Evaluating different methods used in ethnobotanical and ecological studies to record plant biodiversity

Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine

Ulysses Paulino Albuquerque¹  Lucilene Lima Santos³  Marcelo Alves Ramos⁵  Luiz Carlos Marangon²  Rinaldo Luiz Ferreira Caraciolo²  Henrique Costa Hermenegildo Silva⁴ 

[1] Department of Biology, Laboratory of Applied and Theoretical Ethnobiology (LEA), Federal Rural University of Pernambuco (UFRPE), Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil;Department of Forestry of the Federal Rural University of Pernambuco (UFEPE), Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil;Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia de Pernambuco (IFPE), Campus Belo Jardim, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil;Study Group of Ecology and Ethnobiology from the Federal University of Alagoas (UFAL), Campus Arapiraca, Alagoas Zip Code 57309-005, Brazil;Department of Biological Sciences of the University of Pernambuco (UPE), Campus Mata Norte, Nazaré da Mata, Pernambuco, Brazil

关键词: Rapid biodiversity assessment;    Parataxonomists;    Vegetation inventory;    Ethnobotanical inventory;    Semi-arid areas;    Plant conservation;   

Others  :  1146358
DOI  :  10.1186/1746-4269-10-48

 received in 2013-09-05, accepted in 2014-05-23,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

This study compares the efficiency of identifying the plants in an area of semi-arid Northeast Brazil by methods that a) access the local knowledge used in ethnobotanical studies using semi-structured interviews conducted within the entire community, an inventory interview conducted with two participants using the previously collected vegetation inventory, and a participatory workshop presenting exsiccates and photographs to 32 people and b) inventory the vegetation (phytosociology) in locations with different histories of disturbance using rectangular plots and quadrant points.

Methods

The proportion of species identified using each method was then compared with Cochran’s Q test. We calculated the use value (UV) of each species using semi-structured interviews; this quantitative index was correlated against values of the vegetation’s structural importance obtained from the sample plot method and point-centered quarter method applied in two areas with different historical usage. The analysis sought to correlate the relative importance of plants to the local community (use value - UV) with the ecological importance of the plants in the vegetation structure (importance value - IV; relative density - RD) by using different sampling methods to analyze the two areas.

Results

With regard to the methods used for accessing the local knowledge, a difference was observed among the ethnobotanical methods of surveying species (Q = 13.37, df = 2, p = 0.0013): 44 species were identified in the inventory interview, 38 in the participatory workshop and 33 in the semi-structured interviews with the community. There was either no correlation between the UV, relative density (RD) and importance value (IV) of some species, or this correlation was negative.

Conclusion

It was concluded that the inventory interview was the most efficient method for recording species and their uses, as it allowed more plants to be identified in their original environment. To optimize researchers’ time in future studies, the use of the point-centered quarter method rather than the sample plot method is recommended.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Silva et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Loreau M, Hector A: Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 2001, 412:72-76.
• [2]Cardinale BJ, Srivastava DS, Duffy JE, Wright JP, Downing AL, Sankaran M, Jouseau C: Effects of biodiversity on the functioning of trophic groups and ecosystems. Nature 2006, 443:989992.
• [3]Ministério do Meio Ambiente: O Brasil e a convenção sobre diversidade biológica. 2010. [ http://www.mma.gov.br webcite]
• [4]Beattie AJ, Majer JD, Oliver I: Rapid biodiversity assessment: a review. In Rapid Biodiversity Assessment, Proceedings of the Biodiversity Workshop. Edited by Beattie A. Sydney: Macquarie University; 1993:4-14.
• [5]Hellier A, Newton AC, Gaona SO: Use of indigenous knowledge for rapidly assessing trends in biodiversity: a case study from Chiapas, Mexico. Biodivers Conserv 1999, 8:869-889.
• [6]Diegues AC: Etnoconservação da natureza: Enfoques Alternativos. In Etnoconservação: novos rumos para conservação da natureza nos trópicos. Edited by Diegues AC. São Paulo: Hucitec/ NUPAUB; 2000:1-46.
• [7]Gavin MC, Anderson RJ: Testing a rapid quantitative ethnobiological technique: first steps towards developing a critical conservation tool. Econ Bot 2005, 59:112-121.
• [8]Jinxiu W, Hongmao L, Huabin H, Lei G: Participatory approach for rapid assessment of plant diversity through a folk classification system ion a tropical rainforest: case study in Xishuangbanna, China. Conserv Biol 2004, 18:1139-1142.
• [9]Basset Y, Novotny V, Miller SE, Weiblen GD, Missa O, Stewart AJA: Conservation and biological monitoring of tropical forests: the role of parataxonomists. J Appl Ecol 2004, 41:163-174.
• [10]Krell FT: Parataxonomy vs. taxonomy in biodiversity studies: pitfalls and applicability of “morphospecies” sorting. Biodivers Conserv 2004, 13:795-812.
• [11]Baraloto C, Ferreira E, Rockwell C, Walthier F: Limitations and applications of parataxonomy for community forest management in southwestern Amazonia. Ethnobot Res Appl 2007, 5:77-84.
• [12]Albuquerque UP, Lucena RFP, Alencar NL: Methods and Techniques Used to Collect Ethnobiological Data. In Methods and techniques in Ethnobiology and Ethnoecology. Edited by Albuquerque U, da Cunha L, Lucena R, Alves R. New York: Springer; 2014:15-37.
• [13]Galeano G: Forest use at the pacific coast of Choco, Colombia: a quantitative approach. Econ Bot 2000, 54:358-376.
• [14]Hanazaki N, Mazzeo R, Duarte AR, Souza VC, Rodrigues RR: Ecologic salience and agreement on the identification of tree species from Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Biota Neotrop 2010, 10:77-84.
• [15]Sieber SS, Silva T, Campos L, Zank S, Albuquerque UP: Participatory Methods in Ethnobiological and Ethnoecological Research. In Methods and techniques in Ethnobiology and Ethnoecology. Edited by Albuquerque U, da Cunha L, Lucena R, Alves R. New York: Springer; 2014:39-58.
• [16]Thomas E, Vandebroek I, Van Damme P: What works in the field? A comparison of different interviewing methods in ethnobotany with special reference to the use of photographs. Econ Bot 2007, 61:376-384.
• [17]Santos LL, Ramos MA, Silva SI, Sales MF, Albuquerque UP: Caatinga ethnobotany: anthropogenic landscape modification and useful species in Brazil’s semi-arid northeast. Econ Bot 2009, 63:363-374.
• [18]Melo S, Lacerda VD, Hanazaki N: Espécies de restinga conhecidas pela comunidade do pântano do sul, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brasil. Rodriguesia 2008, 59:799-812.
• [19]Lucena RFP, Albuquerque UP, Monteiro JM, Almeida CFCBR, Florentino AT, Ferraz JSF: Useful Plants of the Semi-Arid Northeastern Region of Brazil – A Look at their Conservation and Sustainable Use. Environ Monit Assess 2007, 125:281-290.
• [20]Balick MJ, O’Brien H: Ethnobotanical and floristic research in Belize: accomplishments, challenges and lessons learned. Ethnobot Res Appl 2004, 2:77-88.
• [21]Hruschka DJ, Sibley LM, Kalim N, Edmonds JK: When there is more than one answer key: cultural theories of postpartum hemorrhage in Matlab, Bangladesh. Field Methods 2008, 20:315-337.
• [22]Albuquerque UP, Soldati GT, Sieber SS, Medeiros PM, De Sá Caetano J, Souza LC: Rapid ethnobotanical diagnosis of the Fulniô indigenous lands (NE Brazil): floristic survey and local conservation priorities for medicinal plants. Environ Dev Sustain 2011, 13:277-292.
• [23]Abba AM, Cassini MH: Comparison of two methods for acquiring ecological data on armadillos from Argentinean Pampas: field work vs. interviews. Interciencia 2010, 35:450-454.
• [24]Tacher SIL, Rivera RA, Romero MMM, Fernández AD: Caracterización del uso tradicional de la flora espontánea en la comunidad Lacandona da Lacanhá, Chiapas, México. Interciencia 2002, 27:512-520.
• [25]Phillips O, Gentry AH: The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru: I. Statistical hypothesis test with a new quantitative technique. Econ Bot 1993, 47(1):15-32.
• [26]CONDEPE/FIDEM: Altinho Perfil Municipal de. Recife: FIDEM; 2005.
• [27]Silva LC: Geocronologia aplicada ao mapeamento regional com ênfase na técnica U-Pb SHRIMP e ilustrada com estudos de casos brasileiros. CPRM: Brasília; 2006.
• [28]Araújo TAS, Alencar NL, Amorim EL, Albuquerque UP: A new approach to study medicinal plants with tannins and flavonoids contents from the local knowledge. J Ethnopharmacol 2008, 120:72-80.
• [29]Alencar NL, Araújo TAS, Amorim ELC, Albuquerque UP: The inclusion and selection of medicinal plants in traditional pharmacopoeias - evidence in support of the diversification hypothesis. Econ Bot 2010, 64:68-79.
• [30]Lins Neto EMF, Peroni N, Albuquerque UP: Traditional knowledge and management of umbu (Spondias tuberosa, Anacardiaceae): an endemic species from semi-arid region of northeastern Brazil. Econ Bot 2010, 64:11-21.
• [31]Santos MFAV, Ribeiro MR, EVSB S: Semelhanças vegetacionais em sete solos de Caatinga. Pesqu Agropecu Bras 1992, 27:305-314.
• [32]Andrade-Lima D: Estudos fitogeográficos de pernambuco. An Acad Pernam Ciência Agron 2007, 4:243-274.
• [33]Silva HCH: Avaliação de métodos etnobotâncos e ecológicos em estudos de diagnóstico rápido da biodiversidade. In PhD Thesis. Recife: Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco; 2011.
• [34]Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro: Lista de espécies flora do Brasil. 2012. [ http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/2012/ webcite]
• [35]Medeiros PM, Almeida ALS, Lucena RFP, Souto FJB, Albuquerque UP: Use of Visual Stimuli in Ethnobiological Research. In Methods and techniques in Ethnobiology and Ethnoecology. Edited by Albuquerque U, da Cruz Cunha L, Lucena R, Alves R. New York: Springer; 2014:87-98.
• [36]Ayres M, Ayres MJ, Ayres DL, Santos AS: BioEstat 5.0 Aplicações Estatísticas nas Áreas das Ciências Biológicas e Médicas. Instituto de desenvolvimento sustentável: Mamirauá, Belém; 2005.
• [37]Phillips O, Gentry AH: The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru: II. Additional hypothesis testing in quantitative ethnobotany. Econ Bot 1993, 47:33-43.
• [38]Rossato SC, Leitão-Filho HF, Begossi A: Ethnobotany of Caiçaras of the Atlantic forest coast (Brazil). Econ Bot 1999, 53:387-395.
• [39]Silva VAS, Nascimento VT, Soldati GT, Medeiros MFT, Albuquerque UP: Techniques for analysis of quantitative ethnobiological data: use of indices. In Methods and techniques in Ethnobiology and Ethnoecology. Edited by Albuquerque U, da Cruz Cunha L, Lucena R, Alves R. New York: Springer; 2014:379-395.
• [40]Medeiros PM, Almeida ALS, Lucena RFP, Albuquerque UP: The role of visual stimuli in ethnobotanical surveys: an overview. In Current Topics in Ethnobotany. Research Signpost. Edited by Albuquerque UP, Ramos MA. India: Kerala; 2008:125-137.
• [41]Janzen DH, Hallwachs W: Joining inventory by parataxonomists with DNA barcoding of a large complex tropical conserved wildland in Northwestern Costa Rica. PLoS ONE 2011, 6(8):1-13.
• [42]Cunha LV, Albuquerque UP: Quantitative ethnobotany in an atlantic forest fragment of northeastern Brazil: implications to conservation. Environ Monit Assess 2006, 114:1-25.
• [43]Ramos MA, Medeiros PM, Almeida ALS, Feliciano ALP, Albuquerque UP: Can wood quality justify local preferences for firewood in an area of Caatinga (dryland) vegetation? Biomass Bioenerg 2008, 32:503-509.
• [44]Mitchell K: Quantitative analysis by the point-centered quarter method. 2007. [ http://people.hws.edu/mitchell/PCQM.pdf webcite]
• [45]Zhu X, Zhang J: Quartered neighbor method: a new distance method for density estimation. Front Biol 2009, 4:574-578.
• [46]Chytrý M: Phytosociological data give biased estimates of species richness. J Veg Sci 2001, 12:439-444.
• [47]Chytrý M, Rafajová M: Czech national phytosociological database: basic statistics of the available vegetation-plot data. Preslia 2003, 75:1-15.
• [48]Botta-Dukát Z, Kovács-Láng E, Rédei T, Kertész M, Garadnai J: Statistical and biological consequences of preferential sampling in phytosoclology: theorical considerations and case study. Folia Geobot 2007, 42:141-152.
• [49]Albuquerque UP, Lucena RFP: Can apparency affect the use of plants by people in tropical forests? Interciencia 2005, 30:506-511.
• [50]Lucena RFP, Araújo EL, Albuquerque UP: Does the local availability of woody caatinga plants (Northeastern Brazil) explain their use value? Econ Bot 2007, 61:347-361.
• [51]Thomas E, Vanderbroek I, Van Damme P: Valuation of forests and plant species in Indigenous Territory and National Park Isiboro-Sécure, Bolivia. Econ Bot 2009, 63:229-241.
• [52]Torre-Cuadros MA, Islebe GA: Traditional ecological knowledge and use of vegetation in southeastern Mexico: A case study from Solferino, Quintana Roo. Biodiv Conserv 2003, 12:2455-2476.
• [53]Guèze M, Luz AC, Paneque-Gálvez J, Macía MJ, Orta-Martínez M, Pino J, Reyes-García V: Are Ecologically Important Tree Species the Most Useful? A Case Study from Indigenous People in the Bolivian Amazon. Econ Bot 2014, 68(1):1-15.
• [54]Nolan JM: Wild plant classification in Little Dixie: variation in a regional culture. J Ecol Anthropol 2002, 6:69-81.