Advertisement

Economic Botany

, Volume 54, Issue 3, pp 267–277 | Cite as

Harvesting impact and economic value ofGeonoma deversa, arecaceae, an understory palm used for roof Thatching in the Peruvian Amazon

  • César F. Flores
  • P. Mark S. Ashton
Research

Abstract

We evaluated the impact of two leaf harvesting methods on the clonal understory palm Geonoma deversa. In the first method only the leaves are cut, in the second the complete crown is severed. Stands representative for each method are compared with unharvested stands. Both methods of harvesting reduce clone size and reproductive output (inflorescence and infructescence per clone), and lower the number of ramets available for the next harvest. Cutting only the leaves represents a better method of harvest because of a lower impact on the residual stock. Economic analysis reveals that the value of this resource (standing leaf value) is low (2 to 26 U.S. $/ha) compared with labor costs that can be between 55 to 86% of palm thatch revenues. Harvesting Geonoma leaves generates a net present value (NPV) that ranges from 3 to 191 U.S. $/ha depending on the stand location, the wage, and the interest rate employed for the calculation.

Key Words

net present value nontimber forest products panels Puerto Maldonado rain forest ramets silviculture 

Evaluación del impacto de la cosecha y valor económico de geonoma deversa (Poiteau) kunth, una palmera del sotobosque usada para fabricar techos en la amazonia peruana

Resumen

Se evaluó el impacto de dos metodos para cosechar hojas de Geonoma deversa. El primer método consiste en la corta de las hojas mientras que en el segundo, se corta la copa antes de la remoción de las hojas. Se compara rodales representativos de coda metodo de corta con rodales no cosechados. Los resultados muestran que la cosecha reduce el tamaño de los clones, la producción de inflorecencias e infructecencias pero afecta sobre todo las ramas aptas para la cosecha. El método de cortar sólo las hojas es más ventajoso porque afecta menos las ramas cosechables por clon. La evaluatión económica muestra que el valor del recurso en el bosque (valor de ho ja en pie) es relativamente bajo (2 a 26 U.S.$/ha), comparado con el costo de la mano de obra necesaria para esta actividad. La mano de obra representa entre 55 y 86 por ciento de los ingresos brutos por la venta de paños tejidos. La cosecha de hojas genera un valor presente neto (VPN) que varia entre 3 y 191 U.S. $/ha, lo cual depende de la localizatión del rodai, el valor del jornal y la tasa de interés empleada.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Allegretti, M. H. 1990. Extractives reserves: an alternative for reconciling development and environmental conservation in Amazonia. Pages 252–264in A.B. Anderson, ed., Alternatives to deforestation: steps toward sustainable use of the Amazonian rain forest. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Brokaw, N. V. L. 1992. Treefalls: frequency, timing and consequences. Pages 101–108in E.G. Leigh Jr., A.S. Rand, and D.M. Windsor, eds., The ecology of a neotropical forest: seasonal rhythms and longer-term changes. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  3. Browder, J. 1992. The limits of extractivism. BioScience 42:174–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chazdon, R. L. 1986. Light variation and carbon gain in rain forest understory palms. Journal of Ecology 74:995–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. —. 1991. Effects of leaf and ramet removal on growth and reproduction ofGeonoma congesta, a clonal understorey palm. Journal of Ecology 79:1137–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. —. 1992. Patterns of growth and reproduction ofGeonoma congesta, a clustered understory palm. Biotropica 24:43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. —, and N. Fetcher. 1984. Photosynthetic light environments in a lowland tropical rainf orest in Costa Rica. Journal of Ecology 72:553–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. FADEMAD (Federacion Agraria Departamental de Madre de Dios). 1995. Proyecto de clasificación participatoria de uso mayor de la tierra y desarrollo sostenible en áreas de influencia humana de la ZRTC. Informe final a USAID. Fademad, Puerto Maldonado.Google Scholar
  9. Fearnside, P. 1989. Extractive reserves in Brazilian Amazonia. BioScience 39:387–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Foster, R. B. 1987. Checklist plantas del parque Manu (Unpublished). Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. 28 p.Google Scholar
  11. Godoy, R., R. Lubowski, and A. Markandya. 1993. A method for the economic valuation of non-timber tropical products. Economic Botany 47:220–233.Google Scholar
  12. Hartshorn, G. S. 1978. Treefalls and tropical forest dynamics. Pages 617–638in P. B. Tomlinson and H. M. Zimmermann, eds., Tropical trees as living systems. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Henderson, A. 1995. The palms of the Amazon. Oxford University Press, New York, USA. 362 p.Google Scholar
  14. INEI (Peru, Instituto Nacional de Estadistica e Informatica). 1994. Perfil sociodemografico departamento de Madre de Dios. Coleccion analisis censal No. 17. INEI, Lima.Google Scholar
  15. Kanh, F., and J. J. De Granville. 1992. Palms in forest ecosystems of amazonia. Springer-Verlag, New York, USA. 226 p.Google Scholar
  16. Lopez Parodi, J. 1986. The use of palms and other natives plants in non-conventional low cost rural housing in the Peruvian Amazon. Pages 119–129in M.J. Balick, ed., The palm: tree of life, biology, utilization and conservation Advances in Economic Botany 6.Google Scholar
  17. Malleux, J. 1975. Mapa forestal del Peru (memoria explicativa). Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina. Lima. 161 p.Google Scholar
  18. Nepstad, D., I. Brown, L. Leda, A. Alechandre, and V. Viana. 1992. Biotic impoverishment of Amazonian forest by rubber tappers, loggers, and cattle ranchers. Advances in Economic Botany 9:1–14.Google Scholar
  19. ONERN (Oficina Nacional de Evaluacion de Recursos Naturales, Peru). 1972. Inventario, evaluación e integratión de los recursos naturales de la zona de los ríos Inambari y Madre de Dios. ONERN, Lima. 296 p.Google Scholar
  20. Pendelton, L. H. 1992. Trouble in paradise: practical obstacles to nontimber forestry in Latin America. Pages 252–262in M. Plotkin and L. Famolare, eds., Sustainable harvest and marketing of rain forest products. Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  21. Rioja, G. 1992. The jatata project the pilot experience of chimane empowerment. Pages 192–196in M. Plotkin and L. Famolare, eds., Sustainable harvest and marketing of rain forest products. Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  22. Salafsky, N., B. Dugelby, and J. Terborgh. 1993. Can extractive reserves save the rain forest?: an ecological and socioeconomic comparison of non timber forest product extraction systems in Peten, Guatemala, and West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Conservation Biology 7:39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schwartzman, S. 1989. Extractives reserves: the rubber tappers’ strategy for sustainable use of the Amazon rain forest. Pages 150–165in J. O. Browder, ed., Fragile lands of Latin America: strategies for sustainable development. Westview Press, CO.Google Scholar
  24. Wessels, B. J. G. 1968. The geonomoid palms. Verhandelingen der Koninklijke nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen. Afd. Natuurkunde. Tweede Reeks 58:1–202.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden Press, Bronx, NY 10458-5126 U.S.A 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • César F. Flores
    • 1
  • P. Mark S. Ashton
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Forestry and Environmental StudiesYale UniversityNew Haven

Personalised recommendations