ArticleJournal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine2018
Ethnobotany in a coastal environmental protected area: shifts in plant use in two communities in southern Brazil.
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 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The influence of socioeconomic factors on the knowledge of reptiles and mammals in the Lençóis Maranhenses National Park, Northeast Brazil.Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine · 2025Article
- Knowledge in motion: temporal dynamics of wild food plant use in the Polish-Lithuanian-Belarusian border region.Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine · 2024Article
- What interferes with conducting free lists? A comparative ethnobotanical experiment.Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe investigated local knowledge of plants in terms of plant use shifts and losses, in two coastal communities within a protected area in southern Brazil. Our hypothesis is that people's livelihoods are associated with different ethnobotanical knowledge, and changes in these activities can reflect shifts in ethnobotanical knowledge such as stopping using some plants.
methodsWe interviewed 125 inhabitants after prior informed consent, asking her/him about their socioeconomic profile and to free list the plants they know. The free lists were analyzed by frequency of cited plants. To compare averages of cited plants and age in both communities, we used the Wilcoxon test with a significance of 5%. Spearman correlation was tested with number of plants cited in the past and the interviewees' age. Permanence and change in economic activities in each community were represented using a graph and compared through a chi-squared test with a significance of 5%. Qualitative analyses of the interviews and a field diary were used to analyze driving forces for the abandonment of used plants.
resultsWe identified 231 plant species that were currently used mainly for food and medicine. Despite being in a protected area, most of the cited plants were exotic and cultivated in home gardens. We do not confirm the hypothesis that changes in livelihoods are reflected in the plants used; however, qualitative analyses showed potential drivers for shifts and losses of plant use. "Environmental law" and "protected area" were the drivers most related to the abandonment of plant use.
conclusionsWhile recognizing the importance of the protected area to maintain local people and their traditions, we documented a shift in plant use that is mainly correlated to construction activities that disappeared from daily practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.