A Rapid Biological Assessment of the Kwamalasamutu region

A Rapid Biological Assessment 

of the Kwamalasamutu region, 

Southwestern Suriname 

63 

Edited by 

Brian J. O’Shea, Leeanne E. Alonso, and 

Trond H. Larsen 

Conservation International - 

Suriname 

Conservation International 

LBB/NB Nature Conservation 

Division, Suriname 

SBB Suriname Forest Service 

Stichting MEU 

Stinasu 

Panthera 

Amazon Conservation Team (ACT) 

Alcoa Foundation

Rapid Assessment Program 




Edited by 

Brian J. O’Shea, Leeanne E. Alonso, and 


RAP 

Bulletin 

of Biological 

Assessment 

63 

Conservation International - 

Suriname 


LBB/NB Nature Conservation 

Division, Suriname 

SBB Suriname Forest Service 

Stichting MEU 


Stinasu 

Amazon Conservation Team (ACT) 

Alcoa Foundation

The RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment is published by: 


2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500 

Arlington, VA USA 22202 

Tel : +1 703-341-2400 

www.conservation.org 

Editors: Brian O’Shea, Leeanne E. Alonso, and Trond H. Larsen 

Maps: Krisna Gajapersad 

Design: Kim Meek 

Cover photos: 

[top] A stream runs through the forest at the Sipaliwini RAP survey site in the Kwamalasamutu region. 

(T. Larsen) 

[lower left] The Giant leaf frog (Phyllomedusa bicolor) is the largest tree frog in the world. Its skin produces a 

highly toxic secretion, which protects this slow-moving amphibian from predators. (P. Naskrecki) 

[lower right] The cichlid (Apistogramma steindachneri) is a colorful fish, commonly kept as an aquarium pet. 

Both males and females protect the developing young. (P. Naskrecki) 

ISBN: 978-1-934151-50-1 

©2011 Conservation International 

All rights reserved. 

Conservation International is a private, non-profit organization exempt from federal income tax under section 

501c(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. 

The designations of geographical entities in this publication, and the presentation of the material, do not 

imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of Conservation International or its supporting 

organizations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning 

the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. 

Any opinions expressed in the RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment Series are those of the writers and do not 

necessarily reflect those of Conservation International or its co-publishers. 

Printed on recycled paper. 

RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment was formerly RAP Working Papers. Numbers 1–13 of this series were 

published under the previous series title. 

Suggested citation: 

O’Shea, B.J., L.E. Alonso, & T.H. Larsen, (eds.). 2011. A Rapid Biological Assessment of the Kwamalasamutu 

region, Southwestern Suriname. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment 63. Conservation International, 

Arlington, VA. 

This RAP survey and publication of this RAP report were made possible by generous financial support from 

the Alcoa Foundation.

Table of Contents 

Participants and Authors..........................................................4 

Organization Profiles.................................................................7 

Acknowledgments...................................................................10 

Report at a Glance....................................................................11 

Maps and Photos......................................................................13 

Iponohto Pisi Serë....................................................................25 

Rapportage in Vogelvlucht.....................................................27 

Executive Summary.................................................................29 

Chapter 1....................................................................................38 

A baseline water quality assessment of the Kutari and 

Sipaliwini Rivers 

Gwendolyn Landburg and Mercedes Hardjoprajitno 

Chapter 2....................................................................................43 

Plant diversity and composition of the forests in the 

surroundings of Kwamalasamutu 

Olaf Bánki and Chequita Bhikhi 

Chapter 3....................................................................................56 

Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) of the Kwamalasamutu 

region, Suriname 

Natalia von Ellenrieder 

Chapter 4....................................................................................79 

Aquatic beetles of the Kwamalasamutu region, Suriname 

(Insecta: Coleoptera) 

Andrew Short and Vanessa Kadosoe 

Chapter 6..................................................................................104 

A rapid biological assessment of katydids of the 

Kwamalasamutu region, Suriname (Insecta: Orthoptera: 

Tettigoniidae) 

Piotr Naskrecki 

Chapter 7..................................................................................110 

A preliminary survey of the ants of the Kwamalasamutu 

region, SW Suriname 

Leeanne E. Alonso 

Chapter 8..................................................................................118 

Fishes of the Sipaliwini and Kutari Rivers, Suriname 

Philip W. Willink, Kenneth Wan Tong You, and Martino Piqué 

Chapter 9..................................................................................124 

A rapid assessment of the amphibians and reptiles of the 

Kwamalasamutu region (Kutari /lower Sipaliwini Rivers), 

Suriname 

Paul E. Ouboter, Rawien Jairam, and Cindyrella Kasanpawiro 

Chapter 10................................................................................131 

Avifauna of the Kwamalasamutu region, Suriname 

Brian J. O’Shea and Serano Ramcharan 

Chapter 11................................................................................144 

Rapid Assessment Program (RAP) survey of small mammals 

in the Kwamalasamutu region of Suriname 

Burton K. Lim and Sahieda Joemratie 

Chapter 12................................................................................150 

A survey of the large mammal fauna of the Kwamalasamutu 

region, Suriname 

Krisna Gajapersad, Angelique Mackintosh, Angelica Benitez, 

and Esteban Payán 

Chapter 5....................................................................................91 

Dung beetles of the Kwamalasamutu region, Suriname 

(Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) 


A Rapid Biological Assessment of the Kwamalasamutu region, Southwestern Suriname 

3

Participants and Authors 

Leeanne E. Alonso, Ph.D. (ants) 




Arlington VA 22202 USA 

leeannealonso@yahoo.com 

Aritakosé Asheja (park ranger) 

Amazon Conservation Team 

Kwamalasamutu Suriname 

info@actsuriname.org 

Olaf Bánki, Ph.D. (plants) 

Netherlands Centre for Biodiversity Naturalis 

National Herbarium of the Netherlands 

P.O. Box 9514, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands 

olaf@banki.nl 

Angelica Benitez (contributing author, large mammals) 


Calle 93Bis, #19-40, Oficina 206 

Bogotá Colombia 

Chequita Bhikhi, M.Sc. (plants) 

Netherlands Centre for Biodiversity Naturalis 

National Herbarium of the Netherlands 

P.O. Box 9514, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands 

cheqbr@gmail.com 

Natalia von Ellenrieder, Ph.D. (dragonflies and damselflies) 

Plant Pest Diagnostics Branch 

California Department of Food and Agriculture 

3294 Meadowview Rd. 

Sacramento CA 95832 USA 

natalia.ellenrieder@gmail.com 

Klassie Etienne Foon (tree spotter) 

SBB/Suriname Forest Service 

Martin Luther Kingweg 283 

Paramaribo Suriname 

Donovan Foort (game warden) 

LBB/NB Nature Conservation Division 

Cornelis Jongbawstraat 12 


the_scorpion@live.nl 

Krisna Gajapersad (large mammals, local logistics) 

Conservation International – Suriname 

Kromme Elleboogstraat 20 


k.gajapersad@conservation.org 

Mercedes Hardjoprajitno (water quality) 

Anton de Kom University of Suriname 

Leysweg 9 


mercedes.hardjoprajitno@gmail.com 

Rawien Jairam (reptiles and amphibians) 

National Zoological Collection of Suriname 


Leysweg 9 


rawien_2000@yahoo.com 

Reshma Jankipersad (plants) 

SBB/Suriname Forest Service 

Martin Luther Kingweg 283 


rwjanki@yahoo.com 

Willem Joeheo (game warden) 




Sahieda Joemratie (small mammals) 

Amazon Conservation Team - Suriname 

Nickeriestraat 4 


s.joemratie@actsuriname.org 

4 Rapid Assessment Program


Vanessa Kadosoe (aquatic beetles) 


Leysweg 9 


vanessakadosoe@gmail.com 

Cindyrella Kasanpawiro (reptiles and amphibians) 


Leysweg 9 


cindyrellak@gmail.com 

Gwendolyn Landburg, M.Sc. (water quality) 

Environmental Department 

National Zoological Collection of Suriname/Center for 

Environmental Research 


Leysweg 9 


g.landburg@uvs.edu 

Trond H. Larsen, Ph.D. (dung beetles) 




Arlington VA 22202 USA 

t.larsen@conservation.org 

Burton K. Lim, Ph.D. (small mammals) 

Department of Natural History 

Royal Ontario Museum 

100 Queen’s Park 

Toronto, ON M5S 2C6 Canada 

burtonl@rom.on.ca 

Fabian Lingaard (game warden) 




apache-23@live.com 

Angelique Mackintosh (large mammals) 


Leysweg 86 


angie_mackintosh@hotmail.com 

Piotr Naskrecki, Ph.D. (katydids and grasshoppers) 

Museum of Comparative Zoology 

Harvard University 

26 Oxford Street 

Cambridge MA 02138 USA 

pnaskrecki@oeb.harvard.edu 

Sheinh A. Oedeppe (park ranger) 




Brian J. O’Shea, Ph.D. (birds, logistics coordinator) 

Research and Collections 

North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences 

11 W. Jones St. 

Raleigh NC 27601 USA 

brian.oshea@ncdenr.gov 

Paul E. Ouboter, Ph.D. (reptiles and amphibians) 



Leysweg 9 


p.ouboter@uvs.edu 

Napoti Pantodina (park ranger) 




Esteban Payán, Ph.D. (large mammals) 


Calle 93Bis, #19-40, Oficina 206 

Bogotá Colombia 

epayan@panthera.org 

Martino Piqué (fishes) 

I.O.L (Advanced Teachers College) Biology 

Paramaribo, Suriname 

mar_orpheo@yahoo.com 

Serano Ramcharan (birds) 

STINASU 



sbirdwatching@gmail.com 

Jonathang Sapa (park ranger) 




Teddi Shikoei (park ranger) 





5


Andrew E. Z. Short, Ph.D. (aquatic beetles) 

Division of Entomology, Biodiversity Institute 

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology 

1501 Crestline Dr, Suite 140, University of Kansas 

Lawrence KS 66045 USA 

aezshort@ku.edu 

Philip W. Willink, Ph.D. (fishes) 

Division of Fishes 

The Field Museum 

1400 S. Lake Shore Dr. 

Chicago IL 60605 USA 

p.willink@fieldmuseum.org 

Kenneth Wan Tong You (fishes) 



Leysweg 9 


kgl_wan@hotmail.com 


Organization Profiles 

CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL SURINAME 

Conservation International Suriname (CI-Suriname) is a non-profit, non-governmental 

organization established in Suriname in 1992. CI-Suriname’s present focus is centered on the 

creation and improved management of protected areas, as well as ecotourism development, all 

underpinned by research, policy support and capacity building of Government institutions, 

local communities and academia. In Kwamalasamutu, we have been supporting the development 

and management of a community ecolodge and the wildlife sanctuary created in 2005. 

CI-Suriname works in the Kwamalasamutu area with Stichting Meu (Meu Foundation). 

This is the local development organization, established by the people of Kwamalasamutu, 

whose responsibility includes the management of the community ecolodge and the Werehpai/ 

Iwana Saamu sanctuary. 

Conservation International Suriname 

Kromme Elleboogstraat no. 20 

Paramaribo 

Suriname 

Tel: 597-421305 

Fax: 597-421172 

Web: www.ci-suriname.org 

CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL 

Conservation International (CI) is an international, nonprofit organization based in Arlington, 

VA. CI believes that the Earth’s natural heritage must be maintained if future generations are 

to thrive spiritually, culturally and economically. Building upon a strong foundation of science, 

partnership and field demonstration, CI empowers societies to responsibly and sustainably care 

for nature, our global biodiversity, for the well-being of humanity. 



Arlington, VA 22202 

Tel: (703) 341-2400 

Web: www.conservation.org 


7


ANTON DE KOM UNIVERSITY OF SURINAME 

Anton de Kom University of Suriname was founded on 

1 November 1968 and offers studies in the fields of social, 

technological and medical sciences. There are five research 

centers conducting research and rendering services to the 

community. The Center for Agricultural Research (CELOS) 

is promoting agricultural scientific education at the faculty 

of Technological Sciences, Institute for Applied Technology 

(INTEC), Biomedical Research Institute, Institute for 

Development Planning and Management (IDPM), Institute 

for Research in Social Sciences (IMWO), the Library 

of ADEK, University Computer Center (UCC), National 

Zoological Collection (NZCS) and National Herbarium of 

Suriname (BBS). 

The primary goals of the NZCS and BBS are to develop 

an overview of the flora and fauna of Suriname, and build a 

reference collection for scientific and educational purposes. 

The NZCS also conducts research on the biology, ecology, 

and distribution of certain animal species or on the composition 

and status of certain ecosystems. 


Universiteitscomplex / Leysweg 86 

P.O. Box 9212 

Paramaribo 

Suriname 

Web: www.uvs.edu 

National Zoological Collection of Suriname (NZCS) 

Universiteitscomplex / Leysweg 9 

Building # 17 

P.O. Box 9212 

Paramaribo 

Suriname 

Tel: 597-494756 

Email: nzcs@uvs.edu 

National Herbarium of Suriname (BBS) 

Universiteitscomplex / Leysweg 

Paramaribo 

Suriname 

Tel: 597-465558 

Email: bbs@uvs.edu 

AMAZON CONSERVATION TEAM 

The Amazon Conservation Team (ACT) was founded in 

1996 by ethnobotanist Mark Plotkin and conservationist 

Liliana Madrigal. ACT is a 501 (c) (3) nonprofit organization 

supported by individuals, private foundations, and 

government grants. ACT achieves its conservation successes 

by working in true partnership with indigenous peoples of 

the Amazon to protect both their cultures and their ancestral 

lands - some of the largest tracts of both pristine and 

sustainably managed rainforest on the planet. Our work 

begins in the forest — with the people who actually live 

there — and then expands to the state, national, regional and 

international level. 


4211 N. Fairfax Dr. 

Arlington VA 22203 

Tel: (703) 522-4684 

Email: info@amazonteam.org 

Web: www.amazonteam.org 

ALCOA FOUNDATION 

Alcoa Foundation is one of the largest corporate foundations 

in the U.S. Founded more than 50 years ago, Alcoa Foundation 

has invested more than US $530 million since 1952. In 

2010, Alcoa and Alcoa Foundation contributed $36.8 million 

— $19.9 from the Foundation — to nonprofit organizations 

throughout the world, focusing on Environment, 

Empowerment, Education and Sustainable Design. Through 

this work, Alcoa seeks to promote environmental stewardship, 

prepare tomorrow’s leaders and enable economic and 

social sustainability. 

The work of Alcoa Foundation is further enhanced by 

Alcoa’s thousands of employee volunteers, who in 2010 

gave more than 720,000 service hours — the equivalent 

of 350 people working full time. In 2010, a record 49 percent 

of Alcoans took part in the company’s signature Month 

of Service across 23 countries. Through nearly 1,000 activities, 

Alcoans reached 59,000 children, served 17,000 meals, 

planted 16,000 trees and supported 3,000 nonprofit 

organizations. 

The Alcoa Foundation can be reached at http://www.alcoa. 

com/global/en/community/foundation/contact.asp 

SURINAME FORESTRY SERVICE (LBB/SBB) 

The Forestry Service (LBB) within the Ministry of Physical 

Planning, Land and Forest Management is responsible 

for forest management and nature conservation. One of its 

agencies is the Nature Conservation Department, which 

is assigned the task of managing all protected areas. As the 

CITES authority in Suriname, it also issues all permits for 

research and for the export of species, as well as enforcement 

within the framework of the laws on hunting and wildlife. 

The second agency is the Foundation for Forest Management 

and Production Control (SBB), which is mandated to manage 

production forests and is responsible for supervision and 

control of all logging. 



PANTHERA 

Panthera’s mission is to ensure the future of wild cats 

through scientific leadership and global conservation action. 

Panthera develops, implements, and oversees range-wide 

species conservation strategies for the world’s largest, most 

imperiled cats — tigers, lions, jaguars and snow leopards. 

Through partnerships with local and international NGO’s, 

scientific institutions, and government agencies we apply 

conservation actions driven to secure key habitat and vital 

corridors for threatened species. The Jaguar Corridor Initiative 

is a unique strategy for range-wide long term conservation 

of the jaguar, as well as vast landscapes and ecosystem 

functions. In Northern South America we have secured 

kilometers of land designated as jaguar corridor, strengthened 

and created new protected areas and work hand-inhand 

with our on the ground allies, such as ranchers and 

indigenous communities. 

Panthera USA 

8 West 40th St, 18th floor 

New York NY 10018 

Tel. (646) 786-0400 

Fax (646) 786-0401 

Web: www.panthera.org 

STINASU 

The Foundation for Nature Conservation in Suriname 

(STINASU) was founded in June 1969 and contributes to 

the protection of Suriname’s natural resources and cultural 

heritage by supporting local and international partnerships 

in the fields of scientific research, nature education and 

ecotourism. 

Stichting Natuurbehoud Suriname (STINASU) 


Paramaribo 

Suriname 

Tel: (597) 427102; 427103; 421850; 421683 

Fax: (597) 421850 

Web: www.stinasu.sr 


9

Acknowledgments 

The RAP team extends our deepest gratitude to Granman Ashonko Alalaparoe and the people of Kwamalasamutu for granting us 

permission to study the biodiversity of their lands. We especially wish to thank John Rudolph, Mopi, Kupias, Koita, Dennis, and 

Johnny for their leadership in the field. We also thank Ronald, Valentino, George, Metusala, Javan, Fredi, Markus, Ranise, Susa, 

Paulino, Aasho, Peeri, Keresen and Marai for invaluable field and camp assistance. 

We thank Natascha Veninga of CI-Suriname who offered unfailing support and logistical assistance at all stages of the RAP. 

Annette Tjon Sie Fat and Theo Sno also provided essential support and guidance. 

The staff of Gum Air ensured safe transportation of our personnel, equipment, and supplies, and was always able to accommodate 

the diverse needs of our large team. We thank Maikel Schenkers and Erwin Neles of MediaVision for capturing the excitement 

and results of the RAP survey on film. We are extremely grateful to our wonderful cook, Gracia Simeon, and her assistant, 

Chagall Veira, for feeding us during the RAP survey. 

We are extremely grateful to the personnel of LBB/NB (Nature Conservation Division), especially Claudine Sakimin, for support 

in granting us the proper research and export permits. We thank the National Zoological Collection of Suriname and the 

National Herbarium of Suriname (Anton de Kom University of Suriname) for assistance with the permit application process. 

The RAP botanical team gratefully acknowledges the support of the Suriname Forest Control Foundation (SBB), CELOS, and 

the National Herbarium of Suriname (BBS). For assistance with the identification of plants, we thank Ben Torke, Sir Ghillean 

Prance, Lars Chatrou, Marion Jansen-Jacobs, Paul Maas, and Tinde van Andel. 

The aquatic beetle team is extremely grateful for the many groups and individuals that facilitated this fieldwork. Several 

specialists provided help with some of the species IDs, and they are all warmly thanked: Dr. Philip Perkins (Harvard University; 

Hydraenidae), Dr. Kelly Miller (University of New Mexico; Dytiscidae in part), Crystal Maier (University of Kansas; Dryopoidea) 

and Dr. Martin Fikáček (Czech National Collection; Sphaeridiinae). Taro Eldredge and Sarah Schmits (both University of 

Kansas) assisted with habitus photographs and database management. We would also like to thank University of Kansas undergraduates 

Brad Schmidt, Clay McIntosh, and Frazier Graham for assistance with specimen processing. We thank three anonymous 

reviewers for comments on the chapter manuscript. 

The fishes team is indebted to the people of Kwamalasamutu for acting as guides, safely piloting the boats up and down 

rapids, talking about their fishing experiences, and generously sharing their knowledge of the local rivers. Many people helped 

us catch specimens, including A. Short, P. Naskrecki, B. O’Shea, E. Payan, E. Neles, T. Larsen, C. Kasanpawiro, A. Mackintosh, 

H. Gould, George, and Valentino. We thank J. Mol for answering questions about the fishes and hydrology of the region. 

The ornithology team thanks Greg Budney and the curatorial staff of the Macaulay Library for the generous loan of recording 

equipment used on this survey. We also thank John Mittermeier for sharing information from the Yale/Peabody expedition to 

Werehpai in 2006. 

The ant team thanks the entire RAP team for help in collecting ant samples, especially Krisna Gajapersad, Angelique Mackintosh, 

Chequita Bhikhi, and Willem Joehoe. We also thank Jeffrey Sosa-Calvo (Smithsonian Institution) for help with identifying 

the ants. 

Special thanks to the Amazon Conservation Team (ACT) rangers, to staff from the LBB/NB Nature Conservation Division 

and SBB/Suriname Forest Service, and to the Surinamese students for joining the RAP team, for providing exceptional assistance 

to the researchers, and for sharing their knowledge with the team. 

We thank Donnell Roy from CI’s Center for Environmental Leadership in Business (CELB) and Lisa Famolare from CI’s 

South America Field Division for their help in obtaining funding for this work and for their collaborative support of biodiversity 

exploration in Suriname. 

We thank the Alcoa Foundation for their generous financial support of this RAP survey and for their continued support of 

conservation and scientific capacity building in Suriname. 


Report at a Glance 

Dates of RAP survey 

August 18 – September 8, 2010 

Description of RAP survey sites 

The Kwamalasamutu region refers to the area of lowland tropical forest surrounding the Trio 

settlement of Kwamalasamutu. At a minimum, it encompasses the eastern portion of the upper 

Corantijn watershed, or an area extending from the village south to the Brazilian border, east to 

the Sipaliwini savanna, north to the Eilerts de Haan and Wilhelmina mountains, and west to 

the Upper Corantijn River. This vast area is sparsely populated, and its biota is poorly known 

relative to central and eastern Suriname. The elevation of the region is mostly between 200–400 

meters (higher in the south along the Brazilian border), but scattered granitic formations to 

the north and east of Kwamalasamutu approach 800 m. The region is entirely forested. The 

RAP team worked around three study sites on the Kutari and Sipaliwini Rivers, each accessible 

within a day’s travel by boat from Kwamalasamutu. The fish and water quality teams also 

sampled along waterways between our camps. At all sites, the predominant terrestrial habitat 

was tall forest on both well-drained and seasonally inundated soils. 

Reasons for the RAP survey 

In 2000, a cave with extensive petroglyphs (Werehpai) was discovered near the village of Kwamalasamutu. 

Shortly thereafter, the community established the Werehpai/Iwana Samu Sanctuary 

to serve as an ecotourism site and game reserve, both to generate income for the community 

and to protect populations of animals upon which the people of Kwamalasamutu depend for 

food. Conservation International – Suriname has since been working with the community and 

several donor agencies to establish infrastructure and maintain the sanctuary. 

The purpose of this RAP survey was to establish baseline information on the region’s biodiversity 

to inform ecotourism and future monitoring efforts, focusing on Werehpai and the 

surrounding region. We sought especially to gather information on plant and animal species 

important to the Trio people, and to provide recommendations that will support sustainable 

harvest and management practices. The overall goal was to bring together the knowledge and 

expertise of local people with scientific knowledge to study and plan for monitoring of biological 

and cultural resources of the Kwamalasamutu region. 


11

Report at a Glance 

MAJOR RESULTS 

The RAP team found the Kwamalasamutu region to harbor 

a rich biodiversity, with few signs of ecosystem degradation. 

However, there were indications that hunting and 

fishing pressure have affected the local abundance of some 

large-bodied mammals, birds, reptiles, and fishes. There was 

also some evidence of mercury contamination in the rivers, 

although levels of mercury were considerably lower than has 

been recorded in watersheds where extensive gold mining 

occurs. The majority of species found were typical of lowland 

forests of the Guiana Shield. At least 46 species were new 

to science, and due to the limited extent of sampling, it is 

highly likely that many more undescribed species exist in the 

region. 

Number of species recorded 

Plants >240 

Ants >100 

Aquatic Beetles 144 

Dung Beetles 94 

Dragonflies and Damselflies 94 

Katydids and Grasshoppers 78 

Fishes 99 

Reptiles and Amphibians 78 

Birds 327 

Small Mammals 38 

Large Mammals 29 

Conservation Recommendations 

The ecosystems of the Kwamalasamutu region face few 

immediate threats; however, they should be managed 

to ensure that key ecological processes are not disrupted 

through contamination of watercourses, large-scale resource 

exploitation, or depletion of animal populations. We particularly 

recommend that small-scale gold mining activities be 

aggressively discouraged in the region. A water quality monitoring 

program should be implemented by the community 

to detect contamination from any mining activities. Fifteen 

species listed on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 

(IUCN 2011) were encountered during the survey. Populations 

of game animals and fishes should be managed through 

means best suited to the interests and needs of the community, 

preferably through a network of reserves with limited 

hunting seasons for particular species. Domesticated animals 

should be encouraged as an alternative protein source. 

The Kwamalasamutu area’s pristine nature, high diversity 

of birds and other taxa, and abundance of large mammals, 

including jaguar and ocelot, make it ideal for ecotourism. 

Tourism should be promoted and supported as a means of 

protecting the wildlife of the area and of providing employment 

and livelihood for many people of Kwamalasamutu. 

Number of species new to science 

Aquatic Beetles 16–26 

Dung Beetles 10–14 



Fishes 8 


New records for Suriname 

Plants 8 

Aquatic Beetles 45 

Dung Beetles 5 



Fishes 2 


Birds 4 

Small Mammals 2 


Maps and Photos 

Map 1: Werehpai and Iwana Samu Area 

Map 2: Protected Area Werehpai/Iwana Samu 

Map 3: RAP survey sites 


13


The RAP team at the Werehpai base camp. (P. Naskrecki) 

The survey site along the Kutari River was characterized 

by large areas of swamp forest and seasonally 

inundated forest. (T. Larsen) 

Understory palms dominated in some parts of the 

forest, such as this area at the Werehpai survey site. 

(T. Larsen) 



Piotr Naskrecki photographs the caves in the Werehpai/Iwana Samu Sanctuary. These caves are likely to have been used by humans for at least 

5,000 years. (T. Larsen) 

In 2000, more than 313 petroglyphs and shards of pottery were discovered in the caves, and the petroglyphs are estimated to be over 3,000 years 

old. (P. Naskrecki) 


15


A flower of Cochlospermum orinocense. (C. Bhikhi) 

[above] Helosis cayennensis is a parasitic plant that does not produce 

its own leaves for photosynthesis, but instead sucks nutrients from 

the roots of trees. (T. Larsen) 

Tabernaemontana heterophylla is a plant that contains compounds used to treat 

dementia and improve memory. Many plants in the Kwamalasamutu Region have 

potential to yield new medicine and other biotechnological discoveries. (C. Bhikhi) 

[right] Monkey cacao (Herannia kanukuensis) is a rare plant found in Kwamalasamutu 

forests. It is cauliflorous, meaning that the flowers and fruits grow from the 

trunk. (P. Naskrecki) 



Male and female damselflies (Argia sp. 1) in tandem at Iwana Samu. 

Male of Argia sp. 2 at Werehpai Camp. Both species pictured here (Argia sp. 1 and 2) 

are new to science, as are two other Argia species found during this RAP survey. Argia 

is the most speciose damselfly genus in the New World. (N. von Ellenrieder) 

Until now, Perilestes gracillimus was known from only two records 

from Amazonian Peru and Brazil. The female ovipositor is strong 

and likely used to lay eggs in hard substrates, including bark of 

twigs. Known larvae in this genus live among dead leaf litter. (N. von 

Ellenrieder) 

Male damselfly (Phasmoneura exigua) at a forest swamp in Kutari Camp. (N. von 

Ellenrieder) 

Hydrophilus smaragdinus, found in forest pools, is among the largest 

aquatic beetles in South America. Adults are scavengers of detritus, 

while the larvae are voracious predators of insects and small fish. 

(P. Naskrecki) 

[left] Adults of Inpabasis rosea, an elusive damselfly that has never 

been photographed until now, can be seen perching on leaves at sunny 

spots in forest swamps. Larvae and breeding habitat are still unknown, 

but males were observed guarding small muddy depressions where they 

most likely reproduce and where females probably lay their eggs. (N. von 

Ellenrieder) 


17


Oxysternon festivum is a large, brightly colored dung beetle. 

(T. Larsen) 

Phanaeus chalcomelas males use their horns as weapons to fight over 

potential mates. (T. Larsen) 

Deltochilum valgum is a highly unusual dung beetle species that is 

specialized exclusively to prey on live millipedes. Its elongated hind legs are 

used to wrap around the body of millipedes that are much larger than the 

beetle. This behavior was unknown until two years ago. (T. Larsen) 

Loboscelis bacatus is a spectacular conehead katydid, previously known 

only from Amazonian Peru, but found during the Kwamalasamutu RAP in 

southern Suriname, significantly extending its known range. (P. Naskrecki) 

[left] Coprophanaeus lancifer is the largest of all Neotropical dung beetle 

species. Both sexes possess long horns that are used during intrasexual 

battles. This species can rapidly bury an animal carcass as large as a pig. 




Eubliastes adustus, a sylvan katydid previously known only from Ecuador (P. Naskrecki) 

Vestria sp. n. This new, yet unnamed species of conehead katydid was discovered during the Kwamalasamutu RAP. (P. Naskrecki) 


19


Gigantiops destructor – the Jumping Ant – is a large black ant common on 

the forest floor in the Werehpai area. G. destructor has excellent vision, and 

solitary workers of this species can be seen during the day as they scurry 

across the forest floor looking for prey. (P. Naskrecki) 

Camponotus sericeiventris – the Carpenter Ant – is one of the largest and 

shiniest ants in the forest. This soldier may guard the nest located in trunks 

or large branches of large live trees while the workers scavenge for food 

during the day. (T. Larsen) 

Cephalotes atratus – the Turtle Ant, or Gliding 

Ant, lives high up in the tree canopy and 

can glide back to their home tree if they fall. 


Daceton armigerum – the Canopy Ant – is a beautiful golden-colored ant that lives high in the canopy of trees near the Werehpai caves. (P. Naskrecki) 



RAP researcher Phil Willink processes fish specimens, including a Black 

Piranha (Serrasalmus rhombeus). The Black Piranha is a top-level aquatic 

predator – this specimen was 41 centimeters long, and weighed 3 kilograms. 


This fish species, Pterodoras aff. granulosus, is probably new to science. 

(P. Willink) 

Armored catfish (Pseudancistrus corantijniensis) are associated with 

rocky bottoms of fast flowing rivers and streams. This species uses its 

spoon-shaped teeth to scrape algae off of logs and rocks. (P. Naskrecki) 

Another fish species, Imparfinis aff. stictonotus, collected during the RAP 

survey which may be new to science. (P. Willink) 


21


The Dyeing poison frog (Dendrobates tinctorius) has highly toxic skin, and 

the frog advertises its noxious properties with its very noticeable colors. The 

frogs obtain their toxins from ants, on which they feed. (P. Naskrecki) 

The Suriname horned frog (Ceratophrys cornuta) is a voracious sit-and-wait 

predator. It has an exceptionally wide mouth, which allows it to swallow 

prey that is nearly as large as its own body, including mice and other frogs. 

(T. Larsen) 

Three-striped poison dart frog (Ameerega trivittata) with tadpoles on the 

back. Adults of many poison dart frog species transport their young from 

one body of water to another as the tadpoles feed and develop. (T. Larsen) 

The Amazon tree boa (Corallus hortulanus) is a small constrictor, which 

feeds primarily on rodents and birds. (P. Naskrecki) 

Gonatodes humeralis is a brightly colored dwarf gecko that is active during 

the day. (T. Larsen) 

RAP researcher Burton Lim takes a fruit bat (Artibeus planirostris) from the 

mist net. (P. Naskrecki) 



Four species of bats from the RAP. Clockwise from upper left: 1) large fruit-eating bat (Artibeus planirostris), 2) nectar-feeding bat 

(Lonchophylla thomasi), 3) sword-nosed bat (Lonchorhina inusitata), and 4) moustached bat (Pteronotus parnellii). (B. Lim) 

Four species of rodents from the RAP. Clockwise from upper left: 1) spiny mouse (Neacomys sp.), 2) McConnell’s rice rat (Euryoryzomys 

macconnelli), 3) spiny rat (Proechimys sp.), and 4) terrestrial rice rat (Hylaeamys megacephalus). (Photos 1 & 2 by 

B. Lim, 3 & 4 by E. Neles) 


23


The Jaguar (Panthera onca), also known as Kaikui, is the largest cat of the 

Americas. Jaguars eat a variety of animals such as peccaries, tapirs, cattle, 

and deer. Jaguars swim well and their habitats range from rainforest to dry 

forest. Jaguars are rare in many places due to hunting and the fur trade. 

(K. Gajapersad) 

The Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) occurs in forested landscapes throughout 

the Neotropics, but is active mostly at night, and is therefore rarely seen. 

Camera trap images gathered during the RAP, such as this one from the 

Kutari site, suggest that this species is common in the Kwamalasamutu 

region. (K. Gajapersad) 

Despite its large size and heavy body armature, the Giant Armadillo (Priodontes 

maximus), known as Morainmë in Trio, is a gentle animal, feeding 

primarily on termites and ants, which it digs out from underground nests 

using its huge claws. Giant armadillos are rarely seen due to their nocturnal 

habits, but their huge burrows are a common sight in the forests of Kwamalasamutu. 

This species is declining across its range in South America, 

primarily as a result of excessive hunting and habitat loss. (K. Gajapersad) 

The Paca or Kurimau (Cuniculus paca) is a large caviomorph rodent of 

Neotropical rainforests that is highly prized for food across its vast range. 

They remain common in forested landscapes like the Kwamalasamutu 

region, where the human population density is relatively low. The Paca’s 

diet includes fallen fruit, and they are important seed dispersers for many 

rainforest trees. (K. Gajapersad) 

The Collared peccary (Pecari tajacu) is the smaller of the two species of 

peccaries in the Kwamalasamutu region, and is one of the preferred food 

animals for the Trio people. (K. Gajapersad) 

The Black Curassow (Crax alector), known in Trio as ohko, is a large bird, found 

along rivers and in forests across most of the Guiana Shield. These birds spend 

most of their time on the ground, feeding on insects, fruits, and seeds. In the 

Kwamalasamutu Region they are hunted by the Trio, but this species remains 

plentiful away from human settlements. (K. Gajapersad) 


Iponohto Pisi Serë 

Awainahto Imenehkatoponpë 

August 18 – September 8, 2010 

Ampo imenehkatoponpë sere, Kwamalasamutu nai konopopijan itu kato, irë nai Tareno ipata 

Kwamalasamutu. Irë nai Corantijn tuna iwehtihatopo. Irë nai zide weije Kwamalasamutu pata 

pëe. Wei wëehto weije nai Sipaliwini ijoi. Ma roord weije nai Eilert de Haan ma Wilhelmina 

pïiton, weste weije nai Guayana inono intakato Suriname pëe. Serë nai mono nono wïtoto 

waken kunme irë inonopo. Irë nai wïtoto menekaewankiërë kure Central ma ooste weije mare. 

Irë pata nai kawë tunaimë epae 200 – 400 meters, karaiwa inono intakato weije kawe irëtëpoeton 

pïme irëpo, irë nai 800 meters kawae iwekto. Irë nono nai itume reken. Imenekato kinei 3 

inonopo, irë nai kuitaritunatae, Sipaliwini itunatae mare. Montoruke nai irë pona wïtëto 1 wei. 

Irë imenekato tese, kanaton ma tunaton irë imenekane tese, iwënïtokon wararë. Kanputoton 

wararë kawiëno ituton tïmenekae ijane, nono mare tïmenekae ijane. 

Atïjanme Timenekae 

2000 mao ahtao tëpoe totaken imenuhtëpëe tërahtëe ijane maahtaken pata Kwamalasamutu 

pë. Ireme Kwamalasamutu pontomoja Werehpaeme tekatëe. Ma Iwanasamoe mare tirëe ijane 

toeriston iwëehtome ijane, irëjanme marë mehparëton tïpïnmae ijane. Irë apo tïrëe ijane karakuri 

epohtome pata akoronmahtome ijane. Irë mare tïpïnmae ijane otikonme iweike. Ma CI 

tonmarë akërëne tëse ma karakuri entuton mare kure tinonokon tïrïtome ijane. 

Irë nono imenekato tïrëe ijane toeriston iwëehtome irëpona ma karakuri epohtome mare 

ijane. Irëme Werehpai inonotipïnmae ijane. Irëjanme onipekenton timenehkapoe ijane ituton 

marë mehparëton irasaton tarenotomoja iweke. 

Irëjame tikurumae ijane teperukenton, tënasehton kure tïritome ijane. Irëjanme sereton tirëe 

ijane eisaporo tiwipunehtokon tïrïtome ijane Tarenoton akërë. Kure tïnonokon tïrïtome ijane 

irëpëe karakuri ëpohtome ijane tïpatakonporo. 

Irasaton Eporïhpëton Irëmao 

Irëme imenekanepëeton kan irëpëe tïjapëkenai irënono. Onipekenton imenekahpëeke ijane, 

këpëwa wëiwatojanme mehparëton ototon ma kanaton wakensa tese irëpo. 

Ma tuna imenekanmahtao ijane irëmao kuweki apo tërahtëe ijane tunahkao. Ma irëme 

imenehkaneton tïikae atïtome koutupatapo waken tuna iwëtanmëpo kuweki ma serëpo kuweki 

pije. Ma imenekatuwe ijane senpo irëmao Guyana iwehto aporopa tëne ijane. Ma imenekatomao 

irëmao tapïme tëne ijane tiwamekatohton serë inonopo. 


25

Iponohto Pisi Serë 

Okinpëken Ekaton 

Ituton >240 

Situton >100 

Ëënëton 144 

Pëmuton 94 

Pïmokokoton 94 

Sunariton 78 

Kanaaton 99 

Ëkeiton/Përëruton 78 

Tonoroton 327 

Mëhparë akïiton 38 

Inunu mëhparëton 29 

Ahtare Kainan Ërahtëtoponpë 

Ëënëton 16–26 

Pëmuton 10–14 


Sunariton 7 

Kanaaton 8 


Tïpïnmainpë kure tirëenme 

Kwamalasamutu inonopo antinaosa teese. Këpëewa irë 

nono tikurunmaenme nai, irëmao tuna ikëhrëmaeto nehtan. 

Ma mëhparëton ma ototon mare kure nehtan. Irëme 

koutupëkenton sameken takamainme nehtan irënonopo. 

Irëme irë tuna timenkapore nehtan oroko wehto wararë. 

Irëme irëpatapontomoro nikurunmatan tïnonokon. Irëmao 

wëeiwato tïpatoro nehtan mëhparëton wëtohpë. Irëjanme 

kurairuton, kuusiton arimikato kure nehtan ijane, irëmao 

wëeiwato waken nehtan. 

Kwamalasamutu inono nai maa pata. Okïhnpëkenton, 

tonoroton, pimokokoton, tëpëriken pisiton, tïkapïpëhkenton 

ma mëhparëton marë. Ma ëpëton kaikuiton marë. Irë nai 

kure toerestomoja. Toereston amohtëtome ijane. Irëjanme 

kure tïpïne tïrëeinme mehparëton, ototon, ituton mare. Irë 

mare nai Tarënoton aeneme iwehtohkon mare tïpatakonpo 

Kwamalasamutupo. 

Kainan eratëhpëton Surinampo 

Ituton 8 

Ëënëton 45 

Pëmuton 5 


Sunariton 29 

Kanaaton 2 


Tonoroton 4 

Mëhparë akïiton 2 


Rapportage in Vogelvlucht 

Datum van het RAP-onderzoek 

18 augustus – 8 september 2010 

Beschrijving van de RAP-onderzoekslocaties 

Het gebied waarnaar wordt vewezen is het laagland tropisch bos dat het Trio-dorp Kwamalasamutu 

omringt, oftewel het oostelijke deel van het stroomgebied van de boven-Corantijn. 

Dit is het gebied ten zuiden van Kwamalasamutu naar de grens met Brazilie, ten oosten naar 

de Sipaliwini-savanna, ten noorden naar het Eilerts de Haangebergte en het Wilhelminagebergte, 

en ten westen tot aan de Boven-Corantijn. Dit uitgestrekte gebied is dunbevolkt en de 

fauna en flora zijn niet erg bekend in vergelijking met centraal en oost-Suriname. Het gebied 

ligt grotendeels op een hoogte van 200–400 meter (hoger in het zuiden langs de grens met 

Brazilië), maar hier en daar bevinden zich granietachtige formaties naar het noorden en het 

oosten, ongeveer op een afstand van 800 meter van de toegangsweg naar het dorp Kwamalasamutu. 

Het hele gebied is bedekt met bos. Het RAP-team verrichtte werkzaamheden in 

drie onderzoekslocaties aan de Kutari- en de Sipaliwinirivier, die elk gemakkelijk toegankelijk 

waren en binnen een dag met de boot vanuit Kwamalasamutu konden worden bereikt. De 

teams belast met het onderzoeken van de vis- en waterkwaliteit trok ook monsters langs de 

kreken en rivieren tussen onze kampen. Op alle locaties was de voornaamste terrestrische 

habitat (ofwel leefgebied op het land), hoog bos, zowel op grond met goede afwatering als op 

grond die, afhankelijk van het seizoen, onder water komt. 

Redenen voor het RAP-onderzoek 

In 2000 werd er nabij het dorp Kwamalasamutu een grot ontdekt met uitgebreide rotstekeningen 

(Werehpai). Kort daarna stelde de leefgemeenschap het Werehpai/Iwana Saamu 

beschermd gebied in. Met het instellen van dit beschermd gebied wilde men het ecotoerisme 

bevorderen en inkomsten genereren voor de gemeenschap. Maar wilde men de populaties van 

dieren, waarvan de inwoners van Kwamalasamutu afhankelijk zijn voor hun voedsel, beschermen. 

Conservation International Suriname werkt samen met de gemeenschap van Kwamalasamutu 

en met verschillende donorinstanties om de nodige infrastructuur te ontwikkelen en 

het beschermd gebied in stand te houden. 

Het doel van dit RAP-onderzoek was om informatie over de biodiversiteit van de regio 

vast te stellen, zodat personen en/of instanties die belast zijn met ecotoerisme, de informatie 

kunnen gebruiken. Maar de RAP-resultaten zijn ook belangrijk voor monitoring in de 

toekomst. Het onderzoek concentreerde zich op het gebied van Werehpai en omgeving. We 

hebben geprobeerd om voornamelijk informatie te verzamelen over planten diersoorten 

die van belang zijn voor de Trio-bevolking en om aanbevelingen te doen voor duurzame 


27

Rapportage in Vogelvlucht 

houtwinnings- en beheerspraktijken. Het algemene doel 

was om kennis en expertise van de lokale bevolking te 

combineren met wetenschappelijke kennis en zodoende de 

biologische en culturele rijkdommen van het Kwamalasamutugebied 

vast te leggen en te behouden. 

Voornaamste resultaten 

Het RAP-team ontdekte dat het Kwamalasamutugebied een 

rijke biodiversiteit heeft, met weinig tekenen van degradatie 

van de ecosystemen. Er waren echter wel wat indicaties die 

erop wezen dat de druk van jacht en visvangst plaatselijk de 

overvloed aan enkele grote zoogdieren, vogels, reptielen en 

vissen heeft aangetast. Er waren ook sporen van kwikverontreiniging 

in de rivieren, hoewel de kwikgehalten aanzienlijk 

lager waren dan in stroomgebieden waar er veel goudwinning 

plaatsvindt. De meeste biologische soorten die zijn 

aangetroffen, waren kenmerkend voor het laaglandbos van 

het Guianaschild. Er waren ook enkele soorten die nieuw 

zijn voor de wetenschap. Door de beperkte omvang van het 

nemen van monsters is het zeer waarschijnlijk dat er veel 

meer biologische soorten in het gebied voorkomen waarover 

er geen documentatie bestaat. 

Aantal soorten dat is vastgelegd 

Planten >240 

Mieren >100 

Waterkevers 144 

Mestkevers 94 

Libellen en waterjuffers 94 

Sabelsprinkhanen en sprinkhanen 78 

Vissen 99 

Reptielen en amfibieën 78 

Vogels 327 

Kleine zoogdieren 38 

Grote zoogdieren 29 

Aanbevelingen 

Het Kwamalasamutugebied wordt wel bedreigd door vervuiling 

van rivier en kreken, mogelijke grootschalige exploitatie 

van hulpbronnen en het uitdunnen van dierenpopulaties. 

Deze bedreigingen zullen aangepakt moeten worden om 

te voorkomen dat belangrijke ecologische processen ontwricht 

raken, zoals in andere gebieden. Vooral kleinschalige 

goudwinningsactiviteiten moeten ontmoedigd worden in 

dit gebied, omdat daarmee veel vernietiging van het milieu 

gepaard gaat. Ook zou een programma kunnen worden 

opgezet om de waterkwaliteit te controleren, zodat de 

gemeenschap al in een vroeg stadium verontreiniging kan 

ontdekken. Ten slotte, is het belangrijk dat de populaties van 

wilde dieren en vissen worden beheerd om de eiwitvoorziening 

van de lokale gemeenschap in de toekomst te garanderen. 

Dit zou, bijvoorbeeld, kunnen door het gebied in te 

delen in gebieden waar jachtseizoenen gelden voor bepaalde 

dieren. Maar ook het kweken van dieren in het dorp zou een 

alternatieve bron van eiwitten kunnen zijn. 

De ongerepte natuur in het Kwamalasamutugebied, de 

enorme diversiteit aan vogels en andere taxonomische groepen, 

en de overvloed aan grote zoogdieren, waaronder jaguar 

en ocelot, maakt dit gebied uitermate geschikt voor ecotoerisme. 

Toerisme dient te worden bevorderd en ondersteund 

als middel om de in het wild levende dieren van het gebied 

te behouden, maar ook om werkgelegenheid en een middel 

van bestaan voor Kwamalasamutu verder te ontewikkelen. 

Aantal soorten dat nieuw is voor de wetenschap 

Waterkevers 16–26 

Mestkevers 10–14 



Vissen 8 


Nieuwe soorten voor Suriname 

Planten 8 

Waterkevers 45 

Mestkevers 5 



Vissen 2 


Vogels 4 

Kleine zoogdieren 2 


Executive Summary 

Introduction 

The Guiana Shield is a vast tropical wilderness covering over 2.2 million square kilometers and 

encompassing all or part of six South American countries (Hammond 2005). The numerous 

biomes of the Guiana Shield have fostered the evolution of an exceptionally rich flora and fauna 

with many endemic species. More than 20,000 species of vascular plants, 1,000 species of birds, 

and 1,100 species of freshwater fishes are known from the Guiana Shield (Huber and Foster 

2003; Hollowell and Reynolds 2005; Vari et al. 2009). The region’s tumultuous cultural history 

and general remoteness from large population centers have effectively limited environmental 

degradation on a large scale. As a result, much of the Guiana Shield remains forested, presenting 

an invaluable opportunity to set conservation goals and develop ecologically and socially 

responsible strategies for resource use (Huber and Foster 2003; Hammond 2005). 

Suriname is entirely contained within the Guiana Shield region and is mostly covered by 

lowland rainforest. Although most of the human population lives on the coastal plain, many 

Maroon and Amerindian communities are found in the interior — the former mostly along 

rivers in the eastern half of the country, and the latter primarily in the far southern and western 

regions. Much of southern and western Suriname is sparsely populated, and wildlife is 

abundant. 

However, the isolation that has protected Suriname’s ecosystems, natural resources, and 

indigenous cultures is coming to an end, and the opportunity to take action to preserve these 

remarkable resources may soon be gone. Record high commodity prices have encouraged the 

spread of illegal gold miners from Brazil across the region, spurred potential major hydropower 

and mining investments, and provided the incentive to press ahead with road and dam projects. 

One of the first steps needed to develop conservation and management plans for Suriname 

is to collect baseline biological and socio-economic data. Suriname currently lacks the scientific 

capacity to conduct multi-taxa biodiversity field surveys needed to make sound resource 

management decisions for the country. Increasing Suriname’s scientific capacity is critical 

to ensuring long-term conservation of the country’s biodiversity and promoting sustainable 

development for Suriname’s people. This RAP survey was conducted to incorporate national 

scientific capacity and train local students, scientists and community members in biodiversity 

assessment and monitoring methods, as RAP has done before in previous surveys in Suriname 

(Alonso and Berrenstein 2006, Alonso and Mol 2007). 

The Kwamalasamutu Region 

The indigenous settlement of Kwamalasamutu (N 02.3561°, W 056.7945°) is situated on the 

north bank of the Sipaliwini River in southwest Suriname, approximately 10 kilometers upriver 

from the confluence of the Sipaliwini and Coeroeni Rivers, which together form the main eastern 

tributary of the Corantijn River flowing north to the Atlantic Ocean (see Map, page 13). 

The village of Kwamalasamutu was officially created in 1975. Different small nomadic tribes 


29


that inhabited the vast forests of the surrounding region had 

already been brought together by missionaries in the late 

1950s and early 1960s in settlements that were initially more 

upstream along the Sipaliwini River, but as more people 

came together in a more or less permanent settlement, the 

need for more water and better hunting lands eventually 

led them to their current location. Following establishment 

of the village, the population reached a maximum of more 

than 2,000 people before slowly decreasing to its present size 

of approximately 800 (Teunissen and Noordam 2003). The 

word ‘Tareno’ is used by the people themselves as a collective 

term for the different tribes who live together in Kwamalasamutu. 

The largest of these tribes is the Trio, and the Trio 

language is the lingua franca of the people. This document 

therefore uses ‘Trio’ to refer to the indigenous people of 

this region. Today, Kwamalasamutu is the political and 

cultural center for the Trio people of Suriname. Residents 

of Kwamalasamutu subsist primarily on fish, bushmeat, and 

a limited variety of food crops, especially cassava, that are 

cultivated in a large network of shifting plots surrounding 

the village (Teunissen and Noordam 2003). 

The Kwamalasamutu Region is here considered to encompass 

the eastern portion of the upper Corantijn watershed, 

or an area extending from the village south to the Brazilian 

border, east to the Sipaliwini savanna, north to the Eilerts 

de Haan and Wilhelmina mountains, and west into the area 

between the Kutari and Upper Corantijn Rivers. This is one 

of the most remote areas of the Guiana Shield; the nearest 

roads are far to the south in Brazil, and all travel within the 

region is by boat or on foot. A wide, grassy airstrip in Kwamalasamutu 

serves as the principal connection between the 

region and the coast. The elevation of the region is mostly 

between 200–400 meters (higher in the south along the Brazilian 

border), but scattered granitic formations to the north 

and east of Kwamalasamutu approach 800 m. The region is 

entirely forested, with few permanent human settlements. 

The Kwamalasamutu Region is situated within the Acarai- 

Tumucumac priority area located in Guyana, Suriname 

and Brazil, as defined by participants in a conservation 

priority-setting workshop held in Paramaribo in 2002, and 

co-sponsored by Conservation International, the Guiana 

Shield Initiative of the Netherlands Committee for the International 

Union for the Conservation of Nature (GSI/NC- 

IUCN), and the Caribbean sub-regional Resource Facility 

of the United Nations Development Program (Huber and 

Foster 2003). Participants ranked the Acarai-Tumucumac 

area of highest biological importance, citing the area’s intact 

habitats and high ecological diversity, but acknowledged that 

insufficient data existed to inform conservation recommendations 

for particular taxonomic groups. To fill this knowledge 

gap, RAP surveys of the Acarai-Tumucumac area have 

since been undertaken in both Guyana (Alonso et al. 2008) 

and Brazil (Bernard 2008), but large areas remain unexplored. 

This is particularly true in Suriname, where previous 

biological surveys have been concentrated primarily in the 

eastern and central regions of the country. 

The great forests of the Kwamalasamutu Region extend 

unbroken far into both Guyana and Brazil, and the region’s 

lack of infrastructure ensures that there is little immediate 

threat of large-scale extractive activities or landscape conversion. 

However, this can be expected to change in coming 

decades as the countries of the Guiana Shield continue to 

expand their economic activities and develop road networks 

and other trade connections with one another. Of particular 

concern from a conservation perspective are the region’s populations 

of large-bodied vertebrates, which are sensitive to 

over-exploitation and habitat alteration, and the integrity of 

the region’s watercourses, which are vulnerable to sedimentation 

and contamination from small-scale mining activities. 

Conservation International’s Rapid Assessment 

Program (RAP) 

Conservation International’s (CI) Rapid Assessment Program 

(RAP) is a leading world expert in the collection of field 

data. RAP is an innovative biological inventory program 

designed to use scientific information to catalyze conservation 

action. RAP methods are designed to rapidly assess 

the biodiversity of highly diverse areas and to train local 

scientists in biodiversity survey techniques. Since 1990, 

RAP’s teams of expert and host-country scientists have 

conducted 80 terrestrial, freshwater aquatic (AquaRAP), and 

marine biodiversity surveys and have contributed to building 

local scientific capacity for scientists in over 30 countries. 

Biological information from previous RAP surveys have 

supported the protection of millions of hectares of tropical 

forest, including the declaration of protected areas in Bolivia, 

Peru, Ecuador, and Brazil and the identification of biodiversity 

priorities in numerous countries. Visit https://learning. 

conservation.org/biosurvey/Pages/default.aspx for more 

information on RAP and its methodology. 

Capacity Building 

In 2008, CI’s RAP and Suriname programs carried out 

two mini-training courses in rapid biodiversity assessment 

methods for 28 Surinamese students and eight international 

students. The courses were designed to promote interest in 

biodiversity conservation and provided students with an 

introduction to biodiversity assessment and its applications 

to conservation. Both courses were taught by taxonomic 

experts who covered field methods for assessing the diversity 

of plants, large mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, 

and a variety of terrestrial insect groups. Basic introduction 

to the taxonomy of each group was also presented and practiced. 

The course format included field projects and activities, 

lectures, and data analysis. 

Project Initiation 

In 2000, caves with more than 313 petroglyphs and shards 

of ancient pottery were discovered at Werehpai, near the 

village of Kwamalasamutu. At the time, Conservation 



International-Suriname (CI-Suriname) was working with the 

people of Kwamalasamutu on a medicinal plant project that 

was coming to an end, and decided to explore the region and 

to support the development of eco-tourism. CI-Suriname 

first supported an archeological study of the petroglyphs 

by the Smithsonian Institution and the Suriname Museum 

(Sandoval 2005), which found evidence to show that the 

petroglyphs are over 3000 years old and that the caves had 

been used by humans for at least 5000 years. In 2006, CI- 

Suriname obtained funds to implement two projects to support 

protection of the petroglyphs and surrounding forest, 

and to help reduce poverty in Kwamalasamutu by establishing 

a community owned and operated eco-tourist facility. 

The first project, funded by the Global Conservation Fund, 

aimed to develop two sanctuaries or Indigenous Protected 

Areas (IPAs) around the petroglyphs (see Map 1, page 13), 

to identify an appropriate legal mechanism for establishing 

the areas as sanctuaries, and to build community capacity to 

manage existing protected areas. At the same time, a second 

project, funded by the Interamerican Development Bank / 

Japan Fund, established a community tourism lodge in the 

Iwana Samu protected area. The tourism lodge was created 

to generate funds required to sustain effective management 

of the protected areas, following the management plan that 

was created in the course of the GCF project. 

The local foundation, Stichting Meu, was assigned 

responsibility by the Pata Entu (= chief) of Kwamalasamutu 

for development and management of protected areas. 

In 2007, the two separate sanctuaries (Iwana Samu and 

Werehpai) were joined into one protected area (Werehpai/ 

Iwana Samu Protected Area) and placed under management 

of Stichting Meu. The total area is now ca. 18,000 ha (see 

Map 2, page 13). The reason given by the village council 

for joining the two separate areas into one large protected 

area was ease of management. One large protected area was 

easier to delineate than two smaller areas, and everyone on 

the ground could more easily understand the boundaries 

of a single sanctuary. Bushmeat hunting is prohibited in 

the Iwana Samu sanctuary to promote sustainable wildlife 

populations. 

CI-Suriname drafted a report recommending that the 

Werehpai site be proclaimed a national heritage site, and that 

the government of Suriname apply to UNESCO for World 

Heritage Status for the site. The report was submitted to 

the Minister of Education (who is responsible for cultural 

sites) in early 2006 and again in 2007. The ministerial team 

promised further action, but nothing has been forthcoming, 

due in part to the complexity of indigenous land rights issues 

in Suriname. CI-Suriname has studied the possibility that 

Indigenous Protected Areas receive official protected status, 

and has discussed this complex matter with the government. 

CI-Suriname recommended that lands indicated as Indigenous 

Protected Areas be officially issued to the village council 

of Kwamalasamutu under the Forestry Act. The government 

installed a committee to study indigenous land rights and to 

make recommendations for amendments to existing laws or 

the drafting of new legislation. At the present time, a decision 

on the official status of the Indigenous Protected Areas 

established under this project has been postponed until the 

larger national issue of tribal lands is resolved. 

The RAP survey of the Kwamalasamutu Region forms an 

integral part of CI-Suriname’s ongoing efforts to assist the 

people of Kwamalasamutu to strengthen their capacity to 

manage the sanctuary and promote tourism on their lands. 

The RAP survey in 2010 had two principal goals: 

1) supply baseline data on the region’s biodiversity 

and water quality to the Trio people of Kwamalasamutu, 

including recommendations for the 

management of game and fish populations for 

long-term viability and information to support 

eco-tourism 

2) provide Surinamese students and young professionals 

with further training and opportunities to 

advance their interests in environmental biology. 

RAP and CI-Suriname are dedicated to continue 

to work with these and other students to build 

capacity for conservation within the university 

student population. 

Overview of the RAP Survey 

The scientific team included scientists from the Anton de 

Kom University of Suriname, Conservation International, 

Panthera, the Amazon Conservation Team, the Museum of 

Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, the Louisiana 

State University Museum of Natural Science, the Biodiversity 

Institute at the University of Kansas, the California 

State Collection of Arthropods, the Field Museum, the 

Royal Ontario Museum, and the National Herbarium of the 

Netherlands. The scientists were joined by seven students 

currently or formerly enrolled at the University of Suriname, 

many of whom participated on RAP training courses conducted 

by CI in Suriname in 2008. The RAP team collected 

data on water quality, plants, and the following groups of 

animals: ants, aquatic beetles, dung beetles, dragonflies and 

damselflies, katydids and grasshoppers, fishes, reptiles and 

amphibians, birds, small mammals, and large mammals. 

Survey sites were chosen to maximize the diversity of sampled 

habitats, with a particular emphasis on areas most likely 

to be visited by tourist groups. All sites were easily accessible 

within one day’s travel by boat from Kwamalasamutu. 

Description of the RAP survey sites 

The RAP team surveyed three sites in the Kwamalasamutu 

region. Only the coordinates of the base camps are given 

here; most sampling was done within 5–10 kilometers of 

these camps. Certain groups were sampled in other areas as 

well (e.g., along rivers between camps); please refer to individual 

chapters for sampling protocols and localities. 


31


Site 1. Kutari River 

N 02° 10'31", W 056° 47' 14" 

18–24 August 2010 

The first camp was situated on the east bank of the Kutari 

River, approximately 44 km by river from Kwamalasamutu. 

The Kutari flows north from its source along the Suriname- 

Brazil border and joins the Aramatau to form the Coeroeni 

River; at our camp, the Kutari formed a meandering channel 

approximately 40 meters wide. The habitat at this site was a 

mix of terra firme and seasonally inundated forest, with the 

latter more extensive here than at our other sites. Away from 

the river the terrain was quite hilly and supported tall terra 

firme forest; low-lying areas between hills were often swampy 

and dominated by palms (Euterpe oleracea). At least one large 

patch of tall bamboo (Guadua sp.) was found here as well. 

Approximately six km of trails were cut at this site, and most 

terrestrial sampling was done along these trails. 

Site 2. Sipaliwini River 

N 02° 17' 24", W 056° 36' 26" 

27 August – 2 September 2010 

The second camp was situated on the north bank of the 

Sipaliwini River, approximately 27 km upriver from 

Kwamalasamutu. Here the Sipaliwini formed a broader, 

straighter channel than the Kutari, and contained numerous 

boulders and rapids. The habitat around this site was 

primarily tall terra firme forest, with fewer palm swamps and 

generally less seasonally flooded forest than the Kutari site. 

The understory contained many spiny palms (Astrocaryum 

sciophilum). In many places, particularly on hilltops, the soil 

layer was very thin and supported a shorter forest with fewer 

large-diameter trees. From this site, we were able to access a 

small granitic outcrop, or inselberg, situated approximately 

three km from the camp. Many creeks flowed into the Sipaliwini 

around this site; some of these creeks had steep banks 

and formed channels up to 15 meters across. At this site, 

we sampled primarily along the trail to the inselberg, and 

along a second trail that extended approximately three km 

northeast of the camp. 

Site 3. Werehpai 

N 02° 21' 47", W 056° 41' 52" 

3–7 September 2010 

The third camp was located on the north bank of the Sipaliwini 

River, approximately 16 km downriver from the second 

camp. The river here was slightly wider than at the previous 

site. The camp itself was situated on an abandoned farm, and 

the habitat immediately surrounding the camp was mostly 

second growth forest and bamboo with a dense, almost 

impenetrable understory. Farther away from the camp, the 

habitat consisted of tall primary terra firme forest, similar to 

the previous site. However, the soil was deeper and richer in 

some areas at this site, supporting more large-diameter trees. 

Most sampling occurred along the well-established 3.5-km 

trail to the Werehpai caves. No other trails were cut at this 

site. From this camp, some groups (primarily the fish and 

water quality specialists) surveyed Wioemi Creek, a small 

river that flows into the Sipaliwini approximately five km 

upriver from Werehpai. Wioemi Creek was much like the 

Kutari River in many respects, and supported substantial 

areas of seasonally flooded forest. 

Overview of RAP Results — General Impressions 

The RAP survey team found the Kwamalasamutu region 

to be highly diverse and in near-pristine ecological condition. 

At least 1,316 species of plants and animals were 

identified by the RAP scientists, of which a minimum of 

46 species — 16 aquatic beetles, ~ten dung beetles, four 

dragonflies, seven katydids, eight fishes, and one frog — are 

new to science. Approximately 111 species were recorded for 

the first time from Suriname, underscoring the magnitude of 

the country’s biodiversity and the need for additional surveys 

in other unexplored areas of the region. 

Fifteen species listed on the IUCN Red List of Threatened 

Species (IUCN 2011) were encountered during the 

survey (Table 1). Many of these species play important roles 

in the forest ecosystem as top predators and dispersers of 

large seeds; they also include some of the most highly prized 

animals in the diet of the Trio people. More data are needed 

Table 1. Species listed on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species that 

were recorded during the Kwamalasamutu RAP survey. Species are listed 

in ascending order of threat level; those without English names are trees 

for which standardized English names do not exist. LR/NT: Lower Risk/ 

Near Threatened; NT: Near Threatened; VU: Vulnerable; EN: Endangered; 

CR: Critically Endangered. 

Scientific name English name 

IUCN Red 

List Status 

Minquartia guianensis 

LR/NT 

Harpia harpyja Harpy Eagle NT 

Tayassu pecari White-lipped Peccary NT 

Panthera onca Jaguar NT 

Cedrela odorata 

VU 

Corythophora 

VU 

labriculata 

Chelonoides 

Yellow-footed Tortoise VU 

denticulata 

Ateles paniscus Guianan Spider Monkey VU 

Priodontes maximus Giant Armadillo VU 

Myrmecophaga Giant Anteater 

VU 

tridactyla 

Tapirus terrestris Brazilian Tapir VU 

Aniba rosaedora 

EN 

Trichilia surumuensis 

EN 

Pteronura brasiliensis Giant Otter EN 

Vouacapoua americana 

CR 



to inform suitable hunting quotas for these species, but the 

RAP data provide some baseline information on species 

distribution and hunting intensity to inform a process to 

determine sustainable hunting levels. 

RAP Results by Taxonomic Group 

Water Quality 

A total of 23 sites were sampled intensively in three major 

areas: the Kutari River, and two areas of the Sipaliwini 

River. We measured 13 physico-chemical parameters at 

each site: pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, temperature, 

alkalinity, total hardness, total phosphate, nitrate, chloride, 

tannin & lignin, ammonia, turbidity and secci depth. The 

oxygen content and pH of the Kutari River were lower than 

those of the Sipaliwini River, probably due to the lack of 

rapids and the input of organic material from the surrounding 

forest, particularly after heavy rains, which occurred 

frequently at the Kutari site. All sites had clear water except 

the Wioemi Creek, which was very turbid. The parameters 

measured in the field revealed undisturbed river ecosystems 

with few negative human impacts. However, high mercury 

levels were found in both sediment and piscivorous fishes 

from all sites. Further research is needed to clarify the origin 

of mercury in these river systems, and we recommend initiating 

a water quality monitoring program in Kwamalasamutu. 

Plants 

The RAP botanical team made 401 plant collections 

representing 62 families, 132 genera, and approximately 

240 species. These collections were made in the nine vegetation 

types we distinguished: tall herbaceous swamp vegetation 

and swamp wood, seasonally flooded forest, (seasonal) 

palm swamp forest, high tropical rainforest on dryland (terra 

firme), tropical forest on laterite/granite hills, savannah 

(moss) forest, open rock (inselberg) vegetation, secondary 

vegetation, and bamboo forest. We found eight species previously 

unrecorded in Suriname, of which six were tree species 

and two were herbaceous species. We also found a substantial 

number of rare plant species for Suriname, including 

six tree species listed on the IUCN Red List and three tree 

species protected under Surinamese law. The three sampling 

sites each had a distinct species composition, and the forests 

along the Kutari River had one of the highest tree alpha 

diversity values ever recorded for Suriname. At the same 

time, the forests at Werehpai had relatively low tree alpha 

diversity values. The forests showed some floristic affinities 

with adjoining regions of Guyana and Brasil. Comparison 

of our results with data from forests in northern Suriname 

showed that forests in the Kwamalasamutu region overlap 

only partially in species composition. Based on these results 

we argue that the forests in the Kwamalasamutu region have 

a high natural value for Suriname, and appropriate conservation 

measures should be taken, including the establishment 

of additional community-managed protected areas, and 

exploration of agricultural methods that better incorporate 

standing forests. 

Aquatic Beetles 

We collected more than 4000 aquatic beetle specimens using 

both active and passive collecting techniques. We documented 

144 species, representing 62 genera in nine families. 

Sixteen of these species have been confirmed as new, with 

an additional 10 likely to be new. Two of these new species, 

both in the family Hydrophilidae, are described here: Oocyclus 

trio Short & Kadosoe sp.n. and Tobochares sipaliwini 

Short & Kadosoe sp.n. Camps 1 (Kutari) and 3 (Werehpai) 

had comparatively high species diversity, with 91 and 93 species 

respectively — although only 48 of these species were 

shared between the two sites. Camp 2 (Sipaliwini) had the 

lowest number of species with 68. The fauna was typical 

of lowland Guianan forests. Some taxa, such as the genera 

Siolus, Guyanobius, Fontidessus, and Globulosis are either 

endemic or largely restricted to the Guiana Shield. The fauna 

was very similar to what is known from southern Venezuela 

(south of the Orinoco) and Guyana. The water beetle diversity 

was expected given the complement of aquatic habitats 

available at each camp. The relatively high number of genera 

and species, which cover a variety of ecological and habitat 

types, suggest the area is largely undisturbed. 

Dung Beetles 

Dung beetles are among the most cost-effective of all animal 

taxa for assessing biodiversity patterns, but relatively little is 

known about the dung beetle fauna of Suriname. I sampled 

dung beetles using baited pitfall traps and flight intercept 

traps in the Kwamalasamutu Region of southern Suriname. 

I collected 4,554 individuals represented by 94 species. 

Species composition and abundance varied quite strongly 

among sites. Dung beetle diversity correlated positively 

with large mammal species richness, and was highest at the 

most isolated site (Kutari), suggesting a possible cascading 

influence of hunting on dung beetles. Small-scale habitat 

disturbance also caused local dung beetle extinctions. The 

dung beetle fauna of the Kwamalasamutu region is very 

rich relative to other lowland forests of Suriname and the 

Guianas, and contains a mix of range restricted endemics, 

Guiana Shield endemics, and Amazonian species. I estimate 

that about 10–15% of the dung beetle species collected here 

are undescribed. While most species were coprophagous, 

26 species were never attracted to dung; 4 of these were 

attracted exclusively to carrion or dead invertebrates and the 

other 22 were only captured in flight intercept traps. The 

abundance of several large-bodied dung beetle species in the 

region is indicative of the intact wilderness that remains. 

These species support healthy ecosystems through seed 

dispersal, parasite regulation and other processes. Maintaining 

continuous primary forest and regulating hunting (such 

as through hunting-restricted reserves) in the region will be 

essential for conserving dung beetle communities and the 

ecological processes they sustain. 


33


Ants 

At least 100 species of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) were 

recorded around the Werehpai caves during the RAP survey. 

While ant data from the RAP survey are still being analyzed, 

a preliminary look at the ant fauna of the area indicates that 

the forests contain a diverse and abundant ant fauna. The 

presence of many dacetine species typical of closed-canopy 

rainforest indicate that the forests are in good condition. The 

ant fauna of Suriname is still very poorly known, with about 

350 species documented, as few locations have been sampled 

for ants. Data on the ant fauna of the Kwamalasamutu area 

are valuable for eco-tourism since ants are easy to find and 

observe in the forest. Biological data for charismatic ant 

species will inform tourists about the hidden fauna of the 

rainforest and their important roles in ecosystem function 

and conservation. Habitat loss, fragmentation and the introduction 

of invasive ant species are the biggest threats to the 

ant fauna of the region. 

Katydids 

Seventy-eight species of katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) 

were recorded during the RAP survey. At least seven 

species are new to science, and 29 species are recorded for 

the first time from Suriname, bringing the number of species 

of katydids known from this country up to 85. Of the 

three main camps, the Kutari site had the lowest number 

of both species (25) and specimens (64) collected, presumably 

because of the heavy rains that still affected the activity 

of katydids at the end of the rainy season, when the survey 

began. Werehpai had the highest number of species (54), followed 

by Sipaliwini (46). This RAP survey confirms that the 

katydid fauna of Suriname is exceptionally rich, yet still very 

poorly known. Although no specific conservation issues have 

been determined to affect the katydid fauna, habitat loss in 

Suriname due to logging and mining activities constitute the 

primary threat to the biota of this country. 

Dragonflies and Damselflies 

Ninety-four species of dragonflies and damselflies were 

recorded during the RAP survey, representing one-third of 

the species known from Suriname. Fifty-seven species were 

found at the Kutari River site, 52 at the Sipaliwini River site, 

and 65 at the Werehpai site. Fourteen species represent new 

records for Suriname, of which four, belonging to the genus 

Argia, are new to science; an additional five species represent 

first records at a new locality since their original descriptions, 

increasing considerably their known extent of occurrence. 

In terms of odonate community composition, the three 

sites shared between 1/2 and 2/3 of the species with each 

other, though relative abundance differed among sites. The 

diversity of odonate genera and species found in this study 

is characteristic of intact tropical lowland forest; most of the 

species found in the forest understory, creeks, and swamps 

would not be present if the forest were disturbed. Therefore 

it is recommended to designate a large and legally protected 

nature preserve to conserve the high diversity of odonate 

species found in this study. If forest cover and stream 

morphology are maintained in the area, the present odonate 

assemblages are expected to persist. 

Fishes 

We recorded 99 species of fishes from 43 sampling localities 

along the Sipaliwini and Kutari Rivers. This diversity 

is high compared to the rest of the world, but is typical 

for the Guiana Shield. We collected eight species of fishes 

potentially new to science, including a large catfish with 

spines along the body and a small catfish that lives in sandbottomed 

creeks. Two species are new records for Suriname. 

We collected 57 species at the Kutari site, 60 species at the 

Sipaliwini site, and 63 species at the Werehpai site. This 

is remarkably consistent, with no significant difference in 

diversity among camps. However, we did not necessarily 

find the same species at each camp. Creek assemblages were 

similar among the three sites. Many young fishes were found 

in flooded forests, even if the adults lived in rivers or other 

habitats. Overall, large top-level predators were uncommon. 

The region is exhibiting the first stages of overfishing. Many 

fishes still occur in the Sipaliwini area, but there is a need to 

assess fishing pressure and implement management plans. 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

The RAP team found 42 species of amphibians and 36 species 

of reptiles, including a frog in the genus Hypsiboas that is 

new to science. The amphibian community was most similar 

to those of forests on bauxite plateaus in central Suriname. 

Several rare species were collected during the survey: Osteocephalus 

cabrerai is a rare tree frog from the western Amazon 

Basin and French Guiana and is reported from Suriname 

for the first time. Scinax proboscideus is a tree frog previously 

known from only two localities in the interior of Suriname 

and a few localities in French Guiana. Microcaecilia taylori 

was described, based on three specimens, from forest islands 

in the Sipaliwini savanna; the specimen collected by us is 

the fourth specimen known to science, and shows that this 

species is not restricted to the Sipaliwini savanna area. The 

snake Xenodon werneri is quite rare, and our record constitutes 

the third specimen for Suriname. The amphisbaenian 

Amphisbaena slevini was collected in Suriname for the first 

time. We also encountered Chelonoides denticulata (Yellowfooted 

Tortoise), listed as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List. 

We discovered that certain expected species that are quite 

common in other areas in Suriname were either not found 

or found in very moderate numbers on the RAP survey. On 

the other hand, we found certain generally rare species to be 

quite common. 

Birds 

The RAP team recorded 327 species of birds: 294 species 

from the three RAP sites, 12 species observed in the area 

during the reconnaissance trip (3–8 May 2010) but not 

during the RAP survey, and 21 species observed only in the 

vicinity of Kwamalasamutu itself. The avifauna was typical 



of lowland forests of the Guiana Shield, and included many 

species endemic to the region. Our observations represent 

the first published records for Suriname of Crypturellus brevirostris 

(Rusty Tinamou), Dromococcyx pavoninus (Pavonine 

Cuckoo), Xiphocolaptes promeropirhynchus (Strong-billed 

Woodcreeper), and Ramphotrigon megacephalum (Largeheaded 

Flatbill). The overall species list was highest for 

the Sipaliwini camp (250 species), followed by Werehpai 

(221 species) and Kutari (216 species). 153 species, or 

approximately 52% of those encountered at the three sites, 

were observed at all sites. The Kutari site had the most 

distinctive avifauna of the three sites. We estimate that a 

minimum of 350 bird species, or roughly half of the number 

of species known to occur in Suriname, may be found in 

the Kwamalasamutu area. Although no species listed on the 

IUCN Red List were encountered during the RAP survey, at 

least one (Harpia harpyja, Harpy Eagle, Near-Threatened) is 

known to occur in the area. Maintenance of large tracts of 

intact forest is recommended to preserve the avian diversity 

of the Kwamalasamutu region. 

Small Mammals 

The RAP team documented 38 species of small mammals 

including 26 species of bats, 10 species of rats, and 

two species of opossums. The species diversity and relative 

abundance of rats and mice at the three survey sites were the 

highest recorded in 20 years of mammal surveys throughout 

Suriname and Guyana by the Royal Ontario Museum. The 

Kutari site had the highest capture rate of rats and mice, 

indicating a healthy source of prey species for predators 

such as cats, owls, and snakes. In contrast, Werehpai was the 

most successful site for bats, but this was attributable to the 

well-established trails at the site, which functioned as flyways 

that were more conducive to capture success compared to 

the other sites, where rudimentary trails were only recently 

cut. This indicates that bats are relatively tolerant to minor 

alternations to their habitat. Noteworthy records include two 

species endemic to the Guiana Shield, a water rat (Neusticomys 

oyapocki) and a brush-tailed rat (Isothrix sinammariensis), 

collected at Kutari that represent the first occurrences of 

these species in Suriname. The primary conservation recommendations 

arising from the small mammal survey of the 

Kwamalasamutu region are: 1) designation of the Kutari 

area as a nature reserve because of the high species diversity 

and relative abundance of rats and mice that are necessary 

to sustain healthy populations of top-level predators; and 

2) minimal development of the Werehpai petroglyph site to 

ensure continued ecosystem services of the bat fauna including 

seed dispersal, flower pollination, and insect control. 

Large Mammals 

Twenty-nine species of medium- and large-bodied mammals 

were recorded through visual encounters and camera trapping. 

Large caviomorph rodents were the most frequently 

recorded animals in the camera trap images. The Kutari site 

was the richest in species, especially primates. The Brazilian 

Tapir (Tapirus terrestris, IUCN Vulnerable) was recorded 

by the camera traps at all three sites and was observed by 

several of the RAP scientists. Of the six species of cats known 

to occur in the Guiana Shield region, the Jaguar (Panthera 

onca, IUCN Near-Threatened), Puma (Puma concolor) and 

Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) were found during the survey. 

The White-lipped Peccary (Tayassu pecari, IUCN Near- 

Threatened) was only photographed once by the camera 

traps in the Werehpai area and seems to be uncommon 

in the Kwamalasamutu region. In addition to the species 

mentioned above, four additional species listed on the 

IUCN Red List were encountered: Ateles paniscus (Guianan 

Spider Monkey, Vulnerable); Myrmecophaga tridactyla (Giant 

Anteater, Vulnerable); Priodontes maximus (Giant Armadillo, 

Vulnerable); and Pteronura brasiliensis (Giant Otter, Endangered). 

The number of mammal species found during this 

survey does not differ much from what was expected. The 

difference in number of species per site suggests that hunting 

pressure varies from one area to another. Our observations of 

many shy and sensitive mammal species indicate that hunting 

has not yet depleted game populations in the region. 

Nevertheless, hunting from Kwamalasamutu represents the 

most significant current threat to medium- and large-bodied 

mammals in the area. Recommended studies include more 

camera trapping and a sustainability evaluation of wild meat 

hunting. 

Summary of Conservation Recommendations 

Conservation Action 

Establish protected areas to maintain the intact ecological condition 

of the area’s forests and rivers. Monitor and prevent illegal 

mining activity in the Kwamalasamutu region. 

The results of the RAP survey indicate that the Kwamalasamutu 

region is in near-pristine ecological condition. The 

area supports high species diversity, including many species 

found only in extensive regions of undisturbed forest. We 

found no evidence of substantial anthropogenic impacts on 

water quality or forest structure away from the village itself. 

As the forested landscape of this area extends unbroken far 

beyond the borders of Suriname, the Kwamalasamutu region 

represents the nucleus of a vast biological treasure of global 

significance. Although not immediately threatened, effective 

conservation in the region will require active and continuous 

assessment of potential threats and international cooperation 

to adequately manage the region’s resources. 

We attribute much of the region’s high species diversity 

to small-scale habitat heterogeneity and intact connections 

between habitats used by animals in different stages of their 

life cycles. Even within primary terra firme forest, most 

taxonomic groups showed surprisingly high species turnover 

between sites. This mosaic of diversity is typical of large, 

undisturbed regions of tropical forest, and can be impacted 

profoundly by human modification of the landscape. At a 

large spatial scale, road construction and resource extraction 


35


(e.g., logging, mining) should be carefully controlled to 

avoid disrupting processes vital to maintenance of ecosystem 

integrity. At a smaller scale, guidelines should be developed 

for establishing protected areas that consider fine-scale environmental 

heterogeneity as well as the seasonal movement 

of animals among different habitats, particularly aquatic and 

terrestrial habitats. 

Of particular concern is the continuing encroachment of 

small-scale gold miners in the region, which can be expected 

to accelerate with the construction of highways currently 

planned for interior Suriname and adjacent northern Brazil. 

The clean and abundant water flowing from the upper 

Corantijn watershed is an extremely valuable asset, both for 

the people who depend directly on the rivers for sustenance 

and for the people of coastal Suriname. Pollution of rivers 

by small-scale miners, a persistent problem elsewhere 

in the Guianas, has the potential to cause major ecological 

and social upheaval in the Kwamalasamutu area if miners 

gain access to the region. Already there are concerns among 

residents of Kwamalasamutu about gold mining activities 

in the upper reaches of the Aramatau River, and our data 

suggest that mercury pollution may already be affecting the 

region’s watercourses (see Chapter 1, Water Quality). Aside 

from mercury contamination, any increase in mining activity 

would contribute to erosion and sedimentation, negatively 

impacting fish stocks upon which the people of the region 

depend. In addition, gold miners often hunt intensively and 

can severely deplete populations of terrestrial mammals that 

indigenous people, as well as healthy ecosystems, depend 

upon (see below). 

Environmental Protection and Sustainable Harvesting 

Develop and implement a plan to manage bush meat hunting and 

fishing in the Kwamalasamutu region. 

Effective conservation in the Kwamalasamutu region will 

require active management of wildlife and their habitats 

to protect them from overexploitation. This is particularly 

important if the community desires to pursue ecotourism 

as a source of revenue (see below). Already there are signs 

that wildlife has been impacted, especially near the village. 

Our strongest evidence for this is the observation that large, 

predatory fishes, many of which are prized for food (e.g., 

Hoplias aimara, Cichla ocellaris), were generally scarce even at 

the most remote camp, and virtually absent in the vicinity of 

Kwamalasamutu. Although the camera traps and dung beetle 

surveys respectively provided direct and indirect evidence 

for a rich mammal fauna, the general scarcity and shyness of 

wildlife (particularly monkeys, peccaries, and curassows) at 

all sites was suggestive of hunting pressure. High mammal 

and dung beetle diversity at the most isolated site (Kutari) 

also suggests that hunting closer to the village is impacting 

local ecosystems. Populations of game animals in the 

region are probably sustained by dispersal through the vast 

and largely uninhabited forest matrix that surrounds the 

Kwamalasamutu region, where we presume wildlife is more 

abundant. However, this does not justify local depletion of 

wildlife, as many game animals and fishes play important 

roles as predators and seed dispersers in the ecosystem, and 

as such are vitally important for forest dynamics. 

We suggest that a thorough assessment of bush meat hunting 

and fishing pressure be undertaken to promote establishment 

of, and adherence to, hunting and fishing quotas 

or seasons for particular species. Ideally, this would incorporate 

information on the ecology and reproductive habits 

of target species, already well known to many residents of 

the region. Alternatively, certain areas could be designated 

as non-hunting zones for at least a portion of each year, 

following the model of the Iwana Samu sanctuary set up by 

the people of Kwamalasamutu. However, the effectiveness of 

these protected areas depends on diligent local enforcement 

of activities within them. By either of these mechanisms, the 

regulation of bush meat hunting would benefit the residents 

of Kwamalasamutu by allowing wildlife populations to 

replenish themselves, thereby lessening the need for expensive 

hunting excursions far from the village. Chickens and 

other domestic animals also provide a good alternative protein 

source, and should be further encouraged in the village. 

Ecotourism: Promotion & Implementation 

Continue developing and upgrading the Iwana Samu ecotourism 

facilities, focusing on the region’s cultural history. 

Ecotourism has great potential to provide the village of 

Kwamalasamutu with much-needed income. To this end, the 

community should enhance the existing facilities at Iwana 

Samu and work to highlight the uniqueness of the area, 

manifested in the petroglyphs at Werehpai and elsewhere. 

Protection of wildlife (see above) would also help increase 

the area’s appeal to tourists, many of whom will require 

some incentive to choose to visit Kwamalasamutu in lieu of 

less expensive destinations closer to Paramaribo. Protection 

of fish stocks could allow the development of sport fishing 

tourism. Adventure tourism (e.g. trekking) could also be 

promoted by taking advantage of the existing network of 

trails used by residents of the region to move between settlements. 

Effective advertisement and promotion of the site 

and facilities to tourists in the Netherlands, United States 

and other countries will also be key to the success of ecotourism 

here. 

The data from this RAP survey are being incorporated 

into an educational/tourism booklet about the biodiversity 

of the Kwamalasamutu region that can be used by the people 

of Kwamalasamutu in their eco-tourism efforts. Charismatic 

species of birds, mammals, amphibians, dragonflies and 

other taxa — even ants! — have been identified and will be 

promoted as key attractions for tourists. 



Scientific Capacity Building 

Develop research facilities to promote the exchange of information 

between residents of Kwamalasamutu and scientists from 

Suriname and abroad. Develop and implement a water quality 

monitoring protocol. 

The Kwamalasamutu community would benefit from 

the development of facilities for Surinamese and foreign 

researchers. The region supports a high diversity of aquatic 

and terrestrial habitats and is relatively free of large-scale 

anthropogenic degradation, rendering it highly suitable for 

ecological research. We consider the area to be particularly 

promising for research on the ecological role of humans 

in tropical lowland forest, given the region’s long history 

of occupation by the Trio. To this end, researchers could 

employ and train residents of Kwamalasamutu in a mutually 

beneficial relationship, whereby researchers gain valuable 

field assistance and indigenous knowledge in exchange for 

site-specific recommendations for management of natural 

resources to promote long-term social and environmental 

stability. In particular, we recommend that residents of 

Kwamalasamutu be trained to implement a water quality 

monitoring program to empower them to detect and act 

upon the first signs of degradation of this vital resource. 

Residents could also be monitoring and recording wildlife 

observations and bushmeat and fish consumption patterns in 

order to gain better understanding of the long-term dynamics 

and sustainability of hunting and fishing. 

One of the greatest potential threats to the region is the 

erosion of traditional knowledge among young people. We 

recommend creating educational materials — for example, 

picture guides to common species of birds, fishes, and 

mammals — to be translated into Trio and used in area 

schools. These guides could also be used by tourists visiting 

the region. 

Further Studies 

Conduct additional biodiversity surveys at different times of the 

year. 

Although we found a high diversity of species in the Kwamalasamutu 

region, our survey was only the first step toward 

a thorough knowledge of the region’s biodiversity. Beyond 

documenting species new to science, biodiversity surveys 

provide critical baseline information about the distribution, 

ecology, and habitat requirements of tropical organisms. 

Many tropical plants and animals are poorly known from a 

scientific perspective; this is particularly true for the species 

new to science that we encountered on this survey. We 

therefore recommend additional surveys, focusing on undersampled 

habitats (e.g. inselbergs), different seasons, and 

other sites within the region, to gain a better understanding 

of the biodiversity of the Kwamalasamutu region and southwest 

Suriname in general. We suspect that many undescribed 

species remain to be discovered. 

References 

Alonso, L.E. and J.H. Mol (eds.). 2007. A rapid biological 

assessment of the Lely and Nassau plateaus, Suriname 

(with additional information on the Brownsberg 

Plateau). RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment 43. 

Conservation International, Arlington, VA, USA. 

Alonso, L.E., J. McCullough, P. Naskrecki, E. Alexander, 

and H.E. Wright (eds.). 2008. A rapid biological assessment 

of the Konashen Community Conservation Area, 

Southern Guyana. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment 

51. Conservation International, Arlington, VA, 

USA. 

Alonso, L.E. and H.J. Berrenstein (eds.). 2006. A rapid 

biological assessment of the aquatic ecosystems of the 

Coppename River Basin, Suriname. RAP Bulletin of 

Biological Assessment 39. Conservation International, 

Washington, DC. 

Bernard, E. (ed.). 2008. Inventários Biológicos Rápidos 

no Parque Nacional Montanhas do Tumucumaque, 

Amapá, Brasil. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment 

48. Conservation International, Arlington, VA, USA. 

Hammond, D. S., ed. 2005. Tropical Forests of the Guiana 

Shield: Ancient Forests in a Modern World. Oxfordshire, 

UK: CABI International. 

Hollowell, T., and R. P. Reynolds. 2005. Checklist of the terrestrial 

vertebrates of the Guiana Shield. Bulletin of the 

Biological Society of Washington 13. 

Huber, O., and M. N. Foster. 2003. Conservation Priorities 

for the Guayana Shield: 2002 Consensus. Washington, 

DC: Conservation International. 

IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 

2011.1. www.iucnredlist.org. 

Sandoval, A.E. 2005. Preliminary report on ancient human 

occupations at Werehpai, Southern Suriname. Report to 

Conservation International-Suriname. 

Teunissen, P., and D. Noordam. 2003. Ethno-ecological 

survey of the lands inhabited/used by the Trio people 

of Suriname, Part 1: Ecological survey. Arlington, VA: 

Amazon Conservation Team. 

Vari, R.P., C.J. Ferraris, Jr., A. Radosavljevic, and V.A. Funk. 

2009. Checklist of freshwater fishes of the Guiana 

Shield. Bulletin of the Biological Society of Washington 17. 


37

Chapter 1 

A baseline water quality assessment of 

the Kutari and Sipaliwini Rivers 

Gwendolyn Landburg and 

Mercedes Hardjoprajitno 

Summary 

We sampled water quality at 23 sites on the Kutari, Sipaliwini, and Aramatau Rivers. The oxygen 

content and pH of the Kutari River were lower than those of the Sipaliwini River, probably 

due to the lack of rapids and the input of organic material from the surrounding forest, 

particularly after heavy rains, which occurred frequently at the Kutari site. All sites had clear 

water except the Wioemi Creek, which was very turbid. The parameters measured in the field 

revealed undisturbed river ecosystems with few negative human impacts. However, high mercury 

levels were found in both sediment and piscivorous fishes from all sites. Further research 

is needed to clarify the origin of mercury in the rivers of southwest Suriname. Suggestions are 

given for a water quality monitoring program that can be implemented by the residents of 

Kwamalasamutu. 

Introduction 

Water is important for all living creatures. The type and quality of water determines which 

organisms will be found in certain habitats. Assessment of water quality is needed to identify 

species-habitat relationships and possible sources of pollution or disturbance within the ecosystem. 

For this reason, it is necessary to gather baseline data on basic environmental parameters 

(pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, turbidity) as well as levels of nutrients (as indicators 

of nutrient cycling in the surrounding ecosystem) and metals (as indicators of pollution or 

erosion from underlying bedrock). 

Human disturbance was not expected in the area assessed by the Kwamalasamutu RAP 

survey, but previous studies have discovered mercury pollution in otherwise pristine areas of 

Suriname. It has been hypothesized that mercury might be transported by the northeast trade 

winds from gold mining sites in eastern Suriname to the southwestern region of the country 

(Landburg 2005, P.E. Ouboter unpubl. data), or, alternatively, that mountain ranges in 

central Suriname serve as a barrier, resulting in mercury deposition on the windward side of 

the mountain ranges and no deposition on the leeward side. A primary goal of this study was 

to provide baseline information on mercury levels in southwest Suriname to further evaluate 

these hypotheses. 

Study Sites and Methods 

Twenty-three sites were sampled intensively in three major areas: the Kutari River, and two 

areas of the Sipaliwini River (Fig. 1). The Kutari River can be characterized as a clear water 

river without major rapids at the time of sampling. The river extends into the forest when the 

water level increases, resulting in major floodplains in the area. Big creeks flowing into the 

Kutari River have steep banks and smaller floodplains. The two sampled areas of the Sipaliwini 


A baseline water quality assessment of the Kutari and Sipaliwini Rivers 

Figure 1. Sites sampled in the Kutari River and two areas of the Sipaliwini 

River. 

River share many characteristics including steep riverbanks, 

clear water, and much turbulence in the water, caused by the 

many rapids in the river. The Wioemi Creek is a large creek 

with especially turbid water, fairly steep banks, a strong 

current, and moderately extensive floodplains. Other creeks 

flowing into the Sipaliwini River are clear water streams, 

with steep banks and weak currents. We also sampled one 

site near the mouth of the Aramatau River, which was similar 

to the Kutari River but had steeper banks. 

We measured 13 physico-chemical parameters at each site: 

pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, temperature, alkalinity, 

total hardness, total phosphate, nitrate, chloride, tannin & 

lignin, ammonia, turbidity, and secci depth (Appendix A). 

Both titrimetric and colorimetric methods were used to 

assess the parameters. At selected sites, water samples were 

saved for later analysis of mercury, iron, and aluminum at 

the University of Suriname in Paramaribo (Appendix B). 

For mercury analyses, sediment and fish tissue samples were 

taken opportunistically. All stored samples were kept under 

refrigeration in the field. 

Results 

Summary data on baseline parameters for each site are presented 

in Appendix A. Measurements of nutrients, salts, and 

metals from each site are presented in Appendix B. 

Kutari and Aramatau Rivers. The oxygen content in the 

Kutari River and tributary creeks was lower than the other 

sites (4.2–5.4 mg/L), probably a result of the lack of rapids 

and the input of organic material from the land. The pH 

was lower at these sites as well (range 5.6–5.9). Nutrient 

input comes mainly from the land, as evidenced by the 

higher nutrient levels measured in the water after heavy rain 

(phosphate: 0.03–0.1 mg/L; ammonia: 0.26–0.72 mg/L). 

High levels of mercury were found in both sediment 

(0.26–0.28 µg/g) and piscivorous fishes (0.05–0.98 µg /g). 

These levels are higher than the Canadian Interim Sediment 

Quality Guideline for Protection of Aquatic Life of 0.17µg/g 

soil, and the European Union standard for human consumption 

of 0.5 µg/g fish (Canadian Council of Ministers of the 

Environment 1999; EC 2002). 

From the one site sampled in the Aramatau River, low 

levels of nutrients were measured (phosphate 0.04 mg/L; 

nitrate: 0.00 mg/L) except for ammonia (average: 

0.43 mg/L). The water at this site was found to be very soft 

(hardness: 0.35 mg/L). High mercury levels were found in 

the sediment (average: 0.19 µg/g). 

Sipaliwini River. At the sites in the Sipaliwini river and 

tributary creeks, high nutrient levels were measured (phosphate: 

0.045–0.145 mg/L; ammonia: 0.51 mg/L average). 

We also found high levels of iron (0.98–1.29 mg/L). Mercury 

levels were low in water (0.03–0.07 µg/L) compared to 

the EPA drinking water standard of 2 µg/L (US EPA 1994), 

whereas sediment and fish contained higher mercury levels 

(sediment: 0.12–0.19 µg/g; fish: 0.28–1.17 µg/g). 

Wioemi Creek. The strong current and consequent erosion 

of the steep banks at the time of sampling probably contributed 

to high turbidity (average turbidity: 22.08 NTU) 

and nutrient loads (average nitrate: 0.013 mg/L; average 

phosphorus: 0.105 mg/L; average ammonium: 0.85 mg/L), 

as well as high levels of aluminum (0.89–1.12 mg/L) and 

iron (1.56–1.73 mg/L). Mercury levels in the water were low 

(0.00–0.03 µg/L), while mercury levels in sediment were 

high (0.18–0.25 µg/g). 

Discussion and Conclusions 

In general, our data revealed river ecosystems with relatively 

clear water (except Wioemi Creek), high nutrient loads from 

the surrounding flooded forests, and high levels of metals. 

High levels of iron and aluminum are usually attributed to 

natural erosion of the bedrock or anthropogenic activities. 

Because the area sampled is largely free of large-scale anthropogenic 

disturbance, the levels of these metals are probably a 

natural consequence of eroded bedrock material entering the 

aquatic system. 

The high mercury levels found in the ecosystem suggest 

that small-scale gold mining in eastern Suriname is affecting 

this area. We know of no gold mining activities in the Kwamalasamutu 

region, though some residents of Kwamalasamutu 

expressed concern about gold mining upstream of the 

Aramatau River. This needs further investigation. The high 

mercury levels measured in the other rivers indicate that 

mercury is probably transported through the atmosphere 

and is being deposited in these systems. Further research is 

needed to confirm this. Deposition of mercury in these areas 

may result in accumulation of mercury in the food chain, 

causing health concerns for residents of Kwamalasamutu. 


39

Chapter 1 

Recommendations 

Because the assessed area is very important for the residents 

of Kwamalasamutu, it is essential to measure some water 

quality parameters (as indicators) regularly. Parameters 

selected need to indicate pollution sources and the safety 

of drinking water. The monitoring may start with regular 

measurements of pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, temperature, 

turbidity and/or secci depth, and bacteria (Escherichia 

coli). These measurements should be done every three 

months. More extensive sampling should be done twice per 

year — once in the dry season (September–November) and 

once in the wet season (May–August) — and should include 

assessments of mercury in river sediments and fishes. 

References 

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 1999. 

Canadian sediment quality guidelines for the protection 

of aquatic life: Mercury. In: Canadian Environmental 

Quality Guidelines, 1999, Canadian Council of Ministers 

of the Environment, Winnipeg. 

EC. 2002. EC Regulation (221/2002) amending Commission 

Regulation (EC) no. 466/2001 of 8 March 2001 

setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in 

foodstuffs. 

Landburg, G. 2005. Kwikvervuiling in midden en west Suriname; 

natuurlijk of antropogeen (Mercury pollution in 

central and west Suriname; Natural or anthropogenic). 

B.Sc. Thesis, Anton de Kom University of Suriname. 

US EPA. 1994. Water Quality Standards Handbook. Second 

Ed. USEPA Water Resource Center. United States 

Environmental Protection Agency EPA-823-B-94–005. 

EPA, Washington, DC. 


A baseline water quality assessment of the Kutari and Sipaliwini Rivers 

Appendix A. Water Quality Data – Basic Parameters. Legend: Cond = conductivity; DO = dissolved oxygen; Secci = maximum depth at which markings on 

Secci disc could be read. 

Location 

Location name 

01-01 Big creek downstream 

Koetari river 

01-02 Koetari river 

downstream camp 1a 

01-03 Creek downstream 

camp 1 

01-04 Creek upstream 

camp 1 


upstream camp 1 


downstream camp 1 

01-07 Aramatau river 

downstream 

02-01 Sipaliwini river 

Upstream camp 2 


camp 2 






camp 2 (a) 


camp 2 (b) 



02-08 creek downstream 

camp 2 


upstream camp 3 (a) 

03-02 Sipaliwini riverupstream 

camp 3 


camp 3 



03-05 Creek Wioemi 

midstream 


upstream 


downstream (a) 


downstream (b) 

Cond 

(µS/cm) 

pH 

DO 

(mg/L) 

DO 

(%) 

Alkalinity 

(mg/L CaCO 3 

) 

Hardness 

(mg/L CaCO 3 

) 

Tannin 

Lignin 

(mg/L) 

Turbidity 

(NTU) 

Secci (cm) 

14.4 6.415 6.25 7.25 1.3 13.25 current too strong 

11.4 5.625 5.15 4.85 1.1 9.425 current too strong 

10.6 5.785 4.5 3.4 2.85 1 10.01 56.75 

11.2 5.805 4.2 6.45 2.35 1.05 6.835 83.75 

11.4 5.725 5.2 5.6 1.25 1.05 7.39 current too strong 

11.9 5.87 5.4 5.5 1.3 1.15 8.82 current too strong 

12.2 6.23 6.5 5.7 0.35 1.05 4.615 1.2 

20.6 6.775 7.1 90 8.1 1.95 1.05 0.535 0.535 

16.9 6.58 6.85 84.5 7.35 1.85 0.65 1.055 110 

21 6.655 7.2 92 9.3 2 1.15 4.275 current too strong 

21.3 6.545 7.7 98.5 8.9 2.6 0.95 1.15 current too strong 

15.45 5.725 6.3 76 7.05 1.65 1 3.75 77.5 

18.2 6.175 6.75 82.5 8.35 2.4 1.4 0.01 0.01 

21.4 7.1 91 8.55 2.35 0.85 4.99 current too strong 

20 6.6 82 9.75 2.25 0.85 0 90 

21.4 6.905 7.1 90 8.9 2.8 0.85 5.21 current too strong 

22.2 6.42 6.85 87 8.45 2.65 1.25 5.79 66.25 

20 6.31 6.6 80 8.85 4.6 1.3 6.695 66.25 

21.8 6.79 6.7 85 10.4 3.4 0.95 10.9 current too strong 

21.7 5.695 2.7 33 8.75 2.25 0.85 8.855 67.5 

22.9 6.29 6.35 78.5 10.65 2.4 1.1 20.55 40 

22.7 6.2 5.9 73 10.4 2.45 1.15 23.6 45 

16.5 5.76 5.6 72 9.55 2.2 0.85 97.5 


41

Chapter 1 

Appendix B. Water Quality Data – Nutrients, Salts and Metals. 

Location 

Location name 

01-01 Big creek downstream 

Koetari river 




camp 1 


camp 1 





01-07 Aramatau river 

downstream 


Upstream camp 2 


camp 2 






camp 2 (a) 


camp 2 (b) 



02-08 creek downstream 

camp 2 


upstream camp 3 (a) 

03-02 Sipaliwini riverupstream 

camp 3 


camp 3 




midstream 


upstream 


downstream (a) 


downstream (b) 

PO 4 

(mg/L) 

NO 3 

(mg/L) 

Ammonia 

(mg/L) 

Chloride 

(mg/L) 

Aluminium 

(mg/L) 

Iron 

(mg/L) 

Hg in 

water 

(mg/L) 

0.1 0.01 1 2.5 0.37 0.03 

Hg in 

sediment 

(µg/g) 

0.045 0.035 0.72 2.85 1.17 0.03 0.28 

0.06 0.045 0.415 3.7 

0.015 0.02 0.26 4.8 

Hg in fish (µg/g) 

Average per site 

0.03 0.01 0.315 4.6 1.09 0.02 0.26 0.58 

0.075 0.005 0.7 3.65 0.03 

0.04 0 0.425 4.65 

0.19 

0.48 0.03 

0.125 0.01 0.535 6 1.17 0.05 0.15 

0.085 0.01 1.055 8.5 0.71 1.02 0.03 0.14 0.80 

0.08 0.01 0.585 6.55 0.54 

0.065 0.025 1.15 7.85 0.51 1.24 0.07 0.16 0.76 

0.045 0 0.395 7.6 0.57 0.98 0.06 0.23 

0.08 0.01 0.375 7.9 0.26 

0.11 0.02 0.21 7.8 0.12 

0.065 0 0.765 6.55 0.59 0.99 0.03 

0.09 0.01 0.27 8.2 0.07 

0.12 0.015 0.755 9.65 0.07 

0.055 0.01 0.285 7.45 0.90 1.28 0.06 0.27 0.42 

0.145 0.005 0.705 8.35 0.79 1.29 0.08 0.15 

0.08 0 0.45 7.6 0.89 1.15 0.03 0.26 

0.145 0 1.04 7.3 1.02 1.56 0.24 

0.065 0.025 0.66 8.8 1.12 1.73 0.02 0.22 

0.065 0.015 0.535 6.95 0.73 1.20 0.00 0.22 


Chapter 2 

Plant diversity and composition of 

the forests in the surroundings of 

Kwamalasamutu 

Olaf Bánki and Chequita Bhikhi 

Summary 

During a rapid assessment of the plant diversity and composition of the forests in the surroundings 

of Kwamalasamutu we made 401 plant collections belonging to 62 families, 

132 genera, and approximately 240 species. These collections were made in the nine vegetation 

types we distinguished. We found eight species previously unrecorded in Suriname, of 

which six were tree species, and two were herbaceous species. We also found a substantial 

number of rare plant species for Suriname, including six tree species listed on the IUCN Red 

List and three tree species protected under Surinamese law. The forests in the surroundings of 

Kwamalasamutu are heterogeneous, and different forest types can be found in close proximity 

to one another. The forests at the three sampling sites each had a distinct species composition. 

The forests along the Kutari River had one of the highest tree alpha diversity values 

ever recorded for Suriname. At the same time, the forests at Werehpai had relatively low tree 

alpha diversity values. Comparison of our results with data from forests in northern Suriname 

showed that forests in the Kwamalasamutu surroundings have to some extent a distinct species 

composition. Based on these results we argue that the forests in the surroundings of Kwamalasamutu 

have a high natural value, one that warrants appropriate conservation measures. 

Introduction 

Most of our knowledge of the diversity and species composition of different forest types is 

based on studies from the northern regions of Suriname, whereas the forests in the southern 

regions of Suriname (as well as Guyana and French Guiana) are relatively unexplored. We 

know very little about the diversity and species composition of these forests. This lack of 

knowledge of plant diversity and composition hampers the assessment of the natural value of 

forests in southern Suriname. This knowledge is very much needed for sound decision-making 

concerning the sustainable management of the forest in Suriname. 

Very often the tropical lowland forests of the central and southern regions of the Guianas 

are considered as one uniform forest type. However, an analysis of 156 1-ha plots across the 

Guianas has demonstrated that tree diversity and composition of forests mostly follow geological 

formations (Bánki 2010). The northern regions of Suriname are mostly made up of new 

and old coastal plains with their specific vegetation and plant species composition (Lindeman 

and Moolenaar 1959). The Zanderij or Coesewijne formation, with its white and brown 

sands, separates the northern regions from the Guiana Shield basement complex that extends 

over the central and southern parts of Suriname. This change in geological formation is also 

(partly) reflected in a change in species composition and diversity, especially concerning the 

white sands (Bánki 2010). Extrapolations suggest that tree alpha diversity could be higher in 

southern Suriname compared to the northern regions of Suriname (ter Steege et al. 2006). 

Although results from niche modeling based on herbarium collections do suggest similar patterns, 

the findings also suggest that forests in the Kwamalasamutu region could be less diverse 


43

Chapter 2 

(Haripersaud 2009). We are in need of quantitative data 

on tree diversity and species composition of the forests in 

southern Suriname. 

Our objective during the rapid assessment in the surroundings 

of Kwamalasamutu was to provide baseline data 

on abundance and diversity of trees, and plant species in 

general, by vegetation surveys and plot inventories. These 

data are a first step in determining to what extent the diversity 

and species composition of the forest in the Kwamalasamutu 

surroundings differs from the northern region of 

Suriname. As the RAP sites are close to both Guyana and 

Brasil, we expected to encounter some new plant species for 

Suriname. For comparison we used extensive datasets on 

1-ha plots (Bánki 2010) and 0.1-ha plots (O. Bánki unpublished 

data; C. Bhikhi unpublished data) assembled during 

previous years in the northern region of Suriname. 

Floristic Team 

The floristic team consisted of the following people: 

Dr. Olaf Bánki and Chequita Bhikhi 

General Plant collecting, plot inventories, and species 

identification 

Klassie Etienne Foon 

Tree spotter, plot inventories 

Aritakosé Asheja and Sheinh A Oedeppe 

Local tree spotter, trainee, tree climbers 

Reshma Jankipersad, Jonathang Sapa 

Field assistants and trainee, plot inventories 

Tedde Shikoei, Willem Joeheo, Mopi and Dennis 

Boatmen, field assistants 

Methods 

We sampled at three sites: the Kutari River (Site 1), the 

Sipaliwini River (Site 2), and at Werehpai and Wioemi Creek 

(Site 3). At each site we used the same sampling methods, 

consisting of general vegetation surveys and plot inventories. 

General Vegetation Surveys 

General plant collecting took place along trails in the forest 

and along the rivers, including while traveling between 

camps. All flowering and fruiting plants encountered were 

collected during these surveys, and we recorded the different 

vegetation types found. Plant collections were numbered 

in the number series of Olaf Bánki (using OSB), and were 

pressed and dried in the field above kerosene stoves. At least 

one duplicate was stored in the National Herbarium of 

Suriname. The other duplicates were sent to the National 

Center for Biodiversity Naturalis (NCB), which harbors all 

plant collections of the National Herbarium of the Netherlands. 

Identifications of the dried specimens took place in 

the Guianas collections of the NCB Naturalis. The specimens 

were identified using several plant identification books 

of the Guianas and plant identification keys (e.g., Pulle et 

al. 1932; Jansen-Jacobs 1985; Steyermark et al. 1995). After 

identification, the specimens were compared with herbarium 

specimens for confirmation. Duplicates of some plant families 

were sent to their respective taxonomic group specialist 

within the Flora of the Guianas network. We determined 

new records for Suriname by checking the occurrence of the 

species in the checklist of the Guianas (Funk et al. 2007) and 

the digital database of the Guianas collections of the NCB 

Naturalis, and by consulting the collections of the Missouri 

Botanical Gardens at www.discoverlife.org. 

Plot Inventories 

At each study site we created one 1-ha plot (250 × 40 m) 

in a dominant high forest type on dryland (terra firme) 

and identified all trees above 10 cm dbh (diameter at breast 

height) in the plots. Within each site, we placed one 0.1-ha 

plot several hundred meters from the 1-ha plot, in the same 

high forest type, and identified all tree species above 2.5 cm 

dbh. Palms were included in the assessment, whereas lianas 

were not assessed in these plots due to time constraints. Preliminary 

identification of trees in the plots was made by tree 

spotter Klassie Etienne Foon of SBB, Olaf Bánki, and ACT 

personnel Sheinh A Oedeppe and Aritakosé Asheja. For each 

species encountered for the first time in the plots, we made a 

plant collection. Collections of tree species were processed in 

a similar way as the plant collections of the general surveys. 

In total, six plots were established (Table 1). The Kutari 

plots (Ku1 & Ku2) were established in high mature tropical 

rainforest on loamy sands. Soils were deep and well drained, 

and there were no boulders or traces of hard parent rock in 

the plot. The Sipaliwini plots (Si3 & Si4) were placed on a 

Table 1. Metadata for the plots established at each site during the RAP. N = number of individuals, S = number of species, Fα = Fisher’s alpha. 

Plot Name Ha Dimensions N S Fα Lat Long 

Kutari River Plot 1 1 250 × 40 m 529 140 62.15 240377 524499 

Kutari River Plot 2 0.1 100 × 10 m 142 81 78.3 240461 523639 

Sipaliwini River Plot 3 1 250 × 40 m 443 116 51.14 252395 544182 

Sipaliwini River Plot 4 0.1 100 × 10 m 123 54 36.74 253056 544157 

Werehpai Plot 5 1 250 × 40 m 454 104 42.19 262877 535847 

Werehpai Plot 6 0.1 100 × 10 m 158 46 21.8 262640 535547 


Plant diversity and composition of the forests in the surroundings of Kwamalasamutu 

hill approximately 200–300 meters above sea level. The forest 

was standing on shallow to deep loamy sandy soils on top of 

the hard parent rock of the Guiana Shield basement complex. 

A portion of plot Si3 contained forest transitioning into liana 

forests and low savannah forest due to large boulders and the 

hard parent rock reaching the surface. The Werehpai plots 

(We5 & We6) were placed in mature tropical rain forest on 

sandy soils with large boulders throughout the plots. Soils 

were deep at some points, but predominantly shallow on the 

hilltops because of the hard parent rock underneath. 

Plot Comparison 

To investigate the floristic and diversity differences between 

the forests in northern/central Suriname and the forests in 

the Kwamalasamutu surroundings, we compared the three 

0.1-ha plots with unpublished 0.1-ha plot data from Olaf 

Bánki (6 plots from Gros Rosebel), Chequita Bhikhi (3 plots 

from the van Blommestein Lake, Brokopondo District), and 

Pieter Teunissen (12 plots from Gros Rosebel). We compared 

our data from the three 1-ha plots with data from 28 1-ha 

plots on the brown sands of the Zanderij/Coesewijne formation, 

and from the lowlands, slopes, and plateaus of the 

Brownsberg, the Lely Mountains, and the Nassau Mountains 

(Bánki 2010). 

Plot analyses 

The 1-ha and 0.1-ha plot datasets were analyzed as two separate 

datasets. Differences in floristic composition between 

plots were investigated with the ordination technique of 

Non-Metric Multi-Dimensional Scaling (NMS) with Relative 

Sörenson as the floristic distance measure, 250 real 

and randomized data runs, and 4–6 dimensions (NMS in 

PCORD 5; McCune & Grace 2002; McCune & Mefford 

1999). We also performed a Detrended Correspondence 

Analysis on both the 0.1-ha and the 1-ha plot datasets (DCA 

in PCORD 5, McCune & Grace 2002; McCune & Mefford 

1999). Only the results of the NMS are presented in this 

report. We also ran species indicator analyses on the 0.1-ha 

and 1-ha plot datasets to investigate which species were 

responsible for the division of the plots in several floristic 

groups (in PCORD 5; Dufrene & Legendre 1997; McCune 

& Grace 2002; McCune & Mefford 1999). The tree alpha 

diversity of the plots was expressed as Fisher’s alpha (Fisher 

et al. 1943). Fisher’s alpha is a diversity index describing the 

relation between the number of individuals and species in 

a plot. Differences in the averages of the number of species, 

number of individuals, and in Fisher’s alpha were statistically 

tested through ANOVA (SPSS-Inc. 2007). 

Results 

Vegetation Descriptions 

At the three locations and between the camps, we encountered 

several vegetation types. Based on the vegetation 

descriptions of Lindeman and Moolenaar (1959) and Bánki 

(2010), we distinguished a total of nine different vegetation 

types: 

1. Tall herbaceous swamp vegetation and swamp wood. This 

vegetation type was abundant in the bends of rivers and 

creeks, and was found around all three study sites. The 

herb layer consisted mostly of dense stands of Montrichardia 

arborescens (mokumoku, Araceae) intertwined 

with cyper grasses, grasses, and vines. Most of the shrub 

and tree layer consisted of Inga sp. (watra switibonki, 

Fabaceae). Dense stands of Inga trees occurred in the 

river bends, as well as along the river edges. Solitary 

and clumped palm trees with spiny trunks (Bactris 

sp., Arecaceae), solitary trees of Cordia sp. (tafrabon, 

Boraginaceae) with table-like crowns, and solitary trees 

of Cecropia sp. (bospapaja, Cecropiaceae) occurred in 

swampy areas in the river bends. At Wioemi Creek 

and the Sipaliwini River site, we observed individual 

Triplaris surinamensis (mira udu, Polygonaceae) trees. 

At the Kutari River we observed one Erythrina fusca 

(kofimama, Fabaceae) tree in the swamp wood. This 

vegetation type as well as its species composition shows 

resemblance to the coastal areas in northern Suriname 

(see Lindeman & Moolenaar 1959). 

2. Seasonally flooded forest. We observed seasonally flooded 

forests with quite different species composition. At the 

margins of the black waters of the Wioemi Creek and 

the Kutari River we observed forests dominated by 

Tachigali paniculata (mira udu, Fabaceae), Alexa wachenheimii 

(neku or paku nyannyan, Fabaceae), Eperua 

rubiginosa (oeverwalaba, Fabaceae), and different species 

of Myrtaceae, Sapindaceae, Meliaceae, and Annonaceae. 

Large areas of seasonally inundated forest were found 

along both the Wioemi Creek and the Kutari River. 

Along the Wioemi Creek, the seasonally flooded forest 

was dominated by Astrocaryum sciophilum (bugru maka, 

Arecaceae), Licania sp. (fungu, Chrysobalanaceae), 

Vouacapoua americana (bruinhart, Fabaceae), Terminalia 

amazonia (djindja udu, Combretaceae), Eschweilera 

corrugata (umabarklak, Lecythidaceae), Eperua falcata 

(walaba, Fabaceae), Goupia glabra (Goupiaceae), Ceiba 

pentandra (kankantri, Malvaceae), Elizabetha princeps 

(Fabaceae) and different species of Burseraceae. The 

composition of this seasonally flooded forest seemed to 

resemble to some extent the composition of the high 

tropical rainforest on dryland (terra firme). 

We sampled along the Kutari River downriver from 

our first camp site (towards the Aramatau River) and 

noted the forest at the river margin changed in terms of 

species composition. In addition to the aforementioned 

tree species found along the Wioemi Creek and the 

Kutari River, trees of Virola sp. (babun udu, Myristicaceae), 

Triplaris surinamensis, Ceiba pentandra, and 

palm (Attalea maripa, A. microcarpa) appeared in the 


45

Chapter 2 

forest. We found a similar species composition along the 

Sipaliwini River, despite the higher riverbanks. 

Downstream from the confluence of the Kutari and 

Aramatau Rivers, we found stretches of floodplain forest 

with a swampy character. Astrocaryum sciophilum did 

not occur in this area, suggesting that soils could be wet 

throughout the year. The forest composition was dominated 

by trees of Virola sp., Alexa wachenheimii, and 

Bixa orellana (kusuwe, Bixaceae). Along the Sipaliwini 

River this floodplain forest only occurred where the 

riverbanks were low. 

3. (Seasonally flooded) palm swamp forest. Close to the 

Kutari River camp, we observed patches of Euterpe 

oleracea (pina palm, Arecaceae) swamp forest, with 

occasional Geonoma baculifera (taspalm, Arecaceae). 

This swamp forest was slowly flooded during our stay 

by a nearby overflowing creek. At the hinterland of the 

Sipaliwini River camp, we found a stretch of swamp 

forest with a dense cover of Geonoma baculifera. This 

swamp forest was also close to a creek, and could be 

seasonally inundated. 

4. High tropical lowland rainforest on dryland (terra firme). 

This was one of the most dominant forest types in the 

Kwamalasamutu region, occurring at all RAP survey 

sites. The understory of the high tropical rainforest on 

dryland at the Kutari River (Site 1) was dense and dominated 

by Astrocaryum sciophilum. Soils at the Kutari site 

appeared to contain a higher proportion of loam and 

clay than sand compared to the other RAP sites. Some 

other frequently encountered species were Vouacapoua 

americana, Bocoa viridiflora (ijzerhart, Fabaceae), Bocoa 

marionii, Croton matourensis (tabakabron, Euphorbiaceae), 

Protium and Tetragastris sp. (Burseraceae), Licania 

sp., Eschweilera sp., Sagotia racemosa (zwarte taja udu, 

Euphorbiaceae), Bixa orellana, and several Meliaceae 

and Lauraceae species. 

At Werehpai (Site 3), we encountered many creeks 

along the main trail to the Werehpai caves. The forest 

along this trail was diverse, shifting from secondary forest 

to swampy, low and open vegetation, to high forest 

over short distances. The high tropical rainforest was 

dominated by Astrocaryum sciophilum, Eperua falcata, 

Apeiba petoumo, Alexa imperatricis, Licania sp., Carapa 

guianensis, Eschweilera and Lecythis sp., Protium and 

Tetragastris sp., Inga sp., Guarea grandifolia (Meliaceae), 

and Couratari stellata (ingi pipa, Lecythidaceae). 

5. High Tropical forest on laterite/granite hills. This forest 

type was especially dominant in the higher areas along 

the Sipaliwini River (Site 2), but occurred at Werehpai 

as well (Site 3). Astrocaryum sciophilum was dominant 

where soils were deep and the understory of the forest 

relatively open. Also common here were Alexa imperatricis, 

Vouacapoua americana, Inga sp., Protium and 

Tetragastris sp., Licania sp., Eschweilera and Lecythis 

sp., Carapa guianensis, Bocoa alterna, and Osteophloeum 

platyspermum. On small granite hills with relatively 

shallow soils, we observed Sterculia pruriens (okro udu, 

Malvaceae), Zanthoxylum rhoifolium (pritjari, Rutaceae), 

Lacmellea aculeata (zwarte pritjari, Apocynaceae), 

Hevea guianensis (Euphorbiaceae), Jacaranda copaia 

(gubaja, Bignoniaceae), Eschweilera corrugata, Sloanea 

sp. (rafunyannyan, Elaeocarpaceae), Cupania scrobiculata 

(gawetri, Sapindaceae), Licania ovalifolia (santi udu, 

Chrysobalanaceae), and Geissospermum sericeum (bergi 

bita, Apocynaceae). 

6. Savannah (moss) forest. In the surroundings of the Sipaliwini 

River site, we encountered savannah forest with a 

low canopy dominated by many lianas (e.g. Bignoniaceae) 

in higher areas where boulders and hard parent 

rock were at the surface, causing shallow soils (e.g., in a 

portion of plot Si3). At Werehpai we encountered some 

patches of this forest type along the main trail to the 

petroglyphs. Near the inselberg at Site 2, we found a 

small, narrow stretch of savannah forest with some moss 

coverage and grasses, and a low canopy forest with trees 

of Neea sp. (Nyctaginaceae) and Myrtaceae species. This 

savannah moss forest occurred at the edge of the open 

rock face (see below). 

7. Open rock (inselberg) vegetation. At the hinterland of 

the Sipaliwini River site, we found a small inselberg 

rising up above the forest canopy. The vegetation of this 

inselberg was similar to the vegetation found on the 

Voltzberg in central Suriname. On the rocky outcrop 

itself, we observed Furcraea sp. (Agavaceae), Neea sp. 

(Nyctaginaceae), Cissus verticillata and C. erosa (Vitaceae), 

Cochlospermum orinocense (Cochlospermaceae), 

Clusia sp. (Clusiaceae), Ernestia sp. (Melastomataceae), 

and different species of Orchidaceae, Gesneriaceae, 

Myrtaceae, Poaceae, and Bromeliaceae. 

8. Secondary vegetation. The camp at Werehpai (Site 3) 

was established on an old abandoned farm. The forest 

around this camp was a secondary forest dominated by 

Cecropia sp. and Guadua sp., (bamboo, Poaceae) and 

domesticated plants such as Musa sp. (bacove, Musaceae) 

and big trees of Spondias mombin (mope, Anacardiaceae). 

Along the Sipaliwini River we also observed 

open areas completely covered by vines such as Dioclea 

virgata (Fabaceae). 

9. Bamboo forest. At all three study sites, and especially 

along the Sipaliwini River, patches of bamboo (Guadua 

sp.) occurred in the forest along the river edge. During 

reconnaissance flights, we were able to distinguish several 

square patches of bamboo, suggesting that bamboo 

had colonized areas previously cleared by humans. 

Bamboo was less common along Wioemi Creek. 



Plant collections: new records and noteworthy plant species 

In total we made 401 plant collections (see Appendix) with 

the following geographical distribution: 214 plant collections 

at the Kutari River (Site 1), 99 plant collections at the Sipaliwini 

River (Site 2), and 88 plant collections at Werehpai 

(Site 3). Of these 401 plant collections, 185 specimens were 

fertile; most of these specimens were collected during the 

general plant surveys. The rest of the collections were sterile 

and all originated from the plot inventories. To date, more 

than 90% of all the plant collections have been identified at 

least to family level (62 families), and almost 70% to genus 

(132 genera) and species level. We estimate that we have collected 

almost 240 species in total. A substantial part of the 

sterile collections and a small part of the fertile collections 

still need further identification to species level; therefore, it is 

possible that the total number of species in our sample will 

increase in the near future. 

In the general plant collecting and plot surveys, we 

encountered eight plant species new to Suriname. Bocoa 

marionii (Fabaceae), a tree with unifoliolate leaves and white 

flowers, is a species just recently described based on two collections 

from the upper Essequibo River in Guyana (Aymard 

and Ireland 2010). We collected two fertile collections that 

are the first collections for Suriname and the fourth collections 

for the species as a whole (Ben Torke pers. comm.). 

Another new tree species for Suriname is Bocoa alterna 

(Fabaceae). This species was previously only collected from 

the Guiana Shield region in central Guyana and in Amapá 

(Brasil), but has an Amazonian distribution reaching into 

Peru, Bolivia, and the central and western parts of Brasil. 

Also new for Suriname is the tree species Trichilia surumuensis 

(Meliaceae). This species is thought to be endemic to the 

Roraima area of Guyana and Brasil, where it has been collected. 

For this reason it was placed on the IUCN Red List 

(see below). Cupania macrostylis is a species newly described 

(and still unpublished) by Pedro Acevedo of the Smithsonian 

Institution in the USA. We collected the second record 

of this species for Suriname. Buchenavia parvifolia (Combretaceae) 

is a tree species that was previously known in the 

Guianas from southern Guyana and French Guiana. The 

tree species is new for Suriname, but it has an Amazonian 

distribution in Brasil, Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador. Another 

tree species new for Suriname is Machaerium floribundum 

(Fabaceae). It has a wide geographic distribution in Amazonia 

and Mesoamerica. The sixth new tree species for Suriname 

is Licania granvillei (Chrysobalanaceae), which also has 

an Amazonian distribution. We found two new species of 

herbs for Suriname: Justicia sprucei (Acanthaceae), previously 

known only from French Guiana, and Dichorisandra hexandra 

(Commelinaceae) which is new for Suriname according 

to the checklist of the Guianas (Funk et al. 2007), although 

Missouri Botanical Gardens mentions one collection of this 

species for Suriname (www.discoverlife.org). The geographical 

distribution of this species extends south of Amazonia 

and north into Mesoamerica. 

We encountered several rare or noteworthy species for 

Suriname. We collected the second specimen of the tree 

species Duguetia cauliflora (Annonaceae) for Suriname (Paul 

Maas pers. comm.). We also collected what appears to be 

the second collection for Suriname of the liana Byttneria 

cordifolia (Malvaceae). The first collection for Suriname 

dated from 1926 and was collected by Gerold Stahel along 

the Upper Suriname River. Our specimen is the eighth collection 

for the Guianas in the NCB Naturalis. A collection 

of the tree species Mosannona discolor is the fourth collection 

for Suriname and the tenth collection for this species in general 

(Lars Chatrou pers. comm.). Noteworthy observations 

included an uncommon Myristicaceae tree species (Osteophloeum 

platyspermum) with amber-colored latex in the bark. 

The tree is called lapa lapa by the Trio people of Kwamalasamutu, 

and is quite common along the Sipaliwini River in 

high tropical rainforest on laterite/granite hills. On the banks 

of the Sipaliwini River we also found Herrania kanukuensis 

(Malvaceae), a small tree with a spectacular flower with long 

purple petals on the stem. This species is not common, and 

ours is the first specimen with flowers in the Guianas collection 

of the NCB Naturalis and the National Herbarium 

of Suriname. On the small inselberg close to the Sipaliwini 

camp we collected a tree, Cochlospermum orinocense, that 

is restricted to rocky outcrops and has large showy yellow 

flowers. 

Plant species with a special status 

During our fieldwork we recognized several plant species 

that are protected under Surinamese law, or have a special 

designation on the IUCN Red List or CITES. 

We encountered six tree species listed on the IUCN 

Red List: 

• Aniba rosaeodora Endangered (EN) 

A1d+2d ver 2.3 (1998) 

• Cedrela odorata Vulnerable (VU) 

A1cd+2cd ver 2.3 (1998) 

• Corythophora labriculata Vulnerable (VU) 

D2 ver 2.3 (1998) 

• Minquartia guianensis Lower Risk / Near Threatened 

(LR/nt) ver 2.3 (1998) 

• Trichilia surumuensis Endangered (EN) B1+2c (1998) 

• Vouacapoua americana Critically Endangered (CR) 

A1cd+2cd ver 2.3 (1998) 

We encountered three tree species protected under Surinamese 

law: 

• Aniba rosaeodora (rozenhout) — also on CITES 

Appendix II 

• Dipteryx odorata (tonka) 

• Manilkara bidentata (boletri) 

The taspalm (Geonoma baculifera) does not have protected 

status. However, the leaves of this small palm tree are 

used for roof thatch. In the northern regions of Suriname, 

populations of the taspalm have seriously declined in recent 


47

Chapter 2 

years, potentially causing local extinctions. In the forests of 

the Kwamalasamutu region, this palm species still appears to 

be relatively abundant. 

Plot Inventories 

In all plots combined, we found a total of 1849 individual 

trees belonging to 54 families, 119 genera, and approximately 

250 species. The twenty most common species were: 

Astrocaryum sciophilum (174 individuals), Alexa imperatricis 

(105), Pausandra martinii (82), Vouacapoua americana (74), 

Lecythidaceae sp. (62), Bocoa viridiflora (61), Protium sp. 

(60), Eperua falcata (53), Licania albiflora (42), Balizia 

pedicellaris (39), Carapa guianensis (33), Licania majuscula 

(29), Tetragastris altissima (28), Geissospermum sericeum (26), 

Guarea OSB 1340 (25), Lecythis corrugata (23), Inga OSB 

1338 (22), Chrysophyllum argenteum (20), Iryanthera hostmannii 

(20), and Rheedia benthamiana (17). 

In terms of tree alpha diversity, the Fisher’s alpha values 

were highest in the Kutari River plots (Ku1&2; Table 1). 

The Fisher’s alpha values were lowest in the Werehpai plots 

(We5&6), and intermediate in the Sipaliwini River plots 

(Si3&4). The Kutari River plots could be classified as ‘high 

tropical lowland rainforest on dryland’ (vegetation type 4, 

above); and the Sipaliwini plots as ‘high tropical rainforest 

on laterite/granite hills’ (vegetation type 5, above). The 

Werehpai plots were mixed between these two forest types, 

but most resembled the ‘high tropical rainforest on laterite/ 

granite hills’ forest type. 

We compared the 0.1-ha and 1-ha plots with other datasets 

from Suriname to determine the floristic differences (beta 

diversity) between the forests of the Kwamalasamutu region 

and forests in northern Suriname. The three 0.1-ha plots 

from the Kwamalasamutu area were separated floristically 

from plots in northern Suriname (Fig. 1). At the same time, 

the three 0.1-ha plots from the Kutari River, Sipaliwini River 

and Werehpai were to some extent also floristically separated 

from each other. The same patterns were found in the 1-ha 

plot dataset comparison (Fig. 2). This suggests beta diversity 

is substantial between the plots from the Kwamalasamutu 

area and those from northern Suriname. It also suggests 

that beta diversity among the plots of the three RAP sites is 

substantial. 

We used indicator species analyses to investigate the 

number and identity of the species that were responsible for 

the separation of plots into different floristic groups. Only 

18% of the species in the 0.1-ha plot dataset had a significant 

indicator value, and the number of indicator species 

for the plots in the Kwamalasamutu area was low (ca. 5% of 

all species). Several of the indicator species occurred in low 

numbers in the plots in northern Suriname, or were known 

to have a wide distribution. However, the plots in the Kwamalasamutu 

area contained specific indicator species. Again 

the 1-ha plots showed similar results. In both the 0.1-ha and 

1-ha plot comparisons, the number of individuals, the number 

of species, and the values of Fisher’s alpha did not differ 

significantly between the Kwamalasamutu area and northern 

Suriname. 

Figure 1. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMS) showing the floristic 

differences of the 0.1-ha plots of the Kutari River (Ku2), Sipaliwini River 

(Si4), and Werehpai (We6) with 0.1-ha forest plots in northern Suriname 

(diamond symbols). The first axis represents the most variation in floristic 

differences (52%) separating the 0.1-ha plots of the Kwamalasamutu 

surroundings from all other plots. The second axis represents 25% of the 

floristic variation mostly showing differences among the plots in northern 

Suriname, but also some floristic differences between the 0.1-ha plots of 

the three RAP sites. 

Figure 2. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMS) showing the 

floristic differences of the 1-ha plots of the Kutari River (Ku1), Sipaliwini 

River (Si3), and Werehpai (We5) with 1- ha plots of the forests in 

northern Suriname (diamond symbols). The first axis represents the most 

variation in floristic differences (55%) separating the 1-ha plots of the 

Kwamalasamutu surroundings from all other plots. The second axis 

represents 21% of the floristic variation mostly showing differences among 

the plots in northern Suriname, but also some floristic differences between 

the 1-ha plots of the three RAP sites. 



Discussion 

The forests in the Kwamalasamutu region contradict the 

view that forests in southern Suriname are uniform. Instead, 

it is clear that the landscape is quite heterogeneous, forming 

a mosaic of different forest types over short geographic distances. 

Each of the three sites that we surveyed had a distinct 

species composition. At the same time, the alpha diversity 

of trees in our study plots differed substantially among the 

three sites. The Fisher’s alpha values for the Kutari plots are 

comparable to the highest value calculated in Suriname to 

date (from a plot in the Lely Mountains; Bánki 2010). The 

values of Fisher’s alpha for the Werehpai plots are in the 

range that is typically calculated for savannah forests, which 

are rather low values for tropical forests. And the Fisher’s 

alpha values for the Sipaliwini plots are close to those found 

in plots on brown sands in the northern regions of Suriname 

(Bánki 2010). Although data from six plots are insufficient 

to extrapolate to the region as a whole, they do support 

the view that there are dramatic differences in tree alpha 

diversity over short geographic distances in the forests of the 

Kwamalasamutu region. 

The differences in forest composition and diversity among 

plots from the three sites in the Kwamalasamutu area could 

be partly a result of the soils found in the plots. The forests 

in the Kutari plots stand on deep sandy to loamy soils, 

enabling a high canopy. In this forest type we also found the 

highest number of timber species. Nevertheless, in general, 

forests in the Kwamalasamutu area seem to have a low 

abundance and occurrence of commercial timber species. In 

the Sipaliwini and Werehpai plots, the species composition 

seemed to change instantly when the soils became shallow 

due to the hard parent rock underneath. These shallow soils 

could be relatively nutrient-poor and may have a reduced 

water retention capacity. Canopy height was reduced at those 

places where bedrock was close to the surface. 

Compared to plots in northern Suriname, the plots in 

the Kwamalasamutu area had a distinct species composition, 

to some extent. We found a substantial number of tree 

species and two herbaceous species that were not previously 

recorded for Suriname. The forests in the Kwamalasamutu 

region are likely to resemble forests in southern Guyana; several 

of the new species for Suriname were previously known 

from there, including one species that was thought to be 

endemic to the Roraima area of Guyana and Brasil. Some of 

the other new species for Suriname had a much wider geographic 

distribution across Amazonia and some even beyond, 

to Mesoamerica. Despite the lower tree alpha diversity values 

from plots at the Sipaliwini River and especially at Werehpai, 

the number of new tree species records indicates these forests 

have a high natural value for Suriname. 

The forests of the Kwamalasamutu region differed from 

other forests in Suriname in several ways. The seasonally 

flooded forest was quite extensive, with rivers and creeks 

actually flowing through the forests. Within the meandering 

rivers and creeks, the short swamp vegetation resembled 

coastal swamp vegetation types. Also of interest was the 

extent of semi-xerophytic forest types and open rock vegetation 

on small inselbergs that formed typical features in the 

landscape of the Kwamalasamutu region. Patchy bamboo 

forest was a conspicuous feature of the landscape. These 

forests were more extensive around Kwamalasamutu than 

elsewhere in Suriname. 

Conservation recommendations 

Based on our findings during this rapid assessment in the 

Kwamalasamutu region, we have formulated the following 

conservation recommendations: 

The forests in the surroundings of Kwamalasamutu seem 

to have a high conservation value. This is expressed in the 

forest composition of the plots in the Kwamalasamutu 

surroundings that are to some extent different from forests 

in other plot datasets from northern Suriname. It is 

strengthened by the fact that we found eight species new for 

Suriname and a substantial number of rare species during 

the RAP survey. More field data on plant diversity and forest 

composition from the southern Suriname is very much 

needed to better determine the differences between these 

forests and those of northern Suriname, in terms of biomass 

and other ecosystem services. 

The high conservation value is also demonstrated by the 

fact that the Kutari forest plots had one of the highest tree 

alpha diversity values ever recorded for Suriname. At the 

same time, the forests sampled at Werehpai had relatively 

low alpha diversity values relative to other forests in Suriname 

and the Guianas. Within the whole study area, the 

landscape was quite heterogeneous, with a high turnover of 

different vegetation types over short geographic distances. At 

sites where the landscape is a fine mosaic of different vegetation 

types, as is the case at Werehpai, conservation measures 

such as community managed protected areas are justified 

and should be promoted. 

The majority of the forests in the surroundings of Kwamalasamutu 

are in a natural and healthy state. To ensure 

their continued health into the future, some matters need to 

be addressed in close cooperation with the Kwamalasamutu 

community. In the direct surroundings of Kwamalasamutu, 

the pressure of slash-and-burn agricultural methods is visible, 

especially on those forest types with a high tree alpha 

diversity. In the long run, this form of agriculture may not 

be sufficient to feed the population of Kwamalasamutu. 

At the same time, bamboo forest could spread over the 

area following human-induced disturbance, inhibiting the 

growth of other plant species. We therefore recommend 

that agricultural methods that better incorporate standing 

forests be tested in a community-supported approach in the 

Kwamalasamutu region. 


49

Chapter 2 

References 

Aymard, G.A. & Ireland, H.E. 2010. A new species of Bocoa 

(leguminosae-Swartzieae) from the Upper Essequibo 

region, Guyana. Blumea 55: 18–20. 

Bánki, O.S. 2010. Does neutral theory explain community 

composition in the Guiana Shield forests? Ph.D. dissertation, 

Universiteit Utrecht, Netherlands. 

Dufrene, M. & Legendre, P. 1997. Species assemblages and 

indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical 

approach. Ecological Monographs, 67, 345–366. 

Fisher, R.A., Corbet, A.S., & Williams, C.B. 1943. The relation 

between the number of species and the number of 

individuals in a random sample of an animal population. 

Journal of Animal Ecology, 12, 42–58. 

Funk, V., Hollowell, T., Berry, P., Kellof, C., & Alexander, 

S.N. 2007. Checklist of the Plants of the Guiana Shield 

(Venezuela: Amazonas, Bolivar, Delta Amacuro; Guyana, 

Surinam, French Guiana). Contributions from the 

United States National Herbarium, 55, 584. 

Haripersaud, P.P. 2009. Collecting biodiversity. Ph.D. thesis, 

plant ecology and biodiversity group, institute of environmental 

biology, Utrecht University. 143pp. 

Jansen-Jacobs, M.J. 1985. Flora of the Guianas. Royal 

Botanical Gardens Kew, Koelz Scientific Books. 

Lindeman, J.C., and S.P. Moolenaar. 1959. Preliminary survey 

of the vegetation types of northern Suriname. Van 

Eeden Fonds, Amsterdam. 

McCune, B. & Grace, J.B. 2002. Analysis of Ecological 

Communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, 

Oregon, U.S.A. 

McCune, B. & Mefford, M.J. 1999. PC-ORD. Multivariate 

Analysis of Ecological Data. MjM Software, Gleneden 

Beach, Oregon, U.S.A. 

Pulle et al. 1932. Flora van Suriname. Rijksherbarium 

Utrecht, Van Eedenfonds & Bril Leiden, The 

Netherlands. 

SPSS, Inc. 2007. SPSS 16.0 for windows; release 16.0.1 

(Nov. 15, 2007). 

Steyermark, J.A, Berry, P.E., Yatskievych, K., & Holst, B.K. 

1995. Flora of the Venezuelan Guayana. Missouri 

Botanical Garden, St Louis, Missouri, USA. 

ter Steege, H., Pitman, N.C.A., Phillips, O.L., Chave, J., 

Sabatier, D., Duque, A., Molino, J.-F., Prevost, M.-F., 

Spichiger, R., Castellanos, H., von Hildebrand, P., & 

Vasquez, R. 2006. Continental-scale patterns of canopy 

tree composition and function across Amazonia. Nature, 

443, 444–447. 



Appendix. List of plants collected on the Kwamalasamutu RAP survey. Numbers indicate number of specimens collected from each survey site. 

Family Genus Species Trio Name Kutari Sipaliwini Werehpai 

Acanthaceae Justicia sprucei 1 

Amaranthaceae 1 

Amaranthaceae Cyathula prostrata 1 

Anacardiaceae mapatalu 1 

Anacardiaceae Loxopterygium sagotii 1 

Annonaceae Bocageopsis multiflora lasaj 2 

Annonaceae Duguetia cauliflora ariwera 1 

Annonaceae Duguetia riparia 1 

Annonaceae Duguetia 3 2 

Annonaceae Fusaea longiflora 1 

Annonaceae Mosannona discolor onote 1 1 

Annonaceae Pseudoxandra lucida 1 

Annonaceae Unonopsis glaucopetala 1 

Annonaceae Unonopsis guatterioides 1 

Annonaceae Xylopia 1 

Apocynaceae 1 

Apocynaceae Cynanchum blandum 1 

Apocynaceae Geissospermum sericeum wataki 1 

Apocynaceae Mesechites trifida 2 

Apocynaceae Odontadenia macrantha 2 

Apocynaceae Pacouria guianensis 1 

Apocynaceae Tabernaemontana heterophylla 1 

Apocynaceae Tabernaemontana undulata 1 

Araceae Heteropsis flexuosa 1 

Asteraceae Mikania cordifolia 1 

Asteraceae Mikania guaco 1 

Bignoniaceae 1 

Bignoniaceae Arrabidaea tuberculata 1 

Bignoniaceae Cydista aequinoctialis 1 1 

Bignoniaceae Martinella obovata 1 

Bignoniaceae Memora schomburgkii 1 1 

Bixaceae Bixa orellana Wiseima, Kanawirike 2 

Boraginaceae Tournefortia cuspidata 1 

Burseraceae 1 

Burseraceae Protium 3 

Burseraceae Protium aracouchini srisrituri 1 

Burseraceae Protium heptaphyllum 1 

Burseraceae Protium robustum 1 

Burseraceae Protium trifoliolatum 2 

Burseraceae Tetragastris altissima Arita 3 1 1 

Burseraceae Tetragastris hostmannii Arita 1 

Cecropiaceae Pourouma bicolor alawata puruma 2 

Cecropiaceae Pourouma minor wedinaiennu 1 

table continued on next page 


51

Chapter 2 


Celastraceae 1 

Celastraceae Cheiloclinium cognatum 1 

Chrysobalanaceae Couepia caryophylloides 1 

Chrysobalanaceae Hirtella racemosa merimeri 3 1 

Chrysobalanaceae Licania 3 

Chrysobalanaceae Licania albiflora paripo 1 

Clusiaceae Rheedia benthamiana kaiquiennorepereke 1 

Clusiaceae Tovomita 1 2 

Cochlospermaceae Cochlospermum orinocense 1 

Combretaceae 1 

Combretaceae Buchenavia parvifolia otaima 1 

Combretaceae Combretum 1 

Combretaceae Combretum laxum 2 1 1 

Combretaceae Combretum rotundifolium 1 

Combretaceae Terminalia dichotoma 1 

Commelinaceae Dichorisandra hexandra Lue 2 

Convolvulaceae Evolvulus alsinoides 1 

Convolvulaceae Ipomoea batatoides 1 1 

Convolvulaceae Ipomoea tiliacea 1 

Cyperaceae Diplasia karataefolia 1 

Cyperaceae Rynchospora 1 

Dichapetalaceae Tapura amazonica awaima 1 

Elaeocarpaceae Sloanea 2 

Elaeocarpaceae Sloanea grandiflora 1 

Euphorbiaceae 1 1 

Euphorbiaceae Conceveiba guianensis kananamang ipaimu 1 1 

Euphorbiaceae Croton matourensis kuapehe 1 

Euphorbiaceae Croton sipaliwinensis 1 

Euphorbiaceae Omphalea diandra 1 

Euphorbiaceae Pausandra martinii masiwewarito 1 1 

Fabaceae 3 2 1 

Fabaceae Alexa imperatricis otoima, hotojarang 5 1 

Fabaceae Andira surinamensis 1 

Fabaceae Bocoa alterna 1 

Fabaceae Bocoa marionii pade 4 

Fabaceae Bocoa viridiflora kutari 1 

Fabaceae Cynometra marginata 2 

Fabaceae Dalbergia riedelii 1 1 

Fabaceae Dioclea virgata 1 

Fabaceae Eperua rubiginosa 1 

Fabaceae Hydrochorea corymbosa 1 1 

Fabaceae Inga 1 1 2 

Fabaceae Inga bourgonii 1 1 

Fabaceae Inga disticha 1 





Fabaceae Inga nobilis 2 1 

Fabaceae Inga sertulifera 1 

Fabaceae Machaerium floribundum 1 1 

Fabaceae Machaerium leiophyllum 1 

Fabaceae Macrolobium acaciifolium 1 

Fabaceae Peltogyne venosa 1 

Fabaceae Senna bicapsularis 1 

Fabaceae Senna quinquangulata 1 

Fabaceae Stylosanthes hispida 1 

Fabaceae Swartzia 1 1 

Fabaceae Swartzia arborescens 1 

Fabaceae Swartzia benthamiana 1 2 

Fabaceae Swartzia grandifolia 1 

Fabaceae Swartzia guianensis 1 

Fabaceae Tachigali paniculata 1 

Fabaceae Vouacapoua americana wacapu 1 

Fabaceae Zygia inaequalis 1 

Fabaceae Zygia latifolia 1 1 

Fabaceae Zygia racemosa krikriia 2 

Goupiaceae Goupia glabra 1 

Humiriaceae Humiria balsamifera weikepauudu 1 

Lauraceae 8 1 1 

Lauraceae Kubitzkia mezii 1 

Lauraceae Licaria cannella 1 

Lecythidaceae 1 1 

Lecythidaceae Corythophora labriculata 1 

Lecythidaceae Eschweilera 1 

Lecythidaceae Eschweilera pedicellata 1 

Lecythidaceae Eschweilera sagotiana 1 

Lecythidaceae Eschweilera subglandulosa 1 

Lecythidaceae Gustavia augusta 1 

Lecythidaceae Gustavia hexapetala kanaimanagpataimu, 

2 

patunailophue 

Lecythidaceae Lecythis corrugata tuhaima 1 

Lecythidaceae Lecythis poiteaui adiwera 1 

Loganiaceae Strychnos guianensis 1 

Malphigiaceae Hiraea faginea 1 1 

Malpighiaceae Heteropterys macrostachya 2 

Malpighiaceae Stigmaphyllon sinuatum 2 

Malvaceae Apeiba albiflora 1 

Malvaceae Apeiba petoumo mukete 1 

Malvaceae Byttneria cordifolia 1 

Malvaceae Herrania kanukuensis 1 

Malvaceae Hibiscus sororius 1 



53

Chapter 2 


Malvaceae Melochia ulmifolia 1 

Malvaceae Quararibea guianensis 1 

Melastomataceae 1 

Melastomataceae Clidemia 1 2 

Melastomataceae Ernestia 2 

Melastomataceae Miconia 3 

Melastomataceae Miconia serrulata 1 

Meliaceae 2 

Meliaceae Guarea 8 

Meliaceae Guarea guidonia 1 

Meliaceae Trichilia quadrijuga 1 1 

Meliaceae Trichilia surumuensis 1 

Meliaceae Trichilia 1 

Memecylaceae Mouriri grandiflora 1 

Menispermaceae 1 

Moraceae Bagassa guianensis 1 

Moraceae Brosimum lactescens 1 

Moraceae Brosimum parinarioides 1 

Moraceae Brosimum rubescens 1 

Moraceae Ficus pertusa 1 

Moraceae Ficus trigona 1 

Moraceae Helicostylis tomentosa huhwe 1 

Moraceae Pseudolmedia laevis mapanu 1 1 

Moraceae Trymatococcus amazonicus 1 

Myristicaceae Iryanthera 1 1 

Myristicaceae Iryanthera hostmannii ponikrima 1 

Myristicaceae Osteophloeum platyspermum lapalapa 1 

Myristicaceae Virola 2 1 

Myrsinaceae Stylogyne atra 1 

Myrtaceae 10 6 6 

Myrtaceae Campomanesia aromatica 1 

Myrtaceae Eugenia phumaime 1 

Myrtaceae Psidium acutangulum 3 1 

Nyctaginaceae 1 

Ochnaceae 1 

Onagraceae Ludwigia 2 

Opiliaceae Agonandra silvatica alukaw 1 1 

Piperaceae Piper 2 

Poaceae 1 2 2 

Polygalaceae Securidaca 1 1 

Pteridophyte 2 

Putranjivaceae Drypetes variabilis tokirimang 1 1 

Quiinaceae Lacunaria crenata 1 

Rhabdodendraceae Rhabdodendron amazonicum payfayoinapiru 1 





Rubiaceae 3 5 

Rubiaceae Genipa americana 1 

Rubiaceae Palicourea guianensis alugeluge, pyia pyiama 1 

Rubiaceae Posoqueria longiflora 1 

Salicaceae 1 

Salicaceae Casearia 1 

Sapindaceae Cupania macrostylis 1 

Sapindaceae Cupania scrobiculata mapanu 1 

Sapindaceae Matayba 2 

Sapindaceae Matayba arborescens 1 

Sapindaceae Matayba camptoneura 1 

Sapindaceae Paullinia capreolata 1 

Sapindaceae Paullinia trilatera 1 

Sapindaceae Talisia sylvatica 1 

Sapindaceae Toulicia pulvinata 1 

Sapindaceae Toulicia elliptica 1 

Sapindaceae Vouarana guianensis 1 

Sapotaceae 7 10 2 

Sapotaceae Chrysophyllum argenteum tumuri 1 

Sapotaceae Pouteria awaribalata 1 

Sapotaceae Pouteria guianensis kununima 1 

Siparunaceae Siparuna cuspidata idakaipu 4 

Siparunaceae Siparuna decipiens kandadeennu 1 

Solanaceae Brunfelsia guianensis 1 

Solanaceae Cestrum latifolium 1 

Solanaceae Schwenkia grandiflora 1 

Solanaceae Solanum pensile 1 

Ulmaceae Ampelocera edentula 1 

Violaceae Corynostylis arborea 1 

Violaceae Rinorea 2 

Viscaceae Phoradendron 1 

Vitaceae Cissus erosa Napokaima 1 1 

Vitaceae Cissus verticillata 1 1 

Undetermined 13 9 11 


55

Chapter 3 

Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) of 

the Kwamalasamutu region, Suriname 

Natalia von Ellenrieder 

Summary 

Odonata were studied during a Rapid Assessment Program (RAP) survey of the Kwamalasamutu 

area in SW Suriname. Ninety-four species, representing one-third of the species known 

from Suriname, were registered at forest rivers, streams, and swamps; in particular 57 species 

were found at the Kutari River Site (Camp 1), 52 at the Sipaliwini River Site (Camp 2), and 

65 at the Werehpai Site (Camp 3). Fourteen species represent new records for Suriname, of 

which four, belonging to the genus Argia, are new to science, and five represent first records 

of a species at a new locality since their original descriptions, increasing considerably their 

known extent of occurrence. The results indicate a healthy watershed and well preserved forest 

at all three sites; if forest cover and stream morphology are maintained in the area, the present 

odonate assemblages are expected to persist. 

Introduction 

Dragonflies and damselflies (Order Odonata) are widespread and abundant in all continents 

with the exception of Antarctica, with centers of species richness occurring in tropical forests. 

As larvae they live in aquatic habitats and use a wide range of terrestrial habitats as adults. Larvae 

are sensitive to water quality and habitat morphology such as bottom substrate and aquatic 

vegetation structure, and adult habitat selection is strongly dependent on aerial vegetation 

structure, including degrees of shading. As a consequence dragonflies show strong responses 

to habitat change such as thinning of forest and increased erosion. Common species prevail 

in disturbed or temporary waters, whereas pristine streams, seepage, and swamp forests house 

an array of more vulnerable, often localized species. Thus odonates are useful for monitoring 

the overall biodiversity of aquatic habitats and have been identified as good indicators of 

environmental health (Corbet 1999; Kalkman et al. 2008). Due to their low species numbers 

relative to other insects (about 5,700 species worldwide) they also constitute an ideal target 

group for a Rapid Assessment Program because it is feasible to fully document their species 

diversity for a particular area in a relatively short period of time. This is the first instance where 

odonates were included in a RAP survey in South America. The taxonomy of the odonates 

from Suriname is relatively well known in general compared to that of other South American 

countries, since two odonate specialists devoted over 60 years of continuous research to its 

study (Geijskes 1931, 1943, 1946, 1954, 1959, 1976, 1986; Belle 1963, 1966a, 1966b, 1970, 

1984, 1992, 2002). However, no published data regarding regional distribution or particular 

ecological requirements of the odonates from Suriname exists at this moment, and the Kwamalasamutu 

area has never before been sampled for odonates. 


Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) of the Kwamalasamutu region, Suriname 

Methods and Study Sites 

Odonata species from the Kwamalasamutu area, in the 

Sipaliwini District of SW Suriname were studied by applying 

search-collecting methods. Odonates were surveyed from 

19–24 August 2010 in the area surrounding the Kutari 

River (Camp 1: N 02°10'27", W 056°54'25", 263 m); from 

28–31 August in the area adjacent to the Sipaliwini River 

(Camp 2: N 02°19'48", W 056°39'20", 264 m); and from 

2–7 September in the surroundings of Werehpai (Camp 

3: N 02°21'45", W 056°41'54", 252 m). Odonates were 

also recorded at Iwana Samu (N 02°21'46", W 056°45'18", 

255 m) on 28 August, and at a vegetated ditch in Kwamalasamutu 

(N 02°21'17", W 056°47'11"W, 211 m) on 8 September. 

Searching, photographing, and collecting of adult 

odonates with an entomological aerial net was carried out 

around each camp, in terra firme forest along trails and in 

clearings, in forest swamps, along forest streams, and along 

rivers from a boat. All aquatic forest habitats were at least 

partially shady and usually devoid of aquatic plants, with 

an enclosed canopy cover, and only in the larger creeks and 

rivers did sun penetrate the forest canopy creating sunspots 

and larger continuous sunny areas at or near ground level 

during midday. The ditch at Kwamalasamutu was the only 

aquatic environment found which was fully exposed to the 

sun and provided with abundant aquatic and riparian vegetation. 

Presence/absence information of species was recorded 

and relative abundance for each species was noted as rare 

(1–3 individuals seen), frequent (4–20 individuals seen), or 

common (21–50 individuals seen). Collected specimens are 

deposited at the California State Collection of Arthropods 

and at the National Zoological Collection of Suriname. 

Total species richness expected for the area was calculated 

using first-order jackknife and Chao 2 estimators. Composition 

of odonate communities from the three camps was 

compared using percentage complementarity (a measurement 

of distinctness or dissimilarity; Colwell & Coddington 

1994). 

Results 

Overall, 45 odonate genera belonging to 10 families were 

collected at the three sites, with a total of 94 species. These 

represent one-third of the total number of odonate species 

reported for Suriname (282 species according to Belle 

2002). In particular, 10 families, 31 genera, and 57 species 

were collected at the Kutari site; 10 families, 28 genera, and 

52 species at the Sipaliwini site; and 10 families, 34 genera, 

and 65 species at the Werehpai site. The odonates recorded 

at Kwamalasamutu and Iwana Samu represented 18 species 

in 13 genera and four families. Appendix A lists all species 

detected during the RAP survey and their relative abundances 

at each survey site. 

The first-order jackknife estimator for the total number of 

odonates to be expected in this area was 120.3 species, and 

the Chao2 estimator was 137.23 species. 

Werehpai was the richest site in odonate genera and 

species, and hosted 18 species not found at the other 

two camps: Acanthagrion chacoense, Perilestes attenuatus, 

Brechmorrhoga praedatrix, Orthemis coracina (along rivers), 

Archaeogomphus nanus, Progomphus brachycnemis, Macrothemis 

ludia (in forest creeks and streams), Metaleptobasis 

quadricornis, M. mauritia (at forest swamps), Gynacantha 

gracilis, G. klagesi, G. sp., Misagria calverti, M. parana, Orthemis 

anthracina, Orthemis cultriformis, Uracis fastigiata, and 

U. siemensi (along forest trails and in forest clearings). Twelve 

species were found only at the Kutari site: Acanthagrion 

indefensum, Argia fumigata, Ebegomphus demerarae, Macrothemis 

delia (at rivers), Mnesarete cupraea, Macrothemis sp. 

(in creeks and streams), Argia sp. 3, Psaironeura tenuissima, 

Argyrothemis argentea (in forest swamps), and Mecistogaster 

ornata, Erythrodiplax castanea, and Gynothemis pumila (along 

forest trails and clearings). Seven species were present only 

at the Sipaliwini site: Phyllocycla ophis (at rivers), Neoneura 

mariana, Protoneura calverti, Elga leptostyla, Macrothemis 

hemichlora (at forest creeks and streams), Triacanthagyna 

ditzleri, and Macrothemis declivata (along forest trails and 

clearings). Five of the species found at Kwamalasamutu (at a 

vegetated ditch) were unique to this site: Miathyria simplex, 

Micrathyria artemis, Nephepeltia flavifrons, Oligoclada rhea, 

and Tauriphila argo. 

In terms of odonate community composition, the first 

and third camps were more dissimilar (complementarity of 

51.8 %) than the second and third camps (complementarity 

of 48.6 %) or second and first camps (complementarity 

of 46.4 %; Table 1). Shared species usually showed different 

abundances at each one of the camps (i.e., many species 

common at one site were rare at another site; see Relative 

Abundance in Appendix A). 

Four species of the genus Argia are new to science (Argia 

sp. 1, A. sp. 2, A. sp. 3, A. sp. 4). Argia is the most speciesrich 

odonate genus in the New World, with 112 described 

species (Garrison et al. 2010). This genus shows its prevalence 

in all three sites being the richest in species (eight species 

total; four to eight species per camp). All of these new 

species are known also from collections outside of Suriname 

(Garrison pers. comm., Table 2), and are being described by 

Dr. Rosser W. Garrison (California Department of Food and 

Table 1. Richness and percentage complementarity (number of species in 

common in parentheses) of odonate assemblages among Kutari, Sipaliwini, 

and Werehpai sites, Kwamalasamutu area, SW Suriname. 

I Kutari Sipaliwini Werehpai 

Species richness 57 52 65 

Camp 2 46.4 (38) 

Camp 3 51.8 (40) 48.6 (40) 


57

Chapter 3 

Agriculture) as part of his ongoing taxonomic revision of the 

genus. 

Another nine species were recorded from Suriname for 

the first time, and the discovery of five of these species 

(Figs. 2–5) represents also the first published record in the 

literature of a new locality since their original descriptions, 

increasing considerably their known extent of occurrence: 

Perilestes gracillimus (page 17): Recorded from creeks 

in lowland Amazon forest from Peru (Kennedy 1941) and 

Brazil (Lencioni 2005). 

Epipleoneura pereirai (Fig. 2): Previously known from rivers 

in lowland Amazon forest in Amapá and Pará States in 

Brazil (Machado 1964). 

Neoneura angelensis (Fig. 3): Recently described (Juillerat 

2007) from French Guiana. 

Neoneura denticulata: Widely distributed in the lowland 

Amazon forest, from Venezuela and Brazil to Peru and 

Ecuador. 

Elasmothemis rufa (Fig. 4): Recently described (De Marmels 

2008) from Amazonas State in Venezuela. 

Gynothemis pumila: Widely distributed across South 

America, from Colombia and Trinidad to Brazil and Peru. 

Macrothemis ludia (Fig. 5): Known so far from Bolívar 

State in Venezuela (Belle 1987). 

Micrathyria paruensis: Known from lowland Amazon forest 

in Venezuela and French Guiana. 

Orthemis anthracina: lowland Amazonian rainforest in 

Venezuela (De Marmels 1989). 

Orthemis coracina (Fig. 6): Known from lowland Amazonian 

forest in Ecuador (von Ellenrieder 2009). 

None of the species found are endemic either to the study 

area or to Suriname. No odonates are listed on the CITES 

appendices. The conservation status of about one-quarter of 

the Neotropical species was recently assessed by the IUCN 

Odonate Specialist Group (Claustnitzer et al. 2009) including 

approximately one-fifth of the species found in the present 

study (Table 2). From these, most were assessed as Least 

Concern and two species, Epipleoneura pereirai and Perilestes 

gracillimus, as Data Deficient. Notes on the biology of the 

recorded species are provided in Appendix B. 

Table 2. Odonates found in SW Suriname, Kwamalasamutu region: Habitat where found, data on known larvae, distribution, and conservation status according 

to IUCN criteria. Distribution=US: United States of America, ME: Mexico, GU: Guatemala, BE: Belize, ES: El Salvador, HO: Honduras, NI: Nicaragua, CR: 

Costa Rica, PA: Panama, CO: Colombia, VE: Venezuela, TR: Trinidad/Tobago, GY: Guyana, SU: Surinam, FR: French Guyana, BR: Brazil, EC: Ecuador, PE: Peru, 

BO: Bolivia, PY: Paraguay, UR: Uruguay, AR: Argentina. IUCN category= LC: Least Concern, DD: Data Deficient. 

Species Habitat Larva described Distribution IUCN 

Hetaerina caja dominula river/creek Geijskes 1943 ME, NI, CR, PA, CO, VE, TR, FR, EC, PE - 

Hetaerina moribunda creek/trail Geijskes 1943 by VE, GY, SU, FR, BR 

supposition 

- 

Hetaerina mortua creek - VE, GY, SU, FR, BR, PE - 

Mnesarete cupraea creek - VE, GY, SU, FR, PE, BO - 

Acanthagrion ascendens creek/ditch Geijskes 1943 CO, VE, TR, GY, SU, FR, BR, EC, PE, BO - 

Acanthagrion chacoense river - VE, SU, BR, PE, BO LC 

Acanthagrion indefensum river Geijskes 1943 VE, GY, SU, FR, BR - 

Acanthagrion rubrifrons swamp - VE, GY, SU, FR, BR - 

Argia fumigata river - VE, GY, SU, FR, BR - 

Argia insipida river Geijskes 1943 CR, CO, VE, TR, GY, SU, FR, BR - 

Argia oculata trail/swamp Limongi 1983 (1985) ME, GU, BE, ES, HO, NI, CR, PA, CO, VE, TR, BR, 

EC, PE 

- 

Argia translata river Geijskes 1946, von 

Ellenrieder 2007 

US, ME, GU, BE, ES, HO, NI, CR, PA, CO, VE, TR, 

SU, FR, EC, PE, AR 

Argia sp. 1 trail/swamp - VE, GY, SU, FR, BR - 

Argia sp. 2 swamp - SU, FR - 

Argia sp. 3 swamp - SU, FR - 

Argia sp. 4 swamp - VE, SU, FR, BR - 

Inpabasis rosea swamp - VE, SU, FR, BR - 

Metaleptobasis mauritia swamp - TR, GY, SU, FR, BR - 

Metaleptobasis quadricornis swamp - GY, SU, BR - 

Heliocharis amazona creek Geijskes 1986, Santos & CO, EC, PE, BO, VE, GU, SU, FR, BR, PY, AR 

Costa 1988 

- 

- 

58 Rapid Assessment Program 

table continued on next page


Table 2. continued 


Heteragrion ictericum trail/creek/river - VE, GY, SU, FR, BR - 

Heteragrion silvarum trail/creek - GY, SU, FR, BR LC 

Oxystigma williamsoni trail/creek/river - VE, GY, SU, FR, BR - 

Perilestes attenuatus river Neiss & Hamada 2010 VE, SU, FR, BR, PE, BO LC 

Perilestes gracillimus creek - SU, BR, PE DD 

Perilestes solutus creek - VE, SU, BR LC 

Epipleoneura fuscaenea river/trail - VE, GY, SU, FR LC 

Epipleoneura pereirai river - SU, FR, BR DD 

Neoneura angelensis river - SU, FR, BR - 

Neoneura denticulata river/creek - VE, SU, BR, EC, PE - 

Neoneura joana river Geijskes 1954 VE, GY, SU, FR, BR - 

Neoneura mariana creek - VE, GY, SU, FR - 

Neoneura myrthea river - VE, GY, SU, FR, BO - 

Phasmoneura exigua swamp - VE, GY, SU, FR, BR, PE - 

Protoneura calverti creek - VE, TR, GY, SU, FR, BR LC 

Protoneura tenuis creek - VE, TR, GY, SU, FR, BR, PE, BO LC 

Psaironeura tenuissima swamp - GY, FR, BR, EC, PE - 

Mecistogaster lucretia trail - CO, VE, GY, SU, FR, BR, EC, PE, AR - 

Mecistogaster ornata trail Ramirez 1995 ME, GU, ES, HO, NI, CR, PA, CO, VE, TR, SU, FR, 

BR, EC, PE, AR 

LC 

Microstigma anomalum trail - SU, FR, BR, PE, BO - 

Gynacantha auricularis trail - BE, NI, CR, VE, GY, SU, FR, BR, EC, PE, BO - 

Gynacantha gracilis trail Santos 1973a GU, CR, PA, VE, GY, SU, FR, EC, PE, BO, AR - 

Gynacantha klagesi trail - ? - 

Gynacantha sp. trail - VE, SU, FR, PE - 

Staurophlebia reticulata river Geijskes 1959 GU, BE, HO, NI, CR, PA, CO, VE, TR, GY, SU, FR, 

BR, EC, PE, PY, UR, AR 

- 

Triacanthagyna ditzleri trail - ME, GU, BE, CR, PA, CO, VE, TR, GY, SU, FR, BR, 

EC, PE, BO 

- 

Aphylla sp. river/creek - ? - 

Archaeogomphu nanus creek Belle 1970 VE, SU, FR, BR - 

Ebegomphus demerarae river Belle 1966a, 1970 GY, SU - 

Phyllocycla ophis river Belle 1970 VE, GY, SU, FR, BR - 

Phyllogomphoides major creek Belle 1970 as P. fuliginosus VE, GY, SU, FR, BR - 

Phyllogomphoides undulatus river Belle 1970 by 

VE, SU, FR, BR - 

supposition 

Progomphus brachycnemis river/creek Belle 1966b VE, SU, BR LC 

Argyrothemis argentea swamp Fleck 2003a VE, GY, SU, FR, BR, PE LC 

Brechmorrhoga praedatrix river Fleck 2004 VE, TR, GY, SU, FR, BR, AR LC 

Diastatops pullata river Fleck 2003b VE, GY, SU, FR, BR, EC, PE, BO, AR LC 

Dythemis multipunctata creek De Marmels 1982, 

Westall 1988 

ME, GU, BE, ES, HO, NI, CR, PA, VE, TR, GY, SU, 

FR, BR, EC, PE, PY, AR 

Elasmothemis cannacrioides river Westall 1988 ME, GU, BE, HO, CR, PA, CO, VE, TR, SU, FR, BR, 

- 

EC, PE, AR 

Elasmothemis rufa river - VE, SU - 


- 


59

Chapter 3 

Table 2. continued 


Elga leptostyla creek De Marmels 1990, Fleck PA, CO, VE, TR, GU, SU, FR, BR, EC, PE 

2003b 

- 

Erythrodiplax castanea swamp/clearing - GU, BE, CR, CO, VE, TR, GY, SU, FR, BR, EC, PE, 

BO, PY, AR 

- 

Erythrodiplax famula clearing - CR, VE, TR, GY, SU, FR, BR, PE, AR - 

Erythrodiplax fusca river/clearing Santos 1967 

ME, GU, BE, ES, HO, NI, CR, PA, CO, VE, TR, GY, 

/ditch 

SU, FR, BR, EC, PE, BO,PY, UR, AR 

- 

Fylgia amazonica lychnitina swamp De Marmels 1992 VE, GY, SU, FR, BR, EC, PE LC 

Gynothemis pumila clearing Fleck 2004 CO, VE, TR, GY, SU, FR, BR, PE LC 

Macrothemis declivata clearing - SU, BR, PE, BO, PY, AR - 

Macrothemis delia river - ME, GU, CR, VE, SU - 

Macrothemis hemichlora creek - 

ME, GU, BE, ES, HO, CR, PA, CO, VE, TR, SU, FR, 

EC, PE, PY, AR 

LC 

Macrothemis ludia clearing/creek - VE, SU - 

Macrothemis sp. creek - ? - 

Miathyria simplex ditch Limongi 1991 ME, GU, BE, HO, CR, PA, VE, TR, GY, SU, FR, BR, 

EC, PE 

- 

Micrathyria artemis ditch Santos 1972 VE, GY, SU, FR, BR, EC, PE, AR LC 

Micrathyria paruensis creek - VE, SU, FR - 

Micrathyria spinifera creek - CO, VE, TR, GY, SU, FR, BR, EC, PE, BO LC 

Misagria calverti clearing - SU, FR, BR, PE - 

Misagria parana clearing - VE, GY, SU, FR, BR, EC, PE - 

Nephepeltia flavifrons ditch - CO, VE, SU, FR, BR, PE, PY, AR - 

Oligoclada abbreviata river Fleck 2003a VE, GY, SU, FR, BR, EC, PE LC 

Oligoclada amphinome swamp - VE, GY, SU, FR, BR - 

Oligoclada rhea ditch - SU, FR, BR, BO - 

Oligoclada walkeri creek - VE, TR, GY, SU, FR, BR, EC, PE - 

Orthemis aequilibris clearing/river Fleck 2003b CR, PA, CO, VE, GY, SU, FR, BR, PE, BO, PY, AR - 

Orthemis anthracina clearing - VE, SU - 

Orthemis coracina river - EC, SU - 

Orthemis cultriformis clearing/creek - CR, PA, CO, VE, TR, GY, SU, FR, BR, EC, PE, BO, 

PY, AR 

- 

Perithemis cornelia creek - VE, SU, FR, BR, EC, PE, BO LC 

Perithemis lais creek Costa & Regis 2005 CO, VE, GY, SU, FR, BR, EC, PE, BO, PY, AR LC 

Perithemis mooma creek/ditch Santos 1973b, von 

Ellenrieder & Muzón 1999 

Perithemis thais swamp/creek Spindola, Souza & 

Costa 2001 

Tauriphila argo ditch Fleck, Brenk & Misof 

2006 

ME, GU, BE, ES, HO, NI, CR, PA, CO, VE, TR, SU, 

FR, BR, EC, PE, PY, UR, AR 

CR, VE, TR, GY, SU, FR, BR, EC, PE, BO, AR 

ME, GU, BE, HO, NI, CR, PA, VE, TR, GY, SU, FR, 

BR, EC, PE, BO, PY, AR 

Uracis fastigiata trail - ME, GU, HO, NI, CR, PA, CO, VE, TR, GY, SU, FR, 

BR, EC, PE, BO 

- 

Uracis infumata trail - VE, GY, SU, FR, BR, PE, BO - 

Uracis ovipositrix trail - VE, GY, SU, FR, BR, EC, PE - 

Uracis siemensi trail - VE, SU, FR, BR, EC, PE - 

- 

- 

- 



Figure 1. Known distribution of Perilestes gracillimus (Perilestidae). 

Figure 4. Known distribution of Elasmothemis rufa (Libellulidae). 

Figure 2. Known distribution of Epipleoneura pereirai (Protoneuridae). 

Figure 5. Known distribution of Macrothemis ludia (Libellulidae). 

Figure 3. Known distribution of Neoneura angelensis (Protoneuridae). 

Figure 6. Known distribution of Orthemis coracina (Libellulidae). 


61

Chapter 3 

Discussion 

The differences in odonate species composition among the 

three camps are probably due to slightly different qualities of 

the aquatic habitats sampled at each site, as a consequence of 

the different kinds of soils and vegetation which characterize 

the three camps (i.e., Kutari river and creeks were lower in 

oxygen content and pH; Kutari soils included loamy sands; 

soils were sandy and rocky at Werehpai). 

Stagnant water bodies are comparatively scarce in the 

forest, and the presence of a vegetated ditch in Kwamalasamutu 

(a type of habitat not found at the camps) contributed 

five species restricted to lentic habitats. These species are all 

widespread, vagile species that inhabit open vegetated ponds 

throughout the lowland Amazon region (Table 2). A more 

thorough and extended study around Kwamalamasutu and 

Iwaana Saamu would most likely have recorded additional 

taxa characteristic of this type of environment in the Neotropics, 

and which are expected to occur in the area; i.e. 

species of Lestes (Lestidae), Ischnura, Telebasis (Coenagrionidae), 

Erythemis, Tramea (Libellulidae), and others. Diversity 

estimators corroborate this, indicating that another twenty 

to forty species are to be expected in this area. 

Gynacantha sp. and Macrothemis sp. were represented by a 

single female each, and due to the poor taxonomic knowledge 

of the female sex in these two genera — unknown for 

many species — the specimens cannot presently be reliably 

assigned a specific name. 

Aphylla sp. was represented by a larval exuviae. Although 

several species of this genus are known to occur in Suriname 

and adjacent lowland forests in the Guiana Shield, their 

larvae remain undescribed, and therefore it is not possible at 

this moment to identify the specimen to species. 

Inpabasis rosea and Metaleptobasis quadricornis have been 

erroneously mentioned from Suriname in the literature as 

I. eliasi and M. weibezahni, respectively (Belle 2002). Belle 

(2002) also listed Heteragrion melanurum and Microstigma 

maculatum as present in Suriname (see Appendix A). According 

to De Marmels (1987), H. melanurum is a probable 

junior synonym of Heteragrion silvarum, an opinion which 

is shared in this study. Based on observed morphological 

variability of the diagnostic characters traditionally used to 

identify species of Microstigma, the three specific names currently 

used might represent only intraspecific variability. This 

was already suggested by Neiss et al. (2008) based on the 

apparent absence of diagnostic differences between the larvae 

of M. maculatum and M. rotundatum, and it is supported by 

the specimens studied here, which show an intergradation of 

characters attributed to M. anomalum and M. maculatum; 

thus the older of the two names (M. anomalum) is applied in 

this study. 


The diversity of odonate genera and species found in this 

study is typical of well preserved sites; most of the species 

found in the forest understory, creeks, and swamps 

in the three camps would not be present if the forest were 

disturbed. 

Unlike birds, mammals, or butterflies, Odonata are largely 

unaffected by hunting or trade. However, many odonate species 

require closed canopy forest to maintain the appropriate 

vegetation structure they need as adults. Human activities 

such as deforestation and mining would most likely affect 

their occurrence in the area and produce a marked decrease 

in their diversity, since deforestation affects the vegetation 

structure needed by the adults, and subsequent alteration of 

water bodies by erosion and siltation would be detrimental 

for their larvae. Mining would lead to increased turbidity 

and siltation of streams, changing the substrate and reducing 

the habitat quality needed by odonate larvae. Claustnitzer 

et al. (2009) found that the threats are greater for forest species 

restricted to forest fragments, mountaintops, and island 

localities, whereas species inhabiting large forest blocks are 

usually at lower risk. 

Therefore, the main conservation recommendation is to 

include an area as large as possible, encompassing at a minimum 

the three visited sites and intervening areas, as a legally 

protected nature preserve to prevent mining and logging 

activities and thus conserve the high diversity of odonate 

species found in this study. Species of particular conservation 

concern are the seldom-encountered lowland Amazon 

species including Neoneura angelensis, Epipleoneura pereirai, 

Elasmothemis rufa, Macrothemis ludia, and Orthemis coracina, 

all of which occur here (Figs. 2–6). If a nature preserve is 

not created and development activities do take place within 

the Kwamalasamutu region, it is recommended to establish 

broad buffer zones of undisturbed vegetation along rivers 

and creeks, in order to minimize the damage to the watershed 

and consequently to the odonate community. 

Further biodiversity studies in the area are recommended 

to increase the knowledge of several poorly known and rare 

species that occur in these pristine forests (the larval stage 

of 61 % of species and habitat preferences of several of the 

species recorded are still unknown; see Table 2), and to gain 

knowledge about the possible seasonality (dry–rainy season 

species assemblages) of the odonate community of southwest 

Suriname. If further surveys are conducted, it is suggested to 

include some sites close to human settlements to provide the 

framework needed to assess which species are most affected 

by human disturbance and thus possibly identify indicator 

species of pristine environments for this area. Initial involvement 

of local communities in dragonfly and damselfly observation 

is encouraged, by providing them with educational 

color picture guides to the most common species in order 

to increase their appreciation and knowledge of this group, 

which could eventually be used for ecotourism and monitoring 

programs in the future. 



References 

Bede, L.C., W. Piper, G. Peters, and A.B.M. Machado, 

2000. Phenology and oviposition behaviour of Gynacantha 

bifida Rambur (Anisoptera: Aeshnidae). Odonatologica 

29(4): 317–324. 

Belle, J. 1963. Dragonflies of the Genus Zonophora with 

Special Reference to its Surinam Representatives. Stud. 

Fau. Surin. Guyan. 5(16): 60–69. 

Belle, J., 1966a. Surinam dragon-files of the Agriogomphus 

complex of genera. Stud. Fau. Surin. Guyan. 8(29): 

29–60. 

Belle, J., 1966b. Surinam dragon-flies of the genus Progomphus. 

Stud. Fau. Surin. Guyan. 8(28): 1–28. 

Belle, J., 1970. Studies on South American Gomphidae 

(Odonata) with special reference to the species from 

Surinam. Stud. Fau. Surin. Guyan. 11(43): 1–158 

Belle, J., 1984. A synopsis of the South American species of 

Phyllogomphoides, with a key and descriptions of three 

new taxa (Odonata, Gomphidae). Tijdschr. v. Entomol. 

127(4): 79–100. 

Belle, J., 1987. Three new species of Macrothemis from 

northern South America (Odonata: Libellulidae). Zool. 

Med. Leiden 61(19): 287–294. 

Belle, J., 1992. A revision of the South American species of 

Aphylla Selys, 1854 (Odonata: Gomphidae). Zool. Med. 

Leiden 66(12): 239–264. 

Belle, J. 2002. Commented Checklist of the Odonata of 

Suriname. Odonatologica 31(1): 1–8. 

Clausnitzer, V., V.J. Kalkman, M. Ram, B. Collen, J.E.M. 

Baillie, M. Bedjanic, W.R.T. Darwall, K.-D.B. Dijkstra, 

R. Dow, J. Hawking, H. Karube, E. Malikova, D. Paulson, 

K. Schütte, F. Suhling, R. Villanueva, N. von 

Ellenrieder, and K. Wilson. 2009. Odonata Enter the 

Biodiversity Crisis Debate: The First Global Assessment 

of an Insect Group. Biol. Conserv. 142: 1864–1869. 

Colwell, R.K. and J.A. Codington. 1994. Estimating Terrestrial 

Biodiversity through Extrapolation. Phil. Trans. 

R. Soc. Lond. (B) 345: 101–118. 

Corbet, P.S. 1999. Dragonflies - Behavior and Ecology of 

Odonata. Comstock Publishing Associates, Cornell 

University Press, Ithaca, NY. 

Costa , J.M. and L.P.R.B. Regis. 2005. Description of the 

last instar larva of Perithemis lais (Perty) and comparison 

with other species of the genus (Anisoptera: Libellulidae). 

Odonatologica 34(1): 51–57. 

De Marmels, J. 1982. Cuatro náyades nuevas de la familia 

Libellulidae (Odonata: Anisoptera). Bol. Entomol. 

Venez., N. S. 2(11): 94–101. 

De Marmels, J. 1987. On the type specimens of some 

neotropical Megapodagrionidae, with a description of 

Heteragrion pemon spec. nov. and Oxystigma caerulans 

spec. nov. from Venezuela (Zygoptera). Odonatologica 

16(3): 225–238. 

De Marmels, J. 1989. Odonata or dragonflies from Cerro de 

la Neblina. Academia de las Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas 

y Naturales, Caracas, Venezuela 25: 1–78. 

De Marmels, J. 1990. Nine new Anisoptera larvae from Venezuela 

(Gomphidae, Aeshnidae, Corduliidae, Libelulidae). 


De Marmels, J. 1992. Caballitos del Diablo (Odonata) de las 

Sierras de Tapirapecó y Unturán, en el extremo sur de 

Venezuela. Acta Biol. Venez. 14(1): 57–78. 

De Marmels, J. 2007. Thirteen new Zygoptera larvae from 

Venezuela (Calopterygidae, Polythoridae, Pseudostigmatidae, 

Platystictidae, Protoneuridae, Coenagrionidae). 


De Marmels, J. 2008. Three new libelluline dragonflies from 

southern Venezuela, with new records of other species 

(Odonata: Libellulidae). Int. J. Odonatol. 11(1): 1–13. 

Fleck G. 2003a. Contribution à la connaissance des Odonates 

de Guyane française. Les larves des genres Argyrothemis 

Ris, 1911 et Oligoclada Karsch, 1889 (Insecta, 

Odonata, Anisoptera, Libellulidae). Ann. Naturhist. 

Mus. Wien, S. B 104: 341–352. 

Fleck, G. 2003b. Contribution à la connaissance des 

Odonates de Guyane française: Notes sur des larves des 

genres Orthemis, Diastatops et Elga (Anisoptera: Libellulidae). 


Fleck G. 2004. Contribution à la connaissance des Odonates 

de Guyane française: les larves des Macrothemis pumilla 

Karsch, 1889 et de Brechmorhoga praedatrix Calvert, 

1909. Notes biologiques et conséquences taxonomiques 

(Anisoptera: Libellulidae). Ann. Soc. Entom. Fr. 40(2): 

177–184. 

Fleck G., M. Brenk, and B. Misof. 2006. DNA taxonomy 

and the identification of immature insect stages: the 

true larva of Tauriphila argo (Hagen 1869) (Odonata: 

Anisoptera: Libellulidae). Annales de la Société Entomologique 

de France (Nouvelle série) 42(1): 91–98. 

Garrison, R.W., N. von Ellenrieder, and J.A. Louton. 2010. 

Damselfly genera of the New World. An Illustrated and 

Annotated Key to the Zygoptera. The Johns Hopkins 

University Press, Baltimore, xiv + 490 pp, + 24 color 

plates. 

Geijskes, D.C. 1931. A New Species of Oligoclada (Odonata) 

from Trinidad B.W.Z. Ent. Berich. 8(178): 

209–214. 

Geijskes, D.C. 1943. Notes on Odonata of Surinam. IV. 

Nine new or little known zygopterous nymphs from 

the inland waters. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 36(2): 

165–184. 

Geijskes, D.C. 1946. Observations on the Odonata of 

Tobago, B.W.I.. Trans. Roy. Entomol. Soc. London 

97(9): 213–235. 

Geijskes, D.C. 1954. Notes on Odonata of Surinam VI. The 

nymph of Neoneura joana Will.. Entomol. News. 65(6): 

141–144. 

Geijskes, D.C. 1959. The aeschnine genus Staurophlebia. 

Stud. Fau. Surin. Guyan. 3(9): 147–172. 


63

Chapter 3 

Geijskes, D.C. 1976. The genus Oxystigma Selys, 1862 

(Zygoptera: Megapodagrionidae). Notes on Odonata of 

Surinam XIII. Odonatologica 5(3): 213–230. 

Geijskes, D.C. 1986. The Larva of Dicterias cothurnata 

(Förster, 1906) (Zygoptera: Dicteriastidae). Odonatologica 

15(1): 77–80. 

González-Soriano, E. 1987. Dythemis cannacrioides Calvert, 

a libellulid with unusual ovipositing behaviour (Anisoptera). 


IUCN 2001. IUCN Red List Categories: Version 3.1. 

Prepared by the IUCN Species Survival Commission. 

IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 

Juillerat, L. 2007. Neoneura angelensis sp. nov. from French 

Guyana (Odonata: Protoneuridae). Int. J. Odonatol. 

10(2): 203–208. 

Kalkman, V.J., V. Clausnitzer, K.-D. Dijkstra, A. G. Orr, 

D.R. Paulson, and J. van Tol. 2008. Global Diversity 

of Dragonflies (Odonata) in Freshwater. Hydrobiologia 

595: 351–363. 

Kennedy, C.H. 1941. Perilestinae in Ecuador and Peru: revisional 

notes and descriptions (Lestidae: Odonata). Ann. 

Entomol. Soc. Amer. 34(3): 658–688. 

Lencioni, F.A.A. 2005. Damselflies of Brazil. An illustrated 

identification guide. 1 - The non-Coenagrionidae families. 

All Print Editora iv + 324 pp. 

Limongi, J. 1983 (1985). Estudio morfo-taxonómico de 

nayades en algunas especies de Odonata (Insecta) en 

Venezuela (I). Mem. Soc. Cs. Ns. “La Salle” 43(119): 

95–117. 

Limongi, J. 1991. Estudio morfo-taxonómico de náyades de 

algunas especies de Odonata (Insecta) en Venezuela (II). 

Memorias de la Sociedad de ciencias naturales “La Salle” 

50(133–134): 405–420. 

Louton, J.A., R.W. Garrison and O.S. Flint, 1996. The 

Odonata of Parque Nacional Manu, Madre de Dios, 

Peru: natural history, species richness and comparisons 

with other Peruvian sites, pp. 431–449. In: Wilson, 

D.E. and A. Sandoval (eds.), Manu, the biodiversity of 

southeastern Peru. Smithsonian Institution. 

Machado, A.B.M. 1964. Duas novas Epipleoneuras dos Rios 

Paru de oeste e Amapari (Odonata- Protoneuridae). Bol. 

Mus. Paraense Emilio Goeldi, Zool. 51: 1–13. 

Neiss, U.G., F.A.A. Lencioni, N. Hamada, and R.L. Ferreira- 

Keppler. 2008. Larval redescription of Microstigma 

maculatum Hagen in Selys, 1860 (Odonata: Pseudostigmatidae) 

from Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil. Zootaxa 

1696: 57–62. 

Neiss, U.G. and N. Hamada. 2010. The larva of Perilestes 

attenuatus Selys, 1886 (Odonata: Perilestidae) from 

Amazonas, Brazil. Zootaxa 2614: 53–58. 

Ramírez, A., 1995. Descripción e historia natural de las larvas 

de odonatos de Costa Rica. IV. Mecistogaster ornata 

(Rambur, 1842) (Zygoptera, Pseudostigmatidae). Bull. 

Amer. Odonatol. 3(2): 43–47. 

Santos, N.D. 1967. Notas sôbre a ninfa de Erythrodiplax 

connata fusca (Rambur, 1842) Brauer, 1868 (Odonata, 

Libellulidae). Atas Soc. Biol. Rio de Janeiro 10(6): 

145–147. 

Santos, N.D. 1969. Contribuição ao conhecimento da fauna 

do estado da Guanabara. 70--Descrição da ninfa de 

Perilestes fragilis Hagen in Selys, 1862 e notas sobre o 

imago (Odonata: Perilestidae). Atas Soc. Biol. Rio de 

Janeiro 12(5–6): 303–304. 

Santos, N.D. 1972. Contribuição ao conhecimento fauna 

do estado da Guanabara e arredores. 80 - Descrição 

da ninfa de Micrathyria artemis (Selys ms.) Ris, 1911 

(Odonata: Libellulidae). Atas Soc. Biol. Rio de Janeiro 

15(3): 141–143. 

Santos, N.D. 1973a. Contribuição ao conhecimento da 

fauna da Guanabara e arredores 82 - Descrição da ninfa 

de Gynacantha gracilis (Burmeister, 1839) Kolbe, 1888 

(Aeshnidae: Odonata). Atas Soc. Biol. Rio de Janeiro 

16(2–3): 55–57. 

Santos, N.D. 1973b. Contribuição ao conhecimento 

da fauna do estado da Guanabara e arredores. 84 - 

Descrição da ninfa de Perithemis mooma Kirby, 1889 

(Odonata: Libellulidae). Atas Soc. Biol. Rio de Janeiro 

16(2–3): 71–72. 

Santos, N.D. and J.M. Costa. 1988. The larva of Heliocharis 

amazona Selys, 1853 (Zygoptera: Heliocharitidae). 


Spindola, L.A., L.O.I. Souza, and J.M. Costa. 2001. 

Descrição da larva de Perithemis thais Kirby, 1889, com 

chave para identificação das larvas conhecidas do gênero 

citadas para o Brasil (Odonata, Libellulidae). Bol. Mus. 

Nac., Rio de Janeiro, N.S. 442: 1–8. 

von Ellenrieder, N. 2007. The larva of Argia joergenseni Ris 

(Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae). Odonatologica 36(1): 

89–94. 

von Ellenrieder, N. 2009. Five new species of Orthemis from 

South America (Odonata: Libellulidae). Int. J. Odonatol. 

12(2): 347–381, pl. VII. 

von Ellenrieder, N. & J. Muzón. 1999. The Argentinean 

species of the genus Perithemis Hagen (Anisoptera: 

Libellulidae). Odonatologica 28(4): 385–398. 

Wasscher, M.T. 1990. Reproduction behaviour during heavy 

rainfall of Oxystigma williamsoni Geijskes in Surinam 

(Zygoptera: Megapodagrionidae). Notul. odonatol. 

3(5): 79–80. 

Westall, Jr., M.J. 1988. Elasmothemis gen. nov., a new genus 

related to Dythemis (Anisoptera: Libellulidae). Odonatologica 

17(4): 419–428. 

Westfall, Jr., M.J. and M.L. May. 2006. Damselflies of 

North America. Revised edition. Scientific Publishers, 

Inc. xii + 502 pp. 

Williamson, E.B. 1918. A collecting trip to Colombia, 

South America. Univ. Mich. Mus. Zool., Misc. Pub. 3: 

1–24. 



Plate I. a: Male of Hetaerina caja dominula (Odonata, Calopterygidae) along a forest trail in Sipaliwini Camp. 

b: Male of Hetaerina moribunda (Odonata, Calopterygidae) at a forest stream in Werehpai Camp. Both photographed 

by N. von Ellenrieder. 


65

Chapter 3 

Plate II. a: Male of Acanthagrion ascendens (Odonata, Coenagrionidae) at a forest stream. b: Male, and c: Female, 

of Acanthagrion rubrifrons (Odonata, Coenagrionidae) at a forest swamp. All photographed at Sipaliwini Camp by 

N. von Ellenrieder. 



Plate III. a: Male of Heteragrion ictericum (Odonata, Megapodagrionidae). b: Male of Oxystigma williamsoni 

(Odonata, Megapodagrionidae). Both photographed at a forest creek in Werehpai Camp by N. von Ellenrieder. 


67

Chapter 3 

Plate IV. a: Male of Protoneura tenuis (Odonata, Protoneuridae) at a forest stream in Kutari Camp. b: Male of 

Mecistogaster lucretia (Odonata, Pseudostigmatidae) at a forest trail in Werehpai Camp. Both photographed 




Plate V. a: Male of Phyllogomphoides major (Odonata, Gomphidae). b: Male of Diastatops pullata (Odonata, 

Libellulidae). Both photographed at Sipaliwini River, near Sipaliwini Camp, by N. von Ellenrieder. 

Males of the clubtail dragonfly Phyllogomphoides major swiftly patrolled rivers and major creeks surrounding 

the Camps, and could be seen perching on tip of branches of low vegetation on the banks. Females only visit the 

water for oviposition, and larvae burrow on the muddy river beds. 


69

Chapter 3 

Plate VI. a: Female of Erythrodiplax castanea (Odonata, Libellulidae) at a forest clearing in Sipaliwini Camp. 

b: Male of Fylgia amazonica lychnitina (Odonata, Libellulidae) at a forest swamp in Werehpai Camp. c: Male of 

Macrothemis hemichlora (Odonata, Libellulidae) at a forest stream in Sipaliwini Camp. All photographed by N. von 

Ellenrieder. 



Plate VII. a: Male of Misagria parana (Odonata, Libellulidae) at a forest clearing in Werehpai Camp. 

b: Male of Oligoclada walkeri (Odonata, Libellulidae) at a forest stream in Sipaliwini Camp. Both photographed 



71

Chapter 3 

Plate VIII. a: Male of Perithemis cornelia (Odonata, Libellulidae) at a forest stream in Sipaliwini Camp. b: Male 

of Perithemis thais (Odonata, Libellulidae) at a forest swamp in Werehpai Camp. c: Female of Uracis ovipositrix 

(Odonata, Libellulidae) at a forest trail in Kutari Camp. All photographed by N. von Ellenrieder. 

Dragonflies of the genus Perithemis, commonly known as ‘Amber wings’ due to their golden-orange wings, 

are believed to mimic wasps in their flight. Four species of this genus were encountered during this RAP; 

the pictures below show a male of Perithemis cornelia at a forest stream in Sipaliwini Camp and a male of 

Perithemis thais at a forest swamp in Werehpai Camp. Adults fly close over water in sunshine or in partially 

shaded areas. They perch on small branches or reeds usually close to water’s surface, often with fore and hind 

wings slowly moving alternatively. Larvae crawl on substrate and among submerged vegetation. 



Appendix A. List of Odonates from SW Suriname, Sipaliwini District, Kwamalasamutu region. Relative abundance: R (rare = 1–3 individuals seen); 

F (frequent = 4–20 individuals seen); C (common = 21–50 individuals seen). * = new record for Suriname; # = misidentified in the literature. 

Family 

Calopterygidae 

(2 gen., 4 spp.) 

Coenagrionidae 

(4 gen., 15 spp.) 

Dicteriadidae 

(1 gen., 1 sp.) 

Megapodagrionidae 

(2 gen., 3 spp.) 

Perilestidae 

(1 gen., 1 sp.) 

Protoneuridae 

(5 gen., 11 spp.) 

Pseudostigmatidae 

(2 gen., 3 spp.) 

Site 

Kutari Sipaliwini Werehpai 

Kwamalasamutu/ 

Iwana Samu 

Species 

Relative abundance of species per site 

Hetaerina caja dominula Hagen in Selys, 1853 C C C F 

Hetaerina moribunda Hagen in Selys, 1853 R F F - 

Hetaerina mortua Hagen in Selys, 1853 R R - - 

Mnesarete cupraea (Selys, 1853) R - - - 

Acanthagrion ascendens Calvert, 1909 - R F F 

Acanthagrion chacoense Calvert, 1909 - - R - 

Acanthagrion indefensum Williamson, 1916 R - - - 

Acanthagrion rubrifrons Leonard, 1977 F F F - 

Argia fumigata Hagen in Selys, 1865 R - - - 

Argia insipida Hagen in Selys, 1865 F R - - 

Argia oculata Hagen in Selys, 1865 F C F C 

Argia translata Hagen in Selys, 1865 F F C F 

* Argia sp. 1 R C C F 

* Argia sp. 2 C R R - 

* Argia sp. 3 F - - - 

* Argia sp. 4 F R - - 

# Inpabasis rosea (Selys, 1877) F F F - 

Metaleptobasis mauritia Williamson, 1915 - - R - 

#Metaleptobasis quadricornis (Selys, 1877) - - R - 

Heliocharis amazona Selys, 1853 

R R R - 

Heteragrion ictericum Williamson, 1919 F R F - 

# Heteragrion silvarum Sjöstedt, 1918 R R R - 

Oxystigma williamsoni Geijskes, 1976 - - F - 

Perilestes attenuatus Selys, 1886 - - R - 

* Perilestes gracillimus Kennedy, 1941 R R F - 

Perilestes solutus Williamson & Williamson, 1924 - R R - 

Epipleoneura fuscaenea Williamson, 1915 R F F - 

* Epipleoneura pereirai Machado, 1964 F R F - 

* Neoneura angelensis Juillerat, 2007 R - R - 

* Neoneura denticulata Williamson, 1917 R R R - 

Neoneura joana Williamson, 1917 F F F - 

Neoneura mariana Williamson, 1917 - R - - 

Neoneura myrthea Williamson, 1917 F F F R 

Phasmoneura exigua (Selys, 1886) F R F - 

Protoneura calverti Williamson, 1915 - F - - 

Protoneura tenuis Selys, 1860 F F F - 

Psaironeura tenuissima (Selys, 1886) R - - - 

Mecistogaster lucretia (Drury, 1773) R F F F 

Mecistogaster ornata Rambur, 1842 R - - - 

Microstigma anomalum Rambur, 1842 F R R - 



73

Chapter 3 

Family 

Aeshnidae 

(3 gen., 6 spp.) 

Gomphidae 

(6 gen., 7 spp.) 

Libellulidae 

(19 gen., 40 spp.) 

Species 


Gynacantha auricularis Martin, 1909 - R R - 

Gynacantha gracilis (Burmeister, 1839) - - R - 

Gynacantha klagesi Williamson, 1923 - - R - 

Gynacantha sp. - R R - 

Staurophlebia reticulata (Burmeister, 1839) R R F - 

Triacanthagyna ditzleri Williamson, 1923 - R - - 

Aphylla sp. R - R - 

Archaeogomphu nanus Needham, 1944 - - R - 

Ebegomphus demerarae (Selys, 1894) R - - - 

Phyllocycla ophis (Selys, 1869) - R - - 

Phyllogomphoides major Belle, 1984 - - R - 

Phyllogomphoides undulatus (Needham, 1944) F F R - 

Progomphus brachycnemis Needham, 1944 - - R - 

Argyrothemis argentea Ris, 1909 F - - - 

Brechmorrhoga praedatrix Calvert, 1909 - - R - 

Diastatops pullata (Burmeister, 1839) R F R - 

Dythemis multipunctata Kirby, 1894 - R F - 

Elasmothemis cannacrioides (Calvert, 1906) F F F - 

* Elasmothemis rufa De Marmels, 2008 R R F - 

Elga leptostyla Ris, 1909 - R - - 

Erythrodiplax castanea (Burmeister, 1839) R - - - 

Erythrodiplax famula (Erichson, 1848) R F F C 

Erythrodiplax fusca (Rambur, 1842) R R R R 

Fylgia amazonica lychnitina De Marmels, 1989 R - R - 

* Gynothemis pumila (Karsch, 1890) R - - - 

Macrothemis declivata Calvert, 1909 - F - - 

Macrothemis delia Ris, 1913 R - - - 

Macrothemis hemichlora (Burmeister, 1839) - F - - 

* Macrothemis ludia Belle, 1987 - - R - 

Macrothemis sp. R - - - 

Miathyria simplex (Rambur, 1842) - - - C 

Micrathyria artemis Ris, 1911 - - - R 

* Micrathyria paruensis Geijskes, 1963 R - R - 

Micrathyria spinifera Calvert, 1909 R R - - 

Misagria calverti Geijskes, 1951 - - R - 

Misagria parana Kirby, 1889 - - F - 

Nephepeltia flavifrons (Karsch, 1889) - - - F 

Oligoclada abbreviata (Rambur, 1842) C F F F 

Oligoclada amphinome (Ris, 1919) F - F - 

Oligoclada rhea (Ris, 1911) - - - R 

Site 



Iwana Samu 




Family 

Libellulidae 

(continued) 

(19 gen., 40 spp.) 

10 families 94 spp.; 

45 genera 

Species 


Oligoclada walkeri Geijskes, 1931 - F R - 

Orthemis aequilibris Calvert, 1909 R F F - 

* Orthemis anthracina De Marmels, 1989 - - R - 

* Orthemis coracina von Ellenrieder, 2009 - - R - 

Orthemis cultriformis Calvert, 1899 - - F - 

Perithemis cornelia Ris, 1910 F C F - 

Perithemis lais (Perty, 1834) R R - - 

Perithemis mooma Kirby, 1889 - R R F 

Perithemis thais Kirby, 1889 C C C F 

Tauriphila argo (Hagen, 1869) - - - F 

Uracis fastigiata (Burmeister, 1839) - - F F 

Uracis infumata (Burmeister, 1839) F - R - 

Uracis ovipositrix Calvert, 1909 F R R - 

Uracis siemensi Kirby, 1897 - - R - 

Site 


57 spp.; 

31 genera 

52 spp.; 

28 genera 

65 spp.; 34 

genera 


Iwana Samu 

18 spp.; 

13 genera 


75

Chapter 3 

Appendix B. Biology notes on odonates found during the Kwamalasamutu RAP survey. 

Genus 

Hetaerina 

Mnesarete 

Acanthagrion 

Argia 

Inpabasis 

Metaleptobasis 

Heliocharis 

Heteragrion 

Oxystigma 

Perilestes 

Epipleoneura 

Neoneura 

Phasmoneura 

Protoneura 

Biology notes 

Adults perch on tips of branches and on leaves overhanging water of forest streams (Pl. I b, page 65) and rivers, 

where they wait for potential mates. More than one species usually occupies the same stream, or species assemblages 

partition different microhabitats (e.g. sunny versus shaded) of the same stream. Adults commonly found along forest 

trails perching on leaves and twigs on sunny spots (Pl. I a, page 65). Larvae live in submerged vegetation in aerated 

portion of streams. 

Adults perch on top of leaves overhanging water of forested streams, and larvae live among submerged aquatic 

vegetation. 

Slow backwaters of forest streams and rivers (A. ascendens, Pl. II a [page 66], A. chacoense, A. indefensum), small 

pools in forest swamps (A. rubrifrons, Pl. II b, c [page 66]), and vegetated ditches and ponds in open areas 

(A. ascendens). Females oviposit inside stems of floating plants or masses of algae while in tandem with males, which 

often remain upright. Larvae live among submerged aquatic vegetation. 

Some species inhabit forest rivers and streams (A. fumigata, A. insipida, A. translata), while others breed in forest 

swamps (A. oculata, A. sp. 1, A. sp. 2, A. sp 3. A. sp 4), where larvae live under stones and on sediment. Adults perch 

on rocks, logs, and twigs close to water surface, on overhanging leaves at streams, or on leaves, twigs and on the 

ground along forest trails near swamps (page 17), usually in sunny and bare substrates. After landing, adults open 

and close their wings two or three times. Females oviposit in masses of floating algae or aquatic plants, alone or while 

still in tandem, with males often standing vertically. 

Adults perch on leaves of bushes at sunny spots in forest swamps. Males where observed guarding little muddy 

depressions (page 17) where I. rosea is likely to breed. Larvae still unknown. 

Small sluggish streams and swampy areas within shaded forest zones; adults difficult to detect because they seldom fly 

and remain near ground, perching still on twigs and bushes. Larvae still unknown. 

Adults wary, perch on sunlight spots on vegetation overhanging water along forest streams with wings outspread. All 

adult odonates usually have spiny legs, which form a functional ‘cage-net’ to trap insects caught in flight. Heliocharis 

(and Dicterias) present an exception, as they have only minute spines on their legs, and presumably use their unusually 

large mouthparts instead to catch and hold their prey. Larvae inhabit stream pools with litter substrate and marginal 

areas of creeks and small slow-flowing rivers bordered by abundant riparian vegetation. 

Adults localized along shaded forest streams and rivers, perching by hanging with outspread wings on twig or leaf 

tips (Pl. III, page 67). Also commonly found on more open places along creeks and trails, where they catch prey 

from advantageous perches, usually returning to the same spots. Larvae live among leafy detritus and on lime and 

gravel beds of streams, and dwelling among organic matter and plant detritus where there is little or no water flow in 

primary and secondary forest streams. 

Forest streams, where adults perch on tips of twigs in the shade near creeks with wings outspread (Pl. III b, page 

67), and can be active during heavy rain (Wasscher 1990), unique among odonates. Oviposition occurs in tandem, 

and males remain upright while holding females, which insert eggs into fallen palm leaves (Geijskes 1976). Emergence 

occurs on rocks along margins of creeks (De Marmels 1987). 

Adults perch with partially open wings hanging vertically from vegetation in the shaded understory surrounding 

forest creeks (page 17), where they are rendered inconspicuous by their dark and dull colors. Female ovipositor is 

strong and likely used to lay eggs in hard substrates, including bark of twigs. Known larvae live among dead leaf litter 

accumulated in beds of quiet areas of small forest streams (Santos 1969, Neiss & Hamada 2010). 

Small and dark inconspicuous adults hover very close to water surface and perch in shade under overhanging bushes 

along forest rivers. Tenerals perch on forest bushes in sunny spots away from water. Known larvae for other species of 

the genus live in rapidly flowing streams within primary forest (De Marmels 2007). 

Adults hover just above water surface in forest streams and rivers, in bright or dappled sunshine, perching on twigs 

overhanging banks. Females oviposit in tandem in masses of small floating sticks, in dead grassy debris, sticks, and 

branches, or in muddy banks (Williamson 1918, De Marmels 1992, 2007). Larvae cling to stones in stream beds or 

are associated with vegetation or coarse detritus in river and creek pools (Westfall & May 2006). 

Adults found in forest swamps, perching on tips of twigs and leaves (page 17). Larvae still unknown. 

Small muddy or sandy streams within forest. Adults fly in shaded areas along banks, hover almost motionless near 

water surface, and perch on tip of small branches and twigs (Pl. IV a, page 68). They feed on small insects and some 

species are known to glean small spiders and flies from vegetation (Louton et al. 1996). Females oviposit alone or still 

in tandem, in leaves or pieces of wood floating in the water, debris, mosses, stems of aquatic plants, or roots, in areas 

of slow or standing waters, and several pairs can aggregate to oviposit. 




Genus 

Psaironeura 

Mecistogaster 

Microstigma 

Gynacantha 

Staurophlebia 

Triacanthagyna 

Aphylla 

Archaeogomphus 

Ebegomphus 

Phyllocycla 

Phyllogomphoides 

Progomphus 

Argyrothemis 

Brechmorrhoga 

Diastatops 

Dythemis 

Elasmothemis 

Elga 

Erythrodiplax 

Fylgia 

Gynothemis 

Biology notes 

Forest swamps, where adults fly among low vegetation in the shade, and perch on stems or leaf tips close to the 

ground. Larvae still unknown. 

Adults perch on trees and bushes along forest trails (Pl. IV b, page 68) and clearings, and fly across forest understory 

in a slow wavy fashion, which combined with their unusually large size makes them very conspicuous. They glean 

spiders or wrapped spider prey items from spider webs, and females oviposit in species-specific phytotelmatha; 

larvae of M. ornata live in water accumulated in tree holes, other species breed in water filled tree holes (M. jocaste, 

M. linearis), bromeliad bracts (M. modesta), or bamboo holes (M. asticta, M. jocaste; Garrison et al. 2010). Larvae and 

breeding habitat of M. lucretia, the most common species in this study, are still unknown. 

Appearance and habits as in Mecistogaster. Larvae live in water-filled tree holes and fallen fruit or nut husks (Neiss et 

al. 2008). 

Adults inconspicuous, due to their olive-brown ground color and crepuscular habits flying seldom through dense 

forest understory. They can be found perching on vegetation along margins of forest trails. Larvae inhabit mud 

bottomed pools, phytotelmatha, and streams (Bede et al. 2000). 

Large size and bright contrasting green and red colors render adults conspicuous when they patrol forest rivers. 

Occasionally attracted to light at night. Larvae live in forest rivers (Geijskes 1959). 

Crepuscular habits in forests, where they breed in temporary pools and phytotelmatha. Adults can be found perching 

on vegetation along margins of forest trails. 

Adults found along forest trails or at margins of streams where they alight on ground or snags with horizontally spread 

wings. Larvae are borrowers in soft muddy bottom zones in slowly flowing streams or still water areas (Belle 1992). 

Adults perch on overhanging leaves or twigs in dappled shade along forest stream banks, in which larvae live in pools 

with sand and detritus. 

Forest rivers, where adults hover over sunny spots, low over the surface of quietly flowing water, and perch on twigs 

and dry branches. Larvae inhabit leafy trash in pools and eddies of creeks, and have been reported to emerge on large 

floating leaves at midday (Belle 1970). 

Adults perch occasionally on dry twigs in the sun along forest rivers and streams, which males patrol flying swiftly 

close to water. Larvae probably inhabit silt-covered backwaters. 

Males perch on stones or tip of branches of low vegetation on forest river banks (Pl. V a, page 69), and females visit 

the water only for oviposition. Larvae burrow on muddy river beds (Belle 1984). 

Adults perch on rocks or low vegetation along forest river and stream banks. Larvae burrow in sand beds (Belle 

1966b). 

Adults found in forest swamps, where males are striking by flashing their bright pruinose-white thoracic dorsum when 

flying through a sun-patch, and disappearing as they move into the shade. Larvae camouflage themselves with detritus 

(Fleck 2003a). 

Adults course up and down sections of forest rivers, and perch in pendent position in forest clearings or in brush 

on river banks. Larvae commonly found in areas of rocky substrate, shallow water, and rapid flow. The larva of 

B. praedatrix is apparently associated with the aquatic plant Mourera fluviatilis (Podostemaceae), which grows only in 

fast moving currents (Fleck 2004). 

Marshy areas along forest rivers, where adults perch on vegetation along banks (Pl. V b, page 69), often with 

conspicuous black and red wings asymmetrically set, and larvae live among submerged vegetation. 

Forest streams in sunny or shaded areas. 

Forest rivers; adults perch on twigs with wings set. Females of E. cannacrioides deposit egg strands on floating roots of 

a liana (González-Soriano 1987). 

Forests streams, where adults perch in sunny patches on leaves of trees bordering banks and fly down to water only for 

short periods at a time. Larvae live on stream bed. 

Forest stream pools and swamps, where larvae live. Adults perch with wings set on tips of grass, low stems, and twigs 

in open areas (Pl. V a, page 70). 

Forest swamps; males land on leaves overhanging water in dappled sunlight, where their white face and red abdomen 

strike out in the mosaic of twilight and sunspot-shade (Pl. VI b, page 70). Larvae inhabit small, clear, stagnant 

pools with leaf litter (De Marmels 1992). 

Adults glide over clearings in little mini-swarms at head height and above, and perch on twigs on small creeks within 

forest where they breed. 



77

Chapter 3 

Genus 

Macrothemis 

Miathyria 

Micrathyria 

Misagria 

Nephepeltia 

Oligoclada 

Orthemis 

Perithemis 

Tauriphila 

Uracis 

Biology notes 

Adults hover or course up and down sections of moderate to fast forest creeks, and often land on banks or vegetation 

bordering streams (Pl. VI c, page 70) or forest clearings; also found sometimes in swarms with one or more other 

species over glades in forest. Larvae burrow in areas of slow or still water, muddy substrate, and closed canopy. 

Lentic environments with floating vegetation, among which roots the larvae live. Adults usually fly in swarms about 

3 m over fields, in company with individuals of Tauriphila. 

Forest streams (M. paruensis and M. spinifera) and vegetated ditches (M. artemis). Males perch on tips of reeds and 

grass on shore vegetation with wings set. Females commonly found perching away from water on tips of twigs of 

bushes and trees. 

Adults perch on tips of branches and snags with wings set in partially shaded forest areas, and are commonly found in 

forest clearings and along trails (Pl. VII a, page 71). Larvae unknown. 

Adults perch with wings set on tips of stems along marshy environments, in which they breed. 

Adults found along forest rivers (O. abbreviata), streams (O. walkeri, Pl. VII b, page 71), swamps (O. amphinome), 

and ditches (O. rhea) where they alight on ground or on surfaces of leaves. Known larva (O. abbreviata) collected in an 

artificial reservoir with strongly fluctuating water levels (Fleck 2003a). 

Adults at slow moving forest streams, where males defend territories from a perch on reed, branch, or snag. Females 

oviposit guarded by the hovering males. Often also found perching in high sunny branches in forest clearings. 

Forest streams (P. cornelia, P. mooma, P. lais, P. thais), swamps (P. thais), and vegetated ditches (P. mooma), where adults 

fly close over water in sunshine or in partially shaded areas. They perch on small branches or reeds usually close to 

water surface (Pls. VIII a, b, page 72) often with fore and hind wings slowly moving alternatively. Larvae crawl on 

substrate and among submerged vegetation. 

Adults engage in sustained gliding flights over open fields often in company with individuals of Miathyria; larvae live 

in temporary ponds and ditches among submerged vegetation. 

Adults perch on small twigs and vegetation near the ground in shaded forest understory or along partially shaded 

forest trails (Pl. VIII c, page 72). Females of Uracis ovipositrix lay eggs in damp earth and in the muddy bottom 

of small rain puddles. Males of U. siemensi hold territories at small water holes in the forest, close to creeks. Larvae 

unknown. 


Chapter 4 

Aquatic beetles of the Kwamalasamutu 

region, Suriname (Insecta: Coleoptera) 

Andrew Short and Vanessa Kadosoe 

SUMMARY 

We conducted an intensive survey of aquatic beetles in the Kwamalasamutu Region of southwestern 

Suriname from 18 August to 7 September 2010. Both active collecting (using nets 

and by hand in aquatic habitats) and passive collecting (flight intercept traps, UV lights, dung 

baits) resulted in the collection of more than 4000 aquatic beetle specimens. We documented 

144 species, distributed among 62 genera in 9 families. Sixteen of these species have been confirmed 

as new, with an additional 10 likely to be new. Two of these new species, both in the 

family Hydrophilidae, are described here: Oocyclus trio Short & Kadosoe sp.n. and Tobochares 

sipaliwini Short & Kadosoe sp.n. Camps 1 (Kutari) and 3 (Werehpai) had comparatively high 

species diversity, with 91 and 93 species respectively — although only 48 of these species were 

shared between the two sites. Camp 2 (Sipaliwini) had the lowest number of species with 68. 

INTRODUCTION 

Aquatic beetles represent a significant fraction of freshwater macroinvertebrate communities. 

At present, aquatic beetles are represented by nearly 13,000 described species distributed 

worldwide (Jäch & Balke 2008) — a guild richer in species than birds. These species are 

distributed across approximately 25 beetle families within four primary lineages: Myxophaga, 

Hydradephaga, aquatic Staphyliniformia (Hydrophiloidea & Hydraenidae) and the Dryopoidea 

(or aquatic Byrrhoids). Ecologically, these beetles play a variety of roles. Members of 

Myxophaga are small beetles that feed largely on algae as larvae and adults. The Hydradephaga 

(including the diving and whirligig beetles) are largely predators as adults and larvae; many 

aquatic Staphyliniformia are largely predators as larvae but scavengers as adults; the dryopoids 

are largely scavengers or eat algae as both larvae and adults. 

Aquatic insects in general (including some groups of aquatic beetles) are often used to 

assess water quality in freshwater rivers and streams. The dryopoids are most frequently used 

for this purpose because they are most commonly found in these habitats and rely on highly 

oxygenated waters. Aquatic beetle communities are also effectively used to discriminate 

among different types of aquatic habitat (e.g. between lotic and lentic). However, in order to 

utilize aquatic insects as effective indicators of watershed health, these communities must be 

both 1) known and identifiable, and 2) have adequate information about their water quality 

tolerances. As neither of these criteria is met in the Guiana Shield region of South America, 

gaining more knowledge about both the diversity and ecology of these species is exceedingly 

The RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment meets all criteria for the description of species new to science, as specified by the 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). Paper copies of the RAP Bulletin are deposited in the library 

of Conservation International, Arlington, VA, USA; the Middleton Library at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, 

USA; and the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences in Raleigh, NC, USA. The print run of this issue of the RAP Bulletin 

consisted of 500 copies. — BJO, LEA, THL, October 2011 


79

Chapter 4 

helpful if macroinvertebrates are to play a role in water quality 

monitoring. 

No prior surveys in Suriname have focused on aquatic 

beetles, and the fauna of the country, as well as the Guiana 

Shield region in general, remains very poorly known. 

Regionally, recent survey efforts of varying intensity in 

Venezuela, Guyana, and French Guiana have contributed to 

knowledge of the fauna (e.g. Short & Garcia 2011, Queney 

2006, 2010, Short & Gustafson 2010a, b), but it is still a 

long way from being completed. In Venezuela alone, more 

than 50 new species have been described in the last five years, 

with at least twice that number of confirmed new species 

still awaiting description (Short, unpub. data). A preliminary 

review of the literature suggests approximately 75 aquatic 

beetle species are known from Suriname (Hansen 1999, 

Miller 2005, Nilsson 2001, Nilsson & van Vondel 2005, 

Short & Hebauer 2006, Short & Fikáček 2011, Ochs 1964, 

Spangler & Steiner 1983, Young 1971). 

Here, we report on the findings of an intensive survey of 

aquatic beetles in the Kwamalasamutu region of southwestern 

Suriname, including the descriptions of two new species. 

METHODS AND STUDY SITES 

We collected aquatic beetles at all three main sites on the 

RAP (Site 1: Kutari; Site 2: Sipaliwini; Site 3: Werehpai). We 

also collected small, incidental samples at Iwana Samu. 

Field methods 

We employed a variety of passive and active collecting techniques 

to assemble as complete a picture of the aquatic beetle 

communities of the region as possible. Passive techniques 

are advantageous because they often allow large amounts of 

material to be collected in quantitative ways at one time and 

with little effort, but they provide little ecological or habitat 

data — and thus we do not gain new insights into the water 

quality requirements of insects collected in this manner. In 

contrast, active collecting methods (i.e. by hand) provide a 

richer source of information on the microhabitat and water 

quality requirements of species, but are more time intensive 

and qualitative, and may suffer from collector bias. Our survey 

focused on adult beetles, and although a few larvae were 

collected, they are not included in our results or analysis. 

Traps and other passive methods. On most nights, we collected 

in the evening hours until approximately 10 p.m. at a 

UV light mounted on a white sheet erected on the periphery 

of each camp. We also used flight intercept traps (FITs) to 

sample the beetle fauna. These traps collect flying insects, 

including dispersing aquatic beetles. At Site 1 we used two 

FITs, each composed of a 2-meter wide by 1.5- meter high 

screen, with aluminum pans filled with soapy water as a 

collecting trough. At Sites 2 and 3, we used three FITs of 

slightly smaller dimensions. At all three camps, we examined 

the by-catch of dung traps set for the purpose of collecting 

Scarabaeinae, and set several dung traps of our own. 

Active methods. For active collection of swimming insects, 

we used a large aquatic insect net to probe larger and deeper 

pools and river margins. We also targeted insects that float 

on the water’s surface using small metal strainers to collect in 

micropools and marginal areas. We also collected in several 

‘niche’ habitats, including the phytotelmata of Heliconia spp. 

at Site 3, the rock face seeps and damp soil on the inselberg 

at Site 2, and damp leaf litter at Site 3. For the latter, we 

submerged leaf packs in a tub of water and collected the 

insects that floated to the surface. 

Site 1: Kutari. N 02°10’31”, W 056°47’14”, 200–250 m, 

18–24 August 2010 

Most collecting was conducted in streams and flooded forest 

that intersected the first 1.5 km of trails cut from camp. 

The majority of the terrain in the sampled area consisted of 

seasonally inundated forest, with a few patches of terra firme. 

Most sampled habitats included seasonally flooded forest, 

including muddy swamp-like areas, and flooded low-lying 

areas between hills that likely draw down to form streams. 

Most sampling sites were full of detritus. One stream in particular 

had substantially more sand/non-mud substrate than 

the others and was particularly rich in aquatic beetle taxa. 

The frequency of specimens arriving to the UV light was very 

uneven: most nights were relatively poor in diversity, but the 

evening of 20 August (when most of the light-trap diversity 

was collected) was a notable exception. 

Habitats of note: 

There were no particular habitat features of this site that were 

not present at the other sites. 

Site 2: Sipaliwini. N 02°7’24”, W 056°36’26”, 200–250 m, 


All collecting was conducted at stream and swamp areas 

along a trail cut, approximately three kilometers in length, 

between camp and a small granite outcrop. Unlike the 

Kutari site, no expanses of flooded forest were observed. Several 

streams expanded slightly into adjacent forest, but only 

narrowly so as to give the appearance of a broader drainage 

rather than a swamp. Several larger ravines with more sand/ 

gravel substrate were present in addition to the more typical 

detritus-filled streams. A stream that originated at the base of 

the granite outcrop and flowed around it was composed of 

both detritus and sandy substrate and was particularly high 

in beetle diversity. 

Habitats of note: 

There was a low, sloping granite outcrop (or inselberg) 

approximately three kilometers from the site. Parts of the 

outcrop were covered in scrubby vegetation. Algae and 

evaporation stains, as well as eroded grooves in the rock 

indicate seeps are present for part of the year. We were able 

to find one small seep with algae that had a very high density 

of beetles (Fig. 1 A-B). 


Aquatic beetles of the Kwamalasamutu region, Suriname (Insecta: Coleoptera) 

Site 3: Werehpai. N 02°21'47”, W 056°1’52”, 200–250 m, 


Most collecting was conducted along an existing 3.5-km trail 

between the Sipaliwini River and the Werehpai caves. The 

camp area along the Sipaliwini was an abandoned farm site 

with secondary forest and an extremely dense understory, 

although this transitioned into more typical undisturbed forest 

relatively quickly along the trail. No flooded forest areas 

were observed at this site, although there was evidence that 

such areas exist during wetter times of the year (see habitats 

of note, below). Several small streams (

Chapter 4 

from the same locality, only a portion of the specimens were 

mounted, and the remainder preserved in 80% ethanol. 

Total specimen counts given herein only reflect the mounted 

portion of the samples, so the abundance of the more common 

species is underreported. 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

In total, 144 species of aquatic beetles in 62 genera were 

found, representing an extremely rich community, particularly 

given the relative homogeneity of the habitat examined 

(Appendix; Fig. 2). The Kutari and Werehpai sites had relatively 

high species diversity (91 and 93 species respectively), 

while the Sipaliwini site had only 68 species. Similarly, the 

Kutari and Werehpai sites had much higher numbers of siteunique 

species (32 and 23 respectively), while Sipaliwini had 

only seven (Table 1). 

Of the 144 species recorded, 62 (43%) were found at only 

one of the three sites, whereas only 27 (18.7%) were found 

at all three. Based on both the number of shared species and 

Jaccard’s index, the aquatic beetle communities found at the 

Sipaliwini and Werehpai sites were the most similar, while 

those found at Sipaliwini and Kutari the most dissimilar 

(Table 2). At the generic level, all three sites exhibited more 

comparable levels of diversity, with between 39 and 46 

genera found per site. 

We have confirmed that at least 16 of the species found 

are new to science (Appendix). One of these has already 

been described since the expedition (Cetiocyon incantatus 

Fikáček & Short 2010), and two are described here. We 

estimate that an additional 10–15 species are likely to be 

new to science, but additional research is needed to confirm 

their identities. 

Not surprisingly, the fauna is typical of lowland Guiana 

Shield forest. Some taxa such as the genera Siolius Balfour- 

Browne, 1969, Guyanobius Spangler, 1986, Fontidessus 

Miller & Spangler, 2008, and Globulosis García, 2001 are 

Table 1. Aquatic beetle diversity by site. 

Specimens Genera Species 

Site-unique 

species 

Site 1/ Kutari 1501 46 91 32 

Site 2/ Sipaliwini 1321 39 68 7 

Site 3/ Werehpai 1586 43 93 23 

Total 4408 62 144 - 

either endemic or largely restricted to the Guiana Shield. 

The fauna was very similar to what is known from southern 

Venezuela (south of the Orinoco River) and Guyana. The 

species found on and around the inselberg at the Sipaliwini 

site are restricted to this habitat type, and all likely have a 

very restricted range (perhaps endemic to the region and its 

periphery). Despite the presence of the inselberg at the Sipaliwini 

site, no species of Myxophaga were found. We suspect 

the isolation or lack of running water over rock contributed 

to the absence of this group. 

Some taxa that we had initially expected to find were conspicuously 

absent. Not a single specimen of the common 

water scavenger beetle genus Berosus Leach, 1817 was found, 

despite having a high diversity in the region (more than 

35 species are known from Venezuela, Oliva & Short, unpub. 

data). Many Berosus prefer the open waters of marshes and 

savannahs, and the absence of the genus during the RAP 

survey may be due to the vast unbroken forest that characterizes 

the Kwamalasamutu region. Other species that are 

often common and widespread in northern South America, 

such the ubiquitous Tropisternus collaris (Fabricius, 1775) 

and T. lateralis (Fabricius, 1775), also share these open-water 

habitats and were also not found during the survey. 

Species of note 

Cetiocyon incantatus Fikáček & Short, 2010: One specimen 

of this new species was collected from dung at Camp 1. 

Three specimens, also from Suriname, were already known 

from flight intercept traps, but this new record provided the 

first ecological information as to its habits. It is the first and 

currently only record for the genus Cetiocyon in the New 

World (Fikáček & Short, 2010). 

Tropisternus phyllisae Spangler & Short, 2008: This species, 

only described three years ago, was known from a pair of 

specimens collected in 1962 along “Krakka-Phedra road”, in 

the northern region of the country. A single specimen was 

collected in detrital pools at the Werehpai camp. 

Tropisternus surinamensis Spangler & Short, 2008: This 

species, previously known from only a single female specimen, 

was described from the same locality as T. phyllisae. 

Specimens were taken together with T. phyllisae in this 

instance as well. 

Hydrophilidae: “New genus 1”: This genus, with two 

undescribed species, is in the tribe Acidocerini, and likely 

near the genera Tobochares or Agraphydrus Régimbart, 

1903. It was found along the margins of sandy streams at 

both Sipaliwini and Werehpai camps. We are also aware of 

Table 2. Species similarity between sites. 

Sites Shared Species Non-Shared Species Total Species Jaccard’s Index 

Kutari-Sipaliwini 38 83 121 45.8% 

Kutari-Werehpai 48 89 137 53.9% 

Sipaliwini-Werehpai 50 69 119 72.5% 



specimens of this genus from French Guiana (P. Queney, 

pers. comm.). 

Hydrophilidae: “New genus 2”: With a single undescribed 

species, this new genus is in the tribe Acidocerini, and likely 

near Chasmogenus. Like the other new acidocerine genus, 

it was taken at sandy streams at Sipaliwini and Werehpai 

camps. It is also known from French Guiana. 

DESCRIPTION OF NEW SPECIES 

We have chosen to describe two of the new species we 

discovered here, as the genera to which they belong already 

have been recently reviewed for the region. Thus, the species 

can be described and compared with existing species 

relatively easily. Some of the other lineages in which we 

have confirmed new species are quite large, and will require 

significant further study to place them appropriately. 

Genus Oocyclus Sharp, 1882 

The genus Oocyclus, with nearly fifty described species, is 

found in both the Oriental and New World Tropics. Most 

species prefer hygropetric habitats, such as waterfalls and 

rock seepages. The first species from the Guiana Shield 

region were described last year (Short & Garcia, 2010). 

Oocyclus trio Short & Kadosoe sp. n. 

Type material: Holotype (male): “SURINAME: Sipaliwini 

District/ 2 10.973'N, 56 47.235'W, 210 m/ Camp 2, on 

Sipaliwini River/ leg. Short & Kadosoe; Inselberg/ 29–30. 

viii.2010; SR10-0829-01A/ 2010 CI-RAP Survey” (Deposited 

in the National Zoological Collection of Suriname). 

Figure 2. Selected habitus images of aquatic beetle taxa collected in the Kwamalasamutu region. A) Stegoelmis stictoides, B) Enochrus sp. 2, C) Pelonomus 

sp. 1, D) Copelatus geayi, E) Gyretes sp. 1, F) Vatellus tarsatus, G) Hydrochus sp. 5, H) Epimetopus sp. 1, I) Siolius cf. bicolor (Images not to the same scale). 


83

Chapter 4 

Paratypes (20): SURINAME: Sipaliwini District: Same 

data as holotype (13 exs.). Same camp but 1.ix.2010, seep 

on inselberg, SR10-0901-01A (7 exs.). Paratypes will be 

divided between the National Zoological Collection in 

Suriname, the University of Kansas, and the US National 

Museum of Natural History. 

Diagnosis. The combination of the small body size, 

rounded posterolateral corners of the pronotum, lack of 

dense rows of setae on the elytra, a conspicuous circular 

white spot on the posterior third of each elytron, and dark 

brown abdominal ventrites with long setae will distinguish 

this species from other New World Oocyclus. When using 

the key of the Venezuelan species (Short & Garcia, 2010), 

one will arrive at couplet two, and then face choices that all 

clearly do not fit O. trio, as it has a different and distinctive 

suite of key characters that any of the other known species. 

Description. Size and form. Body length = 3.7–4.0 mm. 

Body broadly oval, slightly convex (Fig. 3A). Color. Dorsum 

of head, pronotum, and elytra black, with a faint, 

irregular green sheen. Pronotal margins broadly pale along 

entire length except for posterolateral angles. Elytra with 

faint, indistinct green or bronze maculae; without a row of 

conspicuous rounded black [=without sheen] spots along 

suture. Each elytron with a small circular pale spot posteriorly. 

Maxillary and labial palps yellow; ventral face of 

head dark brown with stipes distinctly paler reddish brown. 

Lateral margins of prosternum and epipleura reddish brown, 

legs light brown to nearly yellow except for the dark brown 

coxae and basal margin of the femora. Abdominal ventrites 

dark brown. Head. Ground punctation on clypeus and frons 

moderately fine, distance between punctures 1.0–1.5× the 

width of one puncture. Systematic punctures on labrum 

consisting of some scattered indistinct punctures, the lateral 

Figure 3. Oocyclus trio Short & Kadosoe sp. n. A) Dorsal habitus, scale 

bar = 1.0 mm, B) Aedeagus. 

ones bearing short setae. Clypeus with a few very indistinct 

systematic punctures along anterolateral margins, slightly 

larger than surrounding punctuation. Frons with irregular 

row of systematic punctures mesad of each eye. Maxillary 

palps subequal to the width of labrum; palpomere 3 slight 

shorter than palpomere 2 in length, apical palpomere longer 

than penultimate. Labial palps about three-quarter as long 

as width of mentum. Mentum nearly smooth, with scattered 

moderately fine punctures; subquadrate, anterior margin 

slightly convex and depressed. Thorax. Ground punctation 

on pronotum and elytra evenly distributed and moderately 

coarse. Pronotal and elytral surface flat and even, without 

elevations or grooves. Pronotal systematic punctures with 

short fine setae, similar in size to ground punctures, mostly 

blending with larger ground punctures; anterior and posterior 

series each forming an irregular field. Posterolateral 

corners of pronotum rounded. Sutural punctation on elytra 

absent or unmodified from ground punctuation; sutural 

interval not raised. Rows of systematic punctures on elytra 

present and moderately distinct, forming loose, rows of 

slightly larger punctures which may bear fine, short setae. 

Margins of elytra set with a few sparse setae, but not a dense 

fringe. Prosternum with a clearly defined median carina; 

slightly elevated anteromedially, the elevation set with 

2 thickened spine-like setae. Elevated process of mesoventrite 

narrow and elongate, more than three times as long 

as wide, with 5 coarse spine-like setae. Metaventrite with 

narrow oval glabrous area posteromedially, ca. twice as long 

as wide, length of glabrous area ca. half the length of metaventrite. 

Procoxae with fine short pubescence and set with 

coarse, short spine-like setae. Abdomen. Ventrites with rather 

dense setae of varying lengths; each ventrite with scattered 

very long erect setae, distinctly longer than the longest setae 

on the metaventrite. Aedeagus as in Fig. 3B. 

Habitat. All specimens were collected on and near a small 

inselberg. Specimens were found by disturbing the sand 

and detrital margins of a small stream that originated at the 

base of the inselberg, as well as on a small area of wet, algae 

covered rock on the inselberg itself. 

Etymology. Named after the Trio people, the indigenous 

ethnic group of the region, who generously allowed us to 

conduct fieldwork and assisted with this survey on their land. 

Genus Tobochares Short & Garcia, 2007 

The genus Tobochares was described to accommodate a single 

species, T. sulcatus Short & Garcia, 2007, found along the 

northwestern edge of the Guiana Shield in the Venezuelan 

state of Amazonas. The species described here fits the generic 

diagnosis of Tobochares extremely well, and no modifications 

to the generic description are necessary with the inclusion 

of T. sipaliwini. Tobochares sulcatus generally occurs along 

the margins of streams and small rivers with granite bedrock 

with detritus. While the collecting events for the new species 

here described did not occur in streams flowing over granite, 

they were found in close proximity to an inselberg. 



Tobochares sipaliwini Short & Kadosoe sp. n. 

Type material: Holotype (male): “SURINAME: Sipaliwini 

District/ 2 10.973'N, 56 47.235'W, 210 m/ Camp 2, on 

Sipaliwini River/ leg. Short & Kadosoe; Inselberg/ 29–30. 

viii.2010; SR10-0829-01A/ 2010 CI-RAP Survey” (Deposited 

in the National Zoological Collection of Suriname). 

Paratypes (4): SURINAME: Sipaliwini District: Same data 

as holotype (3 exs.). Same camp but 31.viii.2010, sandy forest 

creek, SR10-0831-01B (1 ex.). Paratypes will be divided 

between the National Zoological Collection in Suriname, 

the University of Kansas, and the US National Museum of 

Natural History. 

Diagnosis. Elytra sulcate on basal half only on disc (elytral 

sulcate on entire length in T. sulcatus, with medial series 

reaching the elytral base). Maxillary palps uniformly pale 

(apex darkened in T. sulcatus). Process of the mesoventrite 

distinctly elevated into a sharp tooth (process not elevated 

or acute in T. sulcatus). Outer margins of parameres straight 

(sinuate in T. sulcatus). 

Description. Size and form. Body length = 1.8–2.0 mm. 

Body elongate oval (Fig. 4A), moderately dorsoventrally 

compressed. Color and punctation. Dorsum of head, pronotum 

and elytra very dark brown with the lateral margins of 

pronotum and elytra slightly paler. Anterolateral margins of 

clypeus with very faint paler preocular patches. Meso- and 

metathoracic ventrites and visible abdominal sterna dark 

brown, with prosternum, epipleura, and legs distinctly 

paler. Ground punctation on head, pronotum and elytra 

moderately fine. Head. Antennae with scape and pedicel 

subequal in length, and their combined length subequal 

to antennomeres 3–8. Maxillary palps with palpomeres 

2 and 4 subequal in length with palpomere 3 slightly shorter. 

Thorax. Elytra with ten rows of serial punctures which are 

depressed into grooves in posterior half on the mesal region, 

to posterior four-fifths on the lateral region. Elevation of 

Figure 4. Tobochares sipaliwini Short & Kadosoe sp. n. A) Dorsal habitus, 

scale bar = 1.0 mm, B) Aedeagus. 

mesoventrite forming a lateral carina which is raised into an 

acute tooth elevated to the same plane as the ventral surface 

of mesocoxae. Metaventrite with distinct median ovoid 

glabrous area that is nearly two-thirds as long as the metaventrite 

length. Abdomen. Abdominal ventrites uniformly 

and very densely pubescent. Apex of fifth ventrite evenly 

rounded. Aedeagus with basal piece short, ca. one-third as 

long as parameres. Parameres with inner and outer margins 

straight in apical half. Dorsal strut slightly extended past the 

apex of parameres, with gonopore of median lobe situated 

distinctly below apex of the dorsal strut. 

Habitat. All specimens were collected in small creeks 

(

Chapter 4 

REFERENCES 

Fikáček, M. & A.E.Z. Short. 2010. Discovery of the genus 

Cetiocyon in the Neotropical Region and revision of 

its New Guinean species (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae: 

Sphaeridiinae). Arthropod Systematics and Phylogeny 

68(3): 309–329. 

Gustafson, G.T. & A.E.Z. Short. 2010a. Redescription of 

the Neotropical water scavenger beetle genus Phaenostoma 

(Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae) with description of 

two new species. Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis 

Pragae 50(2): 459–467. 

Gustafson, G.T. & A.E.Z. Short. 2010b. Revision of the 

Neotropical water scavenger beetle genus Guyanobius 

Spangler (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae: Chaetarthriini). 

Aquatic Insects 32(4): 245–258 

Hansen, M. 1999. Hydrophiloidea (s. str.) (Coleoptera). In: 

World Catalogue of Insects, vol. 2. Stenstrup, Denmark, 

416 pp. 

Jäch, M. & M. Balke. 2008. Global diversity of water 

beetles (Coleoptera) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia 595: 

419–442. 

Miller, K.B. 2005. Revision of the New World and Southeast 

Asian Vatellini (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae: Hydroporinae) 

and phylogenetic analysis of the tribe. Zoological 

Journal of the Linnean Society, 144: 415–510. 

Nilsson, A.N. 2001. Dytiscidae (Coleoptera). In: World catalogue 

of insects, vol. 3. Stenstrup, Denmark, 395 pp. 

Nilsson, A.N. & van Vonel, B.J. 2005. Amphizoidae, 

Aspidytidae, Haliplidae, Noteridae, and Paelobiidae 

(Coleoptera). In: World Catalogue of Insects, vol. 7. 

Stenstrup, Denmark, 170 pp. 

Ochs, G. 1964. Zur Kenntnis der Gyriniden (Col.) von 

Suriname und vom Rio Parú im benachbarten Brasilien. 

Uitg. natuurw Studkring Suriname, 27: 82–110. 

Queney, P. 2006. Description of three new species of Berosus 

from French Guiana (Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae). 

Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France 111: 

457–464. 

Queney, P. 2010. Three new species of Notionotus Spangler 

from French Guiana and Guyana (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae). 

Koleopterologische Rundschau 80: 129–137. 

Short, A.E.Z. & M. García. 2007. Tobochares sulcatus, a 

new genus and species of water scavenger beetle from 

Amazonas State, Venezuela (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae). 

Aquatic Insects 29: 1–7. 

Short, A.E.Z. & Hebauer, F. 2006. World Catalogue of 

Hydrophiloidea – additions and corrections, 1 (1999– 

2005) (Coleoptera). Koleopterologische Rundschau 76: 

315–359. 

Short, A.E.Z. & Fikáček, M. 2011. World catalogue of the 

Hydrophiloidea (Coleoptera): additions and corrections 

II (2006–2010). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis 

Pragae, 51. 

Spangler, P.J. & A.E.Z. Short. 2008. Three new species of 

Neotropical Tropisternus Solier (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae). 

Zootaxa 1917: 65–68. 

Spangler, P.J. and Steiner, W.E. 1983. New Species of Water 

Beetles of the Genera Elmoparnus and Pheneps from 

Suriname (Coleoptera: Dryopidae; Psephenidae). Proceedings 

of the Entomological Society of Washington, 

85, 826–839. 

Young, F.N. 1971. Two new species of Hydrodessus from 

Suriname, with a key to the known species (Coleoptera: 

Dytiscidae). Uitgaven Natuurw Studkring Suriname, 

(61): 152–158. 



Appendix. List of aquatic beetles collected on the Kwamalasamutu RAP survey. * = confirmed new species. 

Taxon Total # specimens Kutari Sipaliwini Werehpai 

DYTISCIDAE 

Anodocheilus sp. 1 24 X X X 

Bidessodes sp. 1 15 X 

Bidessodes sp. 2 4 X 

Bidessodes sp. X 115 X X 

Bidessonotus sp. 1 23 X X 

Celina sp. 1 5 X X 

Copelatus geayi Régimbart, 1904 43 X X X 

Copelatus sp. 2 14 X X X 


Copelatus sp. 4 16 X X 




Copelatus sp. 8 2 X X 


Copelatus sp. 10 1 X 

Derovatellus sp. 1 3 X X 

Desmopachria sp. 1 16 X 

Desmopachria sp. 2 6 X X X 

Desmopachria sp. 3 15 X X X 

Desmopachria sp. 4 3 X X 

Desmopachria sp. 5 3 X 

Desmopachria sp. 6 7 X X 

Desmopachria sp. X 188 X X X 

Fontidessus sp. 1* 128 X 

Hemibidessus sp. 1 26 X X 

Hemibidessus sp. 2 39 X X 

Hydaticus subfasciatus Laporte, 1835 28 X X X 

Hydaticus sp. 2 2 X X 

Hydrodessus sp. 1 1 X 



Hypodessus sp. 1 55 X 

Hypodessus sp. 2 14 X X 

Laccodytes apalodes Guignot, 1955 33 X 

Laccodytes sp. 2 2 X 



Laccodytes sp. 5 2 X X 

Laccophilus sp. 1 8 X X 





87

Chapter 4 


Laccophilus sp. 4 1 X 


Laccophilus sp. 6 72 X X X 




Pachydrus sp. 1 7 X X 

Platynectes sp. 1 50 X 

Thermonectus sp. 1 7 X 

Thermonectus sp. 2 7 X X 



Uvarus sp. 1 20 X 

Vatellus tarsatus (LaPorte, 1835) 13 X 

Vatellus sp. 2 2 X X 

DRYOPIDAE 

Dryops sp. 1 29 X 

Pelonomus sp. 1 20 X X 

ELMIDAE 

Cyllepus sp. 1 1 X 

Hexacylloepus sp. 1 4 X X 

Hintonelmis sp. 1 2 X 

Hintonelmis sp. 2 3 X X 

Neoelmis sp. 1 57 X X X 

Neoelmis sp. 2 2 X 

Neoelmis sp. 3 17 X X 

Pagelmis sp. 1 1 X 

Pagelmis sp. 2 4 X X 

Pagelmis sp. 3 1 X 

Pilielmis sp. 1 2 X 

Stegoelmis stictoides Spangler, 1990 21 X X X 

Stenhelmoides sp. 1 65 X X 

New Genus 1, sp. 1* 1 X 


EPIMETOPIDAE 

Epimetopus sp. 1 5 X 

Epimetopus sp. 2 2 X 

GYRINIDAE 

Gyretes sp. 1 27 X X 




Gyretes sp. 5 2 X 





HYDRAENIDAE 

Hydraena paeminosa Perkins, 1980 13 X X 

Hydraena sp. 1* 1 X 

Hydraena sp. 2* 1 X 

HYDROCHIDAE 

Hydrochus sp. 1 2 X 


Hydrochus sp. 3 3 X X 



HYDROPHILIDAE 

Anacaena cf. suturalis 152 X X X 

Australocyon sp. 1 6 X 

Cercyon sp. 1 9 X X 

Cercyon sp. 2 17 X X 

Cetiocyon incantatus Fikacek & Short, 2010* 1 X 

Chaetarthria sp. 1 1 X 

Chasmogenus sp. X* 248 X X X 

Derallus intermedius Oliva, 1995 22 X X X 

Derallus sp. 1 46 X X 

Derallus sp. 2 53 X X 

Derallus sp. 3 25 X 

Derallus sp. 4 2 X 

Enochrus sp. 1* 189 X X X 

Enochrus sp. 2 52 X 

Enochrus sp. 3 92 X X 



Enochrus sp. 6 123 X X X 

Globulosis sp. 1 11 X X 

Guyanobius sp. 1 3 X 

Helochares sp. 1* 30 X X X 

Helochares sp. 2 30 X X X 

Helochares sp. 3 10 X X 

Helochares sp. 4* 10 X 

Helochares sp. 5 1 X 

Hydrobiomorpha sp. 1 2 X 

Hydrobiomorpha sp. 2 1 X 

Hydrophilus smaragdinus Brullé, 1837 5 X 

Moraphilus sp. 1 7 X X 

Notionotus shorti Queney, 2010 41 X X 

Oosternum sp. 1 1 X 

Oosternum sp. X 16 X X 



89

Chapter 4 


Oocyclus trio Short & Kadosoe, sp.n.* 22 X 

Pelosoma sp. 1 14 X 



Pemelus sp.* 1 X 

Phaenonotum sp. 1 16 X X 

Phaenonotum sp. 2 3 X 

Phaenostoma sp. 1 4 X X 

Phaenostoma sp. 2 14 X 

Phaenostoma sp. 3 38 X X 

Phaenostoma sp. 4 12 X 

Tobochares sipaliwini Short & Kadosoe, sp.n.* 6 X 

Tropisternus chalybeus 89 X X X 

Tropisternus phyllisae Spangler & Short, 2008 1 X 

Tropisternus setiger 13 X X 

Tropisternus surinamensis Spangler & Short, 2008 23 X X 

New Genus 1, sp. 1* 50 X X 

New Genus 1, sp. 2* 29 X X 


NOTERIDAE 

Notomicrus sp 1. 121 X X 

Notomicrus sp. X 239 X X X 

Siolius cf. bicolor 56 X X 

Suphisellus sp. 1 168 X X X 

TOTAL: 4409 91 68 93 

Site-Unique Species: 32 7 23 


Chapter 5 

Dung beetles of the Kwamalasamutu 

region, Suriname (Coleoptera: 

Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) 


Summary 

Dung beetles are among the most cost-effective of all animal taxa for assessing biodiversity patterns, 

but relatively little is known about the dung beetle fauna of Suriname. I sampled dung 

beetles using baited pitfall traps and flight intercept traps in the Kwamalasamutu Region of 

southern Suriname. I collected 4,554 individuals represented by 94 species. Species composition 

and abundance varied quite strongly among sites. Dung beetle diversity correlated positively 

with large mammal species richness, and was highest at the most isolated site (Kutari), 

suggesting a possible cascading influence of hunting on dung beetles. Small-scale habitat 

disturbance also caused local dung beetle extinctions. 

The dung beetle fauna of the Kwamala region is very rich relative to other lowland forests 

of Suriname and the Guianas, and contains a mix of range restricted endemics, Guiana Shield 

endemics, and Amazonian species. I estimate that about 10–15% of the dung beetle species 

collected here are undescribed. While most species were coprophagous, 26 species were never 

attracted to dung; 4 of these were attracted exclusively to carrion or dead invertebrates and the 

other 22 were only captured in flight intercept traps. The abundance of several large-bodied 

dung beetle species in the region is indicative of the intact wilderness that remains. These species 

support healthy ecosystems through seed dispersal, parasite regulation and other processes. 

Maintaining continuous primary forest and regulating hunting (such as through huntingrestricted 

reserves) in the region will be essential for conserving dung beetle communities and 

the ecological processes they sustain. 

Introduction 

Dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) are an ecologically important group 

of insects. By burying dung as a food and nesting resource, dung beetles contribute to several 

ecological processes and ecosystem services that include: reduction of parasite infections of 

mammals, including people; secondary dispersal of seeds and increased plant recruitment; 

recycling of nutrients into the soil; and decomposition of dung as well as carrion, fruit and 

fungus (Nichols et al. 2008). Dung beetles are among the most cost-effective of all animal 

taxa for assessing and monitoring biodiversity (Gardner et al. 2008a), and consequently 

are frequently used as a model group for understanding general biodiversity trends (Spector 

2006). Dung beetles show high habitat specificity and respond rapidly to environmental 

change. Since dung beetles primarily depend on dung from large mammals, they are excellent 

indicators of mammal biomass and hunting intensity. Dung beetle community structure and 

abundance can be rapidly measured using standardized transects of baited traps, facilitating 

quantitative comparisons among sites and studies (Larsen and Forsyth 2005). 


91

Chapter 5 

Methods 

I sampled dung beetles at all three sites (Kutari, Sipaliwini, 

and Werehpai) using standardized pitfall trap transects. Ten 

traps baited with human dung were placed 150 m apart 

along a linear transect at each site (see Larsen and Forsyth 

2005 for more details). Traps consisted of 16 oz plastic cups 

buried in the ground and filled with water with a small 

amount of liquid detergent. A bait wrapped in nylon tulle 

was suspended above the cup from a stick and covered with 

a large leaf. At each site, traps were collected every 24 hours 

for four days, and were re-baited after two days. I set three 

flight intercept traps at each site to passively collect dung 

beetle species that are not attracted to dung. I also placed 

additional pitfall traps whenever possible with other types 

of baits that included rotting fungus, carrion, dead millipedes, 

and injured millipedes. All traps were collected daily. 

I opportunistically collected dung beetles that I encountered 

in the forest, usually perching on leaves during both day 

and night. 

From August 19–24, 2010, I collected dung beetles at 

the Kutari site (N 02° 10' 31", W 056° 47' 14") in primary 

forest characterized by small hills and several swampy areas. 

From August 27 – September 4, 2010, I collected dung beetles 

at the Sipaliwini site (N 02° 17' 24", W 056° 36' 26") in 

primary forest with small hills and relatively dry, hard soils 

with high bedrock. From September 2–7, 2010, I collected 

dung beetles at the Werehpai site (N 02° 21' 47", W 056° 

41' 52") in primary forest as well as in bamboo (1 dung trap) 

and secondary forest (1 dung trap). Beetles were identified 

and counted as they were collected in the field and voucher 

specimens were stored in ethanol for further study and 

museum collections. Beetle specimens are deposited at the 

National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian 

Institution in Washington, DC, USA and at the National 

Zoological Collection of Suriname in Paramaribo. 

To estimate total species richness at each site and assess 

sampling completeness, I compared the observed number 

of species with the expected number of species on the basis 

of randomized species accumulation curves computed in 

EstimateS (version 7, R. K. Colwell, http://purl.oclc.org/ 

estimates) (Colwell and Coddington 1994). I used an abundance-based 

coverage estimator (ACE) because it accounts 

for species abundance as well as incidence, providing more 

detailed estimates. I also used EstimateS to calculate similarity 

among sites, using the Morisita-Horn similarity index 

which incorporates species abundance as well as incidence. 

(47 species) and Kutari (44 species) (Table 1, Fig. 1). Species 

accumulation curves for dung-baited pitfall traps (based on 

abundance-based coverage estimator) indicated that I sampled 

an estimated 88% of all coprophagous species occurring 

in the area. However, sampling completeness was lowest at 

Werehpai where I sampled only 72% of the dung-feeding 

species likely to occur at the site (Table 1, Fig. 1). Consequently, 

species richness estimators predict that Werehpai 

supports the highest number of coprophagous species 

(65 species), followed by Kutari (60 species) and Sipaliwini 

(57 species) (Table 1). 

These differences between observed and predicted species 

richness are probably explained by strong differences in 

abundance among sites. As with observed species richness, 

abundance was highest at Sipaliwini and lowest at Kutari; 

Sipaliwini supported almost three times as many individuals 

as Kutari (Table 1, Fig. 1). Low abundance at Kutari 

may have been influenced by the large areas of swamp and 

Table 1. Diversity and abundance of dung beetles in Kwamala region. 

Species richness 

(all samples) 

Species richness 

(dung traps) 

Estimated richness 

(ACE) (dung traps) 

% Sampling 

completeness 

(dung traps) 

Shannon diversity 

(H) (dung traps) 

Abundance/trap 

(all samples) 

Abundance/trap 

(dung traps) 

All sites Kutari Sipaliwini Werehpai 

94 70 62 67 

68 45 49 47 

77 60 57 65 

88 75 86 72 

2.84 2.85 2.57 2.78 

23.6 13.8 34.3 23.5 

33.9 16.7 49.3 35.7 

Results and Discussion 

I sampled a total of 94 species and 4,554 individuals of 

dung beetles during the RAP (Table 1, Appendix A). Species 

richness was similar at all sites. Among dung traps, for which 

sampling effort was identical at all sites, species richness was 

highest at Sipaliwini (49 species), followed by Werehpai 

Figure 1. Species accumulation curves for each site based on dung-baited 

pitfall traps (40 trap samples for each site). 


Dung beetles of the Kwamalasamutu region, Suriname (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) 

flooded forest at the site, conditions which negatively affect 

many dung beetle species whose larvae develop in the soil. 

However, diversity, measured by the Shannon index, showed 

the opposite pattern to observed species richness. Diversity 

was highest at Kutari and lowest at Sipaliwini, due to 

greater evenness of species’ abundance distributions at Kutari 

(Table 1). 

Out of 94 species sampled during this RAP survey, only 

68 were attracted to dung. Considering all trap types and 

capture methods, Kutari supported the greatest number 

of dung beetle species (70 species) (Appendix A, B). Four 

species were attracted only to carrion or to dead invertebrates 

(Appendix B). 22 species were sampled only in flight 

intercept traps (Appendix B), and many of these species are 

poorly represented in collections because they are difficult 

to sample and in some cases, their diet is unknown. Some of 

these species show unusual specializations, such as millipede 

predation or colonization of leaf-cutter ant nests (see interesting 

species discussion below). 

Species composition and community structure varied 

strongly among sites (Table 2). Sipaliwini and Werehpai 

were relatively similar in terms of community structure, 

showing a high Morisita-Horn index. Kutari was very 

distinct from both Sipaliwini and Werehpai, and contained 

many species not present at the other sites. Some of the most 

abundant species at a particular site were rare or completely 

absent from other sites (Appendix A). For example, I caught 

211 individuals of Ateuchus simplex at Sipaliwini, and none at 

Kutari, despite the relative close proximity of both sites. 

Dung beetle species richness was strongly reduced by 

habitat disturbance. Second growth forest supported only 

70% of the total species richness found in primary forest, 

while bamboo supported only 40% of primary forest species 

richness (Fig. 2). Only one species, Uroxys gorgon, occurred 

in bamboo or secondary forest but did not occur in primary 

forest. Uroxys gorgon is known to be phoretic in sloth fur, 

and sloths are often hyper-abundant in secondary forest. The 

absence of other disturbance-adapted species in the Kwamala 

region was somewhat surprising, given the high number 

of ‘weedy’ species found in other parts of South America. 

Their absence might be explained by the extraordinarily 

low proportion of disturbed habitats occurring in southern 

Suriname. 

Dung beetle diversity (measured by the Shannon index) 

was strongly positively correlated with species richness of 

large mammals (Fig. 3), with the highest beetle diversity and 

mammal richness occurring at Kutari. Kutari also appeared 

to support the most primate species of all sites (see Large 

Mammals Chapter), and primates provide one of the most 

important food sources for dung beetles. High dung beetle 

diversity at Kutari may have been influenced by higher 

mammal richness and by lower hunting intensity, although 

further data are needed. On the other hand, dung beetle 

species richness and abundance were not correlated with the 

large mammal community, although no robust analysis was 

possible due to the short sampling period for mammals and 

the small number of sites for both groups (N=3). Furthermore, 

dung beetle abundance and species richness may have 

been influenced by differences in habitat and soil conditions, 

as discussed above. 

At least 23 dung beetle species sampled during this RAP 

survey are known to be distributed across the Amazon 

basin. Many of the Amazonian species were locally rare and 

sampled at Kutari (Appendix A), which was the southernmost 

site sampled during the RAP. Out of these 23 Amazonian 

species, 20 occurred at Kutari, and only 16 at Werehpai 

and 15 at Sipaliwini. The Kwamala area may straddle the 

northern range limit for these species. 

For the few genera that have been revised and for which 

good distributional data exist, many of the remaining species 

are restricted to the northern Amazon region, the Guiana 

Shield, or show an even more restricted range, while several 

are data deficient (see also interesting species discussion 

below). For example, Coprophanaeus parvulus, Oxysternon 

festivum, and Eurysternus balachowskyi are endemic to the 

Guiana Shield and northern Amazon, while Oxysternon 

durantoni and Eurysternus cambeforti occur only in the 

extreme northeastern Guianas (Edmonds and Zidek 2004, 

Genier 2009, Edmonds and Zidek 2010). 

Dung beetle species richness is high in the Kwamala 

region relative to other areas in northeastern South America 

and the Guianas (Table 3). Similar RAP surveys at Lely and 

Nassau in Suriname yielded only 35–48% of the species 

Table 2. Dung beetle community similarity among sites. 

1st 2nd S 1st S 2nd 

Shared 

Species 

Morisita- 

Horn 

Kutari Sipaliwini 44 49 35 0.57 

Kutari Werehpai 44 47 30 0.61 

Sipaliwini Werehpai 49 47 37 0.90 

N = 40 dung traps at each site, S = species richness 

Figure 2. Impacts of habitat disturbance on species richness: primary 

forest, secondary forest and bamboo (mean ±1 SE). 


93

Chapter 5 

richness found around Kwamala. Other studies from Venezuela, 

French Guiana, and Brazil also showed lower species 

richness in lowland primary forest with comparable sampling 

effort. Further sampling around Kwamala may yield as many 

or more species than were found in French Guiana and at 

Jari, Brazil, where greater sampling effort was employed 

(Table 3). 

Table 3. Comparison of dung beetle species richness in primary lowland 

forests in northeastern South America. 

Kwamala region 

Nassau, Suriname 1 

Lely, Suriname 1 

Guri, Venezuela 2 

S (all samples) 94 27 38 41 

S (dung traps) 68 24 33 24 

(32) 

Nouragues, F. Guiana 3, 4 

42 

(78) 

Kaw Mtn, F. Guiana 4 

33 

(47) 

Jari, Amapa , Brazil 5 

41–51 

(72) 

Figure 3. Linear regression of dung beetle diversity (Shannon diversity 

index) against large mammal species richness across all three sites. 

Marajoara, Para, Brazil 6 

First number indicates species richness observed with comparable 

sampling effort to this RAP survey. Number in parentheses indicates 

species richness observed with more extensive long-term sampling 

effort, or across a broader landscape. 1 Larsen 2007; 2 Larsen et 

al. 2008, Larsen unpub. data; 3 Feer 2000; 4 Price & Feer in prep.; 

5 

Gardner et al. 2008b; 6 Scheffler 2005 

47 

Interesting Species 

I estimate that about 10–15% of the dung beetle species 

collected during this RAP (10 to 14 species) are undescribed. 

However, most of the genera collected here have never been 

revised, and determination of these undescribed species will 

require further comparisons with other museum collections. 

I sampled 26 species of Canthidium in the Kwamala area. 

Canthidium is a hyper-diverse yet very poorly known genus, 

and many of these species are almost certainly new to science. 

Ateuchus is also a poorly known yet diverse genus, and 

several Ateuchus species from the RAP are likely to be new. 

Canthon sp. 2 represents an undescribed species that is currently 

under study (see Appendix A). 

Several large-bodied dung beetle species, such as Coprophanaeus 

lancifer (the largest Neotropical dung beetle 

species), Oxysternon festivum, and Dichotomius boreus, were 

sampled at all three sites. These species move long distances 

and require large, continuous areas of forest to persist. Their 

presence at the sites is indicative of the intact, contiguous 

landscape around Kwamala. These large dung beetle species 

are also the most ecologically important for burying seeds 

and controlling parasites. 

Six species (Dendropaemon sp. 1, Deltorhinum guyanensis, 

and four Anomiopus species) were only sampled in flight 

intercept traps and their distinctive morphology, with 

strongly reduced tarsi and stout, compact bodies, suggest 

that they are myrmecophilous (associated with ant nests), 

as are several other dung beetle species. Based on a recent 

revision of the genus Anomiopus, this is the first record for all 

four of these species in Suriname (Canhedo 2006), although 

I collected A. parallelus and A. lacordairei on another RAP 

survey in Suriname (Larsen 2007; Appendix A). Both species 

were previously known only from French Guiana and northern 

Brazil. Deltorhinum guyanensis, endemic to the Guianas, 

was only described after this RAP survey was conducted 

(Genier 2010), and this is the first record of this species in 

Suriname. 

Deltochilum valgum is a highly specialized predator of millipedes, 

and adults decapitate and feed on millipedes that are 

much larger than themselves. This unusual behavior was only 

discovered and described last year (Larsen et al. 2009). Canthidium 

cf. chrysis is a member of the escalerei species group 

which commonly feed on dead invertebrates. It was captured 

mostly with dead millipedes, but occasionally with carrion, 

and may be specialized to feed on millipedes. Canthidium 

sp. 20 (aff. chrysis), Canthon sp. 1 and Canthon sp. 2 were 

also most abundant at dead millipedes, but whether they 

specialize on millipedes or on dead invertebrates in general 

is not yet clear. Canthidium cf. gigas, which was represented 

by only one individual in a flight intercept trap, is a member 

of an unusual species group which may feed on fungus. This 

group includes by far the largest of all Canthidium species. 

Canthidium cf. minimum is an unusual species that may 

need to be transferred to a different genus (see Appendix A 

for this and other taxonomic notes). 




The Kwamala area supports vast tracts of intact primary 

forest, which is important for many dung beetle species. 

Consequently, I found extremely high species richness of 

dung beetles in the area (94 species). To put this diversity 

into perspective, during a RAP survey at the Nassau and Lely 

plateaus in Suriname, I sampled only 24 species and 33 species 

at each site respectively (Table 3). I sampled extensively 

in lowland forest around Lago Guri in Bolivar, Venezuela, 

and found only 41 species (Larsen et al. 2008). On the other 

hand, small-scale habitat loss and disturbance around Kwamala 

led to local dung beetle extinctions, which would likely 

be exacerbated by more widespread habitat loss. Preventing 

mining operations and other drivers of deforestation from 

entering the area will be important for maintaining the high 

biodiversity of the Kwamala region. 

In addition to high overall species richness, I found high 

Beta diversity at the sites across very small spatial scales, 

and Kutari supports a very distinct dung beetle community 

than the other sites. Consequently, it is important to protect 

the diversity of soils and habitats that occur in the Kwamala 

region even at small spatial scales. Plans for protected 

areas or reserves should incorporate this small-scale spatial 

heterogeneity. 

Tropical ectotherms, such as dung beetles, are among the 

most sensitive organisms on Earth to climate change (Larsen 

et al. 2011). Climate warming is forcing many species to 

shift their distribution poleward or upslope, and these effects 

are strongest at the edge of species’ ranges. Since the Kwamala 

area contains many Amazonian species near the edge 

of their range limit, it may present an excellent opportunity 

to monitor the response of populations and species’ distributions 

to climate change. 

High dung beetle diversity at Kutari, the most isolated 

site, was correlated with high mammal, including primate, 

species richness, and this may be explained by lower hunting 

pressures. The abundance and biomass of dung beetles 

in the Kwamala area overall was relatively high, and was 

higher than I observed at Nassau and Lely in other parts 

of Suriname. This suggests that in addition to the pristine 

state of the forest, populations of large birds and mammals 

are relatively stable. However, dung beetle abundance was 

lower than I expected based on surveys in other Neotropical 

primary forests where no hunting occurs. This is likely 

to reflect the relatively low abundance of spider monkeys, 

howler monkeys, and white-lipped peccaries, which are 

among the most important species for dung beetles but are 

also preferred for bushmeat. Reduced hunting on these key 

species would help to stabilize ecosystem dynamics not just 

for dung beetles, but for seed dispersal and other ecological 

processes as well. The establishment of hunting-restricted 

reserves such as the one at Iwana Samu is an excellent way to 

maintain sustainable populations of large mammals. 

Acknowledgements 

I would like to thank the Trio People of Kwamalasamutu, 

the game wardens, and the park guards, as well as Leeanne 

Alonso and Brian O’Shea for coordinating the RAP survey. 

Dana Price and Francois Feer provided valuable comparative 

data from French Guiana. 

Literature Cited 

Canhedo, V. L. 2006. Revisao taxonomica do genero 

Anomiopus Westwood, 1842 (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae, 

Scarabaeinae). [Taxonomic revision of the genus 

Anomiopus Westwood, 1842 (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae, 

Scarabaeinae).]. Arquivos de Zoologia Sao Paulo 

37:349–502. 

Colwell, R. K. and J. A. Coddington. 1994. Estimating terrestrial 

biodiversity through extrapolation. Philosophical 

Transactions of the Royal Society of London B Biological 

Sciences 345:101–118. 

Edmonds, W. D. and J. Zidek. 2004. Revision of the Neotropical 

dung beetle genus Oxysternon (Scarabaeidae: 

Scarabaeinae: Phanaeini). Folia Heyrovskyana Supplementum 

11:1–58. 

Edmonds, W. D. and J. Zidek. 2010. A taxonomic review 

of the neotropical genus Coprophanaeus Olsoufieff, 

1924 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae, Scarabaeinae). Insecta 

Mundi 0129:1–111. 

Feer, F. 2000. Dung and carrion beetles of the rain forest 

of French Guiana: composition and structure of the 

guild. Annales De La Societe Entomologique De France 

36:29–43. 

Gardner, T. A., J. Barlow, I. S. Araujo, T. C. Avila-Pires, 

A. B. Bonaldo, J. E. Costa, M. C. Esposito, L. V. Ferreira, 

J. Hawes, M. I. M. Hernandez, M. S. Hoogmoed, 

R. N. Leite, N. F. Lo-Man-Hung, J. R. Malcolm, M. B. 

Martins, L. A. M. Mestre, R. Miranda-Santos, W. L. 

Overal, L. Parry, S. L. Peters, M. A. Ribeiro, M. N. F. 

da Silva, C. D. S. Motta, and C. A. Peres. 2008a. The 

cost-effectiveness of biodiversity surveys in tropical 

forests. Ecology Letters 11:139–150. 

Gardner, T. A., M. I. M. Hernandez, J. Barlow, and C. A. 

Peres. 2008b. Understanding the biodiversity consequences 

of habitat change: the value of secondary and 

plantation forests for neotropical dung beetles. Journal 

of Applied Ecology 45:883–893. 

Genier, F. 2009. Le Genre Eurysternus Dalman, 1824 (Scarabaeidae: 

Scarabaeinae: Oniticellini) Pensoft, Bulgaria. 

Genier, F. 2010. A review of the Neotropical dung beetle 

genera Deltorhinum Harold, 1869, and Lobidion gen. 

nov. (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae). Zootaxa 

2693:35–48. 

Larsen, T. H. 2007. Dung beetles of the Lely and Nassau 

plateaus, Eastern Suriname. Pages 99–101 in L. E. 

Alonso and J. H. Mol, editors. A rapid biological 


95

Chapter 5 

assessment of the Lely and Nassau plateaus, Suriname 

(with additional information on the Brownsberg Plateau). 

Conservation International, Arlington, VA, USA. 

Larsen, T. H., F. Escobar, and I. Armbrecht. 2011. Insects 

of the Tropical Andes: diversity patterns, processes and 

global change. Pages 228–244 in S. K. Herzog, R. Martinez, 

P. M. Jorgensen, and H. Tiessen, editors. Climate 

Change and Biodiversity in the Tropical Andes. Inter- 

American Institute of Global Change Research (IAI) 

and Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment 

(SCOPE), São José dos Campos and Paris. 

Larsen, T. H. and A. Forsyth. 2005. Trap Spacing and 

Transect Design for Dung Beetle Biodiversity Studies. 

Biotropica 37:322–325. 

Larsen, T. H., A. Lopera, and A. Forsyth. 2008. Understanding 

Trait-Dependent Community Disassembly: Dung 

Beetles, Density Functions, and Forest Fragmentation. 

Conservation Biology 22:1288–1298. 

Larsen, T. H., A. Lopera, A. Forsyth, and F. Genier. 2009. 

From coprophagy to predation: a dung beetle that kills 

millipedes. Biology Letters 5:152–155. 

Nichols, E., S. Spector, J. Louzada, T. Larsen, S. Amequita, 

and M. E. Favila. 2008. Ecological functions and ecosystem 

services provided by Scarabaeinae dung beetles. 

Biological Conservation 141:1461–1474. 

Scheffler, P. Y. 2005. Dung beetle (Coleoptera : Scarabaeidae) 

diversity and community structure across three 

disturbance regimes in eastern Amazonia. Journal of 

Tropical Ecology 21:9–19. 

Spector, S. 2006. Scarabaeine dung beetles (Coleoptera : 

Scarabaeidae : Scarabaeinae): An invertebrate focal 

taxon for biodiversity research and conservation. Coleopterists 

Bulletin 60:71–83. 



Appendix A. Dung beetle species abundance (number individuals collected), including taxonomic notes and amended species list from RAP #43. 

Kutari Sipaliwini Werehpai Nassau Lely 

Old species name 

(from RAP #43 Lely and Nassau) 

# Species 70 62 67 27 38 

Total abundance 910 2093 1551 204 906 

# Trap samples 66 61 66 51 53 

Agamopus castaneus Balthasar 0 8 23 

Anomiopus andrei Canhedo 1 0 0 

Anomiopus globosus Canhedo 2 0 0 

Anomiopus lacordairei Waterhouse 3 0 0 1 0 Anomiopus sp. 2 

Anomiopus parallelus Harold 1 3 0 1 0 1 Anomiopus sp. 1 

Ateuchus cereus Harold 2 2 0 0 

Ateuchus cf. obscurus Harold 3 4 15 9 

Ateuchus cf. sulcicollis Harold 4 1 0 4 

Ateuchus murrayi Harold 27 42 7 1 1 Ateuchus sp. 1 

Ateuchus pygidialis Harold 5 1 0 3 

Ateuchus simplex LePeletier & Serville 6 0 211 74 1 13 Ateuchus sp. 2 

Ateuchus substriatus Harold 1 12 44 

Ateuchus sp. 3 7 1 3 1 

Ateuchus sp. 4 0 1 0 


Ateuchus sp. 6 (aff. murrayi) 9 3 0 0 

Ateuchus sp. 7 (aff. aeneomicans) 10 0 2 2 

Canthidium cf. chrysis Fabricius 11 1 19 2 

Canthidium cf. gigas Balthasar 12 0 0 1 

Canthidium cf. kirschi Harold 13 17 1 1 0 1 Canthidium cf. bicolor 

Canthidium cf. minimum Harold 14 0 2 0 

Canthidium cf. onitoides Perty 15 1 0 0 

Canthidium deyrollei Harold 13 71 32 

Canthidium dohrni Harold 16 3 4 0 

Canthidium gerstaeckeri Harold 19 12 7 0 6 Canthidium sp. 1 

Canthidium gracilipes Harold 12 1 3 

Canthidium splendidum Preudhomme 

de Borre 

0 0 11 

Canthidium sp. 5 (aff. funebre) 15 1 4 1 

Canthidium sp. 6 17 30 3 2 0 4 Canthidium sp. 2 

Canthidium sp. 7 (aff. histrio) 0 2 0 

Canthidium sp. 8 (aff. quadridens) 5 4 1 

Canthidium sp. 9 3 2 1 


Canthidium sp. 11 (aff. guyanense) 18 7 0 0 

Canthidium sp. 12 (aff. latum) 8 0 5 



97

Chapter 5 



Canthidium sp. 14 (centrale grp) 19 0 0 2 




Canthidium sp. 18 (aff. bicolor) 13 20 2 3 

Canthidium sp. 19 (aff. kirschi) 13 1 0 0 



Canthidium sp. 20 (aff. chrysis) 11 3 8 7 

Canthon bicolor Castelnau 9 32 31 2 46 Canthon bicolor 

Canthon quadriguttatus Olivier 1 0 0 1 7 Canthon quadriguttatus 

Canthon semiopacus Harold 0 1 0 

Canthon sordidus Harold 21 0 12 9 19 Anisocanthon cf. sericinus 

Canthon triangularis Drury 150 155 184 13 14 Canthon triangularis 

Canthon sp. 1 20 0 5 1 

Canthon sp. 2 21 2 4 3 

Canthonella silphoides Harold 0 0 1 

Coprophanaeus jasius Olivier 2 1 2 

Coprophanaeus lancifer Linnaeus 2 1 1 0 1 Coprophanaeus lancifer 

Coprophanaeus parvulus Olsoufieff 0 1 1 0 1 Coprophanaeus cf. parvulus 

Deltochilum carinatum Westwood 4 0 0 2 2 Deltochilum carinatum 

Deltochilum guyanense Boucomont 2 3 1 8 0 Deltochilum sp. 1 

Deltochilum icarus Olivier 3 1 7 1 3 Deltochilum icarus 

Deltochilum septemstriatum Paulian 4 4 6 4 0 Deltochilum sp. 2 

Deltochilum valgum Burmeister 3 0 1 

Deltorhinum guyanensis Genier 2 0 0 

Dendropaemon sp. 1 3 0 0 

Dichotomius boreus Olivier 52 123 44 4 7 Dichotomius sp. aff. podalirius 

Dichotomius cf. lucasi Harold 38 168 154 

Dichotomius mamillatus Felsche 2 1 1 0 1 Dichotomius mamillatus 

Dichotomius robustus Luederwaldt 1 1 1 

Dichotomius subaeneus Castelnau 0 1 0 

Dichotomius sp. 2 2 0 1 

Dichotomius sp. 3 (batesi-inachus grp) 22 0 0 2 

Dichotomius sp. 4 1 2 2 

Dichotomius sp. 5 (calcaratus grp) 1 0 0 

Eurysternus atrosericus Genier 9 35 42 

Eurysternus balachowskyi Halffter & 

Halffter 

0 2 1 1 0 Eurysternus sp. 2 

Eurysternus cambeforti Genier 0 6 2 0 1 Eurysternus cf. hirtellus 

Eurysternus caribaeus Herbst 21 125 150 5 16 Eurysternus caribaeus 

Eurysternus cyclops Genier 1 0 0 4 17 Eurysternus sp. aff. caribaeus 







Eurysternus foedus Guerin-Meneville 4 9 4 

Eurysternus hamaticollis Balthasar 0 2 0 

Eurysternus ventricosus Gill 1 2 0 0 1 Eurysternus sp. 1 

Hansreia affinis Fabricius 25 53 19 88 569 Hansreia affinis 

Onthophagus cf. xanthomerus Bates 23 14 6 2 

Onthophagus haematopus Harold 46 589 294 34 52 Onthophagus sp. 1 

Onthophagus rubrescens Blanchard 134 128 26 1 11 Onthophagus cf. haematopus 

Oxysternon durantoni Arnaud 29 19 8 0 24 Oxysternon cf. durantoni 

Oxysternon festivum Linnaeus 4 9 26 

Oxysternon spiniferum Castelnau 1 1 1 

Phanaeus bispinus Bates 0 1 0 

Phanaeus cambeforti Arnaud 5 5 31 

Phanaeus chalcomelas Perty 40 131 165 2 7 Phanaeus chalcomelas 

Sulcophanaeus faunus Fabricius 1 0 0 

Sylvicanthon cf. securus Schmidt 24 0 4 1 0 4 Sylvicanthon sp. nov. 

Trichillum pauliani Balthasar 0 2 21 

Uroxys gorgon Arrow 0 0 1 

Uroxys pygmaeus Harold 23 7 15 4 1 Uroxys sp. 2 

Uroxys sp. 3 38 15 28 6 29 Uroxys sp. 3 

Additional species sampled during 

RAP #43 

Canthidium guyanense Boucomont 2 20 Canthidium sp. 4 

Canthidium sp. 3 0 3 Canthidium sp. 3 

Canthon mutabilis Lucas 0 3 Canthon mutabilis 

Coprophanaeus dardanus MacLeay 0 3 Coprophanaeus cf. dardanus 

Deltochilum orbiculare Lansberge 3 1 Deltochilum sp. 3 

Dichotomius sp. 1 1 0 Dichotomius sp. 1 

Eurysternus hypocrita Balthasar 1 1 Eurysternus velutinus 

Eurysternus vastiorum Martinez 0 2 Eurysternus sp. 1 

Oxysternon silenus Castelnau 0 2 Oxysternon aeneum 

Scybalocanthon pygidialis Schmidt 1 10 Scybalocanthon cyanocephalus 

Uroxys sp. 1 4 2 Uroxys sp. 1 

1 

Individuals here are larger than A. parallelus revised by (Canhedo 2006), and are also larger and differ in pronotal patterning from the individual 

from the Lely RAP survey 

2 

Species needs to be transferred from genus Canthidium. Ateuchus scatimoides (Balthasar, 1939) is a junior synonym of Ateuchus cereus 

3 

May match Canthidium obscurum, although I have not yet seen this species; if so, species needs to be transferred from genus Canthidium 

4 

Species needs to be transferred from genus Canthidium 

5 

Probably represents a species complex; need to study types 

6 

The species I collected here matches the type specimen of Ateuchus setulosus (Balthasar, 1939); based on museum specimens and the original 

description, A. setulosus appears to be a junior synonym of A. simplex, but I have not seen A. simplex types. 

7 

Similar to A. pygidialis, but body more elongate and narrow 

8 

Similar to A. murrayi, but smaller pygidium with dorsal punctures, among other differences 

9 

Similar to A. murrayi, but larger, more heavily punctate pygidium, etc. Matches a probably undescribed species I have collected in southeastern 

Peru at dung and fruit 


99

Chapter 5 

10 

Smaller than A. aeneomicans and with prominent swelling on pygidium which is not present in A. aeneomicans 

11 

The only obvious difference I can find between Canthidium cf. chrysis and Canthidium sp. 20 (aff. chrysis), both of which were collected 

sympatrically, is color (C. sp. 20 is orange and black, while C. cf. chrysis is green). The aedeagus appears identical. Further study is needed, and 

these identifications are also based on uncertain museum labels 

12 

Part of a species group that needs revision 

13 

Canthidium kirschi and Canthidium bicolor are members of a taxonomically difficult species group which includes several undescribed species. 

All are very small species with a yellow/orange pronotum, dark brown/black elytra and head, and unarmed head lacking tubercles. Both 

species, and others, are frequently mixed and misidentified in collections. Key differences include punctures on the pronotum and shape of the 

male foretibial teeth and claw 

14 

This is a curious species. It closely resembles Canthidium minimum, although the hind tibia is slightly less curved in the specimens from this 

survey. Canthidium minimum shares characters with two genera, Canthidium and Sinapisoma, and might need to be transferred to Sinapisoma. 

Sinapisoma is currently a monospecific genus, and the only known species possesses a more elongate and curved inner margin of the hind tibia 

(which until recently caused it to be erroneously considered a canthonine roller) than in C. minimum. However, the hind tibia of C. minimum 

is more elongate and curved than other Canthidium species. Both share other characters, including a narrow mesosternum. 

15 

Canthidium onitoides and Canthidium funebre are members of a species complex whose species are frequently misidentified in collections and 

needs further revision. I have seen the C. funebre type, which is from Suriname, and it has microsculptured, matte elytra and yellow femora, 

in contrast to other species with shining, glabrous elytra and/or unicolor legs. Canthidium cf. onitoides collected during this RAP has glabrous 

elytra, and needs to be compared with C. onitoides type. 

16 

A similar species from southeastern Peru has two long fovea along the posterior elytral striae, rather than three as in the species collected here. 

It’s unclear which of these two species is actually Canthidium dohrni; the type is from Para, Brazil 

17 

Matches a possibly undescribed species collected in Colombia 

18 

Very similar to Canthidium guyanense, which was collected during Nassau and Lely RAP surveys, but can be separated based on the second 

and third elytral striae which are not deeply impressed posteriorly 

19 

Matches a possibly undescribed species I have collected in SE Peru. Perhaps the smallest member of the lentum-centrale species group 

20 

Very similar to Canthon sp. 2 (possibly same species), but pronotum appears more glabrous and shining, with less microsculpturing 

21 

Matches a species currently being described, Canthon doesburgi (Huijbregts, in litt.), but no name is yet available and the species remains formally 

undescribed 

22 

Matches a possibly undescribed species from SE Peru. Possesses an unusual fovea on the posterior portion of the head 

23 

O. xanthomerus is part of a difficult species group (clypeatus species group), that needs revision. O. xanthomerus usually has dark legs with 

yellow femora, although the species collected here has dark, unicolor legs. O. clypeatus has dark legs, but the male pronotal carinae are much 

sharper and more pronounced, while they are relatively smooth and rounded in O. xanthomerus. 

24 

I have not seen any specimens of Sylvicanthon securus, but the species collected here appears to match the original description, and the type 

locality is Suriname. I have often seen this species misidentified as Sylvicanthon candezei, but S. candezei has 2 foretibial teeth rather than 3 as 

in the species here 



Appendix B. Diet preference/capture method for dung beetles. Data are number of individuals collected. 

Dung Carrion Dead millipedes Injured millipedes Fungus FIT 

# Species 67 21 4 2 2 58 

Total abundance 4123 105 26 2 7 290 

# Trap samples 124 17 4 2 8 38 

Agamopus castaneus Balthasar 31 

Anomiopus andrei Canhedo 1 

Anomiopus globosus Canhedo 2 

Anomiopus lacordairei Waterhouse 3 

Anomiopus parallelus Harold 4 

Ateuchus cereus Harold 1 1 

Ateuchus cf. obscurus Harold 28 

Ateuchus cf. sulcicollis Harold 2 3 

Ateuchus murrayi Harold 69 7 

Ateuchus pygidialis Harold 3 1 

Ateuchus simplex LePeletier & Serville 282 1 2 

Ateuchus substriatus Harold 52 2 3 

Ateuchus sp. 3 5 

Ateuchus sp. 4 1 


Ateuchus sp. 6 (aff. murrayi) 3 

Ateuchus sp. 7 (aff. aeneomicans) 4 

Canthidium cf. chrysis Fabricius 3 15 4 

Canthidium cf. gigas Balthasar 1 

Canthidium cf. kirschi Harold 1 18 

Canthidium cf. minimum Harold 2 

Canthidium cf. onitoides Perty 1 

Canthidium deyrollei Harold 114 2 

Canthidium dohrni Harold 5 2 

Canthidium gerstaeckeri Harold 37 1 

Canthidium gracilipes Harold 1 15 

Canthidium splendidum Preudhomme de Borre 11 

Canthidium sp. 5 (aff. funebre) 5 1 

Canthidium sp. 6 34 1 

Canthidium sp. 7 (aff. histrio) 2 

Canthidium sp. 8 (aff. quadridens) 10 

Canthidium sp. 9 5 1 

Canthidium sp. 10 2 

Canthidium sp. 11 (aff. guyanense) 5 2 

Canthidium sp. 12 (aff. latum) 13 


Canthidium sp. 14 (centrale grp) 1 1 




101

Chapter 5 




Canthidium sp. 18 (aff. bicolor) 5 20 

Canthidium sp. 19 (aff. kirschi) 1 

Canthidium sp. 20 (aff. chrysis) 7 4 1 6 

Canthon bicolor Castelnau 68 4 

Canthon quadriguttatus Olivier 1 

Canthon semiopacus Harold 1 

Canthon sordidus Harold 20 13 

Canthon triangularis Drury 469 18 2 

Canthon sp. 1 1 3 2 

Canthon sp. 2 2 4 3 

Canthonella silphoides Harold 1 

Coprophanaeus jasius Olivier 2 3 

Coprophanaeus lancifer Linnaeus 4 

Coprophanaeus parvulus Olsoufieff 2 

Deltochilum carinatum Westwood 4 

Deltochilum guyanense Boucomont 3 3 

Deltochilum icarus Olivier 9 2 

Deltochilum septemstriatum Paulian 1 13 

Deltochilum valgum Burmeister 4 

Deltorhinum guyanensis Genier 2 

Dendropaemon sp. 1 3 

Dichotomius boreus Olivier 219 

Dichotomius cf. lucasi Harold 305 12 1 3 39 

Dichotomius mamillatus Felsche 4 

Dichotomius robustus Luederwaldt 3 

Dichotomius subaeneus Castelnau 1 

Dichotomius sp. 2 1 2 

Dichotomius sp. 3 (batesi-inachus grp) 2 

Dichotomius sp. 4 4 1 

Dichotomius sp. 5 (calcaratus grp) 1 

Eurysternus atrosericus Genier 77 8 1 

Eurysternus balachowskyi Halffter & Halffter 3 

Eurysternus cambeforti Genier 7 1 

Eurysternus caribaeus Herbst 293 3 

Eurysternus cyclops Genier 1 

Eurysternus foedus Guerin-Meneville 17 

Eurysternus hamaticollis Balthasar 2 

Eurysternus ventricosus Gill 3 

Hansreia affinis Fabricius 97 

Onthophagus cf. xanthomerus Bates 15 5 2 





Onthophagus haematopus Harold 920 9 

Onthophagus rubrescens Blanchard 285 3 

Oxysternon durantoni Arnaud 56 

Oxysternon festivum Linnaeus 36 3 

Oxysternon spiniferum Castelnau 3 

Phanaeus bispinus Bates 1 

Phanaeus cambeforti Arnaud 36 5 

Phanaeus chalcomelas Perty 332 4 

Sulcophanaeus faunus Fabricius 1 

Sylvicanthon cf. securus Schmidt 4 1 

Trichillum pauliani Balthasar 22 1 

Uroxys gorgon Arrow 1 

Uroxys pygmaeus Harold 37 8 

Uroxys sp. 3 47 2 32 


103

Chapter 6 

A rapid biological assessment of katydids 

of the Kwamalasamutu region, Suriname 

(Insecta: Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) 

Piotr Naskrecki 

Summary 

Seventy-eight species of katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) were recorded during a rapid 

biological assessment of lowland forests of the Kwamalasamutu Region, Suriname. At least 

seven species are new to science, and 29 species are recorded for the first time from Suriname, 

bringing the number of species of katydids known from this country up to 85. The current 

survey confirms that the katydid fauna of Suriname is exceptionally rich, yet still very poorly 

known. Although no specific conservation issues have been determined to affect the katydid 

fauna, habitat loss in Suriname due to logging and mining activities constitute the primary 

threat to the biota of this country. 

Introduction 

Katydids (Insecta: Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) have long been recognized as organisms with 

a significant potential for use in conservation practices. Many katydid species exhibit strong 

microhabitat fidelity, low dispersal abilities (Rentz 1993), and high sensitivity to habitat 

fragmentation (Kindvall and Ahlen 1992) thereby making them good indicators of habitat 

disturbance. These insects also play a major role in many terrestrial ecosystems as herbivores 

and predators (Rentz 1996). It has been demonstrated that katydids are a principal prey item 

for several groups of invertebrates and vertebrates in Neotropical forests, including birds, bats 

(Belwood 1990), and primates (Nickle and Heymann 1996). While no Neotropical katydids 

have been classified as threatened (primarily because of the paucity of data on virtually all species 

known from this region), there are already documented cases of some Nearctic katydids 

becoming threatened or endangered, or even extinct (Rentz 1977.) 

Despite the recent increase in the faunistic and taxonomic work on katydids of the Neotropics, 

forests of the Guiana Shield remain some of the least explored and potentially interesting 

areas of South America. Collectively, over 190 species of the Tettigoniidae have been 

recorded from countries comprising the Guiana Shield (e.g., Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, 

and French Guiana), but this number clearly represents a small fraction of the regional species 

diversity, and at least 300–500 species can be expected to occur there. Fifty-six species 

have been reported from Suriname (Eades et al. 2011). Virtually all of these records are based 

on material collected in the 19 th century, and no targeted survey of the katydid fauna of the 

country has ever been conducted. Most of the species from Suriname were described in the 

monographic works by Brunner von Wattenwyl (1878, 1895), Redtenbacher (1891), and 

Beier (1960, 1962). More recently Nickle (1984), Emsley and Nickle (2001), Kevan (1989), 

and Naskrecki (1997) described additional species from the region. 

The following report presents preliminary results of a survey of katydids conducted between 

17 August and 9 September 2010 at selected sites in the Kwamalasamutu region of southern 

Suriname. 


A rapid biological assessment of katydids of the Kwamalasamutu region, Suriname (Insecta: Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) 

Methods and study sites 

During the survey, three methods were employed for collecting 

katydids: (1) collecting at an ultraviolet (UV) light at 

night, (2) visual searching at night and during the day, and 

(3) detection of stridulating individuals using an ultrasound 

detector (Petersson 200) at night. Representatives of all 

encountered species were collected and voucher specimens 

were preserved in 95% ethanol or as dry specimens layered 

between thin paper tissue and desiccated with silica gel. 

Voucher specimens of all collected species will be deposited 

in the National Zoological Collection of Suriname, while 

remaining specimens will be deposited in the collections of 

the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, 

and the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (the 

latter will also become the official repository of the types of 

new species encountered during the present survey upon 

their formal description.) 

In addition to physical collection of specimens, stridulation 

of acoustic species was recorded using a Marantz 

PMD661 digital recorder with a Sennheiser directional 

microphone. Virtually all species encountered were photographed, 

and these images will be available online in the 

database of the world’s katydids (Eades et al. 2011). 

Simpson’s Index of Diversity (Ds) was calculated for each 

site using the formula: 

D s 

= 1 - ∑ 1 

i 

[n i 

(n i 

-1)]/[N(N-1)] 

where ni = number of individuals of species i, and N = number 

of all collected individuals. 

Katydids were surveyed at the following five sites: 

1. Camp 1: Kutari, Site 1 (2°10'31.3"N, 56°47'14.1"W); 

18–25 August 2010 

2. Iwana Samu (2°21'46.6"N, 56°45'17.9"W); 

25–26 August 2010 

3. Camp 2: Sipaliwini, Site 2 (2°17'24.1"N, 56°36'25.6"W); 


4. Inselberg nr. Sipaliwini river (2°17'56.4"N, 56°36'37.3"W); 

31 August 2010 

5. Camp 3: Werehpai, Site 3 (2°21'47.1"N, 56°41'51.5"W); 


Results 

The katydid fauna documented during this survey was exceptionally 

interesting and rich in species. Seventy-eight species 

were recorded during the survey, of which at least seven species 

are new to science, and one of these will likely be placed 

in a new genus of sylvan katydids. Twenty-nine species are 

recorded for the first time from Suriname, bringing the total 

number of species known from this country to 85 (a 52% 

increase). A complete checklist of species collected during 

the survey is presented in the Appendix. 

It is worth mentioning that the abundance of katydids 

encountered during this survey was often exceptionally low 

(although no formal structured sampling was conducted, 

the rate of katydid collection was often only one individual/ 

hour, and during most nights no individuals were attracted 

to the UV light.) This low abundance is well reflected in the 

species richness indices of the three main camps, with Simpson’s 

Indexes of Diversity (Ds) for Camps 1, 2, and 3 being 

0.969030969, 0.999625047, and 0.997416324, respectively. 

These results indicate very high species richness, combined 

with low abundance of individual species, a situation typical 

of tropical habitats with low levels of disturbance. 

Many of the recorded species appeared only as nymphs, 

often in early developmental stages, which indicates a strong 

seasonality in their development. It seems that in such species 

egg hatching must take place in the last weeks of the 

rainy season, and maturation takes place during the dry 

season. 

Of the three main camps, the first site (Kutari) had the 

lowest number of both species (25) and specimens (78) 

collected, presumably because of the heavy rains that still 

affected the activity of katydids at the end of the rainy 

season, when the survey began. Werehpai had the highest 

number of species (54), followed by Sipaliwini (46). 

Below I discuss the most interesting taxa of katydids 

recorded during the survey. 

Conehead katydids (subfamily Conocephalinae) 

The Conocephalinae, or the conehead katydids, include a 

wide range of species found in both open, grassy habitats, 

and high in the forest canopy. Many species are obligate 

semenivores (seed feeders), while others are strictly predaceous. 

A number of species are diurnal, or exhibit both 

diurnal and nocturnal patterns of activity. Sixteen species of 

this family were recorded. 

Vestria sp. n. — Four species of this genus are known 

from lowland forests of Central and South America. These 

insects, known as Crayola katydids because of their striking 

coloration, are the only katydids known to employ chemical 

defenses, which are effective at repelling bird and mammalian 

predators (Nickle et al. 1996). Specimens of Vestria 

collected at Sipaliwini and Werehpai represent a species new 

to science. 

Eschatoceras sp. 1 — A single female specimen of this species 

was retrieved from a spider web at Werehpai. The insect 

was already partially digested, but its diagnostic characters, 

such as the unique shape of the fastigium of vertex and the 

subgenital plate, allow me to conclude that it most likely 

represents a yet unnamed species of this genus. 

Subria cf. amazonica — Ten specimens of this species 

were recorded at the Sipaliwini and Werehpai camps. They 


105

Chapter 6 

resemble S. amazonica Redtenbacher, a species known from 

the unique female holotype from “Alto Amazonas”, but 

differs in the degree of the development of the wings, and 

likely represent a yet unnamed species of the genus. These 

predaceous insects were represented by two distinct, green 

and orange, color morphs. 

Loboscelis baccatus Nickle & Naskrecki — This arboreal, 

most-likely predaceous species was previously known only 

from Amazonian Peru (Nickle and Naskrecki 2000), but a 

single individual was found at Werephai. This record represents 

a significant extension of its range, and the first record 

of the genus Loboscelis in the Guiana Shield. 

Leaf katydids (subfamily Phaneropterinae) 

The Phaneropterinae, or leaf katydids, represent the largest, 

most species-rich lineage of katydids, with nearly 2,700 species 

worldwide, and at least 550 species recorded from South 

America. All species of this family are obligate herbivores, 

often restricted to a narrow range of host plants. Probably 

at least 50–75% of species found in lowland rainforests 

are restricted to the canopy layer and never descend to the 

ground (females of many species lay eggs on the surface of 

leaves or stems, and the entire nymphal development takes 

place on a single host plant.) For this reason, these insects 

are difficult to collect, and the only reliable method for their 

collection is a UV or mercury-vapor lamp, or canopy fogging. 

Very few species can be encountered during a visual or 

acoustic search in the understory of the forest. 

Twenty-five species of leaf katydids were recorded during 

the present survey, virtually all attracted to the UV light at 

the camps. 

Euceraia sp. n. — A single individual of an undescribed 

species of this genus was collected at the Sipaliwini camp at 

the UV light at night. It is a member of a genus of canopy 

katydids, known to deposit their eggs between the layers of 

the leaf epidermis; they are rarely encountered at the understory 

level of the forest. 

Meneghelia carlotae Piza — This is the first record of this 

species from Suriname and the first specimen collected since 

its original description (Piza 1980) from “Territ. do Amapá” 

in Brazil. The morphology of the female ovipositor in this 

species is unique among katydids, and suggests that the eggs 

are laid in some unusual, yet unknown substrate. 

Polichnodes americana Giglio-Tos — Two individuals of 

this species were collected at the Sipaliwini camp at the UV 

light. They represent the first records of this species outside 

its type locality in Ecuador and a substantial extension of 

its range; they are also the first specimens collected since its 

original description over a century ago (Giglio-Tos 1898). 

Sylvan katydids (subfamily Pseudophyllinae) 

Virtually all members of tropical Pseudophyllinae occur only 

in forested, undisturbed habitats, and thus have a potential 

as indicators of habitat changes. These katydids are mostly 

herbivorous, although opportunistic carnivory has been 

observed in some species (e. g., Panoploscelis). Many are 

confined to the upper layers of the forest canopy and never 

come to lights, and are therefore difficult to collect. Fortunately, 

many species have very loud, distinctive calls, and it 

is possible to document their presence based on their calls 

alone, a technique well known to ornithologists. Thirtyfive 

species of this family were collected during the present 

survey. 

Gnathoclita vorax (Stoll, 1813) — This spectacular species 

is a rare example of a katydid with strong sexual dimorphism 

manifested in strong, allometric growth of the male 

mandibles. It was found at Werephai, although all collected 

specimens were nymphal. This species is known only from 

southern Guyana and southern Suriname. 

Eubliastes cf. adustus — Three individuals of this large 

katydid species were collected at Sipaliwini. Although superficially 

similar to E. adustus Bolivar known from Ecuador, 

the morphology of the male external genitalic structures 

indicates that these specimens may represent a species new 

to science. If these specimens do represent E. adustus, this 

would be the first record of this species anywhere outside of 

Ecuador. 

Gen._Homalaspidini sp. 1 — This highly unusual katydid 

was collected from among leaves of yucca plants growing on 

the inselberg near the Sipaliwini camp, and another individual 

was found on similar vegetation at the Werehpai camp. 

The body of this insect is extremely elongated, adapted to 

live among long, stiff leaves of yucca and related plants. 


The results of this survey confirm that the fauna of katydids 

of southern Suriname is exceptionally rich, even by the 

standards of lowland tropical forests, and that a large proportion 

of it remains unknown and unnamed. More sampling 

surveys, combined with comprehensive taxonomic and phylogenetic 

reviews, are badly needed in order to understand its 

true magnitude. 

As with most groups of tropical insects, the principal 

threat to the survival of katydids in Suriname comes from 

habitat loss, especially from logging and mining. While 

species-level conservation recommendations are currently 

impossible to make, protecting the existing habitats, or at 

least major, connected fragments of them, is the most effective 

way of ensuring their survival. 

References 

Beier, M. 1960. Orthoptera Tettigoniidae (Pseudophyllinae 

II). – In: Mertens, R., Hennig, 

W. & Wermuth, H. [eds]. Das Tierreich. – 74: 396 pp.; 

Berlin (Walter de Gruyter & Co.). 

Beier, M. 1962. Orthoptera Tettigoniidae (Pseudophyllinae 

I). – In: Mertens, R., Hennig, W. & Wermuth, H. 



[eds]. Das Tierreich. – 73: 468 pp.; Berlin (Walter de 

Gruyter & Co.). 

Belwood, J.J. 1990. Anti-predator defences and ecology of 

neotropical forest katydids, especially the Pseudophyllinae. 

– Pages 8–26 in: Bailey, W.J. & Rentz, D.C.F. 

[eds]. The Tettigoniidae: biology, systematics and evolution: 

ix + 395 pp.; Bathurst (Crawford House Press) & 

Berlin et al. (Springer). 

Brunner von Wattenwyl, C. 1878. Monographie der Phaneropteriden. 

1–401, pls 1–8; Wien (Brockhaus). 

Brunner von Wattenwyl, C. 1895. Monographie der Pseudophylliden. 

IV + 282 pp. [+ X pls issued separately]; 

Wien (K.K. Zoologisch–Botanische Gesellschaft). 

Eades, D.C.; D. Otte; M.M. Cigliano & H. Braun. Orthoptera 

Species File Online. Version 2.0/4.0. [25 June 

2011]. 

Emsley, M.G. & Nickle, D.A. 2001. New species of the 

Neotropical genus Daedalellus Uvarov (Orthoptera: 

Tettigoniidae: Copiphorinae). – Transactions of the 

American Entomological Society 127: 173–187. 

Giglio-Tos, E. 1898. Viaggio del Dr. Enrico Festa nella 

Republica dell’Ecuador e regioni vicine. Bollettino del 

Musei di Zoologia ed Anatomia Comparata della R. 

Universita di Torino, 13 (311): 1–108. 

Kevan, D.K.McE. 1989. A new genus and new species of 

Cocconotini (Grylloptera: Tettigonioidea: Pseudophyllidae: 

Cyrtophyllinae) from Venezuela and Trinidad, with 

other records for the tribe. – Bol. Ent. Venez. 5: 1–17. 

Kindvall, O. & Ahlen, I. 1992. Geometrical factors and 

metapopulation dynamics of the bush cricket, Metrioptera 

bicolor Philippi (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). – 

Conservation Biology 6: 520–529. 

Naskrecki, P. 1997. A revision of the neotropical genus 

Acantheremus Karny, 1907 (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae: 

Copiphorinae). – Transactions of the American Entomological 

Society 123: 137–161. 

Nickle, D.A. 1984. Revision of the bush katydid genus Montezumina 

(Orthoptera; Tettigoniidae; Phaneropterinae). 

– Transactions of the American Entomological Society 

110: 553–622. 

Nickle, D.A., J.L. Castner, S.R. Smedley, A.B. Attygalle, 

J. Meinwald and T. Eisner. 1996. Glandular Pyrazine 

Emission by a Tropical Katydid: An Example of Chemical 

Aposematism? (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae: Copiphorinae: 

Vestria Stål). Journal of Orthoptera Research, 5: 

221–223. 

Nickle, D.A. & Heymann E.W. 1996. Predation on Orthoptera 

and related orders of insects by tamarin monkeys, 

Saguinus mystax and S. fuscicollis (Primates: Callitrichidae), 

in northeastern Peru. – Journal of the Zoological 

Society 239: 799–819. 

Nickle D.A. and P. Naskrecki. 2000. The South American 

Genus Loboscelis Redtenbacher, 1891 (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae: 

Copiphorinae sensu lato). Jour. Orth. Res., 

8: 147–152. 

Piza Jr., S. De Toledo. 1980. Oito novos gêneros de Phaneropterinae 

do Brasil (Orthoptera - Tettigoniidae). Revista 

de Agricultura (Piracicaba), 55(4): 221–230. 

Redtenbacher. 1891. Monographie der Conocephaliden. 

Verh. der Zoologisch-botanischen Gesellsch Wien 

41(2): 315–562. 

Rentz, D.C.F. 1977. A new and apparently extinct katydid 

from antioch sand dunes (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). – 

Entomological News 88: 241–245. 

Rentz, D.C.F. 1993. Orthopteroid insects in threatened 

habitats in Australia. – Pages 125–138 in: Gaston, 

K.J., New, T.R. & Samways, M.J. [eds]. Perspectives 

on Insect conservation: 125–138; Andover, Hampshire 

(Intercept Ltd). 

Rentz, D.C.F. 1996. Grasshopper country. The abundant 

orthopteroid insects of Australia. Orthoptera; grasshoppers, 

katydids, crickets. Blattodea; cockroaches. Mantodea; 

mantids. Phasmatodea; stick insects: i–xii, 1–284; 

Sydney (University of New South Wales Press). 


107

Chapter 6 

Appendix. List of katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) recorded during the Kwamalasamutu RAP survey. 

Species 

Camp 1 

(Kutari) 

Camp 2 

(Sipaliwini) 

Camp 3 

(Werehpai) 

Iwana 

Samu 

Inselberg nr. 

Camp 2 

New for 

Suriname 

Conocephalinae 

Agraecia viridipennis x x x 

Eschatoceras bipunctatus 

x 

Eschatoceras sp. 1 x x 

Subria cf. amazonica x x x 

Subria grandis x x x 

Uchuca amacayaca x x 

Uchuca sp. 1 x x x x x 

Conocephalus (X.) cinereus x x 

Acantheremus elegans 

x 

Acantheremus sp. 1 x x 

Copiphora longicauda x x x 

Graminofolium castneri x x x x x 

Loboscelis bacatus x x 

Neoconocephalus punctipes 

x 

Neoconocephalus sp. 2 x x 

Vestria sp. 1 x x x 

Listroscelidinae 

Phlugis teres 

x 

Listroscelis sp. 1 x x x 

Phaneropterinae 

Dysonia (D.) fuscifrons x x 

Steirodon (P.) dentatum x x x 

Anaulacomera sp. 1 x x x 

Anaulacomera sp. 2 x x x 

Anaulacomera sp. 5 

x 


x 


x 

Anaulacomera spatulata x x 

Euceraia atryx 

x 

Euceraia sp. 1 x x 

Hetaira smaragdina x x 

Hyperphrona gracilis x x x 

Ligocatinus cf. punctatus x x 

Meneghelia carlotae x x 

Microcentrum marginatum x x 

Microcentrum sp. 1 

x 

Microcentrum sp. 2 x x 

Parableta sp. 1 

x 

Phylloptera festae x x 

Phylloptera laevis x x 

Phylloptera sp. 1 x x 

New to 

science 




Species 

Camp 1 

(Kutari) 

Camp 2 

(Sipaliwini) 

Camp 3 

(Werehpai) 

Iwana 

Samu 

Inselberg nr. 

Camp 2 

New for 

Suriname 

Phylloptera sp. 3 x x 

Polichnodes americana x x 

Theia unicolor x x 

Viadana sp. 1 x x x 

Pseudophyllinae 

Bliastes contortipes 

x 

Eubliastes adustus x x 

Meroncidius sp. 1 

x 

Schedocentrus (S.) basalis 

x 

Schedocentrus (S.) vicinus 

x 

Gnathoclita vorax 

x 

Panoploscelis scudderi x x x x 

Gen_Homalaspidini sp. 1 x x x 

Chondrosternum sp. 1 x x x x 

Chondrosternum triste x x x x x 

Leptotettix falconarius x x 

Platychiton surinamus x x 

Aemasia sp. 1 x x 

Platyphyllum sp. 2 

x 

Triencentrus amoenus x x 

Triencentrus nigrospinosus x x 

Triencentrus sp. 1 x x 

Acanthodis sp. 1 x x x 

Acanthodis unispinulosa x x 

Ancistrocercus truncatistylus x x 

Diacanthodis granosa x x 

Leurophyllum consanguineum x x 

Rhinischia regimbarti x x 

Sphyrophyllum malleolatum x x 

Cycloptera speculata 

x 

Pterochroza ocellata x x x 

Roxelana crassicornis x x 

Typophyllum erosum x x 

Typophyllum sp. 1 x x x 

Typophyllum sp. 2 x x 

Diophanes salvifolius x x x 

Eumecopterus incisus x x x 

Teleutias aduncus x x 

Teleutias surinamus 

x 

Teleutias vicinissimus x x x 

Total 25 46 54 5 3 29 7 

New to 

science 


109

Chapter 7 

A preliminary survey of the ants of the 

Kwamalasamutu region, SW Suriname 

Leeanne E. Alonso 

Summary 

Over 100 species of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) were recorded around the Werehpai 

caves during the RAP biological assessment of the Kwamalasamutu Region, Suriname in 

September 2010. While analysis of the ant data is ongoing, preliminary results indicate that 

the forests around Kwamalasamutu contain a diverse and abundant ant fauna. The presence 

of many dacetine species typical of closed-canopy rainforest indicates that the forests are in 

good condition. The ant fauna of Suriname is still very poorly known, as few locations have 

been sampled for ants. Data on the ant fauna of the Kwamalasamutu area are valuable for 

eco-tourism and can help to inform tourists about the hidden fauna of the rainforest and their 

important roles in ecosystem function and conservation. 

Introduction 

When people think of the biodiversity of a tropical rainforest, many think first of the colorful 

parrots and macaws, the elusive yet alluring jaguars and ocelots, and the majestic towering 

tropical trees. However, the majority of biodiversity in a tropical forest lies in the hidden and 

overlooked fauna of invertebrates. Ants in particular make up over 15% of the biomass of 

animals in a tropical forest (Fittkau and Klinge 1973) due to their high abundance. With over 

12,000 described species of ants in the world, and their social lifestyle consisting of colonies 

ranging in size from just a few individuals to millions of workers, ants are a dominant force 

in all terrestrial ecosystems, especially tropical rainforests. Due in part to their social nature, 

ants play many critical roles in the functioning of the tropical terrestrial ecosystem, including 

dispersing seeds, tending mutualistic Homoptera, defending plants, preying on other invertebrates 

and small vertebrates, and modifying the soil by adding nutrients and aeration (Philpott 

et al. 2010). Another critical function provided by ants is that of scavenging; ants are often the 

first animals to arrive upon a dead animal and start the decomposition process. Ants are particularly 

important to plants since they move soil along the soil profile through the formation 

of their mounds and tunnels, which directly and indirectly affects the energy flow, habitats, 

and resources for other organisms (Folgarait 1998). 

In addition to their ecological importance, ants have several features that make them 

especially useful for conservation planning, including: 1) they are dominant members of most 

terrestrial environments; 2) they are easily sampled in sufficiently high numbers for statistical 

analysis in short periods of time (Agosti et al. 2000); 3) they are sensitive to environmental 

change (Kaspari and Majer 2000); and 4) they are indicators of ecosystem health and of 

the presence of other organisms, due to their numerous symbioses with plants and animals 

(Alonso 2000). 

Ants are also useful organisms for the promotion of eco-tourism. Much of eco-tourism 

focuses on sightings of birds and large mammals, which are elusive and often very hard to 

find or see in the dense rainforest. Ants, on the other hand, are ubiquitous and can be seen as 


A preliminary survey of the ants of the Kwamalasamutu region, SW Suriname 

soon as one sets foot in almost any forest around the world. 

Ant behavior and ecology are fascinating, and local guides 

who can share ant stories will attract and educate many 

eco-tourists. 

Study site 

Ants were studied only at the third RAP site, Werehpai 

(camp at N 02° 21' 47", W 056° 41' 52"), from 4–7 September 

2010. The camp was located on the north bank of 

the Sipaliwini River on an abandoned farm, and the habitat 

immediately surrounding the camp was mostly tall secondgrowth 

forest with a dense understory. Further from camp 

along the 3.5-km trail to the Werehpai caves, the habitat was 

primarily tall terra firme forest, with a few palm swamps and 

many spiny palms (Astrocaryum sciophilum) in the understory. 

Ants were sampled in the forests along the main trail 

between camp and the Werehpai caves and along short side 

trails that ran off the main trail. 

Methods 

Ants from the ground, leaf litter, and vegetation were 

sampled by hand collecting along the main trail and into the 

forest, as well as around camp. Ants from the leaf litter were 

also sampled using two sifting methods. The first method 

was the “David sifter”, a plastic tray (20 cm × 30 cm) with 

an imbedded mesh screen placed over another plastic tray. 

Leaf litter was collected by hand (using gloves) and placed 

on the mesh screen. The tray was then shaken back and forth 

to move ants and other small invertebrates out of the leaf 

litter, which then fell through the screen and into the tray 

below. Ants were then collected out of the bottom tray using 

forceps. 

The second sifting method used was the Ants of the 

Leaf Litter (ALL) protocol (Agosti et al. 2000). Four onehundred-meter 

linear transects were sampled at the following 

locations: 1) near the Werehpai caves (~10:00h, warm 

and sunny, fairly dry), 2) at the botanical team’s 1-ha plot 

(see plant chapter for coordinates; ~14:00h, warm and 

sunny, dry), 3) along the trail between camp and the caves 

(N 02 22'06" W 56 41'23.7", 09:00h), and 4) perpendicular 

to the main trail (N 02 22'04.9" W56 41'25.1", 11:00h). 

Along each transect, a 1x1-m quadrat was set up every 

10 m (for a total of 10 quadrats per transect). The leaf-litter, 

rotten twigs, and first layer of soil present in the quadrat 

were collected into a cloth sifter and shaken for about a 

minute. Within the sifter was a wire sieve of 1-cm 2 mesh 

size which allowed small debris and invertebrates such as 

ants to fall through the mesh into the bottom of the sifting 

sack. The sifted leaf litter was then placed in a full-sized 

Winkler sack, which is a cotton bag into which four small 

mesh bags containing the leaf litter are placed. Due to their 

high level of activity, ants run out of the litter and the mesh 

bag and fall to the bottom of the sack into a collecting cup 

of 95% ethanol. The Winkler sacks were hung in the field 

lab for 48 hours. The ant specimens were then preserved in 

95% ethanol and sorted to morphospecies. Specimens were 

identified to species level, when possible, by L. Alonso and 

J. Sosa-Calvo using ant taxonomic literature, AntWeb (www. 

antweb.org), and the ant collection at the National Museum 

of Natural History in Washington, D.C. 

Results 

Due to the high diversity and large sample size of ants collected, 

the ant samples were still being processed at the time 

of this publication. However, preliminary results based on 

many of the hand collecting samples and the ALL transect 

sampled near the Werehpai caves indicate a high diversity 

of ant species typical of a pristine lowland tropical forest, 

with 105 ant species documented so far. The ALL transect 

revealed at least 62 ant species, including many species of the 

tribe Dacetini, and many species of the tribe Attini (fungusgrowing 

ants; Appendix). The most species-rich genus within 

the ALL transect was Pheidole, with at least 20 species, which 

is consistent with most tropical studies. Other species-rich 

genera included Solenopsis, Pachycondyla, and Odontomachus. 

The ants from three of the ALL transects have yet 

to be sorted and identified; thus more species are likely to be 

added to the list when these samples have been processed. 

Preliminary analysis of some of the hand-collected Davis 

sifter samples revealed an additional 44 species of ants, many 

of which were not collected in the litter sample due to their 

arboreal habits or their ability to escape rapidly when pursued. 

These included many large ants that were commonly 

seen in the forest, including the arboreal species Daceton 

armigerum, Cephalotes spp., and Camponotus spp., the largeeyed 

terrestrial Gigantiops destructor, and several species of 

army ants (Appendix). Many ant-plants were found in the 

area, including Triplaris sp. and many Cecropia sp., which 

house obligate ant mutualists. Pseudomyrmex sp. was collected 

from Triplaris near the RAP camp, and Azteca sp. was 

collected from Cecropia along the Sipaliwini River. 

Some of the ant species collected are likely new to science 

and/or new records for Suriname. However, due to 

the ongoing process of identifying the specimens from the 

RAP survey, this information is not yet available, but will be 

published at a later date. 

Discussion 

Few previous studies of the ants of Suriname have been conducted. 

Thirty-six ant species were reported by Borgmeier 

(1934) from coffee plantations around Paramaribo. Kempf 

(1961) recorded 171 species (54 genera) from primary forest, 

plantations, and pastures. Most of the ant collections in the 

interior of Suriname were made by G. Geyskes sporadically 


111

Chapter 7 

between 1938–1958, in Paramaribo and Brownsberg 

Nature Park. 

Prior to the RAP survey of the Lely and Nassau plateaus 

in eastern Suriname in 2005 (Sosa-Calvo 2007), a total of 

290 ant species had been recorded for Suriname (Kempf 

1972, Fernandez and Sendoya 2004). Sosa-Calvo (2007) 

documented a total of 169 species from Lely and Nassau 

Plateaus, at least half of which are probably new records for 

Suriname. Thus, 370 ant species is a conservative estimate of 

the number recorded in Suriname so far. However, given the 

low effort of ant sampling in Suriname and the few localities 

sampled, there are likely many more ant species present 

in Suriname. Tropical lowland rainforests typically harbor 

a high diversity of ants. For example, Longino et al. (2002) 

found over 450 ant species in an area of approximately 

1500 ha in Costa Rica, and LaPolla et al. (2007) reported 

230 species from eight sites in Guyana. A recent RAP survey 

in Papua New Guinea (Lucky et al. 2011) reported 177 ant 

species from the lowland site (500 m). Long-term surveys of 

several tropical faunas regularly record new ant species over 

time, demonstrating that ants are typically undersampled 

(i.e. Brühl et al. 1998, Fisher 2005). More studies of ant 

diversity throughout Suriname are needed to estimate the 

country’s ant diversity, and thereby provide important baseline 

data for conservation and management of Suriname’s 

biodiversity. 

The genus Acanthomyops was common in the leaf litter 

samples but was only recently recorded in Suriname (Sosa- 

Calvo 2007). Based on its distribution, this genus would be 

expected to be present in Suriname. Its documentation on 

the RAP survey highlights the need for continued sampling 

of ants within Suriname. 

With a high diversity and visibility at the Werehpai RAP 

site, ants certainly play many important roles in the ecosystem. 

Pseudomyrmex and Azteca ants protect their host trees 

(Triplaris sp. and Cecropia sp., respectively) from herbivores. 

High ant activity in the leaf litter suggests that ants are playing 

a key role in scavenging, soil turnover, and predation. 

Ants also serve as a key food source for many other rainforest 

animals, including frogs, snakes, small mammals, birds, and 

other invertebrates. Ants have been found to be the source of 

the poison in many poison dart frogs. Army ants in particular 

play a key role as predators in tropical lowland rainforest. 

Army ant species, such as Eciton burchelli, conduct large 

swarm raids in which millions of workers spread out through 

the forest, capturing everything they can to bring back to 

their colony as food. These ants are key to keeping populations 

of many invertebrates in check. While ferocious and 

seemingly untouchable, army ants are at high risk from 

habitat fragmentation since they need large tracts of forest to 

support their enormous colonies (Gotwald 1995). 

Leaf-cutting ants in the genus Atta also play a critical role 

in tropical forests. These ants can be considered “ecosystem 

engineers” since they have a large impact on their ecosystem 

and other organisms, primarily by moving soil as they 

create and maintain their large underground nest chambers. 

Atta spp. cut leaves to grow a fungus garden (see below). 

While Atta spp. are considered a pest by many agricultural 

growers (including those in Kwamalasamutu) due to their 

tendency to cut the leaves of crops such as cassava, their role 

in the forest is irreplaceable. A single colony of Atta sexdens 

was documented to move 40 tons of soil to the surface in 

a forest in Brazil (Autori 1947). Atta structure the environment 

as they move soil, integrate nutrients, and aerate the 

soil for their large nests (Costa et al. 2008). In the rainforest, 

Atta do not tend to defoliate entire sections of forest 

due to the high density and diversity of tree species, from 

which they can selectively choose which leaves to cut. Crop 

monocultures are often hit hard when an Atta colony finds 

and cuts the plants. Planting a diverse selection of crops has 

been demonstrated to reduce the impacts of Atta. Other suggestions 

include 1) growing crops such as citrus (which Atta 

like) in another area to lure the Atta away from the main 

crops during growing season, and 2) mapping out the Atta 

colonies in an area before planting food crops. Atta spp. have 

very large, stationary nests that remain in the same place for 

many years (Atta queens can live for over 10 years). They 

also forage away from the nest on permanent trunk trails 

that are used for several years. Thus by mapping out the 

nests and trunk trails, gardens can be placed away from Atta 

foraging grounds. Poisons such as Mirex may work to kill an 

individual Atta nest, but they will also poison many other 

organisms and thus have a negative effect on the soil fauna. 

In addition, there are many sources of new Atta nests, such 

that poisoning them all is not possible (or advisable!). 

Threats to the ants of the region and how to protect them 

Like many tropical taxa, many ant species and populations 

face a range of threats. The most immediate and widespread 

threat comes from the loss, disturbance, or alteration of 

habitat. Fragmentation studies have revealed that ant species 

richness and genetic diversity can be affected even in large 

forest patches of 40 km 2 (Brühl et al. 2003, Bickel et al. 

2006). Nomadic ant species such as army ants need large 

expanses of habitat to find enough food to feed their exceptionally 

large colonies (Gotwald 1995). Likewise, deforestation 

and forest fragmentation can cause local extinctions 

of the neotropical swarm-raiding army ant Eciton burchellii 

and other army ants (Boswell et al. 1998, Kumar and 

O’Donnell 2009). 

Invasive ant species are a huge threat to native ant species. 

These aggressive species out-compete native ant species for 

food and other resources, or kill them directly, especially 

on islands and in degraded habitats. No invasive ant species 

were documented at the Werehpai RAP site but there were 

colonies of Solenopsis geminata and other ant species that 

proliferate in disturbed areas in the village of Kwamalasamutu 

and along the river near the RAP campsite. Care must 

be taken not to facilitate the spread of these ant species into 

the pristine forest. 

Global climate change is likely already affecting the 

distribution of many ant species. For example, Colwell et al. 



(2008) predict that as many as 80% of the ant species of 

a lowland rainforest could decline or disappear from the 

lowlands due to upslope range shifts and lowland extinctions 

(biotic attrition) resulting from the increased temperature of 

climate change. 

A lack of information on ant species distributions, particularly 

for tropical regions such as Suriname, makes identifying 

rare and threatened species very difficult. Moreover, ants are 

small and easily overlooked by both the general public and 

conservationists, and are often perceived as pest organisms 

rather than focal species for conservation. While there are 

a few ant species that have become widespread invasive 

pests, most of the more than 12,000 described ant species 

are unobtrusive and beneficial to natural ecosystems and 

humans. Much conservation action is based on the assumption 

that other taxa, such as plants, birds or mammals, can 

serve as surrogates for the conservation needs of invertebrates 

and other lesser-known taxa (Rodrigues and Brooks 2007, 

Gardner et al. 2008). However, few studies or analyses of 

surrogacy have included ants; those that have generally 

indicate that ant diversity patterns and responses of ants 

to disturbance are not the same as those of most “umbrella 

taxa” (Alonso 2000). Ant species richness and distribution 

generally correlate best with other terrestrial, ground dwelling 

invertebrates (Alonso 2000) but these taxa are also not 

usually included in conservation planning. 

Charismatic Ants 

Given that ants are highly conspicuous and abundant 

around the Werehpai caves, they should be a key component 

of nature walks and eco-tourism visits to the site. Several 

ant species found in the Werehpai area are large enough to 

attract the attention and admiration of tourists. These ant 

species are common and conspicuous and have fascinating 

life histories and behaviors that give them “personalities” 

that tourists will find fascinating. Theses ant species can thus 

serve to highlight the key roles that ants play in the ecosystem. 

The most charismatic species around Werehpai include 

the following (see photos of these beautiful ants in the photo 

section): 

Gigantiops destructor — the Jumping Ant — is a large 

black ant common on the forest floor in the Werehpai area. 

These ants have extremely large eyes with which to see and 

avoid their predators and their prey. They move very quickly 

and actually jump around on the leaf litter, which is unusual 

for an ant. Despite its name — destructor — these ants are 

timid, so you have to sneak up on them carefully. They do 

not bite or sting but defend themselves by spraying formic 

acid from their gaster (abdomen). These ants forage for small 

invertebrates in the leaf litter and are often found nesting 

near Paraponera clavata nests, possibly to benefit from the 

aggressive defense of the larger ants. 

Daceton armigerum — the Canopy Ant — is a beautiful 

golden-colored ant that lives high in the canopy of trees 

near the Werehpai caves. They have large heads with strong 

muscles that power their sharp mandibles. Their eyes are 

under their head so that they can see below them as they 

walk along branches in the treetops. Another key to their 

success in the canopy is that their claws are very clingy and 

can keep a tight hold on branches and tree trunks. 

Cephalotes atratus — the Turtle Ant, or Gliding Ant, lives 

high up in the tree canopy. With its flattened body and large 

turtle-shaped head, it lives within rotting twigs and branches 

and blocks the entrance to its nest with its head. Living so 

high in the canopy, these ants face the threat of falling out of 

their tree into the terrestrial territories of other, more ferocious 

ants. Thus they have evolved a way to avoid falling to 

the forest floor. If they fall from their tree, these ants stretch 

out their bodies and legs to glide (Yanoviak 2005). They can 

detect the tree trunk by the relative brightness against the 

dark greenery and twist in the air to point their abdomen 

toward their host tree, making a safe landing back home. 

Eciton burchelli — the Army Ant — has very large colonies 

with millions of workers that move through the forest in 

a swarm raid, capturing everything in their path. These 

ants do not have a permanent nest but have a “bivouac”- a 

temporary nest site consisting of a giant ball of ants, usually 

found under a rotting log or in the hollow of a tree. These 

ants sting and bite and are very aggressive, even to humans, 

so one needs to watch where they step around these ants. It 

is very interesting to watch an army ant swarm since many 

other creatures can be seen jumping and running to get 

out of the path of the ants, and some specialized antbirds 

follow the swarm to catch these invertebrates for their meal. 

The soldiers of E. burchelli have very long mandibles which 

are used to suture wounds by some indigenous peoples. In 

addition to their swarms for catching food, these ants are 

also often seen moving their colony to a new bivouac (which 

is necessary when they run out of food in an area), carrying 

their larvae and pupae slung under their bodies. 

Odontomachus spp. — Trap-Jaw Ants — are large ants 

common on the forest floor. These ants hold the world 

record for the fastest reflex in the animal kingdom. They 

forage by walking around with their mandibles (jaws) wide 

open. They have small trigger hairs between the mandibles 

which detect prey items (such as small invertebrates) and 

trigger the mandibles to snap shut very quickly to capture 

the prey. These ants often nest in the leaf litter trapped in 

small palm trees, in the terrestrial leaf litter, or in the soil. 

They are long, sleek, elegant ants, but have a nasty sting, so 

care must be taken to avoid touching them. 

Paraponera clavata — the Bullet Ant or Congo Ant — is 

famous for its very powerful and painful sting. It is one of 

the world’s largest ant species and is common in Neotropical 

lowland rainforests. These ants nest in the ground at the base 

of trees but forage up in the tree-tops on nectar and invertebrates. 

While they forage solitarily, they often have a relay 

of ants for passing large nectar droplets from the treetops to 

the nest, from one ant to another. These ants are one of the 

few ant species that make sound to communicate with one 

another. They can “stridulate” by rubbing their legs along 

their thorax to make a high-pitched squeaky sound. 


113

Chapter 7 

Atta sp. — the Leaf-cutting Ant — is well known for 

its unique and fascinating agricultural lifestyle. Atta are 

fungus-growers- the workers cut pieces of leaves from a wide 

variety of trees to bring back to their nest where the leaves 

are chewed up by smaller workers and inserted into a large 

fungus garden, which the ants tend and cultivate. The ants 

do not feed on the leaves. Instead, they feed the fruiting 

bodies of the fungus to their larvae. Their nests are very large 

with many large underground chambers. It is fun to watch 

the workers cutting leaves and carrying them over their head 

back to the colony. Atta are parasitized by tiny phorid flies, 

which lay their eggs on the ants. When a fly larvae hatches, it 

burrows into an ant’s head and develops inside, thereby killing 

the ant. Small Atta workers are often seen hitching a ride 

on the leaf carried by a larger worker- it is thought that these 

small ants serve to ward off attacking phorid flies. 

Pseudomyrmex spp. — the Tree-dwelling Ants — are also 

arboreal ants. Many species live in the rotting, hollow twigs 

and branches up in the trees. They often fall from the trees, 

landing on the top of tents and even on your shirt, especially 

after a wind blows through the forest. Some species are 

specialized, obligate inhabitants of ant-plants, which provide 

a hollow cavity and sometimes food bodies or nectar for the 

ants. In exchange, the ants protect the plant by capturing 

and eating herbivorous insects that may eat the plant. These 

ants have large eyes and very long, slender bodies (their body 

form is distinctive) and a painful sting, so it’s best to take 

care when observing them. 

Ants and other invertebrates are an important part of 

the tropical ecosystem and must be considered in conservation 

and management planning (Alonso 2010). As E.O. 

Wilson (2006) has so aptly stated, “People need insects to 

survive, but insects do not need us. If all humankind were 

to disappear tomorrow, it is unlikely that a single insect 

species would go extinct, except three forms of human body 

and head lice…But if insects were to vanish, the terrestrial 

environment would soon collapse into chaos.” 

References 

Agosti, D., J.D. Majer, L.E. Alonso, T.R. Schultz (eds.). 

2000. Ants: Standard Methods for Measuring and 

Monitoring Biological Diversity. Smithsonian Institution 

Press. Washington, D.C. 

Alonso, L.E. (2000). Ants as indicators of diversity. In 

D. Agosti, J. Majer, L.E. Alonso and T.R. Schultz, eds. 

Ants, Standard Methods for Measuring and Monitoring 

Biodiversity, pp. 80–88. Smithsonian Institution Press, 

Washington, DC. 

Alonso, L.E. 2010. Ant Conservation. In: L. Lach, C.L. Parr, 

and K.L. Abbott (editors), Ant Ecology, Oxford University 

Press, New York, USA. 

Alonso, L.E. and Agosti, D. 2000. Biodiversity studies, 

monitoring, and ants: an overview In: Ants, Standard 

Methods for Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity, 

D. Agosti, J. Majer, L. E. Alonso and T. R. Schultz 

(eds.). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. 

Autori, M. 1947. Combate a formiga saúva. Biologico. 

13:196–199. 

Bickel, T.O., Brühl, C.A., Gadau, J.R., Hölldobler, B., and 

Linsenmair, K.E. (2006). Influence of habitat fragmentation 

on the genetic variability in leaf litter ant 

populations in tropical rainforests of Sabah, Borneo. 

Biodiversity and Conservation. 15:157–175. 

Borgmeier, T. 1934. Contribuição para o conhecimento 

da fauna mirmecólogica dos cafezais de Paramaribo, 

Guiana Holandesa (Hym. Formicidae). Arquivos do 

Instituto de Biología Vegetal. 1:93–113. 

Boswell, G.P., Britton, N.F. and Franks, N.R. (1998). Habitat 

fragmentation, percolation theory, and the conservation 

of a keystone species. Proceedings of the Royal 

Society of London B. 265:1921–1925. 

Brühl, C.A., M. Mohamed, and K.E. Linsenmair. 1998. 

Altitudinal distribution of leaf litter ants along a 

transect in primary forests on Mount Kinabalu, Sabah, 

Malaysia. Journal of Tropical Ecology. 15: 265–177. 

Brühl, C.A., Eltz, T., and Linsenmair, K.E. (2003). Size does 

matter — effects of tropical rainforest fragmentation on 

the leaf litter ant community in Sabah, Malaysia. Biodiversity 

and Conservation. 12:1371–1389. 

Colwell, R., G. Brehm, C.L. Cardelús, A.C. Gilman, and 

J.T. Longino (2008). Global warming, elevational range 

shifts, and lowland biotic attrition in the wet tropics. 

Science. 322:258–261. 

Costa, A.N., Vasconcelos, H.L.,Vieira-Neto, E.H.M., Bruna, 

E.M. (2008). Do herbivores exert top-down effects in 

Neotropical savannas? Estimates of biomass consumption 

by leaf-cutter ants (Atta spp.) in a Brazilian Cerrado 

site. Journal of Vegetation Science. 19:849–854. 

Fernandez, F. and S. Sendoya. 2004. List of Neotropical 

ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Biota Colombiana. 5: 

3–93. 

Fisher, B.L. 2005. A model for a global inventory of Ants: A 

case study in Madagascar. Proceedings of the California 

Academy of Sciences. 56: 86–97. 

Fittkau, E.J. and H. Klinge. 1973. On biomass and trophic 

structure of the Central Amazonian rain forest ecosystem. 

Biotropica. 5:2–14. 

Folgarait, P.J. (1998). Ant biodiversity and its relationship 

to ecosystem functioning: a review. Biodiversity and 

Conservation. 7:1221–44. 

Gardner, T.A., Barlow, J., and Araujo, I.S. et al. (2008). 

The cost-effectiveness of biodiversity surveys in tropical 

forests. Ecology Letters. 11:139–150. 

Gotwald, W. (1995). Army Ants: The Biology of Social Predation. 

Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, USA. 

Kaspari, M. and J.D. Majer. 2000. Using ants to monitor 

environmental change. In: Ants, Standard Methods 

for Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity, D. Agosti, 

J. Majer, L. E. Alonso and T. R. Schultz (eds.). Washington, 

DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. 



Kempf, W.W. 1961. A Survey of the ants of the soil fauna in 

Surinam (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Studia Entomologica. 

4: 481–524. 

Kempf, W.W. 1972. Catalogo abreviado das formigas da 

região Neotropical (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Studia 

Entomologica. 15: 3–344. 

Kumar, A. and O’Donnell, S. (2009). Elevation and forest 

clearing effects on foraging differ between surface — and 

subterranean— foraging army. Journal of Animal Ecology. 

78:91–97. 

LaPolla, J.S., T. Suman, J. Sosa-Calvo, and T.R. Schultz. 

2007. Leaf litter ant diversity in Guyana. Biodiversity 

and Conservation. 16:491–510. 

Longino, J.T., J. Coddington, and R.K. Colwell. 2002. The 

ant fauna of a tropical rain forest: Estimating species 

richness three different ways. Ecology 83: 689–702. 

Lucky, A., E. Sarnat, and L.E. Alonso. 2011. Ants of the 

Muller Range, Papua New Guinea. In: Richards, S.J. 

and Gamui, B.G. (eds.) Rapid Biological Assessments 

of the Nakanai Mountains and the upper Strickland 

Basin: surveying the biodiversity of Papua New Guinea’s 

sublime karst environments. RAP Bulletin of Biological 

Assessment 60. Conservation International, Arlington, 

VA. 

Philpott, S.M., I Perfecto, I. Armbrecht, and C.L. Parr. 

2010. Ant diversity and function in disturbed and 

changing habitats. In: L. Lach, C.L. Parr, and K.L. 

Abbott (editors), Ant Ecology, Oxford University Press, 

New York, USA. 

Rodrigues, A.S.L. and T.M. Brooks, T.M. (2007). Shortcuts 

for biodiversity conservation planning: the effectiveness 

of surrogates. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and 

Systematics. 38:713–37. 

Sosa-Calvo, J. 2007. Ants of the leaf litter of two plateaus in 

Eastern Suriname. In: Alonso, L.E. and J.H. Mol (eds). 

A Rapid Biological Assessment of the Lely and Nassau 

Plateaus, Suriname (with additional information on 

the Brownsberg Plateau). RAP Bulletin of Biological 


VA, USA. 

Wilson, E.O. (2006). The Creation. W.W. Norton and 

Company. New York. 

Yanoviak, S.P. and M. Kaspari. 2005. Directed aerial descent 

in canopy ants. Nature. 433: 624–6. 


115

Chapter 7 

Appendix. A preliminary list of ant species of the Werehpai area, SW 

Suriname. 

Ant morphospecies 

ALL Transect near 

Werehpai caves 

Hand 

collecting 




Hand 

collecting 

Acanthognathus lentis 

Acanthognathus 01 

Apterostigma 01 

Atta 01 (sexdens?) 

Attini 01 

Attini 02 

Attini 03 

Attini 04 

Attini 05 

Azteca 01 

Azteca 02 

Basicerotini 01 



Camponotus 01 

Camponotus 02 

Camponotus 03 

Camponotus 04 

Carebara nevermanni 

Cephalotes 01 

Cephalotes atratus 

Crematogaster 01 







Cyphomyrmex laevigata 

Cyphomyrmex 01 

Daceton armigerum 

Discothyrea horni 

Dolichoderus 01 

Eciton burchelli 

Eciton 01 

Gigantiops destructor 

Gnamptogenys minuta 

Gnamptogenys 01 

Hypoponera 01 

Hypoponera 02 

Hypoponera 03 

Hypoponera 04 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Hypoponera 05 

X 

Lachnomyrmex 01 X X 

Myrmicocrypta guianensis 

X 

Nesomyrmex 01 (spinodis?) 

X 

Nyleanderia 01 

X 


X 


X 

Octostruma balzani 

X 

Octostruma 01 

X 

Octostruma 02 

X 

Octostruma 03 

X 

Odontomachus 01 

X 


X 


X 


X 


X 

Pachycondyla 01 

X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 

Paraponera clavata 

X 

Pheidole 01 

X 

Pheidole 02 

X 

Pheidole 03 

X 

Pheidole 04 

X 

Pheidole 05 

X 

Pheidole 06 

X 

Pheidole 07 

X 

Pheidole 08 

X 

Pheidole 09 

X 

Pheidole 10 

X 

Pheidole 11 

X 

Pheidole 13 

X 

Pheidole 14 

X 

Pheidole 15 

X 

Pheidole 16 

X 

Pheidole 17 

X 

Pheidole 18 

X 

Pheidole 19 

X 

Pheidole 20 

X 





Pseudomyrmex 01 



Pyramica denticulata 

Pyramica subdentata 

Pyramica alberti 

Pyramica glenognatha 



X 

X 

X 

X 

Hand 

collecting 

Pyramica 01 

Solenopsis 01 

X 

Solenopsis 02 

X 

Solenopsis 03 

X 

Solenopsis 04 

X 

Solenopsis 05 

X 

Solenopsis 06 

X 

Solenopsis 07 

X 

Strumigenys elongata 

X 

Strumigenys 01 

X 

Strumigenys 02 

X 

Trachymyrmex ruthae 

(species group) 

X 

Wasmannia auropunctata X X 

Total number of species (105) 62 44 

X 

X 

X 


117

Chapter 8 

Fishes of the Sipaliwini and Kutari Rivers, 

Suriname 

Philip W. Willink, Kenneth Wan Tong You, and 

Martino Piqué 

Summary 

Forty-three sites near three camps along the Sipaliwini and Kutari rivers, Suriname were 

sampled between August 19 and September 5, 2010. We recorded 99 species of fishes. This 

diversity is high compared to the rest of the world, but is typical for the Guiana Shield. We 

collected eight species of fishes potentially new to science, including a large catfish with 

spines along the body and a small catfish that lives in sand-bottomed creeks. Two species are 

new records for Suriname. We collected 57 species at Kutari (Site 1), 60 species at Sipaliwini 

(Site 2), and 63 species at Werehpai (Site 3). This is remarkably consistent, with no significant 

difference in diversity among camps. However, we did not necessarily find the same species 

at each camp. Creek assemblages were similar among the three sites. Many young fishes were 

found in flooded forests, even if the adults lived in rivers or other habitats. Overall, large toplevel 

predators were uncommon. The region is exhibiting the first stages of overfishing. Many 

fishes still occur in the Sipaliwini area, but there is a need to assess fishing pressure and implement 

management plans. 

Introduction 

Fishes are a critical source of protein in the Kwamalasamutu region. They are a common 

component of many meals. To further emphasize the importance of fishes to the people living 

in the area, some regional geographic names are even based on local fish. For example, ‘sipali’ 

means stingray and ‘wini’ means river / water in Carib, of which the Trio language is part. In 

other words, Sipaliwini can be translated ‘river of stingrays’ (Boven 2006). 

Despite the importance of fishes in the indigenous culture, relatively few species are 

routinely eaten. Most species are small and often ignored by people, but they are actually an 

important part of the aquatic ecosystem. Smaller fishes forage on aquatic insects and serve as 

prey for larger fishes, caiman, and birds. Fish diversity reflects the health of the river systems. 

There is a modest amount of published information concerning the fishes of the region. 

Most fish surveys in the watershed are well to the north in the Corantijn proper (e.g., Vari 

1982). Some fish collections have been made near regional airstrips, such as those at Kwamalasamutu 

and the Sipaliwini Savanna. These specimens were then used as the basis for 

species descriptions (e.g. Gery 1961) or reviews of specific taxonomic groups (e.g. cichlids by 

Kullander and Nijssen 1989). Ouboter and Mol (1993) reported 75 species in the Curuni / 

Sipaliwini basin, a much larger area than was surveyed during this expedition. Any other information 

is unpublished. To our knowledge, there have been no prior scientific fish collections 

in the Kutari River or Wioemi Creek. This expedition was the first, and will serve as a baseline 

for subsequent aquatic biodiversity studies. 




Forty-three sites near the three camps were sampled between 

August 19 and September 5, 2010. Fishes were collected 

with a 3-meter fine-mesh seine, 5-meter seine, dip nets, 

30-meter trammel net, 40-meter experimental gillnet, and 

hook and line. We also talked extensively with our Trio 

guides about their knowledge of local fishes, and to discern 

what they were catching during the expedition. Every habitat 

was sampled with as many methods as practical in order 

to rapidly assess the diversity of the region and maximize 

the number of species observations. Rocks in rapids were 

scraped. Submerged logs were cut open. Leaf litter was 

searched. Seines were pulled through patches of vegetation, 

as well as over sandy beaches. Dip nets were dragged through 

flooded tree branches. Canoes were used to travel extensively 

upstream and downstream from the camps. We also walked 

through the forest to survey creeks and swamps. Most 

individuals were released, but representative specimens were 

preserved in 4% formalin and later transferred to 70% ethanol 

for long-term storage at the National Zoological Collection 

of Suriname in Paramaribo and The Field Museum in 

Chicago, USA. 

The Kutari River at Site 1 was approximately 40 meters 

wide and meandered extensively. There was a significant 

flood plain, and much of the vegetation along the river was 

submerged during the time of the expedition. No rocks, 

rapids, or beaches were apparent due to the high water levels. 

Current was fast flowing. Creeks were usually sampled well 

inside the forest and distant from the main channel of the 

Kutari River. No people were seen, but there were scattered 

abandoned campsites along the river. 

The Sipaliwini River at Site 2 was approximately 

75 meters wide and the primary river channel was relatively 

straight. Large boulders were common, and rapids were 

present, although most were still submerged during the 

time of the expedition. Aquatic plants grew on rocks in the 

rapids. Islands and sand beaches were beginning to emerge 

as the river level dropped. A few people were observed fishing, 

using gillnets and hook and line. Creeks were usually 

sampled near their confluence with the Sipaliwini River. 

The Sipaliwini River at Site 3 (Werehpai), downstream 

from Site 2, was very similar. The river was larger at this 

site, approximately 150 meters wide, and eddies and bays 

were also larger. There were several adjacent swamps. The 

morphology of the creeks in the forest was similar to the 

other two sites. Wioemi Creek is better described as a small 

river, almost as large as the Kutari and very similar geomorphologically. 

Many people were observed fishing in this 

area, since it is closer than the other two sites to the town 

of Kwamalasamutu. 


We recorded 99 species of fishes (Appendix). This is typical 

for the interior of Suriname and nearby parts of the Guiana 

Shield; for example, the Coppename RAP recorded 112 species 

(Mol et al. 2006), the Eastern Kanuku Mountains 

RAP recorded 113 species (Mol 2002), and a similar rapid 

assessment of the upper Essequibo River yielded 110 species 

(P.W. Willink et al. unpublished data). This diversity is high 

compared to the rest of the world, but is typical for the 

Guiana Shield. 

The species accumulation curve for the expedition is showing 

signs of reaching an asymptote (Fig. 1). After collection 

station #23, far fewer novel species were recorded during the 

remainder of the survey. Exceptions were stations #33–34 

that were in rapids. We had not surveyed many rapids prior 

to these stations, so they added several species to our cumulative 

list. But after this point, we had sampled essentially 

all available habitats in the area under study. There are still 

many species in the region that we probably did not collect 

due to the high water and seasonal effects. More surveys 

need to be done at different times of the year. 

We collected eight species of fishes potentially new to 

science, including a large catfish Pterodoras aff. granulosus 

with spines along the body and a small catfish Imparfinis 

aff. stictonotus that lives in sand-bottomed creeks. The other 

potentially new species are Pseudacanthicus sp., Hypostomus 

aff. taphorni, Eigenmannia sp. 1, Eigenmannia sp. 2, Astyanax 

sp., and Moenkhausia aff. georgiae. The two Eigenmannia species 

were initially recognized on a previous RAP in the Coppename 

River (Willink and Sidlauskas 2006), and appear to 

be more widely distributed throughout Suriname’s interior 

than originally thought. This number of new species is typical 

for Neotropical rivers that have not been well surveyed by 

fish biologists. 

Two species, Ituglanis gracilior and Hemigrammus orthus, 

were new records for the country of Suriname. They were 

previously only found in Guyana to the west (Vari et al. 

2009). We encountered some species of fishes known only 

from the Sipaliwini River and nearby drainages (e.g., Corydoras 

sipaliwini and Crenicichla sipaliwini). Other species, such 

Figure 1. Species accumulation curve for fishes collected in the Kutari and 

Sipaliwini Rivers, Suriname, August 19 to September 5, 2010. 


119

Chapter 8 

as Moenkhausia collettii and Hoplias malabaricus, are widespread 

throughout the Guianas and much of South America. 

We collected 57 species at Kutari (Site 1), 60 species 

at Sipaliwini (Site 2), and 63 species at Werehpai (Site 3) 

(Appendix). This is remarkably consistent, with no significant 

difference in diversity among sites. However, we did not 

necessarily find the same species at each site. For example, 

Hoplias aimara was most common in the meandering 

flooded Kutari River. Knifefish diversity was higher in the 

Kutari as well. In comparison, at Site 2 the Sipaliwini River 

had more rapids and flowing water, and this was even more 

the case at Site 3. Piranhas and larger catfishes were more 

common at these sites. Tucunaré (Cichla ocellaris) and large 

characids were also present. 

Wioemi Creek was similar in geomorphology to the 

Kutari River. Both had numerous meanders and S-curves 

in the main channel. Banks were relatively low and generally 

covered with flooded shrubs because of the high water 

levels. Large sections of the adjacent forest were flooded 

as well. 

Wioemi Creek and the Kutari River are also similar in 

species composition. We only sampled four localities in 

Wioemi Creek, and recorded 23 species. This is not rigorous 

enough to make any meaningful statistical comparisons. 

But of the 23 species, 16 were shared with Kutari, 13 with 

Sipaliwini, and 8 with Werephai. Also, six species (Hemigrammus 

orthus, Hyphessobrycon rosaceus, Odontostilbe gracilis, 

Phenacogaster carteri, Melanocharacidium dispilomma, and 

Otocinclus mariae) were found exclusively in the Kutari River 

and Wioemi Creek (but not in the Sipaliwini River at Sites 

2 or 3). This indicates that habitat plays an important role in 

species distribution. 

The role of habitat was apparent throughout the entire 

region. Particular species were found in particular habitats, 

regardless of which sub-basin they were in. For example, 

creeks were characterized by Pyrhulina stoli, Jupiaba abramoides, 

Rineloricaria, and Rivulus. Rapids were characterized 

by Pseudancistrus corantijniensis, Lithoxus aff. bovallii, and 

Guayanacistrus brevispinis. Larger and deeper sections of the 

rivers held Schizodon fasciatus, Hemisorubim platyrhynchos, 

and Prochilodus rubrotaeniatus. 

During this survey, many young fishes were found in 

flooded forests, even if the adults lived in rivers or other habitats. 

This is because many fishes spawn in flooded areas at 

the beginning of the rainy season, which was several months 

prior to the expedition. This strategy gives young fishes an 

opportunity to find hiding places among submerged vegetation. 

There is also an increased amount of food in the form 

of insects falling into the water, suspension of nutrients from 

the leaf litter, greater access to seeds and fruits, etc. (Roberts 

1972, Goulding 1980, Lowe-McConnell 1987). The 

RAP survey was conducted at the end of the rainy season, 

so we found many fishes that were only a few months old. 

This demonstrates the importance of seasonal flooding and 

the interconnection of terrestrial and aquatic habitats. If 

anything negatively impacts the forest, it will also impact the 

fishes in the river. 

We recorded a small number of very large piranhas around 

Sipaliwini (Site 2), including a black piranha Serrasalmus 

rhombeus that was 41 centimeters in standard length and 

weighed 3 kilograms (see color plates). We found numerous 

piranhas nearer to Kwamalasamutu, but they were almost 

all juveniles or small adults. Large catfishes were rare, as 

were tucunaré. Small tetras were abundant at Sipaliwini and 

Werehpai, but far less so in the Kutari River (where the large 

predator Hoplias aimara was most common). Usually there 

are fewer small tetras in areas with many predators. This 

is consistent with what we observed. Overall, large toplevel 

predators were uncommon. In pristine environments, 

these types of fishes are abundant, but they are the first to 

disappear when there is excessive fishing pressure (Mol et al. 

2006). We often saw people fishing along the river, and 

nearly every household had a gill net. The region is exhibiting 

the first stages of overfishing. Many fishes still occur in 

the Sipaliwini area, but there is a need to assess fishing pressure 

and implement management plans. 

The primary threat to the fishes of the Sipaliwini River is 

overfishing. Fishes are an important source of protein in the 

region, and people in Kwamalasamutu have to travel hours 

from the village in order to find large fishes. Fish diversity 

is still high, but popular food fishes are decreasing in size, 

and some are becoming less common (e.g., red-tailed catfish 

Phractocephalus hemioliopterus). Logging would have negative 

impacts by increasing erosion and decreasing the amount 

of food that falls into the water, especially when the rivers 

flood. We are unaware of any imminent plans to deforest the 

region. We are also unaware of any plans for gold or bauxite 

mining. However, diamond exploration concessions exist in 

a watershed well upstream. Excessive mining would result 

in erosion and sedimentation, negatively impacting fishes, 

especially those that live along the bottom. 


• Assess which fish species are used for food. Determine 

amount caught and eaten. Study life-history of these 

species to determine how fast they reproduce and grow. 

• Determine the amount of fish that can be sustainably 

harvested. Set catch limits and/or seasons if necessary to 

avoid overfishing. 

• Create picture guides of fishes, especially colorful species 

and fun-to-catch species, in order to increase appreciation 

and knowledge of fishes. These guides can be used 

to promote ecotourism. 

• Maintain forests along rivers, especially in areas that 

flood. This is to prevent erosion and maintain the 

amount of nutrients (i.e., insects, leaves, fruits, etc.) that 

fall into the water and act as fish food. Flooded areas, 

such as Kutari River and Wioemi Creek, are important 

breeding grounds for fishes. 



• Additional scientific surveys are necessary to document 

the fish biodiversity. There are species present that we 

did not collect, and there could be new species to science 

yet to be discovered. Additional surveys should be 

conducted at different times of the year, especially when 

river levels are lower. These surveys could also explore 

further upstream and downstream than we traveled. 

Literature Cited 

Willink, P.W. and B.L. Sidlauskas. 2006. Taxonomic notes 

on select fishes collected during the 2004 AquaRAP 

expedition to the Coppename River, Central Suriname 

Nature Reserve, Suriname. pp. 101–111 in: Alonso, 

L.E., and H.J. Berrenstein (eds). A Rapid Biological 

Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems of the Coppename 

River Basin, Suriname. RAP Bulletin of Biological 

Assessment 39. Washington, DC: Conservation 

International. 

Boven, K.M. 2006. Overleven in een grensgebied: veranderingsprocessen 

bij de Wayana in Suriname en Frans 

Guyana. Bronnen voor de studie van Suriname. Deel 

26. IBS/Rozenberg Publishers, Leiden and Amsterdam. 

Gery, J.R. 1961. Hyphessobrycon georgetti sp. nov., a dwarf 

species from southern Suriname. Bulletin of Aquatic 

Biology 2:121–128. 

Goulding, M. 1980. The fishes and the forest. University of 

California Press, Berkley. 

Kullander, S.O. and H. Nijssen. 1989. The cichlids of Suriname. 

E.J. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands. 

Lowe-McConnell, R.H. 1987. Ecological studies in tropical 

fish communities. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge. 

Mol, J.H. 2002. A preliminary assessment of the fish fauna 

and water quality of the Eastern Kanuku Mountains: 

Lower Kwitaro River and Rewa River at Corona Falls. 

pp. 38–42. in: Montambault, J.R. and O. Missa (eds.). 

A Biodiversity Assessment of the Eastern Kanuku 

Mountains, Lower Kwitaro River, Guyana. RAP Bulletin 

of Biological Assessment 26. Washington, DC: 

Conservation International. 

Mol, J.H., P. Willink, B. Chernoff, and M. Cooperman. 

2006. Fishes of the Coppename 

River, Central Suriname Nature Reserve, Suriname. 

pp. 67–79 in: Alonso, L.E., and H.J. Berrenstein (eds). 

A Rapid Biological Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems 

of the Coppename River Basin, Suriname. RAP 

Bulletin of Biological Assessment 39. Washington, DC: 


Ouboter, P.E. and J.H.A. Mol. 1993. The fish fauna of Suriname. 

Pp. 133–154 in: Ouboter, P.E. (ed.). Freshwater 

Ecosystems of Suriname. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 

Netherlands. 

Roberts, T.R. 1972. Ecology of fishes in the Amazon and 

Congo basins. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative 

Zoology 143:117–147. 

Vari, R.P. 1982. Environmental impact of the Kabalebo Projekt. 

Inventory, biology, and ecology of the fishes in the 

Corantijn River system, Suriname. Unpublished report 

to the Ministry of Development, Republic of Suriname. 

Vari, R.P., C.J. Ferraris, Jr., A. Radosavljevic, and V.A. Funk 

(eds.). 2009. Checklist of the freshwater fishes of the 

Guiana Shield. Bulletin of the Biological Society of 

Washington 17:1–95. 


121

Chapter 8 

Appendix. List of fishes recorded in the Kutari and Sipaliwini rivers. 

Taxon Kutari Sipaliwini Werehpai 

Rajiformes 

Potamotrygonidae 

Potamotrygon boesemani X X 

Characiformes 

Acestrorhynchidae 

Acestrorhynchus microlepis X X X 

Anostomidae 

Anostomus anostomus X X 

Hypomasticus megalepis 

X 

Leporinus fasciatus 

X 

Leporinus friderici 

X 

Leporinus granti X X 

Leporinus nijsseni 

X 

Schizodon fasciatus X X 

Characidae 

Astyanax bimaculatus X X 

Astyanax sp. 

X 

Brachychalcinus orbicularis X X X 

Brycon falcatus X X X 

Bryconamericus hyphesson X X 

Bryconops affinis X X X 

Bryconops melanurus 

X 

Chalceus macrolepidotus X X 

Charax gibbosus X X X 

Cynopotamus essequibensis X X X 

Hemigrammus ocellifer X X 

Hemigrammus orthus X X 

Hyphessobrycon rosaceus X X 

Jupiaba abramoides X X X 

Jupiaba meunieri X X 

Jupiaba polylepis X X 

Moenkhausia chrysargyrea X X 

Moenkhausia collettii X X X 

Moenkhausia georgiae X X X 

Moenkhausia grandisquamis 

X 

Moenkhausia hemigrammoides X X 

Moenkhausia lepidura X X X 

Moenkhausia oligolepis X X X 

Myleus rhomboidalis X X X 

Myloplus rubripinnis X X X 

Odontostilbe gracilis X X 

Phenacogaster carteri X X 


Poptella longipinnis X X 

Roeboexodon guyanensis X X 

Serrasalmus rhombeus X X X 

Tetragonopterus chalceus X X 

Tetragonopterus rarus 

X 

Triportheus brachipomus X X 

Crenuchidae 

Characidium zebra X X X 

Melanocharacidium dispilomma X X 

Curimatidae 

Cyphocharax helleri X X 

Cyphocharax spilurus X X X 

Cynodontidae 

Cynodon gibbus X X X 

Erythrinidae 

Hoplerythrinus unitaeniatus 

X 

Hoplias aimara X X X 

Hoplias curupira X X 

Hoplias malabaricus 

X 

Gasteropelecidae 

Carnegiella strigata X X X 

Hemiodontidae 

Bivibranchia bimaculata 

X 

Hemiodus argenteus 

X 

Hemiodus quadrimaculatus 

X 

Lebiasinidae 

Pyrrhulina stoli X X X 

Parodontidae 

Parodon guyanensis 

X 

Prochilodontidae 

Prochilodus rubrotaeniatus X X 

Siluriformes 

Auchenipteridae 

Ageneiosus inermis X X X 

Tatia intermedia 

X 

Trachelyopterus galeatus 

X 

Callichthyidae 

Corydoras baderi 

X 

Corydoras sipaliwini X X 

Cetopsidae 

Cetopsidium minutum 

X 

Helogenes marmoratus 

X 





Doradidae 

Doras carinatus X X 

Pterodoras aff. granulosus 

X 

Heptapteridae 

Imparfinis aff. stictonotus X X 

Pimelodella cristata X X 

Pimelodella macturki 

X 

Loricariidae 

Ancistrus aff. leucostictus 

X 

Cteniloricaria platystoma X X 

Guyanancistrus brevispinis 

X 

Hypostomus pseudohemiurus X X X 

Hypostomus taphorni 

X 

Lithoxus aff. bovallii 

X 

Metaloricaria nijsseni 

X 

Otocinclus mariae X X 

Pseudacanthicus sp. 

X 

Pseudancistrus corantijniensis X X 

Rineloricaria sp. 

X 

Rineloricaria stewarti 

X 

Pimelodidae 

Hemisorubim platyrhynchos 

X 

Pimelodus blochii 

X 

Pimelodus ornatus 

X 

Pseudopimelodidae 

Microglanis secundus X X 

Trichomycteridae 

Ituglanis gracilior 

X 

Gymnotiformes 

Gymnotidae 

Gymnotus carapo X X 

Hypopomidae 

Brachyhypopomus brevirostris X 

Rhamphichthyidae 

Rhamphichthys rostratus 

X 

Sternopygidae 

Eigenmannia sp. 1 

X 

Eigenmannia sp. 2 

X 

Cyprinodontiformes 

Rivulidae 

Rivulus sp. X X 


Synbranchiformes 

Synbranchidae 

Synbranchus marmoratus X 

Perciformes 

Cichlidae 

Apistogramma steindachneri X X 

Cichla ocellaris X X 

Crenicichla sipaliwini X X 

Geophagus brachybranchus 

X 

Guianacara sphenozona 

X 

Total 99 species 57 60 63 


123

Chapter 9 

A rapid assessment of the amphibians 

and reptiles of the Kwamalasamutu 

region (Kutari /lower Sipaliwini Rivers), 

Suriname 

Paul E. Ouboter, Rawien Jairam, and 

Cindyrella Kasanpawiro 

Summary 

The RAP team recorded 42 species of amphibians and 36 species of reptiles, including one 

species of frog in the genus Hypsiboas that is new to science. The amphibian community was 

most similar to those of forests on bauxite plateaus in western Suriname. Some rare species 

were collected, of which the tree frog Osteocephalus cabrerai and the amphisbaenian Amphisbaena 

slevini were collected from Suriname for the first time. We also encountered Chelonoides 

denticulata (Yellow-footed Tortoise), listed as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List. Apart from 

caimans, most of the herpetofauna of the area seems to be minimally impacted by human 

activities such as hunting and fishing from the community of Kwamalasamutu. We discovered 

that certain expected species that are quite common in other areas in Suriname were either not 

found or found in very moderate numbers on the RAP survey. On the other hand, we found 

certain generally rare species to be quite common, emphasizing the importance of the region’s 

forests to the biodiversity of Suriname and the Guiana Shield. Recommended conservation 

measures include avoiding large-scale deforestation in the region, and controlling the hunting 

of caimans. 

Introduction 

Amphibians are very important indicators of disturbance, because they are sensitive to changes 

in microclimate, and worldwide many species recently became extinct as the result of several 

impacts, including habitat change, pollution and disease. The group is well suited for rapid 

assessments, as the species are often easy to sample and their calls are diagnostic, which aids 

identification of species that cannot be collected, such as tree frogs in the rainforest canopy. Of 

the reptiles, lizards are often sensitive to changes in microhabitat. Many species are restricted 

to pristine forest habitats, and tend to disappear from regions of highly degraded forest. Caimans, 

turtles, and tortoises are generally good indicators of hunting pressure. 

Although two previous expeditions by the National Zoological Collection / Anton de Kom 

University of Suriname visited southern Suriname in 1988 and 1989, these expeditions 

focused on the Sipaliwini Savanna and the Apalagadi area north of the savanna, and did not 

survey any areas in the vicinity of Kwamalasamutu. The Kutari River has never been visited by 

a biological expedition before. The goal of this survey was to provide baseline information on 

the diversity and abundance of reptiles and amphibians in the forests of the Kwamalasamutu 



A rapid assessment of the amphibians and reptiles of the Kwamalasamutu region (Kutari /lower Sipaliwini Rivers), Suriname 

Methods 

Four areas along the Kutari and Sipaliwini Rivers were investigated 

for amphibians and reptiles. Six days were spent at 

each of the three RAP sites (see Executive Summary for site 

descriptions). Iwana Samu was visited for only 2 days, but 

collections were made there as well. 

We sampled the herpetofauna by walking trails at each 

survey site and searching for animals along the trails. Most 

of the trails had been cut during the month before the RAP 

survey, and some trails were extended during our stay at each 

site. Trails were walked during morning, early afternoon and 

evening to observe and/or collect amphibians and reptiles. 

Special attention was given to creeks, downed logs, cavities, 

and other favourable habitats, to discover as many species of 

amphibians and reptiles as possible. 

Specimens were captured by hand. Frog calls were 

recorded using a Marantz PMD660 solid state recorder 

and Sennheiser ME 67 directional microphone. Calls were 

compared with known calls for the frogs of French Guiana 

(Marty & Gaucher 2000) and Ecuador (Read 2000). 

Many specimens were identified on site. Some specimens, 

particularly those that could not be identified conclusively 

in the field, were collected and preserved for later identification 

in the laboratory. Specimens were euthanized using an 

injection of Nembutal, fixed in 4% formaldehyde solution, 

and subsequently preserved in 70% ethanol. All specimens 

are deposited in the National Zoological Collection of 

Suriname. 

Species diversity and richness were calculated using Simpson’s 

index of diversity, the Shannon-Wiener diversity index, 

and Chao 1 (Magurran 2004), using the software package 

Species Diversity & Richness IV (Pisces Conservation Ltd). 

PCA analysis was accomplished with the software Community 

Analysis Package 4 of the same provider. 


A total of 42 species of amphibians and 36 species of reptiles 

was observed in the area (Appendix). An estimation of the 

total number of species in the area based on Chao & Lee 1 

is 42.84 amphibians and 43.34 reptiles. It can therefore be 

concluded that the sampling of amphibians was adequate, 

but that continued sampling of reptiles would probably yield 

additional species. 

The most exciting discovery was a tree frog in the genus 

Hypsiboas that is new to science. This frog was discovered 

in swamp forest directly adjacent to the camp at the Kutari 

River site; one specimen was collected. Photos of this frog, 

as well as descriptive notes, will appear in the forthcoming 

Amphibians of Suriname (Ouboter and Jairam in press). 

The diversity of the areas investigated is shown in Table 1. 

The Sipaliwini site had the highest species diversity of the 

three RAP sites. Werehpai had the greatest number of reptile 

species, but high abundance of three species of lizards significantly 

decreased evenness at the site, and consequently the α 

diversity values. 

The PCA analysis showed that the community structure of 

the three RAP sites differed significantly, and that the findings 

from all three (or even more) sites are needed to obtain 

an overview of the herpetofauna of the area. A comparison 

of the amphibian community of the Kwamalasamutu area 

with other areas of Suriname is shown in Fig. 1. Within 

Suriname, the amphibian community of the Kwamalasamutu 

region is most similar to the communities on forests 

on bauxite plateaus, but is probably slightly poorer in the 

number of species, especially in the families Aromobatidae 

and Caeciliidae. 

A number of rare species was collected during the survey: 

Osteocephalus cabrerai, a rare tree frog from the western 

Amazon Basin and French Guiana, is herewith reported 

from Suriname for the first time. Scinax proboscideus is a 

tree frog with a nasal appendix, previously known from only 

two localities in the interior of Suriname and a few localities 

in French Guiana (Ouboter and Jairam in press). Microcaecilia 

taylori was described from three specimens collected 

from forest islands in the Sipaliwini Savanna (Nussbaum 

Table 1. Alpha diversity of the three RAP sites. It should be noted that the time spent at Iwana Samu was much less than at the other three sites. 

Site 1 Kutari Site 2 Sipaliwini Site 3 Werehpai Iwana Samu 

Amphibians 

Species richness 23 27 26 12 

Simpson’s index 13.86 15.40 11.38 7.02 

Shannon-Wiener 2.73 2.92 2.75 2.07 

Reptiles 

Species richness 14 13 21 1 

Simpson’s index 6.56 17.10 7.55 - 

Shannon-Wiener 2.13 2.41 2.38 - 


125

Chapter 9 

Figure 1. Comparison of the amphibian community of the Kwamala samutu region (lowland forest) with amphibian communities at Brownsberg (forest on 

bauxite plateaus), Boven Coesewijne area (savanna & savanna forest) and the Meursweg area (freshwater swamps). 

& Hoogmoed 1979). The specimen collected by us is the 

fourth, and shows that this species is not restricted to the 

Sipaliwini Savanna. The snake Xenodon werneri is quite 

rare and was previously known from only two specimens 

in Suriname, one from the Wilhelmina Mts. and the other 

from the Nassau Mts. (Hoogmoed 1985). The amphisbaenian 

Amphisbaena slevini, known from the surroundings of 

Manaus (Brasil) and eastern French Guiana (Starace 1998), 

was collected on the RAP, providing the first record for Suriname 

and an extension of its known range. 

Several species observed on the RAP survey are indicators 

of relatively undisturbed forests, including Allobates granti, 

Ceratophrys cornuta, Amereega hahneli, Hypsiboas fasciata, 

Leptodactylus hyeri, Chiasmocleis shudikarensis, Pristimantis 

chiastonotus, Pristimantis marmoratus, Bothriopsis biliniatus, 

and Gonatodes annularis. Typical indicator species of forest 

clearing were absent. A generally anthropogenic species, 

Rhinella marina, was present at the Werehpai site. 

We observed several species of amphibians and reptiles 

listed in Appendix II of CITES, including species in the genera 

Allobates, Ameerega, Dendrobates, Tupinambis and Paleosuchus, 

and species of the families Boidae and Testudinidae. 

However, almost all of these are listed as “Least Concern” 

in the IUCN Red Data List (see Appendix). Exceptions are 

Chelonoides denticulata, which is listed as “Vulnerable”, and 

Paleosuchus trigonatus, which is listed as “Lower Risk/Least 

Concern (needs updating)”. 

Most amphibians and reptiles are opportunistic predators 

of small to medium size animals: arthropods for frogs and 

lizards; annelids and the like for amphisbaenians; caecilians, 

small snakes, and a variety of small vertebrates for snakes, 

turtles and caimans. Because of their opportunistic feeding 

behavior, their role in the ecosystem per species is probably 

minor. An exception is the role of caimans as top predators 

in the aquatic ecosystem (Fittkau 1973). A healthy caiman 

population may positively influence fish stocks and other 

characteristics of wetland ecosystems. 

Conservation recommendations 

In general, the ecosystems investigated seem to have a 

healthy and diverse herpetofauna. The current intensity of 

fishing, hunting, and gathering activities does not seem to 

adversely affect most amphibian and reptile populations in 

the Kwamalasamutu region. Such activities are expected to 

have more impact if extensive deforestation occurs; therefore, 

large-scale deforestation should be prevented at all costs. 

Although we did not carry out a targeted survey for 

caimans, the impression is the same as in 1988 (Ouboter 

1989): near Kwamalasamutu, caimans are over-exploited 

and therefore rare. Every caiman encountered away from the 

village, e.g. in the Kutari area, is instantly killed by the local 

inhabitants. Caimans have a positive effect on fish populations 

and community structure, and should therefore be 

provided some form of protection in the vicinity of Kwamalasamutu 

and the broader region. This could be accomplished 

in several ways, including a no-hunting agreement 

during part of the year or during alternate years. 



References 

Avila-Pires, T.C.S. 1995. Lizards of Brazilian Amazonia. 

Zool. Verh. 299: 1–706. 

Fittkau, E.J. 1973. Crocodiles and the nutrient metabolism 

of Amazonian waters. Amazoniana 4(1): 103–133. 

Hoogmoed, M.S. 1973. Notes on the herpetofauna of Surinam 

IV. The lizards and amphisbaenians of Surinam. 

Junk, The Hague, 419 pp. 

Hoogmoed, M.S. 1985. Xenodon werneri Eiselt, a poorly 

known snake from Guiana, with notes on Waglerophis 

merremii (Wagner) (Reptilia: Serpentes: Colubridae). 

Notes on the herpetofauna of Surinam IX. Zool. 

Meded. Leiden 59(8): 79–88. 

Lescure, J. & C. Marty, 2000. Atlas des Amphibiens de 

Guyane. M.N.H.N., Paris, 388 pp. 

Magurran, A.E. 2004. Measuring Biological Diversity. 

Blackwell Publ., Maiden, 256 pp. 

Marty, C. & P. Gaucher, 2000. Sound guide to The Tailless 

Amphibians of French Guiana. 

Nussbaum, R.A. & M.S. Hoogmoed. 1979. Surinam Caecilians, 

with notes on Rhinatrema bivittatum and the 

description of a new species of Microcaecilia (Amphibia, 

Gymnophiona). Zool. Meded. Leiden 54(14): 217–235. 

Ouboter, P.E. 1989. The Impact of an Indian Village on 

Caimans. (Area Reports: Suriname). IUCN Crocodile 

Specialist Group Newsletter 8: 28. 

Ouboter, P.E. 1996. Ecological studies on crocodilians in 

Suriname – niche segregation and competition in three 

predators. SPB Acad. Publ., Amsterdam, 139 pp. 

Ouboter, P.E. & R. Jairam, in press. Amphibians of Suriname. 

E.J. Brill, Leiden. 

Read, M. 2000. Frogs of the Ecuadorian Amazon – a guide 

to their calls. 

Starace, F. 1998. Guide des Serpents et Amphisbenes de 

Guyane. Ibis Rouge, Guadeloupe/Guyane, 449 pp. 


127

Chapter 9 

Appendix. List of amphibians and reptiles found during the Kwamalasamutu RAP survey. Numbers indicate number of observations per site; they do not 

necessarily indicate that specimens were collected. 

CLASS/(Sub)Order/Family 

AMPHIBIA 

Species 

Indicator of 

pristine forest 

IUCN Red List 

Status 


ANURA 

Allophrynidae Allophryne ruthveni Least concern 4 2 4 1 

Aromatidae Allobates femoralis Least concern 1 2 34 2 

Allobates granti X Least concern 6 0 4 0 

Anomaloglossus baeobatrachus Data deficient 13 7 7 0 

Bufonidae Rhaebo guttatus Least concern 3 2 5 1 

Rhinella martyi Least concern 3 0 0 0 

Rhinella lescurei Data deficient 12 13 9 0 

Rhinella marina Least concern 0 0 1 0 

Ceratopryidae Ceratophrys cornuta X Least concern 0 0 2 0 

Dendrobatidae Dendrobates tinctorius Least concern 0 5 0 0 

Ameerega hahneli X Least concern 1 1 10 0 

Ameerega trivittata Least concern 8 2 11 0 

Hylidae Dendropsophus minutus Least concern 0 4 0 0 

Hypsiboas boans Least concern 5 14 1 1 

Hypsiboas calcaratus Least concern 1 22 0 6 

Hypsiboas cinerascens Least concern 2 1 8 0 

Hypsiboas fasciatus X Least concern 0 3 6 0 

Hypsiboas geographicus Least concern 0 4 0 0 

Hypsiboas sp. nov. Unknown 1 0 0 0 

Osteocephalus buckleyi Least concern 0 0 0 1 

Osteocephalus cabrerai Least concern 0 1 0 1 

Osteocephalus leprieuri Least concern 3 2 0 0 

Osteocephalus taurinus Least concern 0 0 1 0 

Scinax proboscideus Least concern 1 0 0 0 

Trachycephalus resinifictrix Least concern 0 0 2 0 

Phyllomedusa bicolor Least concern 0 11 0 0 

Phyllomedusa hypochrondialis Least concern 0 0 0 1 

Leptodactylidae Leptodactylus bolivianus Least concern 0 2 0 0 

Leptodactylus hyeri X Least concern 1 0 0 0 

Leptodactylus cf. hylaedactylus Least concern 9 6 8 0 

Leptodactylus knudseni Least concern 1 2 1 0 

Leptodactylus myersi Least concern 0 13 0 0 

Leptodactylus mystaceus Least concern 9 6 14 9 

Leptodactylus pentadactylus Least concern 2 2 1 0 

Leptodactylus petersii Least concern 0 3 1 0 

Leptodactylus rhodomystax Least concern 0 0 9 1 

Microhylidae Chiasmocleis shudikarensis X Least concern 0 0 2 0 

Hamptophryne boliviana Least concern 3 2 2 5 

Pipidae Pipa aspera Least concern 0 0 1 0 

Iwana 

Samu 





Species 



IUCN Red List 

Status 


Strabomantidae Pristimantis chiastonotus X Least concern 0 2 1 0 

Pristimantis marmoratus X Least concern 0 0 2 0 

Pristimantis zeuctotylus Least concern 1 8 0 1 

GYMNOPHIONA 

Caeciliidae Microcaecilia taylori X Least concern 1 0 0 0 

TOTAL 23 27 26 12 

Iwana 

Samu 

REPTILIA 

SERPENTES 

Typhlopidae Typhlops reticulatus Least concern 1 0 0 0 

Boidae Corallus enhydris 0 0 1 0 

Eunectes murinus 0 0 1 0 

Aniliidae Anillius scytale 0 0 1 0 

Colubridae Atractus flammigerus 0 1 1 0 

Atractus torquatus 1 1 0 0 

Dipsas pavonina Least concern 0 1 0 0 

Drymarchon corais 1 0 0 0 

Helicops angulatus 0 1 0 0 

Hydrops triangulatus 1 0 0 0 

Imantodes cenchoa 0 1 0 0 

Liophis typhlus 2 0 0 0 

Philodryas argenteus Least concern 0 0 1 0 

Siphlophis cervinus 0 0 1 0 

Xenodon werneri 0 1 0 0 

Viperidae Bothriopsis biliniatus X 0 0 1 0 

Bothrops atrox 0 1 0 0 

AMPHISBAENIA 

Amphisbaenidae Amphisbaena slevini Data deficient 1 0 0 0 

SAURIA 

Polychrotidae Anolis nitens 2 4 3 0 

Anolis punctatus 0 0 1 0 

Gekkonidae Coleodactylus amazonicus 13 1 0 0 

Gonatodes annularis X 0 0 2 0 

Gonatodes humeralis 0 0 2 0 

Thecadactylus rapicauda 0 0 1 1 

Gymnophthalmidae Arthrosaura kocki Least concern 0 0 13 0 

Gymnopthalmus underwoodii Least concern 0 0 1 0 

Leposoma guianense 8 2 17 0 

Neusticurus bicarinatus 1 1 0 0 

Scincidae Mabuya nigropunctata 1 0 3 0 



129

Chapter 9 


Species 



IUCN Red List 

Status 


Teiidae Kentropyx calcarata 5 3 10 0 

Tupinambis nigropunctata 0 0 1 0 

Tropiduridae Plica plica 0 0 1 0 

Plica umbra 0 1 1 0 

CHELONIA 

Chelidae Platemys platycephala 0 0 1 0 

Testudinidae Chelonoidis denticulata Vulnerable 1 0 0 0 

CROCODILIA 

Paleosuchus trigonatus 

lower risk/ 2 0 0 0 

least concern 

(needs 

updating) 

TOTAL 14 13 21 1 

Iwana 

Samu 


Chapter 10 

Avifauna of the Kwamalasamutu region, 

Suriname 

Brian J. O’Shea and Serano Ramcharan 

Summary 

The RAP team recorded 327 species of birds: 294 species from the three RAP sites, 12 species 

observed in the area during the reconnaissance trip (3–8 May 2010) but not during the RAP 

survey, and 21 species observed only in the vicinity of Kwamalasamutu itself. The avifauna 

was typical of lowland forests of the Guiana Shield, and included many species endemic to 

the region. Our observations represent the first published records for Suriname of Crypturellus 

brevirostris (Rusty Tinamou), Dromococcyx pavoninus (Pavonine Cuckoo), Xiphocolaptes promeropirhynchus 

(Strong-billed Woodcreeper), and Ramphotrigon megacephalum (Large-headed 

Flatbill). The overall species list was highest for the Sipaliwini camp (250 species), followed by 

Werehpai (221 species) and Kutari (216 species). 153 species, or approximately 52% of those 

encountered at the three sites, were observed at all sites. The Kutari site had the most distinctive 

avifauna of the three sites. We estimate that a minimum of 350 bird species, or roughly 

half of the number of species known to occur in Suriname, may be found in the Kwamalasamutu 

area. Although no species listed on the IUCN Red List were encountered during the 

RAP survey, at least one (Harpia harpyja, Harpy Eagle, Near-Threatened) is known to occur 

in the area. Maintenance of large tracts of intact forest is recommended to preserve the avian 

diversity of the Kwamalasamutu region. 

Introduction 

Birds are excellent indicators for rapid biological assessments — they are primarily diurnal, 

they are generally easy to detect and identify, and the richness of bird communities tends to 

correlate positively with other measures of biodiversity. Birds are important food sources for 

other animals and people, and healthy populations of large-bodied frugivores and predators 

are indicative of a relatively intact, undisturbed ecosystem. Since many species are conspicuous 

when they are common, it is comparatively easy to assess their population status, even within 

the constraints of a rapid inventory. 

In contrast to many other taxonomic groups, the avifauna of Suriname is well known 

(Ottema et al. 2009), though new records for the country continue to accumulate as more 

interior localities are inventoried (O’Shea 2005; Zyskowski et al. 2011). Most of the interior of 

Suriname is covered by unbroken tropical moist forest and is sparsely populated. Accordingly, 

the avifauna is diverse, and many sites support healthy populations of species that are of global 

conservation concern, such as large raptors, cracids, and parrots. 

The Kwamalasamutu region encompasses the eastern portion of the upper Corantijn drainage 

in the southwest corner of Suriname. It is one of the most remote lowland regions of the 

Guiana Shield; much of the human population is concentrated in Kwamalasamutu itself, 

with human presence elsewhere limited to occasional hunting and fishing parties, or small 

groups of people traveling between communities along the major rivers. The region’s vast 

forest matrix continues unbroken far into Brazil and Guyana, and is similarly isolated from 


131

Chapter 10 

the infrastructure of those countries. However, the planned 

construction of highways across northern Brazil and through 

the interior of Suriname poses a potential threat to the 

biodiversity of the Kwamalasamutu region. Illegal miners are 

a persistent presence throughout the interior regions of the 

Guianas, a situation that can be expected to worsen around 

Kwamalasamutu if roads allow easier land access to the 

region. As Suriname’s infrastructure continues to develop, 

economic pressures on natural resources will increase. Therefore, 

the need to identify areas of exceptional biodiversity in 

Suriname is becoming ever more urgent. 

We surveyed birds around three sites in the Kwamalasamutu 

area between 18 August and 8 September 2010. The 

purpose of the surveys was to obtain a baseline estimate 

of the avian species richness of the area, and to provide 

information on the population status of several bird species 

important to the Trio people. Our survey was preceded by an 

ornithological survey of the Werehpai area by Yale University 

in August 2006. Specimens from that expedition, representing 

many of the species listed in this report, are housed in 

the Peabody Museum of Natural History in New Haven, 

CT, USA. 


We surveyed the avifauna at three localities in the Kwamalasamutu 

area between 19 August and 7 September 2010 (see 

Executive Summary (page 29) for site coordinates and Maps 

(page 13): 

Site 1. Kutari River, 19–24 August. 

Site 2. Sipaliwini River, 27 August – 2 September. 

Site 3. Werehpai, 3–7 September. 

The habitat at all sites was a mosaic of tall terra firme 

and seasonally flooded forest, with the latter type most 

extensive at the Kutari River site. Within this mosaic were 

small patches of other habitat types, including so-called 

savanna forest, swamps dominated by Euterpe oleracea palms, 

xerophytic vegetation on granitic outcrops (inselbergs), and 

bamboo (Guadua sp.). Throughout the study period, we 

attempted to identify and survey as many different habitats 

as possible. The dates of the survey were chosen to fall 

within the long dry season, but the rainy season extended 

later than usual in 2010, and rain was frequent at the first 

site. Although local rainfall diminished substantially at the 

second and third sites, river levels remained high throughout 

the survey, indicating rain in the surrounding region. 

Birds were surveyed on foot for 1–2 hours before dawn, and 

during all morning hours of each day, primarily by walking 

along trails and identifying birds by sight and sound. We 

devoted most of our efforts to locating concentrations of 

birds or areas with good visibility, such as food sources (e.g., 

fruiting and flowering trees), mixed-species foraging flocks, 

or vantage points where large areas of canopy or sky could 

be viewed. Birds were observed opportunistically at all other 

times of the day, generally in the vicinity of the camps. 

Birds were documented using a Marantz PMD-661 digital 

recorder with a Sennheiser ME-62 omnidirectional microphone 

and Telinga parabolic reflector for individual birds, 

and a stereo microphone pair (Sennheiser MKH-20 and 

MKH-30) that was operated remotely for 2–3 hours at dawn 

on several mornings. Recordings are deposited at the Macaulay 

Library at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology in Ithaca, New 

York, USA. 

Results 

Our list for the Kwamalasamutu region (Appendix) includes 

332 species: 294 species were observed at the three camps, 

and 12 species were observed in the area during the reconnaissance 

trip (3–8 May 2010; wet season) but not during 

the RAP survey. We also include 21 species observed only in 

the vicinity of Kwamalasamutu itself; these species are probably 

restricted to the human-modified habitats around the 

village. Five additional species were not observed by us, but 

were documented with specimens and/or photographs by the 

Yale/Peabody expedition to Werehpai in 2006. We estimate 

that a minimum of 350 bird species, or roughly half of the 

number known to occur in Suriname, may be found in the 

Kwamalasamutu area. 

The overall species list was highest for the Sipaliwini 

site (250 species), followed by Werehpai (221 species) and 

Kutari (216 species). 153 species, or approximately 52% 

of those encountered at the three sites, were observed at all 

sites. The Kutari site had the most distinctive assemblage of 

the three sites: although it had the fewest species, it had the 

most unique species (26) and shared fewer species with the 

Sipaliwini and Werehpai sites (180 and 163, respectively) 

than those sites shared with each other (203 species). Fifty 

species were observed at both the Sipaliwini and Werehpai 

sites but not at Kutari. The differences among sites were due 

in part to unequal distribution of certain habitats (e.g., Guadua 

bamboo, inselberg vegetation, river habitats) and their 

associated bird species (see below), but we attribute most of 

the differences to general rarity and the vagaries of sampling. 

This impression is corroborated by the observation that the 

majority of species not encountered at all sites are either relatively 

rare (e.g., birds of prey) or are most likely to be seen 

around widely dispersed resources that we were able to locate 

at some camps but not others (e.g., large fruiting trees). We 

therefore suspect that although the number of unique species 

at the Kutari site is indicative of habitat differences between 

forests along the Kutari and Sipaliwini Rivers, the majority 

of bird species reported here should be expected to occur at 

any of the survey sites, given additional sampling effort. 

The avifauna of the Kwamalasamutu region was typical 

of lowland forests of the Guiana Shield. Of the 52 families 

encountered, three families of suboscine passerines (Furnariidae, 

Thamnophilidae, and Tyrannidae) accounted for over 



30% of species observed. Due to the relative scarcity of fruiting 

and flowering trees during the survey, diversity of hummingbirds 

(Trochilidae) and tanagers (Thraupidae) was lower 

than expected. Although species composition was broadly 

similar among the three sites (more than half were observed 

at all sites), relative abundances of many species varied substantially 

among the camps. In particular, species that occur 

primarily or only in seasonally flooded forests were more 

common at the Kutari site, where this habitat type was most 

extensive. For other species, variation in abundance among 

sites may have been more apparent than real; for example, 

changes in singing behavior associated with the onset of 

the dry season may have made certain species seem more or 

less common as the RAP survey progressed. However, we 

suspect that most differences among sites could be attributed 

to variation in the distributions of microhabitats favored by 

particular species. Since many of these microhabitats are not 

stable over time in any particular place (e.g. treefall gaps), we 

do not consider our perceptions of variation in abundance to 

have any significant import for regional conservation. 

We observed 15 species of parrots (Psittacidae). No species 

seemed especially common, and macaws (Ara spp.) were particularly 

scarce. Although larger species of parrots are hunted 

on an opportunistic basis, we could not attribute their low 

abundance at the time of the survey to hunting pressure. 

Parrots track their preferred food sources, and their abundance 

at a single site can vary dramatically over the course 

of a year — for example, two species were observed daily on 

the May reconnaissance trip but not at all during the RAP 

survey (see Appendix). The relative scarcity of parrots was 

likely an effect of limited food availability in the region at 

the time of our survey. 

Guans (Penelope spp.) and especially Black Curassow (Crax 

alector), arguably the most important birds in the Trio diet, 

were less common in the Kwamalasamutu region than we 

have found them in other areas with little hunting pressure. 

Although they were observed at all of the sites, our records 

were often limited to second-hand reports and images from 

the camera traps. 

Noteworthy observations 

Four species represent new distributional records for Suriname: 

Crypturellus brevirostris (Rusty Tinamou), observed 

on two occasions at the Kutari site; Dromococcyx pavoninus 

(Pavonine Cuckoo), recorded remotely from the Sipaliwini 

site and observed daily in secondary growth around the 

Werehpai camp; Xiphocolaptes promeropirhynchus (Strongbilled 

Woodcreeper), recorded remotely at the Sipaliwini 

site; and Ramphotrigon megacephalum (Large-headed 

Flatbill), found in Guadua bamboo at both the Kutari and 

Werehpai sites. All four species are known from the Upper 

Essequibo region of extreme southern Guyana (Robbins 

et al. 2007; O’Shea 2008) but apparently do not occur 

farther north in the country (with the exception of X. 

promeropirhynchus, which occurs in the tepui highlands). 

Although C. brevirostris and D. pavoninus are known to 

occur in adjacent northern Brazil, R. megacephalum is not; 

the Guyana record (O’Shea 2008) was the first for any of the 

Guianas and represented a 900-km range extension to the 

east (see Hilty 2003). Our observations further extend the 

range of this species, and we suspect it occurs in patches of 

Guadua bamboo elsewhere in the region. 

Notes on selected species 

Harpy Eagle (Harpia harpyja; IUCN Near-Threatened): 

Although we did not observe Harpy Eagles during the RAP 

survey, the species is well known to the inhabitants of Kwamalasamutu, 

and the region undoubtedly supports a stable 

population. During the reconnaissance trip in May 2010, 

we were shown an abandoned nest site; this nest was active 

in August 2006, when it was photographed by the Yale/ 

Peabody expedition. In the Kwamalasamutu region and elsewhere 

in the Neotropics, Harpies are occasionally shot for 

food and other uses. As this species can be an excellent focal 

point for tourism, we recommend that they receive formal 

protection by the Trio. 

Ciccaba virgata (Mottled Owl). We have included this 

species on the basis of a specimen collected at Werehpai by 

the Peabody Museum of Natural History in 2006, and by 

our own detections of unseen birds calling at both the Sipaliwini 

and Werehpai sites. 

Asio stygius (Stygian Owl). This species is rare throughout 

its range, and is known from Suriname on the basis of several 

undocumented observations. We heard one individual 

near our camp at the Sipaliwini site, and we suspect that 

the species is a low-density resident throughout the forested 

interior of Suriname. 

Nyctibius aethereus (Long-tailed Potoo) and N. leucopterus 

(White-winged Potoo). We heard both of these species 

(and recorded the latter) at the Kutari site. These potoos are 

rare and infrequently reported; in Suriname, the Kutari site 

is the third known locality for N. aethereus and the second 

for N. leucopterus (Ottema et al. 2009). 

Deconychura longicauda (Long-tailed Woodcreeper). This 

species is rare in Suriname and appears to be absent from 

large areas of the country. We recorded a very vocal individual 

at the Kutari site. 

Thamnophilus punctatus (Northern Slaty-Antshrike). This 

species was observed only on the inselberg at the Sipaliwini 

site, and in the Kwamalasamutu region it is probably 

restricted to the xerophytic vegetation typical of such rock 

outcrops. 

Terenura cf. spodioptila (“Ash-winged” Antwren). We 

have provisionally included T. spodioptila on the list for the 

Kwamalasamutu region, as it is assumed to be the most 

widespread member of the genus Terenura in the Guiana 

Shield, most often observed in association with mixedspecies 

foraging flocks in the canopy of tall forest, and 


133

Chapter 10 

usually detected by their distinctive songs; they are quite 

difficult to see well. Vocalizations of Terenura antwrens heard 

during the RAP survey, particularly from the Kutari site, 

could not be attributed with confidence to either T. spodioptila 

or T. callinota, which has been recorded from several 

sites in the interior of Suriname (usually on bauxite plateaus) 

and from the Acari Mountains of southern Guyana (O’Shea 

2008; Zyskowski et al. 2011). More study of this genus in 

the Guiana Shield is needed. 

Icterus cayanensis (Epaulet Oriole). This species is 

included on the basis of a remote recording of a singing bird 

at the Sipaliwini site. 


Bulletin of Biological Assessment 51. Arlington, VA: 


Ottema, O.H., J.H.J.M. Ribot, and A.L. Spaans. 2009. 

Annotated Checklist of the Birds of Suriname. Paramaribo: 

WWF Guianas. 

Robbins, M.B., M.J. Braun, C.M. Milensky, B.K. Schmidt, 

W. Prince, N.H. Rice, D.W. Finch, and B.J. O’Shea. 

2007. Avifauna of the upper Essequibo River and Acary 

Mountains, southern Guyana. Ornitologia Neotropical 

18: 339–368. 

Zyskowski, K., J. Mittermeier, O. Ottema, M. Rakovic, 

B.J. O’Shea, J.E. Lai, S.B. Hochgraf, J. de León, 

and K. Au. 2011. Avifauna of the easternmost tepui, 

Tafelberg in central Suriname. Bulletin of the Peabody 

Museum of Natural History 52:153–180. 

The Kwamalasamutu region is situated within a vast, intact 

block of tropical forest that faces no immediate threats. All 

of the species encountered on this survey also occur in the 

surrounding region, and the global populations of most are 

not threatened. However, some species, notably large-bodied 

predators and frugivores that require large areas of intact 

habitat for long-term population viability, probably maintain 

healthier populations here than elsewhere in their ranges. 

Care should be taken to preserve ecosystem integrity on the 

largest possible scale to forestall declines in their populations. 

To this end, the following guidelines should be adopted by 

the community of Kwamalasamutu: 

• Aggressively exclude small-scale gold miners from Trio 

lands. 

• Avoid trapping birds, particularly parrots, for export to 

coastal markets. 

• Develop and implement a rotation system to distribute 

the effects of subsistence hunting over as large an area as 

possible; or, alternatively, designate more protected areas 

and enforce hunting bans. 

• Increase production and consumption of domestic fowl 

as an alternative to bush meat. 

• Enhance existing facilities to attract tourists to the area. 

References 

Hilty, S.L. 2003. Birds of Venezuela, 2 nd Edition. Princeton, 

NJ: Princeton University Press. 

O’Shea, B.J. 2005. Notes on birds of the Sipaliwini savanna 

and other localities in southern Suriname, with six 

new species for the country. Ornitología Neotropical 

16:361–370. 

O’Shea, B.J. 2008. Birds of the Konashen COCA, southern 

Guyana. pp. 63–68 in: Alonso, L.E., J. McCullough, 

P. Naskrecki, E. Alexander, and H.E. Wright (eds.). 

A rapid biological assessment of the Konashen Community 

Owned Conservation Area, Southern Guyana. RAP 



Appendix. List of birds recorded from the Kwamalasamutu region, Suriname. Taxonomy, nomenclature, and linear sequence follow the current version of the 

American Ornithologists’ Union South American Checklist (www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCBaseline.html). “R” indicates species observed only during 

the reconnaissance trip, 3–8 May 2010. “KW” indicates species observed only in or near the village of Kwamalasamutu. “Yale” denotes five species recorded 

from the Werehpai area in 2006 that were not seen by us; see Birds chapter for details. 

Common name Scientific name Kutari Sipaliwini Werehpai R KW Yale 

TINAMIDAE 

Great Tinamou Tinamus major X X X 

Cinereous Tinamou Crypturellus cinereus X X X 

Little Tinamou Crypturellus soui X 

Variegated Tinamou Crypturellus variegatus X X X 

Rusty Tinamou Crypturellus brevirostris X 

CRACIDAE 

Guan sp. Penelope jacquacu/marail sp. X X X 

Blue-throated Piping-Guan Pipile cumanensis X X 

Variable Chachalaca Ortalis motmot X X X 

Black Curassow Crax alector X X X 

ODONTOPHORIDAE 

Marbled Wood-Quail Odontophorus gujanensis X X 

PHALACROCORACIDAE 

Neotropic Cormorant Phalacrocorax brasilianus X 

ANHINGIDAE 

Anhinga Anhinga anhinga X 

ARDEIDAE 

Rufescent Tiger-Heron Tigrisoma lineatum X X X 

Zigzag Heron Zebrilus undulatus X 

Striated Heron Butorides striata X X X 

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis X 

White-necked Heron Ardea cocoi X 

Capped Heron Pilherodius pileatus X X 

THRESKIORNITHIDAE 

Green Ibis Mesembrinibis cayennensis X X 

CATHARTIDAE 

Greater Yellow-headed Vulture Cathartes melambrotus X X X 

Black Vulture Coragyps atratus X X 

King Vulture Sarcoramphus papa X X X 

PANDIONIDAE 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus X 

ACCIPITRIDAE 

Hook-billed Kite Chondrohierax uncinatus X 

Swallow-tailed Kite Elanoides forficatus X 

Plumbeous Kite Ictinia plumbea X 

White Hawk Pseudastur albicollis X X 

Black-faced Hawk Leucopternis melanops X 

Great Black Hawk Buteogallus urubitinga X 

Gray Hawk Buteo nitidus X X 

Short-tailed Hawk Buteo brachyurus X 



135

Chapter 10 


Harpy Eagle Harpia harpyja X 

Black Hawk-Eagle Spizaetus tyrannus X X 

Black-and-white Hawk-Eagle Spizaetus melanoleucus X 

Ornate Hawk-Eagle Spizaetus ornatus X 

FALCONIDAE 

Barred Forest-Falcon Micrastur ruficollis X X 

Lined Forest-Falcon Micrastur gilvicollis X X X 

Slaty-backed Forest-Falcon Micrastur mirandollei X X X 

Collared Forest-Falcon Micrastur semitorquatus X X X 

Red-throated Caracara Ibycter americanus X X X 

Black Caracara Daptrius ater X X 

Bat Falcon Falco rufigularis X X 

PSOPHIIDAE 

Gray-winged Trumpeter Psophia crepitans X X 

RALLIDAE 

Russet-crowned Crake Anurolimnas viridis X 

EURYPYGIDAE 

Sunbittern Eurypyga helias X X 

CHARADRIIDAE 

American Golden-Plover Pluvialis dominica X 

SCOLOPACIDAE 

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia X X 

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria X X 

COLUMBIDAE 

Common Ground-Dove Columbina passerina X 

Blue Ground-Dove Claravis pretiosa X 

Plumbeous Pigeon Patagioenas plumbea X X X 

Ruddy Pigeon Patagioenas subvinacea X 

White-tipped Dove Leptotila verreauxi X 

Gray-fronted Dove Leptotila rufaxilla X X X 

Ruddy Quail-Dove Geotrygon montana X 

PSITTACIDAE 

Blue-and-yellow Macaw Ara ararauna X X 

Scarlet Macaw Ara macao X X X 

Chestnut-fronted Macaw Ara severus X X 

Red-bellied Macaw Orthopsittaca manilata X 

White-eyed Parakeet Aratinga leucophthalma X X 

Painted Parakeet Pyrrhura picta X X X 

Golden-winged Parakeet Brotogeris chrysoptera X X X 

Lilac-tailed Parrotlet Touit batavicus X 

Black-headed Parrot Pionites melanocephalus X X 

Red-fan Parrot Deroptyus accipitrinus X X X 

Caica Parrot Pyrilia caica X X 

Blue-headed Parrot Pionus menstruus X 





Dusky Parrot Pionus fuscus X X X 

Orange-winged Parrot Amazona amazonica X X 

Mealy Parrot Amazona farinosa X X X 

CUCULIDAE 

Little Cuckoo Coccycua minuta X 

Squirrel Cuckoo Piaya cayana X X X 

Black-bellied Cuckoo Piaya melanogaster X 

Cuckoo sp. Coccyzus cf. euleri X 

Smooth-billed Ani Crotophaga ani X 

Pavonine Cuckoo Dromococcyx pavoninus X X 

STRIGIDAE 

Tawny-bellied Screech-Owl Megascops watsonii X X X 

Crested Owl Lophostrix cristata X X X 

Spectacled Owl Pulsatrix perspicillata X X X 

Mottled Owl Ciccaba virgata X X 

Amazonian Pygmy-Owl Glaucidium hardyi X X X 

Stygian Owl Asio stygius X 

NYCTIBIIDAE 

Great Potoo Nyctibius grandis X X 

Long-tailed Potoo Nyctibius aethereus X 

Common Potoo Nyctibius griseus X X 

White-winged Potoo Nyctibius leucopterus X 

CAPRIMULGIDAE 

Short-tailed Nighthawk Lurocalis semitorquatus X X 

Common Pauraque Nyctidromus albicollis X X X 

Blackish Nightjar Caprimulgus nigrescens X 

Ladder-tailed Nightjar Hydropsalis climacocerca X 

APODIDAE 

Band-rumped Swift Chaetura spinicaudus X X X 

Chapman’s Swift Chaetura chapmani X X 

Swift sp. Chaetura cf. meridionalis X 

TROCHILIDAE 

Crimson Topaz Topaza pella X 

White-necked Jacobin Florisuga mellivora X X X 

Rufous-breasted Hermit Glaucis hirsutus X 

Pale-tailed Barbthroat Threnetes leucurus X 

Reddish Hermit Phaethornis ruber X X X 

Straight-billed Hermit Phaethornis bourcieri X X X 

Long-tailed Hermit Phaethornis superciliosus X X X 

Black-eared Fairy Heliothryx auritus X 

Gray-breasted Sabrewing Campylopterus largipennis X 

Fork-tailed Woodnymph Thalurania furcata X X X 

Hummingbird sp. Amazilia cf. leucogaster X 

Rufous-throated Sapphire Hylocharis sapphirina X 

White-chinned Sapphire Hylocharis cyanus X X 



137

Chapter 10 


TROGONIDAE 

Black-tailed Trogon Trogon melanurus X X X 

Green-backed Trogon Trogon viridis X X X 

Guianan Trogon Trogon violaceus X X X 

Black-throated Trogon Trogon rufus X X X 

Collared Trogon Trogon collaris X X X 

ALCEDINIDAE 

Ringed Kingfisher Megaceryle torquata X X X 

Amazon Kingfisher Chloroceryle amazona X X X 

Green Kingfisher Chloroceryle americana X X X 

Green-and-rufous Kingfisher Chloroceryle inda X X 

American Pygmy Kingfisher Chloroceryle aenea X X 

MOMOTIDAE 

Amazonian Motmot Momotus momota X X X 

GALBULIDAE 

Brown Jacamar Brachygalba lugubris X X X 

Yellow-billed Jacamar Galbula albirostris X X 

Green-tailed Jacamar Galbula galbula X 

Paradise Jacamar Galbula dea X X X 

Great Jacamar Jacamerops aureus X X X 

BUCCONIDAE 

Guianan Puffbird Notharchus macrorhynchos X X 

Pied Puffbird Notharchus tectus X 

Collared Puffbird Bucco capensis X X X 

White-chested Puffbird Malacoptila fusca X X 

Rusty-breasted Nunlet Nonnula rubecula X X 

Black Nunbird Monasa atra X X X 

Swallow-winged Puffbird Chelidoptera tenebrosa X X X 

CAPITONIDAE 

Black-spotted Barbet Capito niger X X X 

RAMPHASTIDAE 

White-throated Toucan Ramphastos tucanus X X X 

Channel-billed Toucan Ramphastos vitellinus X X X 

Guianan Toucanet Selenidera culik X X X 

Green Aracari Pteroglossus viridis X X X 

Black-necked Aracari Pteroglossus aracari X X X 

PICIDAE 

Golden-spangled Piculet Picumnus exilis X X 

Golden-collared Woodpecker Veniliornis cassini X X X 

Yellow-throated Woodpecker Piculus flavigula X X X 

Waved Woodpecker Celeus undatus X X X 

Chestnut Woodpecker Celeus elegans X 

Cream-coloured Woodpecker Celeus flavus X 

Ringed Woodpecker Celeus torquatus X 





Lineated Woodpecker Dryocopus lineatus X X 

Red-necked Woodpecker Campephilus rubricollis X X X 

Crimson-crested Woodpecker Campephilus melanoleucos X X X 

THAMNOPHILIDAE 

Fasciated Antshrike Cymbilaimus lineatus X X X 

Black-throated Antshrike Frederickena viridis X 

Great Antshrike Taraba major X X 

Black-crested Antshrike Sakesphorus canadensis X X 

Mouse-colored Antshrike Thamnophilus murinus X X X 

Northern Slaty-Antshrike Thamnophilus punctatus X 

Band-tailed Antshrike Thamnophilus melanothorax X X 

Amazonian Antshrike Thamnophilus amazonicus X X X 

Dusky-throated Antshrike Thamnomanes ardesiacus X X X 

Cinereous Antshrike Thamnomanes caesius X X X 

Spot-winged Antshrike Pygiptila stellaris X 

Brown-bellied Antwren Epinecrophylla gutturalis X X X 

Pygmy Antwren Myrmotherula brachyura X X X 

Guianan Streaked-Antwren Myrmotherula surinamensis X X X 

Rufous-bellied Antwren Myrmotherula guttata X X X 

White-flanked Antwren Myrmotherula axillaris X X X 

Long-winged Antwren Myrmotherula longipennis X X X 

Gray Antwren Myrmotherula menetriesii X X X 

Spot-tailed Antwren Herpsilochmus sticturus X X X 

Todd’s Antwren Herpsilochmus stictocephalus X X X 

Dot-winged Antwren Microrhopias quixensis X X X 

Guianan Warbling-Antbird Hypocnemis cantator X X X 

Ash-winged Antwren Terenura spodioptila X X 

Gray Antbird Cercomacra cinerascens X X X 

Dusky Antbird Cercomacra tyrannina X X X 

White-browed Antbird Myrmoborus leucophrys X X X 

Black-chinned Antbird Hypocnemoides melanopogon X X 

Silvered Antbird Sclateria naevia X 

Black-headed Antbird Percnostola rufifrons X X X 

Spot-winged Antbird Schistocichla leucostigma X X 

Ferruginous-backed Antbird Myrmeciza ferruginea X X X 

Wing-banded Antbird Myrmornis torquata X X 

White-plumed Antbird Pithys albifrons X X X 

Rufous-throated Antbird Gymnopithys rufigula X X 

Spot-backed Antbird Hylophylax naevius X X X 

Scale-backed Antbird Willisornis poecilinotus X X X 

CONOPOPHAGIDAE 

Chestnut-belted Gnateater Conopophaga aurita X X X 

GRALLARIIDAE 

Variegated Antpitta Grallaria varia X 



139

Chapter 10 


Spotted Antpitta Hylopezus macularius X X X 

Thrush-like Antpitta Myrmothera campanisona X X X 

FORMICARIIDAE 

Rufous-capped Antthrush Formicarius colma X X X 

Black-faced Anttrush Formicarius analis X X X 

FURNARIIDAE 

Short-billed Leaftosser Sclerurus rufigularis X 

McConnell’s Spinetail Synallaxis macconnelli X 

Rufous-rumped Foliage-gleaner Philydor erythrocercum X X 

Cinnamon-rumped Foliage-gleaner Philydor pyrrhodes X 

Buff-throated Foliage-gleaner Automolus ochrolaemus X X X 

Olive-backed Foliage-gleaner Automolus infuscatus X X X 

Chestnut-crowned Foliage-gleaner Automolus rufipileatus X X X 

Rufous-tailed Xenops Microxenops milleri X 

Plain Xenops Xenops minutus X X X 

Plain-brown Woodcreeper Dendrocincla fuliginosa X X X 

Long-tailed Woodcreeper Deconychura longicauda X 

Wedge-billed Woodcreeper Glyphorynchus spirurus X X X 

Cinnamon-throated Woodcreeper Dendrexetastes rufigula X X X 

Red-billed Woodcreeper Hylexetastes perrotii X 

Strong-billed Woodcreeper Xiphocolaptes promeropirhynchus X 

Amazonian Barred-Woodcreeper Dendrocolaptes certhia X X X 

Black-banded Woodcreeper Dendrocolaptes picumnus X X X 

Striped Woodcreeper Xiphorhynchus obsoletus X 

Chestnut-rumped Woodcreeper Xiphorhynchus pardalotus X X X 

Buff-throated Woodcreeper Xiphorhynchus guttatus X X X 

Lineated Woodcreeper Lepidocolaptes albolineatus X 

Curve-billed Scythebill Campyloramphus procurvoides X X 

TYRANNIDAE 

Sooty-headed Tyrannulet Phyllomyias griseiceps X X 

Yellow-crowned Tyrannulet Tyrannulus elatus X X X 

Forest Elaenia Myiopagis gaimardii X X X 

Yellow-crowned Elaenia Myiopagis flavivertex X X 

Elaenia sp. Elaenia cf. parvirostris X 

White-lored Tyrannulet Ornithion inerme X X 

Southern Beardless-Tyrannulet Camptostoma obsoletum X X X 

Yellow Tyrannulet Campsiempis flaveola X 

Ringed Antpipit Corythopis torquatus X X X 

Guianan Tyrannulet Zimmerius acer X X X 

Olive-green Tyrannulet Phylloscartes virescens X 

Ochre-bellied Flycatcher Mionectes oleagineus X 

McConnell’s Flycatcher Mionectes macconnelli X X 

Short-tailed Pygmy-Tyrant Myiornis ecaudatus X X X 

Double-banded Pygmy-Tyrant Lophotriccus vitiosus X X X 

Helmeted Pygmy-Tyrant Lophotriccus galeatus X X X 





Boat-billed Tody-Tyrant Hemitriccus josephinae X X 

White-eyed Tody-Tyrant Hemitriccus zosterops X X X 

Common Tody-Flycatcher Todirostrum cinereum X 

Painted Tody-Flycatcher Todirostrum pictum X X 

Yellow-margined Flycatcher Tolmomyias assimilis X X X 

Gray-crowned Flycatcher Tolmomyias poliocephalus X X X 

Cinnamon-crested Spadebill Platyrinchus saturatus X X X 

Golden-crowned Spadebill Platyrinchus coronatus X X 

White-crested Spadebill Platyrinchus platyrhynchos X X X 

Royal Flycatcher Onychorhynchus coronatus X 

Bran-colored Flycatcher Myiophobus fasciatus X 

Sulphur-rumped Flycatcher Myiobius barbatus X X 

Ruddy-tailed Flycatcher Terenotriccus erythrurus X X 

Euler’s Flycatcher Lathotriccus euleri X X X 

Drab Water Tyrant Ochthornis littoralis X X 

Piratic Flycatcher Legatus leucophaius X X 

Rusty-margined Flycatcher Myiozetetes cayanensis X X 

Dusky-chested Flycatcher Myiozetetes luteiventris X X X 

Yellow-throated Flycatcher Conopias parvus X X X 

Sulphury Flycatcher Tyrannopsis sulphurea X 

Tropical Kingbird Tyrannus melancholicus X X X 

Grayish Mourner Rhytipterna simplex X X X 

Sirystes Sirystes sibilator X X X 

Dusky-capped Flycatcher Myiarchus tuberculifer X X 

Short-crested Flycatcher Myiarchus ferox X X X 

Large-headed Flatbill Ramphotrigon megacephalum X X 

Rufous-tailed Flatbill Ramphotrigon ruficauda X X X 

Cinnamon Attila Attila cinnamomeus X 

Bright-rumped Atilla Attila spadiceus X X X 

COTINGIDAE 

Guianan Red-Cotinga Phoenicircus carnifex X 

Guianan Cock-of-the-rock Rupicola rupicola X X 

Purple-throated Fruitcrow Querula purpurata X X X 

Capuchinbird Perissocephalus tricolor X X 

Spangled Cotinga Cotinga cayana X X 

Screaming Piha Lipaugus vociferans X X X 

Pompadour Cotinga Xipholena punicea X 

Bare-necked Fruitcrow Gymnoderus foetidus X X 

PIPRIDAE 

Tiny Tyrant-Manakin Tyranneutes virescens X X X 

White-throated Manakin Corapipo gutturalis X X X 

White-bearded Manakin Manacus manacus X X 

White-crowned Manakin Pipra pipra X X X 

Golden-headed Manakin Pipra erythrocephala X X X 



141

Chapter 10 


TITYRIDAE 

Black-tailed Tityra Tityra cayana X X 

Thrush-like Schiffornis Schiffornis turdina X X X 

Cinereous Mourner Laniocera hypopyrra X X 

Black-capped Becard Pachyramphus marginatus X X 

Glossy-backed Becard Pachyramphus surinamus X 

INCERTAE SEDIS 

Wing-barred Piprites Piprites chloris X X X 

VIREONIDAE 

Rufous-browed Peppershrike Cyclarhis gujanensis X X X 

Slaty-capped Shrike-Vireo Vireolanius leucotis X X X 

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus X X X 

Lemon-chested Greenlet Hylophilus thoracicus X X X 

Buff-cheeked Greenlet Hylophilus muscicapinus X X X 

Tawny-crowned Greenlet Hylophilus ochraceiceps X X X 

HIRUNDINIDAE 

Black-collared Swallow Pygochelidon melanoleuca X X 

White-banded Swallow Atticora fasciata X X X 

Brown-chested Martin Progne tapera X X 

Gray-breasted Martin Progne chalybea X X 

White-winged Swallow Tachycineta albiventer X X X 

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia X 

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica X X 

Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota X 

TROGLODYTIDAE 

Coraya Wren Pheugopedius coraya X X X 

Buff-breasted Wren Cantorchilus leucotis X X X 

Musician Wren Cyphorhinus arada X 

POLIOPTILIDAE 

Collared Gnatwren Microbates collaris X X X 

Long-billed Gnatwren Ramphocaenus melanurus X X X 

Tropical Gnatcatcher Polioptila plumbea X X 

Guianan Gnatcatcher Polioptila guianensis X 

TURDIDAE 

Cocoa Thrush Turdus fumigatus X X X 

White-necked Thrush Turdus albicollis X X 

THRAUPIDAE 

Red-capped Cardinal Paroaria gularis X X 

Red-billed Pied Tanager Lamprospiza melanoleuca X X 

Fulvous-crested Tanager Tachyphonus surinamus X X X 

White-shouldered Tanager Tachyphonus luctuosus X 

Fulvous Shrike-Tanager Lanio fulvus X X X 

Silver-beaked Tanager Ramphocelus carbo X X X 

Blue-gray Tanager Thraupis episcopus X 





Palm Tanager Thraupis palmarum X X 

Turquoise Tanager Tangara mexicana X X 

Paradise Tanager Tangara chilensis X 

Opal-rumped Tanager Tangara velia X 

Swallow Tanager Tersina viridis X 

Black-faced Dacnis Dacnis lineata X X 

Blue Dacnis Dacnis cayana X X 

Purple Honeycreeper Cyanerpes caeruleus X 

Red-legged Honeycreeper Cyanerpes cyaneus X 

Green Honeycreeper Chlorophanes spiza X X 

INCERTAE SEDIS 

Bananaquit Coereba flaveola X X X 

Slate-colored Grosbeak Saltator grossus X X 

Buff-throated Saltator Saltator maximus X X X 

EMBERIZIDAE 

Blue-black Grassquit Volatinia jacarina X 

Pectoral Sparrow Arremon taciturnus X X 

CARDINALIDAE 

Rose-breasted Chat Granatellus pelzelni X X 

Yellow-green Grosbeak Caryothraustes canadensis X 

Blue-black Grosbeak Cyanocompsa cyanoides X X 

PARULIDAE 

Tropical Parula Parula pitiayumi X 

Riverbank Warbler Phaeothlypis rivularis X 

ICTERIDAE 

Green Oropendola Psarocolius viridis X X X 

Crested Oropendola Psarocolius decumanus X X X 

Yellow-rumped Cacique Cacicus cela X X X 

Red-rumped Cacique Cacicus haemorrhous X X 

Epaulet Oriole Icterus cayanensis X 

Giant Cowbird Molothrus oryzivorus X 

FRINGILLIDAE 

Euphonia sp. Euphonia cf. chlorotica X X 

Violaceous Euphonia Euphonia violacea X X X 

Golden-sided Euphonia Euphonia cayennensis X X X 

Total species (332) 216 250 221 


143

Chapter 11 

Rapid Assessment Program (RAP) survey 

of small mammals in the Kwamalasamutu 

region of Suriname 

Burton K. Lim and Sahieda Joemratie 

Summary 

In a Rapid Assessment Program (RAP) survey of the Kwamalasamutu region of southern Suriname, 

38 species of small mammals were documented including 26 species of bats, 10 species 

of rats, and two species of opossums. The species diversity and relative abundance of rats at 

three sites around Kwamalasamutu were the highest recorded in 20 years of mammal surveys 

throughout Suriname and Guyana by the Royal Ontario Museum. Kutari was the most successful 

site for rats, indicating a healthy source of prey species for predators such as cats, owls, 

and snakes. In contrast, Werehpai was the most successful for bats but this was attributable to 

the well-established trails to the petroglyphs approximately 3.5 km from the river, which functioned 

as flyways that were more conducive for capture success compared to the other two sites 

where rudimentary trails were only recently cut. This indicates that bats are relatively tolerant 

to minor alternations to their habitat. Noteworthy records include two species endemic to the 

Guiana Shield, a water rat (Neusticomys oyapocki) and a brush-tailed rat (Isothrix sinammariensis), 

collected at Kutari that represent the first occurrences of these species in Suriname. 

Introduction 

Small mammals (bats, rodents, and opossums) comprise 80% of the mammalian species 

diversity in the Guianas (Lim et al. 2005). However, they are poorly known in comparison to 

the more charismatic and conspicuous larger species such as monkeys and cats. Approximately 

200 species of mammals have been reported from Suriname. Small mammals are particularly 

important for conservation because many are fruit-eaters that disperse seeds necessary for natural 

forest succession, nectar-feeders that pollinate flowers, and insect-eaters that control natural 

populations through their foraging behavior and diet. High species diversity and relative abundance 

make small mammals an ideal group for rapid assessment program (RAP) surveys and 

long-term monitoring. This is particularly important for regions such as the Kwamalasamutu 

area that have not been thoroughly surveyed for biodiversity and conservation purposes. 


We surveyed three sites in the Kwamalasamutu region: Kutari River (N 2.17538, W 56.78786), 

surveyed for six nights from 18–23 August; Sipaliwini (N 2.28979, W 56.60708), surveyed 

for five nights from 27–31 August; and Werehpai (N 2.36271, W 56.69860), surveyed for five 

nights from 2–6 September. Mist nets were also set at the petroglyph caves on the last night at 

the Werehpai site. 

To survey non-volant small mammals during the RAP, we used Sherman live traps of two 

sizes: small (23 × 8 × 9 cm) and large (35 × 12 × 14 cm). Traps were set approximately five 

meters apart along transects on the ground near burrows, base of large trees, tree falls, along 


Rapid Assessment Program (RAP) survey of small mammals in the Kwamalasamutu region of Suriname 

foraging runways, and rocky areas in upland forest and 

swamps for terrestrial animals. Some traps also were set on 

vines and low branches to sample arboreal species. Trapping 

effort per night varied among the sites with a maximum of 

179 traps set at the Sipaliwini site. 

Bats were captured with mesh mist nets 6 or 12 m in 

length that were set to a maximum height of 3 m in the forest 

understory. Pairs of short and long nets were set perpendicular 

approximately 100 meters apart along the transect 

across trails, over creeks, in swamps, near tree fall gaps, and 

by rocky outcrops where bats were typically flying. A maximum 

of 26 mist nets were set during the RAP and typically 

opened from approximately 1800 to 2400 h. 

Small mammals not kept as representative samples of 

the species diversity in the Kwamalasamutu region were 

released unharmed at the point of capture. Individuals kept 

as voucher specimens were prepared as dried skins with 

carcasses temporarily preserved in ethanol for cleaning of 

the skulls and skeletons, or as whole animals fixed in 10% 

formalin with long-term storage in 70% ethanol. This will 

enable examination of both osteology and soft anatomy. Tissue 

samples of liver, heart, kidney, and spleen were frozen in 

the field with liquid nitrogen and for later storage in a –80°C 

ultra-cold freezer. Muscle samples were dabbed onto filter 

cards to stabilize DNA for sequencing in the international 

Barcode of Life project (www.barcodinglife.org) and also 

preserved in ethanol as a tissue backup precaution. 

A reference collection of voucher specimens will be 

deposited at the University of Suriname’s National Zoological 

Collection of Suriname, and the Royal Ontario Museum. 

Specimens will serve as documentation of the biodiversity 

of mammals in southern Suriname and will be available for 

study by the scientific community. 

Results 

In total, preliminary field identifications indicated 38 species 

of small mammals represented by 375 individual captures, of 

which 251 were kept as voucher specimens (Appendix). More 

specifically, 26 species of bats were represented by 223 individuals 

(146 specimens kept as vouchers), 10 species of rats and 

mice were represented by 146 individuals (100 specimens), 

and two species of small opossums were represented by six 

individuals (five specimens). The overall species accumulation 

curve increased on every night except for one night (Fig. 

1). This trend was primarily driven by the more species-rich 

bats because the non-volant small mammals had reached an 

asymptote by the fourth-last survey date. 

In terms of individual sites, we documented 29 species 

of small mammals represented by 105 individuals at Kutari 

including 16 species of bats (52 individuals), 10 species 

of rats (52 individuals), and one species of opossum (one 

individual). At Sipaliwini we documented 22 species of small 

mammals represented by 84 individuals including 14 species 

of bats (47 individuals), five species of rats (36 individuals), 

and one species of opossum (one individual). At Werehpai 

we documented 29 species of small mammals represented by 

186 individuals including 23 species of bats (124 individuals), 

at least 5 species of rats (58 individuals), and one species 

of opossum (four individuals). Because the collecting permit 

limit of 100 rodent specimens was reached during the beginning 

of the Werehpai survey, individuals were released that 

could have potentially represented three additional species, 

so diversity at this site may be underestimated. 

The species diversity and relative abundance of non-volant 

small mammals was substantially higher at Kutari than the 

other two sites (Figs. 2, 3). In contrast, the species diversity 

of bats was substantially higher at Werehpai (Fig. 4), as was 

the relative abundance (Fig. 5). 

Discussion 

Although not many opossums were captured, five individuals 

of the short-tailed opossum (Monodelphis brevicaudata) were 

documented, which is the highest success rate in 20 years 

of similar surveys conducted in the Guianas by the Royal 

Ontario Museum. The short-tailed opossum is interesting 

in that it is active during the day (diurnal) searching for 

invertebrate prey such as insects and worms on the ground, 

whereas all other small mammals captured are active only at 

night (nocturnal). 

The most common non-flying small mammal was the 

terrestrial rice rat (Hylaeamys megacephalus; page 23). 

A larger terrestrial rice rat (Euryoryzomys macconnelli; page 

23) was the next most abundant. Rice rats are important 

seed predators in Neotropical rainforest. Spiny rats (Proechimys 

spp.; page 23) were also numerous and are one 

of the largest (up to 500 g) rats in South America. They are 

primary prey for many predators such as cats and snakes. 

Spiny mice (Neacomys spp.; page 23) were the next most 

abundant genus of non-volant small mammals. 

For bats, the commonest species was the larger fruit-eating 

bat (Artibeus planirostris; page 23), which comprised almost 

one-third of all captures. This was also the most abundant species 

captured during the CI RAP surveys of the eastern Kanuku 

Mountains in Guyana (Lim and Norman, 2002), and Nassau 

and Lely Mountains in Suriname (Solari and Pinto, 2007). It is 

a fig (Ficus) specialist, however, the botanists found only a few 

fruiting fig trees during the survey, suggesting that either these 

bats rely on other fruits when figs are not masting or they are flying 

long distances from their day roost to fruiting fig trees. Other 

species in this genus (e.g., A. jamaicensis in Jalisco, Mexico) have 

been radio-tracked flying over 10 km in a night to feed at a fruiting 

fig tree (Morrison, 1978). The second most abundant species 

was the moustached bat (Pteronotus parnellii), which is an aerial 

insectivore. A common nectar-feeding bat that was caught at all 

3 sites was Lonchophylla thomasi (page 23). The sword-nosed 

bat (Lonchorhina inusitata; page 23) was caught only at the 

Werehpai petroglyphs and may be dependent on caves or rock 

outcrops as roosting sites. It is an insect-feeding specialist. 


145

Chapter 11 

The species diversity and relative abundance of rats and 

mice in the Kwamalasamutu area were the highest documented 

in 20 years of small mammal surveys throughout 

Suriname and Guyana by the Royal Ontario Museum. In 

particular, Kutari was the most successful site for rats and 

mice, indicating a healthy source of prey species for predators 

such as cats, owls, and snakes. Although the Kutari site 

is used occasionally as an overnight rest stop by Trio people 

traveling through the area, it is not inhabited, and is the least 

used of the three survey sites. 

In contrast, Werehpai was the most successful for bats 

but this might be due in part to the well-established trail 

to the petroglyphs, which functioned as a flyway that was 

more conducive for capture success. The other two camps 

had lower bat diversity and abundance more typical of 

undisturbed forest, because transects were cut just before our 

arrival and were not functioning as flyways for bats. The Trio 

people recognize Werehpai as a protected area, but hunting 

still occurs on an irregular basis. 

Figure 3. Individual accumulation curves for non-volant small mammals 

at the 3 survey sites in the Kwamalasamutu region of Suriname. 

Figure 1. Species accumulation curves for small mammals in the Kwamala 

samutu region of Suriname. 

Figure 4. Species accumulation curves for bats at the 3 survey sites in the 

Kwamalasamutu region of Suriname. 

Figure 2. Species accumulation curves for non-volant small mammals at 

the 3 survey sites in the Kwamalasamutu region of Suriname. 

Figure 5. Individual accumulation curves for bats at the 3 survey sites in 

the Kwamalasamutu region of Suriname. 



Sipaliwini had consistently low diversity and relative 

abundance of small mammals. Of the three surveyed areas, 

the Sipaliwini site is most often visited by hunters, primarily 

because of its proximity to Kwamalasamutu. In addition, 

trees or parts of trees, honey and other non-timber forest 

products are also harvested, so this area is more heavily 

used. In general, diversity and abundance of small mammals 

appeared to correlate negatively with the amount of human 

disturbance in the three areas sampled. 

Interesting Species 

A water rat (Neusticomys oyapocki) was collected at Kutari 

that represents the first documentation of this species in 

Suriname. The ears and eyes are reduced in size as an adaptation 

for aquatic behaviour. There are only 10 specimens of 

this species (Leite et al. 2007) and not much is known of its 

ecology or role in the ecosystem. 

Another interesting species was a brushed-tailed rat (Isothrix 

sinnamariensis) that was found by the large mammal 

camera trapping team. It was discovered dead with wounds 

on the head and shoulders on a part of the trail they had 

just recently walked. Indications are that they had startled 

a raptor that had killed the rat, which was then dropped on 

the trail. This represents the first report from Suriname of a 

brush-tailed rat, an arboreal species endemic to the Guianas 

and known from fewer than 8 specimens (Lim et al. 2006; 

Patterson and Velazco 2008). With these faunal additions, 

there are currently 196 species of mammals documented 

from Suriname (Lim et al. 2005; Lim 2009). 


The Kutari site was furthest from the village of Kwamalasamutu 

and the most remote of the three camps, which may 

partially account for the high species diversity and relative 

abundance of rats and mice. This taxonomic group is 

primary prey for many top-level nocturnal predators such 

as cats, snakes, and owls. A healthy predator-prey relationship 

is a good indicator of the conservation status of forest 

habitat. Kutari would be a good candidate area for a nature 

reserve within the Kwamalasamutu region. 

Sipaliwini had the lowest species diversity and relative 

abundance, but also the most homogeneous forest habitat. 

A variety of microhabitats such as swamp forest and rocky 

outcrops were present near the other sites, and usually are 

associated with more diverse and abundant small mammal 

faunas. 

Werehpai had the highest bat diversity and abundance suggesting 

that this taxonomic group adapts well to minor habitat 

changes such as the establishment and maintenance of trails in 

the forest. Flyways act as convenient routes within the forest 

for greater access to food resources such as fruits, flowers, and 

insects. However, over-development (such as construction 

of permanent buildings) causes changes to the community 

ecology of bats and alters their impact on the environment 

in terms of forest composition associated with seed dispersal 

and pollination, as documented at the ecotourism resort of 

Blanche Marie Vallen in western Suriname (Lim 2009). 

The primary conservation recommendations arising from 

the small mammal survey of the Kwamalasamutu region are: 

1) designation of the Kutari area as a nature reserve because 

of the high species diversity and relative abundance of rats 

and mice that are necessary to sustain healthy populations 

of top-level predators; and 2) minimal development of the 

Werehpai petroglyph site to ensure continued ecosystem 

services of the bat fauna including seed dispersal, flower pollination, 

and insect control. 

References 

Leite, R.N., M.N.F. da Silva, T.A. Gardner. 2007. New 

records of Neusticomys oyapocki (Rodentia, Sigmodontinae) 

from a human-dominated forest landscape in 

northeastern Brazilian Amazonia. Mastozoologia Neotropical 

14: 257–261. 

Lim, B.K. 2009. Environmental assessment at the Bakhuis 

bauxite concession: small-sized mammal diversity and 

abundance in the lowland humid forests of Suriname. 

The Open Biology Journal, 2:42–53. 

Lim, B.K., M.D. Engstrom, and J. Ochoa G. 2005. Mammals. 

In: Checklist of the terrestrial vertebrates of the Guiana 

Shield (T. Hollowell and R. P. Reynolds, eds.). Bulletin of 

the Biological Society of Washington. 13: 77–92. 

Lim, B.K., M.D. Engstrom, J.C. Patton, and J.W. Bickham. 

2006. Systematic relationships of the Guianan brushtailed 

rat (Isothrix sinnamariensis) and its first occurrence 

in Guyana. Mammalia, 70:120–125. 

Lim, B.K., and Z. Norman. 2002. Rapid assessment of small 

mammals in the eastern Kanuku Mountains, Lower 

Kwitaro River area, Guyana. Pp. 51–58, in Montambault, 

(J.R. and O. Missa (eds.). A biodiversity assessment 

of the eastern Kanuku Mountains, Lower Kwitaro 

River, Guyana Conservation International, RAP Bulletin 

of Biological Assessment, 26. Conservation International, 

Arlington, VA, USA. 

Morrison, D.W. 1978. Influence of habitat on the foraging 

distances of the fruit bat, Artibeus jamaicensis. Journal of 

Mammalogy, 59: 622–624. 

Patterson, B.D., and P.M. Velazco. 2008. Phylogeny of the 

rodent genus Isothrix (Hystricognathi, Echimyidae) and 

its diversification in Amazonia and the eastern Andes. 

Journal of Mammalian Evolution, 15:181–201. 

Solari, S., and M. Pinto. 2007. A rapid assessment of mammals 

of the Nassau and Lely plateaus, Eastern Suriname. 

Pp. 130–134, in Alonso, L.E. and J.H. Mol (eds.). 

A rapid biological assessment of the Lely and Nassau 

plateaus, Suriname (with additional information on 

the Brownsberg Plateau). RAP Bulletin of Biological 


VA, USA. 


147

Chapter 11 

Appendix. List of mammals collected on the Kwamalasamutu RAP survey. Number of individuals collected (in parentheses indicates total individuals, 

including individuals that were released). 

Species Kutari Sipaliwini Werehpai Individuals 

Opossums: 

Marmosops parvidens 1 1 

Monodelphis brevicaudata 1 3 (4) 4 (5) 

Subtotal 1 1 3 (4) 5 (6) 

Rats: 

Neusticomys oyapocki 1 1 

Isothrix sinammariensis 1 1 

Neacomys guianae 2 2 

Neacomys paracou 1 1 (9) 2 (10) 

Oecomys auyantepui 4 2 1 (2) 7 (8) 

Oecomys rutilus 1 1 

Euryoryzomys macconnelli 6 12 1 (10) 19 (28) 

Hylaeamys megacephalus 28 14 7 (30) 49 (72) 

Proechimys cuvieri 1 4 2 (7) 7 (12) 

Proechimys guyannensis 7 4 11 

Subtotal 52 36 12 (58) 100 (146) 

Bats: 

Anoura geoffroyi 1 1 

Artibeus bogotensis 1 1 2 

Artibeus gnomus 2 1 3 

Artibeus lituratus 1 3 3 (12) 7 (16) 

Artibeus obscurus 3 3 3 (6) 9(12) 

Artibeus planirostris 14 (16) 9 7 (45) 30 (70) 

Carollia brevicauda 1 2 3 

Carollia perspicillata 2 2 1 (2) 5 (6) 

Desmodus rotundus 1 2 3 

Lionycteris spurrelli 2 2 (6) 4 (8) 

Lonchophylla thomasi 3 2 2(4) 7 (9) 

Lonchorhinua inusitata 2 (8) 2 (8) 

Lophostoma silvicolum 6 8 1 15 

Micronycteris megalotis 1 1 

Micronycteris minuta 1 1 

Mimon crenulatum 1 2 3 

Myotis riparius 1 1 1 3 

Phyllostomus discolor 1 1 

Phyllostomus elongatus 4 1 5 (8) 10 (13) 

Phyllostomus hastatus 1 1 

Platyrrhinus helleri 2 2 4 

Pteronotus parnellii 6 11 3 (10) 20 (27) 

Rhinophylla pumilio 1 3 (5) 4 (6) 




Species Kutari Sipaliwini Werehpai Individuals 

Sturnira tildae 1 1 

Trachops cirrhosus 2 2 4 

Uroderma bilobatum 2 2 

Subtotal 50 (52) 47 49 (124) 146 (223) 

Total 103 (105) 84 64 (186) 251 (375) 


149

Chapter 12 

A survey of the large mammal fauna of 

the Kwamalasamutu region, Suriname 

Krisna Gajapersad, Angelique Mackintosh, 

Angelica Benitez, and Esteban Payán 

Introduction 

Historically, humans have used animals for food and a variety of other uses (Leader-Williams 

et al. 1990; Milner-Gulland et al. 2001). Examples all over the world show the effects of overhunting 

from humans, causing population declines and extinction (Diamond 1989). Overexploitation 

was almost certainly responsible for historical extinctions of some large mammals 

and birds (Turvey and Risley 2006). Large mammals are more sensitive to hunting due to 

their slow reproductive rates, long development and growth times, and large food and habitat 

requirements (Purvis et al. 2000; Cardillo et al. 2005). Today, roughly two million people 

depend on wild meat for food or trade (Fa et al. 2002; Milner-Gulland et al. 2003), yet the 

majority of hunting is unsustainable (Robinson and Bennett 2004; Silvius et al. 2005). 

Subsistence hunting of terrestrial vertebrates is a widespread phenomenon in tropical forests 

(Robinson and Bennett 2000). In many parts of Latin America, cracid (Aves: Cracidae) 

populations are declining (Thiollay 2005). Subsistence hunting is an important cause of these 

declines (Thiollay 1989; Ayres et al. 1991; Silva and Strahl 1991; Strahl and Grajal 1991; 

Vickers 1991; Hill et al. 2003). The direct impacts of hunting on animal populations and the 

subsequent effects of exploitation on the ecosystem make attaining sustainable harvests an 

international conservation priority (Fa et al. 2003; Milner-Gulland et al. 2003; Bennett et al. 

2007). Thus, the first step in making harvests more sustainable is to determine current levels of 

harvest (Milner-Gulland and Akcakaya 2001). 

Mammals as a group provide the main protein source for indigenous peoples of Amazonia. 

Indigenous tribes have lived in Amazonia for tens of thousands of years (Redford 1992) 

and many, including the Trio of Suriname, still remain within the forest and hunt mammals 

actively. Abundances of large mammals have decreased in areas where they have been hunted 

(Peres 1990; Cullen et al. 2000; Hill et al. 2003). Unmanaged hunting is commonplace in the 

Amazon and tends to deplete game populations, often to levels so low that local extinctions 

are frequent (Redford 1992; Bodmer et al. 1994). Overhunting then becomes a double-edged 

threat: to the biodiversity of the tropics and to the people that depend on those harvests for 

food and income. 

At the present time, little information is available on the occurrence, spatial variability in 

richness, and sensitivity to hunting and other disturbances of medium and large mammals in 

Suriname. The goal of this survey was to assess the diversity and abundance of medium- and 

large-bodied mammals in the Kwamalasamutu region. 

Methods and study sites 

We surveyed medium- and large-bodied mammals by means of three main methods: camera 

trapping, searching for scat and animal tracks, and making visual and aural observations. 

We also characterized hunting habits of the Trio through interviews with residents of 

Kwamalasamutu. 


A survey of the large mammal fauna of the Kwamalasamutu region, Suriname 

Camera traps were set 500 meters apart along hunting 

and game trails, some of which were cut shortly before 

the RAP survey. The camera traps operated day and night, 

photographing all ground-dwelling mammals and birds that 

walked in front of them. Camera traps were attached to trees 

approximately 30 cm above the forest floor. 

At the Kutari site 25 camera traps were set up, divided 

over 4 trails, and run for a total of 181 camera trap days. 

At the Sipaliwini site 12 camera traps were set up, divided 

over 3 trails, and were active for a total of 104 camera trap 

days. At Werehpai, there was no trail cutting due to preexisting 

trails and 10 camera traps were set up along 2 trails 

and run for 304 camera trap days. Cameras were placed in 

different habitats at each of the study sites. At the Kutari site 

15 camera traps were set up in terra firme, five in swamp, 

four in flooded forest and one in a dry creek bed. At the 

Sipaliwini site nine camera traps were set up in terra firme, 

two in swamp and one in a creek. At the Werehpai site, 

eight cameras were set up in terra firme and two near creeks. 

Elevations of camera trapping points were similar among the 

three sites, ranging between 213 and 278 meters. 

Photographs from camera traps were identified to species, 

and independent photographs were used as single occurrences 

for analysis. Independent photographs were those 

from different species or individuals, or any photographs 

taken at least 30 minutes apart (O’Brien et al. 2003). Rarefied 

species accumulation curves and biodiversity indices 

were calculated with program EstimateS 8.2 (Colwell 2009). 

Occurrences from photographs were compared with the 

nonparametric richness estimator Chao 1 among camps, and 

Simpson´s Biodiversity Index was also calculated per camp 

(Magurran 2004). Additionally, a relative abundance index 

was estimated per species for every 100 trap-nights (O’Brien 

et al. 2003). 

Tracks and scat were also recorded when walking the 

trails to set up and pick up the camera traps. The tracks 

were identified with the help of local guides that accompanied 

the field excursions, and the tracks that could not be 

identified in the field were photographed and identified with 

the help of field guides. Visual and aural observations were 

important for the primates, because this group of animals 

is not captured by the camera traps, have diurnal habits 

and do not leave tracks on the forest floor. Interviews were 

conducted with hunters and elders from the area. We sought 

information on hunting habits, frequency, weapons, and the 

abundance of preferred and actual prey. 

Results 

We detected 29 species of medium- and large-bodied mammals 

(Appendix). We recorded 22 mammal species from the 

Kutari site, including all eight primate species that occur in 

Suriname. At the Sipaliwini site we found 18 mammal species, 

including four primate species; at Werehpai we found 

21 mammal species including five primate species. 

The large caviomorph rodents, especially Paca (Cuniculis 

paca), Red-rumped Agouti (Dasyprocta leporina) and Red 

Acouchy (Myoprocta acouchy), were the most frequently 

photographed by the camera traps (Table 1); this group was 

assumed to include the most common medium- and largebodied 

nonvolant mammals in the area. The Brazilian Tapir 

(Tapirus terrestris) was recorded by the camera traps at all 

three sites and was observed by several of the RAP scientists. 

A large number of tracks were found on the trails, indicating 

that the Brazilian Tapir is common in the area. 

Of the six species of cats known to occur on the Guiana 

Shield, the Jaguar (Panthera onca), Puma (Puma concolor) 

and Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) were found during the 

survey. Ocelot was the most frequently recorded cat species 

during this survey and is common in the area. The Jaguar 

and Puma were each recorded by the camera traps only once, 

both in the Werehpai area (Table 1). Tracks of Puma were 

also found at the Kutari site. It is very likely that the Jaguar 

also occurs in the Kutari and Sipaliwini area, but was only 

recorded in the Werehpai area because the trail system at 

Werehpai is used frequently by large cats. The Trio do not 

actively hunt cats, but they occasionally kill the large cats 

when they encounter them in the forest, because they are 

afraid of being attacked. 

In all three camps both the Red-brocket and Greybrocket 

Deer (Mazama americana and M. gouazoubira) 

were recorded by the camera traps and detected by tracks. 

Tracks of the Collared Peccary (Pecari tajacu) were found at 

all 3 camps, and this species was also recorded frequently by 

the camera traps. The White-lipped Peccary (Tayassu pecari) 

was only photographed once by the camera traps in the 

Werehpai area, and seems to be uncommon in the Kwamalasamutu 


Three armadillo species were found during the RAP: Great 

Long-nosed Armadillo (Dasypus kappleri), Nine-banded 

Armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus), and Giant Armadillo 

(Priodontes maximus). The Giant Anteater (Myrmecophaga 

tridactyla) was recorded by the camera traps only once at 

the Kutari site. Four species of ground-dwelling birds were 

recorded by the camera traps and observed during the RAP: 

Black Curassow (Crax alector), Grey-winged Trumpeter (Psophia 

crepitans), Variegated Tinamou (Crypturellus variegatus), 

and Great Tinamou (Tinamus major). 

All surveys were incomplete. Species accumulation 

curves from photographs at the three sites show that more 

species could be expected to occur at the sites (Fig. 1). 

The Chao 1 diversity estimator confirms this, showing the 

expected number of species available for detection (Fig. 2). 

Chao 1 estimates that the survey of the Kutari site was 

close to completion, with less than 5% of expected species 

remaining to be detected. In contrast, the Sipaliwini and 

Werehpai site surveys appeared to be far from complete, 

with more than 27% of expected species at Sipaliwini and 

53% at Werehpai remaining to be detected. The slope 

of the curve denotes the detection rate, which was highest 

at the Sipaliwini site (m = 0.9), followed by the Kutari 


151

Chapter 12 

site (m = 0.5) and finally Werehpai (m = 0.2; Fig. 2). This 

is congruent with Simpson’s diversity index, for which 

Werehpai had the least even species abundance distribution 

(d = 3.4), whereas the Kutari and Sipaliwini sites had very 

similar and more even abundances of species (d = 8.7 and 

d = 9.5, respectively). 

Table 1. Total independent photographs and relative abundance indices (RAI) for all vertebrate species detected by camera traps per RAP site. 


Photos RAI Photos RAI Photos RAI 

Proechymis sp. 9 7.2 4 4.5 4 1.6 

Neacomys sp. 3 2.4 1 1.1 1 0.4 

Cuniculus paca 5 4 7 7.9 10 3.9 

Dasyprocta leporina 6 4.8 6 6.7 1 0.4 

Myoprocta acouchy 19 15.2 4 4.5 10 3.9 

Dasypus kappleri 2 1.6 2 2.2 1 0.4 

Dasypus novemcinctus 2 1.6 0 0.0 1 0.4 

Priodontes maximus 0 0 1 1.1 2 0.8 

Mazama americana 4 3.2 2 2.2 4 1.6 

Mazama gouazoubiria 1 0.8 2 2.2 0 0.0 

Metachirus nudicaudatus 3 2.4 0 0.0 2 0.8 

Philander opposum 2 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Didelphis marsupialis 3 2.4 1 1.1 0 0.0 

Psophia crepitans 20 16 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Pecari tajacu 4 3.2 2 2.2 0 0.0 

Tapirus terrestris 2 1.6 0 0.0 2 0.8 

Eira barbara 0 0 0 0.0 1 0.4 

Nasua nasua 1 0.8 0 0.0 1 0.4 

Leopardus pardalis 3 2.4 0 0.0 7 2.7 

Panthera onca 0 0 0 0.0 1 0.4 

Puma concolor 0 0 0 0.0 1 0.4 

Total photos 89 32 49 

Figure 1. Observed species accumulation curves with confidence intervals 

(95%; upper and lower) from camera trap pictures. 

Figure 2. Chao 1 estimator of expected species to be detected by camera 

traps at each RAP survey site. 



Interviews 

The interview data provided an overview of the hunting 

areas, hunting techniques, frequency of hunting, and species 

hunted. All hunters interviewed were men from the village 

of Kwamalasamutu. Hunting techniques are generally 

learned at the age of 10–15 from the father or grandfather. 

Most of the interviewed men first learned to hunt with bow 

and arrow and later (at age 14–16) with a gun. All of the 

interviewed men hunt to supply their families with food, 

and sometimes the meat is sold on the market or given to 

other family members. They normally hunt once a week, 

and a hunting trip generally lasts one day and one night 

(24 hours). Hunting is done alone or with a family member 

or friend. Most of the hunters first go two hours by boat 

upstream or downstream from Kwamalasamutu, and then 

walk several hours into the forest to hunt. Black curassow 

(Crax alector) was the preferred species among interviewees. 

Other large ground-dwelling bird species, such as tinamous 

(Tinamus major; Crypturellus spp.) and Grey-winged Trumpeters 

(Psophia crepitans), were also favorites. Paca (Cuniculus 

paca), Collared Peccary (Pecari tajacu), and Red Acouchy 

(Myoprocta acouchy) were the preferred mammal species. 

The most hunted mammal is the Guianan Red Howler 

Monkey (Alouatta macconnelli), because this species is easily 

spotted in trees along the river. Other frequently hunted species 

are White-lipped Peccary (Tayassu pecari), Red-rumped 

Agouti (Dasyprocta leporina), Red Acouchy (Myoprocta 

acouchy), Paca (Cuniculus paca), and Black Curassow (Crax 

alector). Large mammals that are less common, but hunted 

for food when encountered in the forest, are Brazilian Tapir 

(Tapirus terrestris), Red-brocket Deer (Mazama americana), 

Giant Armadillo (Priodontes maximus), and Giant Anteater 

(Myrmecophaga tridactylus). With the exception of Redbrocket 

Deer, all of these animals are listed on the IUCN 

Red List of Threatened Species. 

Some of the interviewed hunters also mentioned that they 

use a traditional hunting calendar and hunt different species 

in different seasons. These hunters said that they do not 

hunt when the animals are “fat”; meaning that they do not 

kill animals when it is visible that they are in the gestation 

period. 


The number of mammal species found during this survey 

does not differ much from what was expected. Most of the 

large terrestrial mammal species expected to occur in the 

region were recorded by the camera traps. The difference in 

number of species per site suggests that hunting pressure in 

the different areas varies. The Kutari site was the richest in 

species, especially primates, suggesting limited hunting pressure. 

This site also had a high value of Simpson’s Index from 

the camera trap data, indicating a high diversity and abundance 

of medium- and large-bodied terrestrial mammals, 

as well as presence of some sensitive bird species such as 

Gray-winged Trumpeter (Psophia crepitans), and the highest 

relative abundance index for Brazilian Tapir of any of the 

three sites (Table 1). We attribute the richness of the Kutari 

mammal fauna to its isolation from Kwamalasamutu, relative 

to the Sipaliwini and Werehpai sites. Of the three sites, the 

Sipaliwini site had the highest value of Simpson’s Index, but 

also the smallest number of species recorded by camera traps, 

tracks and observations, suggesting higher hunting pressure 

in the area. The value of Simpson’s Index for this site was a 

result of the even abundance of several species of rodents, 

as well as deer (Mazama spp.), which tolerate disturbance 

quite well; only one photograph of a sensitive species (Giant 

Armadillo) was obtained at this site. This area is used as a 

hunting ground by the local people, and hunting trails were 

encountered during camera trap setup. During the RAP, several 

shots from hunters were heard near the Sipaliwini camp. 

The Werehpai site was within the indigenous protected area 

established by the local village authority in 2004. We found 

more species at Werehpai than at Sipaliwini, even though it 

is only ten kilometers from Kwamalasamutu. Werehpai had 

a low value of Simpson’s Index, due to the high abundance 

of two species of rodents, but we did record both Brazilian 

Tapir and Jaguar at this site. 

The results of this survey suggest that richness and evenness 

of the medium- and large-bodied mammal fauna both 

increase with distance from Kwamalasamutu. Nevertheless, 

the presence of species sensitive to hunting and disturbance, 

such as tapir, jaguar, curassows and large primates, suggests 

that hunting pressure is not pervasive. Hunting is probably 

limited by reduced river access to some areas in the 

dry season, and more generally by distance from Kwamalasamutu. 

The concentration of the Trio in Kwamalasamutu 

reduces hunting pressure on large vertebrates in the region 

as a whole. The extensive surrounding forest acts as a source 

to offset local population depletion due to hunting, up to a 

point. The current village is relatively large with an estimated 

700–800 people who all depend on the surrounding forest 

for sustenance. This puts much pressure on the mediumand 

large-bodied mammals in the area surrounding the 

village. Our interview results indicate that the effort required 

to find desired prey (i.e. large vertebrates) is increasing, and 

hunters reported that they often have to travel far from 

Kwamalasamutu to hunt successfully. Prey depletion around 

the edges of hunting villages is an expected phenomenon. 

The size of the area affected by hunting can be expected to 

increase as human population density forces more frequent 

long-distance hunting expeditions. Therefore, uncontrolled 

hunting from Kwamalasamutu represents the most significant 

potential threat to the mammal species in the region. 

Declaring the Werehpai area as a protected area is a good 

initiative by the village authority to conserve the species on 

which they depend for food, but this is only a small area 

compared to the hunting areas. More monitoring is required 

to determine if the Werehpai protected area is sufficient 

to maintain populations of medium- and large-bodied 


153

Chapter 12 

mammals in the surroundings of Kwamalasamutu. Further, 

it is recommended that all hunters from Kwamalasamutu 

use hunting seasons, map zoning areas and set quotas for 

hunting on the different species to maximize long-term 

viability of game populations in the area. These hunting 

seasons should be developed together with the people from 

Kwamalasamutu, with traditional local knowledge augmenting 

a scientific approach. Zoning must be established to 

achieve population source (e.g. game reserves) and sink (i.e. 

hunting) areas for wild meat, ensuring a permanent supply 

for subsistence (Novaro 2004). Sale of meat should be 

restricted to the village. Hunting quotas should be based on 

sustainability measures (Wilkie et al. 1998; Robinson and 

Bennett 2004; Payan 2009) and harvest profiles. Small- and 

medium-bodied rodents and species with high reproductive 

rates should be favored, whereas hunting of large animals 

(e.g., tapir) and other less resilient species should be highly 

controlled (Bodmer 1995). 

A more thorough study of the medium- and large-bodied 

mammal fauna of the Kwamalasamutu region is recommended, 

including a longer camera trapping study and a 

detailed sustainability evaluation of wild meat hunting. 

References 

Alvard, M. (1995). Shotguns and sustainable hunting in the 

Neotropics. Oryx 29(1): 58–66. 

Ayres, J., D. Lima, E. Martins, and J. Barreiros. (1991). On 

the track of the road: changes in subsistence hunting in 

a Brazilian Amazonian Village. Neotropical Wildlife Use 

and Conservation. J. G. Robinson and K. H. Redford, 

eds. Univeristy of Chicago Press. 

Bennett, E. L., E. Blencowe, K. Brandon, D. Brown, R.W. 

Burn, G. Cowlishaw, G. Davies, H. Dublin, J.E. Fa, 

E.J. Milner-Gulland, J.G. Robinson, J.M. Rowcliffe, 

F.M. Underwood and D.S. Wilkie. (2007). Hunting for 

Consensus: Reconciling Bushmeat Harvest, Conservation, 

and Development Policy in West and Central 

Africa. Conservation Biology 21(3): 884–887. 

Bodmer, R. (1995). Managing Amazonian wildlife: Biological 

correlates of game choice by detribalized hunters. 

Ecological Applications 5(4): 872–877. 

Bodmer, R. E., T. Fang, L. Moya and R. Gill. (1994). Managing 

wildlife to conserve Amazonia forests: population 

biology and economic considerations of game hunting. 

Biological Conservation 67: 29–35. 

Cardillo, M., G.M. Mace, K.E. Jones, J. Bielby, O.R. 

Bininda-Emonds, W. Sechrest, C.D. Orme, A. Purvis. 

(2005). Multiple Causes of High Extinction Risk in 

Large Mammal Species. Science 309(5738): 1239–1241. 

Colwell, R. 2009. EstimateS: Statistical estimation of species 

richness and shared species from samples. Viceroy 

University. 

Cullen, L., R.E. Bodmer, and C.V. Pa. (2000). Effects of 

hunting in habitat fragments of the Atlantic forests, 

Brazil. Biological Conservation 95(1): 49–56. 

Diamond, J. (1989). The Present, Past and Future of 

Human-Caused Extinctions. Philosophical Transactions 

of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 

(1934–1990) 325(1228): 469–477. 

Dinata, Y., A. Nugroho, I.A. Haidir, and M. Linkie. (2008). 

Camera trapping rare and threatened avifauna in westcentral 

Sumatra. Bird Conservation International 18(01): 

30–37. 

Fa, J.E., D. Currie, and J. Meeuwig. (2003). Bushmeat and 

food security in the Congo Basin: linkages between 

wildlife and people’s future. Environmental Conservation 

30(01): 71–78. 

Fa, J.E., C. Peres, and J. Meeuwig. (2002). Bushmeat 

Exploitation in Tropical Forests: an Intercontinental 

Comparison. Conservation Biology 16(1): 232–237. 

Hill, K., G. McMillan, and R. Fariña. (2003). Hunting- 

Related Changes in Game Encounter Rates from 1994 

to 2001 in the Mbaracayu Reserve, Paraguay. Conservation 

Biology 17(5): 1312–1323. 

Kelly, M. J. (2008). Design, evaluate, refine: camera trap 

studies for elusive species. Animal Conservation 11(3): 

182–184. 

Leader-Williams, N., S. Albon and P. Berry. (1990). Illegal 

exploitation of black rhinoceros and elephant populations: 

Patterns of decline, law enforcement and patrol 

effort in Luangwa Valley, Zambia. Journal of Applied 

Ecology 27(3): 1055–1087. 

Lok, C. B., L. K. Shing, Z. Jian-Feng, and S. Wen-Ba. 

(2005). Notable bird records from Bawangling National 

Nature Reserve, Hainan Island, China. Forktail 21: 33. 

Magurran, A. E. 2004. Measuring Biological Diversity. 

Blackwell Publishing. 

Milner-Gulland, E.J., M.V. Kholodova, A. Bekenov, O.M. 

Bukreeva, A. Grachev, L. Amgalan and A.A. Lushchekina. 

(2001). Dramatic declines in saiga antelope 

populations. Oryx 35(4). 

Milner-Gulland, E. J. and H. R. Akcakaya (2001). Sustainability 

indices for exploited populations. Trends in Ecology 

and Evolution 16(12): 686–692. 

Milner-Gulland, E.J., E.L. Bennett and the SCB 2002 

Annual Meeting Wild Meat Group. (2003). Wild meat: 

the bigger picture. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 

18(7): 351–357. 

Noss, A.J., R. Pena, and D.I. Rumiz. (2004). Camera trapping 

Priodontes maximus in the dry forests of Santa 

Cruz, Bolivia. Endangered Species Update 21: 43–52. 

Noss, A.J., R. L. Cuéllar, J. Barrientos, L. Maffei, E. Cuéllar, 

R. Arispe, D. Rúmiz & K. Rivero. (2003). A camera 

trapping and radio telemetry study of lowland tapir 

(Tapirus terrestris) in Bolivian dry forests. Tapir Conservation 

12(1): 24–32. 

Novaro, A. J. (2004). Implications of the Spatial Structure 

of Game Populations for the Sustainability of Hunting 



in the Neotropics. People in Nature: Wildlife Conservation 

in South and Central America. K. Silvius, 

R. Bodmer and J. Fragoso, eds. New York, Columbia 

University Press. 

O’Brien, T. G. (2008). On the use of automated cameras 

to estimate species richness for large-and mediumsized 

rainforest mammals. Animal Conservation 11(3): 

179–181. 

O’Brien, T.G., M.F. Kinnaird, and H.T. Wibisono. 2003. 

Crouching tigers, hidden prey: Sumatran tiger and 

prey populations in a tropical forest landscape. Animal 

Conservation 6: 131–139. 

Payan, E. (2009). Hunting sustainability, species richness 

and carnivore conservation in Colombian Amazonia. 

PhD thesis, Department of Biology and Anthropology. 

London, University College London. 

Peres, C. (1990). Effects of hunting on western Amazonian 

primate communities. Biological Conservation 54(1): 

47–59. 

Purvis, A., P.M. Agapow, J.L. Gittleman and G.M. Mace. 

(2000). Nonrandom Extinction and the Loss of Evolutionary 

History. Science 288(5464): 328. 

Redford, K. H. (1992). The empty forest. Bioscience 42(6): 

412–422. 

Robinson, J. and E. Bennett (2004). Having your wildlife 

and eating it too: an analysis of hunting sustainability 

across tropical ecosystems. Animal Conservation 7(04): 

397–408. 

Robinson, J. G. and E. L. Bennett (2000). Hunting for 

Sustainability in Tropical Forests. New York, Columbia 

University Press. 

Rovero, F., T. Jones, and J. Sanderson. (2005). Notes on 

Abbott’s duiker (Cephalophus spadix True 1890) and 

other forest antelopes of Mwanihana Forest, Udzungwa 

Mountains, Tanzania, as revealed by camera-trapping 

and direct observations. Tropical Zoology 18(1): 13. 

Rowcliffe, J. M. and C. Carbone (2008). Surveys using camera 

traps: are we looking to a brighter future? Animal 

Conservation 11(3): 185–186. 

Silva, J. L. and S. D. Strahl. (1991). Human impact on 

populations of chachalacas, guans, and curassows (Galliformes: 

Cracidae) in Venezuela. Neotropical Wildlife 

Use and Conservation. J. G. Robinson and K. H. Redford. 

Chicago, Chicago University Press: 37–52. 

Silvius, K.M., R.E. Bodmer, and J.M. Fragoso. (2004). 

People in Nature. Columbia University Press. 

Strahl, S. and A. Grajal (1991). Conservation of large avian 

frugivores and the management of Neotropical protected 

areas. Oryx 25(1): 50–55. 

Thiollay, J. (1989). Area Requirements for the Conservation 

of Rain Forest Raptors and Game Birds in French 

Guiana. Conservation Biology 3(2): 128–137. 

Thiollay, J. M. (2005). Effects of hunting on guianan forest 

game birds. Biodiversity and Conservation 14(5): 

1121–1135. 

Tobler, M.W., S.E. Carrillo-Percastegui, R. Leite-Pitman, 

R. Mares, and G. Powell. (2008). An evaluation of 

camera traps for inventorying large-and medium-sized 

terrestrial rainforest mammals. Animal Conservation 

11(0): 169–178. 

Turvey, S. and C. Risley (2006). Modelling the extinction of 

Steller’s sea cow. Biology Letters 2(1): 94–97. 

Vickers, W. T. (1991). Hunting yields and game composition 

over ten years in an Amazon Indian territory. 

Neotropical Wildlife Use and Conservation. Chicago, 

University of Chicago Press: 53–81. 

Wilkie, D.S., B. Curran, R. Tshombe and G.A. Morelli. 

(1998). Modeling the Sustainability of Subsistence 

Farming and Hunting in the Ituri Forest of Zaire. Conservation 

Biology 12(1): 137–147. 

Yoccoz, N.G., J.D. Nichols and T. Boulinier. (2001). Monitoring 

of biological diversity in space and time. Trends 

in Ecology and Evolution 16(8): 446–453. 

Yost, J. and P. Kelley (1983). Shotguns, blowguns, and 

spears: the analysis of technological efficiency. Adaptive 

Responses of Native Amazonians. R. Hames and W. T. 

Vickers. New York, Academic Press: 189–224. 


155

Chapter 12 

Appendix. List of large mammals observed during the Kwamalasamutu RAP survey. CT = camera trap; K = Kutari; S = Sipaliwini; W = Werehpai. 

* Birds; included here for documentation of Trio names. 

Scientific name Common name Trio name Detection method Site 

Cuniculus paca Paca Kurimau CT K, S, W 

Alouatta macconnelli Guianan Red Howler Monkey Aluatá Heard K 

Ateles paniscus Guianan Black Spider Monkey Arimi; Tanonkonpe Observed K, S, W 

Cebus apella Brown Capuchin Tarípi Observed K, S, W 

Cebus olivaceus Wedge-capped Capuchin Ako Observed K, S, W 

Chiropotes chiropotes Guianan Bearded Saki Isoimá Observed K 

Dasyprocta leporina Red-rumped Agouti Akuri CT K, S, W 

Dasypus kappleri Great Long-nosed Armadillo Kapai CT S 

Dasypus novemcinctus Nine-banded Armadillo Kapai CT K, W 

Eira barbara Tayra Ëkërëpukë CT, observed W 

Leopardus pardalis Ocelot Pakoronko CT K, W 

Mazama americana Red Brocket Deer Wikapao CT, tracks K, S, W 

Mazama gouazoubira Grey Brocket Deer Kajaké CT K, S, W 

Myoprocta acouchy Red Acouchy Pasinore CT K, S, W 

Myrmecophaga tridactyla Giant Anteater Masiwë CT K 

Nasua nasua South American Coati Seu CT, observed K, S, W 

Panthera onca Jaguar Kaikui; Aturae CT W 

Philander opposum Common Gray Four-eyed Opossum Aware CT K, S, W 

Pithecia pithecia pithecia White-faced Saki Ariki Observed K 

Priodontes maximus Giant Armadillo Morainmë CT S, W 

Proechymis sp. Spiny Rat Kurimau CT K, S, W 

Pteronura brasiliensis Giant River Otter Jawi Observed S 

Puma concolor Puma Arawatanpa CT, tracks W,K 

Saguinus midas Golden-handed Tamarin Makui Observed K, W 

Saimiri sciureus sciureus Guianan Squirrel Monkey Karima; Akarima Observed K, S, W 

Tapirus terrestris Brazilian Tapir Pai CT, tracks K, S, W 

Tayassu pecari White-lipped Peccary Poneke CT W 

Pecari tajacu Collared Peccary Pakira CT, tracks,observed K, S, W 

Neacomys spp(?) Mouse spp. CT S 

Crax alector Black Curassow* Ohko CT, observed K, S, W 

Crypturellus variegatus Variegated Tinamou* Sororsoroí CT K, W 

Tinamus major Great Tinamou* Suwi CT K, W 

Penelope spp. Guan* Marai Observed K 

Psophia crepitans Grey-winged Trumpeter* Mami CT K, S, W 






2011 Crystal Dr., Suite 500 

Arlington, VA 22202 USA 

Tel: +1 703 341-2400 

Web: www.conservation.org 

Participants and Authors.............................................................4 

Organizational Profiles.................................................................7 

Acknowledgments......................................................................10 

Report at a Glance, English.......................................................11 

Report at a Glance, Trio (Iponohto Pisi Serë).........................25 

Report at a Glance, Dutch (Rapportage in Vogelvlucht)......27 

Executive Summary....................................................................29 

Map and Photos...........................................................................13 

Chapters........................................................................................38 

Conservation International Suriname 

Kromme Elleboogstraat no. 20 

Paramaribo, Suriname 

Tel: 597-421305 

Web: www.ci-suriname.org 

With generous support from the 

Alcoa Foundation 

ISBN 978-1-934151-50-1 

90000 > 

9 781934 

151501

A Rapid Biological Assessment of the Kwamalasamutu region

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?