Ecologic salience and agreement on the identification of tree species from Brazilian Atlantic Forest;Saliência ecológica e concordância na identificação de espécies arbóreas de Mata Atlântica Brasileira

Biota Neotropica

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 78-84

  Hanazaki, Natalia ^a   Mazzeo, Rogério ^b   Duarte, Alexandre Romariz ^c   Souza, Vinícius Castro ^b   Rodrigues, Ricardo Ribeiro ^b  

^a FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF SANTA CATARINA   (Brazil)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

^c MINISTÉRIO DO MEIO AMBIENTE   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Ethnobotany; Ethnoecology; Local knowledge; Parataxonomy

Indexed keywords

EID: 77957987340     PISSN: 16786424     EISSN: 16760611     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1590/s1676-06032010000100007     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. ALBUQUERQUE, U.P.A. & LUCENA, R.F.P. 2005. Can apparency affect the use of plants by local people in tropical forests? Interciencia 30(8):506-511.
2. AMOROZO, M.C.M. & GÉLY, A. 1988. Uso de plantas medicinais por caboclos do Baixo Amazonas, Barcarena, Pará. Bol. Mus. Para. Emílio Goeldi 4(1):47-130.
3. ATRAN, S. 1998. Folk biology and the anthropology of science: cognitive universals and cultural particulars. Behav. Brain. Sci. 21(4):547-609.
4. AUNGER, R. 1999. Against idealism/contra consensus. Curr. Anthropol. 40(suppl.):93-101.
5. AYRES, M., AYRES JUNIOR, M., AYRES, D.L. & SANTOS A.A.S. 2003. BioEstat 3.0: aplicações estatísticas nas áreas de ciências biológicas e médicas. Sociedade Civil Mamirauá, Belém.
6. BARALOTO, C., FERREIRA, E., ROCKWELL, C. & WALTHIER, F. 2007. Limitations and applications of parataxonomy for community forest management in southwestern Amazonia. Ethnobot. Res. Appl. 5:77-84.
7. BASSET, Y., NOVOTNY, V., MILLER, S.E., WEIBLEN, G.D., MISSA, O. & STEWART, A.J.A. 2004. Conservation and biological monitoring of tropical forests: the role of parataxonomists. J. Appl. Ecol. 41(2):163-174.
8. BERKES, F., COLDING, J. & FOLKE, C. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol. Appl. 10(5):1251-1262.
9. BERLIN, B. 1992. Ethnobiological classification. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
10. BERLIN, B., BREEDLOVE, D.E. & RAVEN, P.E. 1973. General principles of classification and nomenclature in Folk Biology. Am. Anthropol. 75(1):214-242.
11. BERNARD, H.R. 1995. Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches. 2 ed. Altamira, Walnut Creek.
12. BROWN, C. 1985. Mode of Subsistence and Folk Biological Taxonomy. Curr. Anthropol. 26(1):43-64.
13. CANALES, M., HERNÁNDEZ, T., CABALLERO, J., VIVAR, A.R., AVILA, G., DURAN, A. & LIRA, R. 2005. Informant consensus factor and antibacterial activity of the medicinal plants used by the people of San Rafael Coxcatlán, Puebla, México. J Ethnopharmacol. 97(3):429-439.
14. CASE, R.J., PAULI, G.F. & SOEJARTO, D.D. 2005. Factors in maintaining indigenous knowledge among ethnic communities of Manus Island. Econ. Bot. 59(4):356-365.
15. CHAZDON, R.L. & COE, F.G. 1999. Ethnobotany of woody species in second-growth, old-growth, and selectively logged forests of northeastern Costa Rica. Cons. Biol. 13(6):1312-1322.
16. CUNHA, M.C. & ALMEIDA, M.W.B. 2000. Indigenous people, traditional people and conservation in the Amazon. Daedalus 129(2):315-338.
17. CUNHA, L.V. & ALBUQUERQUE, U.P. 2006. Quantitative ethnobotany in an atlantic forest fragment of northeastern Brazil: implications to conservation. Environ. Monit. Assess. 114(1-3):1-25.
18. DEWALT, S.J., BOURDY, G., CHÁVEZ-MICHEL, L.R. & QUENEVO, C. 1999. Ethnobotany of the Tacana: quantitative inventories of two permanent plots of northwestern Bolivia. Econ. Bot. 53(3):237-260.
19. DIEGUES, A.C.S. & ARRUDA, R.S.V. 2001. Saberes tradicionais e biodiversidade no Brasil. Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Brasília.
20. DREW, J.A. 2005. Use of traditional ecological knowledge in marine conservation. Cons. Biol. 19(4):1286-1293.
21. FRIEDMAN, J., YANIV, Z., DAFNI, A. & PALEWITCH, D. 1986. A preliminary classification of the healing potential of medicinal plants, based on a rational analysis of an ethnopharmacological field survey among Bedouins in the Negev Desert, Israel. J. Ethnopharmacol. 16(2-3):275-287.
22. GADGIL, M., BERKES, F. & FOLKE, C. 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22(2-3):151-156.
23. GALEANO, G. 2000. Forest use at the pacific coast of Choco, Colombia: a quantitative approach. Econ. Bot. 54(3):358-376.
24. HANAZAKI, N., SOUZA, V.C. & RODRIGUES, R.R. 2006. Ethnobotany of rural people from the boundaries of Carlos Botelho State Park, São Paulo, Brazil. Acta Bot. Bras. 20(4):889-909.
25. HANAZAKI, N., TAMASHIRO, J.Y., LEITÃO FILHO, H.F. & BEGOSSI, A. 2000. Diversity of plants uses in two Caicara communities from the Atlantic Forest coast, Brazil. Biod. Cons. 9(5):597-615.
26. HARRIS, M. 1976. History and significance of the Emic/Etic distinction. Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 5:329-340.
27. HUNN, E. 1999. Size as limiting the recognition of biodiversity in folkbiological classifications: one of four factors governing the cultural recognition of biological factors. In Folkbiology (D.L. Medin & S. Atran, eds.). MIT Press, Boston, p. 47-70.
28. KRELL, F.T. 2004. Parataxonomy vs. taxonomy in biodiversity studies: pitfalls and applicability of "morphospecies" sorting. Biod. Cons. 13(4):795-812.
29. KRISTENSEN, M. & BALSLEV, H. 2003. Perceptions, use and availability of woody plants among the Gourounsi in Burkina Faso. Biod. Cons. 12(8):1715-1739.
30. LAWRENCE, A., PHILLIPS, O., REATEGUI, A., LOPEZ, M., ROSE, S., WOOD, D. & JOSÉ, A. 2005. Local values for harvested forest plants in Madre de Dios, Peru: towards a more contextualised interpretation of quantitative ethnobotanical data. Biod. Cons. 14(1):45-79.
31. LYKKE, A.M., KRISTENSEN, M.K. & GANABA, S. 2004. Valuation of local use and dynamics of 56 woody species in the Sahel. Biod. Cons. 13(10):1961-1990.
32. MYERS, N.R.A., MITTERMEIER, C., MITTERMEIER, G., FONSECA, G.A B. & KENT, J. 2000. Biodiversity hot spots for conservation priorities. Nature 403(6772):853-858.
33. OLIVER, I. & BEATTIE, A.J. 1993. A possible method for the rapid assessment of biodiversity. Cons. Biol. 7(3):562-568.
34. PHILLIPS, O.L. 1996. Some quantitative methods for analyzing ethnobotanical knowledge. In Selected guidelines for ethnobotanical research: a field manual (M.N. Alexiades, ed.). The New York Botanical Garden, New York, p. 171-198.
35. PHILLIPS, O. & GENTRY, A.H. 1993. The Useful Plants of Tambopata, Peru: II. Additional Hypothesis Testing in Quantitative Ethnobotany. Econ. Bot. 47(1):33-43.
36. RODRIGUES, R.R. 2006. Diversidade dinâmica e conservação em florestas do Estado de São Paulo: 40ha de parcelas permanentes. In Anais do 57 Congresso Nacional de Botânica. Sociedade Botânica do Brasil, Porto Alegre, p. 354-558.
37. ROMNEY, A.K. 1999. Culture consensus as a statistical model. Curr. Anthropol. 40(S1):103-115.
38. ROMNEY, A.K., WELLER, S.C. & BATCHELDER, W.H. 1986. Culture as consensus: a theory of culture and informant accuracy. Am. Anthropol. 88(2):313-338.
39. SILVA-MATOS, D.M. & BOVI, M.L.A. 2002. Understanding the threats to biological diversity in southeastern Brazil. Biod. Cons. 11(10):1747-1758.
40. STEPP, J.R. 2004. The role of weeds as sources of pharmaceuticals. J. Ethnopharmacol. 92(2-3):163-166.
41. STEPP, J.R. & MOERMAN, D.E. 2001. The importance of weeds in ethnopharmacology. J. Ethnopharmacol. 75(1):19-23.
42. TONGCO, M.D.C. 2007. Purposive sampling as a tool for informant selection. Ethnobot. Res. Appl. 5:147-158.
43. TORRE-CUADROS, M.D.L.A. & ISLEBE, G.A. 2003. Traditional ecological knowledge and use of vegetation in southeastern Mexico: a case study from Solferino, Quintana Roo. Biod. Cons. 12(12):2455-2476.
44. VELOSO, H.P. & GÓES FILHO, L. 1982. Fitogeografia brasileira: classificação fisionômico-ecológica da vegetação Neotropical. Ministério das Minas e Energia, Salvador.
45. ZAR, J.H. 1996. Biostatistical analysis. 3 ed. Prentice-Hall, London.