Palm Management in South America

Geovanni  Garcia

Recent advances in our understanding of the Cambrian evolutionary diversification event (Cambrian Explosion) show that although eumetazoan stem taxa were present in the late Proterozoic, a tremendous burst of macroevolutionary change occurred near the beginning of the Cambrian. Explanations relying on paleoecological feedback are insufficient to explain the macroevolutionary patterns observed, particularly those associated with the near-simultaneous appearance of new higher taxa. The diversity of biomineralization types among the small shelly fossils of the early Cambrian Period can be explained if putative ancestral scleritome bearers (found in both Proterozoic Eon and Cambrian Period strata) had, as some new data suggest, intact scleritomes that hosted individual sclerites of varying biomineral composition.

Palm Management in South America Rodrigo Bernal, Claudia Torres, Néstor García, Carolina Isaza, Jaime Navarro, Martha Isabel Vallejo, Gloria Galeano & Henrik Balslev The Botanical Review ISSN 0006-8101 Bot. Rev. DOI 10.1007/ s12229-011-9088-6 1 23 Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by The New York Botanical Garden. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your work, please use the accepted author’s version for posting to your own website or your institution’s repository. You may further deposit the accepted author’s version on a funder’s repository at a funder’s request, provided it is not made publicly available until 12 months after publication. 1 23 Author's personal copy Bot. Rev. DOI 10.1007/s12229-011-9088-6 Palm Management in South America Rodrigo Bernal1,3 & Claudia Torres1 & Néstor García1 & Carolina Isaza1 & Jaime Navarro1 & Martha Isabel Vallejo1 & Gloria Galeano1 & Henrik Balslev2 1 Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Apartado, 7495 Bogotá, Colombia Department of Biological Sciences, Aarhus University, Ny Munkegade, Building 1540, 8000 Århus C, Denmark 3 Author for Correspondence; e-mail: rgbernalg@unal.edu.co 2 # The New York Botanical Garden 2011 Abstract We reviewed information on management of useful palms in South America. We documented management for 96 species, from incidental activities intended to increase populations of wild palms to the inclusion of palms in complex agroforestry systems. Two species, Bactris gasipaes and Parajubaea cocoides, are domesticated. Managed species are remarkably fewer than species used in the region, which suggests that harvesters often disregard the fate of the species they use. The best way of managing palms is to employ harvest methods that do not decimate the populations. Although a variety of harvesting techniques have been documented, overharvest is common, and mismanagement prevails – unnecessary felling of palms in order to harvest leaves or fruits is a widespread practice. Research should focus on assessing production in response to management practices, but eradicating the habit of destructive harvest is an obvious priority. Research on palm management must be combined with actions addressed to all stakeholders of the palm/humans system. Resumen Revisamos la información sobre manejo de palmas útiles en Suramérica. Documentamos manejo para 96 especies, desde el cuidado ocasional de palmas con el fin de incrementar las poblaciones silvestres, hasta la introducción intencional de algunas especies en chagras o en sistemas agroforestales. Dos especies, Bactris gasipaes y Parajubaea cocoides, son domesticadas. Las especies manejadas son notablemente menos que las especies útiles, lo que refleja poco interés de los cosechadores por la suerte de las especies usadas. La mejor forma de manejar las palmas es emplear métodos de cosecha que no diezmen las poblaciones. Aunque se han documentado diversas técnicas de cosecha, la sobrecosecha es común y predomina el mal manejo: tumbar innecesariamente las palmas para cosechar las hojas o los frutos es una práctica común. La investigación debería enfocarse en evaluar la respuesta de las palmas a las prácticas de manejo, pero es prioritario erradicar las prácticas de cosecha destructiva. Se debe combinar la investigación sobre manejo de palmas con acciones dirigidas a todos los actores del sistema palma/hombre. Keywords Agroforestry . Arecaceae . Ethnobotany . Harvest Techniques . Sustainable Use Author's personal copy R. Bernal et al. Palabras clave Agroforestería . Arecaceae . Etnobotánica . Técnicas de Cosecha . Uso Sostenible Introduction The palm flora of South America comprises 50 genera and ca. 476 species (Pintaud et al., 2008; Noblick, 2009; Noblick & Lorenzi, 2010a, b; Bernal & Borchsenius, 2010; Bernal & Galeano, 2010; but see Dransfield et al., 2008 for a lower figure), of which 85% are endemic to the subcontinent. On the other hand, there are ca. 390 ethnic groups in this region (Lewis, 2009). The large number of species combined with the ethnic and cultural richness of the area, has given rise to an extensive diversity of palm uses and associated management practices (e. g., Macía et al., 2011). Whereas uses have been relatively well documented, management of the involved species is not always discussed by authors, despite its great relevance for guaranteeing the long-term availability of the resource. In this paper we review currently available information on palm management in South America. We circumscribe management, following Clement (1992), as a less sophisticated form of cultivation that may include some kind of protection by humans and some genetic modifications of the species involved. As a framework for our analysis, we provide an overview of palm use (Table 1), including only general use categories and citing only the most important species. Table 1 Summary of the Most Important Uses of South American Palms Use category Part used Species Food Fruit Aiphanes horrida, Attalea amygdalina, Domestic consumption, local A. maripa, A. speciosa, Bactris gasipaes, B. guineensis, Euterpe oleracea, E. precatoria, Mauritia flexuosa, Oenocarpus bacaba, O. bataua, O. minor Oil Attalea allenii, A. butyracea, A. colenda, A. phalerata, A. spectabilis, A. speciosa, Elaeis oleifera, Oenocarpus bacaba, O. bataua, O. minor Domestic consumptiom, local Palm heart Bactris gasipaes, Euterpe edulis, E. oleracea, E. precatoria National, international Leaf Attalea butyracea, A. maripa, Geonoma deversa, Lepidocaryum tenue, Manicaria saccifera, Sabal mauritiiformis Domestic consumption Stem Euterpe oleracea, Iriartea deltoidea, Socratea exorrhiza Domestic consumption Spear leaf Astrocaryum chambira, A. malybo, A. standleyanum, Mauritia flexuosa Regional, national Seed Phytelephas aequatorialis, P. macrocarpa National, international Stem Desmoncus polyacanthos Local, regional Sheath Aphandra natalia, Attalea funifera, Leopoldinia piassaba Local, regional Leaf Copernicia prunifera International Construction Handicraft Cosmetic Most common level of trade Author's personal copy Palm Management in South America Palm management is analyzed from the perspective of the human groups involved, the palm products marketed, the associated land use and land tenure, the harvest techniques and seasons, and other associated practices. Finally, we give an overview of use as a conservation strategy. Methods We searched for information in published sources and, when possible, in unpublished reports, theses or other types of gray literature, in order to recover valuable information that otherwise remains unnoticed. Review of gray literature is particularly biased for Colombia, where we were able to revise several libraries of government agencies and NGO’s. Information from the documents was tabulated, and analyzed considering three major aspects associated to management of non timber forest products (Ticktin, 2004): type of land use (mixed forest, palm stands, fallow plots, agroforestry systems, pastures, plantations), harvest techniques (felling, climbing the palms or a neighboring tree, cutting leaves, harvesting from the ground), and associated practices (pruning, thinning, weeding, pest control, fertilization, enrichment of harvested areas, fire use, harvest area rotation, selective harvest, seasonal restriction, transplanting). The review is focused on management of wild, semi-wild and, to a lesser extent, small-scale cultivated palms. We have not included cases of palms cultivated at large scales, like Bactris gasipaes. Palm nomenclature follows Pintaud et al. (2008), except for Oenocarpus mapora, which is considered a synonym of O. minor following Galeano and Bernal (2010). Results We found information on management for 96 species of palms. The most important products derived from South American palms are edible fruits, palm hearts, oils, stems and leaves for construction, and various palm parts for making a variety of implements (Table 1). Management ranged from incidental activities intended to increase the growth of the populations of wild palms, to the inclusion of palms in complex agroforestry systems. In some cases, prospective, large-scale uses have been suggested for some species: Mauritia flexuosa and Attalea butyracea have been looked at as potential sources of biofuel (Forero et al., 2003; Miranda et al., 2008a, b; Bernal et al., 2010); A. butyracea has been investigated for its use as animal feed and as a source of charcoal (Devia et al., 2002); and Astrocaryum vulgare, Attalea speciosa, Copernicia prunifera, and M. flexuosa were recently suggested as possible sources for geotextiles used in erosion control (Mendonça, 2006). Human Groups Uses and management of South American palms are mostly made by Amerindians, Afroamericans, and mestizos or caboclos, the latter two being broad terms Author's personal copy R. Bernal et al. encompassing ethnically mixed people, many of whom regard themselves as ‘white’. Indigenous peoples of South America comprise 4.2% of the population in the subcontinent (Albó et al., 2009), and they represent the best documented cases of palm management (Appendix 1). This may be due in part to the large diversity of Amerindian groups in our study area, and to their longer history of permanence in the territory, but it is also a result of the greater focus of researchers on this human group. We found records of management of 45 palm species by Amerindian groups, i.e., one tenth of all species occurring in South America and almost half of all the species for which management practices are documented. Palm management by mestizos or caboclos is documented for 68 species, many of them in Brazil. Remarkable cases include management of Euterpe edulis (Reis et al., 2000c), E. oleracea (Pierce & Shanley, 2002), E. precatoria (Schmidt, 2003) for the production of palm heart in the Atlantic forest and the Amazon in Brazil, and fruit production from Mauritia flexuosa (Anderson et al., 1995) on the flood plain of the Amazon estuary. Other examples of palms managed by mestizos are Astrocaryum standleyanum which is used for production of leaf fibers in Pacific Ecuador and Aphandra natalia which, in the Amazon of Ecuador, is managed for production of piassaba fibers from the leaf sheaths (Borgtoft Pedersen, 1992, 1994; Fadiman, 2003). In Colombia mestizos manage Astrocaryum malybo for production of leaf fibers (Barrera et al., 2007b; Linares et al., 2008), Attalea butyracea for production of fruits for animal feed (Moreno et al., 1991), and Phytelephas macrocarpa for seed production (Torres & Perdomo, 2008). In Peru mestizos manage Oenocarpus minor for production of fruits (de Jong, 2001, as Oenocarpus mapora). Afroamericans comprise 10.4% of the population in Colombia (Vicepresidencia República de Colombia, 2010) and 5% in Ecuador (Guerrero, 2005). Information on palm management by Afroamericans is relatively scarce, in spite of their predominance on the Pacific lowlands of Colombia and northern Ecuador, one of the areas with extremely high palm richness (Bjorholm et al., 2005). Interesting cases include management of Phytelephas aequatorialis for vegetable ivory production in Ecuador (Velásquez, 1998), Euterpe oleracea for palm heart production in Colombia (Corponariño, 1989; Muñoz, 2007), and Astrocaryum standleyanum for fiber production in Ecuador (Fadiman, 2003). Palm Products Marketed Products obtained from palms may be used domestically, with no associated trade, or they may enter market chains that range from small-scale, local markets to national or international trade. Local markets include trade with fruits, fruit derivatives, seeds, palm hearts, palm wine, palm weevil larvae, tiles for thatch, and various implements like brooms, hats, fans, and fly brushes (e.g., Johnson, 1982; Bernal, 1992; Borgtoft Pedersen & Balslev, 1992; Mejía, 1992; Kahn & Moussa, 1999; Narváez & Stauffer, 1999; Macía, 2004; Lawrence et al., 2005; Bernal et al., 2010). The most commonly sold palm fruits in local markets are those of Bactris gasipaes, Mauritia flexuosa, Oenocarpus bataua, Euterpe oleracea, Euterpe precatoria, Astrocaryum aculeatum, Acrocomia aculeata, Aiphanes horrida, and Bactris guineensis (Bernal, 1992; Mejía, 1992; Moussa & Author's personal copy Palm Management in South America Kahn, 1997; Miranda et al., 2008a, b; Galeano & Bernal, 2010). Palm nuts that are commonly sold include Aiphanes horrida and Attalea amygdalina in Colombia (Bernal, 1992; Suárez, 2001), Parajubaea cocoides in Ecuador (Balslev & Barfod, 1987), and P. torrallyi in Bolivia (L. de la Torre, pers. comm.). Palm heart obtained from E. precatoria is sold in local markets in Peru (Mejía, 1992; Ríos, 2001), Bolivia (Peña-Claros & Zudeima, 2000), and Brazil (Nepstad et al., 1992), and palm heart of E. oleracea is sold in Brazil (Strudwick & Sobel, 1988). Palm wine (from Attalea butyracea) is sold at local level in Colombia (Bernal, 1992; Pulgarín & Bernal, 2004; Bernal et al., 2010). Palm beetle larvae are sold as a delicacy throughout Amazon markets (e.g., Mejía, 1992) and at some places on the western slopes of the Andes in Ecuador (L. de la Torre, pers. comm.).Tiles for thatching made from leaves of Lepidocaryum tenue braided on split palm stems are sold along the Amazon River from Iquitos to Tabatinga (Mejía, 1992; Navarro et al., 2011) and from leaves of Geonoma deversa in Bolivian Amazon (PaniaguaZambrana, 2005). A wide variety of implements made from palm stems, leaves, inflorescences, fruits or seeds are common in local markets throughout the area (Bernal, 1992; Mejía, 1992; Málaga Valencia et al., 1996). Much fewer palm products reach markets beyond the production areas, and edible products derived from palms seldom reach major cities. Major exceptions are palm hearts, which reach national markets as a by-product of their mostly international market (Strudwick & Sobel, 1988; Linares, 1991; Bernal, 1992; Meza, 2001; Moraes, 2001; Ríos, 2001; Pierce & Shanley, 2002; Goulding & Smith, 2007); the fruits of Bactris gasipaes, which have made it into many large cities in Colombia (González, 2007); palm honey from the Chilean wine palm, Jubaea chilensis which is sold in domestic markets in Chile (González et al., 2009); fibers or items derived from them; spear leaves to be used during Easter (e.g., Montúfar et al., 2010) and handicrafts made from several palm species, notably in Astrocaryum and Phytelephas (Borgtoft Pedersen, 1992, 1994; Castaño et al., 2007; Hübschmann et al., 2007; Lozano, 2007; Linares et al., 2008). The most important export product entering international trade is palm heart, which in 2008 generated a revenue of USD 100.26 million to the five largest exporting countries, Ecuador, Brazil, Bolivia, Peru and Colombia (CICO, 2009; Proexport, 2009; Agrodataperu, 2010; IBCE, 2010). Most palm heart in commerce comes from Bactris gasipaes, Euterpe oleracea, E. precatoria, and E. edulis. Bactris gasipaes is produced in plantations, and will not be further dealt with here. Other exports to the international market include fruits of Attalea speciosa (Mitja & Ferraz, 2001) and E. oleracea from Brazil (Brondizio et al., 2002; Goulding & Smith, 2007); E. precatoria from Venezuela (Van Looy et al., 2008); B. gasipaes and, to a lesser extent, Mauritia flexuosa from Peru (Ríos, 2001; SUNAT, 2006); piassava fibers of Attalea funifera from Brazil (Voeks, 1988), and those of Leopoldinia piassaba from Colombia and Brazil (Centro de Comercio Internacional, 1969; Crizón, 2001; Linares et al., 2008), both of which were an important export product in the 19th century (Wallace, 1853); thatch tiles woven with leaves of Geonoma deversa from Bolivia (L. de la Torre, pers. comm.); handicrafts made from seeds of Phytelephas, Ammandra, and Astrocaryum from Ecuador and Colombia (Borgtoft Pedersen, 1994; SUNAT, 2006; Linares et al., 2008; Torres & Perdomo, 2008), and oil for cosmetics from Attalea speciosa from Bolivia (IBCE, 2009). Author's personal copy R. Bernal et al. Associated Land Use Most palm products in South America are harvested from wild plants growing at relatively low densities in species-rich ecosystems. In some cases, however, products are harvested from large homogeneous palm stands that cover extensive areas, as is the case with palm heart from Euterpe oleracea (e.g., van Andel, 2000a; Valente & Almeida, 2001); fruits from Mauritia flexuosa (e.g., Castaño et al., 2007; Meza, 2001); fruits and leaves from Butia capitata (Pezzani, 2007) and Parajubaea torrallyi (L. de la Torre, pers. comm.), and palm wine from Jubaea chilensis (González et al., 2009). Other palm products are harvested from isolated palm individuals surviving in pastures or other deforested areas; examples of these include leaf sheath fibers from Aphandra natalia in Ecuador (Borgtoft Pedersen, 1992), leaf fibers from Astrocaryum malybo, fruits from Attalea butyracea, Ceroxylon spp., and Copernicia tectorum in Colombia (Galeano & Bernal, 2005; Barrera et al., 2007a, b; Bernal et al., 2010), fruits from Attalea speciosa and A. phalerata in Brazil (May, 1991; Pinheiro, 2004), palm sap from Jubaea chilensis in Chile (González et al., 2009), and leaves and fruits from Butia capitata in Uruguay (Pezzani, 2007). Some palms are planted in fallows or they are selectively favored when the forest is cleared for swidden-fallow agriculture. In the Amazon, common palms in fallow plots include Astrocaryum aculeatum, A. chambira, Euterpe oleracea, E. precatoria, Oenocarpus bataua, O. minor and Mauritia flexuosa (Strudwick & Sobel, 1988; Hammond et al., 1995; Moussa & Kahn, 1997; de Jong, 2001; Schmidt, 2003; Miranda et al., 2008; Flores et al., 2009). In other cases, palms are components of more complex agroforestry systems; in the lowlands, these systems involve crops like cocoa (Theobroma cacao), avocado (Persea americana), guamo (Inga spp.), bananas (Musa spp.), papaya (Carica papaya), pineapple (Ananas comosus), and timber trees like Cedrela odorata and Tabebuia spp., and include the palms Attalea colenda, A. speciosa, B. gasipaes, Euterpe oleracea, E. precatoria, Mauritia flexuosa, Oenocarpus bataua, and Phytelephas aequatorialis (Johnson, 1983, 2002; May et al., 1985b; Clement, 1986, 1989; King & Forero, 1988; Blicher-Mathiesen & Balslev, 1990; Borgtoft Pedersen & Balslev, 1990; Dubois, 1990; Dos Santos, 2000; Ríos, 2001; Varón & Zapata, 2001; Vieira et al., 2007; van Looy et. al., 2008). In the Andes, agroforestry systems with palms include crop plants like coffee (Coffea arabica), sugar cane (Saccharum officinarum), guava (Psidium guajava), shade or timber trees (e.g., Cordia alliodora, Ochroma pyramidale, Inga edulis, Erythrina edulis), and bamboo (Guadua angustifolia). Palms found in these Andean agroforestry systems include Aiphanes horrida (Galeano & Bernal, 1987, as A. caryotifolia), Ceroxylon alpinum, C. echinulatum, and C. sasaimae (Galeano & Bernal, 2005; Pintaud & Anthelme, 2008). The most elaborate step in the spectrum of palm management is domestication. Only two species among South American palms can be considered as domesticated, according to Clement’s (1992) criteria of being cultivated and having at least one landrace dependent upon human intervention for its continued genetic survival: the rain forest peach palm, Bactris gasipaes (Clement, 1992), and the Andean coco, Parajubaea cocoides, known only in cultivation in Ecuador and southern Colombia, and probably derived from the wild Parajubaea torralyi (Moraes & Henderson, 1990). Whereas B. gasipaes played a major role in human nutrition since pre- Author's personal copy Palm Management in South America Columbian times (Patiño, 1963) and has become a widespread crop, Parajubaea cocoides has been cultivated only in cities and towns, with the double role of ornamental and nut-producing palm (Balslev & Barfod, 1987). Land Tenure Although information on land ownership is not included in most of the references reviewed, in many cases use appears to be associated to communal lands or protected areas, such as Amerindian reservations (Balick, 1988a; van Andel, 2000; Costa & Duarte, 2002; Cruz, 2006; Patiño, 2006; Castaño et al., 2007; Balslev et al., 2008; Linares et al., 2008), extractive reserves (Nepstad et al., 1992; Pinard, 1993; IMAFLORA, 2004; Rocha, 2004; Clement et al., 2005), communal lands of Afrodescendants in Colombia and Ecuador (Galeano & Bernal, 1987; Velásquez, 1998; van Andel, 2000; Hernández, 2003; Torres & Perdomo, 2008), or national parks and reserves (Reis et al., 2000c; Svenning & Macía, 2002; Llamozas et al., 2003; PaniaguaZambrana, 2005; Pezzani, 2007; Aguilar-Mena, 2008; Holm et al., 2008; Flores et al., 2009; Thompson et al., 2009) (Appendix 1). Remarkable cases are found in Chile and Uruguay, where Jubaea chilensis and Butia capitata are exploited in private areas within a national park and a biosphere reserve, respectively. In some cases harvest is made in the peasant’s own property, whereas in other areas, landless peasants harvest palms in private lands with or without permission from the land owners, as is the case with Attalea speciosa (Pinheiro, 2004) and Butia capitata (Carvalho, 2008) in Brazil, and with Astrocaryum malybo, Copernicia tectorum and Attalea butyracea in northern Colombia (Barrera et al., 2007a, b; Bernal et al., 2010). Harvest Techniques Harvesting palm products may involve either destructive felling of palm stems or non-destructive harvest of fruits, leaves, fibers or other plant parts. Destructive felling may be necessary in cases where the product to be harvested is the stem itself. However, in many cases the literature documents destructive harvest by felling, even when the products could be harvested without felling. Necessary Felling of Stems Stems must be felled when palms are used for their wood, palm hearts, starch, or as a substrate for rearing weevil larvae. When palms are cut for their wood, it most often involves domestic uses such as construction or manufacture of weapons, which require a relatively small number of stems. Such uses are widespread throughout South America, and in most cases, this kind of domestic use is probably not associated with other management practices related to the felling, and its impact is probably limited. In the Colombian Amazon, for example, the roof of a large communal house or maloka, measuring ca. 100 m2, is thatched with leaves of the understory palm Lepidocaryum tenue that are braided onto split stems of 25 individuals of the tall canopy palm Socratea exorrhiza (R. Bernal, pers. obs.). In some cases, however, palm stems enter market chains, where the demand poses a stronger pressure on the resource, as is the case with stems of Iriartea deltoidea that are Author's personal copy R. Bernal et al. used for construction, for posts, for making furniture, musical instruments and more (Anderson & Putz, 2002; Galeano, pers. obs.; L. de la Torre, pers. comm.), Socratea exorrhiza that is used for roof construction (Navarro et al., 2011),Copernicia tectorum that is used for manufacturing hats (Petit, 2001; Artesanías de Colombia, 2009), species of Wettinia in Colombia used in construction (R. Bernal, pers. obs.), and stems of Desmoncus polyacanthos used in Peru for weaving furniture and baskets (Henderson & Chávez, 1993; Hübschmann et al., 2007). With the exception of Desmoncus polyacanthos, seeds of which are sometimes scattered in the forest by harvesters (Hübschmann et al., 2007), we found no reference indicating any kind of replacement planting for these species. Desmoncus has the additional advantage of producing several stems per individual, which minimizes impact of stem cutting. Palm heart exploitation is also intrinsically destructive, as the harvested product comes from the stem’s growing point, and its extraction necessarily implies excising the crown. Although palm heart is extracted from many different palms for domestic consumption, at least one species, Prestoea acuminata, is regularly consumed during Easter in Colombia, causing a strong pressure on local populations of this cespitose palm (Gamba Trimiño, 2004); although, in practice, this ritual seasonality of use works as a management plan, it is probably not intended as such. This species was also at some point the source of a canning industry in Ecuador (Knudsen, 1995), but its wild populations do not support a harvest intensity beyond domestic consumption (Knudsen, 1995; Gamba Trimiño, 2004), and now it has been replaced in commerce by palm hearts from the cultivated Bactris gasipaes (Borchsenius & Moraes, 2006; L. de la Torre, pers,. comm.). The three major wild sources of palm hearts in commerce are species of Euterpe. Two of them, Euterpe edulis and E. precatoria, have solitary stems, whereas E. oleracea is cespitose. Exploitation of Euterpe edulis in southeastern Brazil has long been conducted without any management and its harvest has been considered unsustainable (Ribeiro et al., 1994; Orlande et al., 1996; Galleti & Fernández, 1998; Quitete, 2008), although it might be sustainable if management plans were followed. These plans include respecting a minimal harvest diameter of 8.5 cm, harvest cycles of 5–6 years, and leaving untouched 50–60 reproductive adults per ha (Reis et al., 2000a, b, c). Euterpe precatoria is exploited without any management in Amazonian Peru (Ríos, 2001; Meza, 2001) and Bolivia (Johnson, 1996; Stoian, 1999, 2000; Herrera, 2000; Peña-Claros & Zuidema, 2000; Zuidema & Boot, 2000; Moraes, 2001), although in the latter country a management plan and the corresponding law are available (Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible, República de Bolivia, 2006). Its harvest is considered unsustainable by most authors (Peña-Claros, 1996; PeñaClaros & Zuidema, 2000; Zuidema & Boot, 2000), unless exploited at low harvest intensities (25–50% of all adult palms) and long cycles (16–32 years) (Zuidema & Boot, 2000), which would probably be unprofitable. Euterpe oleracea is exploited in estuarine areas of Brazil (e.g., Jardim & Anderson, 1987; Anderson, 1988; Pollack et al., 1995), Guyana (van Andel, 2000), Venezuela (Finol, 1978), and Colombia (Tibaquirá, 1980; Corponariño, 1989). Its cespitose habit offers excellent possibilities for management, and its harvest is considered sustainable by most authors (e.g., Muniz-Miret et al., 1996; Weinstein & Moegenburg, 2004), although overharvest once led to temporary population depletion in some areas of the Pacific lowlands of Colombia (Bernal & Galeano, 1993). Management practices include selective Author's personal copy Palm Management in South America cutting of stems in a clump, elimination of other trees in the palm stands, and planting of seedlings near dwellings (Vallejo et al., in press). Extraction of palm starch is another activity that requires cutting of palm stems. The most important sources of this resource in South America are Mauritia flexuosa (Heinen & Ruddle, 1974) and Manicaria saccifera (Wilbert, 1976), both of them used by the Warao of the Orinoco delta, and Syagrus romanzoffiana, formerly used by the Aché of Paraguay (Vellard, 1939). It has been hypothesized that another species, Iriartea deltoidea, was used for starch-extraction in the past by hunters-gatherers from the Vaupés River of Brazil and Colombia, but that this practice is now forgotten (Bernal et al., 2007). Only Mauritia is used today as a source of starch, in the Orinoco delta, but no management practice is known in connection with this use. The use of palms as a substrate for rearing weevil larvae has been documented for many Amerindian communities in South America. In many cases, the larvae are simply extracted from stems that have fallen naturally or have been felled for other purpose (e.g., Galeano, 1992). However, there are documented cases of palm felling exclusively for providing a habitat for these larvae. In Amazonian Venezuela, the Jotï Indians cut down Oenocarpus bacaba palms and make wedge-shaped cuttings near the stem apex, deep enough to penetrate the pith, in order to facilitate colonization by Rhynchophorus palmarum and R. barbirostris (Choo et al., 2009). In northeastern Colombia, the Bari Indians cut down Oenocarpus bataua palms to harvest larvae that develop in the stems within 2 months (Beckerman, 1977). Clastres (1972) reported a similar use of palms by the Aché of Paraguay, and Dufour (1987) described an intermediate situation, where palms are cut down to get their fruits, but with the expectation that they will be invaded by weevils and the larvae will be ready to harvest within 2 or 3 months. In none of these cases there seems to be any additional kind of management. Unnecessary Felling of Palms In some cases palms are felled to harvest their fruits, seeds, expanded or unexpanded leaves, sap or fibers, even when these products could have been obtained without cutting down the palms. The destructive option is preferred because it is easier and quicker. The most dramatic examples include cutting down individuals just to get their fruits, as is practiced for Mauritia flexuosa in Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru (e.g., Peters et al., 1989; Ruiz-Murrieta, 1991; Ojeda-Salvador, 1994; Hiraoka, 1999; Castaño et al., 2007; Manzi & Coomes, 2009), and for Oenocarpus bataua in the same countries and also in Bolivia (e.g., Borgtoft Pedersen & Balslev, 1992; Aguilar-Mena, 2008; Miranda et al., 2008). Other cases of similar mismanagement include harvest of spear leaves of Astrocaryum chambira in Amazonia (Borgtoft Pedersen & Balslev, 1992), A. standleyanum on the Pacific coast of Colombia and Ecuador (Fadiman, 2003; Linares et al., 2008), and leaf sheath fibers of Aphandra natalia in Ecuador and Peru (Borgtoft Pedersen, 1992; Kronborg et al., 2008). These three species offer interesting contrasting cases of sustainable and unsustainable management depending on the users. Whereas tall palms are cut down in some areas (Borgtoft Pedersen & Balslev, 1992; Fadiman, 2003; López et al., 2006; Kronborg et al., 2008; Linares et al., 2008), in other areas spear leaves of Astrocaryum species are harvested using a chisel attached Author's personal copy R. Bernal et al. at the tip of a long pole (Borgtoft Pedersen, 1994; Holm Jensen & Balslev, 1995; Cruz, 2006), and fibers of Aphandra are harvested using a ladder (Borgtoft Pedersen, 1992). In most cases of palm felling, harvesters claim that they cut down only very tall individuals that cannot be climbed or reached with poles or ladders. In reality, what happens in most areas is that harvesters cut virtually any palm whose leaves or infructescences are beyond easy reach. In most cases palms that are felled could have been collected with the use of some basic tools, which usually are already known by locals, and even used by some of them (Vásquez & Gentry, 1989; de Castro, 1993a; Bovi, 1999a; Varón & Zapata, 2001; Vormisto, 2002; Zent & Zent, 2002; Castaño et al., 2007; Linares et al., 2008; R. Bernal, pers. obs.). A case that illustrates that excessive height is not always the true reason for cutting down palms is what used to happen in Ecuador with tagua, Phytelephas aequatorialis, during the 20th century. Although the ideal stage for collecting seeds of this palm is when they have fallen to the ground, during the golden age of tagua harvesters would sometimes cut down palms (which are only 3–5 m tall), in order to collect fruits that were still not fully ripe (Acosta Solís, 1944). In contrast with described mismanagement, where ignorance of alternative harvest methods can hardly justify cutting down palms, sap extraction presents an interesting case of mismanagement due to lack of implementation of techniques used elsewhere. Two South American palms are particularly relevant as sources of palm sap –Attalea butyracea in Colombia (Pulgarín & Bernal, 2004; Bernal et al., 2010), and Jubaea chilensis in Chile (González, 1994; González et al., 2009). Both species are tall, massive palms with stems up to 50 cm or more in diameter, and both of them are cut down to obtain sap, which flows through the meristem, after removing the leaves and cutting out a cavity on the meristematic area. In Colombia, sap of Attalea is fermented and sold locally as a low-status, homebrewed ‘wine’. Due to the low standard of the product it has not generated a significant demand. Therefore, there is no specific management of the palm for this purpose, and palms are just cut as needed. Sap of the Chilean Jubaea, in contrast, is concentrated into a thick honey that is canned or bottled and distributed in national markets. Thus, production has generated management plans, and only 30 selected palms per year are cut down at the most important sap processing place (González et al., 2009), which has resulted in a healthy age distribution in the population. But the destructive nature of sap extraction in South America is remarkable, when compared with the way sap is sustainably extracted through the inflorescences of standing plants of several palm species in South Asia and in some places in Africa. Throughout South Asia, sap is extracted from inflorescences of the sugar palm Arenga pinnata (Miller, 1964; Mogea et al., 1991), the palmyra palm Borassus flabellifer (Dissanayake, 1986; Khieu, 1996), the solitary fish tail palm Caryota urens (Dissanayake, 1977, 1986), the coconut Cocos nucifera (Kitze & Johnson, 1975), the mangrove palm Nypa fruticans (Fong, 1989; Miah et al., 2003), and from the upper part of the stem in sugar date palm Phoenix sylvestris (Kitze & Johnson, 1975). In Senegal sap for producing wine is tapped from Elaeis guineensis by drilling a hole in the stem just below the crown, and inserting a small tube to collect the liquid (H. Balslev, pers. obs.). In none of these cases are the palms killed. The only place in the Western Hemisphere where non-destructive tapping is used is the coast of Michoacán, Mexico, where coconut tapping was introduced in the 16th Author's personal copy Palm Management in South America century by Philippines brought to work on coconut palm plantations (Bruman, 1945; Zizumbo-Villarreal & Colunga-GarcíaMarín, 2008). Since species tapped without felling the palm represent diverse growth habits and belong to three different subfamilies, there is no reason why the same technique could not be employed properly in the harvest of palm sap from Attalea and Jubaea. Preliminary research in Chile suggests that Jubaea can be tapped without felling the palms (Gonzalez et al., 2009), by cutting about one third of all leaves in the crown, as is done with Phoenix canariensis in the Canary Islands. Nondestructive Harvest of Palms In some cases, harvest of fruits, seeds, leaves, and fibers from tall individuals is carried out through the use of appropriate tools or techniques, and the palms are not cut down. These techniques include climbing the palm, reaching the crown with a ladder, reaching the required structure from a neighboring tree, and using a cutting tool attached to a pole. The most basic type of stem climbing is direct unaided ascent, using just hands and feet to push the body up the stem (Borgtoft Pedersen, 1992; Zent & Zent, 2002; Weinstein & Moegenburg, 2004). This is done when harvesting palms that are not too tall or too massive, and, of course, palms that are not spiny. It is most often used to cut infructescences. Palms climbed in this way to harvest their fruits include Aphandra natalia, Euterpe precatoria, E. oleracea, Oenocarpus bacaba and O. bataua. An improvement of this basic climbing, making some cuttings along the stem to use them as steps, is commonly done with the coconut palm, Cocos nucifera along the coasts of South America (Borgtoft Pedersen & Balslev, 1993), but we found no references of its use in other species. This practice is suitable for palms that are not too thin or too hard, like Mauritia flexuosa, Oenocarpus bataua, or some species of Attalea. Another, more elaborate, climbing technique consists in making a ring with a liana or a rope around the stem that will be climbed, leaving it loose enough for one foot to fit into the ring on each side of the stem. Both feet are then inserted in the ring, just below the ankles and, by applying the soles against the stem while pulling the legs open, body weight is partially converted to horizontal pressure against the stem (and against the ankles!), thus holding the feet in place while the body is stretched upwards. The feet and the ring are then pulled upwards while holding the body in place with the arms, and a new thrust is made with the feet (Borgtoft Pedersen & Balslev, 1993; R. Bernal, pers. obs.). A palm leaf can be used instead of a liana or a rope (Strudwick & Sobel, 1988). This technique has been observed for harvest of fruits of Oenocarpus in the Colombian Amazon (R. Bernal, pers. obs.), and is probably the one used for Sabal mauritiiformis (Moreno et al., 1991), Mauritia flexuosa (Vásquez & Gentry, 1989), and Euterpe precatoria (de Castro, 1993b), although these sources do not describe in detail how the ropes are used. The most elaborate climbing device used in South America consists in two X-shaped wooden structures used in Manaus, Brazil, to climb the spiny stems of Bactris gasipaes (Borgtoft Pedersen & Balslev, 1993). One angle of each structure is pressed against the stem, and the two ends of the X are tied with a rope, leaving the stem inside the formed triangle. Awooden piece connects the two other ends. The harvester alternately pulls up the lower X with his feet while sitting on the upper triangle, and then pushes Author's personal copy R. Bernal et al. up the upper X while standing on the lower one. This technique, called marotaje in Colombia, was introduced in the 1990s to the Río Anchicayá, in western Colombia, for the management of Bactris gasipaes (J. Ceballos, pers. comm.). Commercial climbing devices like spurs or ‘palm bicycles’ have been also cited in some sources (Bohórquez, 1972; de Castro, 1993a) for harvesting Mauritia flexuosa, but their cost would probably make them inaccessible to most rural people. Palm bicycles given by an NGO to the Shuar and Achuar in Ecuador for harvesting Oenocarpus bataua were not adopted by all users (L. de la Torre, pers. comm.). Using a ladder to harvest palm fruits, leaves or fibers is a relatively uncommon practice. It has been documented for Aphandra natalia (Borgtoft Pedersen, 1992), Attalea butyracea (Moreno et al., 1991), Euterpe oleracea (M. I. Vallejo, pers. obs.), and Mauritia flexuosa (Vásquez & Gentry, 1989). The limited use of this practice is probably due to the difficulty of moving a ladder through the forest or the palm stand, plus the damage that it would suffer if left outdoors. Sometimes a pole or a bamboo stem with carved out steps is left leaning on the palms, and used as an easy way for recurrent climbing. This method is documented for harvesting leaves of Astrocaryum chambira in Peru (Vormisto, 2002) and for harvesting Attalea butyracea in Colombia (Cocomá 2010; I. Olivares, pers. comm.). We did not find references of steps being attached with ropes to the palm stems, as is done in Asia for harvesting the coconut palm (e.g., Thampan, 1975). In some cases, fruits or spear leaves are reached by climbing a neighboring tree (Vásquez & Gentry, 1989; Borgtoft Pedersen & Balslev, 1993; Coomes, 2004; Castaño et al., 2007). According to Borgtoft Pedersen and Balslev (1993), the Waorani of Ecuador, when planting a Bactris gasipaes palm, sometimes also plant a Cecropia tree (sic, most likely a Pourouma cecropiifolia) nearby, and climb the latter to get the palm’s fruits. In other cases, fruits or leaves are harvested using a pole with a chisel or a machete attached to one end. This practice has been documented for harvesting spear leaves of Astrocaryum standleyanum (Fadiman, 2003; Torres, 2007; Linares et al., 2008), A. chambira (Holm Jensen & Balslev, 1995; Vormisto, 2002), A. aculeatum (Schroth et al., 2004, as A. tucuma), and Copernicia tectorum (Barrera et al., 2007a); expanded leaves of Sabal mauritiiformis (Moreno et al., 1991), and fruits of Bactris gasipaes (Erazo-Rivadeneira & García, 2001) and Mauritia flexuosa (de Castro, 1993a). For some species, such as Oenocarpus bataua, the peduncle is apparently too thick and fibrous to be cut in this way (Borgtoft Pedersen & Balslev, 1993). Fibers of Attalea funifera sometimes are harvested with a hook attached to the end of a pole (Voeks, 1988). In palms with hard fruits, or when the desired product is the seed, fallen fruits or seeds can be harvested directly from the ground. This practice has been documented for Acrocomia aculeata (Lleras & Coradin, 1984), Astrocaryum vulgare (Valente & Almeida, 2001), Attalea colenda (Blicher-Mathiesen & Balslev, 1990; Borgtoft Pedersen & Balslev, 1992), A. maripa (Vásquez & Gentry, 1989), A. speciosa (Pinheiro & Ferro, 1995; Anderson et al., 2001; Lima-Rufino et al., 2008), Syagrus coronata (Lima-Rufino et al., 2008), Phytelephas aequatorialis (Acosta Solís, 1944), P. macrocarpa (Bernal, 1998, as P. seemannii), and Ammandra decasperma (Ramírez & Morales, 2003). This kind of harvest is the ideal one, as it causes no damage to the palm, but it is not suitable for all species, particularly those with soft mesocarp. Even Author's personal copy Palm Management in South America so, fruits of some species with soft mesocarp, like Mauritia flexuosa, are occasionally picked up from the ground (Melnyk, 1996). However, using appropriate tools for harvest is not per se a guarantee of sustainability. This is particularly true in the case of spear leaves, where an overharvest can eventually kill the palm through leaf depletion, if no harvest schedules are properly introduced. This was documented by Vergara (2002) and Vergara and Bernal (2002) for Ceroxylon alpinum. In this species, spear leaves were cut from large, acaulescent juveniles without causing any immediate damage, but since the number of leaves harvested per year was the same as the number of leaves produced, palms eventually died, as a consequence of the lack of leaf replacement. Near some Waorani communities in Ecuador, individuals of Astrocaryum chambira become scarce due to overharvesting their spear leaves for fiber (Davis & Yost, 1983). Low or acaulescent palms offer the best conditions for management, as their harvest does not require great effort or special tools, and thus, damage to palms is minimized, requiring only regulation of harvest volumes and times for guaranteeing sustainability. This group includes Elaeis oleifera that produces oil from its fruits (Patiño, 1977; Vásquez & Gentry, 1989; Moreno et al., 1991), Astrocaryum malybo that produces leaf fibers used for weaving mats (Barrera et al., 2007b), Bactris guineensis that produces edible fruits (Casas, 2008), Geonoma deversa and Lepidocaryum tenue that produce leaves for thatching (Añez, 1992; Mendoza Rodríguez, 2007), and Aphandra natalia (Borgtoft Pedersen, 1992), and Leopoldinia piassaba (Putz, 1979; Linares et al., 2008) that provide piassaba fibers from their leaf sheaths. Harvest Seasons Harvest seasons are defined by each species’ phenology, in the case of fruits, and by climatic conditions, particularly flooding, which sometimes restrict or facilitate access to the harvesting sites (e.g., Crizón, 2001). In the case of seeds, like those of Phytelephas, timing is not as constraining, and they can be collected up to several months after they have fallen to the ground (Velásquez, 1998). For stems and leaves, it is often believed that the products will last longer if harvested when the moon is in its appropriate phase. This has been recorded for expanded leaves of Attalea butyracea (Moreno et al., 1991; Bernal et al., 2010), Sabal mauritiiformis, (Moreno et al., 1991), and Welfia regia (R. Bernal, pers. obs.) for thatching, and spear leaves of Astrocaryum standleyanum used for weaving (Torres, 2007), all of which are harvested when the moon is waning. For stems of Bactris guineensis harvest is made when the moon is waxing (Casas, 2008). Sap extraction of the austral Jubaea chilensis is regulated by seasons, and extends from mid-spring (October) to autumn (April). Associated Practices Management practices associated to palm harvest include elimination of other plants growing near the palms, as it is commonly done for the palm heart producing Euterpe oleracea (Anderson et al., 1995; Coomes, 2004; Weinstein & Moegenburg, 2004; Meza, 2001; Kronborg et al., 2008), and cutting off shoots in cespitose palms (Calzavara, 1972; Jardim & Anderson, 1987; Pollak et al., 1995; Nogueira et al., 1998; Ribeiro-de Azevedo, 2005; Weinstein & Moegenburg, 2004). Removal of Author's personal copy R. Bernal et al. neighboring plants is often used as a practice to favor development of seedlings or juveniles of useful species (Peters et al., 1989; Velásquez, 1998; Brondízio et al., 2002; Johnson, 2002; Meza, 2001). In some cases, as in the management of fruit producing Attalea maripa, A. speciosa and Oenocarpus bacaba, unproductive palms are eliminated, in order to open space for new individuals (May et al., 1985a; Zent & Zent, 2002). In the dioecious Mauritia flexuosa and Phytelephas aequatorialis, new space in the palm stands is gained by reducing the number of male palms (Hiraoka, 1999; Velásquez, 1998). In the latter species the reduction is made until reaching a proportion of one male per seven females. Other practices are 1. The enrichment of palm populations by transplanting seedlings, as has been reported for Euterpe oleracea (Goulding & Smith, 2007); 2. Dispersing seeds, as is done for Oenocarpus bataua by the Nukak of Colombia (Politis, 1996) and probably also for other species by different nomadic groups, who discard palm seeds after consuming the mesocarp; to what extent this practice is regarded by the nomadic Amerindians themselves as an enrichment practice is not clear; and 3. The use of fire to favor palm development, as used for Attalea funifera in Brazil (Voeks, 1988). Management practices recommended by researchers include harvest intensity, minimal age and size of first harvest (mainly for palm heart production), or the use of appropriate harvest techniques (Cruz, 2006; Castaño et al., 2007; Goulding & Smith, 2007; Mendoza Rodríguez, 2007; Meza, 2001; Torres, 2007; Miranda et al., 2008). Some management systems have been regulated by law for particular species, like harvest of palm heart from Euterpe edulis in Brazil (Reis et al., 2000c) and Bolivia (Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible, República de Bolivia, 2006), sap from Jubaea chilensis in Chile (González et al., 2009), and wood of Iriartea deltoidea in Colombia (Corpoamazonia, 2006). Conservation Through Use Although many authors report a negative impact of palm harvest on palm populations (Vásquez & Gentry, 1989; Borgtoft Pedersen & Balslev, 1992; Castaño et al., 2007; Goulding & Smith, 2007; Linares et al., 2008), in some cases use has been considered as the best option for conservation. In Uruguay, for example, conservation of Butia capitata has been considered effective only if local people get any profit from the palm stands (Pezzani, 2007). In Chile, the largest stands of Jubaea chilensis are those where management for palm sap extraction has been a traditional activity (González, 1994). In those areas, palm populations have a healthy size class distribution, with a large number of juveniles, in contrast with unharvested areas, where populations consist only of adult palms, with no regeneration. In Colombia, land owners in the Magdalena River basin protect their tagua palms (Phytelephas macrocarpa), only if they can get any income by selling their nuts (Torres & Perdomo, 2008). However, in this area tagua still remains underexploited, due in part to the environmental authority’s reluctance to give harvest permits, in spite of a study that shows the sustainability of seed harvest for this species (Bernal, 1998). Another local environmental authority, on the contrary, has allowed controlled harvest of spear leaves of Attalea butyracea in Cundinamarca, Colombia, as a strategy to avoid palm destruction by land owners (J. Sarmiento, Author's personal copy Palm Management in South America pers. comm.). In Ecuador, peasants that are not allowed to harvest spear leaves of Ceroxylon echinulatum replace the palms with income-producing crops (L. de la Torre pers. comm.). Conservation through use, however, requires close monitoring, to assure that recommended practices and management plans are indeed followed. This point appears to be weak, judging from the reviewed references. Remarkable exceptions include Astrocaryum aculeatum, which is sustainably managed for use and conservation in the western Amazon in Brazil (Costa & Duarte, 2002), Oenocarpus bataua, which is both used and conserved in Shuar and Achuar communities in the Amazon of Ecuador (Alarcón & García, 2006), and Trithrinax schizophylla, which is sustainably harvested in the eastern Bolivian lowlands (Lozano, 2007). In the large number of studies that we have reviewed, we have found evidence of only few efforts to introduce and enforce sustainable harvest practices. Thus, after at least two decades of alarm about the unnecessary felling of palms to collect their fruits or their spear leaves (Peters et al., 1989; Vásquez & Gentry, 1989), this practice remains widespread throughout northern South America (Flores et al., 2009; Manzi & Coomes, 2009; Montúfar et al., 2010; R. Bernal, pers. obs.) even if a few initiatives have focused on this problem for Mauritia flexuosa in Peru (Manzi & Coomes, 2009), Ceroxylon in Ecuador (Montúfar et al., 2010), and Oenocarpus bataua and Astrocaryum standleyanum in Colombia (Torres, 2007; R. Bernal, pers. obs.), but the impact of these initiatives is usually not widespread. Discussion Compared to the number of palm species used by people in South America, the figure of those with any documented type of management is relatively low. Whereas 85% of all palms in Ecuador receive some use (de la Torre et al., 2008), 74% in Bolivia (Macía et al., 2011), 61% in Colombia (Galeano & Bernal, 2010), 53% in the Andes (Macía et al., 2011), and 40% in South America as a whole (Henderson et al., 1995), only 20% of all South American palms appear to have any significant management. This means that a large proportion of used species are just harvested from their natural habitats without any concern about the impact of the harvest. It is true that information on uses is more readily collected by researchers than information on management of the involved species. Although some managed species may have escaped our review, our figure of managed species could be an overestimation of the real situation, because many species are managed in some areas but elsewhere they are just harvested without any management or even mismanaged. The most widespread management practice, the selective harvest of individuals based on age, size or sex, is applied by various ethnic groups to 21 species occurring in a variety of habitats. In most cases, however, as with stem or fruit harvest, restriction by age or size is probably related to the unavailability of the resource in younger plants, rather than a management-driven action. When young individuals provide suitable resources (e.g. expanded or spear leaves), usually they are also harvested. This is the case of Astrocaryum chambira (Holm Jensen & Balslev, 1995), Ceroxylon alpinum (Vergara, 2002), Copernicia prunifera Author's personal copy R. Bernal et al. (Johnson, 1970), Copernicia tectorum (Barrera et al., 2007a), Lepidocaryum tenue (Navarro, 2009), Mauritia flexuosa (Sampaio et al., 2008) or Welfia regia (Torres & Avendaño, 2009). Another management practice is small scale cultivation of relevant species, usually near households or in chagras or chacras. Besides the widespread peach palm, Bactris gasipaes, 19 species are cultivated for their usefulness: Aphandra natalia, Astrocaryum aculeatum, A. chambira, A. malybo, A. standleyanum, Attalea butyracea, A. funifera, Butia capitata, Copernicia prunifera, Euterpe edulis, E. oleracea, E. precatoria, Mauritia flexuosa, Oenocarpus bataua, O. minor, Parajubaea cocoides, Phytelephas aequatorialis, Prestoea acuminata, and Syagrus romanzoffiana. Most of them are cultivated near their natural areas of distribution and only Euterpe oleracea and probably also Parajubaea cocoides have been dispersed far away from their natural ranges. But remarkably, unsustainable management of palms in South America appears to be more widespread than sustainable management. There are records of 38 species that are felled to harvest their sap, leaves or fruits, which in most cases could be sustainably harvested with a small additional effort or with the use of simple tools. Surprisingly, unsustainable management is common among Amerindian communities (Stagegaard et al., 2002; Vormisto, 2002; Zent & Zent, 2002; Castaño et al., 2007; Aguilar-Mena, 2008; Linares et al., 2008), in contrast with the widespread belief that traditional management by Amerindian people is efficient and sustainable (Peters, 1996). Recommendations for sustainable management are already available for several species. Although generalizations are not always possible, because each situation of management requires an appropriate evaluation, some general recommendations can be given. First, harvest intensity must be controlled by implementing the recommendations of available ecological studies, as is the case of vegetable ivory palm Phytelephas macrocarpa in Colombia (Bernal, 1998, as P. seemannii) or of palm heart Euterpe edulis in Brazil (Reis et al., 2000a, b, c). Second, non-destructive harvest must be encouraged, by promoting the use of basic techniques for climbing (Borgtoft Pedersen, 1992; Zent & Zent, 2002; Weinstein & Moegenburg, 2004) or different type of tools (Holm Jensen & Balslev, 1995; Vormisto, 2002; Fadiman, 2003; Torres, 2007; Linares et al., 2008). Finally, palm species of interest should be introduced in agroforestry systems, which seems to be an adequate alternative for sustainable management; these practices are documented for at least 15 palms in South America, including Bactris gasipaes (Clement, 1986, 1989), Attalea speciosa (May et al., 1985b), and Ceroxylon echinulatum (Pintaud & Anthelme, 2008). Assessing sustainability and reducing harvest impact has so far been the focus of most research, and information is now available for several species. In many cases, the next step would be to study how management practices enhance productivity, as has been done for Euterpe oleracea in Brazil. A study of this species by Anderson and Jardim (1989) showed that fruit production increased 60% after 1 year of weeding and thinning. But before comparable research is undertaken for other species, it is necessary to eradicate the widespread unsustainable management practice of felling palms. To achieve this, researchers face the complex task of implementing projects that go beyond sheer research, and influence the whole spectrum of stakeholders, from local harvesters to national decision-makers. Author's personal copy Palm Management in South America Acknowledgements This review was made as a part of the European Union’s FP7 Project 212631 PALMS (Palm harvest impacts in tropical forests) (http://www.fp7-palms.org). We thank Corporación Autónoma Regional de Nariño, Tumaco, for permit to access unpublished documents, Mónica Moraes and Betty Millán for providing valuable references, and William Baker, Luz María Calvo, Lucía de la Torre, and Manuel Macía for critically reading the manuscript. Literature Cited Acero Duarte, L. E. 1979. Principales plantas útiles de la Amazonía colombiana. Unidad Forestal del Proyecto Radargramétrico del Amazonas, Bogotá. Acosta Solís, M. 1944. La tagua, coroso o marfil vegetal. Flora 4: 1–55. Agrodataperu. 2010. http://agrodataperu.blogspot.com/search/label/Palmitos%20Preparados%20Per% C3%BA. Accesed May 20, 2010. Aguilar-Mena, Z. 2008. Influence of the Huaorani on the conservation of Oenocarpus bataua, Arecaceae in YasuniNational Park and Biosphere Reserve, Amazonian Ecuador. Lyonia 10: 83– 90. Alarcón, D. & J. García. 2006. Propuesta de plan de manejo para la ungurahua, Oenocarpus bataua, en las comunidades Achuar de Yutsuntsa y Makusar. Unpublished report. Programa de Manejo de la Biodiversidad y Biocomercio (PMBB) – EcoCiencia, Quito. Albo, X., N. Argüelles, R. Ávila, L. A. Bonilla, J. Bulkan, D. I. Callou, C. Carriazo, F. de C. Alves, M. Censabella, M. Crevels, E. Díaz, E. Díaz Couder, F. García, M. Haboud, A. Hernández, Y. Leite, A. Koskinen, J. Lemus, L. E. López, M. Malvestitti, M. C. Mattei Müller, B. Melià, B. Migge, J. L. Moctezuma, M. E. Montes, F. Queixalos, A. Reinoso, O. Renault-Lescure, A. Rojas, T. Rojas, I. Sichra, G. Solís, M. Trillos & L. Verdugo. 2009. Atlas sociolingüístico de pueblos indígenas en América Latina. UNICEF-Funprobeib Andes, Cochabamba, Bolivia. ALENPAC. 1995. Memorias del Primer Seminario de Sustentabilidad de la Palma Naidí. Unpublished report. Alimentos Empacados del Pacífico-ALEMPAC, Guapi, Colombia. Alomia, E. 1996. El cultivo de chontaduro para producción de palmito. Revista de la Unidad Municipal de Asitencia Técnica Agropecuaria – UMATA, Puerto Asís, Colombia. Anderson, A. B. 1978. The names and uses of palms among a tribe of Yanomama indians. Principes 22: 30–41. ———. 1988. Use and management of native forests dominated by açaí palm (Euterpe oleracea Mart.) in the Amazon estuary. Advances in Economic Botany 6: 144–154. ———. 1990. Extraction and forest management by rural inhabitants in the Amazon estuary. Pp 65–85. In: A. B. Anderson (ed). Alternatives to deforestation: Steps toward sustainable use of the Amazon rain forest. Columbia University Press, New York. ——— & M. Jardim. 1989. Costs and benefits of floodplain forest management by rural inhabitants in the Amazon estuary. Pp 114–129. In: J. Browder (ed). Fragile lands of Latin America. Westview, Boulder. ———, P. Magee, A. Gely & M. A. Gonçalves-Jardim. 1995. Forest management patterns in the floodplain of the Amazon estuary. Conservation Biology 9: 47–61. ———, P. May & M. Balick. 2001. The subsidy from nature. Palm forests, peasantry, and development on an Amazon frontier. ColumbiaUniversity Press, New York. Anderson, P. J. 1998. Demography, stem harvesting, and conservation of the palm, Iriartea deltoidea. Ph. D. Thesis,University of Florida, Gainesville. ——— & F. E. Putz. 2002. Harvesting and conservation: are both possible for the palm, Iriartea deltoidea? Forest Ecology and Management 170: 271–283. Añez, J. 1992. The jatata project: the pilot experience of Chimane empowerment. Pp 197–198. In: M. Plotkin & L. Famolare (eds). Sustainable harvest and marketing of rain forest products. Island, Washington. Anonymous. 1978. O plantio de palmitos na Amazonia. IV Encontro Nacional de Reflorestadores. Anais. Oplantio do palmito na Amazônia. Pp. 65–68. Belem, Brasil. Artesanías de Colombia. 2009. Validación del protocolo de aprovechamiento de la palma sará (Copernicia tectorum) y construcción de una guía general para la implementación de protocolos para el aprovechamiento de especies silvestres. Informe del convenio 58 de 2008. Artesanías de Colombia S.A., Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial, Bogotá. Author's personal copy R. Bernal et al. Avila, M. 1990. Inventario Forestal: Requisito para prórroga del permiso de aprovechamiento persistente de la palma naidí en los Municipios de El Charco e Iscuandé. Informe Técnico 59. Unpublished report. Alimentos Enlatados del Pacífico Limitada-Alenpac Ltda. San Juande Pasto, Colombia. Balick, M. J. 1986. Systematics and economic botany of the Oenocarpus-Jessenia (Palmae) complex. Advances in Economic Botany 3: 1–140. ———. 1988. The use of palms by the Apinayé and Guajajara indians of northesatern Brazil. Advances in Economic Botany 6: 65–90. ———. 1993. Patauá. In: J. W. Clay, & C. R. Clement (eds.), Selected species and strategies to enhance income generation from Amazonian forests. FAO, Romehttp://www.fao.org/docrep/V0784E/ v0784e0f.htm#patau%E1. Accessed October 15, 2009. Balslev, H. & A. Barfod. 1987. Ecuadorean palms – an overview. Opera Botanica 92: 17–35. ——— & M. Moraes. 1989. Sinopsis de las palmeras de Bolivia. AAU Reports 20: 1–107. ———, C. Grandez, N. Paniagua, A. Møller & S. Lykke. 2008. Palmas (Arecaceae) útiles en los alrededores de Iquitos, Amazonía Peruana. Revista Peruana de Biología 15: 121–132. Barfod, A. & H. Balslev. 1988. The use of palms by the Cayapas and Coaiqueres on the coastal plain of Ecuador. Principes 32: 29–42. Barrera V. A., M. C. Torres & D. S. Ramírez. 2007a. Protocolo para la producción sostenible de artesanías en palma sará (Copernicia tectorum) en Bolívar. Informe de consultoria. Unpublished report. Artesanías de Colombia S. A., Bogotá. ———, ——— & ———. 2007b. Protocolo para la producción sostenible de artesanías en palma estera (Astrocaryum malybo) en el Cesar. Unpublished report, Artesanías de Colombia S. A., Bogotá. Beckerman, S. 1977. The use of palms by the Bari Indians of the Maracaibo basin. Principes 21: 143–154. Bernacci, L. 2001. Aspectos da demografia da palmeira nativa Syagrus romanzoffiana (Cham.) Glassman, jerivá, como subsídios ao seu manejo. Ph D thesis, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil. Bernal, R. 1992. Colombian palm products. Pp. 158–172. In: M. Plotkin & L. Famolare (eds). Sustainable harvest and marketing of rainforest products. Island, Washington. ———. 1998. Demography of the vegetable ivory palm Phytelephas seemannii in Colombia, and the impact of seed harvesting. Journal of Applied Ecology 35: 64–74. ——— & G. Galeano. 1993. Las palmas del Andén Pacífico. Pp. 220–231. In: P. Leyva (ed.), Colombia Pacífico. Fondo FEN-Colombia, Bogotá. ——— & ———. 2010. Notes on Mauritiella, Manicaria, and Leopoldinia. Palms 54: 119–132. ——— & F. Borchsenius. 2010. Taxonomic novelties on Aiphanes (Palmae) from Colombia and Venezuela. Caldasia 32: 87–97. ———, D. Marmolejo & M. E. Montes. 2007. Eastern tukanoan names of the palm Iriartea deltoidea: evidence of its possible preagricultural use as a starch source. Journal of Ethnobiology 27: 174–181. ———, G. Galeano, N. García, I. L. Olivares & C. Cocomá. 2010. Uses and Commercial Prospects for the Wine Palm, Attalea butyracea, in Colombia. Ethnobotany Research and Applications 8: 255–268. Bjorholm, S., J.-C. Svenning, F. Skov & H. Balslev. 2005. Environmental and spatial controls of palm (Arecaceae) species richness across the Americas. Global Ecology and Biogeography 14: 423–429. Blicher-Mathiesen, U. & H. Balslev. 1990. Attalea colenda (Arecaceae), potential lauric oil resource. Economic Botany 44: 360–368. Bodley, J. H. & F. C. Benson. 1979. Cultural ecology of Amazonian palms. Reports of investigations. Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman. Bohórquez, J. A. 1972. Monografía sobre Mauritia flexuosa L.f. Pp 233–245 In: C. Villegas (ed.), Simposio Internacional Sobre Plantas de Intéres Económico de la Flora Amazónica. IICATROPICOS, Turrialba. Boll, T., J. C. Svenning, J. Vormiso, S. Normand, C. Grández & H. Balslev. 2005. Spatial distribution and environmental preferences of the piassaba palm Aphandra natalia (Areacaceae) along the Pastaza and Urituyacu rivers in Peru. Forest Ecology and Management 213: 175–183. Boom, B. M. 1986. The Chacobo indians and their palms. Principes 30: 63–70. Borchsenius, F. & M. Moraes R. 2006. Diversidad y usos de palmeras andinas (Arecaceae). Pp. 412– 433. In: M. Moraes R., B. Øllgaard, L. P. Kvist, F. Borchsenius & H. Balslev (eds.), Botánica económica de los Andes Centrales. Universidad Mayor de San Andrés, La Paz. Author's personal copy Palm Management in South America ———, H. Borgtoft Pedersen & H. Balslev. 1998. Manual to the palms of Ecuador. AAU Reports 37: 1– 217. University of Aarhus, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador. Aarhus, Denmark. Borgtoft Pedersen, H. B. 1992. Uses and management of Aphandra natalia (Palmae) in Ecuador. Bulletin de l’Institut français d’études andines 21: 741–753. ———. 1994. Mocora palm-fibers: Use and management of Astrocaryum standleyanum (Areacaceae) in Ecuador. Economic Botany 48: 310–325. ——— & H. Balslev. 1990. Ecuadorean palms for agroforestry. AAU Reports 23: 1–122. ——— & ———. 1992. The economic botany of Ecuadorean palms. Pp 173–191. In: M. Plotkin & L. Famolare (eds). Sustainable harvest and marketing of rain forest products. Island, Washington. ——— & ———. 1993. Palmas útiles. Especies ecuatorianas para agroforestería y extractivismo. Editorial Abya Yala, Quito. Bovi, M. E. 1999a. Açaí Euterpe oleracea.Pp. 45–53. In: J. W. Clay, P. T. B. Sampaio & C. H. Clement (eds.), Biodiversidade amazônica: Exemplos e estratégias de utilização. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas de Amazonia - INPA y Serviço de Apoio as Micro e Pequenas Empresas do Amazonas – SEMBRAE, Manaus, Brazil. ———. 1999b. Buriti Mauritia flexuosa. Pp. 57–79. In: J. W. Clay, P. T. B. Sampaio & C. H. Clement (eds.), Biodiversidade amazônica: exemplos e estratégias de utilização. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas de Amazonia - INPA y Serviço de Apoio as Micro e Pequenas Empresas do Amazonas – SEMBRAE, Manaus, Brazil. ——— & A. de Castro. 1993. Assaí. Pp. 58-67In: J. W. Clay & C. R. Clement (eds.)Selected species and strategies to enhance income generation from Amazonian Forests. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/ docrep/V0784E/v0784e00.HTM. Accessed October 15, 2009. Braun, A. 1968a. Cultivated palms of Venezuela. Principes 12: 39–103. ———. 1968b. Cultivated palms of Venezuela-Part II. Principes 12: 111–136. ———. 1997. La utilidad de las palmas en Venezuela. Fundación Thomas Merle, Caracas. Brondízio, E. S., C. Safar & A. D. Siqueira. 2002. The urban market of açaí fruit (Euterpe oleracea Mart.) and rural land use change: Ethnographic insights into the role of price and land tenure constraining agricultural choices in the Amazon estuary. Urban Ecosystems 6: 67–97. Bruman, H. T. 1945. Early coconut culture in western Mexico. Hispanic American Historical Review 25: 212–223. Caldas-Lorenzi, G. M. A. 2006. Acrocomia aculeata (Jacq.) Lodd. Ex Mart. – Arecaceae: Bases para o extrativismo sustentável. Thesis Agronomia. Universidade Federal do Paraná. Brazil. Carvalho, I. 2008. Valorización de las riquezas nativas: La experiencia de la Cooperativa Grande Sertão. LEISA Revista de Agroecología 24: 36–38. Calzavara, B. B. 1972. As possibilidades do açaizeiro no estuário amazônico. Boletim Facultade de Ciencias Agrárias do Pará 5: 165–207. Casado, C., M. Benezra, O. Colmenares & N. Martínez. 2001. Evaluación del bosque deciduo como recurso alimenticio para bovinos en los llanos centrales de Venezuela. Zootecnia Tropical 19: 139–150. Casas, L. 2008. Protocolo para la producción sostenible de artesanías en lata de corozo (Bactris guineensis) en Córdoba. Unpublished report. Artesanías de Colombia S.A. Bogotá. Castaño, N., D. Cárdenas & E. Otavo. 2007. Ecología, aprovechamiento y manejo sostenible de nueve especies de plantas del Departamento del Amazonas, generadoras de productos maderables y no maderables. Instituto Amazónico de Investigaciones Científicas – SINCHI. Corporación para el Desarrollo Sostenible del sur de la Amazonia, CORPOAMAZONIA, Bogotá. Cavalcante, P. B. & D. Johnson. 1977. Edible palm fruits of Brazilian Amazon. Principes 21: 91–102. Centro de Comercio Internacional. 1969. Los mercados de la piazava. Unpublished report, Bogotá. Choo, J., E. L. Zent & B. B. Simpson. 2009. The importance of traditional ecological knowledge for palm-weevil cultivation in the Venezuelan Amazon. Journal of Ethnobiology 29: 113–128. CICO-Centro de Información e Inteligencia Comercial. 2009. Perfiles de Producto. Perfil del Palmito. http://ecuadorexporta.org/archivos/documentos/muestra_de_palmito_final.pdf. Accessed November 15, 2009. Clastres, P. 1972. The Guayaki. Pp 138–174. In: M. G. Bicchierei (ed). Hunters and gatherers today: A socioeconomic study of eleven such cultures in the twentieth century. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New Cork. Clement, C. R. 1986. The pejibaye palm (Bactris gasipaes H.B.K.) as an agroforestry component. Agroforestry systems 4: 205–219. ———. 1989. The potential use the pejibaye palm in agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems 7: 201–212. Author's personal copy R. Bernal et al. ———. 1992. Domesticated palms. Prinicipes 36: 70–78. ———. 2005. Fruits of Amazonia. Pp. Pp. 3-5In:CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) (ed.), Consultation on the Cross-cutting Initiative on Biodiversity for Food and Nutririon. Brasilia, March 12 and 13, Brasilia. ———, E. Lleras & J. van Leeuwen. 2005. O potencial das palmeiras tropicais no Brasil: acertos e fracassos das últimas décadas. Agrociencia 9: 67–71. ———, J. C. Weber, J. van Leeuwen, C. Astorga Domian, D. M. Cole, L. A. Arévalo López & H. Arguello. 2004. Why extensive research and development did not promote use of peach palm fruit in Latin America? Agroforestry Systems 61: 195–206. Cocomá, C. 2010. Uso y manejo de la palma real (Attalea butyracea) para la elaboración de artesanías en el Departamento del Tolima. Trabajo de grado, Departamento de Biología, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá. Collazos, M. E. & M. Mejía.1987. Fenología y postcosecha de milpesos, Jessenia bataua Mart. Tesis de Ingeniero Agrónomo. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Palmira, Colombia. Coomes, O. T. 2004. Rain forest “conservation-through-use”? Chambira palm fibre extraction and handicraft production in a land-constrained community, Peruvian Amazon. Biodiversity and Conservation 13: 351–360. Corpoamazonia. 2006. Resolución N° 1245 del 19 de diciembre de 2006. Por medio de la cual se reglamenta el aprovechamiento de la Palma chonta o bombona (Iriartea deltoidea Ruiz & Pavon) y se definen los términos de referencia para la elaboración de planes de manejo, aprovechamiento y estudios técnicos. http://www.corpoamazonia.gov.co/download/Resoluciones/2006/res-1245-06.pdf. Accessed October 15, 2009. Corponariño. 1989. El naidizal del Departamento de Nariño. Unpublished report. Corporación Autónoma Regional para el Desarrollo de Nariño, Pasto. Costa, J. A. & A. P. Duarte. 2002. Metodologia para manejo comunitário da palmeira tucumã (Astrocaryum aculeatum) na terra indígena apurinã, Amazônia Ocidental: Um modelo replicável para conservação da biodiversidade e geração de renda em áreas extrativistas aplicando resultados de pesquisa, envolvendo atores e definido políticas públicas. Pp. 307–318. In:C. Sabogal& J. N. M. Silva (eds.),Simposio Internacional da IUFRO, Embrapa-CIFOR Belém, Brazil. Crizón, I. 2001. Por los territorios de la marama. Extracción de la Fibra de chiquichiqui en la Amazonía Colombiana. Serie Investigación. Instituto de Estudios Ambientales para el Desarrollo -IDEADE, Facultad de Estudios Ambientales y Rurales, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá. Cruz, D. 2006. Estudio ecológico de la palma Astrocaryum chambira para su manejo sostenible y evaluación socioeconómica de la extracción de su fibra, en dos comunidades Waorani del Parque Nacional Yasuní. Tesis. Escuela de Ciencias Biológicas, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Ecuador, Quito. CUDESAC. 2007. Palma amarga (Sabal mauritiiformis). Cartilla didáctica para el mejor Aprovechamiento de este recurso natural. Corporación Unificada para el Desarrollo Ecológico, Económico, Social y Ambiental de Colombia –CUDESAC, Sincelejo, Colombia. Davis, E. W. & J. A. Yost. 1983. The ethnobotany of the Waorani of eastern Ecuador. Botanical Museum Leaflets 29: 159–217. de Almeida, S., D. Bonnas, P. Jordão & J. de Aguilar. 2000. A gueroba (Syagrus oleracea Becc.) nas comunidades rurais I: Aproveitamento agroindustrial. Ministério da Agricultura e do Abastecimiento, Embrapa Cerrados. Documentos N° 23. Brasilia. de Castro, A. 1993a. Buriti. In: J. W. Clay, & C. R. Clement (eds.), Selected species and strategies to enhance income generation from Amazonian forests. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/ V0784E/v0784e0c.htm#buriti. Accessed October 15, 2009. ———. 1993b. Extractive exploitation of the açaí, Euterpe precatoria near Manaus, Amazonia. Pp. 779– 782. In: C. M. Hladick, O. F. Linares& H. Pagezy (eds.), Tropical forests, people, and food: Biocultural interactions and applications to development. Vol. 13 MAB series 779–782 UNESCO, Paris. de Jong, W. 2001. Tree and forest management in the floodplains of the Peruvian Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management 150: 125–134. de la Torre, L., H. Navarrete, P. Muriel M., M. J. Macía & H. Balslev. 2008. Enciclopedia de las plantas útiles del Ecuador. Herbario QCA & Herbario AAU. Quito & Aarhus. Delgado, M. & C. Landini. 1976. Palmito Jucara - Euterpe edulis Mart. (Palmae), uma especie a plantar, manejar e proteger. Brasil Florestal 7: 9–20. Author's personal copy Palm Management in South America Delgado, C., G. C. Outurier & K. M. Mejía. 2007. Mauritia flexuosa (Arecaceae: Calamoideae), an Amazonian palm with cultivation purposes in Peru. Fruits 62: 157–169. Devia, J. E., A. López & O. L. Saldarriaga. 2002. Productos promisorios del fruto de la palma de vino. Revista Universidad EAFIT 126: 67–80. Dissanayake, B. W. 1977. Use of Caryota urens in Sri Lanka. Pp. 84–90. In:K. Tan (ed.), Papers of the first international Sago Symposium: The equatorial swamp as a natural resource, Kuala Lumpur. ———. 1986. Techno-economic aspects of production and utilization of two related palms kitul (Caryota urens) and palmyra. Pp. 75–85. In: N. Yamada & K. Kainuma (eds.), Sago’ 85: Proceeding of the Third International Sago Symposium, Tokyo. Dos Santos, M. 2000. Avaliação econômica de quatro modelos agroflorestais em áreas degradadas por pastagens na Amazônia Occidental. M. Sc. Thesis, Escola Superior de Agricultura “Luis de Queiroz”, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Piracicaba. Dransfield, J., D. Johnson & H. Synge. 1988. The palms of the New World: Aconservation census. IUCN-WWF Plants Conservation Programme, Publications 2. Gland: IUCN, Switzerland and Cambridge. ———, N. W. Uhl, C. B. Asmussen, W. J. Baker, M. M. Harley & C. E. Lewis. 2008. Genera Palmarum. Evolution and Classification of the Palms. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Dubois, C. L. J. 1990. Secondary forest as a land-use resource in frontier zones of Amazonia. Pp 183– 194. In: A. B. Anderson (ed). Alternatives to deforestation: Steps toward sustainable use of the Amazon rain forest. Columbia University Press, New York. Dufour, D. L. 1987. Insects as food: A case study from the northwest Amazon. American Anthropologist 89: 383–397. Erazo-Rivadeneira, Y. & J. García. 2001. Chontaduro, Bactris gasipaes. Pp. 91–103. In:S. Rojas González (ed.), Especies Promisorias de la Amazonia. Corpoica, Florencia, Colombia. Fadiman, M. G. 2003. Fibers from the forest: Mestizo, Afro-Ecuadorian and Chachi ethnobotany of piquigua (Heteropsis ecuadorensis, Araceae) and mocora (Astrocaryum standleyanum, Areacaceae) in Northwestern Ecuador. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Texas, Austin. Fantini, A. C. & R. P. Guries. 2004. Forest structure and productivity of palmiteiro (Euterpe edulis Martius) in the Brazilian Mata Atlantica. Forest Ecology and Management 242: 185–194. FAO. 1986. Food and Fruit-bearing forest species: Examples from Latin America. FAO forestry Papers 3, Rome. Finol, H. 1978. Planificación silvicultural de los bosques ricos en palma manaca (Euterpe oleracea), en el delta del río Orinoco. Informe Técnico 118. Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, Instituto de Silvicultura. Mérida, Venezuela. Flores, C. F. & P. M. S. Ashton. 2000. Harvesting impact and economic value of Geonoma deversa, Arecaceae, an understory palm used for roof thatching in the Peruvian Amazon. Economic Botany 54: 267–277. Flores, S. P., K. Mejía, M. Ríos & R. Vásquez. 2009. Cultivo de frutales nativos amazónicos. Manual para el extensionista. Tratado de Cooperación Amazónica. Secretaría Pro- Tempore, Lima. http://www. siamazonia.org.pe/archivos/publicaciones/amazonia/libros/51/5100000.htm. Accessed October 20, 2009. Fong, F. W. 1989. The apung Palm traditional techniques of sugar tapping and alcohol extraction in Sarawak. Principes 33: 21–26. Forero, M. C., M. J. Gnecco & M. A. Torres. 2003. Producción de biodisel de moriche (Mauritia flexuosa) como alternativa energética para las regiones apartadas de la orinoquia colombiana. Orinoquia (Villavicencio) 7: 59–69. Galeano, G. 1992. Las palmas de la región de Araracuara. Tropenbos-Colombia, Bogotá. ——— & R. Bernal. 1987. Las palmas del Departamento de Antioquia. Región Occidental. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Centro Editorial, Bogotá. ——— & ———. 2005. Palmas (familia Arecaceae o Palmae). Pp. 59–223.In: E. Calderón, G. Galeano & N. García (eds.), Libro rojo de plantas de Colombia, Volumen 2. Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial/Instituto Alexander von Humboldt/Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Bogotá. ——— & ———. 2010. Palmas de Colombia - Guía de campo. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá. ———, M. J. Sanín, K. Mejía, J. C. Pintaud & B. Millán. 2008. Novelties in the genus Ceroxylon (Arecaceae) from Peru, with description of a new species. Revista Peruana de Biología 15: 65–72. Galetti, M. & J. C. Fernandez. 1998. Palm heart harvesting in the Brazilian Atlantic forest: Changes in industry structure and the ilegal trade. Journal of Applied Ecology 35: 294–201. Author's personal copy R. Bernal et al. Gamba Trimiño, C. 2004. Demografía de Prestoea acuminata (Palmae) en el suroccidente Colombiano: implicaciones evolutivas y para su manejo. Tesis, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá. Garzón, N. C. 1987. Etnobotánica. Estrategias de conocimiento y reconocimiento cultural. Estudio de caso. "Culturas Amazónicas". Pp. 25–42. In: Corporación de Araracuara (ed.), Memorias Primer Simposio Colombiano de Etnobotánica. Corporación de Desarrollo Araracuara, Bogotá. González, A. 1994. La palma chilena: Un recurso no maderable con proyecciones. Pp. 115–118. In: C. Chandrasekharan, (ed.), FAO. Serie Forestal Nº 1. Memoria - Consulta de expertos sobre productos forestales no madereros para América Latina y el Caribe, Santiago. ———. 2007. La Ruta del chontaduro. Documental. Fondo para el Desarrollo Cinematográfico, Cali. González, L. A., R. O. Bustamante, R. M. Navarro, M. A. Herrera & M. T. Ibáñez. 2009. Ecology and management of the Chilean Palm (Jubaea chilensis). Palms 53: 68–74. Goulding, M. & N. Smith. 2007. Palms: Sentinels for Amazon conservation. Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis. Guánchez, F. J. & G. A. Romero. 1998. Palms and amerindian fishing in Amazonas state, Venezuela. Principes 42: 125–135. Guerrero, C. F. 2005. Población indígena y afroecuatoriana en el Ecuador a partir de la información censal de 2001. Seminario Internacional Pueblos indígenas y afrodescencientes de América Latina y el Caribe. Relevancia y pertinencia de la información sociodemográfica para políticas y programas. CEPAL, Santiago de Chile. www.docstoc.com/docs/25917513/Población-Indígena-y-Afroecuatorianaen-el-Ecuador-a-partir. Accessed December 9, 2010. Hammond, D. S., P. M. Dolman & A. R. Watkinson. 1995. Modern tikuna swiden-fallow management in the Colombian Amazon: Ecologically integrating market strategies and subsistence-driven economies? Human Ecology 23: 348–356. Heinen, H. D. & K. Ruddle. 1974. Ecology, ritual, and economic organization in the distribution of palm starch among the warao of the Orinoco delta. Journal of Anthropological Research 30: 116– 138. Henderson, A. & F. Chávez. 1993. Desmoncus as a useful palm in the western Amazon basin. Principes 37: 184–186. ———, G. Galeano & R. Bernal. 1995. Field guide to the palms of the Americas. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Hernández, L. A. 2003. Valoración del rendimiento en función de la relación planta suelo de la palma Astrocaryun standleyanum L. H. Bailey en el Resguardo Indígena de Togoromá. Trabajo de grado, Departamento de Biología, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá. Herrera, J. C. 2000. Evaluación rápida de fauna silvestre en áreas de producción porestales: estudios de caso. Documento Técnico 85/2000, Proyecto BOLFOR. Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Hiraoka, M. 1999. Miriti (Mauritia flexuosa) palms and their uses and management among the ribeirinhos of the Amazon estuary. Pp 169–186. In: C. Padoch, J. M. Ayres, M. Pinedo-Vasquez, & A. Henderson (eds). Várzea: Diversity, development, and conservation of Amazonia’s whitewater floodplains. The New York Botanical Garden, New York. Hoyos, M. 2005. Implementación de un Plan de Uso y Aprovechamiento Sostenible de Productos Naturales no Maderables del Bosque (PNNM) como Estrategia de Conservación de la Biodiversidad y Apoyo al Biocomercio Sostenible. Corantioquia. Medellín, Colombia. Holm Jensen, O. & H. Balslev. 1995. Ethnobotany of the fiber palm Astrocaryum chambira (Areaceae) in Amazonian Ecuador. Economic Botany 49: 309–319. Holm, J. A., C. Miller & W. P. Cropper. 2008. Population dynamics of the dioecious Amazonian palm Mauritia flexuosa: Simulation analysis of sustainable harvesting. Biotropica 40: 550–558. Howes, F. N. 1940. The uricury wax palm. Bulletin of Miscellaneous Information 18: 155–158. Hübschmann, L. K., L. P. Kvist, C. Grandez & H. Balslev. 2007. Uses of vara casha - a neotropical liana palm, Desmoncus polyacanthos - in Iquitos, Perú. Palms 51: 167–176. IBCE-Instituto Boliviano de Comercio Exterior. 2009. Perfil de mercado-productos cosmecéuticos. www.ibce.org.bo/documentos/res_perfil_pdts_cosmeceuticosCB14.pdf. Accessed May 20, 2010. ———. 2010.Perfil de mercado-palmito, Marzo 2010. www.ibce.org.bo//documentos/perfil_mercado_ palmito_CB13.pdf. Accessed May 20, 2010. IMAFLORA-Instituto de Manejo y Certificación Florestal y Agrícola. 2004. Resumen público de certificación de asociación de los seringueiros de la Reserva Extrativista San Luis del Remanso – ASER Capixaba, Acre, Piracicaba. Author's personal copy Palm Management in South America IUCN. 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 17 June, 2010. Jardim, M. A. G. & A. B. Anderson. 1987. Manejo de populaçoes nativas de açaizeiro no estuario amazônico. Boletim de Pesquisa Florestal 15: 1–18. Johnson, D. 1970. The carnauba wax palm (Copernicia prunifera) and its role as an economic plant. Thesis Master of Arts in Geography, UCLA, Los Angeles. ———. 1972. The carnauba wax palm (Copernicia prunifera). IV. Economic uses. Principes 16: 128–131. ———. 1982. Commercial palm products of Brazil. Principes 26: 141–143. ———. 1983. Multi-purpose palms in agroforestry: A classification and assessment. The International Tree Crops Journal 2: 217–244. ———. 1996. Manejo sostenible de asai (Euterpe precatoria) para la produccion de palmito en la concesión forestal de Taurma, Provincia Velasco, Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Documento Técnico 31/1996, Proyecto BOLFOR, Santa Cruz. ———. 2002. Palmitos (Euterpe spp.). Pp. 93–101 In: P. Shanley, A. Pierce, S. A. Laird & A. Guillén (eds.), Explotando del mercado verde: certificación y manejo de productos forestales no maderables. WWF. Nordan-Comunidad, Montevideo. Jordan, C. B. 1970. A study of germination and use in twelve palms of northeastern Peru. Principes 14: 26–32. Kahn, F. 1988. Ecology of economically important palms in Peruvian Amazonia. Advances in Economic Botany 6: 42–49. ———. 1993. Amazonian palms: Food resources for the management of forest ecosystems. Pp. 153–162. In: C. M. Hladik, H. Pagesy, O. F. Linares, A. Hladik & M. Hadley (eds.), Food and nutrition in the tropical forest: Biocultural interaction. Man and the Biosphere series, 13, Unesco, Paris. ——— & K. Mejía. 1987. Notes on the biology, ecology, and use of a small amazonian palm: Lepidocaryum tessmannii. Principes 31: 14–19. ——— & F. Moussa. 1999. Economic importance of Astrocaryum aculeatum (Palmae) in central Brazilian Amazonia. Acta Botanica Venezuelica 22: 237–245. Khieu, B. 1996. A Study on the use of the sugar palm tree (Borassus flabellifer) for different purposes in Cambodia. Master Thesis. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciencies, Uppsala. King, S. R. & L. E. Forero. 1988. Agroforestry. Pp. 149–160. In: M. J. Balick,Jessenia and Oenocarpus: neotropical oil palms worthy of domestication. FAO - Plant Production and Protection Paper No. 88. Rome. Kitze, E. D. & D. Johnson. 1975. Commercial palm products other than oils. Principes 19: 3–26. Knudsen, H. 1995. Demography, palm-heart extractivism, and reproductive biology of Prestoea acuminata (Arecaceae) in Ecuador. Master Thesis, Department of Systematic Botany, Institute of Biological Science, Aarhus University, Denmark. Kronborg, M., C. A. Grandez, E. Ferreira & H. Balslev. 2008. Aphandra natalia (Arecaceae) - a little known source of piassaba fibers from the western Amazon. Revista Peruana de Biología 15: 103–113. Lawrence, A., O. L. Phillips, A. Reategui-Ismodes, M. López, S. Rose, D. Wood & A. J. Farfán. 2005. Local values for harvested forest plants in Madre de Dios, Peru: Towards a more contextualized interpretation of quantitative ethnobotanical data. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 45–79. Lescure, J. P., L. Emperaire & C. Franciscon. 1992. Leopoldinia piassaba Wallace (Arecaceae): A few biological and economic data from the Rio Negro region (Brazil). Forest Ecology and Management 55: 83–86. Lewis, M. P. (ed.), 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Sixteenth edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com/. Accessed May 20, 2010 Lima-Rufino, R. M. U., J. T. Medeiros-Costa, V. A. da Silva & L. de H. Cavalcanti Andrade. 2008. Conhecimento e uso do ouricuri (Syagrus coronata) e do babaçu (Orbignya phalerata) em Buíque, PE, Brasil. Acta Botanica Brasilica 22: 1141–1149. Linares, E. L., G. Galeano, N. García & Y. Figueroa. 2008. Fibras vegetales empleadas en artesanías en Colombia. Artesanías de Colombia S.A. – Instituto de Ciencias Naturales de la Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá. Linares, R. 1991. Diagnóstico técnico del aprovechamiento de los bosques de naidí (Euterpe spp.) en la Costa Pacífica Nariñense (Colombia). Unpublished report, Convenio CONIF-CORPONARIÑO, Bogotá. Llamozas, S. S., R. Duno de Stefano, W. Meier, R. Riina, F. Stauffer, G. Aymard, O. Huber & R. Ortiz. 2003. Libro rojo de la flora venezolana. PROVITA-Fundación Polar-Fundación Instituto Botánico de Venezuela “Dr. Tobías Lasser”-Conservación Internacional, Caracas. Author's personal copy R. Bernal et al. Lleras, E. & L. Coradin. 1984. La palma Macauba (Acrocomia aculeta) como fuente potencial de aceite combustible. Pp. 102–112. In: FAO y CATIE (eds.), Palmeras poco utilizadas de América Tropical: informe de la reunión de consulta, San José, Costa Rica. Lopes, J. P., N. C. Corrêa & L. F. França. 2007. Transesterificação de óleo de murumuru (Astrocaryum murumuru) para a produção de biodiesel. www.biodiesel.gov.br/docs/congresso2007/producao/63.pdf. Accessed May 25, 2010. López Parodi, J. 1988. The use of palms and other native plants in non-conventional, low cost rural housing in the Peruvian Amazon. Advances in Economic Botany 6: 119–129. López, R., J. Navarro, M. Montero, K. Amaya, M. Rodríguez & A. Polania. 2006. Manual de identificación de especies no maderables del Corregimiento de Tarapacá, Colombia. Instituto de Investigaciones Científicas SINCHI– GTZ, Bogotá. Lorenzi, H., L. Noblick, F. Kahn & E. Ferreira. 2010. Arecaceae (Palmeiras). Flora Brasileira. Instituto Plantarum de Estudos da Flora Ltda. Nova Odessa. Brasil. Lozano, A. M. 2007. Aprovechamiento sustentable de la palma saro. Pp. 39–41 In: J. Baltodano, L. Paz & J. Wormworth (eds.), La gestión comunitaria de los bosques: entre la resistencia y las propuestas de uso sustentable. Amigos de la tierra, Amsterdam. Macía, M. J. 2004. Multiplicity in palm uses by the Huaorani of Amazonian Ecuador. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 144: 149–159. ———, P. J. Armesilla, R. Cámara-Leret, N. Paniagua-Zambrana, S. Villalba, H. Balslev & M. Pardo-de-Santayana. 2011. Palm Uses in North-western South America: a Quantitative Review. Botanical Review doi:10.1007/s12229-011-9086-8. Maciel, E. J., A. F. dos Santos, O. J. Lavoranti & E. G. Martins. 2005. Pupunha palm heart production from different plant density. Boletim de Pesquisa Florestal 51: 77–73. Málaga Valencia, N., E. Valenzuela & J. E. Ceballos. 1996. Aprovechamiento, procesamiento y uso de palmas para la elaboración de artesanias en Colombia. Unpublished report, Artesanías de Colombia, Bogotá. Manzi, M. & O. T. Coomes. 2009. Managing Amazonian palms for community use: A case of aguaje palm (Mauritia flexuosa) in Peru. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 510–517. May, P. 1991. Comercialización de los productos forestales no madereros del Amazonas brasileño. Unasylva 42: 9–16. ———, A. B. Anderson, M. J. Balick & J. M. Frazão. 1985a. Subsistence benefits from the Babassu palm (Orbignya martiana). Economic Botany 35: 113–129. ———, ———, J. M. F. Frazão & M. J. Balick. 1985b. Babassu palm in the agroforestry systems in Brazil’s mid-North region. Agroforestry Systems 3: 275–295. ———, R. Barbosa & O. Pereira. 1997. Management of commodity resources in the context of sustainable development. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development- UNCTAD, Geneve. Mejía, K. 1988. Utilization of palms in eleven mestizo villages of the Peruvian Amazon (Ucayali river, department of Loreto). Advances in Economic Botany 6: 130–136. ——— 1992. Las palmeras en los mercados de Iquitos. Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Études Andines 21: 755–769. Melnyk, M. 1996. Indigenous enterprise for the domestication of trees and the commercialization of their fruits. Pp. 97–103. In: R. R. B.Leakey, A. B Temu, M. Melnyk & P. Vantomme, eds., Domestication and commercialization of non-timber forest products in agroforestry systems Non-wood forest products No. 9. FAO, Rome. ——— & N. Bell. 1996. The direct-use values of tropical moist forest foods: The Huottuja (Piaroa) Amerindians of Venezuela. Ambio 25: 468–472. Mendonça, J. 2006. Uso sustentável de espécies de palmeiras da apa da Baixada Maranhense para controle e recuperação de áreas degradadas por erosão. Universidade Federal Do Maranhão, Departamento de Oceanografia e Limnologia, São Luís. Mendoza Rodríguez, R. E. 2007. Irapay, cosechando hojas hoy y mañana. IIAP, Proyecto BIODAMAZ, Iquitos. Meza, R. 2001. Cuenca Chambira: Estudio de mercado de aguaje, chonta y pescado fresco salado. Documento de Trabajo. Serie: Estudios y Monitoreo del Mercado. Peru. Miah, M. D., R. Ahmed & S. J. Islam. 2003. Indigenous management practices of golpata (Nypa fruticans) in local plantations in southern Bangladesh. Palms 47: 185–190. Miller, C. 2002. Fruit production of Ungurahua palm (Oenocarpus bataua subsp. bataua, Arecaceae) in an indigenous managed reserve. Economic Botany 56: 165–176. Author's personal copy Palm Management in South America Miller, R. H. 1964. The versatile sugar palm. Principes 8: 115–147. Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible, República de Bolivia. 2006. Norma técnica para aprovechamiento comercial sostenible de recursos forestales no maderables en bosques y tierras forestales naturales. http://kedlap.cebem.org/index.php?/esl/Recursos/Biblioteca/Norma-Tecnica-para-aprovechamientocomercial-sostenible-de-recursos-forestales-no-maderablesen-bosques-y-tierras-forestales-naturales. Miranda, I., E. Barbosa, A. Rabelo & F. Santiago. 2008a. Palmas de comunidades ribereñas como recurso sustentable en la Amazonía brasileña. Revista Peruana de Biología 15(supl. 1): 115–120. Miranda, J. F., A. Montaño, F. Zenteno, H. Nina & J. Mercado. 2008b. El Majo (Oenocarpus bataua): una alternativa de biocomercio en Bolivia. TRÓPICO-PNBS-FAN. Ediciones TRÓPICO, La Paz. Mitja, D. & I. D. K. Ferraz. 2001. Establishment of Babassu in pastures in Pará, Brazil. Palms 45: 138–147. Mogea, J., B. Seibert & W. Smits. 1991. Multipropose palms: The sugar palm (Arenga pinnata (Wurmb) Merr.). Agroforestry Systems 13: 111–129. Montoya, P. 2001. Guía para el manejo y aprovechamiento del palmiche o jatata: Geonoma deversa (Poiteau) Kunth. Serie Ciencia y Tecnología. No. 94. Convenio Andrés Bello, Bogotá. Montúfar, R., H. Navarrete, N. Duarte, F. Anthelme, J. G. Licango, S. Espinoza, C. Gully, J. Maiguashca, J. M. Barreiro & M. Espinoza. 2010. La Palma de Ramos en Ecuador. Historia natural y estado de conservación de Ceroxylon echinulatum en las estribaciones andinas nor-occidentales. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito. Moraes, M. 2001. Richness and utilization of palms in Bolivia - some essential criteria for their management. Pp 269–278. In: W. Barthlott & M. Winiger (eds). Biodiversity: A challenge for development, research and policy. Springer, Berlin. ——— 2004. Flora de palmeras de Bolivia. Herbario Nacional de Bolivia, Instituto de Ecología, Universidad Mayor de San Andrés, La Paz. ———, F. Borchsenius & U. M. Blicher. 1996. Notes on the biology and uses of the Motacú palm (Attalea phalerata) from Bolivia. Economic Botany 50: 423–428. ——— & A. Henderson. 1990. The genus Parajubaea (Palmae). Brittonia 42: 92–99. Moreno, L. R. & O. I. Moreno. 2006. Colecciones de las palmeras de Bolivia. Palmae – Arecaceae. Editorial FAN, Santa Cruz de La Sierra, Bolivia. Moreno, S., C. E. Sánchez, G. Galeano, J. Salazar & L. J. Barrios. 1991. Proyecto Cubiertas vegetales y maderables para la región húmeda de La Guajira. Programa de Arquitectura Tropical, Bogotá. Moussa, F. & F. Kahn. 1997. Uso y potencial económico de dos palmas, Astrocaryum aculeatum Meyer y A. vulgare Martius, en la Amazonia Brasileña. Pp. 101–116. In: M. Ríos & H. Borgtoft Pedersen. Uso y manejo de recursos vegetales. Memorias del Segundo Simposio Ecuatoriano de Etnobotánica y Botánica Económica. Ediciones Abya-Yala Quito. Muniz-Miret, N., R. Vamos, M. Hiraoka, F. Montagnini & R. O. Mendelson. 1996. The economic value of managing the asaí palm (Euterpe oleracea Mart.) in the floodplains of the Amazon estuary, Pará, Brazil. Forest Ecology and Management 87: 163–173. Muñoz, E. 2007. Dinámica poblacional de Euterpe oleracea Martius en bosques inundables del Pacífico Colombiano. Tesis de Magister. Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Medellín. Narváez, A. & F. Stauffer. 1999. Products derived from palms at the Puerto Ayacucho markets in Amazonas State, Venezuela. Principes 43: 122–129. Navarro, B. 2006. Estudio de las cadenas productivas de aguaje y tagua. Reserva Nacional Pacaya Samiria, Loreto – Perú. ProNaturaleza, The Nature Conservancy, Agencia de los Estados Unidos para el Desarrollo Internacional (USAID), Lima. Navarro, J. 2009. Impacto de la cosecha de hojas sobre una población de la palma clonal caraná (Lepidocaryum tenue)en la Estación Biológica El Zafire, Municipio de Leticia, Amazonas (Colombia). Tesis de Magíster, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá. ———, G. Galeano & R. Bernal. 2011. Impact of leaf harvest on populations of Lepidocaryum tenue, an Amazonian understory palm used for thatching.Tropical Conservation Science 4: 25–38. Nepstad, D. C., I. F. Brown, L. Luz, A. Alechandre & V. Viana. 1992. Biotic impoverishment of Amazonian forests by rubber tappers, loggers and cattle ranchers. Advances in Economic Botany 9: 1–14. Noblick, L. R. 2009. Syagrus evansiana, a new palm from Minas Gerais, Brazil. Palms 53: 113–118. ——— & H. Lorenzi. 2010a. Lytocaryum, including a new species from Bahia, Brazil. Palms 54: 5–17. ——— & ———. 2010b. New Syagrus species from Brazil. Palms 54: 18–42. Nogueira, O. L. & H. E. Oliveira. 2000. Análise de crescimento de açaizeiros em áreas de várzea do estuário amazônico. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 35: 2167–2173. Author's personal copy R. Bernal et al. ———, B. B. G. Calzavara, C. H. Muller & D. A. Moreira. 1998. Manejo de açaizeiros (Euterpe oleracea Mart.) cultivados em Latossolo Amarelo Amazônia. Revista Brasilera de Fruticultura 20: 53–59. Ojeda-Salvador, P. 1994. Efecto de la intervención en la floración y frutificación de Mauritia flexuosa L.f. (morete) en el Parque Nacional Yasuní y notas sobre la comercialización del fruto. Tesis de Licenciatura, Departamento de Biología, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito. Orlande, T., J. Laarman & J. Mortimer. 1996. Palmito sustainability and economics in Brazil’s Atlantic coastal forest. Forest Ecology and Management 80: 257–265. Paniagua-Zambrana, N. Y. 2005. Diversidad, densidad, distribución y uso de las palmas en la región de Madidi, noreste del departamento de La Paz (Bolivia). Ecología en Bolivia 40: 265–280. ——— & M. Moraes. 2009. Hacia el manejo del motacú (Attalea phalerata, Arecaceae) bajo diferente tipo de cosecha (Riberalta, depto. Beni, NE Bolivia): Estructura y densidad poblacional. Revista GAB 4: 17–23. Patiño, A. L. 2006. Uso y manejo de la flora entre los Awá de Cuambí-Yaslambí, con énfasis en plantas medicinales (Barbacoas, Nariño - Colombia). Tesis de Magister, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá. Patiño, V. M. 1963. Plantas cultivadas y animales domésticos en América Equinoccial. Imprenta Departamental, Cali, Colombia. ——— 1977. El corozo o nolí (Elaeis oleifera), recurso natural oleaginoso de Colombia. Cespedesia 6: 1– 21. Peña-Claros, M. 1996. Ecology and socioeconomics of palm heart from wild populations of Euterpe precatoria Mart. in eastern Bolivia. M. Sc. Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville. ——— & P. Zuidema. 2000. Limitaciones demográficas para el aprovechamiento sostenible de Euterpe precatoria para producción de palmito en dos tipos de bosque de Bolivia. Ecología en Bolivia 34: 7–25. Peters, C. M. 1996. The ecology and management of non-timber forest resources. The World Bank, Washington. ———, M. J. Balick, F. Kahn & A. B. Anderson. 1989. Oligarchic forests of economic plants in Amazonia: Utilization and conservation of an important tropical resource. Conservation Biology 3: 341–349. Petit, J. 2001. Productos forestales no madereros en America Latina. Santiago de Chile. Pezo, R. 2005. Informe Técnico, Uso y conservación de la diversidad biológica en ecosistemas inundables de San Miguel. Informe Técnico, BIODAMAZ,-IIAP, Iquitos. Pezzani, F. 2007. Los palmares de Butia capitata en la Reserva Bañados del Este, Uruguay: un escenario para la conservación y el desarrollo. Pp. 201–208. In: P. Araya & M. Clüsener-Godt (eds.), Las Reservas de la Biosfera, un espacio para la integración de conservación y desarrollo. Experiencias exitosas en Iberoamerica. UNESCO - Paris. Piedade, M. T., P. Parolin & W. J. Junk. 2003. Estratégias de dispersão, produção de frutos e extrativismo da palmeira Astrocaryum jauari Mart. nos igapós do Rio Negro: implicações para a ictiofauna. Journal of Applied Ecology 2: 31–40. Pierce, A. R. & P. Shanley. 2002. Aspectos ecológicos. Pp. 269–283. In: P. Shanley, A. Pierce, S.A. Laird & A. Guillén (eds.), Explotando del mercado Verde: Certificación y manejo de productos forestales no maderables. WWF. Nordan-Comunidad, Montevideo. Pinard, M. 1993. Impacts of stem harvesting on populations of Iriartea deltoidea (Palmae) in an extractive reserve in Acre, Brazil. Biotropica 25: 2–14. Pinheiro, C.U. 2004. A palmeira babaçu (Orbignya phalerata Martius) e sua exploração na região dos cocais, Maranhão, nordeste do Brasil. Pp. 157–174. In: M. N. Alexiades & P. Shanley (eds.), Productos forestales, medios de subsistencia y conservación. Estudios de caso sobre sistemas de manejo de productos forestales no maderables - America Latina. Vol. 3, 157–173. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. ——— & J. M. F. Ferro. 1995. Integral processing of Babassu (Orbignya phalerata Arecaceae) fruits: Village level production in Maranhao, Brazil. Economic Botany 49: 31–39. Pino, N. & H. Valois. 2004. Ethnobotany of four black communities of municipality of Quibdó, ChocóColombia. Lyonia 7: 61–69. Pintaud, J. C. & F. Anthelme. 2008. Ceroxylon echinulatum in an agroforestry system of northern Peru. Palms 52: 96–102. Pintaud, J., G. Galeano, H. Balslev, R. Bernal, F. Borchsenius, E. Ferreira, J. J. de Granville, K. Mejía, B. Millán, M. Moraes, L. Noblick, F. Stauffer & F. Kahn. 2008. Las palmeras de América del Sur: diversidad, distribución e historia evolutiva. Revista Peruana de Biolologia 15: 5–27. Politis, G. 1996. Nukak. Instituto de Investigaciones Científicas SINCHI. Santa Fe de Bogotá, Colombia. Author's personal copy Palm Management in South America Pollack, H., M. Mattos & C. Uhl. 1995. A profile of palm heart extraction in the Amazon Estuary. Human Ecology 23: 357–385. Proexport. 2009. Base de datos Zeiky (http://www.proexport.com.co). Accessed October 15, 2009. Pulgarín, N. & R. Bernal. 2004. El potencial de la palma de vino, Attalea butyracea, como planta azucarera. Pp. 194. In: B. R. Ramírez-Padilla, D. Macías-P. & G. Varona-B. (eds.), Libro de Resúmenes Tercer Congreso Colombiano de Botánica. Universidad del Cauca, Popayán. Putz, F. E. 1979. Biology and human use of Leopoldinia piassaba. Principes 23: 149–156. Quitete, R. C. 2008. Ecologia populacional de três espécies de palmeiras em uma paisagem fragmentada no domino da Mata Atlântica. Ph. D. Thesis, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Estadual de Campina, Campinas. Ramírez, G. & I. Morales. 2003. Aspectos fenológicos, de crecimiento y comercialización de Ammandra decasperma tagua. Ciencia y Tecnologia, Universidad Distrital Francisco Jose de Caldas. Centro de Investigación y Desarrollo Científico, Bogotá. Reis, M. S., R. Conte, R. O. Nodari, A. C. Fantini, A. Reis, A. Mantovani & A. Mariot. 2000a. Manejo sustentável e produtividade do palmiteiro (Euterpe edulis Martius, Arecaceae). Sellowia 49– 52: 202–224. ———, A. C. Fantini, R. O. Nodari, M. P. Guerra & A. Reis. 2000b. Sustainable yield management of Euterpe edulis Martius (Palmae): A tropical palm tree from the Atlantic tropical forest-Brazil. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 11: 1–17. ———, ———, ———, A. Reis, M. P. Guerra & A. Mantovani. 2000c. Management and conservation of natural populations in Atlantic rain forest: The case study of palm heart (Euterpe edulis Martius). Biotropica 32: 894–902. Restrepo, E. 1996. El naidí entre los "grupos negros" del Pacífico sur colombiano. Pp. 351–383. In: J. I. DelValle & E. Restrepo (eds.), Renacientes del guandal: "grupos negros" de los ríos Satinga y Sanquianga. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Medellín. Ribeiro, R. J. & J. Odorizii. 2000. Um caso de manejo em regime de rendimento sustentado do palmiteiro na Fazenda Nova Trieste El Dorado, SP. Sellowia 49–52: 245–255. ———, W. M. Portilho, A. Reis, A. C. Fantini & M. S. Reis. 1994. O manejo sustentado do palmiteiro no Vale do Ribeira. Florestar Estatístico 1: 15–16. Ribeiro-de Azevedo, R. 2005. Tipologia do sistema de manejo de açaizais nativos praticado pelos ribeirinhos em Belém estado do Pará. Thesis, Curso de Pós-Graduação em Agriculturas Amazônicas, Universidade Federal do Pará, Belém, Brazil. ——— & O. Ryohei. nd. Sistema de manejo de açaizais nativos praticado por ribeirinhos das Ilhas de Paquetá e Ilha Grande, Belém. www.cnpat.embrapa.br/sbsp/anais/Trab_Format_PDF/23.pdf. Accessed November 20, 2009. Ríos, M. 2001. Compilación y análisis sobre los productos forestales no madereros (PFNM) en el Perú. Información y análisis para el manejo forestal sostenible: Integrando esfuerzos nacionales e internacionales. Estudios nacionales sobre productos no madereros en América Latina. FAO, Santiago de Chile. Rivas, M. & A. Barilani. 2004. Diversidad, potencial productivo y reproductivo de los palmares de Butia capitata (Mart.) Becc. de Uruguay. Agrociencia 8: 20. Rocha, E. 2004. Potencial ecológico para o manejo de frutos de açaizeiro (Euterpe precatoria Mart.) em áreas extrativistas no Acre, Brasil. Acta Amazónica 34: 237–250. ——— & V. M. Viana. 2004. Manejo de Euterpe precatoria Mart. (Açaí) no seringal Caquetá, Brasil. Scientia Forestalis 65: 59–69. Rodríguez, S. & M. A. Orjuela. 2000. Evaluación del impacto de la cosecha y propuestas de manejo de la maraya (Geonoma orbignyana): una palma usada como follaje. Trabajo de grado, Departamento de Biología, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá. Roosevelt, D. 2001. El sótano o palmito. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia del Ecuador Guayaquil, Ecuador http://www.sica.gov.ec/agronegocios/biblioteca/ing%20rizzo/perfiles_productos/palmito.pdf. Accessed November 15, 2009. Ruiz-Murrieta, J. 1991. El aguaje: alimento del bosque Amazónico. Temas Forestales 8: 5–28. ——— & J. Levistre-Ruiz. 1993. Aguajales: Forest fruit extraction in the peruvian Amazon Pp. 797– 804. In: C. M. Hladick, O. F. Linares& H. Pagezy (eds.), Tropical forests, people, and food: biocultural interactions and applications to development. Vol. 13 MAB series. UNESCO, Paris. Salazar, H., A. M. Ceballos, J. F. González, L. Calderón & J. F. Giraldo. 2006. Estudio comparativo del desarrollo fisiológico del palmito de chontaduro (Bactris gasipaes K) para dos sistemas de Author's personal copy R. Bernal et al. siembra en el cultivo de la granja Montelindo de la Universidad de Caldas y la evaluación de diferentes sistemas de conservación. http://vector.ucaldas.edu.co/downloads/Vector1_8.pdf. Accessed May 20, 2010. Salm, R. 2004. Tree species diversity in a sesonally-dry forest: The case of Pinkaití site, in the Kayapó indigenous area, southern limits of the Amazon. Acta Amazonica 34: 435–443. Sampaio, B. M., I. S. Belloni & I. F. Benedetti. 2008. Harvesting effects and population ecology of the Buriti palm (Mauritia flexuosa L.f., Arecaceae) in the Jalapáo region, Central Brazil. Economic Botany 62: 171–181. Schmidt, M. J. 2003. Farming and patterns of agrobiodiversity on the Amazon foodplain in the vicinity of Mamirauá, Amazonas, Brazil. M. Sc. Thesis, University of Florida, Gainsville. Schroth, G., M. S. S. da Mota, R. Lopes & A. F. de Freitas. 2004. Extractive use, management and in situ domestication of a weedy palm, Astrocaryum tucuma, in the central Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management 202: 161–179. Stagegaard, J., M. Sørensen & L. P. Kvist. 2002. Estimations of the importance of plant resources extracted by inhabitants of the Peruvian Amazon flood plains. Perspective in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 5: 103–122. Stauffer, F. W. 2000. Aprovechamiento, conservación y protección. Pp. 127–132. In: F. W. Stauffer (ed.), Contribución al estudio de las palmas (Arecaceae) del Estado Amazonas, Venezuela. Scientia Guaianae 10: 127–132. Stoian, D. 1999. Change and adaptation as keys to sustainability: Extraction based livelihood system in the Bolivian Amazon. Deutscher Tropentag. Sesion: Research and Management of Ecosystems and Natural Resources incl. Forests, Berlin. ———. 2000. Shifts in forest product extraction: The post-rubber era in the Bolivian Amazon. International Tree Crops Journal 10: 277–297. Strudwick, J. & G. L. Sobel. 1988. Uses of Euterpe oleracea Mart. in the Amazon estuary, Brazil. Advances in Economic Botany 6: 225–253. Suárez, H. 2002. Efecto de la cosecha y de la luz en la productividad de hojas de irapay (Lepidocaryum tesmannii), comunidad de Nuevo Triunfo - río Tahuayo – Loreto. M. Sc. Thesis, Universidad Nacional Agraria la Molina, Escuela de Postgrado, Lima. Suárez, Z. 2001. Evaluación del estado de conservación de la palma de almendrón o táparo (Attalea amygdalina Kunth, Palmae). Thesis, Departamento de Biología, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá. SUNAT. 2006. Sistemas de reportes de biocomercio. www.biocomercioperu.org; www.siforestal.org.pe. Accessed November 20, 2009. Svenning, J. C. & M. J. Macía. 2002. Harvesting of Geonoma macrostachys Mart. leaves for thatch: An exploration of sustainability. Forest Ecology and Management 167: 251–262. Thampan, P. K. 1975. Handbook on Coconut Palm. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi. Thompson, L. N., M. Moraes & M. Baudoin. 2009. Estructura poblacional de la palmera endémica Parajubaea torallyi (Mart.) Burret en zonas aprovechadas del Área Natural de Manejo Integrado El Palmar (Chuquisaca, Bolivia). Ecología en Bolivia 44: 17–35. Tibaquirá, L. 1980. Potencial de los bosques de palma naidí en la costa sur del Pacífico colombiano (Cauca y Nariño) Unpublished report. Ministerio de Agricultura, Subgerencia de Fomento de Bosques, Aguas y Suelos, División Bosques Naturales, Bogotá. Ticktin, T. 2004. Review: The ecological implications of harvesting non-timber forest products. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 11–21. Torres, C. & J. Avendaño. 2009. Protocolo de aprovechamiento y determinación de la oferta para las especies de uso artesanal tetera (Stromanthe jacquinii), chocolatillo (Ischnosiphon arouma) en el Resguardo Indígena de Joaquincito (Bajo Río Naya) y Werregue (Astrocaryum standleyanum) en el Resguardo Indígena de Puerto Pizario (Bajo Río San Juan), Valle del Cauca. Corporación Autónoma Regional del Valle del Cauca, Fundación Zoológico de Cali. Bogotá. ——— & C. Perdomo. 2008. Diagnóstico de la oferta natural de la tagua e identificación de la cadena de provisión en el occidente del Departamento de Boyacá. Unpublished report, Artesanías de Colombia, Bogotá. Torres, M. C. 2007. Protocolos de aprovechamiento in situ para las especies de uso artesanal wérregue (Astrocaryum standleyanum), damagua (Poulsenia armata), tagua (Phytelephas macrocarpa) y paja blanca (Calamagrostis effusa) en los Departamentos de Chocó y Boyacá. Unpublished report. Artesanías de Colombia, Bogotá. Author's personal copy Palm Management in South America Valencia, R., N., Pitman, S. León-Yanez & P. M. Jørgensen (eds.). 2000. Libro rojo de las plantas endémicas de Ecuador. Herbario QCA, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito. Valente, R. & S. Almeida. 2001. As palmeiras de Caxiuanã. Informações Botânicas e Utilização por comunidades Ribeirinhas. Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi - Universidade Federal do Pará, Belém, Brazil. Vallejo, M. I., N. Valderrama, R. Bernal, G. Galeano, G. Arteago & C. Leal. In press. Producción de palmito de Euterpe oleracea (Arecaceae) en la Costa Pacífica colombiana: estado actual y perspectivas. Colombia Forestal 14. van Andel, T. R. 2000. Commercial extraction of palm hearts. Pp. 147–188. In: T.R. van Andel (ed.), Non-timber forest products of the North-West District of Guyana Part I. Tropenbos Guyana Series 8, Guyana. van Looy, T., O. Carrero, E. Mathijs & E. Tollens. 2008. Underutilized agroforestry food products in Amazonas (Venezuela): A market chain analysis. Agroforestry Systems 74: 127–141. Varón, E. H. & J. Zapata. 2001. Canangucha, Mauritia flexuosa L. Pp. 81–90. In: R. González (ed.), Especies promisorias de la Amazonia. Colciencias, Bogotá. Vásquez, R. & A. H. Gentry. 1989. Use and misuse of forest-harvested fruits in the Iquitos Area. Coservation Biology 3: 350–361. Velásquez, J. 1998. Productivity and sustainability of a vegetable ivory palm (Phytelephas aequatorialis, Arecaceae) under three management regimes in northwestern Ecuador. Economic Botany 52: 168– 182. Vellard, J. 1939. Une civilisation du miel. Les Indiens Guayakis du Paraguay. Gallimard, Paris. Vergara, L. K. 2002. Demografía de Ceroxylon alpinum en bosques del valle de Cocora, Salento (Quindío). Tesis, Departamento de Biología, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá. ——— & R. Bernal. 2002. Demografía de Ceroxylon alpinum, una palma de cera amenazada: impacto de la extracción de ramo para Semana Santa. Pp. 207. In: J. O.Rangel-Ch., J. Aguirre-C. & M. G. Andrade-C. (eds.), Libro de Resúmenes Octavo Congreso Latinamericano y Segundo Colombiano de Botánica. Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá. Vicepresidencia República de Colombia. 2010. La población afrocolombiana. www.vicepresidencia. gov.co/Es/iniciativas/Afrocolombia/Paginas/PoblacionAfrocolombiana.aspx. Accessed December 9, 2010. Vieira, T., L. Rosa, P. Vasconcelos, M. Dos Santos & R. Modesto. 2007. Sistemas agroflorestais em áreas de agricultores familiares em Igarapé-Açu, Pará: caracterização florística, implantação e manejo. Acta Amazonica 37: 549–558. Voeks, R. A. 1988. The Brazilian fiber belt: Harvest and management of Piassava palm (Attalea funifera Mart.). Advances in Economic Botany 3: 254–271. Vormisto, J. 2002. Making and marketing chambira hammocks and bags in the village of Brillo Nuevo, northeastern Peru. Economic Botany 56: 27–40. Waldrón, T. 2001. Estudio de la dinámica poblacional de las palmas táparo (Attalea allenii) y memé (Wettinia quinaria), como herramienta para sus uso sostenible en la Costa Pacífica del Chocó. Thesis, Departamento de Biológia, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá. Wallace, A. R. 1853. Palm trees of the Amazon and their uses. John Van Voorst, London. Weinstein, S. & S. Moegenburg. 2004. Açaí palm management in the Amazon Estuary: Course for conservation or passage to plantations. Conservation & Society 2: 314–346. Wheeler, M. A. 1970. Siona use of chambira palm fiber. Economic Botany 24: 180–181. Wilbert, J. 1976. Manicaria saccifera and its cultural significance among the Warao indians of Venezuela. Botanical Museum Leaflets 24: 275–335. ———. 1980. The temiche cap. Principes 24: 105–109. Yuyama, K. & F. M. S. Silva. 2003. Desenvolvimento inicial da pupunheira em monocultivo e intercalado com culturas anuais. Horticultura Brasileira 21: 15–19. Zent, E. I. & S. Zent. 2002. Impactos ambientales generadores de biodiversidad: Conductas ecológicas de los Hotï de la sierra Maigualida, Amazonas Venezolano. Interciencia 27: 9–20. Zizumbo-Villarreal, D. & P. Colunga-GarcíaMarín. 2008. Early coconut distillation and the origins of mezcal and tequila spirits in west-central Mexico. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 55: 493– 510. Zuidema, P. A. & R. G. A. Boot. 2000. Demographic constraints to sustainable palm heart extraction from a sub-canopy palm in Bolivia. Pp. 53–79. In: P. A. Zudeima (ed.), Demography of exploited tree species in the Bolivian Amazon. Promab Scientific Series 2, Riberalta. Appendix 1 Species Country Human group Harvest technique Management Acrocomia aculeata BR ME FM CU, LP, TR Aiphanes horrida BO, CO, EC Use category Part used Reference PL Food, Fuel, Natural ingredients, Ornamental Fruit, Whole palm Lleras & Coradin, 1984; Moraes, 2004; Caldas-Lorenzi, 2006; Moreno & Moreno, 2006 AS, GP PL Ornamental, Food Whole palm, Seed Borchsenius et al., 1998; Moraes, 2004; Galeano & Bernal, 2010 Allagoptera leucocalyx BO, BR AM DH PF, PT IT Food Fruit Balick, 1988; Paniagua-Zambrana, 2005 Ammandra decasperma CO ME GH PF AT, PL Handicraft Fruit, Seed; Ramírez & Morales, 2003 Aphandra natalia BR, EC, PE AM CP, DH, FM LP, SH, WE AS, PT PL Handicraft, Implements and tools, Construction, Food, Animal feed Sheath, Petiole, Leaf, Fruit, Inflorescence, Seed Borgtoft Pedersen, 1992; Boll et al., 2005; Kronborg et al., 2008 Astrocaryum aculeatum BO, BR AM, ME CT, FR, GH, ND CU, DS, HR, LP GP, PL, SF IT Food, Implements and tools, Handicraft Stem, Fruit, Seed Moussa & Kahn, 1997; Boom, 1986; Costa & Duarte, 2002; Schroth et al., 2004; Clement, 2005 Astrocaryum chambira CO, EC, PE AM, ME CN, CP, CT, CU, LP, SH, DH, FM, FR SS, WE GP, PF IT Food, Handicraft, Implements and tools, Construction Fruit, Spear leaf, Stem Wheeler, 1970; Vásquez & Gentry, 1989; Borgtoft Pedersen & Balslev, 1990; Holm Jensen & Balslev, 1995; R. Bernal et al. Land tenure CU, LP Land use Author's personal copy Table 2 Synopsis of Palm Management in South America. Countries: BO, Bolivia; BR, Brazil; CH, Chile; CO, Colombia; EC, Ecuador; GU, Guyana; PE, Peru; SU, Suriname; UR, Uruguay; VE, Venezuela. Human Groups: AF, Afro-descendants; AM, Amerindians; ME, Mestizos or Caboclos. Harvest Techniques: CN, Climbing Neighboring Tree; CP, Climbing the Palm; CT, Cutting Tool at the End of a Pole; DH, Direct Harvest of Low or Acaulescent Palms; FM, Felling as a Consequence of Mismanagement; FR, Felling Required; GH, Harvest from the Ground; ND, No Data (but No Felling); SC, Shoot Cutting in Cespitose Palms. Management: CU, Cultivation; DS, Diagnostic Study or Monitoring Prior to Harvest; EN, Enrichment of Harvested Areas through Seed Dispersal or Seedling Planting; FE, Fertilization; FI, Fire Use; HR, Harvest Area Rotation; LP, Leaving Palms When Forest is Cut; PC, Pest Control; SH, Selective Harvest by Age, Size or Sex; SR, Seasonal Restriction (Moon Phases, Phenological or Climatic Cycles, Tradition); SS, Individuals or Areas Left as Seed Sources; TH, Thinning and Pruning (Removal of Individuals, Shoots or Leaves); TR, Transplanting; WE, Weeding or Removal of Competing Shrubs, Trees or Lianas. Land Use: AS, Agroforestry System; FP, Forest on Floodplain; GP, Garden Plot; PF, Primary Forest; PL, Plantation; PS, Palm Stand; PT, Pasture; SF, Secondary Forest. Land Tenure: AT, Afrodescendant Territory; CL, Private Lands of Common Use; IT, Indigenous Territory; ER, Extractive Reserve; NL, National Lands; PA, Protected Areas; PL, Private Lands. Conservation Status: * Vulnerable; ** Endangered [Based on Dransfield et al. (1988), IUCN (2010), Valencia et al. (2000), Llamozas et al. (2003), and Galeano and Bernal (2010)] Species Country Human group Harvest technique Management Land use Land tenure Use category Part used Reference Vormisto, 2002; Coomes, 2004; Cruz, 2006; López et al., 2006; Balslev et al., 2008; Linares et al., 2008 PE ME CT Astrocaryum jauari BR, CO, GU PE, SU ME FM Astrocaryum malybo CO** ME DH Astrocaryum murumuru BO, BR, PE AM FR, GH, ND AF, AM, ME CT, FM, FR Astrocaryum CO, EC* standleyanum Food Fruit Vásquez & Gentry, 1989 AS, FP IT Food Spear leaf, Fruit Vásquez & Gentry, 1989; Kahn, 1993; Piedade et al., 2003 PT CL, PL Handicraft Spear leaf Barrera et al., 2007b PF, FP ER, IT Construction, Food, Natural ingredients Fruit, Seed, Leaf, Stem,Spear leaf Clement, 2005; Paniagua-Zambrana, 2005; Lopes et al., 2007; Balslev et al., 2008 CU, EN, LP, SR PF AT, IT, PA Construction, Food, Handicraft Fruit, Stem, Spear leaf Galeano & Bernal, 1987; Borgtoft Pedersen, 1994; Fadiman, 2003; Hernández, 2003; Torres, 2007; Linares et al., 2008 Construction, Food, Implements and tools Fruit, Stem, Spear leaf Valente & Almeida, 2001; Lorenzi et al., 2010 Food Seed Waldrón, 2001 Cultural, Food Seed, Spear leaf Suárez, 2001 Construction Whole leaf Bodley & Benson, 1979 Animal feed, Construction, Food, Handicraft, Implements and tools Fruit, Leaf, Leaf blade, Spear leaf, Sap, Stem, Moreno et al., 1991; Pulgarín & Bernal, 2004; Goulding & Smith, 2007; Balslev et al., 2008; Cocomá, 2010, Bernal et al., 2010 Animal feed, Food Fruit, Seed Blicher-Mathiesen & Balslev, 1990 CU, LP, SH Astrocaryum vulgare BR ME GH LP PT, SF Attalea allenii CO AF DH LP PF Attalea amygdalina CO** ME DH LP AS, PT, SF Attalea bassleriana PE AM FM Attalea butyracea BO, BR, EC, CO, PE, VE AM, ME CP, FM, FR CU, LP, SR GP, PT Attalea colenda EC* ME GH LP PT AT IT, PL Author's personal copy Astrocaryum huicungo Palm Management in South America Table 2 (continued) Table 2 (continued) Human group Harvest technique Management Land use Land tenure Use category Part used Reference Attalea cuatrecasana CO AF DH LP PF AT Construction, Food, Fuel Leaf, Spear leaf, Fruit, Seed Galeano & Bernal, 2010 Attalea funifera BR CP, CT, DH CU, FI, LP PF, PT Food, Handicraft, Implements and tools Seed, Sheath Voeks, 1988; Lorenzi et al., 2010 Attalea maripa BR, CO, PE, VE AM, ME CN, CP, FM, FR, GH LP, TH PF, SF PA Construction, Food, Implements and tools Fruit, Leaf, Stem, Acero, 1979; Vásquez & Gentry, 1989; Valente & Almeida, 2001; Zent & Zent, 2002; Salm, 2004 Attalea microcarpa BR, CO, PE AM, ME DH SR PF IT Construction, Food Fruit. Leaf Vásquez & Gentry, 1989; Galeano & Bernal, 2010 Attalea moorei PE ME DH Food Fruit Vásquez & Gentry, 1989 Attalea phalerata BO, BR, PE AM, ME DH, FM, FR, GH PT, SF Construction, Food, Fuel, Natural ingredients Fruit, Leaf, Stem, Seed Vásquez & Gentry, 1989; May, 1991; Moraes et al., 1996; Moraes, 2001; Balslev et al., 2008; PaniaguaZambrana & Moraes, 2009 Attalea plowmanii PE ME DH PF Food Seed Vásquez & Gentry, 1989 Attalea princeps BO, BR ME CT Construction, Food Fruit, Leaf Lorenzi et al., 2010 Attalea salazarii PE ME CT Food Fruit Vásquez & Gentry, 1989 Attalea speciosa BO, BR AM, ME FM, FR, GH Attalea spectabilis BR Attalea tessmannii BR, PE** CU, LP LP LP, TH, WE DH ME FM LP PT AS, GP, PF, PT CL, PA Animal feed, Construction, Food, Fuel, Natural ingredients Fruit, Stem, Seed May et al., 1985a, b; Balslev & Moraes,1989; Peters et al., 1989; Dubois, 1990; Pinheiro & Ferro, 1995; Anderson et al., 2001; Mitja and Ferraz 2001; Pinheiro, 2004; Paniagua-Zambrana, 2005; Lima-Rufino et al., 2008 PS, SF PA Food Fruit Valente & Almeida, 2001 Construction, Food Fruit, Leaf, Seed Vásquez & Gentry, 1989; Lorenzi et al., 2010 PT Author's personal copy Country R. Bernal et al. Species Species Country Bactris GU, PE acanthocarpa Human group Harvest technique AM, ME DH, SC Management Land use Land tenure Use category Part used Reference PF, SF IT Construction, Food Fruit, Stem, Whole leaf Van Andel, 2000b; Balslev et al., 2008 CO AF SC LP PF, SF AT Construction Stem Galeano & Bernal, 1987 Bactris brongniartii BR, CO, PE ME SC LP PT, SC AT, IT, PL Food Fruit Vásquez & Gentry, 1989; Galeano & Bernal, 2010; Lorenzi et al., 2010 Bactris coloradonis CO AF FM, SC LP PF, PT, SF Construction, Implements and tools Stem Pino & Valois, 2004; Galeano & Bernal, 2010 Bactris concinna BR, PE ME SC LP PF, PT, SF Food Fruit Vásquez & Gentry, 1989; Lorenzi et al., 2010 Bactris gasipaes BR, CO, EC, PE AM, ME CP, CN, CT, FR, SC CU, FE, PC, SH, SR, TH, WE AS, GP, PF, PL IT, PA Food, Fuel Fruit, Palm Heart, Seed Vásquez & Gentry, 1989; Borgtoft Pedersen & Balslev 1990; Alomia, 1996; Erazo-Rivadeneira & García, 2001; Ríos, 2001; Roosevelt, 2001; Yuyama & Silva, 2003; Clement et al., 2004; Clement et al., 2004; Maciel et al., 2005; Salazar et al., 2006; Balslev et al., 2008 Bactris guineensis CO ME DH, FR, SC LP, SR PT CL, PL Construction, Food, Handicraft, Implements and tools Fruit, Stem Moreno et al., 1991; Casas, 2008; Galeano & Bernal, 2010 Bactris major BO, BR, CO AM, ME DH, SC LP, SR PT, PF,SF CL, PL Construction, Food, Handicraft Fruit, Stem Paniagua-Zambrana, 2005; Casas, 2008; Galeano & Bernal, 2010; Lorenzi et al., 2010 Bactris maraja BR, CO, EC, PE AF, ME DH, SC LP PT, SF IT, PL Construction, Food Vásquez & Gentry, 1989 Butia capitata BR, UR ME ND CU, EN, LP PS, PT CL, NL, PA, PR Animal feed, Food, Handicraft Fruit, Leaf, Spear leaf Rivas & Barilani, 2004; Pezzani, 2007; Carvalho, 2008 Ceroxylon alpinum CO** ME DH, FM LP PT PL Cultural Spear leaf Galeano & Bernal, 2005; Vergara, 2002; Vergara & Bernal, 2002 Ceroxylon ceriferum CO, VE** DH, FM, FR, LP PT PL Construction, Cultural Spear leaf, Stem Llamozas et al., 2003 Fruit, Stem Author's personal copy Bactris barronis Palm Management in South America Table 2 (continued) Table 2 (continued) Human group Harvest technique Management Land use Land tenure Use category Part used Reference Ceroxylon echinulatum EC, PE ME FM, FR, GH LP, CU AS, PT PL Animal feed, Construction Fruit, Spear leaf, Stem Borchsenius et al. 1998; Pintaud & Anthelme, 2008 Ceroxylon peruvianum PE ME CT, FR, GH CU, FE, LP, TR AS, GP PL Animal feed, Construction Fruit, Stem Galeano et al., 2008 Ceroxylon quindiuense CO**, PE ME DH, FM, FR LP PT PL Construction, Cultural Spear leaf, Stem Galeano & Bernal, 2005; Galeano et al., 2008 Ceroxylon ventricosum CO**, EC ME DH, FM, FR, GH LP PT PL Animal feed, Construction, Cultural Fruit, Spear leaf, Stem Borchsenius et al. 1998; Galeano & Bernal, 2005 Ceroxylon spp. BO, EC, CO ME DH, FM, FR LP PT Construction, Cultural Spear leaf, Stem Balslev & Moraes, 1989; Borgtoft Pedersen & Balslev, 1992; Galeano & Bernal, 2005 Coccothrinax barbadensis VE* PT Construction, Handicraft Spear leaf, Whole leaf Braun, 1997; Llamozas et al., 2003 Copernicia alba BO, BR ME FR CU, LP Construction, Ornamental Leaf, Stem, Whole palm Balslev & Moraes, 1989; Moreno & Moreno, 2006; Lorenzi et al., 2010 Copernicia prunifera BR ME CT, FR CU, LP, SH PL, PT Fuel, Handicraft, Implements and tools, Natural ingredients Leaf, Stem Johnson, 1970; Johnson, 1972; Lorenzi et al., 2010 Copernicia tectorum CO, VE ME CT, DH, FR, GH LP, SH FP, PS, PT CL, NL Animal feed, Construction, Handicraft Fruit, Spear leaf, Stem, Whole leaf Moreno et al., 1991; Braun, 1997; Casado et al., 2001; Petit, 2001; Barrera et al., 2007a; Artesanías de Colombia, 2009 Desmoncus cirrhifer CO, EC AF, AM FM PF AT, IT Handicraft, Implements and tools Stem Linares et al., 2008; Borchsenius et al., 1998 Desmoncus giganteus CO AM FM PF IT Handicraft, Implements and tolos Stem Linares et al., 2008; Borchsenius et al., 1998 Desmoncus mitis CO AM FM PF IT Handicraft, Implements and tolos Stem Linares et al., 2008 Desmoncus orthacanthos BR, CO AM, ME FM, SC PT IT, PL Construction, Handicraft, Implements and tools Stem Moreno et al., 1991; Linares et al., 2008; Lorenzi et al., 2010 Desmoncus PE ME FM, SC PF IT Handicraft Stem Henderson & Chávez, 1993; ND EN, SH Author's personal copy Country R. Bernal et al. Species Species Country Human group Harvest technique Management ME FR, GH LP Land use Land tenure Use category Part used Reference PL Construction Handicraft Stem, Seed Bernal, 1992; Borchsenius & Moraes, 2006 Hübschmann et al., 2007 polyacanthos Dictyocaryum EC, CO lamarckianum BR*, CO**, PE*, SU*, VE* ME DH CU, LP PT PL Food, Handicraft Fruit, Spear leaf Vásquez & Gentry, 1989; Kahn, 1993; Barrera et al., 2007b Euterpe edulis BR* AM, ME FR CU, SH, HR SF PA, PL, NL Construction, Food Stem, Palm heart Delgado & Landini, 1976; Ribeiro et al., 1994; Orlande et al., 1996; Galleti & Fernández, 1998; Reis et al., 2000b, c; Ribeiro & Odorizzi, 2000; Fantini & Guries, 2004; Quitete, 2008 Euterpe oleracea BR, CO, EC, GU, VE* AF, AM, ME CP, CT, FM, SC, CU, EN, FE, FP, GP, PF, PL, PS, SH, SS, TH, PT, TR, WE SF AT, CL, PL Construction, Food, Ornamental Fruit, Palm heart, Stem Calzavara, 1972; Cavalcante & Johnson, 1977; Anonymous, 1978; Finol, 1978; Jardim & Anderson, 1987; Anderson, 1988; Strudwick & Sobel, 1988; Peters et al., 1989; Anderson, 1990; Avila, 1990; Dubois, 1990; Linares, 1991; Bovi & de Castro, 1993; Alenpac, 1995; Anderson et al., 1995; Pollak et al., 1995; Restrepo, 1996; May et al., 1997; Nogueira et al., 1998; Nogueira & Oliveira, 2000; van Andel, 2000a; Valente & Almeida, 2001; Brondízio et al., 2002; Johnson, 2002; Pierce & Shanley, 2002; Schmidt, 2003; Weinstein & Moegenburg, 2004; Ribeiro-de Azevedo, 2005; Goulding & Smith, 2007; Ribeiro-de Azevedo & Ryohei, n.d. Euterpe precatoria BO, BR,CO, EC, PE, VE* AM, ME CP, FM, FR, GH, ND CU, HR, LP, SH, SS IT, ER, PA Construction, Food Fruit, Palm heart, Stem Anderson, 1978; Acero, 1979; FAO, 1986; Vásquez & Gentry, 1989; AS, GP, PF, SF Author's personal copy Elaeis oleifera Palm Management in South America Table 2 (continued) Table 2 (continued) Species Country Human group Harvest technique Management Land use Land tenure Use category Part used Reference GU, VE AF, AM DH AT, IT Construction Whole leaf Stauffer, 2000; Van Andel, 2000b Geonoma deversa BO, BR, CO, PE, VE AM, ME DH, FM PF, SF IT Construction, Implements and tolos Stem, Whole leaf Anderson, 1978; Balslev & Moraes, 1989; Galeano, 1992; Braun, 1997; Guánchez & Romero, 1998; Flores & Ashton, 2000; Montoya, 2001 Geonoma macrostachys EC AM DH, FM PF PA, IT Construction Whole leaf Svenning & Macía, 2002 Geonoma maxima VE DH, FM PF Construction Whole leaf Stauffer, 2000 Geonoma orbignyana CO ME DH SH PF Ornamental Whole leaf Rodríguez & Orjuela, 2000 Iriartea deltoidea BO, BR, CO, EC, PE AM, ME FR LP, SH PF, SF, PT AT, ER, IT, PA Construction, Handicraft, Implements and tools Stem Jordan, 1970; Bodley & Benson, 1979; Balslev & Moraes, 1989; Borgtoft Pedersen & Balslev, 1990; Galeano, 1992; Pinard, 1993; Anderson, 1998; Anderson & Putz, 2002; Patiño, 2006 Jubaea chilensis CH* ME FR, GH, CU, DS, SH, TR PS, PT PA Food, Ornamental Sap, Seed, Whole plant González, 1994; González et al., 2009 Leopoldinia piassaba BR,CO,VE* AM, ME DH, FM SH PF IT, NL Construction, Food, Handicraft Sheath, Leaf, Fruit SH Centro de Comercio Internacional, 1969; Putz, 1979; Lescure et al., 1992; Narváez & Stauffer, 1999; R. Bernal et al. Geonoma baculifera Author's personal copy Galeano, 1992; Nepstad et al., 1992; de Castro, 1993a; Melnyk, 1996; Melnyk & Bell, 1996; Stoian, 1999; Herrera, 2000; Peña-Claros & Zudeima, 2000; Moraes, 2001; Ríos, 2001; Schmidt, 2003; Rocha, 2004; Rocha & Viana, 2004; Castaño et al., 2007; Goulding & Smith, 2007; Meza, 2001; Van Looy et al., 2008 Species Country Human group Harvest technique Management Land use Land tenure Use category Part used Reference Stauffer, 2000; Crizón, 2001; Linares et al., 2008 PE, CO AM DH, FM SH PF IT Construction Whole leaf Khan & Mejía, 1987; Suárez, 2002; Navarro 2009 Manicaria saccifera BR, CO, GU, VE AF, AM, ME DH CU, LF PF, SF AT, IT Construction, Handicraft, Implements and tools Inflorescence, Leaf Wilbert, 1976, 1980; Van Andel, 2000b; Valente & Almeida, 2001; Linares et al., 2008 Mauritia carana CO, VE AM FM, ND LF PF IT Construction Whole leaf Stauffer, 2000; Galeano & Bernal, 2010 Mauritia flexuosa BR, CO, EC, AM, ME GU, PE, VE* CN, CP, CT, DH, FM, FR, GH IT, PA CU, EN, FE, FP, GP, PF, PS, PT, SF LF, SH, TH, WE Mauritiella armata BR GH Mauritiella macroclada CO AF, AM DH, FM Oenocarpus bacaba CO, VE AM, ME CP, CN, FM Construction, Food, Handicraft Fruit, Spear leaf, Stem Bohórquez, 1972; Heinen & Ruddle 1974; Acero, 1979; Garzón, 1987; Kahn, 1988; Peters et al., 1989; Vásquez & Gentry, 1989; RuizMurrieta, 1991; de Castro, 1993a; Ruiz-Murrieta & Levistre-Ruiz, 1993; Ojeda-Salvador, 1994; Anderson et al., 1995; Melnyk, 1996; Braun, 1997; Bovi, 1999b; Hiraoka, 1999; Van Andel, 2000a; de Jong, 2001; Valente & Almeida, 2001; Varón & Zapata, 2001; Stagegaard et al., 2002; Pezo, 2005; Castaño et al., 2007; Delgado et al., 2007; Goulding & Smith, 2007; Meza, 2001; Holm et al., 2008; Linares et al., 2008; Sampaio et al., 2008; Manzi & Coomes, 2009 FP, PS PA Food Fruit Valente & Almeida, 2001 LF FP, PF AT Construction, Handicraft Stem, Spear leaf Pino & Valois, 2004; Torres & Avendaño, 2009 LP, TH PF IT Food Fruit Melnyk, 1996; Melnyk &Bell, 1996; Zent & Zent, 2002; Galeano & Author's personal copy Lepidocaryum tenue Palm Management in South America Table 2 (continued) Table 2 (continued) Species Country Human group Harvest technique Management Land use Land tenure Use category Part used Reference Oenocarpus bataua BO, BR, CO, EC, GU, PE, VE AF, AM, ME CP, CT, DH, FM, GH CU, EN, HR, LP, SH, TH AS, PF, PS AT, ER, IT, PA Construction, Food Fruit, Leaf, Stem Balick, 1986; Collazos & Mejía, 1987; Balick, 1988b; King & Forero, 1988; Peters et al., 1989; Vásquez & Gentry, 1989; Borgtoft Pedersen & Balslev, 1992; Galeano, 1992; Balick, 1993; Melnyk, 1996; Melnyk & Bell, 1996; Stagegaard et al., 2002; Van Andel, 2000a; Miller, 2002; Castaño et al., 2007; Goulding & Smith, 2007; Aguilar-Mena, 2008; Miranda et al., 2008a, b; Van Looy et al., 2008; Flores et al., 2009 Oenocarpus distichus BR* ME LP PF, SF PL Food Fruit Valente & Almeida, 2001 Oenocarpus minor BR, CO, PE AF, ME CP, FM CU, LP, WE GP AT, IT, ER Construction, Food, Handicraft Fruit, Spear leaf, Stem Galeano & Bernal, 1987; Vásquez & Gentry, 1989; de Jong, 2001 Parajubaea cocoides EC ME GH CU GP, PL PL Food, Ornamental Wole plant, Fruits Balslev & Barfod, 1987; Moraes & Henderson, 1990; Moraes, 2004 Parajubaea sunkha BO Implements and tools, Ornamental Fibra foliar, Wole plant Moraes, 2004; Borchsenius & Moraes, 2006 Parajubaea torallyi BO** PA Animal feed, Construction, Food, Handicraft, Implements and tools Fruit, Leaf, Spear leaf, Seed, Stem Thompson et al., 2009 Phytelephas aequatorialis EC* Phytelephas macrocarpa CO, PE Bernal, 2010 LP AF, AM DH, GH CU, LP, SH, TH, WE AS, PT, SF AT Construction, Handicraft Leaf, Seed Barfod & Balslev, 1988; Velásquez, 1998 AF, AM, ME DH, GH LP, SH, TH, WE AS, PF AT, ER Construction, Food, Handicraft Leaf, Seed Vásquez & Gentry, 1989; Kahn, 1993; Bernal, 1998; IMAFLORA, 2004; Navarro, 2006; Torres & Perdomo, 2008 R. Bernal et al. GH, ND Author's personal copy CU, LP Country Human group Harvest technique Management Land use Land tenure Use category Part used Reference Phytelephas tumacana CO** AF, ME DH, GH LP PF AT, NL Handicraft Seed Torres & Perdomo, 2008 Prestoea acuminata CO, EC AM, ME FM, SC LP PF PA Food Palm heart Borgtoft Pedersen & Balslev, 1990; Knudsen, 1995; Gamba Trimiño, 2004 AM, ME CP, CT, DH, FR CU, LP, SH, SR AS, GP, PT PL Construction Stem, Leaf Moreno et al., 1991; CUDESAC, 2007 Sabal CO mauritiiformis Socratea exorrhiza BO, BR, CO, EC, GU, PE, VE* AF, AM, ME FR LP, SR PF, PT IT, AT Construction, Implements and tools Stem Braun, 1968a, b; Anderson, 1978; Acero, 1979; Jordan, 1970; Bodley & Benson, 1979; López Parodi, 1988; Mejía, 1988; Balslev & Moraes, 1989; Boom, 1986; Galeano, 1992; Guánchez & Romero, 1998; Van Andel, 2000b; Moreno & Moreno, 2006 Syagrus cocoides BR AM, ME FR LP PT IT, PL Food, Construction, Implements and tools Fruit, Stem Balick, 1988a; Lorenzi et al., 2010 Syagrus coronata BR AM, ME GH CU, LP PT Food, Ornamental Fruit, Whole plant Howes, 1940; Lima-Rufino et al., 2008 Syagrus oleracea BR ME FR, GH CU, LP AS,PL Food, Animal feed Spear leaf, Fruit, Leaf Clement et al., 2005; de Almeida et al., 2000; Lorenzi et al., 2010 Syagrus BR romanzoffiana ME FR CU, LP Food Spear leaf, Stem Bernacci, 2001; Lorenzi et al., 2010; Vellard, 1939 Construction, Implements and tools, Ornamental Stem, Whole palm Bodley & Benson, 1979; Balslev & Moraes, 1989; Moraes, 2004; Henderson et al., 1995; Galeano & Bernal, 2010 Handicraft, Ornamental Spear leaf, Whole palm Moraes, 2004; Lozano, 2007 Construction, Handicraft Stem, Spear leaf Henderson et al., 1995; Torres & Avendaño, 2009 Syagrus sancona BO, BR, CO*, EC, PE, VE* AM, ME FR CU, LP Trithrinax schizophylla BO AM SC HR, SH, SS, CU Welfia regia CO, EC AF, AM DH, FM, FR LP, SR PT PF PL AT Author's personal copy Species Palm Management in South America Table 2 (continued) Table 2 (continued) Species Country Human group Harvest technique Management Land use Land tenure Use category Part used Reference Wettinia kalbreyeri CO ME FR HR, LP, SH SF, PT PL Construction Stem Hoyos, 2005 Wettinia quinaria CO, EC AM FR LP, SH PF, SF AT, IT Construction Stem Barfod & Balslev, 1988; Waldrón, 2001; Patiño, 2006 Author's personal copy R. Bernal et al.

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Palm Management in South America

Palm Management in South America

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS