Turvey 2014 _ Is local ecological knowledge a useful conservation tool for small mammals in a Caribbean multicultural landscape

Prévia do material em texto

Biological Conservation 169 (2014) 189–197
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Biological Conservation
journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate /biocon
Is local ecological knowledge a useful conservation tool for small
mammals in a Caribbean multicultural landscape?
0006-3207/$ - see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.018
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 207 449 6326.
E-mail address: samuel.turvey@ioz.ac.uk (S.T. Turvey).
Samuel T. Turvey a,⇑, Cristina Fernández-Secades b, Jose M. Nuñez-Miño c, Tom Hart d, Pedro Martinez e,
Jorge L. Brocca e, Richard P. Young c,f
a Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regent’s Park, London NW1 4RY, UK
b Centre for Population Biology, Imperial College London, Silwood Park, Ascot, Berkshire SL5 7PY, UK
c Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, Les Augrès Manor, Trinity, Jersey JE3 5BP, Channel Islands
d Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK
e Sociedad Ornitológica de la Hispaniola, Parque Zoologico Nacional, Avenida de la Vega Real, Arroyo Hondo, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
f Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 2 May 2013
Received in revised form 12 November 2013
Accepted 14 November 2013
Keywords:
Charismatic species
Ethnotaxonomy
Interview survey
Plagiodontia
Solenodon
Traditional ecological knowledge
Local ecological knowledge is an increasingly used, cost-effective source of data for conservation research
and management. However, untrained observers are more likely to provide meaningful information on
species that are charismatic and easily identifiable (e.g. large-bodied vertebrates) or of socio-economic
importance, and may ignore or misidentify smaller-bodied, elusive and non-charismatic species. These
problems may be further exacerbated by variation in environmental awareness and perception between
different socio-cultural and ethnic groups often present across the range of threatened non-charismatic
species. A community-based interview survey was carried out in southern Hispaniola on both sides of the
Dominican Republic–Haitian border, to investigate the usefulness of local ecological knowledge for
assessing status and threats to the Hispaniolan solenodon (Solenodon paradoxus) and Hispaniolan hutia
(Plagiodontia aedium). These two small-bodied nocturnal endemic mammals are rarely targeted for bush-
meat or encountered by rural community members, and may be confused with each other and with non-
native small mammals. We demonstrate that, despite their elusive nature, both solenodons and hutias
can be accurately identified by substantial numbers of respondents in rural communities. New quantita-
tive data on levels of anthropogenic mortality also indicate that predation by free-roaming village dogs is
responsible for numerous solenodon and hutia deaths. However, patterns of awareness and experience
may be influenced by variation both in species status, ecology and distribution and in socio-cultural fac-
tors, and Dominican and Haitian respondents from the same landscapes have very different levels of
awareness and experience of Hispaniolan native mammals, demonstrating an important distinction
between local ecological knowledge and traditional ecological knowledge.
� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Most conservation field research is based on ecological data col-
lected directly by trained scientists, but information about the sta-
tus of species of conservation concern is often also available from
untrained local people utilizing the same environments (Newing,
2011). Community interview surveys can represent a relatively
inexpensive approach for collecting data across wide geographic
areas, especially for rare or elusive species that may otherwise be
difficult to study or monitor, and can provide both historical and
recent data with a single collection effort. Knowledge obtained
during such surveys can be subdivided into local ecological knowl-
edge (LEK, representing experiential knowledge derived from lived
interactions with the local environment, and able to provide infor-
mation about the contemporary status of target species and eco-
logical resources) and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK,
representing the cumulative body of ecological knowledge and be-
lief passed down between generations by cultural transmission).
These social science terms are often used interchangeably but in
fact refer to different histories of knowledge acquisition, and can
provide information on different areas of local community interac-
tion with the environment (Berkes et al., 2000). LEK in particular
has become increasingly recognized as an important source of data
for conservation research and management, and can often provide
more extensive information than available from standard ecologi-
cal surveys on various aspects of the status, extinction drivers, or
last occurrence of threatened or recently extinct species (Burbidge
et al., 1988; Turvey et al., 2010b).
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.018&domain=pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.018
mailto:samuel.turvey@ioz.ac.uk
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.018
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00063207
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon
190 S.T. Turvey et al. / Biological Conservation 169 (2014) 189–197
However, there are many problems preventing the straightfor-
ward integration of LEK into conservation research. There is con-
siderable potential for error and bias in the collection,
interpretation, and quantification of LEK, with community-based
fieldwork requiring particular sensitivity to local anthropological
and socio-economic environments (McKelvey et al., 2008). Un-
trained local observers are more likely to provide meaningful infor-
mation on charismatic and easily identifiable species, typically
large-bodied or otherwise distinctive vertebrates (Mallory et al.,
2003), or species with significant socio-economic or other cultural
importance (Jones et al., 2008; Karst and Turner, 2011), with LEK of
particular usefulness in studying the status of regional fisheries
(Johannes et al., 2000; Drew, 2005). LEK can also provide quantita-
tive data on levels of human–wildlife conflict, although it may rep-
resent an exaggerated or otherwise inaccurate assessment of the
actual threat posed by species thought to compete for community
resources such as domestic animals or crops (e.g. Paddle, 2000).
Conversely, smaller-bodied and non-charismatic species, even
in groups such as mammals, are much more likely to be unreported
or misidentified by respondents (Nyhus et al., 2003; Starr et al.,
2011). Indeed, whereas ethnozoological classification systems of-
ten correspond with scientific taxonomies for large charismatic
species (Telfer and Garde, 2006; Majnep and Bulmer, 2007), these
semantic domains may not accurately discriminate species that are
not culturally important or regularly encountered (Sillitoe, 2002).
Within mammals alone, the generally small-bodied, ‘‘non-charis-
matic’’ (cf. Entwistle and Stephenson, 2000) rodents, lipotyphlan
insectivores and bats comprise >70% of the group’s total species
diversity (Wilson and Reeder, 2005), so that LEK may be of limited
use for research or management in such taxa. These problems may
be further exacerbated by variation in environmental awareness
and perception between different socio-economic, cultural and
ethnic groups present across the range of species of conservation
concern. Further investigation of the usefulness of LEK for assess-
ing status and threats to small-bodied, non-charismatic species un-
der such conditions is therefore an important conservation
necessity.
The Caribbean island of Hispaniola, divided politically into the
Dominican Republic and Haiti, has experienced high levels of re-
cent human-caused extinction, and itsendemic non-volant land
mammal fauna now consists of only two species: the Hispaniolan
solenodon (Solenodon paradoxus), a large venomous insectivore,
and the Hispaniolan hutia (Plagiodontia aedium), a large, mainly
arboreal rodent. Both species are classified as Endangered by IUCN
(2011), and are high priorities for global conservation attention be-
cause they represent some of the last survivors of the insular Carib-
bean mammal fauna and are phylogenetically distinctive members
of ancient lineages (Collen et al., 2011). However, very little is
known about their current status and threats. They may be threa-
tened by a range of different anthropogenic factors, including hab-
itat loss, predation by introduced carnivores, and direct
persecution by people for food or because of their perceived status
as agricultural pests (Woods and Ottenwalder, 1992), but the rela-
tive significance and magnitude of these possible threats remains
unknown and may vary across different communities or social
groups. Both solenodons and hutias are rarely encountered by
researchers and have been considered extinct in the past (Fisher
and Blomberg, 2011), and few field surveys have been carried
out for either species (Sullivan, 1983; Woods et al., 1985; Ottenw-
alder, 1999). Little is known about the ecological requirements,
habitat associations, or landscape-level and regional distributions
of these Hispaniolan land mammals; however, previous studies
have suggested that solenodons may be more abundant and widely
distributed than hutias across much of the island, with populations
recorded in highly disturbed landscapes in both the Dominican
Republic and Haiti, whereas hutias probably have a greater
requirement for tree cover (Sullivan, 1983; Ottenwalder, 1991;
Rupp and Leon, 2009).
Because of the suggested threat faced by solenodons and hutias
from local communities and their commensal animals, and the
demonstrated difficulties in obtaining extensive data on their dis-
tribution, status and threats through standard ecological field tech-
niques, it is possible that LEK may be able to contribute to
conservation of Hispaniola’s native land mammals. However,
although there are occasional reports of opportunistic exploitation
of both species by local people for food (Turvey et al., 2008), they
are not regularly targeted for bushmeat unlike large rodents in
other parts of the world (Amori and Gippoliti, 2002), and they
may only be encountered rarely even by rural community mem-
bers living across their range. These relatively small (<1.5 kg)
mammals are also referred to across Hispaniola by a variety of local
names, and are confused both with each other and with non-native
small mammals (e.g. rats, mongoose, guinea pigs; Verrill, 1907;
Turvey et al., 2008); even official Dominican publications have re-
ferred to both species by the name jutia (Rímoli, 1972; de la Fuente,
1982). LEK of small mammals in rural Hispaniolan communities, as
well as wider patterns of environmental resource use and aware-
ness, is also likely to vary both qualitatively and quantitatively be-
tween Dominican respondents, Haitian Creole respondents in
Haiti, and migrant Haitian respondents in the Dominican Republic,
although the extent to which this will hinder the usefulness of
respondent data for conservation is uncertain. In particular, prob-
lems of accurate species identification may be greater in Haitian
communities; although Haitian farmers living adjacent to the
country’s few remaining forests can have good knowledge of these
habitats and their importance for wild animals in general (Dolisca
et al., 2007), people in many areas of rural southwest Haiti report-
edly use the same word (zagouti) to refer not only to both soleno-
dons and hutias but also to the morphologically dissimilar
rhinoceros iguana (Cyclura cornuta) (Woods and Ottenwalder,
1992).
As part of a wider conservation programme investigating the
status and distribution of Hispaniolan land mammals, a commu-
nity-based interview survey was carried out in communities in
the Sierra de Bahoruco–Massif de la Selle region of southern His-
paniola on both sides of the Dominican–Haitian border, to investi-
gate the usefulness of LEK as a conservation tool for non-
charismatic small mammals.
2. Materials and methods
Fieldwork was conducted from 5 May to 23 June 2010 in nine
small rural communities along the Dominican–Haitian border, sit-
uated north and south of Sierra de Bahoruco National Park (Fig. 1).
Study communities in the Dominican Republic (n = 6) are situated
in landscapes comprising a mosaic of primary and secondary forest
patches, pasture and cropland, whereas study communities in Haiti
(n = 3) are all situated in much more anthropogenically degraded
landscapes with little nearby forest cover. Most families in all
study communities engage in low-income subsistence agriculture,
with cash crops (e.g. coffee) also grown in Dominican Republic
communities. Solenodons and hutias are known to occur across
the area of the Dominican Republic covered by the survey (Sulli-
van, 1983; Ottenwalder, 1999), and indirect signs and live individ-
uals of both species were encountered across this region during
wider survey work in 2010. However, there are no recent records
to confirm the continued presence of either species in the border
region of Haiti covered by the survey due to the limited history
of mammal field research in this region, and both species have
been considered functionally extinct across most of Haiti due to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8
9
Pedernales
Oviedo
BarahonaSierra de Bahoruco
National Park
HAITI
DOMINICAN
REPUBLIC
Lago Enriquillo
3015
km
0
N
71º00’W71º30’W
18º00’N
18º30’N
Fig. 1. Map of study region in southern Hispaniola, showing locations of study communities in Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Haitian localities: 1, Boucan Ferdinand; 2,
Sapotén; 3, Banano. Dominican Republic localities: 4, Puerto Escondido; 5, Los Arroyos; 6, Altagracia; 7, Mencia; 8, Aguas Negras; 9, Las Mercedes.
S.T. Turvey et al. / Biological Conservation 169 (2014) 189–197 191
extensive degradation of natural habitats in this country (Woods
and Ottenwalder, 1992).
Both Dominicans and Haitians were interviewed, with Haitians
representing two different socio-economic groups: Haitian mi-
grants living in the Dominican Republic (present in all of the
Dominican study communities; do not normally own the land they
farm), and Haitians living in Haiti (who normally own their land).
This permitted analysis of differences in awareness, perceptions,
experiences and attitudes between respondents from different eth-
nic and socio-economic backgrounds. Respondents were deliber-
ately selected from two social groups, crop/livestock farmers and
hunters. Although this targeted sampling approach prevents
straightforward generalizations to be made from project findings
about the wider study communities, these respondents are consid-
ered likely to have the greatest degree of contact with native mam-
mal habitats and so be able to provide the most relevant
information for conservation research. Respondents were identi-
fied by a local research assistant, or by local staff from the Domin-
ican Republic Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources
in communities with which the research assistant was unfamiliar.
Chain-referral selection of respondents was also used when
appropriate.
All respondents were interviewed on a one-to-one basis in re-
laxed, informal settings, usually their house or the village colm-
ado (small general store and social meeting point). Interviews
with Dominican respondents were conducted in Spanish by the
second author; interviews with Haitian respondents were con-
ducted in Spanish or Haitian Creole with assistance from a bilin-
gual research assistant. A standard anonymous questionnaire
was used, containing descriptive, structured and contrast ques-
tions, which took approximately 20–30 min to complete (Sup-
porting information). Before the main phase of the survey,
questionnairedesign and structure was refined in a short pilot
study involving 12 respondents from Mencia, representing both
ethnic groups (eight Dominicans and four Haitians). Only one
family member (usually the male head of family, who is mainly
responsible for farming and hunting activities) was interviewed
per household.
Respondents were shown photographs of solenodons and hu-
tias (previously taken by the authors). If the respondent stated
that they recognized either species, they were asked to further
describe its key diagnostic features (e.g. long snout, fur color,
and large claws of solenodon; small ears, fur color, and short
naked tail of hutia), which were not all visible in the photo-
graphs, as well as characteristic behaviors of the species (e.g.
small conical foraging holes or ‘nose pokes’ made by solenodons;
habitat and time of day/night that animals were reportedly seen),
and its local name. Respondents who could correctly describe the
appearance and behavior of either species were assumed to have
accurately identified them, irrespective of the local name they
used to refer to the animal. Respondents who initially stated that
they did not recognize the species were prompted by being told
up to two diagnostic characteristics; if they then reportedly rec-
ognized the species, they were asked to provide descriptions of
further morphological and behavioral characteristics of the spe-
cies to confirm their recognition. Photographs of two other sim-
ilar-sized mammal species not found on mainland Hispaniola
(nine-banded armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus, raccoon Procyon
lotor) were used as controls, to further check the accuracy of
respondents’ species identification and thus the validity of their
answers; interviews with respondents who claimed to recognize
or have seen either species were halted, and interview data from
these respondents were excluded from subsequent analysis.
Respondents who were able to identify solenodons and/or hutias
accurately were then asked questions about past sightings of live
or dead individuals, and the regional status of each species; hu-
ns
,s
am
pl
e
si
ze
s,
st
an
da
rd
de
vi
at
io
ns
,a
nd
p
va
lu
es
as
so
ci
at
ed
w
it
h
ea
ch
pr
ed
ic
to
r
va
ri
ab
le
in
ea
ch
m
od
el
.P
va
lu
es
th
at
ar
e
n
go
in
fo
re
st
Pr
op
or
ti
on
D
om
in
ic
an
R
ep
u
bl
ic
N
o
p
Y
es
N
o
p
=
10
5,
)
0.
11
6
(n
=
26
0,
SD
=
0.
32
)
0.
01
85
0.
81
0
(n
=
10
5,
SD
=
0.
39
)
0.
67
3
(n
=
25
1,
SD
=
0.
47
)
0.
01
31
=
78
,S
D
=
0.
49
)
0.
12
2
(n
=
27
8,
SD
=
0.
33
)
0.
00
36
0.
84
6
(n
=
78
,S
D
=
0.
36
)
0.
67
6
(n
=
27
8,
SD
=
0.
47
)
0.
00
45
=
46
,S
D
=
0.
50
)
0.
25
4
(n
=
59
,S
D
=
0.
44
)
0.
06
21
0.
95
6
(n
=
46
,S
D
=
0.
21
)
0.
69
5
(n
=
59
,S
D
=
0.
46
)
0.
00
04
=
20
2,
)
0.
03
2
(n
=
15
4,
SD
=
0.
17
8)
0.
00
07
0.
80
2
(n
=
20
2,
SD
=
0.
40
)
0.
59
7
(n
=
15
4,
SD
=
0.
49
)
>0
.0
00
1
=
16
8,
)
0.
06
9
(n
=
18
8,
SD
=
0.
25
)
0.
00
42
0.
77
4
(n
=
16
8,
SD
=
0.
42
)
0.
66
0
(n
=
18
8,
SD
=
0.
48
)
0.
04
73
=
92
,S
D
=
0.
49
)
0.
23
6
(n
=
11
0,
SD
=
0.
43
)
0.
17
80
0.
94
6
(n
=
92
,S
D
=
0.
23
)
0.
68
2
(n
=
11
0,
SD
=
0.
47
)
>0
.0
00
1
192 S.T. Turvey et al. / Biological Conservation 169 (2014) 189–197
man–wildlife conflict questions about levels of damage to crops
or poultry/livestock and the species considered to be responsible
(using photographs of black rat, mongoose, feral cat, feral dog,
Hispaniolan boa Epicrates striatus, ashy-faced owl Tyto glaucops,
red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis, and white-necked crow Corvus
leucognaphalus); and whether they regularly spent time in or
near the forest and own/use dogs. At the end of each interview,
a short (five-minute) talk was given to the respondent stressing
the importance of solenodon and hutia conservation (Supporting
information); this talk was given after all interview questions
were completed, including informal questions relating to chain-
referral of prospective respondents where conducted, to prevent
any biases in data collection.
Survey data were analyzed using a generalized linear model
(GLM) in R 2.12.2 (R Development Core Team, 2011). Age of
respondent, country, ethnicity and whether respondents reported
going into the forest on a regular basis were used to predict
whether respondents had heard of hutias or solenodons, had seen
these species, or thought that they were common (if they knew
what they were). Village was treated as a random effect in all anal-
yses. Dominican communities contained both Dominican and Hai-
tian residents, but Haitian communities contained only Haitian
residents; in order to investigate the importance of both country
and ethnicity in determining responses about native mammals gi-
ven this non-nested socio-cultural framework, the entire dataset
was first analyzed excluding ethnicity (i.e. Dominican/Haitian) as
a predictor, and then the subset of data from Dominican Republic
communities was analyzed on its own including ethnicity as a pre-
dictor. Significance was Bonferroni corrected to a = 0.0167 to com-
pensate for testing of three hypotheses in each model. Data were
analyzed with a binomial error structure and logit link function
(Agresti, 1990; Crawley, 2007), and the full model was reported
in every case. Further differences in responses about solenodons
or hutias between different socio-cultural groups were investi-
gated using v2 tests.
Ta
bl
e
1
M
od
el
ou
tp
ut
s
fo
r
G
LM
an
al
ys
es
of
to
ta
l
in
te
rv
ie
w
da
ta
se
t
ex
cl
ud
in
g
et
hn
ic
it
y
as
a
pr
ed
ic
to
r,
sh
ow
in
g
m
ea
si
gn
ifi
ca
nt
fo
llo
w
in
g
Bo
nf
er
ro
ni
co
rr
ec
ti
on
ar
e
hi
gh
lig
ht
ed
in
bo
ld
.
M
od
el
A
ge
Pr
op
or
ti
o
Y
es
N
o
p
Y
es
H
ea
rd
of
h
u
ti
a
47
.7
3
(n
=
10
1,
SD
=
14
.6
8)
42
.6
2
(n
=
14
6,
SD
=
16
.3
6)
0.
00
71
0.
34
3
(n
SD
=
0.
48
Se
en
h
u
ti
a
47
.5
2
(n
=
77
,S
D
=
15
.0
0)
43
.4
4
(n
=
17
0,
SD
=
16
.1
3)
0.
03
81
0.
39
7
(n
Th
in
k
h
u
ti
a
co
m
m
on
49
.3
6
(n
=
45
,S
D
=
14
.9
6)
46
.4
3
(n
=
56
,S
D
=
14
.4
6)
0.
24
30
0.
45
7
(n
H
ea
rd
of
so
le
n
od
on
45
.8
0
(n
=
18
9,
SD
=
15
.5
4)
41
.1
4
(n
=
58
,S
D
=
16
.5
3)
0.
01
76
0.
29
7
(n
SD
=
0.
46
Se
en
so
le
n
od
on
44
.6
4
(n
=
16
1,
SD
=
15
.4
4)
44
.8
4
(n
=
86
,S
D
=
16
.7
4)
0.
97
25
0.
31
0
(n
SD
=
0.
46
Th
in
k
so
le
n
od
on
co
m
m
on
45
.7
6
(n
=
91
,S
D
=
16
.1
9)
45
.8
5
(n
=
98
,S
D
=
15
.0
0)
0.
83
83
0.
37
0
(n
3. Results
A total of 356 respondents were interviewed, comprising 110
Dominicans, 147 Haitians living in the Dominican Republic, and
103 Haitians living in Haiti. Nearly all of these respondents were
farmers; although 21 respondents reported that they went hunt-
ing on a regular basis (including 15 Dominicans, four Haitians
living in the Dominican Republic, and two Haitians living in Hai-
ti), only two of these hunters did not also practice farming as
their primary livelihood. Only 22 respondents reported that they
had not lived in their local community for their entire lives. Be-
tween 21 and 63 respondents were interviewed per community
(Supporting information Table S1). All respondents provided
information about their knowledge of solenodons and hutias,
although not all of them contributed information for other sec-
tions of the questionnaire.
More respondents recognized solenodons (204/356) than hutias
(105/356), and more had seen solenodons (168/356) than hutias
(78/356). However, respondents that had heard of one species
were significantly more likely to have heard of the other
(v2 = 34.18, d.f. = 1, p < 0.0001); similarly, those that had seen
one species were more likely to have seen the other (v2 = 28.82,
d.f. = 1, p < 0.0001). Neither species was encountered frequently
by respondents, with similar mean reported last-sightingdates of
3.23 years ago for solenodons (n = 133) and 4.69 years ago for hu-
tias (n = 57) (t = 1.52, d.f. = 86.67, p = 0.133).
GLM outputs are given in Tables 1 and 2. When ethnicity is ex-
cluded from analysis, age and country are significant predictors of
whether respondents have heard of hutias, country and spending
Ta
bl
e
2
M
od
el
ou
tp
ut
s
fo
r
G
LM
an
al
ys
es
of
re
du
ce
d
in
te
rv
ie
w
da
ta
se
tf
or
D
om
in
ic
an
Re
pu
bl
ic
on
ly
an
d
in
cl
ud
in
g
et
hn
ic
it
y
as
a
pr
ed
ic
to
r,
sh
ow
in
g
m
ea
ns
,s
am
pl
e
si
ze
s,
st
an
da
rd
de
vi
at
io
ns
,a
nd
p
va
lu
es
as
so
ci
at
ed
w
it
h
ea
ch
pr
ed
ic
to
r
va
ri
ab
le
in
ea
ch
m
od
el
.P
va
lu
es
th
at
ar
e
si
gn
ifi
ca
nt
fo
llo
w
in
g
Bo
nf
er
ro
ni
co
rr
ec
ti
on
ar
e
hi
gh
lig
ht
ed
in
bo
ld
.
M
od
el
A
ge
Pr
op
or
ti
on
go
in
fo
re
st
Pr
op
or
ti
on
D
om
in
ic
an
Y
es
N
o
p
Y
es
N
o
p
Y
es
N
o
p
H
ea
rd
of
h
u
ti
a
47
.5
5
(n
=
82
,S
D
=
14
.8
3)
41
.2
0
(n
=
98
,S
D
=
16
.9
8)
0.
83
42
0.
35
3
(n
=
85
,S
D
=
0.
48
)
0.
13
0
(n
=
16
9,
SD
=
0.
34
)
0.
35
14
0.
75
3
(n
=
85
,S
D
=
0.
43
)
0.
25
4
(n
=
16
9,
SD
=
0.
44
)
>0
.0
00
1
Se
en
h
u
ti
a
47
.8
0
(n
=
65
,S
D
=
15
.0
1)
42
.0
0
(n
=
11
5,
SD
=
16
.6
9)
0.
67
90
0.
37
9
(n
=
66
,S
D
=
0.
49
)
0.
14
4
(n
=
18
8,
SD
=
0.
35
)
0.
39
72
0.
81
8
(n
=
66
,S
D
=
0.
39
)
0.
28
8
(n
=
18
8,
SD
=
0.
45
)
>0
.0
00
1
Th
in
k
h
u
ti
a
co
m
m
on
49
.4
2
(n
=
43
,S
D
=
15
.0
0)
45
.4
9
(n
=
39
,S
D
=
14
.5
5)
0.
79
27
0.
47
8
(n
=
44
,S
D
=
0.
51
)
0.
22
0
(n
=
41
,S
D
=
0.
42
)
0.
41
47
0.
86
4
(n
=
44
,S
D
=
0.
35
)
0.
63
4
(n
=
41
,S
D
=
0.
49
)
>0
.0
00
1
H
ea
rd
of
so
le
n
od
on
45
.4
3
(n
=
15
0,
SD
=
16
.0
7)
37
.4
0
(n
=
30
,S
D
=
16
.0
7)
0.
02
85
0.
30
9
(n
=
16
2,
SD
=
0.
46
)
0.
02
2
(n
=
92
,S
D
=
0.
15
)
0.
00
16
0.
55
6
(n
=
16
2,
SD
=
0.
50
)
0.
18
5
(n
=
92
,S
D
=
0.
39
)
0.
20
28
Se
en
so
le
n
od
on
43
.8
9
(n
=
12
4,
SD
=
16
.0
5)
44
.5
5
(n
=
56
,S
D
=
16
.9
9)
0.
90
92
0.
33
1
(n
=
13
0,
SD
=
0.
47
)
0.
07
3
(n
=
12
4,
SD
=
0.
26
)
0.
00
50
0.
53
8
(n
=
13
0,
SD
=
0.
50
)
0.
29
8
(n
=
12
4,
SD
=
0.
46
)
0.
75
56
Th
in
k
so
le
n
od
on
co
m
m
on
45
.6
0
(n
=
86
,S
D
=
16
.1
9)
45
.2
0
(n
=
64
,S
D
=
16
.0
3)
0.
14
36
0.
37
9
(n
=
87
,S
D
=
0.
49
)
0.
22
7
(n
=
75
,S
D
=
0.
42
)
0.
37
23
0.
60
9
(n
=
87
,S
D
=
0.
49
)
0.
49
3
(n
=
75
,S
D
=
0.
50
)
0.
00
30
S.T. Turvey et al. / Biological Conservation 169 (2014) 189–197 193
time in the forest are significant predictors of whether respon-
dents have seen hutias, and country is a significant predictor of
whether respondents think hutias are common; for the Domini-
can Republic sample, ethnicity is the only significant predictor
of whether respondents have heard of hutias, seen hutias, or
think that hutias are common (Fig. 2a and b). When ethnicity is
excluded from analysis, country and spending time in the forest
are significant predictors of whether respondents have heard of
solenodons, spending time in the forest is a significant predictor
of whether respondents have seen solenodons, and country is a
significant predictor of whether respondents think that soleno-
dons are common; for the Dominican Republic sample, spending
time in the forest is a significant predictor of whether respon-
dents have heard of or seen solenodons, and ethnicity is a signif-
icant predictor of whether respondents think that solenodons are
common (Fig. 2c and d). In all cases, living in the Dominican
Republic or being Dominican is associated with greater experi-
ence or awareness of native mammals when country or ethnicity
are significant predictors. Interestingly, although age is only sig-
nificant as a predictor of whether respondents have heard of hu-
tias in our GLM analyses, the relationship between respondent
age and likelihood of having seen native mammals differs signif-
icantly between solenodons and hutias when data for the two
species are compared directly. The prediction interval of each
slope excludes the other, with a greater age effect shown for hu-
tia sightings (Fig. 3).
When informants were asked about the locations of their past
native mammal sightings, recent solenodon sightings were re-
ported from the vicinity of all study communities and also from
other localities in both the Dominican Republic and Haiti, indi-
cating their continued presence at a number of sites across the
border region of Haiti including several localities where inter-
views were not carried out (Banano, Boucan Ferdinand, Chote,
Mare Double, Nan Fougère, Oriani, Sapotén). Hutia sightings
were less widely reported, although we also collected a small
number of reports from three localities in Haiti (Banano, Nan
Fougère, Sapotén). A wide variety of different names were used
in rural communities to describe both species, with the names
solenodon and jutia used interchangeably irrespective of species,
although the variant name zagouti was not reported from this re-
gion (Fig. 4). A significantly greater proportion of respondents
who were able to recognize native mammal species were aware
of a local name for solenodons (185/204) than for hutias (84/
105) (v2 = 6.11, d.f. = 1, p = 0.013).
Informants were specifically asked about native mammal
deaths resulting from dog predation and deliberate poisoning,
although information on further native mammal mortality events
resulting from other causes was also sometimes volunteered dur-
ing interviews. Respondents reported 57 native mammal deaths
(38 solenodon deaths, 19 hutia deaths) from 2000 to 2010, and
14 additional deaths from longer ago or with no supporting data
(Table 3). Dog predation was responsible for 73% of reported
deaths; 57% of all native mammal deaths were caused by village
dogs trained to kill mongooses and feral cats, and which are al-
lowed to roam freely around the vicinity of villages during both
day and night, whereas only 12% of deaths were caused by hunters’
dogs on specific hunting expeditions. There were several reports of
multiple animals being killed by one dog. Although some respon-
dents, especially in villages with strong hunting traditions (Aguas
Negras, Las Mercedes, Puerto Escondido), reported that solenodons
and hutias had been actively targeted for food ten or more years
ago, we found little evidence of continued exploitation, with only
one small group of Dominican hunters in Puerto Escondido still
apparently hunting these species deliberately. There was no signif-
icant difference between proportions of solenodon and hutia
deaths caused by dogs between 2000 and 2010 (v2 = 0.8221,
Fig. 2. Variation in proportions of respondents in southern Hispaniola who can accurately identify and have seen hutias (A and B) and solenodons (C and D) across different
cultural groups (Dominican versus Haitian) and countries (Dominican Republic versus Haiti).
Fig. 3. Differences in relationship between respondent age and likelihood of having seen hutias and solenodons for communities in southern Hispaniola.
194 S.T. Turvey et al. / Biological Conservation 169 (2014) 189–197
d.f. = 1, p = 0.3646), indicating that both species are similarly threa-
tened by dog predation.
A relatively small number of respondents that were able to
identify native mammals considered that both solenodons (56/
204) and hutias (27/105) were crop pests, with no difference in
attitude between either species (v2 = 0.036, d.f. = 1, p = 0.849). A
few respondents (solenodon: n = 4; hutia: n = 4) also considered
that native mammals were responsible for killing poultry, and
some hunters reported having lost dogs that were bitten and
envenomated by solenodons. However, very few respondents
reportedly try to eradicate native mammals due to their perceived
roleas agricultural pests (solenodon: n = 1; hutia: n = 4); poison
bait (n = 5) was used preferentially to traps (n = 1). In contrast,
for other species listed in our questionnaire, a greater number of
respondents actively try to eradicate ashy-faced owls (n = 8), feral
cats (n = 11), feral dogs (n = 11), Hispaniolan boas (n = 12), red-
tailed hawks (n = 20), mongooses (n = 79), and rats (n = 96), using
poison bait, traps, and/or shooting (for boas/raptors), for their per-
ceived role as agricultural pests. Only five respondents had ever
seen native mammals killed by poison bait set for rats, mongooses,
feral cats or dogs, and only four reported native mammal deaths
between 2000 and 2010 (two solenodons and two hutias) were
thought to have been caused by deliberate or accidental poisoning
(Table 3).
Fig. 4. Different common local names used to refer to (a) solenodons and (b) hutias by Dominican respondents (solenodon: n = 90; hutia: n = 62) and Haitian respondents
(solenodon: n = 112; hutia: n = 41) who were able to recognize native mammal species in southern Hispaniola. Other local names used to describe native mammals in the
study region include comadreja (Spanish for ‘‘weasel’’) and conejillo de Indias (Spanish for ‘‘guinea pig’’).
Table 3
Fifty-seven native mammal mortality events and cause of death for the period 2000–
2010 reported by respondents in southern Hispaniola.
Reported cause of death Solenodon paradoxus Plagiodontia aedium Total
Killed by dog 24 15 39
Killed by cat 1 0 1
Poison 2 2 4
Car/truck 2 0 2
Other 2 1 3
Unknown 7 1 8
S.T. Turvey et al. / Biological Conservation 169 (2014) 189–197 195
4. Discussion
Our results demonstrate that LEK can represent an important
conservation tool for determining status and threats for a much
wider range of species than the large-bodied charismatic or eco-
nomically significant taxa that have been the primary research fo-
cus of most previous interview-based studies. These results show
inevitable variation in awareness and experience of both species
between different communities and user groups; however, over
half of all respondents from social groupings that have extensive
contact with local forest ecosystems were able to identify soleno-
dons, and a smaller but still relatively substantial number of these
respondents accurately identified hutias. This level of LEK contrasts
with our finding that both species are only rarely encountered by
respondents, with considerable variation and confusion over their
vernacular names; and that relatively few respondents consider
them to be of any economic significance as potential crop pests,
with further confusion over ideas that solenodons eat crops and
hutias kill chickens. Our interview survey also provides important
new evidence for the continued survival of both species across a
large part of the southern Dominican–Haitian border region south
of the Neiba Valley, including areas of easternmost Haiti where
previous surveys that did not incorporate community interviews
failed to document the presence of either species (Woods, 1976;
Woods et al., 1985; Woods and Ottenwalder, 1992). We therefore
promote LEK-based field research as having the potential to gather
meaningful data for informing conservation management across a
wide range of species and study systems.
Reporting of mortality events associated with different threats
can be highly biased (Ciucci et al., 2007; Lovari et al., 2007a,b; Tur-
vey et al., 2013), and interviews are unlikely to generate direct data
on the relative threat posed by factors such as habitat destruction
that affect environmental carrying capacity rather than causing di-
rect mortality. However, whereas we did not ask informants about
all possible causes of direct mortality in native mammals, our
study provides the first comparative dataset on levels of solenodon
and hutia deaths in Hispaniola. Although dog predation in general
has previously been identified as a source of mortality for soleno-
dons and hutias in both Hispaniola and Cuba by several previous
studies (Sullivan, 1983; Rams et al., 1989; Woods and Ottenwalder,
1992), our results reveal that most reported native mammal deaths
are associated with free-roaming village dogs in contrast to hunt-
ing dogs, and with similar levels of mortality from dog predation
reported for both native species. Reported deaths caused by poison
baiting or targeted hunting are conversely negligible. Our inter-
view data therefore provide an important baseline for further re-
search, and can inform appropriate management strategies and
community-level educational initiatives for reducing levels of na-
tive mammal mortality by free-ranging dogs.
However, although our study demonstrates the overall useful-
ness of LEK in providing novel conservation data on Hispaniola’s
non-charismatic native small mammals, we also show that local
patterns of awareness and experience for both species are influ-
enced by several factors, complicating any direct interpretation
of interview data. Some of this respondent variation is likely to re-
flect genuine variation in underlying patterns of species abundance
and ecology. Differences in respondent awareness, encounter expe-
rience, and perception of abundance for solenodons and hutias be-
tween the Dominican Republic and Haiti are likely to reflect the
probable reduced population density or local absence of both spe-
cies across much of Haiti, caused by the extreme levels of habitat
degradation found even immediately adjacent to the border (Serg-
ile and Woods, 2001). Our observation that solenodon sightings
were reported from far more localities than were hutia sightings
196 S.T. Turvey et al. / Biological Conservation 169 (2014) 189–197
in the environmentally degraded border region of Haiti is consis-
tent with previous suggestions that solenodons may be more
abundant and widely distributed than hutias in highly disturbed
landscapes. Further respondent variation may reflect different lev-
els of detectability between the two species, as more respondents
across the survey region recognized, had seen, or knew a local
name for the terrestrial solenodon than the arboreal hutia.
Other variation in native mammal awareness and experience
across the survey area is instead caused by socio-economic or cul-
tural factors. Some of this variation is not surprising, such as the in-
creased likelihood of having heard of or seen native mammal
species with increasing respondent age or time spent in the forest.
Similar biases in respondent experience in response to such vari-
ables have been quantified in previous studies (Papworth et al.,
2009; Turvey et al., 2010a), and are more widely recognized and
used in ethnobiological research that needs to target knowledge-
able social subgroups (Newing, 2011). Indeed, although age is only
significant as a predictor of whether respondents have heard of hu-
tias in our GLM analyses, which treat data for each species sepa-
rately, the statistically different patterns of sighting probabilities
shown between solenodons and hutias with increasing respondent
age (Fig. 3) may represent an interesting interaction between social
and ecological factors. The stronger age effect seen for hutias may
reflect the fact that younger respondents are less likely to encoun-
ter this apparently rarer and/or more cryptic species but have a
cumulative likelihood of encountering hutias with increasing age,
whereas the apparently more abundant and/or detectable solen-
odon may be more readily encountered even by younger
respondents.
Conversely, variation in respondent awareness and experience
in the Dominican Republic depending on whether respondents
are Dominicans or Haitians represents a further type of cultural
variation that has not been widely documented in previous studies,
but which is also of great significance when interpreting respon-
dent data for conservation. Nearly all respondents from Dominican
communities have spent their entire lives in the Dominican Repub-
lic, and most Haitiansfrom immigrant families appear to travel to
Haiti sporadically if at all, and typically only to visit nearby border
towns on market days. However, Haitians living in the Dominican
Republic are significantly less likely than Dominicans to think that
either solenodons or hutias are common, or to recognize or have
seen hutias. Indeed, although we could not test for it directly in
our GLM analyses due to the non-nested nature of our socio-cul-
tural data, the greater awareness and experience of native mam-
mals shown by Dominicans in contrast to Haitian respondents
from both the Dominican Republic and Haiti can be seen to be
the main driver of the observed country-level differences in these
variables (Fig. 2). Whereas comparable patterns of LEK variation
have been reported between indigenous peoples and recent mi-
grants (Nyhus et al., 2003), the persistence of such differences
may be less expected in cultural groups that have a longer history
of coexistence with each other in the same landscape, under con-
ditions that blur the definition of ‘‘local populations’’.
It is possible that these differences may be explained by differ-
ent patterns of regional landscape use by Dominicans and Haitians.
However, although Dominicans often go out at night to collect
crabs, in fact Haitian settlers in the Dominican Republic are more
likely to carry out intensive outdoor labor that might bring them
into closer contact with native mammals. Instead, we propose that
our data are likely to demonstrate an important distinction be-
tween LEK and TEK. Even though Haitians and Dominicans may
have similar likelihoods of encountering native mammals in the
southern Dominican Republic, the cultural origin of Haitian settlers
from an environment that largely lacks populations of these spe-
cies appears to be associated with a retention of Haitian TEK which
is not fully congruent with the local environmental conditions of
the Dominican study area. As nearly all of our Haitian respondents
from the Dominican Republic have lived in their local community
for their entire lives, this mismatch between TEK and local envi-
ronmental conditions can apparently therefore persist for extre-
mely long periods of time, in the order of multiple human
generations, under some socio-cultural circumstances. We con-
sider that the observed discrepancy between Dominican and Hai-
tian attitudes and awareness may be maintained partly by the
limited level of integration between these two cultural groups,
which remain largely segregated within Dominican communities,
thus limiting the likelihood of cultural transfer of LEK. There is also
greater discrepancy in LEK about hutias than about solenodons be-
tween Dominicans and Haitians, suggesting that the greater rarity
or cryptic nature of hutias decreases the likelihood that TEK will be
updated by local environmental conditions. This final finding sug-
gests that such variation in LEK between different socio-cultural
groups in multicultural landscapes may be even greater for non-
charismatic, rarely encountered small mammal species than for
more easily identified or economically important taxa, and empha-
sizes the need for particular care when using LEK as the basis for
developing conservation baselines and awareness-raising or edu-
cational programmes for these species. We encourage further com-
munity-based research to test this hypothesis, clarify overlaps and
discrepancies between LEK and TEK in different socio-cultural
groups, and identify other possible sources of bias affecting local
environmental awareness.
Acknowledgements
Fieldwork in the Dominican Republic and Haiti was supported
by Darwin Initiative project 17025, ‘‘Building evidence and capac-
ity to conserve Hispaniola’s endemic land mammals’’, and Funda-
ción Caixa Galicia. We particularly thank Lleyo, Adolfina and
Mayker Espinal, Yimel Corona, the Dominican Republic Ministry
of the Environment and Natural Resources, and the wider support
of the people of Mencia for assistance during fieldwork.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.
11.018.
References
Agresti, A., 1990. Categorical Data Analysis. Wiley, New York, NY.
Amori, G., Gippoliti, S., 2002. Rodents and the bushmeat harvest in central Africa. In:
Mainka, S.A., Trivedi, M. (Eds.), Links between Biodiversity Conservation,
Livelihoods and Food Security: the Sustainable Use of Wild Species for Meat.
IUCN, Gland and Cambridge, pp. 94–100.
Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C., 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological
knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol. Appl. 10, 1251–1262.
Burbidge, A.A., Johnson, K.A., Fuller, P.J., Southgate, R.J., 1988. Aboriginal knowledge
of the mammals of the central deserts of Australia. Aust. Wildl. Res. 15, 9–39.
Ciucci, P., Chapron, G., Guberti, V., Boitani, L., 2007. Estimation of mortality
parameters from (biased) samples at death: are we getting the basics right in
wildlife field studies? J. Zool. 273, 125–127.
Collen, B., Turvey, S.T., Waterman, C., Meredith, H.M.R., Kuhn, T., Baillie, J.E.M., Isaac,
N.J.B., 2011. Investing in evolutionary history: implementing a phylogenetic
approach for mammal conservation. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. B 366, 2611–2622.
Crawley, M.J., 2007. The R Book. Wiley, Chichester.
de la Fuente, S., 1982. Geografia Dominicana. Colecciones Dominicanas. Caribe
Grolier Inc., Santo Domingo.
Development Core Team, R., 2011. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical
Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
Dolisca, F., McDaniel, J.M., Teeter, L.D., 2007. Farmers’ perceptions towards forests: a
case study from Haiti. For. Policy Econ. 9, 704–712.
Drew, J.A., 2005. Use of traditional ecological knowledge in marine conservation.
Cons. Biol. 19, 1286–1293.
Entwistle, A.C., Stephenson, P.J., 2000. Small mammals and the conservation
agenda. In: Entwistle, A.C., Dunstone, N. (Eds.), Priorities for the Conservation of
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.018
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.018
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0225
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0005
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0005
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0005
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0005
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0010
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0010
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0015
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0015
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0020
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0020
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0020
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0025
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0025
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0025
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0030
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0035
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0035
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0135
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0135
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0040
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0040
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0045
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0045
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0050
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0050
S.T. Turvey et al. / Biological Conservation 169 (2014) 189–197 197
Mammalian Diversity: Has the Panda Had its Day? Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 119–139.
Fisher, D.O., Blomberg, S.P., 2011. Correlates of rediscovery and the detectability of
extinction in mammals. Proc. Roy. Soc. B 278, 1090–1097.
IUCN, 2011. 2011 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN, Gland.
<www.iucnredlist.org> (accessed May 2012).
Johannes, R.E., Freeman, M.M.R., Hamilton, R.J., 2000.Ignore fishers’ knowledge and
miss the boat. Fish Fish. 1, 257–271.
Jones, J.P.G., Andriamarovololona, M.M., Hockley, N., Gibbons, J.M., Milner-Gulland,
E.J., 2008. Testing the use of interviews as a tool for monitoring trends in the
harvesting of wild species. J. Appl. Ecol. 45, 1205–1212.
Karst, A.L., Turner, N.J., 2011. Local ecological knowledge and importance of
bakeapple (Rubus chamaemorus L.) in a southeast Labrador Métis community.
Ethnobiol. Lett. 2, 6–18.
Lovari, S., Sforzi, A., Scala, C., Fico, R., 2007a. Mortality parameters of the wolf in
Italy: does the wolf keep himself from the door? J. Zool. 272, 117–124.
Lovari, S., Sforzi, A., Scala, C., Fico, R., 2007b. A wolf in the hand is worth two in the
bush: a response to Ciucci et al. (2007). J. Zool. 273, 128–130.
Majnep, I.S., Bulmer, R., 2007. Animals the Ancestors Hunted: An Account of the
Wild Mammals of the Kalam Area, Papua New Guinea. Crawford House
Publishing, Adelaide.
Mallory, M.L., Gilchrist, H.G., Fontaine, A.J., Akearok, J.A., 2003. Local ecological
knowledge of ivory gull declines in Arctic Canada. Arctic 56, 293–298.
McKelvey, K.S., Aubry, K.B., Schwartz, M.K., 2008. Using anecdotal occurrence data
for rare or elusive species: the illusion of reality and a call for evidentiary
standards. Bioscience 58, 549–555.
Newing, H., 2011. Conducting Research in Conservation: a Social Science
Perspective. Routledge, Abingdon, UK.
Nyhus, P.J., Sumianto, Tilson, R., 2003. Wildlife knowledge among migrants in
southern Sumatra, Indonesia: implications for conservation. Env. Cons. 30, 192–
199.
Ottenwalder, J.A., 1991. The Systematics, Biology, and Conservation of Solenodon.
Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Florida.
Ottenwalder, J.A., 1999. Observations on the habitat and ecology of the Hispaniolan
solenodon (Solenodon paradoxus) in the Dominican Republic. Monograf. Soc.
Hist. Nat. Balear. 6, 123–168.
Paddle, R., 2000. The Last Tasmanian Tiger: the History and Extinction of the
Thylacine. Cambridge University Press, Oakleigh, Victoria.
Papworth, S.K., Rist, J., Coad, L., Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2009. Evidence for shifting
baseline syndrome in conservation. Cons. Lett. 2, 93–100.
Rams, A., Abreu, R.M., de la Cruz, J., 1989. Almiqui (Solenodon cubanus) depredado
por perros jibaros (Canis familiaris). Garciana 21, 1–2.
Rímoli, R.O., 1972. La hutia y su importancia para la dieta del Indio Antillano. Bol.
Mus. Hombre Domin. 2, 39–44.
Rupp, E., Leon, Y., 2009. Revelando los misterios de nuestro solenodonte en la
Reserva de la Biosfera Jaragua-Bahoruco-Enriquillo. Atajo 8 (4), 16–17.
Sergile, F., Woods, C.A., 2001. Status of conservation in Haiti: a 10-year
retrospective. In: Woods, C.A., Sergile, F. (Eds.), Biogeography of the West
Indies: Patterns and Perspectives. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 547–560.
Sillitoe, P., 2002. Contested knowledge, contingent classification: animals in the
highlands of Papua New Guinea. Am. Anthropol. 104, 1162–1171.
Starr, C., Nekaris, K.A.I., Streicher, U., Leung, L.K.-P., 2011. Field surveys of the
Vulnerable pygmy slow loris Nycticebus pygmaeus using local knowledge in
Mondulkiri Province, Cambodia. Oryx 45, 135–142.
Sullivan, C.P., 1983. Status and Distribution of Plagiodontia aedium in the Dominican
Republic. Unpublished MSc thesis, University of Florida.
Telfer, W.R., Garde, M.J., 2006. Indigenous knowledge of rock kangaroo ecology in
western Arnhem Land, Australia. Hum. Ecol. 34, 379–406.
Turvey, S.T., Meredith, H.M.R., Scofield, R.P., 2008. Continued survival of Hispaniolan
solenodon (Solenodon paradoxus) in Haiti. Oryx 42, 611–614.
Turvey, S.T., Barrett, L.A., Hao, Y., Zhang, L., Zhang, X., Wang, X., Huang, Y., Zhou, K.,
Hart, T., Wang, D., 2010a. Rapidly shifting baselines in Yangtze fishing
communities and local memory of extinct species. Cons. Biol. 24, 778–787.
Turvey, S.T., Barrett, L.A., Hart, T., Collen, B., Hao, Y., Zhang, L., Zhang, X., Wang, X.,
Huang, Y., Zhou, K., Wang, D., 2010b. Spatial and temporal extinction dynamics
in a freshwater cetacean. Proc. Roy. Soc. B 277, 3139–3147.
Turvey, S.T., Risley, C.L., Moore, J.E., Barrett, L.A., Hao, Y., Zhao, X., Zhou, K., Wang, D.,
2013. Can local ecological knowledge be used to assess status and extinction
drivers in a threatened freshwater cetacean? Biol. Cons. 157, 352–360.
Verrill, A.H., 1907. Notes on the habits and external characters of the solenodon of
San Domingo (Solenodon paradoxus). Am. J. Sci. 4 (24), 55–57.
Wilson, D.E., Reeder, D.M., 2005. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and
Geographic Reference, third ed. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Woods, C.A., 1976. Solenodon paradoxus in southern Haiti. J. Mammal. 57, 591–592.
Woods, C.A., Ottenwalder, J.A., 1992. The Natural History of Southern Haiti. Florida
Museum of Natural History, Gainesville.
Woods, C.A., Ottenwalder, J.A., Oliver, W.L.R., 1985. Lost mammals of the Greater
Antilles: the summarised findings of a ten weeks field survey in the Dominican
Republic, Haiti and Puerto Rico. Dodo 22, 23–42.
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0050
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0050
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0055
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0055
http://www.iucnredlist.org
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0065
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0065
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0070
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0070
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0070
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0075
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0075
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0075
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0080
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0080
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0085
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0085
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0090
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0090
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0090
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0095
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0095
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0100
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0100
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0100
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0105
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0105
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0110
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0110
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0110
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0120
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0120
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0120
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0125
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0125
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0130
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0130
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0140
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0140
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0145
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0145
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0150
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0150
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0155
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0155
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0155
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0160
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0160
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0165
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0165
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0165
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0175
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0175
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0190
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0190http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0180
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0180
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0180
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0185
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0185
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0185
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0195
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0195
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0195
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0200
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0200
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0205
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0205
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0230
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0220
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0220
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0215
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0215
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(13)00397-2/h0215
	Is local ecological knowledge a useful conservation tool for small mammals in a Caribbean multicultural landscape?
	1 Introduction
	2 Materials and methods
	3 Results
	4 Discussion
	Acknowledgements
	Appendix A Supplementary material
	References