Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37454092›Full record

SynthesisJournal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine2023

Food taboos and animal conservation: a systematic review on how cultural expressions influence interaction with wildlife species.

André Santos Landim, Jeferson de Menezes Souza, Lucrécia Braz Dos Santos, Ernani Machado de Freitas Lins-Neto, Daniel Tenório da Silva, Felipe Silva Ferreira

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

André Santos LandimPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Ciências da Saúde e Biológicas, Universidade Federal do Vale do São Francisco (UNIVASF), Petrolina, Pernambuco, Brazil.
Jeferson de Menezes SouzaPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Biotecnologia, Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana (UEFS), Feira de Santana, Bahia, Brazil.
Lucrécia Braz Dos SantosPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Ciências da Saúde e Biológicas, Universidade Federal do Vale do São Francisco (UNIVASF), Petrolina, Pernambuco, Brazil.
Ernani Machado de Freitas Lins-NetoPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Ciências da Saúde e Biológicas, Universidade Federal do Vale do São Francisco (UNIVASF), Petrolina, Pernambuco, Brazil.
Daniel Tenório da SilvaPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Ciências da Saúde e Biológicas, Universidade Federal do Vale do São Francisco (UNIVASF), Petrolina, Pernambuco, Brazil.
Felipe Silva FerreiraPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Ciências da Saúde e Biológicas, Universidade Federal do Vale do São Francisco (UNIVASF), Petrolina, Pernambuco, Brazil. felipe.sferreira@univasf.edu.br.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHuman societies have food taboos as social rules that restrict access to a particular animal. Taboos are pointed out as tools for the conservation of animals, considering that the presence of this social rule prevents the consumption of animals. This work consists of a systematic review that aimed to verify how food taboos vary between different animal species, and how this relationship has influenced their conservation.

methodsFor this systematic review, the search for articles by keywords took place in the databases "Science Direct," Scopus," "SciELo" and "Web of Science," associating the term "taboo" with the taxa "amphibians," "birds," "mammals," "fish" and "reptiles." From this search, 3959 titles were found related to the key terms of the research. After the entire screening process carried out by paired reviewers, only 25 articles were included in the search.

resultsIt was identified that 100 species of animals are related to some type of taboo, and segmental taboos and specific taboos were predominant, with 93 and 31 citations, respectively. In addition, the taxon with the most taboos recorded was fish, followed by mammals. Our findings indicate that the taboo protects 99% of the animal species mentioned, being a crucial tool for the conservation of these species.

conclusionsThe present study covered the status of current knowledge about food taboos associated with wildlife in the world. It is noticeable that taboos have a considerable effect on animal conservation, as the social restrictions imposed by taboos effectively contribute to the local conservation of species.

Indexed as

Animals, WildFoodAnimalsHumansMammalsTabooConservationDietary restrictionsSociocultural systemsWild animals

Identifiers

PMID37454092
PMCPMC10349426

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.