Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative MedicineVolume 2012 (2012), Article ID 679373, 15 pagesdoi:10.1155/2012/679373

Research Article

Intracultural Variation in the Knowledge of Medicinal Plants in an Urban-Rural Community in the Atlantic Forest from Northeastern Brazil

Cecília de Fátima Castelo Branco Rangel de Almeida,¹ Marcelo Alves Ramos,¹ Rafael Ricardo Vasconcelos Silva,¹ Joabe Gomes de Melo,¹ Maria Franco Trindade Medeiros,¹ Thiago Antonio de Sousa Araújo,¹ Alyson Luiz Santos de Almeida,¹ Elba Lúcia Cavalcanti de Amorim,² Rômulo Romeu da Nóbrega Alves,³ and Ulysses Paulino de Albuquerque¹

¹Laboratory of Applied Ethnobotany, Department of Biology, Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Avenida Dom Manoel de Medeiros s/n, Dois Irmãos, 52171-900 Recife, PE, Brazil²Natural Products Laboratory, Pharmacy Department, Federal University of Pernambuco, 50670-901 Recife, PE, Brazil³Ethnozoology, Conservation and Biodiversity Research Group, Departamento de Biologia, Universidade Estadual da Paraíba, 58109-753 Campina Grande, PB, Brazil

Received 23 June 2011; Revised 17 August 2011; Accepted 23 August 2011

Academic Editor: Ana H. Ladio

Copyright © 2012 Cecília de Fátima Castelo Branco Rangel de Almeida et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

This study assessed the intracultural knowledge of the use of medicinal plants in an urban-rural community in an Atlantic forest fragment in northeastern Brazil. We examined the importance of native and exotic species and the effects of gender and age on that knowledge. We also compared data obtained from different groups of informants (local experts and general community). We conducted 194 interviews between June 2007 and January 2008, using the freelist technique and semistructured forms to collect ethnobotanical data. Information obtained from the community was compared with that from six local experts who participated in a survey in 2003. From a total of 209 ethnospecies, exotic and herbaceous plants presented higher richness. With respect to the number of citations, women and older informants were shown to know a higher number of medicinal plants. Comparing knowledge of local experts with that of the general community, we noted that experts know a similar wealth of plant families and therapeutic indications, but the community knows a greater species richness. These results indicate that local experts may provide useful information for studies that search for a quick diagnosis of the knowledge of a given community.

1. Introduction

In Brazil, the Atlantic Forest is one of the most biologically diverse ecosystems, responsible for harboring a large number of endemic species [1, 2]. It extends from Rio Grande do Norte to Rio Grande do Sul [3] and, given its location in the coastal area, is currently under strong pressure from real estate speculation. In addition, there are the pressures generated by timber extraction, the cycles of sugar cane, coffee, and gold, and, more recently, the expansion of farming and forestry with exotic species.

Human populations living in the surrounding areas of the Atlantic Forest play an important role in its exploitation as they often rely on forest resources for their subsistence and extract biological resources from it on a daily basis [4]. Understanding how these people use such resources is a task of great current interest, which may contribute to the discovery of products of economic interest and to the conservation of biological resources.

Thus, ethnobotanical studies can contribute to assessing how local knowledge is distributed among members of a community and the relationship between that knowledge and the increase of exotic species in the local repertoire of medicinal plants [5–7].

Common knowledge about plant resources, especially medicinal ones, is highly dynamic and subject to several influences, may vary according to gender, age, education level, income, roles that individuals play within the family, skills, and abilities [8–11], and may represent key elements of the knowledge of the diversity and richness of species [12].

Different social patterns have been reported to impact the knowledge of medicinal plants, emphasizing the need of studies that address such questions. For instance, Almeida et al. [13] did not observe any differences between the knowledge of men and women, whereas age and income were correlated with the number of citations for a given plant and its indication, suggesting that older people with a higher income had greater knowledge about such plant resources.

Thus, the goal of this study was to assess the intracultural knowledge of the use of medicinal plants in an urban-rural community in an Atlantic forest fragment in northeastern Brazil in order to document the importance of native and exotic species within the group of plants mentioned and the effects of gender and age on the knowledge of medicinal plants and to compare the quality of information gathered from different groups of informants (local experts versus general community).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The study was conducted at Igarassu, located in the microregion of Itamaracá and the mesoregion of Recife, in Pernambuco state (7°50′20′′ S and 35°00′10′′ W; 20 m a.s.l.), 30 km from the state capital [14–16]. The climate is tropical, hot, and humid, with autumn/winter rains (according to the classification of Köeppen). The average annual temperature is 27°C, and the average annual rainfall is approximately 2,000 mm [14–16]. The municipality has a total area of 304.2 km², with a population of 72,990 people (219.9 inhabitants/km²), 74.9% of which live in urban areas [14].

The predominant vegetation is composed of remnants of Atlantic forest, secondary forests, mangroves, palm trees, and areas of commercial and subsistence agriculture. There are ecological reserves in the city, such as the São José Plant Forest, with tall, dense vegetation, located on Transcanavieira Highway (PE-41) and with an area of 323.30 ha [17].

The community studied is known as “Três Ladeiras” and is located on the lands of the “São José Plant,” a sugar refinery. The “São José Plant” is surrounded by Atlantic forest fragments belonging to an ecological reserve [18]. The forest is part of the conservation area of the Botafogo River basin, in accordance with state law no. 9860, which since August 12, 1986, has been aimed at protecting the landscape, soil, and river basin [19]. The fragments occupy a total area of 210 ha [18]. The community lies 30 km north of the county seat and is located at the back of a large hill, whose extension contains three elevations that give the community its name. The district has 1,794 inhabitants, of which 1,077 live in urban areas and 687 in rural ones [20].

Most men from the community work at the plant although the number of people employed by the refinery oscillates during the year, increasing and decreasing according to season and periods of land preparation, planting, and harvesting [15]. It is not unusual to find among the residents of the community families with small fields that provide nutritional and/or economic support during periods when there is no work at the plant [15]. There is no sanitation, medical care takes place in a health clinic for minor health problems, and disease control is provided by health workers through weekly home visits. Patients who require extra care are relocated to hospitals in the county seat of Igarassu.

2.2. Data Collection

Ethnobotanical data were obtained through the freelist technique, followed by semistructured interviews [21]. The interviews were conducted with the senior member of the family, over 18 years old, present on the visit of the interviewer. Initially, we obtained a Term of Informed Consent from those willing to participate in the study in accordance with the legal and ethical aspects of Resolution 196/96 from the Ethics and Research Committee [22].

Because the community had a large number of residents, we sampled 51% of all households and conducted 194 interviews (140 women and 54 men) between June 2007 and January 2008. The age of informants ranged from 18 to 93 years. For the interviews, one main question was asked: “What medicinal plants do you know?”. In a second event, we gathered information on each species mentioned, the part of the plant used, the method of preparation, its indication and contraindication, as well as socioeconomic data from informants, such as gender, age, family income, and number of residents in the household. Ages were grouped into five different groups, ranging from 18 to over 68 years.

We used the data obtained in this study and in the work of Gazzaneo et al. [15] to compare the information obtained from the general community and local experts, respectively. The latter study was conducted in the same community in 2003 and was attended by six informants identified as “local experts,” given their more detailed knowledge on the use of medicinal plants [23]. This group of informants was composed of three men and three women, with ages ranging from 51 to 102 years. The data sampling performed by Gazzaneo et al. [15] was intentionally nonrandom and assumed that local experts provide more specific, high-quality information about medicinal plants. To select this group of informants, the authors used the “snowball” method [24]. Data were collected using semistructured interviews that gathered information related to the knowledge of medicinal plants.

2.3. Species Categorization and Indications Mentioned by Informants

All plants mentioned during interviews were identified and classified as either native or exotic species according to their biogeographical origin. We considered native species those endemic to the study region and also native to South America. Exotic species were considered to be those of extracontinental origin, cultivated in the region, and widely distributed, such as tropical invasive and cosmopolitan species.

To calculate the relative importance of species, all indications mentioned by the informants were grouped into 18 disease categories, according to the classification from the World Health Organization [25]: digestive, respiratory, gynecological/urinary, circulatory, nervous, sensory, motor, puerperium, cutaneous, scarring, poisoning, neoplasia, hematopoietic, nutritional, infectious/parasitic, sexual inappetence and antiabortion, and postpartum. Diseases not categorized by the aforementioned system were grouped into the category “undefined ailments and pains” by virtue of their symptoms and signs of multiple origins [26].

All species mentioned by informants, excluding those commercialized, were collected, identified, and deposited in the herbaria of Professor Geraldo Mariz (UFP), at the Federal University of Pernambuco, Professor Dárdano de Andrade Lima (IPA), at the Agricultural Research Company, and Professor Sérgio Tavares (HST), at the Federal Rural University of Pernambuco.

2.4. Data Analysis

We calculated the value of relative importance (RI) for all species [27] with the following formula: , where NBS is the number of body systems treated by a particular species (NBSS) divided by the total number of body systems treated by the most versatile species (NBSVS) and NP is the number of attributed properties of a particular species (NPS) divided by the total number of properties attributed to the most versatile species (NPVS).

The chi-squared adherence test was used to check for differences between the following factors: number of native versus exotic plants and number of plants observed in each life form (herb, shrub, and tree). We also compared the richness of exclusive species between different age groups, richness of families, total number of mentioned species, and number of exclusive species between local experts and the general community.

We used the Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test to test for differences in the richness of ethnospecies and mentioned indications between men and women and between each age group and to check for differences between the relative importance of species mentioned by local experts and the general community.

We used Williams’ -test to compare the proportion of the number of native and exotic species (exclusive or not) mentioned by local experts and the general community.

The Spearman correlation test was applied to check for the relationship between the number of ethnospecies and the number of mentioned indications according to the age of the informants and to check for a relationship between relative importance (RI) of species mentioned by the general community and the RI calculated for local experts.

All statistical analyses were performed using the statistical package BioEstat 5.0 [28].

3. Results

3.1. Richness of Medicinal Plants Mentioned by Informants

In total, 209 ethno-species were mentioned during interviews; 151 were identified to the species level and 21 to the genus level only (Table 1). The plants were distributed in 74 families, and most families (66%) were represented by up to two species. The most represented families were Lamiaceae (10 spp.); Caesalpiniaceae and Curcubitaceae (8 spp.); Asteraceae, Euphorbiaceae, and Mimosaceae (5 spp.).

Table 1: Medicinal plants mentioned in the community of Três Ladeiras, Igarassu, Pernambuco state, Brazil.

Family/scientific name
Vernacular name
Habit
Origin
Citation number
RI 2005*
RI 2008

Acanthaceae

Justicia pectoralis Jacq.
Chambá
Herbs
Native
21
0.33
0.37

Justicia sp.
Anador
—
—
25
—
1.00

Graptophyllum pictum (L.) Griff.
Melacilina
Herbs
Exotic
15
0.67
0.94

Amaranthaceae

Alternanthera brasiliana (L.) Kuntze.
Novalgina
Herbs
Exotic
3
—
0.35

Pfaffia glomerata (Spreng.) Pederson
Acônico/Acônito
Herbs
Exotic
17
0.67
0.27

Anacardiaceae

Anacardium occidentale L.
Cajueiro roxo
Tree
Native
113
0.33
1.24

Mangifera indica L.
Manga
Tree
Exotic
11
0.83
0.62

Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi
Aroeira
Tree
Native
219
1.17
1.60

Spondias purpurea L.
Siriguela
Tree
Native
3
—
0.27

Annonaceae

Annona montana Macfad.
Aticum
Tree
Native
13
0.83
0.61

Annona muricata L.
Graviola
Tree
Exotic
4
—
0.30

Annona squamosa L.
Pinha
Tree
Exotic
1
—
0.12

Apiaceae

Daucus carota L.
Cenoura
Herbs
Exotic
1
—
0.12

Foeniculum vulgare Mill.
Endro
Herbs
Exotic
12
—
0.74

Pimpinella anisum L.
Erva doce
Herbs
Exotic
45
0.33
1.09

Apocynaceae

Catharanthus roseus L. G. Don.
Boa noite branca
Herbs
Exotic
3
—
0.27

Hancornia speciosa Gomes
Mangaba
Tree
Native
1
0.17
0.12

Arecaceae

Acrocomia aculeata (Jacq.) Lodd. ex Mart.
Macaiba
Tree
Native
30
0.17
0.76

Cocos nucifera L.
Coco amarelo
Tree
Exotic
7
0.17
0.39

Elaeis guineensis Jacq.
Dendezeiro
Tree
Exotic
2
0.17
0.24

Syagrus sp.
Coco catolé
Tree
Native
6
0.50
0.42

Asteraceae

Acanthospermum hispidum DC.
Espinho de cigano
Herbs
Exotic
48
0.67
0.76

Conyza bonariensis (L.) Cronq.
Rabo de raposa
Herbs
Exotic
3
0.33
0.12

Helianthus annuus L.
Girassol
Herbs
Native
10
0.17
0.12

Matricaria chamomilla L.
Camomila
Herbs
Exotic
7
—
0.12

Pluchea sp.
Mar de cravo
Herbs
—
1
—
0.12

Gymnanthemum amygdalinum (Delile) Sch.Bip. ex Walp.
Alcachofra
Herbs
Exotic
50
0.33
0.83

Asteraceae 1
Carqueja
—
—
2
—
0.12

Begoniaceae

Begonia reniformis Dryand.
Capeba
Shrub
Native
3
0.17
0.24

Bignoniaceae

Handroanthus impetiginosus (Mart. ex DC.) Mattos
Pau daico roxo
Tree
Native
8
0.67
0.54

Bombacaceae

Chorisia sp.
Barriguda
Tree
Native
1
—
0.12

Boraginaceae

Heliotropium angiospermum Murray
Crista de galo
Herbs
Exotic
1
—
0.12

Heliotropium indicum L.
Fedegoso
Herbs
Exotic
3
0.50
0.35

Brassicaceae

Nasturtium officinale R. Br.
Agrião
Herbs
Exotic
48
0.83
0.53

Bromeliaceae

Ananas comosus (L.) Merr.
Abacaxi
Herbs
Native
14
—
0.39

Tillandsia usneoides (L.) L.
Salambaia
Herbs
Native
2
0.17
0.24

Burseraceae

Protium heptaphyllum (Aubl.) Marchand
Amescla
Tree
Native
1
1.00
0.12

Cactaceae

Cereus jamacaru DC.
Cardeiro
Tree
Native
5
—
0.12

Caesalpiniaceae

Bauhinia forficata Link
Pata de vaca
Tree
Native
9
—
0.30

Caesalpinia echinata Lam.
Pau brasil
Tree
Native
1
—
0.12

Caesalpinia ferrea Mart. ex Tul.
Jucá
Tree
Native
11
0.50
0.27

Copaifera sp.
Pau dóleo
Tree
—
1
0.17
0.12

Hymenaea martiana Hayne
Jatobá
Tree
Native
27
1.33
1.20

Senna alata (L.) Roxb.
Café beirão
Shrub
Exotic
1
—
0.12

Senna occidentalis (L.) Link.
Manjirioba/Mata pasto
Herbs
Exotic
24
0.17
0.76

Poincianella pyramidalis (Tul.) L. P. Queiroz
Catingueira
Tree
Native
1
—
0.12

Capparaceae

Cleome spinosa Jacq.
Mussambê
Shrub
Exotic
11
0.17
0.30

Caprifoliaceae

Sambucus nigra L.
Flor de sabugo/Sabugueiro
Tree
Exotic
33
0.50
0.57

Caricaceae

Carica papaya L.
Mamão
Tree
Native
7
0.33
0.46

Caryophyllaceae

Dianthus caryophyllus L.
Cravo branco
Herbs
Exotic
4
—
0.27

Cecropiaceae

Cecropia palmata Willd.
Embauba branca
Tree
Native
6
0.33
0.42

Chenopodiaceae

Beta vulgaris L.
Beterraba
Herbs
Exotic
8
—
0.34

Chenopodium ambrosioides L.
Mastruz/Mentruz
Herbs
Exotic
85
0.67
0.68

Chrysobalanaceae

Licania sp.
Oiti/Oiticica
—
—
2
—
0.24

Chrysobalanaceae 1
Oiticoró
—
—
1
—
0.12

Clusiaceae

Vismia guianensis (Aubl.) Pers.
Lacre
Tree
Native
12
0.33
0.42

Combretaceae

Buchenavia sp.
Imbiriba
—
—
4
0.33
0.15

Terminalia catappa L.
Coração de negro
Tree
Exotic
2
—
0.58

Convolvulaceae

Ipomoea asarifolia (Ders.) R. et Sch
Salsa
Herbs
Exotic
1
0.17
0.15

Operculina alata (Ham.) Urb.
Batata de purga
Herbs
Native
1
0.50
0.12

Convolvulaceae 1
Acanfó/Acafú
—
—
10
0.33
0.34

Convolvulaceae 2
Sassá
—
—
1
—
0.12

Crassulaceae

Kalanchoe laciniata (L.) DC.
Corona branca
Herbs
Exotic
17
—
0.81

Kalanchoe sp.
Corona roxa
—
—
6
—
0.51

Cucurbitaceae

Citrullus vulgaris Schard.
Melância
Herbs
Exotic
1
—
0.12

Cucumis anguria L.
Maxixe
Herbs
Exotic
1
—
0.12

Cucumis melo L.
Melão
Herbs
Exotic
1
—
0.12

Cucumis sativus L.
Pepino
Herbs
Exotic
2
—
0.24

Curcubita pepo L.
Jerimum
Herbs
Exotic
8
—
0.24

Luffa operculata L. Cong.
Cabacinha
Herbs
Native
1
0.17
0.12

Momordica charantia L.
Melão de são caetano
Herbs
Exotic
1
—
0.12

Sechium edule (Jacq.) Sw.
Chuchu
Herbs
Exotic
20
0.17
0.27

Equisetaceae

Equisetum sp.
Cavalinha
Herbs
—
1
—
0.12

Euphorbiaceae

Cnidosculus urens (L.) Arthur
Urtiga branca
Herbs
Native
25
0.50
0.68

Euphorbia tirucalli L.
Aveloz
Shrub
Exotic
1
—
0.12

Jatropha gossypiifolia L.
Pinhão roxo
Shrub
Exotic
5
—
0.35

Jatropha mollissima (Pohl.) Baill.
Pinhão branco
Shrub
Native
2
—
0.24

Manihot esculenta Crantz
Macacheira/Roça
Herbs
Native
1
—
0.12

Phyllanthus niruri L.
Quebra pedra
Herbs
Exotic
13
0.17
0.46

Ricinus communis L.
Carrapateira/Mamona
Shrub
Exotic
5
—
0.27

Fabaceae

Bowdichia virgilioides Kunth
Sucupira
Tree
Native
5
0.50
0.39

Vicia faba L.
Fava
Herbs
Exotic
1
—
0.12

Zornia diphylla (L.) Pers.
Urinana
Herbs
Native
3
0.17
0.15

Flacourtiaceae

Flacourtiaceae 1
Imbira branca
—
—
2
—
0.12

Heliconiaceae

Heliconia psittacorum L. f.
Paquivira
Herbs
Native
1
—
0.12

Illiaceae

Illicium verum Hook. f.
Anil estrelado
Tree
Exotic
9
—
0.73

Iridaceae

Crocus sp.
Açafrão
Herbs
—
1
0.33
0.12

Eleutherine bulbosa (Mill.) Urb.
Alho do mato
Herbs
Native
3
0.67
0.15

Lamiaceae

Aeollanthus suaveolens Mart. ex Spreng.
Macassá
Herbs
Exotic
32
1.33
1.13

Mentha piperita L.
Hortelã miúda
Herbs
Exotic
141
0.83
2.00

Mentha pulegium L.
Hortelã pastilha/H. vick
Herbs
Exotic
34
0.17
1.07

Ocimum basilicum L.
Manjericão/Manjericão são josé
Herbs
Exotic
50
0.50
1.16

Ocimum basilicum var. minimum (Willd.) Benth.
Manjericão miúdo
Herbs
Exotic
5
0.17
0.35

Ocimum campechianum Mill.
Alfavaca de caboclo
Herbs
Native
14
—
0.69

Ocimum gratissimum L.
Louro falso/L. caseiro/ Hortelã fernando/H. são severino
Herbs
Exotic
4
0.17
0.24

Plectranthus amboinicus (Lour.) Spreng.
Hortelã graúda/H. gorda/H. bahia
Herbs
Exotic
155
0.83
1.22

Plectranthus barbatus Andrews
Boldo caseiro/Boldo falso/Hortelã caboclo
Herbs
Exotic
17
0.50
0.84

Rosmarinus officinalis L.
Alecrim
Herbs
Exotic
11
0.17
0.96

Lamiaceae 1
Alfazema
Herbs
—
1
—
0.12

Lamiaceae 2
Alfazema de caboclo
Herbs
—
1
—
0.12

Lamiaceae 3
Veiga morta
Herbs
—
53
0.50
0.84

Lauraceae

Nectandra cuspidata Ness & Mart.
Canela
Tree
Native
71
—
0.95

Persea americana Mill.
Abacate
Tree
Exotic
15
0.83
0.62

Liliaceae

Allium cepa L.
Cebola
Herbs
Exotic
12
0.67
0.34

Allium sativum L.
Alho
Herbs
Exotic
19
0.33
0.56

Aloe vera (L.) Berm.f.
Baborsa/Erva babosa
Herbs
Exotic
32
0.83
1.13

Loranthaceae

Loranthaceae 1
Cipó estanca sangue
—
—
1
0.33
0.12

Malpighiaceae

Byrsonima sericea DC.
Murici
Tree
Native
1
—
0.12

Malpighia glabra L.
Acerola
Tree
Exotic
10
—
0.51

Malvaceae

Gossypium barbadense L.
Algodão
Shrub
Exotic
2
0.50
0.20

Uerna lobata L.
Malva rosa
Herbs
Native
11
0.33
0.51

Meliaceae

Cedrela odorata L.
Cedro
Tree
Native
1
—
0.12

Mimosaceae

Acacia sp.
Espinheiro
Tree
—
3
—
0.12

Anadenanthera colubrina (Vell.) Brenan.
Angico
Tree
Native
3
—
0.24

Inga bahiensis Benth.
Inga porco
Tree
Native
1
—
0.12

Mimosa tenuiflora (Willd.) Poir.
Jurema preta
Tree
Native
2
—
0.12

Piptadenia stipulacea (Benth.) Ducke.
Jurema branca
Tree
Native
1
—
0.12

Pithecellobium cochliocarpum (Gomez) Macbr.
Babatenom
Tree
Native
183
1.83
1.14

Pithecellobium saman var. acutifolium Benth.
Budão de velho
Tree
Native
2
—
0.24

Monimiaceae

Peumus boldus Mol.
Boldo do chile
Herbs
Exotic
44
—
0.73

Moraceae

Artocarpus communis J.R. Forst. & G. Forst.
Fruta pão
Tree
Exotic
3
—
0.35

Artocarpus integrifolia L. f.
Jaca
Tree
Exotic
2
—
0.24

Dorstenia sp.
Conta erva
—
—
1
0.83
0.12

Musaceae

Musa paradisiaca L.
Bananeira
Tree
Exotic
19
0.33
0.73

Myrtaceae

Eucalyptus citriodora Hook.
Eucalipto
Tree
Exotic
7
0.17
0.24

Eugenia uniflora L.
Pitanga
Tree
Native
58
0.17
0.59

Psidium guajava L.
Goiaba
Tree
Native
51
0.17
0.24

Psidium guineense Sw.
Araça
Shrub
Native
5
0.17
0.12

Syzygium aromaticum (L.) Merr. & L.M. Perry
Cravo do reino
Tree
Exotic
5
—
0.59

Syrygium jambolanum (Lam.) DC.
Azeitona preta
Tree
Exotic
14
0.17
0.69

Nyctaginaceae

Boerhavia diffusa L.
Pega pinto
Herbs
Exotic
22
1.17
0.83

Guapira sp.
João mole
Tree
—
3
—
0.24

Olacaceae

Ximenia americana L.
Ameixa
Tree
Native
1
0.17
0.12

Oxalidaceae

Averrhoa carambola L.
Carambola
Tree
Exotic
17
0.83
0.30

Papaveraceae

Argemone mexicana L.
Cardo santo
Herbs
Exotic
7
0.50
0.24

Passifloraceae

Passiflora edulis Sims.
Maracujá
Shrub
Native
12
0.17
0.49

Pedaliaceae

Sesamum orientale L.
Gergelim preto/Gigilim
Herbs
Exotic
4
0.17
0.24

Phytolacaceae

Petiveria alliacea L.
Timpi
Herbs
Native
7
0.67
0.54

Piperaceae

Peperomia pellucida H.B.K.
Lingua de sapo
Herbs
Native
5
—
0.39

Piper nigrum L.
Pimenta do reino
Shrub
Exotic
2
—
0.24

Poaceae

Cymbopogon citratus (DC.) Stapf
Capim santo
Herbs
Exotic
133
0.50
1.47

Imperata brasiliensis Trin.
Sapé
Herbs
Native
5
—
0.15

Phalaris canariensis L.
Alpiste
Herbs
Exotic
4
0.17
0.24

Zea mays L.
Milho
Herbs
Exotic
2
—
0.12

Polygalaceae

Polygala sp.
Esquentado
—
—
1
—
0.12

Punicaceae

Punica granatum L.
Romã
Tree
Exotic
14
—
0.49

Rhamnaceae

Zizyphus joazeiro Mart.
Juá
Tree
Native
22
0.83
0.76

Rosaceae

Pyrus malus L.
Maçã
Tree
Exotic
1
—
0.12

Rosa sp.1
Rosa amélia
—
—
1
—
0.12

Rosa sp.2
Rosa branca
—
—
7
0.33
0.62

Rubiaceae

Borreria verticillata L. G. Mey.
Vassoura de botão
Herbs
Exotic
47
1.17
1.51

Genipa americana L.
Jenipapo
Tree
Native
53
—
0.64

Uncaria tomentosa (Willd. ex Roem. & Schult.) DC.
Unha de gato
Tree
Native
1
—
0.12

Rutaceae

Citrus limetta Risso
Lima
Tree
Exotic
1
—
0.12

Citrus limonia Osbeck
Limão
Tree
Exotic
14
—
0.57

Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck
Laranja
Tree
Exotic
44
0.83
0.93

Ruta graveolens L.
Arruda
Herbs
Exotic
75
0.83
1.08

Sapindaceae

Cardiospermum halicacabum L.
Cipó de vaqueiro
Shrub
Native
10
0.33
0.24

Cupania sp.
Cabotam
—
—
1
0.33
0.12

Serjania sp.
Cipó cururu
—
—
2
—
0.12

Sapotaceae

Achras zapota L.
Sapoti
Tree
Exotic
1
—
0.12

Sideroxylon obtusifolium (Roem. & Schult.) T.D. Penn.
Quixaba
Tree
Native
27
—
1.14

Smilacaceae

Smilax rotundifolia L.
Cipó japecanga
Herbs
Native
6
0.17
0.12

Solanaceae

Capsicum frutescens L.
Pimenta
Shrub
Native
3
—
0.24

Nicotiana tabacum L.
Fumo
Herbs
Native
1
—
0.12

Solanum americanum Mill.
Avamoura/Erva moura
Herbs
Exotic
5
0.17
0.30

Solanum paniculatum L.
Jurubeba
Shrub
Exotic
4
1.00
0.35

Sterculiaceae

Guazuma ulmifolia L.
Mutamba
Tree
Native
7
—
0.24

Theacaea

Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze
Chá preto
Shrub
Exotic
4
—
0.20

Turneracea

Turnera ulmifolia L.
Xanana
Herbs
Exotic
1
0.17
0.12

Verbenaceae

Lantana camara L.
Chumbinho
Shrub
Native
5
0.33
0.19

Lippia alba (Mill.) N.E.Br.
Cidreira/Erva cidreira
Herbs
Exotic
94
0.67
1.86

Stachytarpheta elatior Schrad. ex Schult
Mocotó
Herbs
Native
4
0.67
0.12

Vitex agnus-castus L.
Liamba
Tree
Exotic
2
0.17
0.24

Violaceae

Hybanthus sp.
Pepaconha
—
—
7
—
0.51

Vitaceae

Cissus verticillata (L.) Nicolson & C.E. Jarvis
Insulina
Shrub
Native
5
0.17
0.12

Leea sp.
Café
—
—
3
—
0.27

Vitis vinifera L.
Uva
Shrub
Exotic
1
—
0.12

Zingiberaceae

Alpinia zerumbet (Pers.) Burt. ex R. M. Smith
Colônia/Colonha
Herbs
Exotic
190
1.67
0.91

Costus sp.
Cana de macaco
—
—
27
—
0.84

Zingiber officinalis Rosc.
Gengibre vermelho
Herbs
Exotic
1
—
0.12

Unidentified

Unidentified 1
Abre caminho
—
—
2
—
0.12

Unidentified 2
Açafroa
—
—
1
—

Unidentified 3
Boca torta
—
—
1
—
0.12

Unidentified 4
Bugre
—
—
2
—
0.12

Unidentified 5
Cafofa
—
—
1
—
0.12

Unidentified 6
Canela de viado
—
—
1
—
0.12

Unidentified 7
Chumbinho branco
—
—
1
—
0.12

Unidentified 8
Cipó de boi
—
—
2
—
0.24

Unidentified 9
Imbira vermelha
—
—
2
—
0.12

Unidentified 10
Malicia branca
—
—
2
—
0.24

Unidentified 11
Malicia boi/M. fina
—
—
4
—
0.15

Unidentified 12
Malva ferro
—
—
1
—
0.12

Unidentified 13
Moça
—
—
1
—
0.12

Unidentified 14
Pé de galinha/Papo de peru
—
—
1
—
0.12

Unidentified 15
Pega rapaz
—
—
1
—
0.12

Unidentified 16
Perpetua branca
—
—
1
—
0.12

Unidentified 17
Piripiri
—
—
1
—
0.12

Unidentified 18
Piriquiti
—
—
1
—
0.12

Unidentified 19
Quebra faca
—
—
5
—
0.27

Unidentified 20
Quentão
—
—
1
—
0.12

Unidentified 21
Rasteira
—
—
1
—
0.12

Unidentified 22
Rasteirinho
—
—
1
—
0.12

Unidentified 23
Salsa caroba
—
—
1
—
0.12

Unidentified 24
Sete casco
—
—
1
—
0.12

Unidentified 25
Tatajuba
—
—
1
—
0.12

*(—) denotes the absence of the species on the list of Gazzaneo et al. [15].

RI 2005: relative importance calculated from information given by local experts; RI 2008: relative Importance calculated from information given by the general community.

With respect to the origin of the identified species, we observed that 89 were exotic and 62 were native (Figure 1), and the difference was statistically significant (; ). That result indicates that informants knew more exotic plants that could be used for medicinal purposes. With respect to the life form of plants, there was a predominance of herbs (74), followed by trees (59) and shrubs (18) (Figure 1), but we only observed statistical differences when we compared the richness of shrubs with that of herbs (; ) and trees (; ). The number of herbs and trees was not significantly different (; ), indicating that the richness of herbs and trees was similar in the pool of plants mentioned by informants. However, when considering the distribution of species according to their origin, we observed a different pattern: for exotic plants, there was a higher number of herbaceous plants compared to the other two life forms (shrubs: , ; trees: , ), whereas, for native plants, there was a higher number of trees (herbs: , ; shrubs: , ).

Figure 1: Origin and life form of the medicinal species mentioned in the community of Três Ladeiras, Igarassu, Pernambuco state, northeastern Brazil.

The most mentioned species were Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi (aroeira-219 citations), Alpinia zerumbet (Pers.) B. L. Burtt & R. M. Sm. (colônia-190 citations), Pithecellobium cochliocarpum (Gomez) Macbr. (babatenon-183), Plectranthus amboinicus (Lour.) Spreng (hortelã graúda-155), Mentha piperita L. (hortelã miúda-141), and Cymbopogon citratus (DC.) Stapf (capim santo-133) (Table 1). Except for S. terebinthifolius and P. cochliocarpum, all these plants are exotic, emphasizing the importance of exotic plants to the knowledge of medicinal plants in the region.

3.2. Influence of Gender and Age on the Knowledge of Medicinal Plants

There were significant differences in the knowledge of medicinal plants according to gender, with women knowing a higher richness of ethno-species (; ) and indications (; ). They mentioned a total of 166 ethno-species, with a mean number of citations per person, and a total of 146 indications, with a mean of citations per person, whereas men mentioned 136 ethno-species and 93 indications, with a mean of and citations per person, respectively.

The number of plants and indications mentioned by each informant correlated with their age (, ; , , resp.). However, when we compared the average number of ethnospecies and indications in each age group, we observed different patterns (Table 2). The number of known plants only varied in informants from the 18–28-year-old age group, suggesting that the richness of known plants was smaller in younger participants, which may reflect the limited experience and contact of young informants with plant resources from the region. Although informants aged 49–58 years old had greater knowledge of medicinal plants in the region, they were only significantly different from younger informants (Table 2). With respect to the number of indications mentioned in each age group, we observed a similar pattern to the previous one, with younger informants (18–28 yrs.) knowing a smaller variety of indications. However, the knowledge of informants was significantly higher for the age groups 49–58 years old and older than in other age groups.

Table 2: Distribution of the knowledge of medicinal plants by age group and gender in the community of Três Ladeiras, Igarassu, Pernambuco state, northeastern Brazil.

Age groups
NI
General average number of ethno-species
General average number of indications
NMI
NFI
Average number of cited ethno-species
Average number of cited indications
Total diversity of cited species
Number of exclusive species

Male
Female
Male
Female

18–28
43
8.8 ± 6a
6.3 ± 3.6a
8
35
5.37 ± 1.9a
9.57 ± 6.4a
4 ± 1.2a
6.83 ± 3.8a
85
10

29–38
44
11.66 ± 6.2b
8.84 ± 4.6b
8
36
7.6 ± 3.7ac
12.55 ± 6.3b
5.75 ± 2ac
9.53 ± 4.8b
103
11

39–48
41
11.98 ± 6.6b
9 ± 4.9b
12
29
8.83 ± 4.3ad
13.28 ± 7b
7.67 ± 4.5ac
9.66 ± 5.1b
99
12

49–58
28
16.39 ± 11b
12.79 ± 7.7c
7
21
11.71 ± 9.6bcd
17.95 ± 11.3b
9.14 ± 6.9bc
14 ± 7.8c
120
19

59–68
24
14.58 ± 8.8b
10.7 ± 6.1c
14
10
12.93 ± 9.4bcd
16.9 ± 7.8b
9.14 ± 6.3bc
12.9 ± 5.2bcd
112
19

>69
14

5
9

87
7

*Equal letters in the same column indicate a lack of statistical differences using the Kruskal-Wallis test (). NI: number of informants; NMI: number of male informants; NFI: number of female informants.

When we analyzed the influence of gender and age on the distribution of knowledge, we observed a few patterns that often differed from the data presented by the general community. Younger women (18–28 yrs.) also had less knowledge of the richness of medicinal species, while, in other age groups, knowledge was homogeneous. For women, we observed the formation of two groups regarding the number of indications: one group consisting of the three younger groups, with a lower number of indications, and the other consisting of older age groups, with a higher number of indications.

For men, knowledge of plant richness and indications showed a different pattern. The knowledge of informants in the 18–48-year-old age groups did not present any statistical differences. That difference only appeared in the age groups 49–58 years old and older, indicating an increase in the number of species known and the variety of indications occurring only in older age groups, whereas for women it was also observed in younger age groups.

We observed a continuous increase in the number of ethno-species mentioned with an increase in age, for both men and women, when total plant richness was considered (Figure 2), up to the age group with the highest richness of plants mentioned. In subsequent age groups, plant richness started to decrease. Among women, the 49–58-year-old age group had the greatest knowledge of plants (109 ethno-species), whereas for men the greatest knowledge of plants was observed in an older class (59–68 yrs.). These results indicate that, in the community of Three Hills, the commitment of women to family care compels them to know, from an early age, a large number of plants with medicinal purposes.

Figure 2: Distribution of the knowledge of medicinal plants between men and women in the community of Três Ladeiras, Igarassu, Pernambuco state, northeastern Brazil.

Following the age groups with a higher number of plants, there was a decrease in plant richness in older groups, possibly related to memory loss, which is common among older people. We did not observe the same pattern when the mean number of plants mentioned by informants was analyzed, as previously noted (Table 2). In this case, people still mentioned a high number of citations, even in the oldest age group (>69 yrs.).

Exclusive species were mentioned in all age groups (Table 2), with a total richness of 78 exclusive species distributed in the six age groups. The 49–58- and 59–68-year-old age groups stand out for their higher richness, although there were no statistical differences in the number of exclusive species between age groups (; ), indicating that, in every age group, informants had a repertoire of exclusive plants that was not shared by people from other age groups.

3.3. Analysis of the Knowledge of Medicinal Plants between Local Experts and the General Community

Data obtained from the general community presented a higher richness of plant families and medicinal species when compared with data obtained from local experts. The difference was highly significant for total species richness (, ) and exclusive species richness (, ) but was not significantly different for the richness of plant families (, , Figure 3). The results indicate that the knowledge of local experts managed to represent the richness of useful plant families cited by the general community but not the total number of species (Table 3). However, the most species (84.2%) mentioned by at least 20 informants from the general community were also mentioned by local experts. This result indicates that expert informants mentioned medicinal plant species that are better known among other members of the community.

Table 3: Exclusive species list from the work of Gazzaneo et al. [15].

Family/scientific name
Vernacular name
Habit
Origin
RI

Asteraceae

Egletes viscosa (L.) Less.
Macela
Herbs
Exotic
0.17

Tagetes sp.
Cravo de defunto
Herbs
—
0.17

Caesalpiniaceae

Senna obtusifolia (L.) H.S. Irwin & Barnbey
Mata pasto
Herbs
Exotic
0.17

Tamarindus indica L.
Tamarindo
Tree
Exotic
0.17

Caprifoliaceae

Sambucus australis Cham. & Schlecht
Flor de sabugo
Tree
Exotic
0.50

Clusiaceae

Symphonia sp.
Bulandi
Herbs
—
0.17

Euphorbiaceae

Croton sp.
Marmeleiro
Shrub
Native
0.17

Euphorbia thymifoliaL.
Pé de pombo
Herbs
Native
0.67

Loranthaceae

Phthirusa pyrifolia (H.B.K.) Eichl.
Esterco de passarinho
Herbs
Native
0.50

Malvaceae

Malva sp.
Malva branca
Herbs
—
0.17

Poaceae

Brachiaria mutica (Forsk.) Stapf
Capim de planta
Herbs
Exotic
0.33

Dendrocalamus giganteus Munro
Bambu
Tree
Exotic
0.17

Saccharum officinarum L.
Cana
Herbs
Exotic
0.17

Rhizophoraceae

Rhizophora mangle L.
Mangue
Tree
Native
0.33

Rubiaceae

Cephaelis ipecacuanha (Brot.) A. Rich.
Papeconha
Herbs
Native
0.50

Rutaceae

Pilocarpus sp.
Jaborandi
—
—
0.33

Sapotaceae

Pradosia sp.
Burinhê
—
—
0.33

Scrophulariaceae

Scoparia dulcis L.
Vassourinha
Herbs
Exotic
0.17

RI: relative importance value.

Figure 3: Comparison of the richness of families, species, and exclusive species between local experts and the general community.

The numbers of exotic and native species mentioned by local experts and that by the general community were not significantly different according to Williams’ -test (, ). Among exclusive species, we also did not observe any significant differences between native and exotic plants (, ), suggesting that local experts and the general community presented a similar citation repertoire of native and exotic species.

There was no significant difference between the relative importance (RI) of species mentioned by local experts and that by general community (, ). We observed a significant correlation between local experts and the general community in the number of indications per species according to the Spearman correlation test (, ). This result suggests that local experts and the general community provided similar information regarding the indication of medicinal plant species. Among the ten species with higher RI mentioned by local experts and the general community, the species Borreria verticillata L. G. Mey., Hymenaea martiana Hayne, Mentha piperita L., Pithecellobium cochliocarpum (Gomez) Macbr., and Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi occurred in both studies. These results show that using local experts to provide information on the indications of medicinal plants was useful in the given context. However, the same was not observed for data on species richness. Thus, we recommend engaging the whole community to gather such data. Such precaution may prevent a large number of known species from being neglected, as in our study.

4. Discussion

4.1. Richness of Medicinal Plants Mentioned by Informants

The study showed high diversity in the knowledge of medicinal plants, with significant results for species prescribed for basic health care. The acceptance of folk medicine and the limited access to public healthcare services in the community may be factors contributing to the knowledge of medicinal species in local medical practices.

A few plant families prominent in this study, such as Lamiaceae and Asteraceae, are reported as very diverse taxonomic groups in the literature. Their high diversity probably reflects a greater amount of bioactive compounds [29], which may explain their prominence in this study and in similar ones in other regions [30, 31].

Most medicinal plants used in the study area are exotic herbs that usually grow in anthropogenic areas, such as agricultural fields, gardens, and roads. Other studies performed in forest environments in different regions have shown that traditional communities select anthropogenic areas as important resource sources [32–36]. The frequent citation of herbs in the community of “Três Ladeiras” may be a consequence of the importance of this life form in anthropogenic areas, also due to the presence of strong bioactive compounds. In a study conducted in the same community, Gazzaneo et al. [15] also reported that more of the medicinal plants used by experts were herbs, collected mainly in the backyards of homes and small farms.

According to Voeks [37], weeds are often abundant in easily accessible places and rich in bioactive compounds, and as a result they are widely represented in tropical medicinal floras.

4.2. Influence of Gender and Age on the Knowledge of Medicinal Plants

Women had greater knowledge of medicinal plants when compared to men in the community studied. That result was probably due to women being the caregivers for their families, a trend also observed in other studies [5, 38–40]. This scenario may also reflect the different activities performed by men and women in the community because the latter must dedicate themselves to their homes and families, which help them assimilate the knowledge they will need to keep their homes healthy at an earlier age. We should add that most species from the list of mentioned plants were exotic and herbaceous plants that are found in places women are more familiar with, such as backyards.

The study showed that young informants had less knowledge of medicinal plants when compared to older ones, which can be attributed to a lack of interest in learning and practicing such knowledge in younger generations, who are increasingly influenced by modernization. Several studies have reported similar results [38, 41–45]. It is also important to notice that older people are more experienced and have had greater contact with plant resources and time to exchange knowledge with other informants from the region. Moreover, older people are more often affected often by various illnesses, which may help to increase their repertoire of plants and indications. In addition, they are responsible for preparing home remedies for themselves and for younger people, favoring the retention of knowledge and prompting younger individuals to use the plant resource without necessarily having knowledge of the remedy or its preparation.

4.3. Analysis of the Knowledge of Medicinal Plants between Local Experts and the General Community

This research showed that studies focused on experts can generate useful information, with a satisfactory level of reliability. But these are eminently suitable for quick diagnosis about the knowledge and use of medicinal plants in a community. That approach has the advantage of minimizing costs and time when collecting ethnobotanical data in the community surveyed. However, studies aiming to gather such information in greater detail should ideally engage other members of the community. That may prevent a large number of known species from being neglected. Vandebroek [46] reports that the careful selection of informants is a key task of the ethnobiologist and cannot be a simple step. The author suggests that, for a scientifically rigorous research, should be involved as many participants as possible, but if time is really a limiting factor, it is necessary to select key informants who have a high degree of knowledge about plants in the region as well as a high level of consensus with others.

Within this scenario, the association between both groups of informants is also possible [45–47]. In fact, the information gathered from key informants (experts) in those studies helped prepare semistructured forms and consensus analyses among informants. In some cases, local experts are used as facilitators for data collection, accompanying the researcher during interviews with other members of the community. These studies serve as examples of the advantages and limitations of different informant profiles and emphasize the importance of clearly establishing the goals the researcher hopes to achieve to best engage the most appropriate informants.

It should be noted, additionally, that there was a five-year interval between the data obtained from local experts and the general community. The influence of such a gap could not be measured or controlled, given the sampling design of each study and the dynamic character of human knowledge, and this limitation restricts the possibility of extrapolating the considerations discussed here. Moreover, we could not completely rule out the possibility that the so-called local expert informants have been added to the sample of the present study.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the community of Três Ladeiras for the participation and Vanduís Valdino for fieldwork help. They also thank the contribution of the project “Sustainability of remnants of the Atlantic rainforest in Pernambuco and its implications for conservation and local development,” a Brazilian-German scientific cooperation within the program “Science and Technology for the Atlantic Rainforest” funded by CNPq (590039/2006-7) and BMBF (01 LB 0203 A1). The authors’ gratitude also goes to CNPq for the financial aid (Edital Universal) and productivity grant for research awarded to U. P. de Albuquerque and CAPES to CF. C. B. R. de Almeida.

References

H. F. Leitão Filho, “Considerações sobre a florística de florestas tropicais e sub-tropicais do Brasil,” IPEF, vol. 35, pp. 41–46, 1987.

N. Myers, R. A. Mittermeler, C. G. Mittermeler, G. A. Fonseca, and J. Kent, “Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities,” Nature, vol. 403, no. 6772, pp. 853–858, 2000.

A. L. Peixoto, M. M. T. Rosa, and I. M. Silva, “Caracterização da Mata Atlântica,” in Manual Metodológico para Estudos Botânicos na Mata Atlântica, L. S. Sylvestre and M. M. T. Rosa, Eds., pp. 9–23, EDUR, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2002.

L. V. F. C. Cunha and U. P. Albuquerque, “Quantitative ethnobotany in an atlantic forest fragment of northeastern Brazil,” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, vol. 114, pp. 1–25, 2006.

F. S. Silva, M. A. Ramos, N. Hanazaki, and U. P. Albuquerque, “Dynamics of traditional knowledge of medicinal plants in a rural community in the Brazilian semi-arid region,” Brazilian Journal of Pharmacognosy, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 382–391, 2011.

A. H. Ladio and M. Lozada, “Nontimber forest product use in two human populations from Northwest Patagonia: a quantitative approach,” Human Ecology, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 367–380, 2001.

I. Vandebroek, P. V. Damme, L. V. Puyvelde, S. Arrazola, and N. Kimped, “A comparison of traditional healers' medicinal plant knowledge in the Bolivian Andes and Amazon,” Social Science and Medicine, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 837–849, 2004.

N. Hanazaki, J. Y. Tamashiro, H. F. Leitão-Filho, and A. Begossi, “Diversity of plant uses in two Caiçara communities from the Atlantic Forest coast, Brazil,” Biodiversity and Conservation, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 597–615, 2000.

J. M. Monteiro, U. P. D. Albuquerque, E. M. F. Lins-Neto, E. L. D. Araújo, and E. L. C. Amorim, “Use patterns and knowledge of medicinal species among two rural communities in Brazil semi-arid northeastern region,” Journal of Ethnopharmacology, vol. 105, no. 1-2, pp. 173–186, 2006.

M. B. Quinlan and R. J. Quinlan, “Modernization and medicinal plant knowledge in a Caribbean horticultural village,” Medical Anthropology Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 169–192, 2007.

A. A. Ayantunde, M. Briejer, P. Hiernaux, H. M. J. Udo, and R. Tabo, “Botanical knowledge and its differentiation by age, gender and ethnicity in Southwestern Niger,” Human Ecology, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 881–889, 2008.

D. Estomba, A. Ladio, and M. Lozada, “Medicinal wild plant knowledge and gathering patterns in a Mapuche community from north-western Patagonia,” Journal of Ethnopharmacology, vol. 103, no. 1, pp. 109–119, 2006.

C. F. C. B. R. Almeida, M. A. Ramos, E. L. C. Amorim, and U. P. Albuquerque, “A comparison of knowledge about medicinal plants for three rural communities in the semi-arid region of northeast of Brazil,” Journal of Ethnopharmacology, vol. 127, no. 3, pp. 674–684, 2010.

Agência Estadual de Planejamento e Pesquisa de Pernambuco (FIDEM/CODEPE), Diagnóstico das Reservas Ecológicas: Região Metropolitana do Grande Recife, Recife, Brazil, 2007.

L. R. S. Gazzaneo, R. F. P. Lucena, and U. P. Albuquerque, “Knowledge and use of medicinal plants by local specialists in an region of Atlantic Forest in the state of Pernambuco (Northeastern Brazil),” Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, vol. 1, article 9, 2005.

Fundação de Desenvolvimento Municipal do Interior de Pernambuco (FIAM), Perfil Municipal de Igarassu, Pernambuco, Brazil, 1997.

Agência Estadual de Planejamento e Pesquisa de Pernambuco (FIDEM/CODEPE), Igarassu, Recife, Brazil, 2007.

Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia e Meio Ambiente (SECTAM), Diagnósticos das Reservas Ecológicas da Região Metropolitana do Recife, Recife, Brazil, 2001.

Agência Estadual de Planejamento e Pesquisa de Pernambuco (FIDEM/CODEPE), Monitoramento das Reservas Ecológicas da Região Metropolitana do Grande Recife, Recife, Brazil, 1993.

Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE), Resultados da amostra do censo demográfico, 2008, http://www.ibge.gov.br.

U. P. Albuquerque, R. F. P. Lucena, and N. L. Alencar, “Métodos e técnicas para a coleta de dados etnobiológicos,” in Métodos e Técnicas na Pesquisa Etnobiológica e Etnoecológica, U. P. Albuquerque, R. F. P. Lucena, and L. V. F. C. Cunha, Eds., pp. 39–64, NUPEEA, Recife, Brazil, 2010.

Ministério da Saúde, Conselho Nacional de Saúde, Manual Operacional para comitês de ética em pesquisa, Ministério da Saúde/Série CNS Cadernos Técnicos, 2002.

A. Davis and J. R. Wagner, “Who knows? On the importance of identifying “experts” when researching local ecological knowledge,” Human Ecology, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 463–489, 2003.

K. Bailey, Methods of Social Research, The Free Press, New York, NY, USA, 4th edition, 1994.

World Health Organization (WHO), International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision, 2006.

U. P. Albuquerque, P. M. Medeiros, A. L. S. Almeida et al., “Medicinal plants of the caatinga (semi-arid) vegetation of NE Brazil: a quantitative approach,” Journal of Ethnopharmacology, vol. 114, no. 3, pp. 325–354, 2007.

B. C. Bennett and G. T. Prance, “Introduced plants in the indigenous pharmacopoeia of northern South America,” Economic Botany, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 90–102, 2000.

M. Ayres and M. Ayres-Júnior, BioEstat 5.0—Aplicações estatísticas nas áreas das ciências bio-médicas, Universidade Federal do Pará, Pará, Brazil, 2007.

M. Giday, Z. Asfaw, and Z. Woldu, “Ethnomedicinal study of plants used by Sheko ethnic group of Ethiopia,” Journal of Ethnopharmacology, vol. 132, no. 1, pp. 75–85, 2010.

M. Tadesse, D. Hunde, and Y. Getachew, “Survey of medicinal plants used to treat human diseases in Seka Cherkosa, Jimma Zone, Ethiopia,” Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences, vol. 15, pp. 89–106, 2005.

M. Giday, Z. Asfaw, and Z. Woldu, “Medicinal plants of the Meinit ethnic group of Ethiopia: an ethnobotanical study,” Journal of Ethnopharmacology, vol. 124, no. 3, pp. 513–521, 2009.

R. A. Voeks, “Tropical forest healers and habitat preference,” Economic Botany, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 381–400, 1996.

M. C. M. Amorozo, “Uso e diversidade de plantas medicinais em Santo Antônio de Leverger, MT, Brasil,” Acta Botanica Brasílica, vol. 16, pp. 189–203, 2002.

M. Giday, T. Teklehaymanot, A. Animut, and Y. Mekonnen, “Medicinal plants of the Shinasha, Agew-Awi and Amhara peoples in northwest Ethiopia,” Journal of Ethnopharmacology, vol. 110, no. 3, pp. 516–525, 2007.

J. R. S. Tabuti, S. S. Dhillion, and K. A. Lye, “Firewood use in Bulamogi County, Uganda: species selection, harvesting and consumption patterns,” Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 581–596, 2003.

S. K. Uniyal, K. N. Singh, P. Jamwal, and B. Lal, “Traditional use of medicinal plants among the tribal communities of Chhota Bhangal, Western Himalaya,” Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, vol. 2, article 14, 2006.

R. A. Voeks, “Disturbance pharmacopoeias: medicine and myth from the humid tropics,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 94, no. 4, pp. 868–888, 2004.

A. Begossi, N. Hanazaki, and J. Y. Tamashiro, “Medicinal plants in the Atlantic Forest (Brazil): knowledge, use, and conservation,” Human Ecology, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 281–299, 2002.

S. Collins, X. Martins, A. Mitchell, A. Teshome, and J. T. Arnason, “Quantitative ethnobotany of two East Timorese cultures,” Economic Botany, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 347–361, 2006.

T. Teklehaymanot, “Ethnobotanical study of knowledge and medicinal plants use by the people in Dek Island in Ethiopia,” Journal of Ethnopharmacology, vol. 124, no. 1, pp. 69–78, 2009.

N. I. Hilgert, “Plants used in home medicine in the Zenta River basin, Northwest Argentina,” Journal of Ethnopharmacology, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 11–34, 2001.

H. Fassil, We do what we know: local health knowledge and home-based medicinal plant use in Ethiopia, Ph.D. thesis, Green College, Oxford University, 2003.

T. Gedif and H. J. Hahn, “The use of medicinal plants in self-care in rural central Ethiopia,” Journal of Ethnopharmacology, vol. 87, no. 2-3, pp. 155–161, 2003.

D. Hunde, Z. Asfaw, and E. Kelbessa, “Use and management of ethnoveterinary medicinal plants by indigenous people in “Boosat”, Welenchiti area,” Ethiopian Journal of Biological Sciences, vol. 3, pp. 113–132, 2004.

K. Srithi, H. Balslevb, P. Wangpakapattanawonga, P. Srisangac, and C. Trisonthia, “Medicinal plant knowledge and its erosion among the Mien (Yao) in northern Thailand,” Journal of Ethnopharmacology, vol. 123, no. 2, pp. 335–342, 2009.

I. Vandebroek, “The Dual Intracultural and Intercultural Relationship between Medicinal Plant Knowledge and Consensus,” Economic Botany, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 303–317, 2010.

S. L. Cartaxo, M. M. A. Souza, and U. P. Albuquerque, “Medicinal plants with bioprospecting potential used in semi-arid northeastern Brazil,” Journal of Ethnopharmacology, vol. 131, no. 2, pp. 326–342, 2010.