4.3 Article

Differential utilization of cashew-a low-conflict crop-by sympatric humans and chimpanzees

Journal

ORYX
Volume 46, Issue 3, Pages 375-381

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S003060531100130X

Keywords

Cash crop; chimpanzee; Guinea-Bissau; human-wildlife conflict; Pan troglodytes verus; resource competition

Funding

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia, Portugal [SFRH/BPD/38595/2007, PPCDT/ANT/57434/2004]
  2. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BPD/38595/2007] Funding Source: FCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Modification of natural areas by human activities mostly has a negative impact on wildlife by increasing the geographical and ecological overlap between people and animals. This can result in escalating levels of competition and conflict between humans and wildlife, for example over crops. However, data on specific crops and crop parts that are unattractive to wildlife yet important for human livelihoods are surprisingly scarce, especially considering their potential application to reducing crop damage by wildlife. Here we examine the co-utilization of a nationally important and spatially abundant cash crop, cashew Anacardium occidentalis, by people and chimpanzees Pan troglodytes verus inhabiting a forested-agricultural matrix in Cantanhez National Park in Guinea-Bissau. In this Park people predominantly harvest the marketable cashew nut and discard the unprofitable fruit whereas chimpanzees only consume the fruit. Local farmers generally perceive a benefit of raiding by chimpanzees as they reportedly pile the nuts, making harvesting easier. By ensuring that conflict levels over crops, especially those with high economic importance, remain low, the costs of living in proximity to wildlife can potentially be reduced. Despite high levels of deforestation associated with cashew farming, these findings point to the importance of cashew as a low-conflict crop in this area.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available