Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37843476›Full record

ArticleMolecular ecology resources2025

Barcoding and traditional health practitioner perspectives are informative to monitor and conserve frogs and reptiles traded for traditional medicine in urban South Africa.

Fortunate M Phaka, Edward C Netherlands, Maarten Van Steenberge, Erik Verheyen, Gontran Sonet, Jean Hugé, Louis H du Preez, Maarten P M Vanhove

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular ecology resources, 2025. 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. Review
  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

8 authors.

Fortunate M PhakaAfrican Amphibian Conservation Research Group, Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom, Republic of South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1833-3156
Edward C NetherlandsAfrican Amphibian Conservation Research Group, Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom, Republic of South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1856-0586
Maarten Van SteenbergeCentre for Environmental Sciences, Research Group Zoology: Biodiversity and Toxicology, Hasselt University, Diepenbeek, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6964-9014
Erik VerheyenOperational Directorate Taxonomy and Phylogeny, Royal Belgian Institute for Natural Sciences, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7157-1474
Gontran SonetOperational Directorate Taxonomy and Phylogeny, Royal Belgian Institute for Natural Sciences, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7310-9574
Jean HugéCentre for Environmental Sciences, Research Group Zoology: Biodiversity and Toxicology, Hasselt University, Diepenbeek, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3695-547X
Louis H du PreezAfrican Amphibian Conservation Research Group, Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom, Republic of South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3332-6053
Maarten P M VanhoveCentre for Environmental Sciences, Research Group Zoology: Biodiversity and Toxicology, Hasselt University, Diepenbeek, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3100-7566

Funding

Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek 1513419NNational Research Foundation 114663National Research Foundation 130501South African Institute of Aquatic BiodiversityUniversiteit Hasselt BOF20TT06Vlaamse Interuniversitaire Raad R-9363Youth 4 African Wildlife NPC
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous literature suggests that Indigenous cultural practices, specifically traditional medicine, are commonplace among urban communities contrary to the general conception that such practices are restricted to rural societies. We reviewed previous literature for records of herptiles (frog and reptile species) sold by traditional health practitioners in urban South Africa, then used visual confirmation surveys, DNA barcoding and folk taxonomy to identify the herptile species that were on sale. Additionally, we interviewed 11 IsiZulu and SePedi speaking traditional health practitioners to document details of the collection and pricing of herptile specimens along with the practitioners' views of current conservation measures for traditional medicine markets. The 34 herptile species recorded in previous literature on traditional medicine markets included endangered and non-native species. Spectrophotometry measurements of the DNA we extracted from the tissue of herptiles used in traditional medicine were an unreliable predictor of whether those extractions would be suitable for further experimental work. From our initial set of 111 tissue samples, 81 sequencing reactions were successful and 55 of those sequences had species-level matches to COI reference sequences on the NCBI GenBank and/or BOLD databases. Molecular identification revealed that traditional health practitioners correctly labelled 77% of the samples that we successfully identified with DNA barcoding in this study. Our mixed methodology approach is useful for conservation planning as it updates knowledge of animal use in Indigenous remedies and can accurately identify species of high conservation priority. Furthermore, this study highlights the possibility of collaborative conservation planning with traditional health practitioners.

Indexed as

AnuraDNA Barcoding, TaxonomicReptilesAnimalsConservation of Natural ResourcesHumansMedicine, African TraditionalMedicine, TraditionalSouth AfricaTraditional Medicine Practitionersbio‐cultural diversityEthno‐herpetologyIndigenous knowledge systemsmixed‐method analyseszootherapy

Identifiers

PMID37843476
PMCPMC11696476

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.