Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30737435›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Local agro-pastoralists' perspectives on forage species diversity, habitat distributions, abundance trends and ecological drivers for sustainable livestock production in West Africa.

John-Baptist S N Naah, Boris Braun

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Modeling of Cowpea (Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    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

2 authors.

John-Baptist S N NaahInstitute of Geography, University of Cologne, Albertus Magnus Platz, D-50923, Cologne, Germany. jeanlebaptist@yahoo.co.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-0628-9602
Boris BraunInstitute of Geography, University of Cologne, Albertus Magnus Platz, D-50923, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the importance of local ecological knowledge of forage plants, there has been little discussion on how local agro-pastoralists perceive forage species diversity, abundance trends, habitat distributions and ecological drivers influencing changing abundance trends over time in rural West Africa's savannas. In estimating, assessing and investigating the ecological variables, we performed elaborate ethnobotanical surveys in seven villages in northern Ghana and nine villages in southern-central Burkina Faso. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, bivariate correlation analysis and cognitive salience index calculations to disentangle the dynamics of local responses to ecological variables considered in this study. Our results revealed that agro-pastoralists exhibited extensive knowledge on forage species diversity, habitat types, abundance trends and ecological drivers. According to agro-pastoralists interviewed, about 82 percent of all forage species known to them were commonly available in local landscapes, while a majority of our interviewees indicated that available forage resources have shown a gradually increasing trend over the past few years. Rainfall variability, tree cutting and drought were the topmost perceived threats causing changes in the trends of forage species abundance. Given our findings, local perceptions of agro-pastoralists could have substantial practical implications in favor of forage-related biodiversity conservation and sustainable livestock production.

Indexed as

Animal HusbandryAnimalsBiodiversityBurkina FasoConservation of Natural ResourcesDroughtsEcosystemGhanaLivestockPoaceaeTrees

Identifiers

PMID30737435
PMCPMC6368564

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.