ArticleJournal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine2026
"I know a lot about medicinal plants. I read, I watch, and I search": towards hybrid knowledge systems in the modern era.
Article in Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Medicinal Plants Traditionally Used to Treat Digestive System Disorders in Lithuania.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHybrid knowledge systems are central to community negotiations of environmental, social, and epistemic pressures. In multilingual borderland areas, interactions between local ecological knowledge (LEK), formal, and popular knowledge systems remain underexplored, despite their importance for the persistence and transformation of medicinal plant use today.
methodsWe conducted 67 semi-structured interviews and participant observation in 21 rural settlements of the Vilnius region (Lithuania), an area bordering Belarus, focusing on the two largest local groups, Lithuanians (LT) and Poles (PL). Detailed Use Reports (n = 1446) on medicinal plant use were coded by the origin of knowledge, classified as local, formal, or popular, and the degree of hybridisation was quantified using the Shannon-Wiener diversity index and hybridisation metrics. Sociodemographic variables (age, gender, education, and multilingualism) were tested for associations with hybridisation using Spearman's ρ and Student's t-tests.
resultsA total of 139 medicinal taxa were recorded, of which 68 (49%) were shared between the two groups. Overall, recorded medicinal plant knowledge remained primarily grounded in LEK, sustained through intergenerational transmission. Compared with PL, LT interviewees drew on a broader mix of knowledge-origin domains (H' = 0.97 vs 0.52) and combined them more often (HD = 0.195 vs 0.059). In total, 39 taxa showed hybrid use, predominantly in the LT group. Hybridisation was negatively associated with age but positively correlated with the number of listed plants and their reported uses, while multilingualism showed a near-significant positive trend.
conclusionsThe study suggests that medicinal plant knowledge has evolved here through hybridisation, a process whose consequences are context-dependent, offering opportunities for revitalisation but also a risk of displacement. Dialogic exchanges across families, communities, languages, and media expand people's plant repertoire and strengthen community adaptive capacity. Yet when these exchanges lead to excessive standardisation, they risk eroding the diversity of local traditions. Ethnobotanical research must therefore go beyond documenting popular and formal knowledge sources to interrogate how linguistic and sociopolitical contexts condition the emergence of hybrid knowledge systems, privileging certain forms while rendering others transformed or marginalised.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.