Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29890995›Full record

ArticleJournal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine2018

Cross-cultural comparison of plant use knowledge in Baitadi and Darchula districts, Nepal Himalaya.

Ripu M Kunwar, Maria Fadiman, Mary Cameron, Rainer W Bussmann, Khum B Thapa-Magar, Bhagawat Rimal, Prabhat Sapkota

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Ripu M KunwarEthnobotanical Society of Nepal, GPO Box 19225, New Road, Kathmandu, 44600, Nepal. ripukunwar@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9303-0932
Maria FadimanDepartment of Geosciences, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, USA.
Mary CameronDepartment of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, USA.
Rainer W BussmannIlia State University, Tbilisi, Georgia.
Khum B Thapa-MagarDepartment of Forest and Rangeland Stewardship, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, USA.
Bhagawat RimalInstitute of Remote Sensing and Digital Earth, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Haidian, Beijing, China.
Prabhat SapkotaDepartment of Forest, District Forest Office, Baitadi, Farwest Nepal, Nepal.

Funding

FAU dissertation support 2018Rufford Foundation 21198-2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study seeks to better understand the human-nature interface and to measure the variability of plant use knowledge among cultures, through inter- and intracultural analyses. We compared plant collection, use, and management of two culturally distinct groups (Baitadi and Darchula) of the Nepal Himalaya. They inhabit different physiographic regions, yet share the same ecological landscape, environmental resources, and livelihood challenges. We hypothesized that the elderly, native, and traditional healers living in remote and rural places possess more diverse and detailed knowledge of plant use and conservation than young, non-native, and non-healers.

methodsA total of 106 people were contacted for interviews, and 100 (68 men and 32 women) agreed to share ethnobotanical, demographic, and socioeconomic information. They were asked about the three most important plants for their socioeconomic benefit, culture, primary health care, and livelihood.

resultsThe knowledge of plant collection, use, and its transfer was strongly associated with the cultural heritage whereas the ecogeographical condition influences the ways in which plants are collected and used. The divergent knowledge of plant collection, use, and transfer between the participants of Baitadi and Darchula was significantly (p < 0.001) attributed to the cultural heritage of the area. The low consensus of plant use (FiC 0-0.87; IASc 0-0.67) between Baitadi and Darchula district could be due to cultural divergence, varied accessibility, physiographic heterogeneity, and biodiversity uniqueness.

conclusionsDifferences in plant use knowledge may help in diversifying the strategies of plant use in accordance with the livelihood, culture, and environment, and therefore, more studies measuring these aspects can further the ecosystem and cultural health of the region.

Indexed as

EthnobotanyKnowledgePlants, MedicinalCross-Cultural ComparisonCultureEcosystemFemaleHumansMaleNepalConsensusIntraculturalMedicinal plantsNepal HimalayaTranshumanceUse reports

Identifiers

PMID29890995
PMCPMC5996461

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.