Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35183193›Full record

ArticleJournal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine2022

Local perception of ecosystem services and their conservation in Sudanian savannas of Burkina Faso (West Africa).

Assétou Nabaloum, Dethardt Goetze, Amadé Ouédraogo, Stefan Porembski, Adjima Thiombiano

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 2022. 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
18.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Assétou NabaloumLaboratory of Plant Biology and Ecology, University Joseph Ki-Zerbo, 03 BP 7021, Ouagadougou 03, Burkina Faso. asnab2000@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2855-5169
Dethardt GoetzeInstitute of Biological Sciences, Department of Botany, University of Rostock, 18051, Rostock, Germany.
Amadé OuédraogoLaboratory of Plant Biology and Ecology, University Joseph Ki-Zerbo, 03 BP 7021, Ouagadougou 03, Burkina Faso.
Stefan PorembskiInstitute of Biological Sciences, Department of Botany, University of Rostock, 18051, Rostock, Germany.
Adjima ThiombianoLaboratory of Plant Biology and Ecology, University Joseph Ki-Zerbo, 03 BP 7021, Ouagadougou 03, Burkina Faso.
Université Joseph Ki-Zerbo · BFUniversity of Rostock · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextIn Burkina Faso, Sudanian savannas are important ecosystems for conservation of plant diversity. Due to desertification and insecurity, population migration from the North has increased human density and anthropogenic pressure on southern savannas. This study aims to investigate knowledge of local populations on ecosystem services (ES) and perception of their conservation.

methodIndividual semi-structured interviews about knowledge on ES and ecosystem conservation issues were conducted. Informants were selected according to sociocultural groups and sex in three areas of different land use intensity: the communal area of Dano (CAD), the Total Wildlife Reserve of Bontioli (TWRB) and the Game Ranch of Nazinga (GRN). The use value and vulnerability index of each plant species were determined. A cluster analysis and a principal component analysis were carried out to identify the particular knowledge of different ethnic groups.

resultsOverall, 163 plant species were cited for fifteen ES. Provisioning services were most frequently cited (100%), regulating services second most frequently (92.47%). Entire plants were exclusively used for ES with non-material benefits (protection against wind, for shading, soil fertility, erosion prevention, tourism and religion). The ten species contributing most to ES provision were Vitellaria paradoxa, Parkia biglobosa, Diospyros mespiliformis, Adansonia digitata, Lannea microcarpa, Faidherbia albida, Khaya senegalensis, Afzelia africana, Ficus sycomorus, Pterocarpus erinaceus. Seven of them were identified as highly vulnerable. Around GRN, migrants and natives shared the same knowledge, while migrants in TWRB used the ES only to a small extent due to restricted contact with the native population. Migrants and natives of GRN had more knowledge on tourism and crafts services while the natives of CAD and TWRB made use of the services that sustain the quality of the agricultural land and meet their primary needs. To reduce further degradation, different communities suggested unanimously raising awareness of the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem conservation. The most quoted motivations to preserve ecosystems were vegetation sustainability and village development.

conclusionThis study documented important local knowledge-based information to guide cultivation of local multipurpose species and initiation of communities to practice best management strategies for sustainable conservation of biodiversity.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemBurkina FasoGrasslandHumansPerceptionIndigenous knowledgeLand usePlant vulnerabilitySociocultural groupsSustainable management

Identifiers

PMID35183193
PMCPMC8858500
OpenAlexW4225709156

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.