Article

Journal of Ethnobiology
1–13
Tank Bromeliads as a Water Reservoir Used © The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
by Humans: An Important Overlooked sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/02780771231209131

Ecosystem Service in Xerophytic Forests journals.sagepub.com/home/ebi

Ignacio M. Barberis1,2, Rodrigo M. Freire1, and Guillermo A. Montero1,2

Abstract
The Bromeliaceae are known for providing numerous ecosystem services. Tank bromeliads that collect water in the bases of their
leaves have been an important source of water for people in semiarid regions such as the Gran Chaco. In this large area charac-
terized by xerophytic vegetation grows Aechmea distichantha, the only Chaquenian terrestrial tank bromeliad. We carried out a
literature review on water consumption from this tank bromeliad by people in this region. Then, we analyzed the variations in
the amount of water stored in the tanks of plants from observational studies as well as the effects of the amount and frequency
of water addition on the hydrology of water retained in the tank from an irrigation experiment study. We found 85 reports on the
consumption of water from A. distichantha plants by people, including several Indigenous Groups, Criollos, and Soldiers. According
to these reports, the tank accumulates about a liter of relatively fresh and clear water that lasts for several weeks. Our observa-
tional study showed a large variation in the amount of water held in the tank among years and sites, and our irrigation experiment
showed that even plants receiving low and unevenly distributed rainfall conserved some water in their tanks. All these results sup-
port the importance of this tank bromeliad for surviving when moving in Eastern Chaco during dry periods until the beginning of the
twentieth century. At present, it seems that people living in sedentarism no longer frequently use it for water provision, highlighting
that the relative importance of a plant species for providing ecosystem services depends on the historical context.

Keywords
ecosystem services, Gran Chaco, Indigenous Groups, tank bromeliads, water consumption

Introduction Arenas 2004; Lévi-Strauss 1952; Villa Guzmán 2007).

The Bromeliaceae is one of the most diverse plant families in
the Neotropics (Zizka et al. 2020), comprising epiphytic and
terrestrial herbaceous species that inhabit different ecoregions
from tropical rainforests to open shrublands and restingas
(Benzing 2000). Among the Bromeliaceae, the tank bromeliads
stand out, as they are a group of facultative epiphytic plants that
may typically collect 100–500 ml of water in the tank formed
by the bases of their leaves (Benzing 2000; Zotz et al. 2020).
Their ability to hold water in their tanks allows large amounts
of water to accumulate at the ground level and in the canopy
of neotropical forest canopies (Hargis et al. 2019; Zotz et al.
2020), and in open areas (Cogliatti-Carvalho et al. 2010).
Thus, the presence of tank bromeliads in these habitats affects
water and nutrient cycling (Benzing 2000; Martinson et al.
2010; Pereira et al. 2022; Zotz 2016), as well as animal biodi-
versity (Freire et al. 2021; Rocha et al. 2000).
Bromeliads are known for providing numerous ecosystem
services to people (Ladino et al. 2019), being used as a
source of fiber, food, fuel, medicine, living fences, etc.
(Arenas 1997a; Arenas and Arroyo 1988; Bennett 2000).
Regarding tank bromeliads, there are some reports of
Indigenous Groups that relieve their thirst by drinking the
water held inside their tanks (Albuquerque et al. 2017;
However, there seems to be no detailed study on the importance
of these bromeliads as a source of water for consumption,
which would be particularly important in arid or semiarid
regions such as the Cerrado (Ratter, Ribeiro and Bridgewater
1997), the Caatingas (Bucher 1982), or the Gran Chaco
(Bucher 1982; Morello et al. 2012; Ragonese and Castiglioni
1970). Moreover, changes in land use produced in most of
these dry regions during the last two centuries (Morello,
Pengue and Rodríguez 2006) possibly condition the use of
tank bromeliads as a water reservoir.
The Gran Chaco is a plain that covers a large area in central
South America, whose subtropical semiarid to humid climate
with strong seasonality conditions the vegetation characterized
by xerophytic woody communities (Bucher 1982; Prado 1993;
1
Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional de Rosario, Zavalla, Santa
Fe, Argentina
2
Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Agrarias de Rosario, Consejo
Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Universidad Nacional de
Rosario, Zavalla, Santa Fe, Argentina
Corresponding Author:
Ignacio M. Barberis, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional de
Rosario, Zavalla, Santa Fe, Argentina.
Email: ignaciobarberis@yahoo.com
2 Journal of Ethnobiology 0(0)
Ragonese and Castiglioni 1970; Tomasini and Braunstein
2006). In the understory of most of these xerophytic forests,
there are large colonies of different terrestrial bromeliad
species (Barberis et al. 2014; Martínez Crovetto 1980) that
provide numerous ecosystem services to people (Arenas
1997a, 2004; Arenas and Arroyo 1988). In the Eastern Chaco,
where the rainfalls are higher and seasonality lower than in the
Western Chaco, grows Aechmea distichantha, the only
Chaquenian terrestrial tank bromeliad (Barberis et al. 2021).
This tank bromeliad species shows high phenotypic plasticity,
leading to differences in biomass allocation, and thus contrasting
differences in their water-holding capacity depending on
growing conditions (Cavallero, López and Barberis 2009).
Plants growing in the understory have smaller tanks than those
growing under sunlight (Cavallero, López and Barberis 2009;
Montero, Feruglio and Barberis 2010).
In the tank of A. distichantha plants present in the Gran
Chaco, rainwater is conserved for a long time, throughout the
dry season (i.e., from April to September–October) or during
some long dry periods in the wet season (i.e., from October
to March), when most natural sources of water (i.e., rivers,
streams, and ponds) are completely dry or have only a thick
crust of salt (Morello and Adámoli 1974). Thus, this water res-
ervoir has been used by different Indigenous Groups (Martínez
Crovetto 1964, 1965; Métraux 1944; Page 1889), by Travelers
(Fiebrig and Rojas 1933), Criollos (Schulz 1963), as well as by
Soldiers (Breithoff 2020) during dry periods. To understand the
importance of A. distichantha plants as water reservoirs for
people from the Gran Chaco we performed a study that com-
bines information from different sources. First, we carried out
a literature review on water consumption from the tank of
this bromeliad species by people in this region, classifying
the retrieved records according to the chroniclers and the
actors involved. From these reports, we extracted information
about how the people obtained the water from the plant, the
quantity and quality of the water stored in the tank, and how
long the water keeps stored in the tank. Second, we used our
information from related studies (Freire 2018; Montero,
Feruglio and Barberis 2010; Srivastava et al. 2020) to
analyze: (1) the variations in the amount of water stored in
the tanks of A. distichantha plants grown under sun and
shade conditions in a xerophytic Chaco forest from 13 observa-
tional studies carried out in different seasons, years, and sites;
and (2) the effects of the amount and frequency of water addi-
tion on the hydrology and temperature of water retained in the
tank from an irrigation experiment study. Finally, we contrasted
the information from the literature review with the results of our
observational and experimental studies.
Materials and Methods
Literature Review
We carried out an exhaustive bibliographic search on different
search engines: Scielo, Science Direct, Springer Link, Wiley
Online Library, Taylor and Francis Online, JSTOR, Google
Scholar®, and Google Books® platforms. The search included
scientific articles, books, book chapters, and reports and consid-
ered combinations of the following three terms in different lan-
guages: (1) the Chaquenian region (i.e., “Chaco,” “chaque*”) +
(2) the bromeliad plant by its common names (i.e., “caraguatá,”
“karaguatá,” “chaguar,” “cardo chuza,” “bromeliad tank,” or
“tank bromeliad”) or its scientific names (“Aechmea distichan-
tha,” “Aechmea polystachya,” or “Platyaechmea distichantha”)
+ (3) water in different languages (i.e., “water,” “agua,” “eau,”
“wasser,” “vatten,” “acqua,” or “vand”).
For each retrieved reference, we copied the paragraphs or
sentences mentioning the consumption of water from this
tank bromeliad, translated if it was not written in English,
and recorded their pages. We classified the chronicler as
“Explorers—naturalists,” “Ethnographers,” “Writers,” or
“Historians,” and the actors as “Indigenous Groups,”
“Travelers,” “Criollos” (i.e., hunters, loggers, honey-keepers,
and workers), or “Soldiers.” Finally, we classified the
Indigenous Groups according to their linguistic family and eth-
nicity (sensu Arenas 1997b; Braunstein 2005; Martínez
Sarasola 2013).
Sociocultural and Environmental Context
For centuries, the entire Chaco region was dominated by
numerous Indigenous Groups organized in seminomadic
bands that moved across a vast territory, whose main subsis-
tence activities were hunting, fishing, honey collecting, and
fruit and fiber harvesting (Hirsch, Canova and Biocca 2021).
In the last two centuries, there have been large changes in
who owned the land, as well as in the use that is given to it.
The integration of this large area into the present political
nations (Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Brazil) was a long
and controversial process that differed among regions of the
Gran Chaco (Arenas 2022).
In Western Chaco, at the beginning of the nineteenth century,
the Criollos, descendants of the first Spanish settlers that mixed
with native people, went in and out of the frontier controlled by
the Indigenous Groups to collect honey and wax. At the end of
the nineteenth century, these Criollos started to raise cattle in
the grasslands present in ancient river beds, and by the beginning
of the twentieth century, they moved eastward as these grass-
lands disappeared due to overexploitation (Arenas 2022). At
present, these Criollos form a society of herdsmen that lives on
the coasts of the Pilcomayo and Bermejo rivers, sharing the
area with hunter-gatherer Indigenous Groups (Scarpa 2004).
By the beginning of the twentieth century, a large area of
forests in the western area of this Chaco region was replaced
by sugarcane plantations owned by a few sugar mill companies,
where Indigenous Groups from the lowlands and highlands of
Bolivia were recruited as temporal workers (Hirsch, Canova
and Biocca 2021).
In Northern Chaco, at the end of the nineteenth century, the
Republic of Paraguay sold public lands from the Chaco territory
Barberis et al.
to foreign companies to obtain funds to recover from the eco-
nomic crisis caused by the Triple Alliance War. These
foreign companies exploited the forest for timber and tannin,
as well as for cattle production (Arenas 2022). The
Indigenous Groups living in the area were evicted or hired to
work as axe men or in the tannin industry. At the beginning
of the twentieth century, set up the conflict between Bolivia
and Paraguay for the Chaco territory, which ended in the
Chaco War (1932–1935). During this period the Indigenous
Groups were forced to move to other areas or to help one of
the armies. The soldiers of both countries suffered from the
inhospitable climate and environment of the Chaco, many of
them dying because of thirst (Breithoff 2020). At the beginning
of the Chaco War, groups of Mennonites from North America
and Europe settled in the Paraguayan Chaco. These Mennonites
colonies are currently some of the most developed farmers
(Arenas 2022).
In Southern Chaco, at the end of the nineteenth century, the
Argentinian government used the Army to get by force the
lands originally occupied by Indigenous Groups. These lands
were sold to foreign companies for the extraction of wood,
and cattle ranching (Hirsch, Canova and Biocca 2021).
Criollos and Indigenous Groups were hired as axe men for
wood extraction and tannin making use of forests. By the
middle of the twentieth century, the provincial states promoted
the establishment of numerous agricultural colonies (Ministerio
de Agricultura y Ganadería de la Provincia de Santa Fe 1971).
Therefore, the land use changes of the Gran Chaco during
the last two centuries could be summarized as follows.
During the first period, characterized by using natural resources
from grasslands and forests, the main actors in all regions were
the hunter-gatherer Indigenous Groups that moved in a semino-
madic way and the cattle-herder Criollos (Morello, Pengue and
Rodríguez 2006). By the end of the nineteenth century, a large
portion of land was occupied by large companies that exploited
the forests for timber and tannin extraction and/or cattle raising,
when the Indigenous Groups and Criollos were hired as axe
men or workers. At this time, Aechmea distichantha was
found in the understory of different woody communities
throughout its entire range distribution (Barberis et al. 2021)
and provided numerous ecosystem services (e.g., drinking
water for humans and cattle, food, medicine, ornamental) to
people (Arenas 2004; Appendix S1). During the second
period, the entire Chaco region was affected by a large replace-
ment of forest cover by agriculture (soybean) or pastures for
cattle production (Baumann et al. 2017; Fehlenberg et al.
2017). Thus, at present, the owners of the land are mainly
cattle ranchers and agricultural farmers, forcing many
Indigenous Groups and Criollos to work for them or to live
in small villages or marginal spaces in urban towns and cities
depending for survival on intermittent wage labor (Hirsch,
Canova and Biocca 2021). At this time, A. distichantha is
restricted to the understory of sites not affected by deforesta-
tion, where it provides ecosystem services to people
(Appendix S1).
3
Studied Bromeliad Species
Aechmea distichantha is a facultative epiphytic tank bromeliad
(Type III sensu Benzing 2000; CAM tank-epiphytic bromeliad
sensu Males and Griffiths 2017) that shows a wide distribution
in mid-latitudes of South America (Barberis et al. 2021; Godoy
et al. 2023; Smith and Downs 1979). In the Amazonian domain,
characterized by evergreen tropical and subtropical forests with
high precipitation, it mainly grows as epiphytic. In the
Chaquenian domain, dominated by xerophytic forests with
low rainfall, high soil pH, and base saturation, it mainly
grows as terrestrial, whereas in the Seasonally Dry Tropical
Forest domain, the three life forms were recorded in similar pro-
portions (Alvarez Arnesi, Barberis and Vesprini 2018; Barberis
et al. 2021).
One of the main woody communities of the Humid Chaco is
the Schinopsis balansae forest (i.e., the “quebrachal”), an open
xerophytic forest with woody vegetation on convex areas and
grassy clearings of different sizes on plain areas (Barberis,
Pire and Lewis 1998, 2002; Lewis 1991; Lewis, Pire and
Barberis 1997). In these xerophytic forests, A. distichantha
forms dense colonies in the understory of the convex areas
(Barberis and Lewis 2005; Barberis et al. 2014). Plants
growing in the understory of the convex areas (i.e., shade
plants) have longer leaves, with a high proportion of blades,
while plants growing on the edge of the convex areas or at
the foot of large trees in open areas (i.e., sun plants) have
shorter leaves with a high proportion of sheath, and thus
larger water tanks (see Figure S1 in Appendix S2; Cavallero,
López and Barberis 2009). It reproduces sexually and asexually
(Barberis et al. 2020; Freire, Barberis and Vesprini 2018).
Shade plants are heavier, have longer rachis, more spikelets,
a higher number of fruits per spikelet, and a higher number
of seeds per fruit than those from sun plants (Freire, Barberis
and Vesprini 2018). In the tank formed between the leaf
bases, water, and organic matter accumulate (Barberis,
Boccanelli and Alzugaray 2011; Cavallero, López and
Barberis 2009), and numerous invertebrates live (Freire et al.
2021; Montero, Feruglio and Barberis 2010).
Field Sampling: Water and Organic Matter Held in
Tanks of A. distichantha
We carried out 13 trips to the Humid Chaco in Argentina (9 in
Santa Fe, 2 in Chaco, and 2 in Formosa provinces) (see Tables
S1 and S2 in Appendix S2). At each trip, we collected between
5 and 10 medium-sized to large-sized terrestrial plants of A. dis-
tichantha in different habitats (shade vs. sun) of the quebrachal
(N = 140). We removed each selected plant and measured the
water retained inside the tank with a graduated cylinder (see
Figure S2 in Appendix S2). At the biological station, we
placed the plants in a bucket and added a known volume of
water (ml) to fill the tank up to its maximum capacity. We esti-
mated the maximum water content of the tank as the volume of
water added minus the amount of water drained into the bucket.
4 Journal of Ethnobiology 0(0)
We removed the organic matter accumulated inside each tank,
oven-dried this material at 70°C to constant weight, and
weighed it with a precision scale (Scaltec SBA32, max =
120 g, d = 0.0001 g).
Irrigation Experiment: Variation in the Actual Water
Volume and Temperature in Tanks of A. distichantha
Plants
We carried out an irrigation experiment comprising 30
medium-sized to large-sized plants of A. distichantha placed
under individual plastic roofs in a S. balansae forest at
Las Gamas, Argentina (−29.55249, −60.39592) for 60 days
(14th October to 12th December 2013; see Figure S1 in
Appendix S3). Each plant was subjected to a different watering
schedule based on the unique combination of ten values of the
mean daily amount of rainfall (μ) and three values of the fre-
quency of rainfall events around this mean through time (k),
totalizing 30 treatments (Srivastava et al. 2020; See Table S1
in Appendix S3).
We measured the depth of the water level in the central tank of
each plant every day with a ruler (See Figure S1 in Appendix S3).
Based on these daily data, we produced two hydrological
variables (Srivastava et al. 2020): “Wetness” represents the
percentage of an average tank that is filled on an average day
(i.e., mean water depth/maximum water depth), while the
“Proportion of dried-out days” is the number of times a bro-
meliad dried out over the total number of days.
We placed a temperature logger (Thermochron iButton −40°
C thru 85°C, Maxim Integrated, San Jose, CA USA) wrapped in
a wax film inside the water tank of each plant and set it to
measure water temperature every hour (see Figure S1 in
Appendix S3). Based on these measurements, we calculated
four temperature variables for the water tank (i.e., mean daily
temperature, maximum daily temperature, minimum daily tem-
perature, and daily temperature amplitude).
Data Analyses
We analyzed differences in the maximum water volume of the
tank, the actual water volume of the tank, and the captured
organic matter between shade and sun plants with general
linear mixed models, in which the sampling date was consid-
ered a random factor.
We analyzed the effects of μ, k and their interaction on the
hydrological variables (i.e., proportion of dried-out days and
wetness) with general linear models, and the effects on the tem-
perature variables (i.e., mean daily temperature, maximum
daily temperature, minimum daily temperature, and daily tem-
perature amplitude) with general linear mixed models, in which
the plants were considered as random factors.
We performed all the analyses with the function lmer
in the package lme4 in R (Bates et al. 2015; R Core Team
2022).
Results
Literature Review: Use of Water from the
A. distichantha Tank by Different Actors
We found information on the consumption of water from
A. distichantha plants by people in 85 bibliographic references
(48 books, 31 journal articles, 5 book chapters, and 1 confer-
ence proceeding), written in English, Spanish, Italian, French,
German, and Swedish, comprising sites from Argentina,
Bolivia, Brazil, and Paraguay (see Tables S1 and S2 in
Appendix S4). There were 36 references written by
“Explorers—naturalists,” 32 by “Ethnographers,” 13 by
“Historians,” and 4 by “Writers.” Regarding the actors, 10 ref-
erences mentioned “Criollos,” 43 references cited “Indigenous
Groups,” 10 “Soldiers,” and 28 “Travelers.” Some references
mentioned more than one actor consuming water from the bro-
meliad tank or did not mention the actors involved in water con-
sumption (see Tables S1-S2 in Appendix S4).
The use of water from the tank of A. distichantha has been
documented from 1880 to the present, but different stages can
be identified (Figure 1). From the end of 1880 to 1920, the con-
tributions of Explorers and naturalists were important. In con-
trast, the records of the ethnographers were concentrated in
two important periods, the first from 1910 to 1930 and the
second from the late 1990s to the present (Figure 1). The first
records were mainly on the use made by Travelers who
crossed the area and to a lesser extent on the use made by
Indigenous Groups (Figure 1). The latter records comprised
the entire period, but an increase was seen in recent years
(Figure 1). Explorers and naturalists reported water consump-
tion by all the actors, while ethnographers mainly reported
water consumption by Indigenous Groups, and historians by
Criollos and Soldiers (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Temporal variation of the records by different chroniclers
(explorers—naturalists, historians, ethnographers, or writers) on
human consumption of water retained in the tank of Aechmea
distichantha by all actors and by the different actors (Criollos, Soldiers,
indigenous groups, or travelers) from 1880 to the present.
Barberis et al.
Figure 2. Distribution of Aechmea distichantha (based on Barberis et al. 2021) (left) and location of the ethnic groups reported consuming
water from the tank of A. distichantha (dotted pattern) and those without records of water consumption (dashed pattern) in the Gran Chaco
(modified from Arenas 1997b).
We found records of water consumption from this tank bro-
meliad that was used by Indigenous Groups of the linguistic
families Zamuco (Chamacoco and Ayoreo), Maskoy (Lengua
and Angaite), Mataco-Mataguayo (Maká, Chorote), Guaicurú
(Toba, Pilagá, Mocoví, Abipones), Lule-Vilela (Vilelas) and
Tupí-Guaraní (Guaraníes) (Figure 2, Table 1). We found no
ethnobotanical studies on other Indigenous Groups of the
Maskoy (Sanapaná, Kashkiha or Guaná, and Toba-Maskoy),
Mataco-Mataguayo (Chulupí), or Guaicurú (Caduveo/
Mbayá), and Tupí-Guaraní (Tapieté) linguistic families men-
tioning the consumption of water from A. distichantha
(Figure 2, Table 1).
According to registered reports, the water accumulated in the
tank of A. distichantha varies between 500 ml and slightly more
than a liter (see Table S3 in Appendix S4 for details). To obtain
the water contained in the tank, most actors removed the plant,
made a cut at the base of the leaves, and then, turning it over, let
the water drain over the mouth (see Table S4 in Appendix S4
for details). Alternatively, they used a straw to suck up the con-
tents, dug a well in the soil into which they poured water from
various plants and drank the water directly from the well, or
pour the plant content onto a plastic sheet or a container. As
the plant has numerous spines, the water extraction procedure
can be a painful experience. Thus, some actors cut off the
sharp and pointed leaves before extracting the plants. Finally,
5
some actors mention that the water must be filtered because it
contains impurities (see Table S4 in Appendix S4 for details).
Numerous chroniclers mention that the water contained in
the tank of A. distichantha is kept relatively fresh, clear, pure,
and crystalline (see Table S5 in Appendix S4 for details).
However, the leaves and dead insects present inside the tank
could decompose after a while, and the water may acquire an
unpleasant taste and can cause intestinal colic if consumed
(see Table S5 in Appendix S4).
The rainwater accumulated in the tank is stored for a long
time, from a few weeks to several months (see Table S6 in
Appendix S4 for details). However, in times of drought, these
tank bromeliads sometimes constitute the only water reservoirs,
and on certain occasions, the amount of water that can be
obtained from these plants is very limited (see Table S6 in
Appendix S4 for details).
Field Sampling: Water and Organic Matter Held in
Tanks of A. distichantha
The tanks of this bromeliad species may hold from 400 ml to
1000 ml of water, and in a few cases up to almost 2000 ml
(Figure 3). Plants growing in the sun have larger water tanks
and accumulate a greater volume of water in their tanks,
whereas those growing in the shade under the canopy of large
6 Journal of Ethnobiology 0(0)

Table 1. Records of Water Consumption from the Tank of Aechmea distichantha by Different Ethnic Groups of the Gran Chaco.

Water
Linguistic family Ethnic group consumption Reference
Zamuco Chamacoco Yes Boggiani (1894), Cordeu (2009), Frič ová (2017)
Ayoreo Yes Bernand-Muñoz and Sebag (2015), Schmeda-Hirschmann (1998)
Maskoy Lengua Yes Arenas (1981), Grubb (1911), von Becker (1941)
Sanapaná – –
Angaite Yes Amarilla (2006)
Kashkiha/Guaná – –
Toba-Maskoy – –
Mataco-Mataguayo Chulupí/Nivakle –
Maká Yes Arenas (1983), Miraglia (1976)
Mataco/Wichí –
Chorote/Manjui Yes Renshaw (2002)
Guaicurú Toba/Qom Yes de Chazal (2017), Kerr (1892), Martínez Crovetto (1964), Martínez,
Beccaglia and Llinares (2014)
Pilagá Yes Aguilar, Ava and Vidal (2000)
Caduveo/Mbayá – –
Mocoví Yes Balducci, Galligani and Sartori (2016), Martínez Crovetto (2014)
Abipones Yes Dobrizhoffer (1967), Furlong Cardiff (1938)
Tupí-Guaraní Chiriguano –
Tapieté –
Arawak Chané-Chiriguanizado –
Lule-Vilela Vilelas/Chunupí Yes Ambrosetti (1894), Martínez Crovetto (1965)

The classifications of the linguistic families and the ethnic groups are based on Arenas (1997b), Braunstein (2005), and Martínez Sarasola (2013).

trees accumulate larger amounts of organic matter (Figure 3;
see Table S3 in Appendix S2 for statistical details). There is a
large variation among years and sites in the proportion of the
maximum water volume held inside the tanks ranging from
almost empty to full (Figure 3), but in general, this proportion
is higher in sun than in shade plants (Figure 3).
frequency of rainfall events (Figure 5; see Table S3 in
Appendix S3 for statistical details). Plants receiving higher
amounts of water had lower maximum water temperatures
but similar minimum water temperatures in the tanks, resulting
in lower mean water temperature and temperature amplitude
than those plants receiving less water (Figure 5).

Irrigation Experiment: Variation in the Actual Water Discussion

Volume in Tanks of A. distichantha Plants
Water dynamics in the tank were conditioned by the different
irrigation scenarios (Figure 4). Plants receiving higher
amounts of water and evenly distributed showed higher
wetness and dried out less frequently than those receiving
less water and non-evenly distributed (Figure 4; see Table S2
in Appendix S3 for statistical details). For a plant receiving a
rainfall schedule similar to the ambient condition (i.e., μ and
k = 1), the tank was on average 40% filled with water and
almost 40% of the days without water throughout the study
period (Figure 4; see Table S2 in Appendix S3 for statistical
details). Plants receiving a frequent and large amount of rainfall
(i.e., μ = 3 and k = 2) had always their tanks filled with some
water, whereas plants receiving an infrequent small amount
of rainfall (i.e., μ < 0.4 and k = 0.5), had no water in their
tanks for some days during the study period (Figure 4; see
Table S2 in Appendix S3 for statistical details).
The temperature of the water inside the tank was also influ-
enced by the mean daily amount of rainfall, but not by the
Reports of Water Consumption From the Tanks of A.
distichantha
During the dry spells that occur frequently in the Gran Chaco
(Tomasini and Braunstein 2006), people survived by using dif-
ferent sources to obtain water (Arenas and Giberti 1993;
Martínez, Beccaglia and Llinares 2014). Several Indigenous
Groups living throughout the Humid Chaco in Argentina,
Bolivia, and Paraguay reported water consumption from differ-
ent sources (Arenas 1981; Bernand-Muñoz and Sebag 2015),
but also from the tank of A. distichantha (Table 1).
Considering this fact, and based on the abundance and distribu-
tion of this bromeliad species (Adámoli 1973; Barberis et al.
2021), its ability to store water in its tank for long periods
(Table S6 in Appendix S3), and the ease to obtain water from
its tank (Table S4 in Appendix S3), we argue that water con-
sumption from this tank bromeliad was common during dry
periods for most Indigenous Groups when living in a
nomadic way in the Humid Chaco. This was even likely for
Barberis et al.
Figure 3. Amount of water (maximum and actual) and organic
matter accumulated, and temporal and spatial variation of the
percentage of maximum volume in sun and shade plants of Aechmea
distichantha at different years (2010, 2012, 2013, 2016) at one site in
Santa Fe province (Las Gamas), and at five sites in different provinces
of the Gran Chaco in Argentina. Sites are arranged from south to
north (LT = Las Toscas in the Santa Fe province; CB = Colonia
Baranda and CS = Capitán Solari in the Chaco province; CP = Colonia
Pastoril and VI = Villa 2–13 in the Formosa province). In the boxplots,
each dot is a plant, the boxes encompass the 25–75% percentiles, the
central line is the median, and the whiskers denote the range.
Figure 4. Effects of the daily amount of rainfall (proportional change
in μ) and the relative frequency of water added to the tank
(proportional change in k) on the wetness and the proportion of
dried-out days of the tank of plants of Aechmea distichantha. For both
rainfall parameters (μ and k) the ambient condition is represented by
1, where μ is 4.31 mm/day, and k = 0.05. Each point corresponds to a
combination of the amount and relative frequency of rainfall applied
to one plant.
those Indigenous Groups living in this area for whom we found
no report about any source of water consumption (Table 1).
In contrast, in the driest areas of the Gran Chaco, where
A. distichantha has not been recorded (Adámoli 1973;
7
Figure 5. Effects of the daily amount of rainfall added to the tank
(proportional change in μ) on water temperature variables. For μ the
ambient condition is represented by 1, where μ is 4.31 mm/day. Each
point corresponds to the daily value of the considered temperature
variable for the plants for each proportional change in μ.
Barberis et al. 2021), there are reports from Indigenous
Groups of the linguistic families Mataco-Mataguayo (Chorotí
and Mataco/Wichí), Tupí-Guaraní (Chiriguanos), and Arawak
(Chané-Chiriguanized) consuming water from other sources
such as holes in the trunk of Ceiba chodatii (Bombacaceae)
(Suárez 2009), from the tubers of Jacaratia corumbensis
(Caricaceae) or the succulent stem and leaves of some cactus
species (Cactaceae) (Arenas and Giberti 1993; Sugiyama,
Mendoza and Quiroz 2020) (see Tables S7 and S8 in
Appendix S3). For the Wichís, an Indigenous Group living
mostly in the Dry Chaco but with some populations dwelling
in the Humid Chaco, there are several reports about using differ-
ent sources of water to quench thirst during dry periods, but no
report about using A. distichantha. It should be considered that
all these reports are from ethnographical studies carried out on
Wichí populations that inhabit the Dry Chaco (Arenas and
Giberti 1993; Suárez 2009; Suárez and Montani 2010).
The Chaco environment could be very harsh for those who
do not know where to find water during dry spells (Carlini
Carranza 2021). In the Humid Chaco, besides the
Indigenous Groups, we also found reports of water consump-
tion from the tank of this bromeliad by Travelers passing
through these areas with saline waters (Fiebrig and Rojas
1933), by Criollos when thirst plagues them far from any
town (Schulz 1963), as well as by Soldiers when exposed to
extreme thirst (Breithoff 2020). It should be noted at this
point that from the 16th to the twentieth century, in times of
conquest, colonization, and the wars of subjugation of the
Indigenous Groups and during the Chaco War (1932–1935)
between Paraguay and Bolivia, the Soldiers traveled usually
8 Journal of Ethnobiology 0(0)
on foot, and rarely on horseback, thus suffering from lack of
water. Many Paraguayan and Bolivian soldiers died of dehy-
dration during the Chaco War despite the presence of numer-
ous A. distichantha plants that retained rainwater in their
tanks.
The importance of this bromeliad species as a water reser-
voir is supported not only by a large number of reports (N =
85) but also by different sources (i.e., Explorers—naturalists,
Ethnographers, Historians, and Writers), and at different
periods from the eighteenth century to the present. For instance,
the stories about Criollos and Indigenous Groups written by
novelists (Tables S1 and S2 in Appendix S3) highlight the
importance of this bromeliad species during the dry periods.
Understanding the Reports of Consumption of the
Water Retained in the Tank
Several reports mentioned that the amount of water in the tank
is about half a liter (Table S3 in Appendix S3). Our results from
observational studies support these reports because some plants
could hold from 0.5 to 1.5 liters, and some large bromeliad
plants contained up to 2 liters. Moreover, we found that tank
water capacity depends on where the bromeliad is located. A
higher amount of water is retained in the tanks of medium to
large plants located at the edge of the forest. A similar pattern
has been observed for A. distichantha in previous studies
(Cavallero, López and Barberis 2009), as well as for other
tank bromeliads (Scarano et al. 2002).
There were contrasting reports about the amount and dura-
tion of the water inside the tank of A. distichantha plants,
ranging from a few days to several months (Table S6 in
Appendix S3). The amount of water retained inside the tank
of a bromeliad is given by the balance between inputs from
rainfall and outputs from evaporation and transpiration (Zotz
and Thomas 1999). Our observational studies showed that the
actual water volume is highly variable among sampling dates
and sites, which agrees with the infrequent rainfall regime of
the Chaco (Tomasini and Braunstein 2006). In addition, our
experimental study suggested that only when receiving frequent
rainfall, they will not dry out, which agrees with the comments
from several reports that say that sometimes the amount of
water inside the tanks was negligible or did not last for a
long time (Tables S3 and S6 in Appendix S3).
There were also distinct reports about water quality and tem-
perature (Table S5 in Appendix S3). Some reports mentioned
that the water inside the tank was kept cold despite high air tem-
perature, which agreed with our experimental study which
showed that when the tank is full the water keeps cold. Most
reports described water as pure, but others mentioned that
water could decompose rapidly. Our results showed that up to
58 g of decomposing organic matter (dry weight) could be
found in a single plant. In most plants water was pure but on
certain occasions, the water had a nauseating smell, probably
due to decomposition from a dead vertebrate inside the tank
(G. Montero; personal observation).
Potential Confusion of A. distichantha With Other
Bromeliad Species or Other Hydro-Reservoir Plants
It should be noted that there are no herbarium collections for
most bibliographic references mentioning the use of water
from A. distichantha. This is because of the large range of the
study area, the length of time considered, and the diversity of
reporters covered by our bibliographic search. The data from
botanists or ethnobotanists who worked in the field and col-
lected specimens are plausible, but the data from other chroni-
clers always cast some doubt. However, we are confident that
most references reporting consumption of water from tank bro-
meliads in the Gran Chaco region are undoubtedly referring to
A. distichantha, because this is the most frequent tank bro-
meliad, and the only terrestrial one in this area (Barberis et al.
2021). There are only two other tank bromeliads reported for
the Gran Chaco geographic region: Billbergia nutans and
Vriesea friburgensis (Kessler 2002; Schinini 2004; Vogt
2011), and the consumption of water from their tank has been
reported only for the latter epiphytic species (Fiebrig and
Rojas 1933). Thus, we consider that the probability of identifi-
cation errors, at least with this tank bromeliad species, would be
minimal.
For most references, we do not doubt that water was con-
sumed from the tank of A. distichantha plants, but some refer-
ences, despite correctly describing the water tank, also
mentioned some characteristics that corresponded to other bro-
meliad species (e.g., type of infructescence or fruit color)
(Dobrizhoffer 1967; Kerr 2015), or mentioned some other
uses of this bromeliad species (e.g., utilization of its fiber, the
chaguar) (Ambrosetti 1894; Page 1889) (see Appendix S1).
The reporters could have confused the bromeliad species
because they were not the people consuming the water,
because of the difficulty to identify the species, or because
the report occurred a long time after the observation.
Finally, some references mentioned the use of water from
the “caraguatá,” but it is not clear whether it was A. distichantha
because they mentioned that the liquid accumulated under-
ground (de Chazal 2017), under its leaves (Furlong Cardiff
1938), or it was obtained by sucking its roots (Breithoff
2020). In addition, sometimes it is doubtful whether this hap-
pened in the Chaco region (de Azara 2010).
Potential Decrease at Present in the Frequency of Use of
A. distichantha as a Water Source and its Implications
Our study shows that until 1930, during the period character-
ized by using natural resources from grasslands and forests
(Morello, Pengue and Rodríguez 2006), water consumption
from the tank of A. distichantha was a usual practice among
Indigenous Groups and Criollos that lived in a nomadic way
when water availability was scarce in the field. It was so impor-
tant for surviving in the semiarid climate of the Chaco, that
whole families of the Chamacoco Indigenous Group moved
to areas with A. distichantha colonies during the drought
Barberis et al.
season (Frič ová 2017). However, at present, in a period charac-
terized by the replacement of resources from natural ecosystems
to agriculture and cattle ranching (Baumann et al. 2017;
Fehlenberg et al. 2017; Morello, Pengue and Rodríguez
2006), it appears that people do not usually consume the
water retained in its tank (authors’ personal observation),
although further studies based on ethnobiological methods
(e.g., interviews or questionnaires) are needed to ensure this
statement. The decrease in the frequency of use of A, distichan-
tha as a water source could be related to changes in habits from
nomadism to a sedentary lifestyle in Indigenous Groups and
Criollos (Rodríguez Mir and Martínez Gandolfi 2020).
Indigenous Groups living in small villages frequently have
access to drinking water (Pacheco and Aragón 2022). Some
people have aljibes (i.e., cisterns under the courtyard, where
the rainwater from the roofs is collected), whereas others
obtain water from large communal tanks or from tajamares
(depressions dug to store rainwater) (von Hoyer and Godoy
2000). In addition, at present, there are different natural and
artificial water reservoirs in the field (e.g., tajamares, cattle
tanks), where people can get water during dry periods
(Cabrera et al. 2020; Weiler, Núñez and Silla 2020).
The practice of removing the A. distichantha plants for con-
suming the water inside their tanks may affect the population
structure and dynamics of this bromeliad species. In the past,
A. distichantha plants, like other terrestrial bromeliads, were
considered useful plants because they provided several ecosys-
tem services (Arenas 2004; Appendix S1). Even though many
plants were harvested for water consumption, the impacts of
Indigenous Groups on the population structure and dynamics
of this bromeliad species could have not been severe, because
they were nomads and their demographic density was lower,
so the bromeliad population may have easily recovered by
sexual and asexual reproduction (Barberis et al. 2020; Freire,
Barberis and Vesprini 2018).
At present, A. distichantha populations are threatened by the
substitution of forests for agriculture or cattle ranching
(Morello, Pengue and Rodríguez 2006). As this bromeliad
species is considered an ecological keystone species because
establishes numerous direct and indirect interactions with
fauna (Freire et al. 2021) and provides many ecosystem services
to humans (Appendix S1), the impact of their loss is unknown
and thus should be studied.
Water Consumption From the Tank of Other
Bromeliads in Other Neotropical Dry Areas
The use of tank bromeliads for quenching thirst has been
reported for other dry areas of the Neotropical region
(Gonçalves de Lima 1975 mentioned by Albuquerque et al.
2017; Hoehne 1937; see Table S9 in Appendix S3). It would
have been very important for hunters and Indigenous Groups
in the Caatingas of northeastern Brazil (da Cunha 1980). For
instance, the Sertanejos drank water from the tank of the
“gravatá” to survive during the war of the Canudos that
9
occurred in the Caatingas at the end of the nineteenth century
(França 2019). In this dry area, there are at least three tank bro-
meliads that could be used by these people: Aechmea bromelii-
folia (Islair et al. 2015), A. aquilega, and A. lingulata (Oliveira,
Prata and Pinto 2018). Likewise, in the dry forests of Oaxaca
(Mexico), native people drink the water retained in the tank
of epiphytic bromeliads to quench their thirst during fieldwork
(Villa Guzmán 2007). These reports of water consumption from
the tank of several bromeliads from different xerophytic forests
support the results from Aechmea distichantha in the Gran
Chaco.
Conclusions
Numerous ecosystem services are provided by bromeliads,
including supporting services, provisioning services, regulating
services, and cultural services (Bennett 2000; Ladino et al.
2019). However, the importance of water provision by tank
bromeliads for human survival during dry periods in semiarid
regions has been overlooked, and, to the best of our knowledge,
the present study is the first to highlight this.
The results of our literature survey on water consumption
from a tank bromeliad in a dry area highlight how the relative
importance of a plant species for providing ecosystem services
depends on the historical context. Until the end of the nine-
teenth century, A. distichantha was the main water resource
for people moving in the Eastern Gran Chaco to survive
during dry periods when most rivers and ponds were dried,
while at present, although further studies are needed, it
appears that they are almost not used. Therefore, ethnobotanical
or interdisciplinary studies are needed to understand whether
this tank bromeliad is still in use as a source of water, as well
as the supply of other ecosystem services. This information
would be valuable in helping to conserve this ecological key-
stone species (Freire et al. 2021).
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Universidad Nacional de Rosario, Argentina, for
providing facilities. IMB is a researcher at CONICET. Funding was
provided by CONICET, Argentina (PUE 22920160100043CO, and
11220170100680-CO) and Universidad Nacional de Rosario
(AGR-289 and AGR-290). A research permit was obtained from
Administración de Parques Nacionales (Argentina) to collect
Aechmea distichantha plants (Proyecto NEA415). They greatly appre-
ciate the constructive comments of Pastor Arenas and an anonymous
reviewer that helped to improve our manuscript.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
10
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
Adámoli, J. M. 1973. “Frecuencia, Confinamiento y Transgresividad
en Especies del Chaco Argentino.” Boletín de la Sociedad
Argentina de Botánica 15: 1–11.
Aguilar, F., M. Ava, and A. Vidal. 2000. El Agua, el Medio y las
Culturas Aborígenes. In Proyecto de Experimentación y
Provisión de Agua para Comunidades Aborígenes en la
Provincia de Formosa. Asociación para la Promoción de la
Cultura y el Desarrollo, Formosa, Argentina.
Albuquerque, U. P., M. A. Ramos, W. S. F. Júnior, and P. M. de
Medeiros. 2017. Ethnobotany for Beginners. Cham, Switzerland:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52872-4.
Alvarez Arnesi, E., I. M. Barberis, and J. L. Vesprini. 2018.
“Distribución de epífitas vasculares sobre cuatro especies arbóreas
en un bosque xerofítico del Chaco Húmedo, Argentina.” Ecología
Austral 28: 480–495. https://doi.org/10.25260/EA.18.28.3.0.694.
Amarilla, J. P. 2006. Pueblo Angaité: Memoria Histórica. Asunción,
Paraguay: Centro de Estudios Antropológicos, Universidad
Católica Nuestra Señora de la Asunción.
Ambrosetti, J. B. 1894. “Apuntes sobre los Indios Chunupíes (Chaco
Austral) y Pequeño Vocabulario.” Anales de la Sociedad Científica
Argentina 37: 151–160.
Arenas, P. 1981. “Bromeliaceae.” In Etnobotánica Lengua-Maskoy,
edited by P. Arenas, 136–145. Buenos Aires, Argentina:
Fundación para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura.
Arenas, P. 1983. “Nombres y usos de las plantas por los indígenas
Maka del Chaco Boreal.” Parodiana 2: 131–229.
Arenas, P. 2004. Las Bromeliáceas en la Vida de los Nativos del Gran
Chaco. Paper presented at the 2nd Congreso Argentino de
Orquideología y Conservación and 1st Jornadas Argentinas sobre
Bromeliáceas. Montecarlos, Misiones, Argentina.
Arenas, P. 2022. “Una Síntesis sobre los Habitantes del Gran Chaco,
su Pasado, sus Transformaciones y su Actualidad.” In Naturaleza
e historias del Gran Chaco Gualamba, edited by D. Brown, and
D. Ramadori, 31–42. Yerba Buena, Argentina: Ediciones del
Subtrópico.
Arenas, P., and S. C. Arroyo. 1988. “Las Especies Comestibles del
Género Bromelia (Bromeliaceae) del Gran Chaco.” Candollea 43:
645–660.
Arenas, P., and G. C. Giberti. 1993. “Etnobotánica de Jacaratia
corumbensis O. Kuntze (Caricaceae) y Reseña sobre Otras
Plantas Acuíferas del Gran Chaco.” Parodiana 8: 185–204.
Arenas, P. 1997a. “Las Bromeliáceas Textiles Utilizadas por los
Indígenas del Gran Chaco.” Parodiana 10: 113–119.
Arenas, P. 1997b. “Las Fuentes Actuales y del Pasado para la
Etnobotánica del Gran Chaco.” Monografías del Jardín Botánico
de Córdoba 5: 17–25.
Balducci, F., P. E. Galligani, and J. I. Sartori. 2016. “Tejiendo Redes:
El Uso de Fuentes Históricas y Etnográficas para el Abordaje del
Registro Arqueobotánico en la Planicie de Inundación del Río
Paraná.” Anuario de Arqueología 8: 79–99.
Barberis, I. M., W. B. Batista, E. F. Pire, J. P. Lewis, and R. J. C. León.
2002. “Woody Population Distribution and Environmental
Heterogeneity in a Chaco Forest, Argentina.” Journal of
Vegetation Science 13: 607–614. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-
1103.2002.tb02088.x.
Journal of Ethnobiology 0(0)
Barberis, I. M., S. Boccanelli, and C. Alzugaray. 2011. “Terrestrial
Bromeliads as Seed Accumulation Microsites in a Xerophytic
Forest of Southern Chaco, Argentina.” Bosque 32: 57–63. https://
doi.org/10.4067/S0717-92002011000100007.
Barberis, I. M., G. Klekailo, J. Albertengo, J. I. Cárcamo,
J. M. Cárcamo, and L. Galetti. 2020. “Ramet Demography of
Aechmea distichantha Lem. (Bromeliaceae) in Two Contrasting
Years in the Understory and Open Areas of a South American
Xerophytic Forest.” Rodriguésia 71: e00262018.00262020.
https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-7860202071014.
Barberis, I. M., and J. P. Lewis. 2005. “Heterogeneity of Terrestrial
Bromeliad Colonies and Regeneration of Acacia praecox
(Fabaceae) in a Humid-subtropical-Chaco Forest, Argentina.”
Revista de Biología Tropical 53: 377–385.
Barberis, I. M., V. Y. Mogni, L. J. Oakley, C. Vogt, and D. E. Prado.
2021. “Biogeography of Different Life Forms of the Southernmost
Neotropical Tank Bromeliad.” Journal of Biogeography 48: 2085–
2097. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.14137.
Barberis, I. M., E. F. Pire, and J. P. Lewis. 1998. “Spatial
Heterogeneity and Woody Species Distribution in a Schinopsis bal-
ansae (Anacardiaceae) Forest of the Southern Chaco, Argentina.”
Revista de Biología Tropical 46: 515–524.
Barberis, I. M., P. S. Torres, W. B. Batista, G. Magra, L. Galetti, and J.
P. Lewis. 2014. “Two Bromeliad Species with Contrasting
Functional Traits Partition the Understory Space in a
Southamerican Xerophytic Forest: Correlative Evidence of
Environmental Control and Limited Dispersal.” Plant Ecology
215: 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-013-0261-3.
Bates, D., M. Mächler, B. Bolker, and S. Walker. 2015. “Fitting
Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4.” Journal of
Statistical Software 67: 1–48. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.
1406.5823.
Baumann, M., C. Israel, M. Piquer-Rodríguez, G. Gavier-Pizarro,
J. N. Volante, and T. Kuemmerle. 2017. “Deforestation and
Cattle Expansion in the Paraguayan Chaco 1987–2012.” Regional
Environmental Change 17: 1179–1191. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10113-017-1109-5.
Bennett, B. 2000. “Ethnobotany of Bromeliaceae.” In Bromeliaceae.
Profile of an Adaptive Radiation, edited by D. Benzing, 586–608.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Benzing, D. H. 2000. Bromeliaceae. Profile of an Adaptive Radiation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bernand-Muñoz, C., and L. Sebag. 2015. Les Ayoré du Chaco
Septentrional: Étude Critique à Partir des Notes de Lucien
Sebag. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter, Inc.
Boggiani, G. 1894. “I Ciamacoco.” Bollettino della Società Geografica
Italiana 8: 466–510.
Braunstein, J. 2005. “Los Pueblos Indígenas del Gran Chaco.” Mundo
de Antes 4: 127–137.
Breithoff, E. 2020. Conflict, Heritage and World-Making in the
Chaco: War at the End of the Worlds? London, UK: UCL Press.
https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781787358065.
Bucher, E. H. 1982. “Chaco and Caatinga—South American Arid
Savannas, Woodlands and Thickets.” In Ecology of Tropical
Savannas, edited by B. J. Huntley, and B. H. Walker, 48–79.
Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.
Cabrera, A. J. N., W. Harder, D. P. Bareiro, E. Servin, and V. L. Basabe
Ramírez. 2020. Sistemas de Captación y Almacenamiento de Agua
en el Chaco Central. Asunción: Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias,
Universidad Nacional de Asunción.
Barberis et al.
Carlini Carranza, R. I. 2021. “La Guerra del Chaco y la Sanidad Militar
Paraguaya. Prácticas Médicas y Abastecimiento de Agua
1932-1935.” ¡Calacuerda! 2: 67–78.
Cavallero, L., D. López, and I. M. Barberis. 2009. “Morphological
Variation of Aechmea distichantha (Bromeliaceae) in a Chaco
Forest: Habitat and Size-Related Effects.” Plant Biology 11: 379–
391. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1438-8677.2008.00123.x.
Cogliatti-Carvalho, L., T. C. Rocha-Pessoa, A. F. Nunes-Freitas, and
C. F. D. Rocha. 2010. “Volume de Água Armazenado no Tanque
de Bromélias, em Restingas da Costa Brasileira.” Acta Botanica
Brasilica 24: 84–95. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-33062010000
100009.
Cordeu, E. J. 2009. “La Ambivalencia del Antes y el Después: Los
Usos del Tiempo en una Versión Reciente de la Saga de
Basëbüke de los Indios Ishír (chamacoco).” Revista Española de
Antropología Americana 39: 189–208.
da Cunha, E. 1980. Los Sertones. Caracas, Venezuela: Biblioteca
Ayacucho.
de Azara, F. 2010. Descripción e Historia de Paraguay. Barcelona,
Spain: Linkgua.
de Chazal, A. 2017. “La Guerra del Chaco en Perspectiva Indígena:
Chamanes y No-Humanos en el Campo de Batalla. Una
Aproximación a las Memorias Qom en Torno al Conflicto.” Folia
Histórica del Nordeste 28: 29–51. https://doi.org/10.30972/fhn.
0281775.
Dobrizhoffer, M. 1967. Historia de los Abipones. Vol. 1 & 2.
Resistencia, Argentina: Universidad Nacional del Nordeste,
Facultad de Humanidades, Departamento de Historia.
Fehlenberg, V., M. Baumann, N. I. Gasparri, M. Piquer-Rodriguez,
G. Gavier-Pizarro, and T. Kuemmerle. 2017. “The Role of
Soybean Production as an Underlying Driver of Deforestation in
the South American Chaco.” Global Environmental Change 45:
24–34. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.05.
001.
Fiebrig, K., and T. Rojas. 1933. “Ensayo Fitogeográfico sobre el
Chaco Boreal.” Revista del Jardín Botánico y Museo de Historia
Natural del Paraguay 3: 3–87.
França, F. 2019. Sertões à Flora: as Espécies Vegetais no Massacre de
Belo Monte. Master’s Thesis, Universidade Estadual de Feira de
Santana, Feira de Santana. Brazil.
Freire, R. M. 2018. Efectos del Hábitat sobre la Estructura de
Ensambles de Artrópodos Presentes en el Fitotelma de Aechmea
distichantha. Doctoral’s Thesis, Universidad Nacional de Rosario,
Rosario, Argentina.
Freire, R. M., I. M. Barberis, and J. L. Vesprini. 2018. “Reproductive
Traits and Floral Visitors of Aechmea distichantha Plants Growing
in Different Habitats of a South American Xerophytic Forest.”
Rodriguésia 69: 385–396. https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-78602
01869210.
Freire, R. M., G. A. Montero, J. L. Vesprini, and I. M. Barberis. 2021.
“Review of the Interactions of an Ecological Keystone Species,
Aechmea distichantha Lem. (Bromeliaceae), With the Associated
Fauna.” Journal of Natural History 56: 283–303. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00222933.2021.1902010.
Frič ová, Y. 2017. “Paraguayan Indians Chamacoco.” In Identity,
Tradition and Revitalisation of American Indian Culture, edited
by B. Pů tová, 60–73. Prague, Czech Republic: Karolinum Press.
Furlong Cardiff, G. 1938. Entre los Abipones del Chaco: Seqún
Noticias de los Misioneros Jesuítas, Martín Dobrizhoffer,
Domingo Muriel, José Brigniel, Joaquín Camaño, José Jolís,
11
Pedro Juan Andreu, José Cardiel y Vicente Olcina. Talleres
Gráficos“San Pabl,” Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Godoy, F. M. d. R., L. Vicente-Silva, M. V. Dantas-Queiroz,
C. Palma-Silva, and G. M. Paggi. 2023. “Genetic Diversity and
Population Structure of Aechmea distichantha (Bromeliaceae), a
Widely Geographically Distributed Species in South America.”
Plant Systematics and Evolution 309: 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00606-023-01841-7.
Gonçalves de Lima, O. 1975. Pulque, Balche e Pajauaru—na Etnobiologia
das Bebidas e dos Alimentos Fermentados. Recife: UFPE.
Grubb, W. B. 1911. An Unknown People in an Unknown Land: An
Account of the Life and Customs of the Lengua Indians of the
Paraguayan Chaco, With Adventures and Experiences Met with
during Twenty Year’’ Pioneering and Exploration Amongst
Them. London, UK: Seeley.
Hargis, H., S. G. Gotsch, P. Porada, G. W. Moore, B. Ferguson, and
J. T. Van Stan. 2019. “Arboreal Epiphytes in the Soil–
Atmosphere Interface: How Often are the Biggest “Buckets” in
the Canopy Empty?” Geosciences 9: 342. https://doi.org/10.3390/
geosciences9080342.
Hirsch, S., P. Canova, and M. Biocca. 2021. “Introduction. The Gran
Chaco of South America in Transnational and Multidisciplinary
Perspectives.” In Reimagining the Gran Chaco: Identities,
Politics, and the Environment in South America, edited by
S. Hirsch, P. Canova, and M. Biocca, 1–27. Gainsville:
University Press of Florida.
Hoehne, F. C. 1937. Botanica e Agricultura no Brasil no Seculo XVI.
São Paulo, Brazil: Companhia Editora Nacional.
Islair, P., K. S. Carvalho, F. C. Ferreira, and J. Zina. 2015. “Bromélias
na Caatinga: Um Oásis para os Invertebrados.” Biotemas 28: 67–
77. https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-7925.2015v28n1p67.
Kerr, J. G. 1892. “The Gran Chaco.” The Scottish Geographical
Magazine 8: 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/14702549208553896.
Kerr, J. G. 2015. A Naturalist in the Gran Chaco. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Kessler, M. 2002. “Environmental Patterns and Ecological Correlates
of Range Size Among Bromeliad Communities of Andean Forests
in Bolivia.” The Botanical Review 68: 100–127. https://doi.org/10.
1663/0006-8101(2002)068[0100:EPAECO]2.0.CO;2.
Ladino, G., F. Ospina-Bautista, J. Estévez Varón, L. Jerabkova, and
P. Kratina. 2019. “Ecosystem Services Provided by Bromeliad
Plants: A Systematic Review.” Ecology and Evolution 9: 7360–7372.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5296.
Lévi-Strauss, C. 1952. “The Use of Wild Plants in Tropical South
America.” Economic Botany 6: 252–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/
bf02985068.
Lewis, J. P. 1991. “Three Levels of Floristical Variation in the Forests
of Chaco.” Journal of Vegetation Science 2: 125–130. https://doi.
org/10.2307/3235905.
Lewis, J. P., E. F. Pire, and I. M. Barberis. 1997. “Structure,
Physiognomy and Floristic Composition of a Schinopsis balansae
(Anacardiaceae) Forest in the Southern Chaco, Argentina.”
Revista de Biología Tropical 45: 1013–1020c. https://doi.org/10.
15517/RBT.V45I3.32003.
Males, J., and H. Griffiths. 2017. “Functional Types in the
Bromeliaceae: Relationships With Drought-Resistance Traits and
Bioclimatic Distributions.” Functional Ecology 31: 1868–1880.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12900.
Martinson, G. O., F. A. Werner, C. Scherber, R. Conrad, M. D. Corre,
H. Flessa, and E. Veldkamp. 2010. “Methane Emissions From
12
Tank Bromeliads in Neotropical Forests.” Nature Geoscience 3:
766–769. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo980.
Martínez, G. J., A. M. Beccaglia, and A. Llinares. 2014. “Problemática
Hídrico-Sanitaria, Percepción Local y Calidad de Fuentes de Agua
en una Comunidad Toba (Qom) del Impenetrable (Chaco,
Argentina).” Salud Colectiva 10: 225–242.
Martínez Crovetto, R. 1964. “Estudios Etnobotánicos. I. Nombres de
Plantas y su Utilidad, según los Indios Tobas del Este del
Chaco.” Bonplandia 1: 279–333. https://doi.org/https://www.jstor.
org/stable/41941095.
Martínez Crovetto, R. 1965. “Estudios Etnobotánicos. II. Nombres de
Plantas y su Utilidad, según los Indios Vilelas del Chaco.”
Bonplandia 2: 1–28. https://doi.org/https://www.jstor.org/stable/
41941098.
Martínez Crovetto, R. 1980. “Estudios Fitosociológicos en el
Sotobosque de los Quebrachales del Noroeste de Corrientes
(República Argentina).” Boletín de la Sociedad Argentina de
Botánica 19: 315–329.
Martínez Crovetto, R. 2014. “Algunos Datos sobre Etnobotánica
Mocoví.” Bonplandia 23: 119–131. https://doi.org/https://www.
jstor.org/stable/26413060.
Martínez Sarasola, C. 2013. Nuestros Paisanos los Indios. Buenos
Aires, Argentina: Del Nuevo Extremo.
Métraux, A. 1944. “Estudios de Etnografía Chaquense.” Anales del
Instituto de Etnografía Americana 5: 263–314.
Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería de la Provincia de Santa Fe.
1971. Colonización de la Cuña Boscosa Santafesina. Reseña
General. Santa Fe, Argentina: Ministerio de Agricultura y
Ganadería de la Provincia de Santa Fe.
Miraglia, L. 1976. “Caza, Recolección y Agricultura entre Indígenas
del Paraguay.” Suplemento Antropológico 11: 9–91.
Montero, G., C. Feruglio, and I. M. Barberis. 2010. “The Phytotelmata
and Foliage Macrofauna Assemblages of a Bromeliad Species in
Different Habitats and Seasons.” Insect Conservation and
Diversity 3: 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4598.2009.
00077.x.
Morello, J., and J. M. Adámoli. 1974. Las grandes unidades de
vegetación y ambiente del Chaco argentino. Segunda parte:
Vegetación y ambiente de la provincia del Chaco. Buenos Aires,
Argentina: Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria.
Morello, J., S. D. Matteucci, A. F. Rodríguez, and M. E. Silva. 2012.
Ecorregiones y Complejos Ecosistémicos Argentinos. Buenos
Aires, Argentina: Orientación Gráfica Editora.
Morello, J., W. Pengue, and A. F. Rodríguez. 2006. “Etapas de Uso de
los Recursos y Desmantelamiento de la Biota del Chaco.” In La
Situación Ambiental Argentina 2005, edited by A. D. Brown,
U. Martínez Ortiz, M. Acerbi, and J. Corcuera, 83–90. Buenos
Aires, Argentina: Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina.
Oliveira, E. V. d. S., A. P. d. N. Prata, and A. d. S. Pinto. 2018.
“Caracterização e Atributos da Vegetação Herbácea em um
Fragmento de Caatinga no Estado de Sergipe, Brasil.” Hoehnea
45: 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1590/2236-8906-70/2017.
Pacheco, S., and R. Aragón. 2022. “Una mirada sobre las condiciones
socio-ambientales de las comunidades originarias.” In Grupos
étnicos y comunidades originarias del norte argentino, edited by
M. Malizia, and M. García Moritán, 35–42. Yerba Buena,
Argentina: Ediciones del Subtrópico.
Page, J. 1889. “The Gran Chaco and its Rivers.” Proceedings of the
Royal Geographical Society and Monthly Record of Geography
11: 129–152. https://doi.org/10.2307/1801354.
Journal of Ethnobiology 0(0)
Pereira, T. A., S. A. Vieira, R. S. Oliveira, P. A. P. Antiqueira, G.
H. Migliorini, and G. Q. Romero. 2022. “Local Drivers of
Heterogeneity in a Tropical Forest: Epiphytic Tank Bromeliads
Affect the Availability of Soil Resources and Conditions and
Indirectly Affect the Structure of Seedling Communities.”
Oecologia 199: 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-022-
05179-8.
Prado, D. E. 1993. “What is the Gran Chaco Vegetation in South
America? I. A Review. Contribution to the Study of the Flora
and Vegetation of the Chaco. V.” Candollea 48: 145–172.
Ragonese, A. E., and J. C. Castiglioni. 1970. “La Vegetación del
parque Chaqueño.” Boletín de la Sociedad Argentina de Botánica
11 (Suplemento): 133–166.
Ratter, J. A., J. F. Ribeiro, and S. Bridgewater. 1997. “The Brazilian
Cerrado Vegetation and Threats to its Biodiversity.” Annals of
Botany 80: 223–230. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.1997.0469.
R Core Team. 2022. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical
Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical
Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
Renshaw, J. 2002. The Indians of the Paraguayan Chaco: Identity and
Economy. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press.
Rocha, C., L. Cogliatti-Carvalho, D. Almeida, and A. Freitas. 2000.
“Bromeliads: Biodiversity Amplifiers.” Journal of the Bromeliad
Society 50: 81–83.
Rodríguez Mir, J., and A. Martínez Gandolfi. 2020. “Procesos
Históricos de Adaptación y Transformación Indígena en el Chaco
Argentino: Del Nomadismo al Sedentarismo.” Revista del Museo
de La Plata 5: 563–581. https://doi.org/10.24215/25456377e130.
Scarano, F. R., H. M. Duarte, G. Rôças, S. M. B. Barreto, E. F. Amado,
F. Reinert, T. Wendt, A. Mantovani, H. R. P. Lima, and C.
F. Barros. 2002. “Acclimation or Stress Symptom? An Integrated
Study of Intraspecific Variation in the Clonal Plant Aechmea bro-
meliifolia, a Widespread CAM Tank-Bromeliad.” Botanical
Journal of the Linnean Society 140: 391–401. https://doi.org/10.
1046/j.1095-8339.2002.00112.x.
Scarpa, G. F. 2004. “Medicinal Plants Used by the Criollos of
Northwestern Argentine Chaco.” Journal of Ethnopharmacology
91: 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2003.12.003.
Schinini, A. 2004. Las Bromeliáceas del Parque Nacional Mburucuyá
(pp. 2). Resistencia, Chaco: Universidad Nacional del Nordeste.
Schmeda-Hirschmann, G. 1998. “Etnobotánica Ayoreo. Contribución
al Estudio de la Flora y Vegetación del Chaco. XI.” Candollea 53:
1–50.
Schulz, A. G. 1963. “Plantas y Frutos Comestibles de la Región
Chaqueña.” Revista Agronómica del Noroeste Argentino 4: 57–83.
Smith, L. B., and R. J. Downs. 1979. “Bromelioideae (Bromeliaceae).”
Flora Neotropica Monograph 14 (2): 1493–2142.
Srivastava, D. S., R. Céréghino, M. K. Trzcinski,
A. A. M. MacDonald, N. A. C. Marino, and D. Acosta Mercado,
… A. B. A. Campos. 2020. “Ecological Response to Altered
Rainfall Differs Across the Neotropics.” Ecology 101: e02984.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2984.
Suárez, M. E. 2009. “El Análisis de Narrativas en Etnobotánica: El
“Yuchán” (Ceiba chodatii, Bombacaceae) en el Discurso de los
Wichís del Chaco Semiárido Salteño, Argentina.” Boletín de la
Sociedad Argentina de Botánica 44: 405–419.
Suárez, M. E., and R. M. Montani. 2010. “Vernacular Knowledge of
Bromeliaceae Species among the Wichí People of the Gran
Chaco, Argentina.” Journal of Ethnobiology 30: 265–288. https://
doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-30.2.265.
Barberis et al.
Sugiyama, M. S., M. Mendoza, and I. Quiroz. 2020. “Ethnobotanical
Knowledge Encoded in Weenhayek Oral Tradition.” Journal of
Ethnobiology 40: 39–55. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-40.1.3.
Tomasini, A., and J. Braunstein. 2006. “Geografía y Sociedades
Tradicionales del Gran Chaco.” Folia Histórica del Nordeste 16:
173–185. https://doi.org/10.30972/fhn.0163428.
Villa Guzmán, D. M. 2007. Estudio Etnobotánico de las Bromelias
epífitas en el Municipio de Santa Catarina Ixtepeji en la Sierra
Norte de Oaxaca. Master’sThesis, Instituto Politécnico Nacional,
Oaxaca de Juárez, Mexico.
Vogt, C. 2011. “Composición de la Flora Vascular del Chaco Boreal,
Paraguay I. Pteridophyta y Monocotiledoneae.” Steviana 3: 13–47.
https://doi.org/10.56152/StevianaFacenV3A2_2011.
von Becker, H. 1941. “Lengua und Kaiotuguí. Indianerstudien im
Chaco Boreal. Erster Teil.” Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 73: 358–415.
https://doi.org/https://www.jstor.org/stable/25839952.
von Hoyer, M., and E. Godoy. 2000. “Methods for the Improvement of
the Water Supply in the Chaco of Paraguay.” Episodes 23: 29–31.
https://doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/2000/v23i1/006.
13
Weiler, A., K. Núñez, and F. Silla. 2020. “Forest Matters: Use of
Water Reservoirs by Mammal Communities in Cattle Ranch
Landscapes in the Paraguayan Dry Chaco.” Global Ecology and
Conservation 2: e01103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.
e01103.
Zizka, A., J. Azevedo, E. Leme, B. Neves, A. F. da Costa, D. Caceres,
and G. Zizka. 2020. “Biogeography and Conservation Status of the
Pineapple Family (Bromeliaceae).” Diversity and Distributions 26:
183–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13004.
Zotz, G. 2016. Plants on Plants–The Biology of Vascular Epiphytes.
Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Zotz, G., M. Leja, Y. Aguilar-Cruz, and H. J. Einzmann. 2020. “How
Much Water is in the Tank? An Allometric Analysis with 205
Bromeliad Species.” Flora 264: 151557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
flora.2020.151557.
Zotz, G., and V. Thomas. 1999. “How Much Water is in the
Tank? Model Calculations for Two Epiphytic Bromeliads.”
Annals of Botany 83: 183–192. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.1998.
0809.