Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33823912›Full record

ArticleJournal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine2021

Traditional food plants of the upper Aswa River catchment of northern Uganda-a cultural crossroads.

Eliot T Masters

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

1 author.

Eliot T MastersWorld Agroforestry (ICRAF), Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NMIT), 322 Hardy Street, Nelson, 7010, New Zealand. Eliot.Masters@nmit.ac.nz.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5299-5415

Funding

USAID 617-G-00-98-00001-00
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the parkland agroforestry system of northern Uganda, smallholder farming households rely on a diversity of plant species to fulfil their nutritional requirements, many of which also serve a range of medicinal, cultural, and livelihood functions. The purpose of the study was to assemble an inventory of indigenous plant species used as food in four districts within the Aswa River catchment of northern Uganda, and to document their utilization and management by rural communities.

methodsFrom July 1999 to August 2000, a series of 61 community-based focus group discussions on the utilization of plant biodiversity were conducted in the vernacular language at 34 sites in four districts of northern Uganda, with participation by key informants self-selected on basis of their technical knowledge and personal interest. Of these, 232 respondents subsequently contributed to a collection of herbarium specimens, which were submitted to the Makerere University Herbarium for identification. On receipt of each specimen collected, a structured interview was conducted to document the botanical, ecological, seasonal, and alimentary attributes of each identified taxon, and details of its processing and utilization by the community from which it was obtained. The data analysis was undertaken during 2019 and 2020, including statistical tests to assess the relative importance of the cited taxa using the Relative Importance Index (RI), and to determine the similarity of edible plant use between the four cultures using the Jaccard Index of similarity (JI).

resultsKey informant interviews yielded 1347 use reports (URs) for 360 identified specimens of 88 indigenous edible plant species. The data describes patterns of use of indigenous edible plants of four cultures of the Aswa River catchment of northern Uganda. RI scores ranged from 0.93 to 0.11, with fruit trees occupying the top 25 taxa (RI 0.45 and above). Jaccard similarity scores ranged from 25.8% between Lango and Acholi, to 15.8% between Acholi and Ethur, indicating that cultural factors appear to be more significant than shared ancestry as determinants of cultural similarity of plant use.

conclusionsThe data constitute an inventory of on-farm plant species, including cultivated, semi-cultivated, and wild plants, integrated into a parkland agroforestry system in which useful trees and other plant species are sustained and managed under cultivation. Agricultural and on-farm plant biodiversity may be seen as a food security resource, and a nutritional buffer against increasing risks and stressors on low-input smallholder agriculture. Further studies should assess the intra-species biodiversity of these resources, with respect to farmer-valued traits and vernacular (folk) classification systems.

Indexed as

BiodiversityPlants, EdibleEthnobotanyRiversUgandaAgro-biodiversityFood securityParkland agroforestry systemTraditional food plantsUnderutilized species

Identifiers

PMID33823912
PMCPMC8022409

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.