Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 423–438 | Cite as

Implications of forest type and land tenure diversity for the sustainability of ecosystem services provided by northern Amazonia’s multiple-use tree species

  • Anthony R. Cummings
  • Jane M. Read
  • Jose M. V. Fragoso
Research Article

Abstract

Context

As global landscapes continue to change, the sustainability of the ecosystem services they support are increasingly coming into question. In the rapidly changing neotropics, multiple-use plants epitomize sources of ecosystem services. To sustain the relationship that exists between such plants and human populations, a sound understanding of their well-being is required.

Objectives

Density data on multiple-use plants were compared across forest types and land tenure classes to understand the implications of these two spatial frames of reference for landscape sustainability.

Methods

The density of an aggregate sample of seventeen multiple-use and a sub-sample of five species were examined relative to forest type and land tenure class across fourteen Rupununi, Southern Guyana, study sites. The examination of plant density based on the two sample sizes was used to make inferences on how the two frames of reference may impact landscape sustainability.

Results

The mean density of the aggregate sample was highest in three of six forest types, but showed no statistical difference across land tenure classes. When individual species were considered mean densities showed no statistical difference across land tenure classes, but differences were observed for three species across forest types. Mean densities were highest in forest types within which swidden agriculture occurs and in the protected area where logging is prohibited.

Conclusions

Our findings suggested that in changing tropical landscapes plant species distribution can be predicted by forest types, but land tenure classes may provide clearer signals as to where a species well-being and hence ecosystem services may be compromised.

Keywords

Multiple-use plants Ecosystem services Forest type Land tenure Landscape diversity Landscape sustainability Tropical landscapes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper represents hours of dedicated work and service from persons all across the Rupununi. In particular, we thank the teams in the fourteen villages where we collected data on multiple-use plant species: Benedict Joseph, Thaddeus Joseph, Ozias James, Orville Milton, Keary Duncan, John Duncan, John Loyola, Handley Thomas, Ram Henry, Alphaeus Thomas, Brucelee Henry, Selverio Edwards, Persaud Moses, Gilbert Domingo, Randolph Brown, Davis Brown, Cameron Anton, Cyril Jonas, Andrew Mandook, Mr. Martin, Billy Martin, Eli Martin, Alphonso Francis, Edgar Caitan, Johnny, William Pereira, Aaron Pereira, Carl St. Hill, Carlson St. Hill, Donald Andries, Jackson Joel, Alexis Nagarine, Danford Moses, Ricky Moses, Marcus Moses, Carro Moses, and Stephen Andries. We are grateful to the people of the Rupununi, in particular the leadership of the North Rupununi District Development Board (NRDDB), Bina Hill Institute and the South Central Peoples Development Association (SCPDA). At Project Fauna Dr. Jeff Luzar and Ms. Ketlen Williams, supported data collection. At UT Dallas Aravind Sivasailam and Muna Shah provided assistance in a number of areas. The Guyana Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in conjunction with the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs granted permission for this research. The Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission, Conservation International Guyana and the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission kindly provided base maps and maps of Amerindian communities. Funding for this project was made possible by the US National Science Foundation BE/CNH Grant 0837531.

References

  1. Abdulai A, Owusu V, Goetz R (2011) Land tenure differences and investment in land improvement measures: theoretical and empirical analyses. J Dev Econ 96:66–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amerindian Act, 29:01 Laws of Guyana, 37 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. Brandon K, Redford KH, Sanderson SE (1998) Parks in peril: people, politics and protected areas. Island Press, The Nature Conservancy, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  4. Byron N, Arnold M (1999) What futures for the people of the tropical forests? World Dev 27:789–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Colchester M (1997) Guyana: fragile frontier. World Rainforest Movement, Forest Peoples Programme, GloucestershireCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cumming GS (2010) Spatial resilience: integrating landscape ecology, resilience, and sustainability. Landscape Ecol 26:899–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cummings AR (2013) For logs, for traditional purposes and for food: identification of multiple-use plant species of Northern Amazonia and an assessment of factors associated with their distribution (Dissertationse ALL). Paper 17. Available from: http://surface.syr.edu/etd/17
  8. Cummings AR, Read JM (2016) Drawing on traditional knowledge to identify and describe ecosystem services associated with Northern Amazon’s multiple-use plants. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 12(2016):39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cummings AR, Read JM, Fragoso JMV (2015) Utilizing amerindian hunters’ descriptions to guide the production of a vegetation map. Int J Appl Geosp Res 6:118–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Damnyag L, Saastamoinen O, Appiah M, Pappinen A (2012) Role of tenure insecurity in deforestation in Ghana’s high forest zone. Forest Policy Econ 14:90–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. David B, Isaacs P, Johnny A, Johnson L, Pugsley M, Ramacindo C, Winter G, Winter Y (2006) Wa Wiizi—Wa Kaduzu: customary use of biological resources and related traditional practices within Wapichan territory in Guyana. Forest Peoples Programme, Moreton-in-MarshGoogle Scholar
  12. de Granville J (1988) Phytogeographical characteristics of the Guianan forests. Taxon 37:578–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Environmental Defense Fund, Amazonian Network of Georeferenced Socio-Environmental Information, EcoSciencia, Gaia Amazonas, Instituto Socioambiental, Instituto Bien Comun, Woods Hole Research Center, Coordinadora De Las Organizaciones Indigenas De La Cuenca Amazonica (2017) Amazonian indigenous peoples territories and their forests related to climate change: analyses and policy options. Retrieved from: http://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/indigenous-territories-barrier-to-deforestation.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan, 2018
  14. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Guyana (2009) Kanuku mountains protected area: five year management plan 2009–2013. Georgetown, GuyanaGoogle Scholar
  15. Fanshawe D (1952) The vegetation of British Guiana: a preliminary review (institute paper 29). Commonwealth Forest Institute, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Fearnside PM (1993) Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: the effect of population and land tenure. Ambio 22:537–545Google Scholar
  17. Ferraz SFB, Ferraz KMPMB, Cassiano CC, Brancalion PHS, Luz D, Azevedo TN, Tambosi L, Metzger JP (2014) How good are tropical forest patches for ecosystem services provisioning? Landscape Ecol 29:187–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Forget PM, Hammond DS (2005) Rainforest vertebrates and food plant diversity in the Guiana shield. In: Hammond DS (ed) Tropical forests of the Guiana shield. CABI Publishing, United Kingdom, pp 233–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Forte J (1996) Makusipe Komanto Iseru: sustaining Makushi way of life. North Rupununi District Development Board, GuyanaGoogle Scholar
  20. Hamilton LS (1991) Tropical forests: identifying and clarifying the issues. Unasylva 166:19–27Google Scholar
  21. Huber O, Zent S (1995) Indigenous people and vegetation in the Venezuelan Guayana: some ecological considerations. Sci Guaianae 5:37–64Google Scholar
  22. Iwokrama Act (1996) 20:04 Laws of Guyana, 34Google Scholar
  23. Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, Hall JM, Jaeger CC, Lowe I, McCarthy JJ, Schellnhuber HJ, Bolin B, Dickson NM, Faucheux S, Gallopin GC, Grübler A, Huntley B, Jäger J, Jodha NS, Kasperson RE, Mabogunje A, Matson P, Mooney H, Moore III B, O'Riordan T, Svedin U (2001) Environment and development: sustainability science. Science 292:641–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keith DA, Rodríguez JP, Rodríguez-Clark KM, Nicholson E, Aapala K, Alonso A, Asmussen M, Bachman S, Bassett A, Barrow EG, Benson JS, Bishop MJ, Bonifacio R, Brooks TM, Burgman MA, Comer P, Comín FA, Essl F, Faber-Langendoen D, Fairweather PG, Holdaway RJ, Jennings M, Kingsford RT, Lester RE, Mac Nally R, McCarthy MA, Moat J, Oliveira-Miranda MA, Pisanu P, Poulin B, Regan TJ, Riecken U, Spalding MD, Zambrano-Martínez S (2013) Scientific foundations for an IUCN red list of ecosystems. PLoS ONE 8:e62111CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Klimas CA, Kainer KA, Wadt LH (2007) Population structure of Carapa guianensis in two forest types in the southwestern Brazilian Amazon. For Ecol Manag 250:256–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Klimas CA, Cropper WP Jr, Kainer KA, Wadt LH (2012a) Viability of combined timber and non-timber harvests for one species: a Carapa guianensis case study. Ecol Model 246:147–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klimas CA, Kainer KA, Wadt LH (2012b) The economic value of sustainable seed and timber harvests of multi-use species: an example using Carapa guianensis. For Ecol Manag 268:81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McCune JL, Van Natto A, MacDougall AS (2017) The efficacy of protected areas and private land for plant conservation in a fragmented landscape. Landscape Ecol 32:871–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Menton MCS, Merry FD, Lawrence A, Brown N (2009) Company–community logging contracts in Amazonian settlements: impacts on livelihoods and NTFP harvests. Ecol Soc 14:39–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Musacchio LR (2009) The scientific basis for the design of landscape sustainability: a conceptual framework for translational landscape research and practice of designed landscapes and the six Es of landscape sustainability. Landscape Ecol 24:993–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Naughton-Treves L, Wendland K (2013) Land Tenure and Tropical Forest Carbon Management. World Dev 55:1–84Google Scholar
  32. Parrotta JA, Trosper RL (2012) Introduction: The growing importance of traditional forest-related knowledge. In Parrotta JA, Trosper RL (eds) Traditional forest-related knowledge: sustaining communities, ecosystems and biocultural diversity. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peres CA (1994) Indigenous reserves and nature conservation in Amazonian forests. Conserv Biol 8:586–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peters CM (1996) Chapter I–III: introduction to the ecology of tropical forest resources. In: The ecology and management of non-timber forest resources. World Bank Technical Paper No. 322. The World Bank, Washington, DC, pp. 5–97Google Scholar
  35. Posey DA (1992) Traditional knowledge, conservation and “the rain forest harvest”. In: Plotkin M, Famolare L (eds) Sustainable harvest and marketing of rain forest products. Island Press, Washington, D.C., p 46Google Scholar
  36. Prance GT (1979) Notes on the vegetation of Amazonia III. The terminology of Amazonian forest types subject to inundation. Brittonia 31:26–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Read JM, Fragoso JMV, Silvius KM, Luzar J, Overman H, Cummings A, Giery ST, Flamarion de Oliveira L (2010) Space, place, and hunting patterns among indigenous peoples of the Guyanese Rupununi Region. J Latin Am Geogr 9:213–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Richards PW (1952) The tropical rainforest: an ecological study. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  39. Roosmalen M (1985) Fruits of the Guianan flora. Institute of Systematic Botany, Utrecht University, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  40. Sheil D, van Heist M (2000) Ecology for tropical forest management. Int For Rev 2:261–270Google Scholar
  41. Sivasailam A, Cummings AR (2017) Does the location of Amerindian communities provide signals about the spatial distribution of tree and palm species? In: Griffith DA, Chun Y, Dean DJ (eds) Advances in Geocomputation. Advances in Geographic Information Science. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, Basel, pp 169–179Google Scholar
  42. Stocks A (2005) Too much for too few: problems of indigenous land rights in Latin America. Ann Rev Anthropol 34:85–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. The R Development Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria, ISBN: 3-900051-07-0, http://www.R-project.org
  44. Ticktin T (2004) The ecological implications of harvesting non-timber forest products. J Appl Ecol 41:11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Turner MG, Donato DC, Romme WH (2013) Consequences of spatial heterogeneity for ecosystem services in changing forest landscapes: priorities for future research. Landscape Ecol 28:1081–1097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. van Andel TR (2000) Non-timber forest products of the north-west district of Guyana: part II A field guide. Tropenbos Foundation, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  47. Vandermeer J, Perfecto I (1995) Breakfast of biodiversity: the truth about rain forest destruction. The Institute for Food and Development Policy, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  48. WCMC (1992) Protected areas of the world: a review of national systems. Nearctic and neotropical. World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, vol 4Google Scholar
  49. Wu J (2013a) Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecol 28:999–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wu J (2013b) Key concepts and research topics in landscape ecology revisited: 30 years after the Allerton Park workshop. Landscape Ecol 20:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zimmerman B, Peres CA, Malcolm JR, Turner T (2001) Conservation and development alliances with the Kayapó of south-eastern Amazonia, a tropical forest indigenous people. Environ Conserv 28:10–22Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economic, Political and Policy SciencesUniversity of Texas at DallasRichardsonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Geography, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public AffairsSyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA
  3. 3.Biology DepartmentStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations