872 P. Carignano Torres et al.


FIG. 3 Ordination of species composition based on the last species consumed in the households during the previous 12 months (Table 3). Species occurrence was pooled by municipality and area (urban or rural). Species are represented by shapes according to taxonomic classes. The municipalities are represented by filled triangles (CAP = Caapiranga, IPX = Ipixuna, JTA= Jutaí, MAU= Maués) and their areas are represented by different shades. Asterisks (*) denote taxa that were not identified to genus/species level.


them as becoming more difficult to acquire (Supplementary Table 4). Preferential consumption of these species in urban areas has been reported elsewhere in Amazonia (Parry et al., 2014; van Vliet et al., 2015a,b; El Bizri et al., 2020b). These species were also most often purchased in the current study, perhaps reflecting taste preferences, reinforcing evi- dence associating wealth with consumption of preferred species (van Vliet et al., 2011) and hunter preferences for large-bodied species (van Vliet et al., 2014). Finally, despite the persistence of social linkages with rural


locations, wildmeat was eaten less often and in lower quan- tities in towns compared to in rural communities, which is consistent with evidence from Africa and Amazonia (Nasi et al., 2011;van Vlietetal., 2014; Nunes et al., 2019b;ElBizri et al., 2020b). This resulted in greater overall consumption in rural areas, as discussed in the following subsection.


Overall wildmeat consumption in non-road-connected municipalities


Our findings show that forest wildlife provides large quan- tities of meat to rural and urban inhabitants in our study region, which features largely intact forests. Our estimates of urban consumption fall within those modelled for three


out of four other municipalities (El-Bizri et al., 2020b). Our lowest recorded urban wildmeat consumption was in Maués (1.3 kg/person/year), which is below what would be predicted from previous studies (El-Bizri et al., 2020b), although it is consistent with findings that consump- tion rates decline as the population of a town increases (Chaves et al., 2021a). Our estimate of wildmeat consump- tion in rural areas of 21.1 kg/person/year was below the esti- mate of 54.8 kg from a previous study (Nunes et al., 2019b). This discrepancy could be because of the inclusion of Indigenous communities in the previous study, which are often more reliant on wildmeat, and of estimates based on reported hunting offtake rather than household consump- tion (as not all households include hunters; Nunes et al., 2019b). In our study, one-quarter of rural households did not have a hunter. In summary, we found strong evidence that per-capita and aggregate urban consumption of wild- meat in central Amazonia is much lower than rural con- sumption, although we did not attempt to extrapolate our empirical findings to larger or road-connected cities. Although conservation interest increasingly focuses on


wildmeat consumption in urban areas of Amazonia, rural consumption far exceeded urban consumption in our study. This carries important policy implications for


Oryx, 2022, 56(6), 864–876 © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605321001575


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164