analysis of hunting options good taboos colding 1998

Ecological Modelling 110 (1998) 517

Analysis of hunting options by the use of general food taboos

Johan Colding *

Department of Systems Ecology, Stockholm Uni6ersity, S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden

Abstract

A hypothetical model was built, using the STELLA II software program, to test several hunting options for ahuman hunting group. Different outcomes of possible hunting modes are analysed, such as a change in hunting rate,prey hunted, or species avoided or not avoided by taboos. The model consists of five sectors that reflect a short foodchain in an upper Amazonian ecosystem. There is a vegetation sector, a predator sector, and two sectors consistingof browsers and grazers. The last sector represents a human group, known as the Ecuador Achuar. The critical factoranalysed is how differences in hunting rate affect a target resource, and how this resource may be affected by generalfood taboos. The major results of the model are that general food taboos may not be an adaptive short term strategyfor hunters, but that a moderate hunting mode may be the most effective option for the human group. Since themodel is a simplification of the real world, no general conclusions for management should be drawn from the results. 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: General food taboos; Hunting options; Amazone ecosystems

1. Introduction

Many traditional societies employ food tabooson animal species for a number of reasons. Someresearchers suggest that there are nature manage-ment motives behind them (Rappaport, 1967,1968; Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1976; McDonald, 1977;Johaness, 1978; Ross, 1978; Harris, 1979), whileothers resent any such ecological motives (Rea,

1981; Edgerton, 1992). Hunting among some tra-ditional groups may be conducted in a highlyefficient way, consistent with predicators of forag-ing theory (Alvard, 1993, 1994). While species arethus pursued with short-term harvest rate maxi-mization, one may very well ask why some nativehunting groups employ food taboos. McDonald(1977), in a study of 11 South American tropicalgroups, suggests that taboos may function as con-servation mechanisms for reducing the huntingpressure on larger mammals in environmentswhere such species are low in abundance. Generalfood taboosapplying to all members within acommunitymay play a role in biodiversity con-

* Present address: The Beijer International Institute of Eco-logical Economics, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,PO Box 50005, S-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden. Tel.: 46 86739500; fax: 46 8 152464; e-mail: [email protected]. se

0304-3800:98:$19.00 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

PII S 0304 -3800 (98 )00038 -6

J. Colding : Ecological Modelling 110 (1998) 5176

Fig. 1. Approximate location of the Ecuador Achuar territory (marked in grey).

servation. For example, Colding and Folke(1996), found that a number of threatened popu-lations of species, including endemic and keystonespecies, benefit from such taboos.

The purpose of this modelling exercise withSTELLA II, has been to analyse possible relationsbetween general food taboos and different hunt-ing modes. The STELLA II program may be asuitable tool for an investigation of this kind.While real world data on wild populations areavailable in the literature (see Emmons, 1990;Nowak, 1991; Redford and Eisenberg, 1992), it isnevertheless problematic to generalise from suchdata. For example, data on numbers of densityare measured in habitats where species thrive. Togeneralise from such data, from one habitat toanother, may be highly awkward. Among otherthings, this is due to the differences in the hetero-genity of landscapes within and between ecosys-tems. Perhaps more realistic data for thepresented model could be obtained using site-spe-

cific data from field studies. Unfortunately, thishas not been possible. Thus, the estimates usedhere are highly artificial.

The Ecuador Achuar represents the humangroup of this model. This group, inhabiting a vastregion at the Ecuador:Peru border (see Fig. 1),has been well studied by DeScola (1986). TheEcuador Achuar impose general food taboos onseveral species of mammals. They abstain fromthe consumption of all carnivorous mammals andregard several other such species as inedible, refer-ring to them as sickening meat (DeScola, 1986).Among such species is the rodent Capybara, Hy-drochoerus hydrochoerus, which is widely huntedby other neotropical forest groups (see Redford,1993; Bodmer 1994). However, other species ofrodents are hunted, e.g. agoutis (Agouti paca) andacouchis (Dasyprocta and Myoprocta). Ungulates,such as Brocket deer (Mazama Americana) andTapirs (Tapirus terrestris and T. pinchaque) areavoided by general food taboos, due to reincarna-tion beliefs (DeScola, 1986).

J. Colding : Ecological Modelling 110 (1998) 517 7

Fig. 2. The basic structure and key actors of the model.

narios are presented in Section 3. Individualmodel runs will also be discussed in Section 3,while an overall discussion will follow in Section4.

2. Basic structure and data

The main sectors and key actors of the modelare presented in Fig. 2. This figure illustrates thebasic food chain investigated. The population ofjaguars is regarded as the top-predator in thisextremely simplified ecosystem. Jaguars prey onboth the rodent and tapir populations respec-tively, that, in turn, feed from the vegetationsector. Although all carnivore species areavoided by the Achuar hunter, the jaguars inthis model are thought of representing a fractionof all the carnivores in this ecosystem. The sameholds true for both the rodent sector and the

The results obtained in this study are highlyartificial and should not be taken as indicatorsof the Ecuador Achuar hunting mode. Themodel is far too incomplete for any such infer-ences to be made. This complies for both thestructure of the ecosystem, as well as for thevarious populations of species described in themodel. Some possible hunting modes and sce-

Fig. 3. A model for examining different hunting options for a human group.


Table 1Sensitivity runs on population stocks of the model, using STELLA II

3: Vegetation 2: Rodent 3: RodentMonths 1: Rodent1: Vegetation 2: Vegetation

9 000 000 9000 18 000 27 0000 3 000 000 6 000 00011 955 12 00950 6 617 864 6 618 420 6 618 413 12 035

11 79111 772 11 785100 6 605 2776 605 182 6 605 27814 512 14 521150 6 557 093 6 557 171 6 557 170 14 52512 272 12 279200 6 620 185 6 620 226 6 620 225 12 281

1: Jaguar 3: Jaguar2: Jaguar3: Tapir1: Tapir 2: Tapir10 250 300 600 40900

28282850 651300 541566 28 28 28100 294 511

31 3131150 561335 5302727200 338 503 521 27

1: Tapir* 2 Tapir* 3: Tapir*0 900300 600

50 218 485 603100 48767 410

463150 0 400200 3920 333

An increase in the rate of tapirs per jag from RANDOM (0, 0.4, 0.4) to RANDOM (0, 0.5, 0.5) is marked as * in the table.

tapir sector. The former represents mainly alumping of larger rodents that the EcuadorAchuar pursue, and the latter a fraction of theungulates avoided by general food taboos.

2.1. Climatic conditions of the ecosystem

The ecosystem is a simplified version of theEcuador Achuar territory, situated at theEcuador:Peru border. It lies north of the Pastazariver, and covers an area of about 9000 km2 (seeFig. 1). The region has a typical equatorial cli-mate, constantly humid, no dry season, and amonthly rainfall always over 60 mm. It is situ-ated 2 south of the equator, where days andnights are nearly the same length, and tempera-tures remain constant throughout the year. De-spite its proximity to the Andean barrier, thisecosystem is not directly affected by the specialmeteorological conditions of the foothills. Meanannual daytime temperatures vary between 24and 25C. The annual average low temperaturefluctuates between 19 and 20C, depending onaltitude, and the average annual high tempera-

ture is between 29 and 31C. It is marginallywarmer from October to February.

The average annual rainfall is no more than3000 mm for the highest latitudes, and not lessthan 2000 mm for the lowest. However, rainfallvaries from year to year. Periods of too little ortoo much precipitation have no noteworthy ef-fect on the vegetative activity of wild and culti-vated plants, since the duration is too short tohave any long-term influence. However, animalpopulations may be affected by this variation,since droughts rapidly dries up secondarybranches of rivers, normally filled with water,affecting the fish that live there, and other spe-cies of animals that normally receive water atthese places. In the opposite case, heavy continu-ous rainfall tends to accelerate the decompositionof organic bedding, rapidly destroying the fruitand seeds eaten by large terrestrial herbivoressuch as tapirs and peccaries.

The ecosystem is in a state of dynamic equi-librium, as its system of energetic exchange oper-ates theoretically in a closed circuit (Odum,1971). The organic matter and minerals are con-


Fig. 4. A case with a zero hunt on all the three populations of species. The ecosystem is in balance.

tinually recycled by a complex network of micro-organisms and specialised bacteria. Given thatalmost 90% of the nutrients of tropical forestecosystems are stored in the standing plantbiomass (Begon et al., 1990), this closed circuitsystem is sensitive to larger clearings and defor-estation activities.

2.2. Description of model sectors

A detailed structure of the model, describingthe various in- and outflows between and withinstocks and sectors is presented in Fig. 3. Themodel has been run at a monthly time step for200 months. This length was chosen on the basisthat it would allow a human population to adjustto changes in hunting modes, since possible effectsof a taboo would thus be known in a fairly shortnotice of time.

2.2.1. The 6egetati6e sectorBased on the climatic conditions described in

Section 2.1 the vegetation sector is considered tobe largely unaffected by climatic variability. Nu-trients are thus tightly recycled and closely associ-ated to the standing living biomass. This has beenaccounted for in the model by the design of anutrient cycle circuit (see Fig. 3). The vegetationsector was constructed to be robust, and largelyunaffected by different levels of populationchanges within other sectors. Sensitivity runs indi-cate that population levels of the herbivores (ro-dents and tapirs) are constrained by theirrespective carrying capacities, and do not pose athreat to the vegetation, even if initial numbersgreatly overshoot carrying capacity levels (seeTable 1). This sector is thought to consist largelyof evergreen leaves, flowering plants, fruits andseeds, and constitutes the first trophic level of thisecosystem (for information on input data usedthroughout Section 2.2, see equations in the Ap-pendix).

2.2.2. The rodent sectorThe rodent sector of the model represents ro-


Fig. 5. A case where rodents are hunted at the hunting rate of 0.17, equal to an average of pursued rodents by other neotropicalforest groups (Redford 1993). Jaguars and tapirs are not hunted at all.

dents that may be hunted by the EcuadorAchuar (mainly those of a weight between 2and 10 kg). Species under consideration includeAgouti paca, and Dasyprocta spp. and My-oprocta spp. They represent part of the secondtrophic level. Rodents are widely hunted amongtropical Amazonian groups (Redford, 1993) andare important sources of protein in the EcuadorAchuar diet.

Initial population of rodents were set at18 000. This estimate is based on adding thedensity numbers for the above rodent species(see estimates of Nowak (1991), Redford (1993),and Bodmer (1994)) (Density of Agouti is 5.1per km2, for Dasyprocta and Myoprocta 6.1 perkm2.) For an ecosystem 9000 km2 in size, theestimate will end up being about 110 000 ro-dents, which is about 12.2 individuals per km2.This is considered as an extremely high estimate.Densities for rodents such as hares in Sweden,

are considered very high at 4 per km2 (ibid),which is about 1:6 of the number above. Forthis reason the estimated number on density hasbeen set at about 2 rodents per km2, whichgives a total value of about 18 000 rodents.Mean litter size of rodents was set at four(Eisenberg, 1981), with 34 litters per year(ibid). Based on these numbers the specific birthrate was set at about 6.0, which gives a monthlybirth rate of 0.5. The death rate was estimatedby using the survivorship curve based on that ofOdum (1983), and set at a monthly rate of 0.46.

2.2.3. The tapir sectorTapirs are both grazers and browsers. They

represent part of the second trophic level of thismodel. The Ecuador Achuar employ a general foodtaboo on the killing of tapirs. Densities for tapirshave been estimated at 0.4 per km2 (Bodmer, 1994).As was the case for rodents, 1:6 of this estimate has


Fig. 6. A case displaying the maximum hunting rode on rodents. At a hunting rate of 0.92, both rodents and jaguars are severelyaffected. Above this rate these populations go extinct. Jaguars and tapirs are not hunted at all.

been used as an input value for this model. There-fore, the initial population of tapirs is set at about600. For the calculation of birth and death rates,the survivorship curve of the species of Black-taildeer was used (see Odum, 1983). This species is aherbivore of approximately the same size, and wasassumed to have a survivorship curve of the samekind as tapirs. Litter size of tapirs was set at one,with an average of about one litter per year(Eisenberg, 1981). Monthly birth rate wascalculated at 0.04, and monthly death rate at0.017.

2.2.4. The jaguar sectorJaguars represent the top-predator of this

ecosystem, preying on both rodents and tapirs.No information on rates of predation, birth anddeath were found in the literature. Ecologicaldensity of jaguars is estimated at 0.013 per km(Redford and Eisenberg, 1992). One sixth of thisvalue sets the initial jaguar population at about 20individuals.

2.2.5. The Achuar sectorThe Achuar of this particular region of

Ecuador has a steady population of about 1000(DeScola, 1986). The group has many options forhunting which will be analysed below.

3. Scenarios and individual outcomes of runs

The results of the different runs are presented inFigs. 49. Following are three different scenarios,each representing possible hunting options for theEcuador Achuar population.

3.1. Scenario one

As has been stated, the Ecuador Achuar obeygeneral food taboos on the hunting of tapirs andjaguars. In this first scenario, this has been ac-counted for by setting hunting rates on thesespecies at zero (see Figs. 46). In this scenario,consisting of three runs, the Achuar only huntrodents. Different outcomes will be obtained, de-


Fig. 7. A case where jaguars are pursued at a hunting rate of 0.0036, which turned out to be the maximum rate allowed for notcreating a collapse of the jaguar population. Rodents are pursued at a hunting rate of 0.17. Tapirs are not pursued at all.

pending on the different hunting rates of rodents.Fig. 4 represents a case where the Achuar em-

ploy a zero value in the hunting rate of rodents.This run indicates that the model ecosystem is inbalance.

In the second run (see Fig. 5), the hunting rateon rodents employed by the Achuar was set at170 per month, which is about the normal hunt-ing rate on rodents by other neotropical forestgroups (Redford and Robinson, 1987).

In the third run (see Fig. 6), the numbers ofrodents hunted was set at 920 per month, whichwas the highest number of rodents that could behunted without collapsing this population. If therodent population collapses it will make thejaguar population collapse as well, since jaguarspredominantly prey on rodents in this model.These results indicate that the Ecuador Achuarsector of the model may hunt rodents sustainablyat a rate of \0.17 to 0.92.

3.2. Scenario two

If rodents are hunted at a rate of 170 permonth, and the taboo on tapirs is still employedbut the taboo on jaguars is not obeyed, the runpresented in Fig. 7 is obtained. In this run thehunting rate on jaguars is set at 3.6 per month,which is the maximum hunting rate allowedwithout collapsing the population.

3.3. Scenario three

In this last scenario two different runs weremade. In Fig. 8 the taboo on the hunting ofjaguars is observed by the hunters, but not thetaboo on tapirs. The result from this run indi-cates that if tapirs are hunted at a rate of twoper month, or greater, the number of the tapirpopulation will gradually decline and eventuallygo extinct. Additional runs were made in which


Fig. 8. A case displaying a zero hunting rate of jaguars (by taboo). With a hunting rate on tapirs of 0.002, the population declinessteadily over time. Rodents are hunted at the rate of 0.17.

it was possible for hunters to hunt all three popu-lations of species simultaneously at rather highhunting rates in a sustainable manner. For exam-ple rodents, jaguars and tapirs, may all be pur-sued at corresponding hunting rates of 170, 3 and2 per month, without threatening the long timesurvival of these populations.

Fig. 9 shows that over-hunting of jaguarsmay be a rational hunting option for groupsthat hunt species, such as rodents and ungu-lates. The interspecific competition between thehuman hunters and jaguars is thus reduced. Thissituation does not pertain to the Ecuador Achuar.

4. Discussion

There are several limitations to this exercise.For example, input data on consumption ratesare simply estimated without any real refer-ences. The system was sensitivity tested andanalysed in this regard, which demonstrated

that if the numbers of tapirs taken per jaguarare slightly increased from a random value of0.4 to 0.5, it could have a dramatic impact ona tapir population of about 300 individuals (seeTable 1). At this level the whole tapir popula-tion collapsed and became extinct.

Estimates of vegetation, below and abovevalues in the model, revealed that carrying ca-pacity is set at about 6.6 million vegetativeunits. Sensitivity runs on the rodent populationat numbers below or above the estimated popu-lation size, showed that the rodent populationestablished itself close to a carrying capacity atabout 12 00014 500 in most runs (see Table 1).

Despite the limitations of this exercise, whatcan be said about the overall results of thismodelling exercise? Firstly, the results indicatethat general taboos imposed on species ofjaguars and tapirs protect them from becomingextinct. However, the taboos of this modelseem not to have any hidden ecological func-tions by, e.g. enhancing other populations of


Fig. 9. A case showing that it may be advantageous for hunters to pursue a predator species such as the jaguar. This may reducethe interspecific competition between two populations feeding on the same resource. Hunting rate on jaguars is set at 0.0036, onrodents at 0.17, and on tapirs at 0.002.

species pursued by the Ecuador Achuar. It seemsto be more efficient to pursue jaguars wheneverencountered, than not to. As Fig. 8 also indicates(and several other runs have demonstrated), it maybe most efficient to pursue all three species ofmammals at moderate hunting rates.

5. Conclusion

General food taboos may be ecologically adap-tive for hunters in ways which are not disclosed bythe nature of this simplified model. The STELLAmodel used here indicates that a moderate huntingmode may be the most effective option for theneotropical group of this model. However, noinferences should be drawn based on this result fortropical forest groups such as the Ecuador Achuar.In the model of this paper, general food taboos donot increase the yield for hunters of species whichare not surrounded by taboos. Cultural reasons,

based on mythologies and perceptions of reality,may be the reason behind these taboos in the realworld (see also DeScola, 1986). On the other hand,for the preservation of species that may go extinctfrom over hunting, the use of a moderate huntingmode, or the use of general food taboos, seem tobe viable options. Any final conclusion on theserelationships cannot be drawn from this model.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Professor Robert Costanza.at the Institute for Ecological Economics, Univer-sity of Maryland, for giving me valuable advice andfeedback in the construction of this model. Withouthis insistence this paper would never have beencompleted. Warm thanks also to Professor CarlFolke, at the Beijer Institute of Ecological Econom-ics, Stockholm, for valuable suggestions andthoughtful considerations.


Appendix A. Equations for the model

Human Human

group(t)Human

group(tdt)INIT Human

group=1000 Jaguar

kill

per

human=0 Rodent

kill

per

human=0 Tapir

kill

per

human=0Jaguars Jaguar

pop(t)=Jaguar

pop(tdt)

+(births

jaguardeaths

jaguar)*dtINIT Jaguar

pop=20INFLOWS:

births

jag=Jaguarpop*(birth

frac+jag

of

tap+birth

fract

jag

of

rod)

*(1(Jaguar

pop/car

cap

jag))OUTFLOWS:

deaths

jaguar=Jaguarpop*(death

frac

jag

of

rod+death

fract

jag

of

tapirs)+Human

group*Jaguar

kill

per

human car

cap

jag=40* birth

fract

jag

of

rod=GRAPH(Rodent

pop)(0.00, 0.0265), (100, 0.0285),(200, 0.033), (300, 0.0375),(400, 0.0425), (500, 0.048),(600, 0.0515), (700, 0.0575),(800, 0.059), (900, 0.06),(1000, 0.06)* birth

frac

jag

of

tap=GRAPH(-Tapir

pop)(0.00, 0.13), (10.0, 0.145),(20.0, 0.174), (30.0, 0.205),

(40.0, 0.245), (50.0, 0.305),(60.0, 0.35), (70.0, 0.37),(80.0, 0.383), (90.0, 385),(100, 0.385)* death

fract

jag

of

tapirs=GRAPH(Tapir

pop)(0.00, 0.11), (60.0, 0.105),(120, 0.09), (180, 0.075),(240, 0.06), (300, 0.05),(360, 0.04), (420, 0.032),(480, 0.0235), (540, 0.016),(600, 0.00)* death

frac

jag

of

rod=GRAPH(Rodent

pop)(0.00, 0.91), (1800, 0.855),(3600, 0.76), (5400, 0.625),(7200, 0.45), (9000, 0.295),(10 800, 0.18), (12 600, 0.105),(14 400, 0.06), (16 200, 0.025),(18 000, 0.0005)

Rodents Rodent

pop(t)=Rodent

pop(tdt)+(birthsdeaths)*dtINIT Rodent

pop=18 000INFLOWS:

births=Rodent

pop*birth

fraction*(1Rodent

pop/car

cap

rod))OUTFLOWS:

deaths=Jaguar

pop*rod

per

jaguar+Rodent

pop*death

fraction+Human

group*Rodent

kill

per

human car

cap

rod=36 000 rod

per

jaguar=RAN-DOM(0.100, 50)* birth

fraction=GRAPH(Vegeta-tion)(0.00, 0.12), (700 000, 0.165),(1.4e+006, 0.23), (2.1e+006, 0.285), (2.8e+006, 0.33),(3.5e+006, 0.395), (4.2e+


006, 0.43), (4.9e+006, 0.455), (5.6e+006, 0.485), (6.3e+006, 0.5), (7e+006, 0.5)* death

fraction=GRAPH(Vegetation)(0.00, 0.815), (80 000, 0.63),(160 000, 0.49), (240 000, 0.395),(320 000, 0.32), (400 000, 0.27),(480 000, 0.24), (560 000, 0.215),(640 000, 0.213), (720 000, 0.215),(800 000, 0.213)Tapirs Tapir

pop(t)=Tapir

pop(tdt)+(births

tapirdeaths

tapir)*dtINIT Tapir

pop=600INFLOWS:

births

tapir=Tapir

pop*birth

fract

tapir*(1

(Tapir

pop/car

cap

tapirs))OUTFLOWS:

deaths

tapir=Jaguar

pop*tapirs

per

jag+Tapirpop*death

fract

tapir+Human

group*Tapir

kill

per

human car

cap

tapirs=1200 tapirs

per

jag=RAN-DOM(0, 0.4, 0.4)* birth

fract

tapir=GRAPH(Vegeta-tion)(0.00, 0.0005), (80 000, 0.0185),(160 000, 0.0275), (240 000, 0.033),(320 000, 0.0358), (400 000, 0.0388),(480 000, 0.0403), (560 000, 0.0425),(640 000, 0.0433), (720 000, 0.0438),(800 000, 0.044)* death

fract

tapir=GRAPH(Vegeta-tion)(0.00, 0.9), (600 000, 0.8), (1.2e+006, 0.7), (1.8e+006, 0.4), (2.4e+006, 0.0498), (3e+006, 0.0305),(3.6e+006, 0.019), (4.2e+

006, 0.016), (4.8e+006, 0.0155),(5.4e+006, 0.015), (6e+006, 0.0145)

Vegetation Vegetation(t)=Vegetation(tdt)+(regenerationconsumption)*dtINIT Vegetation=6 000 000INFLOWS:

regeneration

=seeding+(Vegetation*regen

per

plant)

*(1(Vegetation/car

cap

veg))OUTFLOWS:

consumption=Rodent

pop*veget

per

rodent+Tapir

pop*veget

per

tapir car

cap

veg=7 000 000 seeding=1 veget

per

rodent=20 veget

per

tapir=20* nutrients=GRAPH(Vegetation)(0.00, 0.015), (600 000, 0.07),(1.2e+006, 0.135), (1.8e+006, 0.23), (2.4e+006, 0.365), (3e+006, 0.565), (3.6e+006, 0.745),(4.2e+006, 0.815), (4.8e+006, 0.855), (5.4e+006, 0.88), (6e+006, 0.9)* regen

per

piant=GRAPH(nutri-ents)(0.00, 0.085), (0.1, 0.125),(0.3, 0.145), (0.3, 0.185),(0.4, 0.215), (0.5, 0.275),(0.6, 0.385), (0.7, 0.505),(0.8, 0.645), (0.9, 0.705),(1, 0.735)

References

Alvard, M.S., 1993. Testing the Ecologically noble savagehypothesis: Interspecific prey choice by Piro hunters ofAmazonian Peru. Hum. Ecol. 4, 355387.


Alvard, M.S., 1994. Conservation by native peoples: Preychoice in a depleted habitat. Hum. Nat. 2, 127154.

Begon, M., Harper, J.L., Townsend, C.R., 1990. Ecology.Individuals, Populations and Communities. Blackwell Sci-entific Publications, Boston:Oxford:London.

Bodmer, R.E., 1994. Managing wildlife with local communi-ties in the Peruvian Amazon. In: Western, D, Wright,R.M. (Eds.), Natural Connections. Perspectives in Com-munity-based Conservation. Island Press, Washington DC.

Colding, J., Folke, C., 1996. Species conservation throughsocial taboos. Beijer discussion paper series No. 74. BeijerInternational Institute of Ecological Economics, The RoyalSwedish Academy of Sciences. Stockholm, Sweden.

DeScola, P., 1986. La Nature Domestique. Symbolisme etPraxis dans lecologie des Achuar. Reprinted in CambridgeUniversity Press 1994 as in the Society of Nature. A NativeEcology in Amazonia. Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge

Edgerton, R.B., 1992. Sick Societies: Challenging the Myth ofPrimitive Harmony. The Free Press, New York.

Eisenberg, J.F., 1981. The Mammalian Radiations. Universityof Chicago Press, Chicago:London.

Emmons, L.H., 1990. Neotropical Rainforest Mammals: AField Guide. University of Chicago Press, Chicago:Lon-don.

Harris, M., 1979. Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for aScience of Culture. Random House, New York.

Johaness, R.E., 1978. Traditional marine conservation meth-ods in Oceania and their demise. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 9,349364.

McDonald, D.R., 1977. Food taboos: A primitive environ-

mental protection agency (South America). Anthropos 72,734748.

Nowak, R.M., 1991. Walkers Mammals of the World. JohnHopkins, New York.

Odum, H., 1971. Environment, Power and Society. John Wileyand Sons, New York.

Odum, E.P., 1983. Basic Ecology. Holt-Saunders InternationalEditions, New York.

Rappaport, R., 1967. Ritual regulation of environmental rela-tions among a New Guinea people. Ethnology 6, 1730.

Rappaport, R., 1968. Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in theEcology of a New Guinea People. Yale University Press,New Haven, CT.

Rea, A.M., 1981. Resource utilization and food taboos ofSonoran desert peoples. J. Ethnobiol. 1, 6983.

Reichel-Dolmatoff, G., 1976. Cosmology as ecological analy-sis: A view from the rainforest. Man 11, 307318.

Redford, K.H., 1993. Hunting in neotropical forests: A sub-sidy from nature. In: Hladik, C.M., Hladik, A., Linares,O.F., Pagezy, H., Semple, A., Hadley, M. (Eds.), TropicalForests, People and Foods. Man and the Biosphere Series,vol. 3. Parthenon, Paris.

Redford, K.H., Robinson, J.G., 1987. The game of choice.Patterns of Indian and colonist hunting in the Neotropics.Am. Anthropol. 89, 650667.

Redford, K.H., Eisenberg, J.F., 1992. Mammals of theNeotropics, vol. 3. University of Chicago Press, Chicago:London.

Ross, E.B., 1978. Food taboos, diet and hunting strategy: Theadaptation to animals in Amazon cultural ecology. Curr.Anthropol. 1, 136.

analysis of hunting options good taboos colding 1998

Documents