matses indian rainforest habitat classification and mammalian diversity in amazonian peru

36 Pages·2009·5.76 MB·English

Journal ofEthnobiology20(1): 1-36 Summer2000
MATSES INDIAN RAINFOREST HABITAT CLASSIFICATION
AND MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY IN AMAZONIAN PERU
DAVID W. FLECK!
Department ofEveilltioll, Ecology,alld Organismal Biology
Tile Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio 43210-1293
JOHN D. HARDER
Oepartmeut ofEvolution, Ecology,and Organismnl Biology
TileOhio StateUniversity
Columbus, Ohio 43210-1293
ABSTRACT.- The Matses Indians of northeastern Peru recognize 47 named
rainforest habitat types within the G61vez River drainage basin. By combining
named vegetative and geomorphological habitat designations, the Matses can
distinguish 178 rainforest habitat types. The biological basis of their habitat
classificationsystemwasevaluatedbydocumentingvegetativech<lracteristicsand
mammalian species composition by plot sampling, trapping, and hunting in
habitats neartheMatses villageofNuevoSanJuan. Highlysignificant(p<:O.OOI)
differences in measured vegetation structure parameters were found among 16
sampledMatses-recognizedhabitattypes.Homogeneityofthedistributionofpalm
species(n=20)over the 16sampled habitat typeswas rejected.Capturesofsmall
mammals in 10 Matses-rc<:ognized habitats revealed a non-random distribution
in speciesofmarsupials (n=6) and small rodents(n=13). Mammal sighlingsand
signs recorded while hunting with the Matses suggest that some species of
mammals have a sufficiently strong preference for certain habitat types so as to
make hunting more efficient by concentrating search effort for these species in
specific habitat types. Differences in vegetation structure, palm species
composition, and occurrence of small mammals demonstrate the ecological
relevanceofMatses-rccognized habitat types.
Key words:Amazonia,habitatclassification, mammals, Matses, rainforest.
RESUMEN.- Los nalivos Matslis del nordeste del Peru reconacen 47 tipos de
habitatsdebosque lluviosodentrodelacuenca del rioGalvez.Combinandosus
designaciones \'egetativas y geomorfol6gicas de habitats, los Matses pueden
distinguir 178tiposdebosque. Labasebiol6gicadesusistema declasificad6nde
habitats fue evaluada documentando caracteristicas vegetativas y composici6n
deespcciesdemamiferospormediodemedirvegetaci6nenparcelas,atraparcan
trampas, ycazar en habitats reconocidos par los Matses cerca de la comunidad
nativaM,ltsesNuevoSanJuan.Seencontr6diferenciasdealtosignificado(1'<:0.001)
enlosmedidosparametrosdeestructuradevegetaci6nentrelos16tiposdehabitats
quefueronmuestreados.Homogeneidadenladistribuci6ndeespeciesdepalmeras
(n=20)enlos16tiposdehabitatfue rechazado.Capturasdemamfferospequenos
en diezhabitats reconocidos por los Matses revel6 una distribuci6n no·aleatoria
enlasespeciesdemarsupiales(n=6)yroedorespequenos(n=13).Mamiferosvistos
ysenalesdemamfferosapuntadasdurantecazasconMa~ssugiercnquealgunas
2 FLECK & HARDER Vol.20, No.1
especics tienen preferencias para cierlos tipos de habitats reconocidos por los
Matsesquesonsuficientementefuertes paraquelaCOlzaseamasdicientecuando
seconcentranesfuerzosdebuscaenespedficostiposdehabitat. Difcrcnciasen la
eslructura de vcgctaci6n, cn la composici6n de cspecies de palmeras, y en la
existencia de mamifcros pcqucnos demucstra la pertincncia ecol6gica de estas
unidades.
RESUME.-Lesmatscs.ungroupeamerindiendunord-estduPerou,reconnaisscnt
471ypesd'habitats(pourlesquelsilsdisposen! deIcrmesspecifiques)dela forel
tropicaledansIebilSSinhydrographiqueduflcuvcGalvez.Encombinantcest('rmes
pOUTlesdifferentshabitatsvegelauxctgeomorphologiques,lesmatscsarrivent'"
distinguer178typesd'habitats.Labasebiologiquedeleursystemedeclassification
aCteevaluCcendocumentantdescaracteristiquesde[avegetationetdesespeces
de mammiferes a travers l'l'xamen de la vegetation dans certaines parcelles
echantillons,[achasseetlapriseenpiegedansleshabitatsreCOnIlUSpar[esmatses
pres du village malscs de Nuevo San Juan. Des differences tres significatives
(1'<0.001) ant ete trouvces dans les parametres structurels mesures pour la
vegetationdans[es16typesd'habitatsoudesechantillonsontCtepris.L'hypothese
d'une distribution homogenc des especcs de palmiers (n=20) pour res 16 types
d'habitats a ete refutee. Des captures de mammiferes de petite taiUe dans dix
habitatsreconnusparlesmatscsarevc[eunedistributionnon-alcatoiredese5peees
de marsupiaux(n=6) etdepetitsrongeurs(n=13). Desmammifereset dessignes
rencontreslarsdesexpeditionsdechasseavec [esmatscssuggerentquecertaines
cspecesdemammiferesant unepreferencesuffisammcnt marqueepourcertains
types d'habitats reconnus par res matses pour que la chasse soit effectivemenl
plus productive si res efforts sont conccntres sur ces habitats. Des differences
concernant[astructuredelavcgCtationetlacompositiondesespecesdepalmiers,
ainsi que ['existence de mammiferes de petite taille, demontrc ['importance
Ccologiquedesces unites.
INTRODUCTION
The ongoingdeforestation oftheAmazon rainforest presents an urgent need
todocumentitsdiversityand understandunderlyingecological processes.Though
it is widely recognized thathigh species richness in tropical rainforests is associ
ated with habitat heterogeneity, the patternsofhabitat diversity within rainforest
areasarepoorlyunderstood.VegetationclassificationsofBrazilianAmazoniabased
primarilyon Oooding regimes, waterquality,geographic location, and non-forest
habitatswithin theAmazon basin(e.g., Pires1973;Prance1978, 1979;Braga 1979;
Pires & Prance 1985)are useful for understanding variation on a large scale, but
theyarenotsufficiently detailed todescribehabitat typespresentin asmall local
ity. Theclassifications ofMaHeux (1982) and Encarnacion (1985, 1993), which are
derived from theknowledgeofforestersandlocal residents,respectively,aremore
detailed and thus more sensitive 10 variation within large habitat classes. How
ever, these classifications were designed for comparison of habitats throughout
the Peruvian Amazon, and still lack detail, especially for terrafirme habitats. De
scriptions ofsuccessional stages, initiated yearly by the deposition of sediments
alonglargerivers(e.g.,Saloetal.1986;Lamotte1990;Kalliolaetal.1991;Campbell
etal.1992),relatedwell tohabitatvariationonasmallscale,butthesedescriptions
Summer2000 JOURNALOF ETHNOBIOLOGY 3
arenotapplicabletoupland rainforest,whichcoversthevastmajorityofAmazonia
(approximately85 percent (Prance1978]).
SomeindigenouspeoplesofAmazonia haveextensiveknowledgeofrainforest
communities. This knowledge is reflected in detailed habitat classifications (e.g.,
Carneiro 1983; Parkeret al. 1983; Posey 1983;Alcorn 1984; Posey and Ba[ee 1989;
Balee 1994; Shepard et al. in press) which have potential for use in conjunction
with scientific surveys, particularly in rapid assessment of rainforest communi
ties for conservation. Acasein point isthe rainforest habitat classification system
oftheMatses IndiansofNortheastern Peru.
TheMatses(alsocalled Mayoruna;Panoanlanguagefamily)areanindigenous
Amazonian societyconsistingofabout1500persons living along the javari River
and its tributaries in Peru and Brazil (Figure 1). In 1969 the Matses established
peaceful contact with Summer Lnstituteof Linguistics personnel (Vivar1975),al
though they reportedly had intermittent contacts with rubber workers between
1920 and ]930 (Romanoff 1984), and it is possible thai as early as the fifteenth
centurysome of theirancestors may havebeen reduced in missions to theeast of
theirpresentterritory(Erikson, 1994).Priorto 1969,theMatsesavoidedcontactby
maintaining hostile relations with neighboring non-tribal Peruvians and Brazil
ians, and by staying far from navigable rivers in thearea between theJavari and
Ucayali Rivers, and to the east of the]avari (Romanoff 1984). In the ]980'ssome
groups moved away from the inland villages and settled on the banks of the
Yaquerana (UpperJavari) and Galvez Rivers. Acculturation of the Matses to the
national culture is proceeding rapidly, butbecauseoftheir recent isolation, older
individuals (>30 years ofage)stiU possess undiminished traditional knowledge.
The Matses meet all their nutritional needs through traditional subsistence
activities, including huntin~, fishing, trapping, horticulture (primarily manioc,
plantains, and corn), and collection of wild foods. They continue to procure the
majority of their protein from hunting in upland forests for mammals and birds.
TheMatsesuscanelaboratesystem ofrainforesthabitat nomenclatureand classi
fication to organize their knowledge of resource availability in order to conduct
and discuss theirsubsistenceactivitiesmoreeffectively.Theirsystemallowsthem
to identify as many as 104types of primary rainforestand 74 typesofsecondary
(successional) rainforestwithin the8000~km2drainagebasin of theGalvez River.
Such narrow definitions of habitat types in Amazonia have limitations, and
local plant species composition might be better characterized by broad descrip
tions ofsoil and hydrology gradients (Kalliola et al. 1993). However, we present
theMatsessystem asacomplementary tool for describingAmazonian habitat di
versity,particularlyin lightoftheutilityofsystemsofcategorizationforestablishing
conservation policy. The Matses knowledgeofrainforest habitatsholds potential
fordescriptionofecological relationshipsaswellas floristicdiversity,considering
thatsomeAmazoniananimalsarcknov·m tobe largely restricted to minorhabitat
types; for example, coUared titi monkeys(Cllilicebus forquGflls) are habitatspecial
ists in creekside forests (Peres 1993) and ichthyomyine rodents are almost never
found away from bodiesofwater(Voss1988).
This study was designed to provide preliminary biological descriptions of
Matses habitat typesand to investigate theextent towhich Matses habitat desig
nations reflect quantifiable biological factors. To evaluate the ecological basis of
FLECK & HARDER Vol. 20, No.1
M<ltseshabitatclassification, wesampled 16Mi1tses-recognized habitattypes that
occurred withina2km radiusfrom theMatses,'illageofNuevoSanJuanin north
eastern Peru.Theobjectivesofthisstudywere:1)todescribetheMatsessystem of
rainforest h,lbitat identification ilnd classification; 2) to ('valu,lte if Matses-recog
nized habitattypesexhibitdistinctivevegetationcharacteristicswith measurements
of vegetation density, basal area, and palm species composition; 3) to ascertain if
Matses-recognized habitattypesexhibitdifferentsmall mammalcompositionand
abundancewith data obtained through systematic trapping;and 4) tosee ifmam
mals observed while hunting with the Matses exhibited differential use of
Matses-recognized habitat types.
STUDYSITE
The study area was located along the Galvez River (a tributary of theJavari
River)at theMatsesvillageofNuevoSanJuan (73"Q'50"W,5"17'30"5,150mabove
sea level), in thedistrictofYaquemna,department ofLoreto, in northeastern Peru
PERU
BRAZIL
o
100km
FIGUHE1.-LocationofNuevo5..,nJuanstudysite in northeastern Peru,shOWing the
Giilvez Rh'crdrainagebAsil),
Summer2000 JOURNALOFETHNOBJOLOGY
(Figure 1). Average annual rainfall (2900 mOl) and average annual temperature
(25.9°C) were recorded at Jenaro Herrera, the location ofthe nearest weathersta
lion, 100 km west of Nuevo San Juan (Marengo 1983). The period of heavy
precipitationextendsfrom lateDecember through mid April;Julyand Augustare
thedriestmonths. TheGalvez isa blackwater riverwitha narrow floodplain that
seldom extends more than 0.5 km on either side. Although thedry season is not
exceptionally dry, the water level in the Galvez falls impressively, a total of10 m
from April toAugust.
The area around Nuevo San Juan is primary ("virgin") rainforest except for
gapscaused by v./indfallsand active and abandoned swiddens (0.5-2ha horticul
tural plots) thathavebeencleared sincethevillagewasestablished in1984.Atthe
time that the Matses moved into the area, no villages had existed in the lower
reaches of the Galvez for at least 25 years (Faura 1964). Woodroffe (1914), who
visited the lower Galvez in 1905-6reported that there \vas apparently no human
habitation in thearea except for a handful of rubberworkers. Noneofthe Matses
whowereinterviewed recallthereeverhavingbeeninhabitantsintheGalvezdrain
agebasinotherthanattheveryheadwaters.TheMatsesrecognizesomerainforest
areas within the Galvez basin that they identify as villages or swiddens of other
tribesthrough thepresenceofpotshards,indicatorplantspecies,suchasthepalm
Elaeisoleifem,ordistinctivevegetationstructure;however,nosuchareascxistwithin
aday'swalk from NuevoSanjuan,and sotheMatsesconsiderall areassurround
ing Nuevo San Juan that were not cleared by them or are visibly the result of a
windfall to be primary forest. And we were not able to detect any areas around
Nuevo San Juan that appeared to be advanced successional forest (but see Balee
[19891 for the possible anthropogenic nature of apparently primary forests in
Amazonia). The habitat classification system here includes only rainforest habi
tats,andsowedidnotconsiderbeachvegetationoractiveMatsesswiddens,which
the Matsesclassify into at least three typesbased on theageand/orcropcompo
sition oftheswidden.
According to Matses informants, over the last 12 years abundance of some
game animals has declined and densities ofspecies adapted to secondary forest,
such as agoutis (Dasyprocta juligillosa; see Appendix C for mammal species au
thorities)and pacas (Agollti paca), haveapparently increased; however, there isno
evidenceofextirpation ofany species from thearea.
METHODS
The data for this study were collected during two field seasons totaling 18
months from 1994 to 1996. From April toJuly 1994, twelve men from the Matses
villages of Nuevo San Juan, Remoyacu, and Buen Peru were individually inter
viewed about the different habitat types that they recognized. An initial Ust of
Matses namesofrainforest habitat types was compiled from interview responses
about the natural history of the local mammal fauna (Fleck 1997). Later, infor
mants were asked to list as many rainforest habitat names as they could and to
describe them, and then to comment upon habitats listed by other Matses infor
mants.Subsequently,theinformantswereasked howtheyidentifiedandclassified
thesehabitatsandabout theecological relationshipsbetween mammalsand these
6 FLECK& HARDER Vol.20,No.1
habitats. Only those habitat names that the Matses listed without my help were
recorded in the initial listing,butwhen asked todescribehabitats, theywerealso
askedabouthabitattypesmentionedbyotherinformants. Interviewslasted from
ahoutO.5to1.5hoursandwerecarriedoutwithoutanyotheradultspresent.Trade
items wereexchanged. for interviews,buttheseweregiven toinformantspriorto
conductingthe interview in order to makeitdear thatreceiving the itemdidnot
depend upon the nature of their answers. While accompanying Matses onhunt
ingtrips,theywereaskedtonamehabitatsthatwepassed throughand toexplain
whatcharacteristicstheyusedtorecognizedthem.Itisfrom theseinterviewsand
consultations thatthe final listofhabitats wascompiled. Habitattypenamesthat
werementionedbyonlyoneinformantorthatwererejected asvalidhabitattypes
by morethan halfoftheinformants arenotincluded in this paper.
SixteenMatses-recognizedrainforesthabitattypes(hereinafter,habitattypes)
that exist within a 2~km radius of Nuevo San Juan were selected for vegetation
sampling. The goal of the habitat comparisons in this study was to determine if
thebasicclassificationunits(named habitattypes)oftheMatsessystemwereeco
logicallyrelevantunits. Thepurposeofoursamplingdesign wasnottoprovidea
complete floristic or structural description ofeach habitat type, but rather to de
termine if Matses-recognized habitats could be distinguished one from another
withdata from limited sampling.
FromApriltoJulyof1996,eightO.02-havegetationsamplingplots(10x20m)
wereestablishedwithineachofthe16habitattypesby randomlyselectingastart
ingpoint and a compassbearing for orientationoftheplot. Two to four separate
localities of each of the 16 habitat types were sampled; the number of plots per
locality was related to thesizeofthe habitatpatch. Ateach plot, eightvegetation
densityestimateswereconductedbyusinga1x1mdensityboardmarkedwitha
10x10(10cm) grid. Theboard wasplaced on theground ina vertical positionat
a distanceof5m from the observerand thenumberofsquares morethan50per
cent covered by vegetation were counted for the bottom half of the board and
again for the top half. Diameter at breastheight (DBH; 1.3m) was measured for
each tree within each plot; trees withstiltor buttress roots reaching above 1.3 m
were measured just above the roots. From the DBH measurements, mean basal
area per ha and mean number of trees >10 em DBH per ha were calculated for
each habitattype.
All identifiable palms (Palmae; palm nomenclature follows Henderson et al.
1995) taller than 1m were identified and counted within each study plot. Palms
wereselected forstudybecause theyaresalient, readilyidentifiedcomponentsof
mostAmazon rainforest habitats (Kahn et al. 1988), because Palmae is probably
themosteconomicallyuseful Neotropicalplantfamily (Balick1984),andbecause
palmfruits and seedsarealsoimportantresourcesfor rainforestanimals(Zona &
Henderson 1989). Other plantspecies that the Matses indicated as important for
identifying habitats were quantified at each plot: the number of Cecropia spp.
(Moraceae) trees taller than 1m, the numberof Duroiahirsuta (Poeppig. & End!.)
Shumann (Rubiaceae) trees tallerthan1m, and thenumberofHanas >1 cmOBH.
The following geomorphological data were also recorded at each plot: distance
from theriver(duringhighestwaterlevel),relativeelevation(estimatedelevation
above lowest land within 50 m), perceived quality of drainage (during the dry
Summer2000 JOURNALOFETHNOBIOLOGY 7
season),and water regime (maximum numberofdaysa plot remainsinundated).
Duplicate sets of voucher specimens were deposited at the Instituto de
Investigaciones de la Amazoni.l Peruana herbarium in Iquitos, Peru, at the her
barium at the Museo de Historia Natural de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de
San Marcos in Lima, and at the New York BotanicalGarden.
Two dichotomous keys wereconstructed for identification of Matses-defined
habitatsin the NuevoSanJuanarea,onefor geomorphologically-defined habitats
and one for vegetatively-defined habitats (AppendicesAand B). Thesekeys were
developed based on habitat characteristics used by the Matses in teaching DWf
how to identify habitats.
Tenofthe16selectedhabitat typesandaMatsesmaniocswiddenweretrapped
forsmall«1 kg)mammals.Theaim ofthistrappingwasnottodescribe theentire
mammalian composition ofeach habitator to test for differences i.n composition
with thesurrounding habitat, but to determine if the sampled habitats exhibited
detectabledifferencesinsmall mammalcomposition.Ateachofthe 10habitats,30
Sherman live traps, 10Tomahawk live traps, 40 Victor rat traps, 10Museum Spe
cial snap traps, five pitfall traps with drift fences, and five Matses-constructed
deadfall traps(total of100 traps) weresetat each habitat type for 10nights (total
of1000trapnights).Trapswerespacedevenlyovera1-haarea withineach habitat
type, at least 10 m away from the edge of the habitat, with half of the Sherman,
Victor, and Museum Special traps set 0.5 to 2.5 m above the ground. Two of the
eight 0.02 ha vegetation sampling plots were established within each trapping
plot. Traps were baited every afternoon with ripe plantain (except for deadfall
traps, which were baited with manioc) and checked in the morning. All animals
were identified and removed; voucher spedmens were prepared for all species
and from allanimalswithquestionableidentification. Becausethenumberoftraps
was limited, the 11 areaswere not trapped simultaneously,but ratherone or two
at atimesuccessivelyovera period of90d (20April to18July1996),a period that
coincides with the end of the rainy season and the beginning of the dry season.
Voucher specimens are deposited at the Museo de Historia Natural de la
Universidad Nadonal Mayor de San Marcos in Lima, and at the American Mu
seum ofNatural History in New York.
FromApril1995toJuJy 1996,DWFaccompanied Matseson108hunting trips
foratotal of583h.Thehabitattypes inwhich mammalswereencounteredduring
each hunt were recorded; two habitat names were recorded for each locality of
observation, one for the vegetatively-defined habitat type and one for the geo
morphologically-defined habitat type. The location and habitat of signs of
mammals, including tracks, dens, beds, scat, and scrapings were also recorded
whenthesign could beconfidently identified tospecieswith the helpofMatses.
In order todetermine if the frequency ofobservationsofmammalian species
per habitat was different than expected by random distribution, the amount of
timespentbyMatseshuntingineachhabitattypewasestimatedbypacingMatses
hunting paths for a total distanceof10 km, recording the pointsat which habitat
typesbegan and ended. Pacingdata were then mappedby application ofa global
positioning satellite receiver (Figure 2). Vegetatively- and geomorphologicalJy
defined habitats were calculated separately. Although the sections of the Matses
hunting paths that werepaced might not representa random sampleofthehabi-
8 FLECK& HARDER Vol. 20, No. I
tatsthat theMatSt-"'Scoveron longhuntingtrips,thepath-lengthestimatcsprovide
a rough estimate of the proportion oftime thai the Matses spend in each habitat
type whilehunting. BecauseMatsesconcentratesearch timeand huntingeffort in
selected habitatIypes,dependingon the targetspecies,samplingwasnot random
duringhunts.Therefore, thesedata werenotsubjected tostatisticalanalysis.Also,
this part of the study was not designed 10 test any mammal-habitat associations
put forward by the Matses.
1Oviusudquid lerT8film. nedtorrver 9MIOChoftd cl'Wartpiltm1or.,1
2Ma"lln IIdlCUI&l 10&Jd6dI,lshvc/loed dWaI1palmforest
MlICwm l'lillll'lchne 11 Shubucho&d dwarfpalmlore"
TslfflPlflJC valleybelweenhIlls 12 Tell&Cd'ooe<1 treelelpalmlorest
5ACClsdIo "oododforest 1J May."'"seblJd "demon',swidden"
8/t1adapa swampforast 1.,sitodocho«l hal\lllforet!
',0,,, 4MaetltC rnlnerallick lSTI<tJds/>t", olds......odftn
..•0"
7M~ISflS hignlaVlt6Island ,6SedqueqlJld $EloCOf'Id.IIty10000s!
~ 6Nlc~saqlJld lowleveeisland MatHshousesa1NuevoSanJuan
~. 3Dt~n streamhlltlJwaler$ ~
Actaclndicue. smallstreamgallefylorest
....- Act!dadaCIJ8. largeslr.arngallerylorest 1krn
FIGURE2.--Geomorphologically-defined (shildcd or patterned)and vt'getatively
defined (outlined in white)habitat typesin the NuevoSanJuan area, showingoverlapof
thetwoclassificationsystems.
Summer2000 JOURNALOFETHNOBIOLOGY 9
Vegetationdensities,basalareaandtreedensitywerecomparedamongthe16
sampled habitat types with one-way ANOVAtestsand Tukey multiplecompari
sons. A Pearson Chi square test was used to test homogeneity of palm species
abundancesoverthesampledhabitats.Alldata recordedateachplotwereusedto
construct classification and regression trees (CART; Brieman et a1. 1984). CART
analyses were used to see if Matses-recognized habitat types could be predicted
using the measured habitat parameters. Three classification and regression trees
were constructed, one for the eight sampled vegetatively-defined habitat types,
one for theeightsampled geomorphologically-defined habitat types, andonefor
all 16sampled habitat types. Thedichotomoushabitatkeys were thencompared
withtheclassificationtreestoseeifthetwomethodsproducedsimilarresultsand
todetermineifthesamehabitatcharacteristicswereimportantdistingUishingfac
tors in both. Small mammal species diversity and abundance in the 10 trapped
rainforesthabitatsandoneswiddenwereanalyzed usingachi-squaretestfor ho
mogeneityofthedistributionofanimals(atthreelevels,familyDidelphidae,family
Echimyidae,and family Muridae)acrossthe11 habitats. Exactnonparametriccon
ditionalinferencewasusedsincethetrappingdataweresparse--thereweremany
zerovalues for the number ofanimals ofaspeciescaptured in a habitat, making
largesamplemethods invalid.
RESULTSAND DISCUSSION
The Matses recognize 40 named categories ofprimary rainforest habitats (of
which 38 are terminal categories) and seven named categories of secondary
rainforesthabitatswithin the8000-km2drainagebasin oftheGalvez River (Table
1). The Matses use different names for floodplain habitats while they are inun
dated during the rainy season, but these were not counted as different habitat
typesin this study (Figure3). The Matses habitatclassification system isdivided
intotwoseparate(butphysicallyoverlapping)subsystems:1)geomorphologically
defined habitat types; and 2) vegetatively-defined habitattypes (Figures2-4).
Vegetation density varied significantly among the 16sampled habitat types.
One-way ANQVA tests revealed highly significant (P<.OO1) differences for veg
etation denSity among 16 Matses-recognized habitat types, for both vegetation
densitybelow 0.5 m (F=58.90; Figure5A) and from 0.5 m to1m (F=65.52; Figure
58).Similarly, one-wayANOVAtestsrevealed highly significant(P<O.OOI)differ
ences for basal area (F=10.41; Figure 5C) and for tree density (F=9.06; Figure 5D)
among the16sampled habitattypes, though these characteristicswere consider
ably less distinctive than was vegetation density. Significant differences among
habitattypesin the measured vegetationstructureparameters indicate thathabi
tattypesarerelatedtovegetationstructureand,therefore,ofinterestforecological
investigation. Moreover, pairwise comparisons of each habitat with each of the
other 15 habitats revealed significant differences (P<0.05 Tukey's pairwise com
parisons) in at least one of the four measured vegetation structure parameters in
allbutthreeof28pairsofgeomorphologically-definedhabitatsandinallbutfive
of28pairsofvegetatively-defined habitats.Forpairsofgeomorphologically-and
vegetatively-defined habitats,ahigherproportion (12of64) didnotdiffersignifi
cantly (at95%C.I) in at leastone vegetation structureparameter; however,some
10 FLECK & HARDER Vol. 20, No.1
TABLE 1.-forty-seven named categoriesofrainforesthabitat typesrecognized by the
Matses within theGalvez Riverdrainagebasin innortheastern Peru. TheMulsesclassify
habitat typesaccording tocriteriaoftwomajortypes: 1)geomorphological fcatures, and
2)vegetationcharacteristics. Themost important dichotomy in theMatsesclassification
system isbetween floodplain rainforestalongseasonally flooded riversand upland
rainforest thatisnotsubjected 10seasonal flooding. Mats€s alsodistinguish between
primary rainforest andsuccessional habitats. Numbers referto habitat typessampled in
thisstudy and areused insubsequent tablesand figures. SeeAppendix 0 for linguistic
descriptionofMatseshabitat terminology.
HABITATTYPESDEFINED BYGEOMORPHOLOGICALFEATURES
manauucQujo Upland RainfOrest
1 q'liusudqllid Non-flooding forest adjacent toa river
2 mallan Hillcrest(alsocalled mallan dadanq'lio)
maCliesl. Hill incline(alsocalled maCllifsh potsen)
tsimpiruc Valley between upland hills
actedada ClIi£man Gallery forest alonga largestream
aetecuidiClIilman Gallery forest alongasmall stream
3 depllell Ephemeral headwatersofastream
4 mactac Poorly-drained muddy mincrallick
ilia" Upland palm swamp
!lllslwlltlle IJermanenllywaterlogged swamp
actecuemall floodplain
5 actiadlo Lowseasonally nooded forest (called arte mallanduring
flooding season)
6 twcllildtsl'quid Levee f100dcd every year
7 manlSI'S Levee nooded onlyonyearsofexceptionally high water
levels(calledmashcadduringflooding season)
dll'aI' cueman Forestalonga noodplain lake
!letemactae Mineral lick in floodplain forest
8 itia dapa" Floodplain palm swamp (called ilia mauanduringflooding
season)
HABITATTYPESCHARACTERIZED BYVEGETATIONCHARACTERISTICS
PrimaryRainfOrest
12 tanacclloed
dapaiscJloed
cobisIl7lclrol'd
tillllteelroed
sentl'dloed
pencadehoed
mallipadachoed