Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39085935›Full record

ArticleJournal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine2024

Ethnobotanical insights on the management of plant pests and diseases by smallholder farmers in Mpumalanga Province of South Africa.

Kutullo N Shai, Simeon A Materechera, Stephen O Amoo, Adeyemi O Aremu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Kutullo N ShaiIndigenous Knowledge Systems Centre, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, North-West University Mmabatho, Private Bag X2046, Mmabatho, 2790, South Africa.
Simeon A MaterecheraIndigenous Knowledge Systems Centre, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, North-West University Mmabatho, Private Bag X2046, Mmabatho, 2790, South Africa.
Stephen O AmooMedicinal Plants and Industrial Crop Division, Agricultural Research Council - Vegetables, Industrial and Medicinal Plants, Private Bag X293, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa.
Adeyemi O AremuIndigenous Knowledge Systems Centre, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, North-West University Mmabatho, Private Bag X2046, Mmabatho, 2790, South Africa. Oladapo.Aremu@nwu.ac.za.

Funding

National Research Foundation SRUG2204224395; UID 145 139South Africa National Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD) DALRRD-ARC
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPests and diseases are a major contributor to yield losses in sub-Saharan Africa, prompting smallholder farmers to seek cost-effective, accessible and ecologically friendly alternatives for crop protection. This study explored the management of pests and diseases affecting crops across eight selected villages in Ehlanzeni District, Mpumalanga Province, South Africa.

methodsA total of 120 smallholder farmers were purposefully selected utilising the snowball technique. Information on the management of plant pests and diseases was collected through interviews and focus group discussions using semi-structured interview schedules. Ethnobotanical indices, including relative frequency of citation (RFC), use-value (UV) and informant consensus factor (Fic), were used to quantify and rank the plants used for crop protection in the study area.

resultsTwenty-three plant species (16 naturalised exotics and seven indigenous plants) belonging to 16 families were used for managing pests (vertebrates and invertebrates) and diseases (fungal and bacterial related) affecting crops in the study area. The dominant (100%) crops cultivated by the participants were Allium cepa L., Mangifera indica L., Solanum lycopersicum L. and Zea mays L. The RFC value ranged from 0.08 to 0.83 and the three most popular plants for crop protection were Capsium annuum L. (0.83), A. cepa (0.63) and Dichrostachys cinerea (L.) Wight & Arn. (0.43). In terms of the UV, the five most promising plants used as biocontrol were Tulbaghia violacea (0.13), A. cepa (0.12), C. annuum L. (0.09), Solanum campylacanthum Hochst. Ex A.Rich.(0.09) and Pinus pinaster (0.08). Based on the Fic, four categories were established and dominated by fungal diseases (0.64). Furthermore, T. violacea and A. cepa were the most often mentioned plants used against fungal conditions. Other categories cited were bacterial diseases (0.3), invertebrate pests (0.11) and vertebrate pests (0.14), an indication that smallholder farmers had limited agreement or common knowledge about the plants used for their management. The preparation methods included maceration (38%), decoction (38%) and burning (24%). Foliar application (67%) and soil drenching (33%) were used for administering plant extracts during the management of crop pests and diseases.

conclusionThe study highlights the importance of botanicals and associated indigenous knowledge among smallholder farmers in Mpumalanga Province, South Africa. It is pertinent to explore the valorisation of these botanicals by generating empirical data on their biological efficacies and phytochemical profiles.

Indexed as

Crops, AgriculturalEthnobotanyFarmersPlant DiseasesAdultAgedAgricultureFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPest ControlSouth AfricaAgrochemicalsBiocontrolBiodiversityBiotic stressBotanicalsCrop protectionFood securityIndigenous knowledgeSustainability

Identifiers

PMID39085935
PMCPMC11293110

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.