ArticleJournal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine2026
Variations in vernacular naming of important species across three fishing villages of Chilika Lagoon, India.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChilika Lagoon, India, is a biodiversity hotspot that is home to over 200 fish species and supports the livelihoods of over 400 000 fishers. A detailed record of fish names was previously undertaken; however, our initial field observations revealed differences in fish naming from those documented in the literature.
methodsThis study examines local nomenclature of Chilika fishes in greater detail, with an emphasis on intra-cultural variation in fisher knowledge by taking an age-gender-village approach. Fieldwork was executed in three fishing villages across the lagoon by showing 56 colour photos of important fish to 108 local community members. Within each village, an equal number of respondents were selected across each of the three age groups and genders. The local name was documented for each fish, and the responses were analyzed according to age, gender, and village.
resultsAcross all photos, a total of 753 unique names were recorded, with many of these names attributed to phonetic differences. No notable age and gender differences in fish identification exist, except men were able to identify several fishes with higher success than women, and differences in fish naming exist across the three villages.
conclusionsThis study revealed that the local names ascribed to Chilika fish were more extensive than documented in previous literature. This study emphasizes the importance of surveying basin-wide to capture the range of names associated with each fish species.
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.