THE ECOLOGICAL APPARENCY HYPOTHESIS AND DRY TROPICAL FORESTS: AN ETHNOBOTANICAL ASSESSMENT

IMÁGEN EN PORTADA: Matías González Chavajay. 1998. La vida de los campesinos.©Matías González Chavajay y Arte Maya Tz'utuhil

Etnoecológica 10 (9)

THE ECOLOGICAL APPARENCY HYPOTHESISAND DRY TROPICAL FORESTS:AN ETHNOBOTANICAL ASSESSMENT

Reinaldo Farias Paiva de Lucena1*, Rodrigo Ferreira deSousa2, Natan Medeiros Guerra1, João Everthon daSilva Ribeiro1, Arliston Pereira Leite1, Diego Batista deOliveira Abreu1, Thamires Kelly Nunes Carvalho1, DilmaMaria de Brito Melo Trovão3, Carlos Antônio BelarminoAlves4, Rômulo Romeu da Nóbrega Alves3, Péricles daFarias Borges5, Leonaldo Alves de Andrade5, Jacob SilvaSouto6, Severino Pereira de Sousa Júnior5, and ErnaneNogueira Nunes5

Tipo de documento: Artículo originalEnfoque: Aplicado-ExperimentalNúmero de páginas: 17 Pp.Tipo de evaluación: Arbitraje doble abierto por pares académicosRecibido: 12 de noviembre de 2013Aceptado: 2 de mayo de 2014Publicado: 6 de octubre de 2014ISSN: En trámiteDerechos de autoría: Reinaldo F. P. de Lucena y Rodrigo Ferreira de Sousa

Octubre 62014

Red de Etnoecologíay Patrimonio Biocultural

EDITORES

Víctor Manuel ToledoCentro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas,UNAM http://www.oikos.unam.mxEditor Fundador

Eraldo Medeiros Costa-NetoUniversidade Estadual de Feira de Santanahttp://[email protected] Invitado

Marco Antonio Vásquez-DávilaInstituto Tecnológico del Valle de OaxacaTecnológico Nacional de Méxicohttp://[email protected] / Editor en Jefe

Diana Gabriela Lope-AlzinaInstituto Tecnológico Superior de San MiguelEl Grande, Tecnológico Nacional de México.http://[email protected] Ejecutiva

CONSEJO EDITORIAL

Alejandro de Ávila Blomberg (México)Jardín Etnobotánico de Oaxacahttp://www.jardinoaxaca.org.mx

Arturo Argueta Villamar (México)Centro Regional de InvestigacionesMultidisciplinarias, UNAM.http://www.crim.unam.mx

Geraldine Patrick (México)Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana,Unidad Lerma, http://www.uam-lerma.mx

Narciso Barrera-Bassols (México)Universidad Autónoma de Querétarohttp://www.uaq.mx

COMITÉ EDITORIAL

Alejandro Casas (México)Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas,UNAM http://www.oikos.unam.mx

Andrés Camou Guerrero (México)Escuela Nacional de Estudios Superiores, UNAMhttp://www.enesmorelia.unam.mx

Angelo Giussepe Chaves Alves (Brasil)Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambucohttp://www.ufrpe.br

Benjamín Ortiz Espejel (México)Universidad Iberoamericana Pueblahttp://www.iberopuebla.edu.mx

Egleé L. Zent (Venezuela)Instituto Venezolano de InvestigacionesCientíficas http://www.ivic.gob.ve

Esther Katz (Francia)Institut de Recherche pour leDéveloppement, http://www.ird.fr

Manuel Bolom Pale (México)Universidad Intercultural de Chiapashttp://www.unich.edu.mx

Miguel N. Alexiades (Reino Unido)University of Kent – Canterburyhttp://www.kent.ac.uk

Mindahi Bastida Muñoz (México)Consejo Mexicano para el DesarrolloSustentable, A. C.

Nisao Ogata Aguilar (México)Universidad Veracruzanahttp://www.uv.mx

Olga Lucía Sanabria Diago (Colombia)Universidad del Caucahttp://www.unicauca.edu.co

Roger Martínez Castillo (Costa Rica)Universidad de Costa Ricahttp://www.ucr.ac.cr

Año 10, No. 9, 6 de octubre de 2014. ETNOECOLÓGICA es una publicación electrónica, de libre acceso y con periodicidadmensual, editada por la Red de Etnoecología y Patrimonio Biocultural, red temática del Consejo Nacional de Ciencia yTecnología de México (CONACyT). Etnoecológica se edita en Privada de Almendros 109 altos, Colonia Reforma, Oaxaca deJuárez, México CP 68050. Tel. 9515700024. Página electrónica: http://www.etnoecologica.com.mx, correo electró[email protected]. Editor Responsable: Marco Antonio Vásquez Dávila. Reserva de Derechos al Uso Exclusivo04-2014-040413294500-102, ISSN en trámite, ambos otorgados en México por el Instituto Nacional del Derecho de Autor.Revista registrada ante LATINDEX. La traducción al inglés de este artículo fue realizada por la compañía especializada entraducir textos científicos Proof-Reading-Service.com, registrada en el Reino Unido (8391405; VAT 911478821).

Responsables del contenido y actualización del sitio electrónico: D.G. Lope-Alzina y M.A. Vásquez-Dávila.Contacto: [email protected]

El contenido expresado en texto e imágenes es responsabilidad de los autores y no necesariamente refleja la postura de loseditores de la publicación.

La reproducción total o parcial del contenido e imágenes de esta publicación se rige de acuerdo a normas internacionalessobre protección a los derechos de autor en publicaciones electrónicas, con criterios especificados en la licencia CreativeCommons del tipo:

Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

Para detalles sobre esta licencia, visite http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/deed.es

PDF Provisional

1Laboratório de Etnoecologia, Universidade Federal da Paraíba. 2Universidade Federal do RioGrande do Norte, Natal. 3Departamento de Biologia, Universidade Estadual da Paraíba. 4 Centrode Humanidades, Universidade Estadual da Paraíba. 5Centro de Ciências Agrárias, UniversidadeFederal da Paraíba. 6Unidade Acadêmica de Engenharia Florestal, Universidade Federal deCampina Grande. *Corresponding author ([email protected])






Octubre 62014


EDITORES





CONSEJO EDITORIAL





COMITÉ EDITORIAL



















PDF Provisional







Octubre 62014


EDITORES





CONSEJO EDITORIAL





COMITÉ EDITORIAL



















PDF Provisional


Volume X, number 9. October 6th, 2014

Received 12.11.2013, accepted 02.06.2014, published on-line 06.10.2014.eISSN: upcoming. © Reinaldo Farias Paiva de Lucena and Rodrigo Ferreira de Sousa

THE ECOLOGICAL APPARENCY HYPOTHESISAND DRY TROPICAL FORESTS: AN

ETHNOBOTANICAL ASSESSMENT

Reinaldo Farias Paiva de Lucena1*, Rodrigo Ferreira de Sousa2, Natan Medeiros Guerra1, João Everthonda Silva Ribeiro1, Arliston Pereira Leite1, Diego Batista de Oliveira Abreu1, Thamires Kelly NunesCarvalho1, Dilma Maria de Brito Melo Trovão3, Carlos Antônio Belarmino Alves4, Rômulo Romeu daNóbrega Alves3, Péricles da Farias Borges5, Leonaldo Alves de Andrade5, Jacob Silva Souto6, SeverinoPereira de Sousa Júnior5, and Ernane Nogueira Nunes5

1Laboratório de Etnoecologia, Universidade Federal da Paraíba. 2Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal.3Departamento de Biologia, Universidade Estadual da Paraíba. 4 Centro de Humanidades, Universidade Estadual da Paraíba.5Centro de Ciências Agrárias, Universidade Federal da Paraíba. 6Unidade Acadêmica de Engenharia Florestal, UniversidadeFederal de Campina Grande. *Corresponding author ([email protected])

INTRODUCTION

In the last few decades, many researchers have devoted much time toinvestigate the knowledge of traditional populations about the biodiversity oftropical forests and its uses, mainly recording knowledge about those speciesrecognized as being useful and focusing on ethnobiological studies, inparticular ethnobotany.

Ethnobotany originally was more focused on anthropology, based uponqualitative features, but has developed a more quantitative approach in recentyears, adopting tests of hypothesis and statistical analysis in its study (Voeks1996; Ladio and Lozanda 2004). Ecological apparency (Feeny 1976; Lucena etal. 2012) and utilitarian redundancy (Lucena et al. 2012a), for example, havebecome increasingly prominent. This insertion of hypotheses has brought greatand important changes to these studies, enabling objectivity in trying toachieve recognition about the pressure of use regarding certain species.

However, this advance has mainly been directed at tropical rainforests, suchas the Amazon and rainforests, and vegetation such as Caatinga and Cerradoin Brazil, which are extremely important for biodiversity richness (Albuquerqueand Andrade 2002a; Albuquerque and Andrade 2002b), being of secondaryimportance. However, Cerrado is already recognized as a hotspot, followed byCaatinga, which is passing through intense disruption due to anthropogenicactivities (Albuquerque and Andrade 2002b; Albuquerque 2004). This equallyapplies to areas of the semi-arid region of Paraíba state, in northeastern Brazil,which have had the greater part of their primary vegetation destroyed as aresult of several anthropogenic actions, presenting remaining traces of primaryvegetation remaining and highly jeopardized from a conservation point of view.

Original Article

Lucena, R., R.F. de Sousa et al. 2014.The ecological apparency hypothesisand dry tropical forests: anethnobotanical assessment.Etnoecológica 10 (9).

Abstract:The present study tested the ecologicalapparency hypothesis in an area of drytropical forest, aiming to contribute toeither amending or ratifying theapplication of this hypothesis in such aforest. Field activities were undertaken in2011, in all residences in the communitybeing visited. The two heads of eachfamily were interviewed (36 people). Tocompare the values achieved for thecurrent, potential and general use inboth the traditional and thedifferentiated calculation, a Wilcoxon testwas used to confirm the existence or notof a relationship between the use values.The relationship between different usevalues and the availability of usefulvegetal species was tested usingSpearman’s coefficient. We conducted avegetation survey and interviewedresidents of the rural communities ofVárzea Alegre. There was no correlationbetween the phytosociologicalparameters and all use values. Ecologicalapparency did not explain therelationship between the people fromthe studied community and the extractionof the available vegetal resources. As a

Lucena, R., R.F. de Sousa et al. 2014. The ecological apparency hypothesis and dry tropical forests: an ethnobotanical assessment. Etnoecológica 10 (9):

http://www.etnoecologica.com.mx

2 | EE 10(9)

In the context of this challenge, studies to evaluate the relationship betweenrural communities and the plant resources available in their region, and forwhat purposes they are used, have been required. Ethnobotany has presentedtheoretical and methodological tools appropriate to achieving thisunderstanding. Studies conducted in this context for dry tropical forests havebeen scarce and mainly focused on the conservation aspects. In addition to thislack of studies, those that have been undertaken have had a restricted range(Lucena et al. 2012a; Sá and Silva et al. 2009; Almeida et al. 2010), which limitsthe ability to infer possible standards of use at the regional level. Due to boththese issues, the group of the Ethnoecology Laboratory of the FederalUniversity of Paraíba at the Agricultural Sciences Centre, in partnership withother research groups, such as the Applied Ethnobotany Laboratory of theRural Federal University of Pernambuco, are developing research in severalcities located in the semi-arid region of Paraíba state (Lucena et al. 2012a,b;J.P.O. Ribeiro 2013; J.E.S. Ribeiro 2013), with the aim of identifying standards ofuse of useful species by the local population; in other words, of identifying howcertain species are known, perceived, used, the level of pressure on themcreated by this use, and their conservation in the macro universe. For thispurpose, these researchers have adopted the ecological apparency hypothesis,which aims to understand the dynamics of use of a particular species regardingits availability in the areas of vegetation, testing this with the index of use value(ethnobotanical information) associated with phytosociological parameters(ecological information).

This hypothesis was applied and adapted for ethnobotanical studies in the1990s, and is being used by some researchers (Salick et al. 1999; Ladio andLozanda 2004; Lucena et al. 2007; Lucena et al. 2012a). The few studies thathave been carried out in dry forests, such as the Caatinga in Brazil (Lucena et al.2007; Lucena et al. 2012a), have been presenting different results, probablybecause of the great environmental variation in this type of savannah,presenting more humid parts with rainfall levels typical of rainforests, and verydry places presenting environmental features more similar to deserts. Theseconditions could be a determinant of the standard of use for useful resources,which is necessary in order to conduct research which can test this hypothesisin other areas of the Caatinga, so as to elucidate the context of ecologicalapparency in such regions and aiming to either amend or ratify the findingsdiscovered to date.

The use value index was also adopted in the present study as amethodological tool for the ecological apparency test, which has beenconsidered by Phillips and Gentry (1993a; 1993b). Applying this index, someresearchers have identified and presented certain limitations, which must beconsidered if invalid assumptions about the importance, use and state ofconservation of determined species are to be avoided. One of the limitationsindicated was the lack of distinction made between citations of effective use(current) and potential use (known, but not requested daily) in the calculationof the use value. Based on these indications, Lucena et al. (2012a) used an areaof dry Caatinga in Northeastern Brazil to test whether different methods ofcalculating the use value index would interfere in the responses of theecological apparency, taking into consideration the distinction between currentuse and potential use. These authors have confirmed that when the use value

result of this finding, it is proposed thatfurther studies should be undertaken totest ecological apparency using differentmethods, in addition to conductingfurther analysis of the vegetation of thestudied area.

Keywords:Biodiversity, Caatinga, Quantitativeethnobotany, Use Value, Brazil.

Hipótese da aparência ecológica emuma área de floresta tropical seca:uma etnobotânica avaliação

Resumo:O presente estudo testou a hipótese daaparência ecológica em uma área defloresta tropical seca, com o objetivo decontribuir para retificar ou ratificar aaplicação da presente hipótese nessasflorestas. As atividades de campo foramrealizadas em 2011, visitando-se todasas residências da comunidade. Foramentrevistados os dois chefes de cadafamília (36 pessoas). Para comparar osvalores obtidos para o uso atual,potencial e geral, tanto no cálculotradicional como no diferenciado foiutilizado o teste de Wilcoxon paraconfirmar a existência ou não de umarelação entre os valores de uso. Arelação entre os diferentes valores deuso e a disponibilidade de espéciesvegetais úteis foi testada através docoeficiente de Spearman. Foi realizadoum levantamento da vegetação eentrevistaram-se os moradores dacomunidade rural de Várzea Alegre. Nãohouve correlação entre os parâmetrosfitossociológicos e todos os valores deuso. A aparência ecológica não explicoua relação entre as pessoas dacomunidade estudada e a extração dosrecursos vegetais disponíveis. Com oresultado do presente estudo, propõe-seque mais estudos sejam realizados paratestar a aparência ecológica utilizandométodos diferentes, além de realizaruma análise mais específica davegetação da área de estudo.

Palavras-chave:Biodiversidade, Caatinga, Etnobotânicaquantitativa, Valor de Uso, Brasil.

Lucena, R., R.F. de Sousa et al. 2014. The ecological apparency hypothesis and dry tropical forests: an ethnobotanical assessment. Etnoecológica 10 (9).


3 | EE 10(9)

was calculated based only on citations of current use, there was a betterresponse from the perspective of ecological apparency, thus reaffirming thenecessity of this distinction in calculating this index.

Under this perspective, the present study tested the ecological apparencyhypothesis in an area of dry tropical forest, in a Caatinga area of Brazil, aimingto contribute to amending or ratifying the application of this hypothesis inforests such as these. The main goals of this research were to analyse and listecological data and ethnobotanical information relating to the native andwoody species in the region.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The local and regional context of work

São Mamede town is located in the Borborema meso-region and the micro-region of Western Seridó, in the semi-arid region of Paraíba state, northeasternBrazil (latitude 06°55’37”S and longitude of 37°05’45”0). It is at an altitude ofapproximately 263 m and is 283 km distant from the state capital, João Pessoacity. It is limited to the north by Ipueira (Rio Grande do Norte), to the east bySanta Luzia and Várzea (Paraíba), to the south by Patos, Quixaba andPassagem (Paraíba) and to the west by São José de Espinharas city (Paraíba). Ithas a total population of 7548 inhabitants (1819 in the rural area and 5729 inthe urban area), a territorial area of 530,724 km² and a population density of14.6 hab/km² (IBGE 2010). The urban economy is based on cattle andagriculture (maize, beans and cassava) as the main agricultural products,together with bovine, goat and sheep flocks. The soil is rocky (IBGE 2010). It hasa Caatinga vegetation and a hot semi-arid climate (Köppen BSHs), an annualaverage rainfall of around 400 mm (IBGE 2010).

The community of Várzea Alegre, in which the present study wasdeveloped, is approximately 8 km from the urban centre, comprising 25inhabited residences, distributed into rural properties. The economy is mainlybased on subsistence agriculture, which is practiced only in rainy periods,focusing on maize and bean cultivation. Livestock activity is based on dairybovine cattle, and also goat and sheep. The community is attended by a healthagent who visits each family unit monthly. The inhabitants from this communitycan also attend the neighbouring Gatos community, where there is a FamilyHealth Programme, an initiative of the Federal Government which seeks tomake improvements to the quality of life of populations from agricultural areas.The children attend classes in basic education at the city school of ElizeuEvangelista de Medeiros, in the Gatos community. In order to achieve higherlevels of education, they have to move to the urban centre of the city.

Collection of ethnobotanical data

The field activities were developed in 2011 by visiting all the residences of thecommunity (25 (houses); however, only 24 took part. The two heads of eachfamily were interviewed, making a total of 36 people (17 men and 19 women).

La hipótesis de apariencia ecológicaen un área de bosque tropical seco:una evaluación etnobotánica

Resumen:El presente estudio evaluó la hipótesis dela apariencia ecológica en un área debosque tropical seco, con el objetivo decontribuir a ratificar o rectificar laaplicación de esta hipótesis en estosbosques. Las actividades de campo serealizaron en 2011, visitando todos loshogares de la comunidad. Se entrevistóa los dos jefes de cada familia (36personas). Para comparar los valoresobtenidos para el uso actual, potencial yen general, tanto en el tradicional y elcálculo diferenciado, se utilizó el test deWilcoxon para confirmar la existencia ono de una relación entre los valores deuso. Se realizó un estudio de lavegetación y entrevistamos a losresidentes de las comunidades rurales deVárzea Alegre. No hubo correlaciónentre los parámetros fitosociologicos ytodos los valores de uso. La aparienciaecológica no explicó la relación entre lagente de la comunidad estudiada y laextracción de los recursos vegetalesdisponibles. Con el resultado de estainvestigación, se propone que deberíanllevarse a cabo más estudios para probarla apariencia ecológica utilizandodiferentes métodos, además de realizarun análisis más detallado de lavegetación de la zona estudiada.

Palabras clave:Biodiversidad, Caatinga, Etnobotánica,Valor de Uso, Brasil.



4 | EE 10(9)

Before the start of each session, we explained to theinterviewees the goal of this study and they were requestedto sign a Term of Free and Clarified Assent, demanded bythe Health National Council through the Ethics andResearch Committee in Brazil (Resolution 196/96 oftheCNS/MS). The present study was approved (CEP) by theLauro Wanderley Hospital of the Federal University ofParaíba, and registered as protocol CEP/HULW nº 297/11.

The categories of use were determined according to thespecialized literature (Phillips and Gentry 1993b; Galeano2000; Albuquerque and Andrade 2002a; Albuquerque andAndrade 2002b; Ferraz et al. 2006; Lucena et al. 2012a),being: forage, fuel, construction, food, medicinal,technology, abortive/poison, veterinary, magic/religious,ornamentation and other uses. The category of other usesincluded citations for personal hygiene (washing hair,toothbrushing, etc.), bioindicators (rain signal) and shade.

The interference of other people during the interviewswas minimized as far as possible, by performing individualmeetings, according to a specific schedule (Phillips andGentry 1993a). The technique of a guided tour was used(Albuquerque et al. 2010), which was based on a walkthrough the residences and vegetated areas of thecommunity, accompanied by local people who were willingto participate in this research, and collecting vegetalmaterial for scientific identification of the species mentionedin the interviews.

The botanical collections were carried out in eachcommunity and were identified and incorporated into theHerbarium Jaime Coelho de Moraes (EAN) of the FederalUniversity of Paraíba in the Agricultural Science Center.

Vegetation sampling

To test the ecological apparency hypothesis, twovegetated areas were selected for a phytosociological study:one was an area 3 km away from the community (A1), andthe other was closer to the residences (A2). The closestresidence being 1 km away. Fifty continuous plots werecreated in each area, measuring 10 x 10 m, making a totalof 100 parcels corresponding to one hectare of vegetationsampling. The phytosociological study was carried out intwo areas in order to compare the extraction exerted bylocal populations by observing plants that showed signs ofextraction of the entire trunk, or of parts of the individualplant.

The plots were divided into two areas: the plots fromarea A1 were located in an area of vegetation considered

by the authors of the present study to have a lowdegradation index, information that was obtained from therespondents in the community, who stated that it had notbeen used for several years. This area was located on thehillside of an area at an altitudinal gradient, known as Serrada Mandioca; the area divides the communities, and isrecognized as the highest point of São Mamede town. Thearea A2 was seen by informants as a current place wherevegetal resources were being extracted; however, theremoval of this resource was not possible to measure.

In each survey, all woody species which presented astem diameter at ground level (DGL) that was equal to orup to three centimetres were recorded, excluding cacti,bromeliads, vines, lianas and small herbaceous plants(Araújo and Ferraz 2010). In addition to DGL, the height ofeach plant was recorded, and these plants were cataloguedas alive or dead, trunk (the cut was made at a height equalto or less than a metre above ground level), cut (the cut wasmade at a height up to a metre from ground level), orpartially cut (only a part of the tree was cut). Thiscategorization aimed to acquire information aboutanthropogenic actions in the fragment, allowingvisualization in loco of the most exploited species.

The phytosociological parameters analysed were relativedensity (DRt), relative dominance (DoR), relative frequency(FRt) and value of importance (VI), according to the methodof Araújo and Ferraz (2010), where: DRt (%) is estimated bycomparing the number of individuals of a determined taxato the total of sampled individuals; and FRt (%), is basedupon FAt (absolute frequency of the mentioned species) inrespect of the total frequency (FT, %), which represents thesum of all absolute frequencies. The relative dominance(DoRt, %) represents the percentage of DoA (absolutedominance of the mentioned species) with respect to totaldominance (DoT).

Data analysis - Interview analysis

To test the ecological apparency hypothesis, only usefulspecies were recorded in the phytosociological survey,including exotic and native species that were cited in theinterviews but not found in the plots being removed fromthe analysis of ethnobotanical data.

Considering the limitations that literature has revealedconcerning the use value index, the present studyattempted to analyse this value using distinct methods forcalculating the use value for each species, family andcategory, and to confirm if differences occurred in the



5 | EE 10(9)

results of each calculation in order to solve the problem ofthe limitations of the use value.

The use value was calculated using the formulas UV =∑Ui/n, UVf = ∑UV/nf, and UVc = ∑UV/nc (Rossato et al.1999), where Ui = number of uses mentioned by eachrespondent, n = total number of interviewees, UVf = usevalue of each species in the family, nf = number of speciesin the family, UVc = use value of each species in thecategory, nc = number of species in the category. Theformula UV = Ui/n was used for the traditional calculation,which was made by taking into consideration threemethods of collecting and treating the data according tothe calculations considered by Lucena et al. (2012a) bycalculating the UVcurrent, UVpotential and UVgeneral. It waspossible to make differentiations in each calculationaccording to the types of data recorded during theinterviews. The general use value was determined fromevery citation of the use of a species recorded in theinterviews. The current use value only took intoconsideration the effective citations of use, in other words,the uses that people were employing at the present time.Finally, the potential use value was based upon uses thatthe participants claimed to be aware of but did not currentlyuse, existing only in the cultural record and in the memoryof each individual.

Another calculation that was tested in the present studywas the value of differentiated use, which was modifiedaccording to the number of respondent; in other words, incalculating this value, only the interviewees who hadeffectively cited the use of the species were considered,including other informants being disregarded. The formulaUV = ∑Ut/nie was used, where Ut = total number ofcitations of use of each species, nie = number ofinterviewees who have also cited the species, incorporatingUVcurrent, UVpotential and UVgeneral.

To compare the values achieved for current, potentialand general use in the traditional and the differentiatedcalculation, a Wilcoxon test was used (Sokal and Rholf 1995),as well as a Spearman’s correlation coefficient to confirmthe existence or not of a relationship between the values ofuse.

Analysis of the phytosociological data

The relationship between different use values and theavailability of the useful vegetal species was tested usingSpearman’s correlation coefficient using the programBioEstat 5.0 (Sokal and Rholf 1995). Through these statistical

tests, observations were made to determine if there was anyrelationship between the use values and the data relating tothe composition and structure of the analysed vegetalcommunities according to the phytosociological parametersadopted in the present study (relative dominance, value ofimportance, relative frequency and relative density), thustesting the principles of ecological apparency. However, inthis analysis, only the species recorded in the plots, and thatwere cited by the respondents as being currently used, wereconsidered.

RESULTS

Inventory of the vegetation

In the Várzea Alegre community, 22 woody vegetal specieswere identified in 100 plots, 17 of which were recognized asuseful, belonging to 18 genera and 11 botanical families.Analysing the areas separately, in the conserved area (A1)1311 individuals distributed into 19 species and ninefamilies were recorded. In the degraded area (A2), therewere 2313 individuals distributed into 15 species and eightfamilies. In the total 100 plots, the species that dominatedwas Croton blanchetianus Baill. (marmeleiro), presenting1812 individuals, followed by Bauhinia pentandra (Bong.)Vogel ex Steud. (mororó) (463 individuals) and Combretumfruticosum (Loefl) Stuntz (mufumbo) (253 individuals).

In the 50 plots of area A1, the species B. pentandra wasthe most numerous, with 436 individuals, followed by C.blanchetianus (358 individuals) and C. fruticosum (154individuals). In area A2, the most numerous species were C.blanchetianus (1454 individuals), Mimosa tenuiflora (Willd.)Poir. (jurema preta) (274 individuals) and Poincianelagardneriana (Benth.) L.P. Queiroz (catingueira) (170individuals).

An analysis of the 100 plots in terms of plant familiesshowed the Euphorbiaceae family to be dominant (2032individuals), followed by Fabaceae and Combretaceae, 1140and 253 individuals, respectively. In the plots of area A1, themost numerous family was Fabaceae (629 individuals),followed by Euphorbiaceae (476 individuals) andCombretaceae (154 individuals). In the plots of area A2, themost represented family was also Euphorbiaceae (1556individuals), followed by Fabaceae (511 individuals) andApocynaceae (139 individuals). Among the species cited asuseful, the following were the most noteworthy in termsof the value of importance (VI) and relativedominance (DoR) : C. b lanchet ianus (marmele i ro )



6 | EE 10(9)

Table 1- Use Value (UV) of the most important species according to the traditional and differentiated use value in the community of Várzea Alegrein the municipality of São Mamede, Paraíba, Brazil. UFPB: Universidade Federal da Paraíba. CCA: Centro de Ciências Agrárias.

Species Common nameVoucher

UFPB/CCA

Traditional calculation Differentiated calculationUV

generalUV

currentUV

potentialUV

generalUV

currentUV

potentialAmburana cearensis (Allemão) A.C.Sm Cumarú 17.638 0.64 0.42 0.22 3.83 2.50 1.33Anadenanthera colubrina (Vell.) Brenan Angico 17.624 3.42 1.75 1.67 5.86 3.00 2.86Aspidosperma pyrifolium Mart. Pereiro 17.566 4.42 2.61 1.81 5.48 3.24 2.24Bauhinia pentandra (Bong.) Vogel ex Steud. Mororó 17.648 1.03 0.53 0.50 3.70 1.90 1.80Cedrela odorata Linn. Cedro - 0.03 − 0.03 1.00 − 1.00Cnidoscolus quercifolius Pohl. Favela 17.570 1.92 1.42 0.50 2.46 1.82 0.64Cochlospermum vitifolium (Willd.) Spreng. Algodão brabo 17.850 0.03 0.03 − 1.00 1.00 −Combretum fruticosum (Coefl.) Stuntz Mufumbo 17.587 1.33 0.69 0.64 3.20 1.67 1.53Commiphora leptophloeos (Mart.) J.B. Gillet. Umburana 17.642 1.50 0.47 1.03 3.60 1.13 2.47Copernicia prunifera (Miller) It.E.Moore Carnaúba 17.593 1.67 1.00 0.67 3.33 2.00 1.33Coutarea hexandra (Jacq.) K. Scheem. Quinaquina 17.859 0.03 − 0.03 1.00 − 1.00Crataeva tapia L. Trapiá 0.17 0.06 0.11 3.00 1.00 2.00Croton blanchetianus Baill. Marmeleiro 17.249 2.33 1.50 0.83 3.65 2.35 1.30Croton rhamnifolius Kunth. Velame 17.559 0.28 0.14 0.14 1.43 0.71 0.71Cynophalla flexuosa (L.) J. Pres. L. Feijão brabo 17.583 0.22 0.14 0.08 1.60 1.00 0.60Jatropha mollissima (Pohl.) Baill. Pinhão brabo 17.627 1.14 0.53 0.61 1.86 0.86 1.00Lagenaria vulgaris Ser. Cuité 16.475 0.03 0.03 − 1.00 1.00 −Libidibia ferrea (Mart. ex Tul.) L.P.Queiroz Jucá 17.569 2.17 1.53 0.64 5.57 3.93 1.64Licania rigida Benth. Oiticica 17.634 0.42 0.17 0.25 2.14 0.86 1.29Luetzeburgia sp. Pau Pedra 17.875 0.31 0.03 0.28 1.83 0.17 1.67Manihot cf. dichotoma Ule Maniçoba 17.246 0.33 0.17 0.17 1.50 0.75 0.75Mimosa tenuiflora (Willd.) Poir Jurema preta 17.626 5.31 4.31 1.00 5.31 4.31 1.00Myracrodruon urundeuva Allemão Aroeira 17.560 1.92 1.08 0.83 4.60 2.60 2.00Piptadenia stipulaceae (Benth) Ducke Jurema branca 17.555 1.17 0.47 0.69 4.67 1.89 2.78Pithecellobium diversifolium Benth. Espinheiro 17.857 0.03 0.03 − 1.00 1.00 −Plumbago scandens L. Louro 17.861 0.53 0.47 0.06 2.11 1.89 0.22Poincianella pyramidalis Tul. Catingueira 17.234 1.97 1.42 0.56 3.09 2.22 0.87Pseudobambase marginatum (A.ST.Hill) A.Robyns Imbiratã 17.562 0.14 0.11 0.03 1.67 1.33 0.33Schinopsis brasiliensis Engl. Baraúna 17.255 0.14 0.03 0.11 5.00 1.00 4.00Senegalia polyphylla (DC.) Britton & Rose Jurema Amorosa 17.876 0.44 0.22 0.22 3.20 1.60 1.60Sideroxylon obtusifolium (Roem & Schutt) T. D. Penn. Quixabeira 17.625 0.67 0.19 0.47 3.00 0.88 2.13Spondias monbin L. Cajarana 0.17 0.14 0.03 2.00 1.67 0.33Spondias tuberosa Arruda Umbuzeiro 17.556 1.89 1.22 0.67 4.25 2.75 1.50Tabebuia aurea ( Silva Manso) Benth & Hook f. ex S. Moove Craibeira 17.641 4.47 1.97 2.50 7.32 3.23 4.09Tabebuia impetiginosa (Mart. ex DC.) Standl Pau D'Arco Roxo 18.323 4.19 2.50 1.69 7.19 4.29 2.90Triplaris gardneriana Wedd. Cuaçu 17.871 0.03 0.03 − 1.00 1.00 −Ximenia americana L. Ameixa 17.557 0.33 0.19 0.14 2.40 1.40 1.00Ziziphus joazeiro Mart. Juazeiro 17.580 3.39 1.89 1.50 3.59 2.00 1.59



7 | EE 10(9)

(VI=91.41; DoR=26.52), B. pentandra (mororó) (VI=34.43;DoR=13.80), C. fruticosum (mufumbo) (VI=29.73;DoR=10.54), M. tenuiflora (jurema preta) (VI=29.06;DoR=13.27) and Anadenanthera colubrina (angico)(VI=18.20; DoR=12.00). Regarding the relative density (DR)

and relative frequency (FR) the following were the mostimportant: C. blanchetianus (marmeleiro) (DR=50.00;FR=14.88), M. tenuiflora (jurema preta) (DeR=7.59; FR=8.19),C. fruticosum (mufumbo) (DeR=6.98; FR=12.21), B.pentandra (mororó) (DeR=12.78; FR=7.86) andAspidosperma pyrifolium (pereiro) (DeR=4.17; FR=9.20).

Ethnobotanical inventory

The average and the standard deviation for the three typesof UV in the two calculations have shown there to be asignificant variation between the highest and lowest usevalues. In the traditional calculation, the average was 0.65 (±1.44) for UVgeneral, 0.44 (± 0.94) for UVcurrent and 0.38 (± 0.59)UVpotential. In the differentiated calculation, the average forUVgeneral was 3.00 (± 1.75), 1.63 (± 1.09) for UVcurrent and1.30 (± 1.00) for UVpotential.

In the traditional calculations, the results determinedthat the citations of current uses were superior to potentialuses (53% and 47%, respectively), with M. tenuiflora (5.31),followed by Tabebuia aurea (Silva Massa) Benth. & Hook. f.exs. Moore (4.47) (caibeira) and A. pyrifolium (4.42) beingmost important for UVgeneral. For UVcurrent, the mostimportant were M. tenuiflora (4.31), A. pyrifolium (2.61) andTabebuia impetiginosa (Mart. ex DC.) Standl (2.5) (paud’arco roxo). T. aurea (2.5), A. pyrifolium (1.81) and T.impetiginosa (1.69) were the most important for UVpotential. Itwas observed that M. tenuiflora has the largest use values inUVgeneral and UVcurrent, while T. aurea had the largest value ofuse in UVpotential (see Table 1).

In the differentiated calculations, the results showed thereto be an expressive difference when distinguishing betweenUVcurrent and UVpotential, at 58% and 42%, respectively. Thefollowing values were determined for UVgeneral: T. aurea(7.32), followed by T. impetiginosa (7.19) and A. colubrina(5.86). For UVcurrent, the values were determined as: M.tenuiflora (4.31), followed by T. impetiginosa (4.29) andLibidibia ferrea (Mart. ex Tul.) L.P. Queiroz (jucá) (3.93). Inthe UVpotential, the most prominent values were: T. aurea(4.09), Schinopsis brasiliensis Engl. (baraúna) (4.00) and T.impetiginosa (2.9). Comparing the use values, it wasobserved that T. aurea had the highest values for UVgeneral

and UVpotential, while L. ferrea was highest in UVcurrent.

The high rates of UVcurrent for M. tenuiflora in bothcalculations were due to its importance, mainly for fuel,technology and building. The species T. aurea had thehighest indices in UVpotential due its scarcity in the region.

Regarding the use value of the families, the dataproduced interesting results for the two methods forcalculating the use value. In the traditional calculation, theRhamnaceae family had the greater UVgeneral (3.39),followed by Apocynaceae (3.15) and Fabaceae (2.24). ForUVcurrent, the same families were prominent, beingRhamnaceae (1.89), Fabaceae (1.44) and Apocynaceae(1.00). For UVpotential, the Apocynacea family had the highestvalue of use (1.81), followed by Rhamnaceae (1.5) andBurseraceae (1.03) (see Table 2).

In the differentiated calculations, the data showeddifferences from the traditional calculations but, for UVgeneral,the Apocynaceae family had the largest use value (5.48),followed by Fabaceae (4.29) and Anacardiaceae (3.87). ForUVcurrent, the family which had the highest use value wasApocynaceae (3.24), followed by Fabaceae (2.49) andRhamnaceae (2.00). For UVpotential it was the Burseraceaefamily (2.47) that was the highest, followed by Apocynaceae(2.24) and Sapotaceae (2.12). It was observed that theApocynaceae family was the most important for all values ofuse: this may be explained by the constant use of A.piryfolium for several lumber purposes, such as fencing andfirewood to supply domestic stoves.

Table 2. Use Value (UV) of the most important botany familyaccording to the traditional and differentiated use value in thecommunity of Várzea Alegre in the municipality of SãoMamede, Paraíba, Brazil.

Traditionalcalculation

Differentiatedcalculation

Botany family UV UV UV UV UV UVgeneral current potential general current potential

Anacardiarceae 0.74 0.41 0.60 3.87 1.76 2.11Apocynaceae 3.15 1.00 1.81 5.48 3.24 2.24Bixaceae 0.03 0.03 - 1.00 1.00 -Burseraceae 1.50 0.47 1.03 3.60 1.13 2.47Capparaceae 0.20 0.10 0.09 2.30 1.00 1.30Combretaceae 1.33 0.69 0.64 3.20 1.67 1.53Euphorbiaceae 1.02 0.58 0.43 2.11 1.17 0.94Fabaceae 2.24 1.44 0.62 4.29 2.49 1.80Meliaceae 0.03 - 0.03 1.00 - 1.00Olacaceae 0.33 0.19 0.14 2.40 1.40 1.00Passifloraceae 0.11 0.03 0.08 1.33 0.33 1.00Plumbaginacea 0.53 0.47 0.06 2.11 1.89 0.22Rhamnaceae 3.39 1.89 1.50 3.59 2.00 1.59Rubiaceae 0.03 - 0.03 1.00 - 1.00Sapotaceae 0.67 0.19 0.47 3.00 0.88 2.12



8 | EE 10(9)

For the traditional calculations for the categories, thebuilding category was determined to have the higherUVgeneral (0.97), followed by forage (0.89) and technology(0.71). For UVcurrent the following categories were the mostimportant: forage (0.79), construction (0.64) and technology(0.50). Construction (0.47), forage (0.43) and technology(0.36) categories were the most important for UVpotential.

In the calculation of differentiated UV, the followingcategories had the highest values for UVgeneral: technology(1.32), construction (1.08) and forage (0.89). Technology(0.81), forage (079) and construction (0.61) had the highestvalues for UVcurrent, and technology (0.75), construction (0.62)and forage (0.43) for UVpotential (see Table 3).

Ecological apparency hypothesis

There was no correlation between the phytosociologicalparameters and all use values. Ecological apparencytherefore did not explain the relationship of the peoplefrom the studied community with extraction of the availablevegetal resources. In all statistical tests carried out betweendensity x UV, frequency x UV, dominance x UV and VI x UV,a p value of > 0.005 was obtained.

When each category of use was analysed separately,there was no correlation between use values andphytosociological parameters (see Tables 4-14).

DISCUSSION

Relative importance versus availability

Comparing the ethnobotanical data (use value) and theecological data (phytosociological parameters), it wasobserved that in the Várzea Alegre community there wasno correlation of the three use values (UVcurrent, UVgeneral,UVpotential, both in the traditional and differentiatedcalculation) with relative dominance, relative frequency,importance value and relative density, refuting theecological apparency hypothesis. However, other studies inthe Caatinga have found a positive relationship thatconfirms this hypothesis, at least for its ecological aspects(Lucena et al. 2007; Lucena et al. 2012a), despite findingdifferentiated results, because while the study of Lucena etal. (2007) showed there to be a positive correlation withrelative frequency, Lucena et al. (2012a) recorded a weakcorrelation for medicinal plants, with a greater emphasis onthe correlation with ecological dominance, represented bythe fuel and building categories. This has highlighted theneed for further studies to test the application and efficiencyof ecological apparency in understanding the dynamics ofuse of useful species in the Brazilian semi-arid region and inother dry forests on a global scale.

Based upon the ecological, cultural and social economicreality of rural communities found in Caatinga, ecologicalapparency may present different results in confirming, ornot confirming, the hypothesis. An analysis of the study ofLucena et al. (2007) and Lucena et al. (2012a), which testedecological apparency in Pernambuco and Paraíba state,respectively, showed that the hypothesis was ratified forlumber categories because the fuel and constructioncategories have positive correlations between the use valueand the basal area. This may be explained by the fact thatpeople from these communities depend directly on forestresources in their daily lives, both in the acquisition ofelements (rods, stakes and fence stakes) to build fences, andas firewood to supply their domestic stoves, since most oflocal people do not have sufficient financial resources tobuy items necessary for fences (stakes and fence stakes) andfor cooking daily with a gas stove.

In the sampled area, the vegetation is dry Caatingaand the results showed that the fuel category was note xp re ss i ve wh i le t he cons t r uc t i on ca tegor y wa ssignificantly emphasised in both use values. Additionally,neither was ecological apparency applicable in the studiesof Ferraz et al. (2006) and Albuquerque et al. (2005), bothcarried out in areas of Caatinga in Pernambuco State.

Table 3. Use Value (UV) of the use categories according to thetraditional and differentiated use value in the community ofVárzea Alegre in the municipality of São Mamede, Paraíba,Brazil.

Traditionalcalculation

Differentiatedcalculation

Use categories UV UV UV UV UV UV

general current potential general current potential

Forage 0.24 0.22 0.05 0.43 0.39 0.10

Food 0.89 0.79 0.43 0.89 0.79 0.43

Fuel 0.44 0.40 0.22 0.48 0.35 0.30

Construction 0.97 0.64 0.47 1.08 0.61 0.62

Magical/religious 0.25 0.25 - 0.06 0.06 -

Medicinal 0.50 0.34 0.21 0.86 0.60 0.35

Veterinary 0.17 0.16 0.10 0.22 0.14 0.32

Technology 0.71 0.50 0.36 1.32 0.81 0.75

Ornamental 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.15 0.21 0.06

Poison/abortion 0.17 0.17 - 0.06 0.06 -

Other 0.34 0.22 0.25 0.35 0.26 0.22



9 | EE 10(9)

Table 4 – Species identified in the construction category with their respective values in the category of use in the community of Várzea Alegre in themunicipality of São Mamede, Paraíba, Brazil. UV = use-value. UFPB: Universidade Federal da Paraíba. CCA: Centro de Ciências Agrárias.


UFPB/CCA

Traditional calculation Differentiated calculationUV UV UV UV UV UV

general current potential general current potentialAmburana cearensis (Allemão) A.C.Sm. Cumarú 17.638 0.30 − 0.30 1.00 − 1.00Anadanthera colubrina (Vell) Brenan Angico 17.624 2.65 1.60 1.05 2.52 1.52 1.00Aspidosperma pyrifolium Mart. Pereiro 17566,00 2.10 1.10 1.00 1.45 0.76 0.69Bauhinia pentandra (Bong.) Vogel ex Steud. Mororó 17.648 0.35 0.25 0.10 0.70 0.5 0.20Combretum fruticosum (Coefl) Stuntz Mufumbo 17.587 0.45 0.25 0.20 0.60 0.33 0.27Commiphora leptophloeos (Mart.) J.B. Gillet. Umburana 17.642 0.80 0.45 0.35 1.07 0.60 0.47Copernicia prunifera (Miller) H. E. Moore Carnaúba 17.593 0.75 0.30 0.45 0.83 0.33 0.5Croton blanchetianus Baill. Marmeleiro 17.249 2.10 1.30 0.80 1.83 1.13 0.70Libidibia ferrea (Mart. ex Tul.) L.P.Queiroz Jucá 17.569 0.25 0.20 0.05 0.36 0.29 0.07Licania rigida Benth Oiticica 17.634 0.05 0.05 − 0.14 0.14 −Luetzeburgia sp. Pau Pedra 17.875 0.10 − 0.10 0.33 − 0.33Mimosa tenuiflora (Willd) Poir Jurema preta 17.626 2.90 2.50 0.40 1.61 1.39 0.22Myracrodruon urundeuva Allemão Aroeira 17.560 1.25 0.55 0.70 1.67 0.73 0.93Piptadenia stipulaceae (Benth) Ducke Jurema branca 17.555 0.50 0.05 0.45 1.11 0.11 1.00Plumbago scandens L. Louro 17.861 0.05 0.05 − 0.11 0.11 −Poincianella pyramidalis Tul. Catingueira 17.234 0.55 0.40 0.15 0.48 0.35 0.13Schinopsis brasiliensis Engl. Barauna 17.255 0.05 − 0.05 1.00 − 1.00Senegalia polyphylla (DC.) Britton & Rose Jurema Amorosa 17.876 0.30 0.15 0.15 1.20 0.60 0.60Tabebuia aurea ( Silva Manso) Benth. & Hook. f. ex S. Moove Craibeira 17.641 2.25 0.90 1.35 2.05 0.82 1.23Tabebuia impetiginosa (Mart. ex DC.) Standl Pau D'Arco Roxo 18.323 1.55 0.70 0.85 1.48 0.67 0.81

Table 5 – Species identified in the magical/religious category with their respective values in the category of use in the community of V árzea Alegre in themunicipality of São Mamede, Paraíba, Brazil. UV = use value. UFPB: Universidade Federal da Paraíba. CCA: Centro de Ciências Agrárias.


UFPB/CCA


general current potential general current potentialCopernicia prunifera (Miller) H. E. Moore Carnaúba 17.638 0.33 0.33 − 0.11 0.11 −Jatropha mollissima (Pohl.) Baill. Pinhão brabo 17.566 0.17 0.17 − 0.05 0.05 −Mimosa tenuiflora (Willd) Poir Jurema preta 17.626 0.33 0.33 − 0.06 0.06 −Myracrodruon urundeuva Allemão Aroeira 17.560 0.17 0.17 − 0.07 0.07 −Tabebuia impetiginosa (Mart. ex DC.) Standl Pau D'Arco Roxo 18.323 0.17 0.17 − 0.05 0.05 −Ziziphus joazeiro Mart. Juazeiro 17.580 0.33 0.33 − 0.06 0.06 −



10 | EE 10(9)

Table 6 – Species identified in the veterinary category with their respective values in the category of use in the community of Várzea Alegre in themunicipality of São Mamede, Paraíba, Brazil. UV = use value. UFPB: Universidade Federal da Paraíba. CCA: Centro de Ciências Agrárias.


UFPB/CCA


general current potential general current potentialAnadenanthera colubrina (Vell) Brenan Angico 17.624 0.07 0.07 − 0.05 0.05 −Aspidosperma pyrifolium Mart. Pereiro 17.566 0.60 0.60 − 0.31 0.31 −Bauhinia pentandra (Bong.) Vogel ex Steud. Mororó 17.648 0.07 0.07 − 0.10 0.10 −Cnidoscolus quercifolius Pohl Favela 17.570 0.27 0.27 − 0.14 0.14 −Combretum fruticosum (Coefl) Stuntz Mufumbo 17.587 0.07 0.07 − 0.07 0.07 −Coutarea hexandra (Jacq.) K. Scheem. Quina-quina 17.859 0.07 − 0.07 1.00 − 1.00Cynophalla flexuosa (L.) J. Pres. L. Feijão brabo 17.583 0.13 0.13 − 0.40 0.40 −Jatropha mollissima (Pohl) Baill. Pinhão brabo 17.627 0.27 0.13 0.13 0.18 0.09 0.09Libidibia ferrea (Mart. ex Tul.) L.P.Queiroz Jucá 17.569 0.40 0.27 0.13 0.43 0.29 0.14Mimosa tenuiflora (Willd) Poir Jurema preta 17.626 0.20 0.20 − 0.08 0.08 −Piptadenia stipulaceae (Benth) Ducke Jurema branca 17.555 0.07 0.07 − 0.11 0.11 −Poincianella pyramidalis (Tul.) L. P. Queiroz Catingueira 17.234 0.13 0.13 − 0.09 0.09 −Ximenia americana L. Ameixa 17.557 0.07 0.07 − 0.20 0.20 −Ziziphus joazeiro Mart. Juazeiro 17.580 0.13 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.03

Table 7 – Species identified in the technology category and their respective values in the category of use in the community of Várzea Alegre in themunicipality of São Mamede, Paraíba, Brazil. UV = use value. UFPB: Universidade Federal da Paraíba. CCA: Centro de Ciências Agrárias.


UFPB/CCA


general current potential general current potentialAmburana cearensis (Allemão) A.C.Sm Cumarú 17.638 0.44 0.22 0.22 2.00 1.00 1.00Anadenanthera colubrina (Vell.) Brenan Angico 17.624 0.96 0.44 0.52 1.24 0.57 0.67Aspidosperma pyrifolium Mart. Pereiro 17.566 2.56 1.44 1.11 2.38 1.34 1.03Bauhinia pentandra (Bong.) Vogel ex Steud. Mororó 17.648 0.41 0.11 0.30 1.10 0.30 0.80Cedrela odorata Linn. Cedro 0.04 − 0.04 1.00 − 1.00Cnidoscolus quercifolius Pohl. Favela 17.570 0.15 0.04 0.11 0.14 0.04 0.11Combretum fruticosum (Coefl.) Stuntz Mufumbo 17.587 0.19 − 0.19 0.33 − 0.33Commiphora leptophloeos (Mart.) J.B. Gillet. Umburana 17.642 1.07 0.19 0.89 1.93 0.33 1.60Copernicia prunifera (Miller) H. E. Moore Carnaúba 17.593 1.15 0.78 0.37 1.72 1.17 0.56Crataeva tapia L. Trapiá 0.15 0.04 0.11 2.00 0.50 1.50Croton blanchetianus Baill. Marmeleiro 17.249 0.37 0.22 0.15 0.43 0.26 0.17Croton rhamnifolius Kunth. Velame 17.559 0.15 − 0.15 0.57 − 0.57Cynophalla flexuosa (L.) J. Pres. L. Feijão brabo 17.583 0.04 − 0.04 0.20 − 0.20Jatropha mollissima (Pohl.) Baill. Pinhão brabo 17.627 0.48 0.22 0.26 0.59 0.27 0.32Libidibia ferrea (Mart. ex Tul.) L.P.Queiroz Jucá 17.569 0.74 0.52 0.22 1.43 1.00 0.43



11 | EE 10(9)

Licania rigida Benth. Oiticica 17.634 0.04 − 0.04 0.14 − 0.14Luetzeburgia sp. Pau Pedra 17.875 0.19 − 0.19 0.83 − 0.83Mimosa tenuiflora (Willd.) Poir Jurema preta 17.626 0.81 0.48 0.33 0.61 0.36 0.25Myracrodruon urundeuva Allemão Aroeira 17.560 0.30 0.11 0.19 0.53 0.20 0.33Piptadenia stipulaceae (Benth) Ducke Jurema branca 17.555 0.33 0.04 0.3 1.00 0.11 0.89Plumbago scandens L. Louro 17.861 0.67 0.59 0.07 2.00 1.78 0.22Poincianella pyramidalis Tul. Catingueira 17.234 0.15 − 0.15 0.17 − 0.17Schinopsis brasiliensis Engl. Baraúna 17.255 0.15 0.04 0.11 4.00 1.00 3.00Senegalia polyphylla (DC.) Britton & Rose Jurema Amorosa 17.876 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.40 0.20 0.20Tabebuia aurea (Silva Manso) Benth. & Hook. f. ex S. Moove Craibeira 17.641 3.67 1.44 2.22 4.50 1.77 2.73Tabebuia impetiginosa (Mart. ex DC.) Standl Pau D'Arco Roxo 18.323 3.78 2.44 1.33 4.86 3.14 1.71Ziziphus joazeiro Mart. Juazeiro 17.580 0.04 − 0.04 0.03 − 0.03

Table 8 – Species identified in the ornamentation category and their respective values in the category of use in the community of Várzea Alegre in themunicipality of São Mamede, Paraíba, Brazil. UV = use-value. UFPB: Universidade Federal da Paraíba. CCA: Centro de Ciências Agrárias.


UFPB/CCA


general current potential general current potentialAspidosperma pyrifolium Mart. Pereiro 17.566 0.20 0.20 − 0.07 0.07 −Combretum fruticosum (Coefl.) Stuntz Mufumbo 17.587 0.10 − 0.10 0.07 − 0.07Copernicia prunifera (Miller) H. E. Moore Carnaúba 17.593 0.10 0.10 − 0.06 0.06 −Croton blanchetianus Baill. Marmeleiro 17.249 0.10 − 0.10 0.04 − 0.04Lagenaria vulgaris Ser. Cuité 16.475 0.10 0.10 − 1.00 1.00 −Mimosa tenuiflora (Willd.) Poir Jurema preta 17.626 0.10 0.10 − 0.03 0.03 −Myracrodruon urundeuva Allemão Aroeira 17.560 0.10 − 0.10 0.07 − 0.07Spondias tuberosa Arruda Umbuzeiro 17.556 0.10 − 0.10 0.06 − 0.06Tabebuia aurea ( Silva Manso) Benth. & Hook. f. ex S. Moove Craibeira 17.641 0.10 0.10 − 0.05 0.05 −Ziziphus joazeiro Mart. Juazeiro 17.580 0.10 0.10 − 0.03 0.03 −

Table 9 – Species identified in the poison/abortion category and their respective values in the category of use in the community of Várzea Alegre in themunicipality of São Mamede, Paraíba, Brazil. UV = use value. UFPB: Universidade Federal da Paraíba. CCA: Centro de Ciências Agrárias.


UFPB/CCA


general current potential general current potentialCopernicia prunifera (Miller) H. E. Moore Carnaúba 17.593 0.22 0.22 − 0.11 0.11 −Jatropha mollissima (Pohl.) Baill. Pinhão brabo 17.627 0.11 0.11 − 0.05 0.05 −Mimosa tenuiflora (Willd.) Poir Jurema preta 17.626 0.22 0.22 − 0.06 0.06 −Myracrodruon urundeuva Allemão Aroeira 17.560 0.11 0.11 − 0.07 0.07 −Tabebuia impetiginosa (Mart. ex DC.) Standl Pau D'Arco Roxo 18.323 0.11 0.11 − 0.05 0.05 −Ziziphus joazeiro Mart. Juazeiro 17.580 0.22 0.22 − 0.06 0.06 −



12 | EE 10(9)

Table 10 – Species identified in the other category and their respective values in the category of use in the community of Várzea Alegre in the municipalityof São Mamede, Paraíba, Brazil. UV = use value. UFPB: Universidade Federal da Paraíba. CCA: Centro de Ciências Agrárias..


UFPB/CCA


general current potential general current potentialAnadenanthera colubrina (Vell.) Brenan Angico 17.624 0.29 − 0.29 0.24 − 0.24Aspidosperma pyrifolium Mart. Pereiro 17.566 0.24 0.24 − 0.14 0.14 −Cnidoscolus quercifolius Pohl. Favela 17.570 0.29 0.12 0.18 0.18 0.07 0.11Cochlospermum vitifolium (Willd.) Spreng. Algodão brabo 17.850 0.06 0.06 − 1.00 1.00 −Commiphora leptophloeos (Mart.) J.B. Gillet. Umburana 17.642 0.12 0.06 0.06 0.13 0.07 0.07Copernicia prunifera (Miller) It.E.Moore Carnaúba 17.593 0.24 0.12 0.12 0.22 0.11 0.11Croton rhamnifolius Kunth. Velame 17.559 0.06 0.06 − 0.14 0.14 −Jatropha mollissima (Pohl.) Baill. Pinhão brabo 17.627 0.12 − 0.12 0.09 − 0.09Libidibia ferrea (Mart. ex Tul.) L.P.Queiroz Jucá 17.569 0.18 0.12 0.06 0.21 0.14 0.07Licania rigida Benth. Oiticica 17.634 0.47 0.18 0.29 1.14 0.43 0.71Luetzeburgia sp. Pau Pedra 17.875 0.12 0.06 0.06 0.33 0.17 0.17Mimosa tenuiflora (Willd.) Poir Jurema preta 17.626 0.18 0.18 − 0.08 0.08 −Sideroxylon obtusifolium (Roem & Schutt) T. D. Penn. Quixabeira 17.625 0.06 0.06 − 0.13 0.13 −Spondias tuberosa Arruda Umbuzeiro 17.556 0.06 − 0.06 0.06 − 0.06Tabebuia aurea ( Silva Manso) Benth. & Hook. f. ex S. Moove Craibeira 17.641 0.47 0.41 0.06 0.36 0.32 0.05Tabebuia impetiginosa (Mart. ex DC.) Standl Pau D'Arco Roxo 18.323 0.29 0.29 − 0.24 0.24 −Ziziphus joazeiro Mart. Juazeiro 17.580 2.53 1.12 1.41 1.26 0.56 0.71

Table 11 – Species identified in the food category and their respective values in the category of use in the community of Várzea Alegre in the municipalityof São Mamede, Paraíba, Brazil. UV = use-value. UFPB: Universidade Federal da Paraíba. CCA: Centro de Ciências Agrárias.

Species Common NameVoucher

UFPB/CCA

Traditional Calculation Differentiated CalculationUV UV UV UV UV UV

general current potential general current potentialCnidoscolus quercifolius Pohl. Favela 17.570 0.70 0.50 0.20 0.70 0.50 0.20Copernicia prunifera (Miller) H. E. Moore Carnaúba 17.593 0.40 0.10 0.30 0.40 0.10 0.30Crataeva tapia L. Trapiá - 0.10 − 0.10 0.10 − 0.10Libidibia ferrea (Mart. ex Tul.) L.P.Queiroz Jucá 17.569 0.10 0.10 − 0.10 0.10 −Sideroxylon obtusifolium (Roem & Schutt) T. D. Penn. Quixabeira 17.625 0.20 − 0.20 0.20 − 0.20Spondias monbin L. Cajarana - 0.50 0.40 0.10 0.50 0.40 0.10Spondias tuberosa Arruda Umbuzeiro 17.556 5.20 3.30 1.90 5.20 3.30 1.90Ximenia americana L. Ameixa 17.557 0.10 − 0.10 0.10 − 0.10Ziziphus joazeiro Mart. Juazeiro 17.580 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50



13 | EE 10(9)

Table 12 – Species identified in the fuel category and their respective values in the category of use in the community of Várzea Alegre in the municipalityof São Mamede, Paraíba, Brazil. UV = use value. UFPB: Universidade Federal da Paraíba. CCA: Centro de Ciências Agrárias.


UFPB/CCA


general current potential general current potentialAnadenanthera colubrina (Vell.) Brenan Angico 17.624 0.71 0.38 0.33 0.71 0.38 0.33Aspidosperma pyrifolium Mart. Pereiro 17.566 0.71 0.38 0.33 0.52 0.28 0.24Bauhinia pentandra (Bong.) Vogel ex Steud. Mororó 17.648 0.05 − 0.05 0.10 − 0.10Cnidoscolus quercifolius Pohl. Favela 17.570 0.38 0.10 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.21Combretum fruticosum (Coefl.) Stuntz Mufumbo 17.587 0.52 0.14 0.38 0.73 0.20 0.53Croton blanchetianus Baill. Marmeleiro 17.249 0.57 0.29 0.29 0.52 0.26 0.26Libidibia ferrea (Mart. ex Tul.) L.P.Queiroz Jucá 17.569 0.19 0.05 0.14 0.29 0.07 0.21Licania rigida Benth. Oiticica 17.634 0.05 − 0.05 0.14 − 0.14Luetzeburgia sp. Pau Pedra 17.875 0.05 − 0.05 0.17 − 0.17Mimosa tenuiflora (Willd.) Poir Jurema preta 17.626 2.67 2.24 0.43 1.56 1.31 0.25Myracrodruon urundeuva Allemão Aroeira 17.560 0.38 0.19 0.19 0.53 0.27 0.27Piptadenia stipulaceae (Benth) Ducke Jurema branca 17.555 0.52 0.14 0.38 1.22 0.33 0.89Poincianella pyramidalis Tul. Catingueira 17.234 1.29 0.81 0.48 1.17 0.74 0.43Senegalia polyphylla (DC.) Britton & Rose Jurema Amorosa 17.876 0.24 0.05 0.19 1.00 0.20 0.8Sideroxylon obtusifolium (Roem & Schutt) T. D. Penn. Quixabeira 17.625 0.10 − 0.10 0.25 − 0.25Spondias tuberosa Arruda Umbuzeiro 17.556 0.05 − 0.05 0.06 − 0.06Tabebuia aurea ( Silva Manso) Benth. & Hook. f. ex S.Moove Craibeira 17.641 0.10 − 0.10 0.09 − 0.09Tabebuia impetiginosa (Mart. ex DC.) Standl Pau D'Arco Roxo 18.323 0.14 − 0.14 0.14 − 0.14Ximenia americana L. Ameixa 17.557 0.10 − 0.10 0.40 − 0.40Ziziphus joazeiro Mart. Juazeiro 17.580 0.33 − 0.33 0.21 − 0.21

Table 13 – Species identified in the forage category and their respective values in the category of use in the community of Várzea Alegre in themunicipality of São Mamede, Paraíba, Brazil. UV = use value. UFPB: Universidade Federal da Paraíba. CCA: Centro de Ciências Agrárias.


UFPB/CCA


general current potential general current potentialAnadenanthera colubrina (Vell.) Brenan Angico 17.624 0.15 0.11 0.04 0.19 0.14 0.05Aspidosperma pyrifolium Mart. Pereiro 17.566 0.19 0.15 0.04 0.17 0.14 0.03Bauhinia pentandra (Bong.) Vogel ex Steud. Mororó 17.648 0.26 0.22 0.04 0.70 0.60 0.10Cnidoscolus quercifolius Pohl. Favela 17.570 0.63 0.56 0.07 0.61 0.54 0.07Combretum fruticosum (Coefl.) Stuntz Mufumbo 17.587 0.22 0.22 − 0.40 0.40 −Copernicia prunifera (Miller) H. E. Moore Carnaúba 17.593 0.11 0.11 − 0.17 0.17 −Crataeva tapia L. Trapiá - 0.04 0.04 − 0.50 0.50 −Croton blanchetianus Baill. Marmeleiro 17.249 0.26 0.22 0.04 0.30 0.26 0.04



14 | EE 10(9)

Croton rhamnifolius Kunth. Velame 17.559 0.04 0.04 − 0.14 0.14 −Cynophalla flexuosa (L.) J. Pres. L. Feijão brabo 17.583 0.19 0.11 0.07 1.00 0.60 0.40Jatropha mollissima (Pohl.) Baill. Pinhão brabo 17.627 0.07 0.07 − 0.09 0.09 −Libidibia ferrea (Mart. ex Tul.) L.P.Queiroz Jucá 17.569 0.37 0.33 0.04 0.71 0.64 0.07Licania rigida Benth. Oiticica 17.634 0.07 0.07 − 0.29 0.29 −Manihot cf. dichotoma Ule Maniçoba 17.246 0.11 0.11 − 0.38 0.38 −Mimosa tenuiflora (Willd.) Poir Jurema preta 17.626 0.74 0.67 0.07 0.56 0.50 0.06Myracrodruon urundeuva Allemão Aroeira 17.560 0.07 0.07 − 0.13 0.13 −Piptadenia stipulaceae (Benth) Ducke Jurema branca 17.555 0.37 0.37 − 1.11 1.11 −Poincianella pyramidalis Tul. Catingueira 17.234 0.52 0.52 − 0.61 0.61 −Senegalia polyphylla (DC.) Britton & Rose Jurema Amorosa 17.876 0.11 0.11 − 0.60 0.60 −Sideroxylon obtusifolium (Roem & Schutt) T. D. Penn. Quixabeira 17.625 0.04 0.04 − 0.13 0.13 −Spondias monbin L. Cajarana - 0.04 0.04 − 0.33 0.33 −Spondias tuberosa Arruda Umbuzeiro 17.556 0.44 0.41 0.04 0.75 0.69 0.06Tabebuia aurea ( Silva Manso) Benth. & Hook. f. ex S.Moove Craibeira 17.641 0.22 0.22 − 0.27 0.27 −Tabebuia impetiginosa (Mart. ex DC.) Standl Pau D'Arco Roxo 18.323 0.07 0.07 − 0.10 0.10 −Ximenia americana L. Ameixa 17.557 0.04 − 0.04 0.20 − 0.20Ziziphus joazeiro Mart. Juazeiro 17.580 0.81 0.70 0.11 0.65 0.56 0.09

Table 14 – Species identified in the medicinal category and their respective values in the category of use in the community of Várzea Alegre in themunicipality of São Mamede, Paraíba, Brazil. UV = use value. UFPB: Universidade Federal da Paraíba. CCA: Centro de Ciências Agrárias.


UFPB/CCA


general current potential general current potentialAnadenanthera colubrina (Vell.) Brenan Angico 17.624 0.07 0.07 − 0.05 0.05 −Aspidosperma pyrifolium Mart. Pereiro 17.566 0.60 0.60 − 0.31 0.31 −Bauhinia pentandra (Bong.) Vogel ex Steud. Mororó 17.648 0.07 0.07 − 0.10 0.10 −Cnidoscolus quercifolius Pohl. Favela 17.570 0.27 0.27 − 0.14 0.14 −Combretum fruticosum (Coefl.) Stuntz Mufumbo 17.587 0.07 0.07 − 0.07 0.07 −Coutarea hexandra (Jacq.) K. Scheem. Quinaquina 17.859 0.07 − 0.07 1.00 − 1.00Cynophalla flexuosa (L.) J. Pres. L. Feijão brabo 17.583 0.13 0.13 − 0.40 0.40 −Jatropha mollissima (Pohl.) Baill. Pinhão brabo 17.627 0.27 0.13 0.13 0.18 0.09 0.09Libidibia ferrea (Mart. ex Tul.) L.P.Queiroz Jucá 17.569 0.40 0.27 0.13 0.43 0.29 0.14Mimosa tenuiflora (Willd.) Poir Jurema preta 17.626 0.20 0.20 − 0.08 0.08 −Piptadenia stipulaceae (Benth) Ducke Jurema branca 17.555 0.07 0.07 − 0.11 0.11 −Poincianella pyramidalis Tul. Catingueira 17.234 0.13 0.13 − 0.09 0.09 −Ximenia americana L. Ameixa 17.557 0.07 0.07 − 0.20 0.20 −Ziziphus joazeiro Mart. Juazeiro 17.580 0.13 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.03



15 | EE 10(9)

Ferraz et al. (2006) found a null correlation between the usevalue and phytosociological parameters, and Albuquerqueet al. (2005) found an opposite result to ecologicalapparency, by which the most important species wereprecisely the rarest and the most vulnerable in the areas oflocal vegetation.

Another category that was expected to be found in anycorrelation between use value and phytosociologicalparameters was the medicinal plants, because historyreveals a widespread use of traditional medicaments in theNortheastern semi-arid region. However, the ecologicalfocus of the ecological apparency hypothesis does notseem to be applicable to this category in dry forests, at leastin the studies conducted so far, since neither the presentstudy nor that of Lucena et al. (2012a) found positivecorrelations, and only a weak correlation was found betweenrelative frequency and use value in Lucena et al. (2007).Envisioning the focus of ecological apparency from achemistry point of view, Almeida et al. (2004) tested thehypothesis with medicinal plants, also in an area of Caatinga andtheir findings do not support the prediction of apparency .This result has been confirmed by Balcazar (2012), who hasalso tested apparency with a chemical focus based onmedicinal plants used at Chapada do Araripe, Ceará state,and also found no correlation to ratify the hypothesis.

On the other hand, ecological apparency has beenratified in studies undertaken in rainforests in severalregions, mainly in the Amazon (La Torre and Islebe 2003;Galeano 2000; Paz y Minõ et al. 1991; Lawrence et al. 2005).

Has ecological apparency not been confirmed in dryforests because the methods adopted for testing them arenot efficient in these areas? Would the results be different ifthe vegetation sampling methodology was altered? Or isthe use value not a good index for testing this hypothesis?Facing such questions, there is a need for furtherdiscussions about ecological apparency and its applicabilityin regions such as the Caatinga, stimulating further studies thatmight try to explain and answer the questions mentioned above.

Regarding those species which have a wide distributionin the areas of vegetation of the São Mamede community,the ones which dominated were C. blanchetianus, B.pentandra and C. fruticosum. These species have beenrecorded in the literature as being important, because oftheir multiple uses (Lucena et al. 2007; Albuquerque andOliveira 2007; Ferraz et al. 2006; Albuquerque 2006). Thespecies cited above are found in abundance in otherBrazilian semi-arid areas, supporting the theoretical basesof the ecological apparency hypothesis (Lucena et al. 2007;Lucena et al. 2012a; Alcoforado-Filho et al. 2003).

According to Lucena et al. (2012a), the ecologicalapparency hypothesis may provide us with possible patternsin the local utilization of plant resources in areas of Caatingabut, as mentioned by the authors, this hypothesis has beeninfluenced by the uses assigned to a species by eachinterviewee. In addition, it is probable that the habits anddynamics of each community may also exert an influenceon grouping the categories for each species, with a veryspecific use attributed to each region.

Analysis of the use value

Literature has provided evidence of the limitations of theuse value; however, it is an interesting and objective indexin the analysis of the most important useful species fortraditional populations, providing necessary evaluationsabout their application, and thus seeking to minimize thelimitations. In the face of this perspective, Lucena et al.(2012a) have tested the use value in different methods ofcollecting and analysing data, differentiating the currentfrom potential uses; this same scheme was applied in thepresent study to attempt to ratify or amend the findings ofthese authors.

The species which in general had the highest use valuesin the traditional calculations were M. tenuiflora, T.impetiginosa and A. pyrifolium, and in the differentiatedcalculation M. tenuiflora, T. impetiginosa and L. ferrea.

Moreover, we noticed that the two most importantspecies were the same in both lists, with only the thirdhighest being different. The use of these species has alsobeen recorded in other areas of the Caatinga (Lucena et al.2007; Albuquerque and Andrade 2002b; Ferraz et al. 2006;Albuquerque 2006).

In the traditional calculations, M. tenuiflora, A. pyrifoliumand T. impetiginosa were dominant for the current usevalue, and T. aurea, T. impetiginosa and A. pyrifolium forpotential use. In this case, there has been a change only inthe most important species, and comparing these results tothe general use values there is also little change. In thedifferentiated calculation, M. tenuiflora, T. impetiginosa andL. ferrea were the most important for the current use valueand T. aurea, S. brasiliensis and T. impetiginosa for potential use.



16 | EE 10(9)

Considering these results generally, we have formulatedtwo questions: Are there few differences in the list of themost important species locally, which leads us to inquire ifsuch a distinction is in fact required? Or, may thecompletion of new studies bring different perspectives thatcould contribute to the understanding of such an analysis?

Similar to the present study, the changes in the list ofthe most important species were also small in Lucena et al.(2012a), modifying, in most cases, only the position in theranking. Another point worth noticing is the fact that thedifferentiated calculations applied in this study mayhighlight species even if they are not locally important. Asan example, S. brasiliensis appears as the second largestspecies of potential use; however, this species shows a highvalue as a result of being mentioned only by oneinterviewee whereas other species cited by all otherrespondents, and thus mentioned several times, show lowvalues. Taking into consideration the findings of this study,we suggest that the traditional calculation remains the mostappropriate for studies that focus on the conservation oflocal plant diversity.

CONCLUSIONS

In this work, a significant relationship of human populationswith plant resources, demonstrated through the findingsreported by inhabitants from the Várzea Alegre communityregarding the vegetal species of the surrounding matrix inthe human community, has been confirmed. The studyfound no evidence of the extraction of woody species,which may have influenced the results of the test ofecological apparency, which did not present any positivecorrelation between the use value and phytosociologicalparameters.

Based upon this study and others performed in theCaatinga that had distinct results, it is concluded that thehypothesis of ecological apparency still needs to be testedextensively in dry forests, to determine if it can or cannot beapplied in such forests. It is suggested that further studiesare carried out to test ecological apparency using differentmethods, as well as seeking a further analysis of thevegetation of the studied area.

Regarding the formulas used to calculate the use value,the suggested calculation in this work (differentiatedcalculation) was not interesting, because it was shown that itmay mask the value of use of those species which werecited a disproportionate number of times by interviewees.

LITERATURE CITED

Albuquerque, U.P. 2004. Etnobotânica aplicada àconservação da biodiversidade. Em Métodos e técnicasna pesquisa etnobotânica, U.P. Albuquerque e R.F.P.(orgs.), 139-158. Recife: Núcleo Publicações emEcologia e Etnobotânica Aplicada (NUPEEA).

Albuquerque, U.P. 2006. Re-examining hypothesesconcerning the use and knowledge of medicinal plants:a study in the Caatinga vegetation of NE Brazil. Journalof Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2: 30.

Albuquerque, U.P. e L.H. Andrade. 2002a. Conhecimentobotânico tradicional e conservação em uma área decaatinga no Estado de Pernambuco, Nordeste do Brasil.Acta Botânica Brasilica 16: 273-285.

Albuquerque, U.P. e L.H. Andrade. 2002b. Uso de recursosvegetais da caatinga: o caso do agreste do Estado dePernambuco (Nordeste do Brasil). Interciencia 27:336-345.

Albuquerque, U.P. and R.F. Oliveira. 2007. Is the use-impacton native caatinga species in Brazil reduced by high speciesrichness of medicinal plants? Ethnophaarmac 113: 156-170.

Albuquerque, U.P., R.F.P. Lucena e N.L. Alencar. 2010.Métodos e técnicas para coleta de dadosetnobiológicos. Em: Métodos e técnicas na pesquisaetnobotânica, U.P. Albuquerque and R.F.P. (orgs.), 39-64. Recife: NUPEEA.

Albuquerque, U.P., A.C.O. Silva, and L.H.C. Andrade. 2005.Use of plant resources in a seasonal dry forest(northeastern Brazil). Acta Botanica Brasilica 19 : 27-38.

Alcoforado-Filho, F.G., E.V.S.B. Sampaio e M.J.N. Rodal.2003. Florística e fitossociologia de um remanescentede vegetação caducifólia espinhosa arbórea emCaruaru, Pernambuco. Acta Botânica Brasilica 17: 287-303.

Almeida, C.F.C.B.R., M.A. Ramos, E.L.C. Amorim, and U.P.Albuquerque. 2010. A comparison of knowledge aboutmedicinal plantas for three rural communities in thesemi-arid region of northeast of Brazil. Journal ofEthnopharmacology 127: 674-684.

Almeida, C.F.C.B.R., T.C.L. Silva, E.L.C. Amorim, M.B.S. Maia,and U.P. Albuquerque. 2004. Life strategy and chemicalcomposition as predictors of the selection of medicinalplants from the caatinga (Northeast Brazil). Journal ofArid Environments Journal of Arid Environments 62 (1): 127-142.

Araújo, E.L. e E.M.N. Ferraz. 2010. Amostragem davegetação nos estudos etnobotânicos. Métodos etécnicas na pesquisa etnobiológica e etnoecológica, EmU.P. Albuquerque, R.F.P. Lucena, e L.V.F.E. Cunha, 223-253. Recife: NUPEEA.



17 | EE 10(9)

Balcazar, A.L. 2012. Hipótese da aparência na dinâmica douso de plantas medicinais na floresta nacional doAraripe (Ceará, Nordeste Do Brasil). Dissertação deMestrado. Universidade Federal Rural do Pernambuco.Recife, Pernambuco. Brasil. 80 Folhas.

Feeny, P. 1976. Plants apparency and chemical defense. InWallace, J.W.E., Nansel, R.L. (Eds). Biological interactionsbetween plants and insects. Recent Advances InPhytochemistry 10: 1-40.

Ferraz, J.S.F., U.P. Albuquerque, and I.M.J. Meunier. 2006.Valor do uso e estrutura da vegetação lenhosa àsmargens do Riacho do Navio, Floresta, PE, Brasil. ActaBotanica Brasilica 20: 25-134.

Galeano, G. 2000. Forest use at the Pacific Coast of Chocó,Colômbia: a quantitative approach. Economic Botany 54:358-376.

IBGE, Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. 2010. Inhttp://www.ibge.gov.br/cidadesat/painel/painel.php?codmun=250810# (accessed 15 November 2011).

La Torre-Cuadros, M.A. and G.A. Islebe. 2003. Traditionalecological knowledge and use of vegetation in south-eastern Mexico: a case study from Solferino, QuintanaRoo. Biodiversity and Conservation 12: 2455-2476.

Ladio, A.H. and M. Lozanda. 2004. Patterns of use andknowledge of wild edible plants in distinct ecologicalenvironments: a case study of a Mapuche communityfrom northwestern Patagonia. Biodiversity andConservation 13: 1153-1173.

Lawrence, A., Phillips, O.L., M. Reategui, S. Lopes, D. Rose,and A.J. Farfan. 2005. Local values for harvested forestplants in Madre de Dios, Peru: towards a morecontextualized interpretation of quantitativeethnobotanical data. Biodiversity and Conservation 14:45-79.

Lucena, R.F.P., E.L. Araújo, and U.P. Albuquerque. 2007.Does the local availability of Woody Caatinga plants(Northwestern Brazil) explain their use value? EconomicBotany 61(4): 347-361.

Lucena, R. F. P., Medeiros, P. M., Araújo, E. L., Alves, A. G. C.,Albuquerque, U. P. 2012a. The ecological apparencyhypothesis and the importance of useful plants in ruralcommunities from Northeastern Brazil: An assessment

based on use value. Journal of EnvironmentalManagement. 96: 106-115.

Lucena, R.F.P., A.P. Leite, K.M. Pedrosa, C.M. Lucena, C.F.AVasconcelos-Neto, and J.P.O. Ribeiro. 2012b. O uso deespécies vegetais no vale do piancó pode ser explicadopor sua disponibilidade local? BioFar 5 (especial): 55-71

Paz y Minõ, G., H. Balslev, R. Valencia y P. Mena. 1991.Lianas utilizadas por los indígenas Siona-Secoya de LaAmazonía del Ecuador. Reportes Técnicos 1. Quito,Equador: EcoCiencia.

Phillips, O. and A.H. Gentry. 1993a. The useful plants ofTambopata, Peru: I. Statistical hypotheses test with newquantitative technique. Economic Botany 47(1): 15-32.

Phillips, O. and A.H. Gentry. 1993b. The useful plants ofTambopata, Peru: II. Additional hypothesis testing inquantitative ethnobotany. Economic Botany 47 (1): 33-43.

Ribeiro, J.E.S. 2013. A hipótese da aparência ecológica podeexplicar a utilização de plantas úteis em umacomunidade rural do Curimataú da Paraíba?Monografia em Licenciatura em Ciências Agrárias.Centro de Ciências Humanas Sociais em Agrárias,Bananeiras-PB.

Ribeiro J.P.O. 2013. A hipótese da aparência ecológicapode explicar a utilização de plantas úteis em umacomunidade rural do Sertão da Paraíba? Monografiaem Licenciatura em Ciências Agrárias. Centro deCiências Humanas Sociais em Agrárias, Bananeiras-PB.

Rossato, S.C., H.F. Leitão-Filho, and A. Begossi. 1999.Ethnobotay of Caiçaras of the Atlantic Forest Coast(Brazil). Economic Botany 53: 387– 395.

Sá e Silva, I.., L. Marangon, N. Hanazaki and U. Albuquerque.2009. Use and knowledge of fuelwood in three ruralcaatinga (dryland) communities in NE Brazil. Environment,Development, and Sustainability 11: 833-852.

Salick, J., A. Biun, G. Martin, L. Apin, and R. Beamam. 1999.Whence useful plants? A direct relationship betweenbiodiversity and useful plants among the Dusun of Mt.Kinabalau. Biodiversity and Conservation 8: 797-818.

Sokal, R.R. and F.G. Rholf. 1995. Biometry. New York:Freeman and Company.

Voeks, R.A. 2006. Tropical forest healers and habitatpreference. Economic Botany 50: 381-400.



17 | EE 10(9)

























17 | EE 10(9)























THE ECOLOGICAL APPARENCY HYPOTHESIS AND DRY TROPICAL FORESTS: AN ETHNOBOTANICAL ASSESSMENT

Documents

Transcript of THE ECOLOGICAL APPARENCY HYPOTHESIS AND DRY TROPICAL FORESTS: AN ETHNOBOTANICAL ASSESSMENT