECIES UV INDICATED

BY THE CABOCLOS OF THE VILLAGE OF CAICUBI AND THE

AFRO-AMERICANS OF THE PACIFIC COAST, COLOMBIA

(GALEANO 2000).

Use categoryCaboclosof Caicubí

Afro-Colombiansof Chocó

Construction 25% 32%Technology 28% 30%Fuel 28% 21%Food 9% 9%Medicine 9% 5%Trade 1% 4%

71SOLER ET AL.: CABOCLOS’ FOREST USE IN BRAZIL2008]

(Mutum), and Esteban Brás Monteiro. Thanks toC.A. Cid Ferreira for support at the INPAherbarium and P. Assunção for helping toidentify specimens at the INPA herbarium;specialists A. Vicentini, D. Daly, J. E. Ribeiro,and M. Hopkins for identifying species belongingto their families; D. Araujo for reviewing an earlyversion of this paper; and the staff of the JardimBotânico do Rio de Janeiro for being so helpful.This research was supported by a grant fromCapes (scholarship) and CNPq (research).

Literature CitedAlexiades, M. 1996. Collecting Ethnobotanical

Data: An Introduction to Basic Concepts andTechniques. Pages 353–394 in SelectedGuidelines for Ethnobotanical Research: AField Manual. The New York BotanicalGarden, New York.

Balée, W. 1986. Análise Preliminar de InventárioFlorestal e a Etnobotânica Ka’apor (Maranhão).Boletim Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi 2(2):141–167.

VVV. 1987. A Etnobotânica Quantitativa dosÍndios Tembé (Rio Gurupi, Pará)1. BoletimMuseu Paraense Emilio Goeldi 3(1):29–50.

Boom, B. M. 1988. The Chácabo Indians andtheir Palms. Advances in Economic Botany6:91–97.

VVV. 1989. Use of Plant Resources by theChácabo. Advances in Economic Botany7:78–96.

VVV. 1990. Useful Plants of the PanareIndians of the Venezuelam Guyana. Advancesin Economic Botany 8:57–76.

Campos, M. T. and Ehringhaus C. 2003. PlantVirtues in the Eyes of the Beholders: AComparison of Known Palm Uses amongIndigenous and Folk Communities of South-western Amazônia. Economic Botany 57(3):324–344.

Galeano, G. 2000. Forest Use at the Pacific Coastof Chocó, Colombia: A Quantitative Approach.Economic Botany 54(3):358–376.

German, L. 2001. Cap 7: Formas Tradicionais deExploração e Conservação das Florestas. Pages221–253 in A. A. Oliveira and D. Daly, eds.,Florestas do Rio Negro. The New YorkBotanical Garden, New York

Milliken, W., R. P. Miller, S. R. Pollard, and E. V.Wandelli. 1992. The Ethnobotany of the

Waimiri Atroari Indians of Brazil. RoyalBotanical Gardens, Kew, U.K.

Parker, E. P. 1989. A Neglected Human Resourcein Amazonia: The Amazon Caboclo. Advancesin Economic Botany 7:249–259.

Paz y Miño, G., H. Baslev, and V. Renato. 1995.Useful Lianas of the Siona-Secoya Indians fromAmazonian Ecuador. Economic Botany 49(3)269–275.

Phillips, O. 1996. Some Quantitative Methodsfor Analyzing Ethnobotanical Knowledge.Pages 171–197 in M. Alexiades, SelectedGuidelines for Ethnobotanica Research: AField Manual. Chapter 9. New York BotanicalGarden, New York.

VVV and A.H. Gentry 1993a. The Useful Plantsof Tambopata, Peru: I. Statistical HypothesesTests with a New Quantitative Technique.Economic Botany 47(1):15–32.

VVV and A. H. Gentry. 1993b. The UsefulPlants of Tambopata, Peru: II. AdditionalHypothesis Testing in Quantitative Ethnobot-any. Economic Botany 47(1):33–43.

VVV, A. H Gentry, C. Reynel, P. Wilkin, andC. Gálvez-Durand. 1994. Quantitative Eth-nobotany and Amazonian Conservation. Con-servation Biology 8(1):225–248.

Pinedo-Vazquez, M., D. Zarin, P. Jipp, and J.Chota-Inuma. 1990. Use Value of TreeSpecies in a Communal Forest Reserve inNortheast Peru. Conservation Biology 4(4):405–416.

Prance, G. T. 1972. An Ethnobotanical Com-parison of Four Tribes of Amazonian Indians.Acta Amazônica 2(2):7–27.

VVV. 1995. Ethnobotany Today and in theFuture. Pages 60–71 in R. E. Schultes and S.Reis, ed., Ethnobotany: Evolution of a Disci-pline. Timber Press, Cambridge, UK.

VVV, W. Baleé, B. M. Boom, and L. R.Carneiro. 1987 Quantitative Ethnobotany andthe Case for Conservation in Amazônia.Conservation Biology 1(4):296–310.

Ricardo, F. P., F. B. L. B. Vianna, M. P. Rufino,P .L. Mesquita, and V. Macedo. 2005. PovosIndígenas no Brasil. http://www.sociambiental.org/pib/portugues/linguas/linger.shtm#t2

Soler-Alarcon, J. G. and A. L. Peixoto. 2007.Florística e Fitossociologia de um trecho deFloresta de Terra Firme em Caracaraí, Ror-aima, Brasil. Boletim Museu Paraense EmilioGoeldi V.2(2).

72 ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL

Vicentini, A. 1999. Lauraceae. Pages 150–179 in J.E. L. S. Ribeiro, M. J. G. Hopkins, A. Vicentini,C. A. Sothers, M. A. S. Costa, J. M. Brito, M. A.D. Souza, L.H. P.Martins, L. G. Lohmann, P. A.C. L. Assunção, E. C. Pereira, C. F. Silva, M. R.Mesquita, and L. C. Procópio, Flora da ReservaDucke. Guia de Identificação das Plantas Vascu-

lares de uma Floresta de Terra-Firme na AmazôniaCentral. INPA-DFID, Manaus, AM, Brazil.

Zent, S. 1996. Behavioral Orientations towardsEthnobotanical Quantification. Pages 199–223 in M. Alexiades, Selected Guidelines forEthnobotanica Research: A Field Manual. TheNew York Botanical Garden, New York.

73SOLER ET AL.: CABOCLOS’ FOREST USE IN BRAZIL2008]