Hum Ecol (2009) 37:653–661
DOI 10.1007/s10745-009-9259-9
Five Problems in Current Ethnobotanical
Research—and Some Suggestions for Strengthening Them
Ulysses Paulino de Albuquerque & Natalia Hanazaki
Published online: 9 July 2009
# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009
The relationships between plant diversity and cultural
diversity, as well as the perception, use, and management
of plant resources, are central issues in ethnobotany
research. This apparently simple statement masks the
complexity of a field of investigation that has borrowed
methods from many scientific traditions, especially botany
and anthropology (Bridges and Lau 2006). Ethnobotany has
incorporated different theories from areas such as anthro-
pology, ecology, genetics, evolution, and economy, and this
interdisciplinary exchange has become definitively allied
with the studies documenting traditional botanical knowl-
edge. Some basic principles of the integrative approaches
that blend theories from these different areas have been
published in the last 40 years, especially after the seminal
publications of Conklin (1954) and Berlin et al. (1966,
1968, 1973) [for an historical overview, also see Clément
(1998)]. Other important publications include that of Johns
(1996), for example, who discussed interesting hypotheses
linking ethnobotany, evolution, and chemical ecology.
For some time now, numerous authors have stressed the
necessity for more rigorous research programs and for the
U. P. de Albuquerque (*)
Departamento de Biologia,
Area de Botânica. Laboratório de Etnobotânica Aplicada,
Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco,
Dom Manoel de Medeiros s/n. Dois Irmãos,
Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil
e-mail: upa@db.ufrpe.br
N. Hanazaki
Centro de Ciências Biológicas,
Departamento de Ecologia e Zoologia,
Laboratório de Ecologia Humana e Etnobotânica,
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina,
88010-970 Florianópolis, SC, Brazil
e-mail: natalia@ccb.ufsc.br
use of quantitative techniques associated with the exami-
nation of hypotheses (e.g. Phillips and Gentry 1993a, b;
Reyes-Garcia et al. 2006a, b). These arguments are not at
all recent: more than 80 years ago, in his comments on the
research done by Randolph Gilmore on the use of plants by
Amerindians of the Missouri River region, Alfred Kroeber
pointed out the necessity of examining the plants used by
the tribes that he was studying within the context of the
flora of that region, stating that “four tribes us[ing] 170
different plants will have quite different significance if the
flora of their region numbers 200 or 2,000 species”
(Kroeber 1920). In spite of the fact that quantification is a
relatively old idea in ethnobotany (Albuquerque 2009),
quantitative methodologies have only very recently re-
ceived more attention (Galeano 2000), and this movement
has been accompanied by the growing recognition of the
importance of ethnobotanical investigation in global strat-
egies for biodiversity conservation. A quantitative approach
is needed in order to address issues such as threatened
species, pressure over natural resources, and impacts of the
use of plants. Consequently, the popularity of ethnobotany
appears to be linked to the recognition of its ethical,
biological, and social implications (Albuquerque 2005).
The combination of these different factors has transformed
the importance and significance of local knowledge,
placing ethnobotany in a privileged position in the search
for “solutions to very complex social or environmental
problems” (Alexiades 2003). Part of this potential for
transformation derives from the strongly interdisciplinary
character of ethnobotany, as its focus can be directly linked
to proposals for local development (for example, see Toledo
1995). The question that arises, however, is if ethnobotany
as a science has generated any general principles that can
aid in the response to this growing demand for answers and
solutions.
654
The majority of the work in ethnobotany currently
involves three broad types of foci: descriptive studies,
causality studies, and diagnostic studies. Descriptive studies
usually define a set of useful plants of a given human
community within a wide range of utilitarian categories or
within a certain cultural domain. The preferred techniques
for these studies include semi-structured interviews with the
general community or with local specialists and free-listing.
Usually the data are presented in tables that list the species
and their uses. A critical factor in these studies is the clarity
of the inclusion criteria of the interviewees. Many weak-
nesses in these studies result from generalizations that are
not warranted by the sampling structure and by the
presentation of disjointed information in the absence of a
theoretical context that can satisfactorily explain the results.
The advantage of these studies is that they are practical and
allow a rapid inventory of the useful flora in a given
locality; however, when lacking an adequate theoretical
base, they tend to present relatively weak scientific
reflections, in spite of being descriptively interesting.
Causality studies seek to determine factors that could
explain the use and knowledge of plants. This type of
research utilizes hypothetical–deductive reasoning in order
to test its hypotheses (Phillips and Gentry 1993a, b;
Vandebroek et al. 2004; Almeida et al. 2005; Estomba et
al. 2006; see also Hoft et al. 1999 for some examples). In
principle, these studies allow for the rigorous evaluation of
variables that have been selected by the researcher.
Considering that hypotheses in ethnobotany can originate
from anthropology and ecology, for example, the charac-
terization and definition of the variables to be used can be
difficult. For this reason, it is necessary for the researchers
to examine the selected variables in great detail, objectively
define their concepts, and indicate all possible sources of
“biases.” Sometimes, however, sources of “hidden biases”
can be introduced by the researchers themselves when
incorrect sampling and selection procedures are used with
the interviewees (did the study include an adequate number
of participants or have an effective sampling size?) or when
inadequate analytical tools are employed.
Diagnostic studies are relatively new to ethnobotanical
investigations, and they seek to test the efficiency and
validity of certain techniques and methods (see Reyes-
Garcia et al. 2006a; Silva et al. 2006; Monteiro et al. 2008;
Tardío and Pardo-de-Santayana 2008). These studies
propose questions pertaining to, for example, whether the
intentional sampling of informants in medicinal plant
research is more efficient than a probabilistic sampling of
the population. In a certain way, these projects can also
apply hypothetical–deductive reasoning and be subject to
the same types of “bias” as causality research. Researchers
performing diagnostic studies should therefore not attempt
to compare things that are not comparable. Using the above
Hum Ecol (2009) 37:653–661
questions, for example, if the researcher wishes to compare
techniques used by two different communities, the results
may appear to be explained by intrinsic differences between
these communities instead by differences in the techniques
per se. As such, critical reflections must be made
concerning the methods used and the basic design of the
study.
In this context, we have to consider that ethnobotany has
been experiencing a process of internal reorganization in
terms of its investigative practices, and it is becoming very
clear that the search for solutions to specific problems must
be based on solid evidence and well-documented general
principles. This article is a reflection on the path that
ethnobotany has taken in search of its identity as a science.
We will argue here that future progress towards an ample
understanding of the relationships between humans and
plants in ethnobotany will require a phase of self-criticism
that examines how researchers produce scientific knowl-
edge. Our observations are presented in five complementa-
ry and non-exclusive topics. We were strongly influenced
by the article “Ten suggestions to strengthen the science of
ecology” by Belovsky et al. (2004), which also inspired our
title. Some of the problems pointed out by these authors in
terms of ecological studies are extremely pertinent and
applicable to the study of ethnobotany.
How We Deal (or Do Not Deal) with Previously
Published Literature
The lack of appreciation of previous literature is one of the
principal weaknesses of many recently published works.
Authors often present interesting ideas and describe situations
similar to those encountered in other studies, but they do not
place their work in the context of or discuss it in terms of the
available literature. This may be partly explained by the lack
of books/texts on ethnobotany that synthesize current ethno-
botanical trends or, as McClatchey (2006) observed, it may
be due to the difficulty that researchers and students in many
countries have in actually gaining access to those publica-
tions. This is just a partial explanation for the both above
mentioned problem, however, as we have seen a proliferation
of texts in recent years focusing on different methodologies
and techniques of ethnobotanical research, such as Martin
(1995), Cotton (1996), Alexiades (1996), Cunningham
(2001), and Albuquerque et al. (2008). Although these
compilations are essential for explaining the proposed
methods and techniques, they cannot substitute for mono-
graphs with critical and systematic analyses of the state of
knowledge concerning specific themes. Important reflections
on methodological research issues pertaining to traditional
ecological knowledge have recently been published. Al-
though focusing mostly on fishery research, Shackeroff and
Hum Ecol (2009) 37:653–661
Campbell (2007) put forward valuable reflections on the
problems of constructive engagement in participatory re-
search that can also be applied to areas of ethnobotanical
research.
Another problem associated is the incorrect interpreta-
tion or unwarranted generalization about the data or the
ideas of other authors. This is especially true in research
dealing with traditional knowledge (Nazarea 1999). It is not
uncommon for a simplification by a second researcher to
completely distort the original idea of an article. This can
cause serious problems through the perpetuation of these
errors from paper to paper. For this reason, many scientific
writing manuals recommend avoiding the use of “apud” or
“cited by” and encourage authors to consult the original
sources. Diversity indices (Begossi 1996), for example, are
sometimes used in ethnobotany to analyze the diversity of
the known plants in a given locality, while ignoring the fact
that diversity indices can only be used to compare different
places or different groups if the same methodological
procedures were used in both situations. Special care must
be taken when making these comparisons due to the strongly
interdisciplinary nature of ethnobotany. A careful analysis
must be performed in each case as studies undertaken using
different approaches may produce results that are only
marginally comparable. For example, the same ethnobotan-
ical theme studied from predominantly anthropological or
botanical viewpoints may well have been undertaken using
different methods and techniques and do not necessarily
generate results that can be directly compared.
There are also problems involving incorrect attribution
of ideas or statements to other authors. In the end, poor
quality citation of scientific texts has many causes. An
interesting book by Kida (2006) illustrates how errors like
these can be easily made and potentially avoided. Some of
these root causes are also discussed by McClatchey (2006),
who gave examples of three types of common errors or
inconsistencies that compromise repeatability: problems
related to biological science techniques (e.g. biological
material not collected or not identified, or other problems
related to its identification); problems related to the social
sciences (e.g. contextualization of the research, obtaining
consent, or lack of clarity in relation to the object of the
research); and general problems (inappropriate language or
disrespect for local cultures). It is important to stress,
however, that these problems should not be confused with
differences in the theoretical foundations on which any
given research project is based.
Is Theoretical Integration Desirable?
The lack of a formal theoretical framework in ethnobotany is
not a new problem; Richard Ford observed in 1978 that
655
ethnobotany presents a common theme, but without a unifying
theory (Ford 1978; see Ellen 2006). A theory of this nature is
an important component of a unified investigative strategy
and for the development of generalizations—without which
our comprehension of the phenomena involved in the
relationships between people and plants will always be
limited. Belovsky et al. (2004) observed that ecology needed
a coherent theory in order to be able to elaborately test the
validity of its premises, and ethnobotany now faces the same
type of challenge (see Albuquerque 2009). The reader,
however, may argue that ethnobotany is currently in a
developmental phase and does not yet have sufficient
maturity to generate comprehensive theories about the
relationships between people and plants. Behind this
reflection is also a philosophical question: is a unifying
theory of ethnobotany actually possible or desirable in view
of its interdisciplinary origin and character?
In spite of the limitations in relation to building a
unifying theory, ethnobotany does not completely lack
theoretical foundations. In fact, very much the opposite is
true, as there are available theories derived from many
different disciplines that have influenced ethnobotanical
research. Within the realm of these discussions, the
development of operational concepts, testable hypotheses,
and clearly defined and delimited study variables in
ethnobotany is still limited. In truth, without a well-
defined theoretical base, we have a collection of valid
works that are without related information and of limited
use in constructing a theoretical framework. Many research-
ers have, for example, suggested in their studies that there
exists a relationship between the use of a given species and
its availability, but the majority of these observations are
essentially anecdotal. The term “anecdotal” is used here to
denote non-systematic observations that lack any robust
evidence. In the 1990s, Phillips and Gentry (1993a, b)
suggested that an important force that directs the use of a
species might be its spatial availability. The apparency
theory, which originated in discussions concerning herbiv-
ory, has been applied as a theoretical test for such
relationships in ethnobotany (e.g. Albuquerque and Lucena
2005; Lucena et al. 2007). Following this initial study,
various other researchers sought to verify this same type of
relationship (e.g. Galeano 2000; Almeida et al. 2005;
Cunha and Albuquerque 2006; Lucena et al. 2007),
although sometimes without a formal and specific experi-
mental design.
Traditionally, ethnobotanists are interested in describing
the relationships between people and plants but sometimes
we forget that the theory of evolution (as well as other
theories in the realm of ecology) may offer new and valid
ways of interpreting data. We clearly agree that ethno-
botanists and ethnobiologists should emphasize investiga-
tions on how culture, language, cognition, knowledge, and
656
human subsistence interact with long-term processes of
evolution (Ellen 2006). For example, if it is shown that
people tend to select plant resources based on availability, it
might be valid to use ecological models already tested in
animals to evaluate other aspects of this complex relation-
ship. There is evidence, for example, that the local
environment influences selection of plant species in
communities that otherwise share the same beliefs, customs
(Ladio and Lozada 2004; Ladio et al. 2007), and cultural
heritages. In another example, ethnobotany may be an
important component in the evolution of cultivated plants,
as seen in work examining the evolutionary dynamics of
manioc (Peroni et al. 2007). Finally, evolutionary theory
can provide a useful context to be integrated into
ethnobotany approach.
Are We Using Screwdrivers to Hammer Nails?
Ethnobotanists should attempt to identify a set of questions
to assess the complexity reflected in the relationships
between people and plants. The search for general questions
may be limited by inadequate experimental designs, lack of
clarity in the concepts used, or lack of a minimum degree of
standardization among the approaches that would make the
data more comparable (see an interesting review by Reyes-
Garcia et al. 2007). These problems point to the necessity
for quantitative approaches supported by rigorous experi-
mental procedures. On the other hand, qualitative
approaches, as sources of hypotheses, require similar rigor
and control over the validity of the information presented.
As long as many investigations are oriented exclusively for
the production of lists of useful species (descriptive
approach addressed in this text), the discovery of underly-
ing principles will continue to be delayed.
It would be unproductive to try to separate qualitative
and quantitative approaches: we assume that both are quite
valid in terms of the questions raised, that the same themes
can be contemplated within these two traditions, and that
ethnobotany can make good use of both. Strictly qualitative
and descriptive approaches are very focused and tend to
produce excellent case studies. However, quantitative
approaches must be used if the work seeks to verify
relationships between variables under different situations,
and hypothetical–deductive methods will best attend to
these necessities.
The same theme can be examined using both
approaches, in a complementary way. For contrasting
examples, if the general question is to investigate the
variations in traditional botanical knowledge, the researcher
(s) may choose a qualitative approach to examine the
processes related to the construction of botanical knowl-
edge in a community. Usually, in qualitative research,
Hum Ecol (2009) 37:653–661
hypotheses can be constructed in both the planning and the
observational phases. In this sense, different hypotheses
will reveal themselves to the researchers as they gradually
go about constructing a theoretical outline to explain the
phenomena they have observed. In the other hand, using a
quantitative approach, the researcher can examine the
variables that influence knowledge about plants in any
given community, and test, for example, whether age,
gender, or occupation influence knowledge about plants.
For this, the researcher can choose to evaluate knowledge
using the number of plants cited and/or used by the
population as a measure to evaluate the heterogeneity of
knowledge. But one must be aware of the possible
interpretative limitations of this choice and problems related
to sample sizes in these studies. Many quantitative analyses
are useful for identifying general patterns of knowledge.
As an answer to the criticism first raised by Kroeber
(1920), an impressive number of quantitative techniques for
analyzing the relative importance of plants have proliferat-
ed in recent decades (e.g. Phillips 1996; Byg and Balslev
2001; Reyes-García et al. 2006b; Castañeda and Stepp
2007; Hoffman and Gallaher 2007; Garibay-Orijel et al.
2007; Tardío and Pardo-de-Santayana 2008). Reyes-Garcia
et al. (2007) argued that researchers must be keenly aware
of the accuracy, reproducibility, and comparability of their
quantitative ethnobotany studies. They also discuss some of
the problems related to the quantitative methods used to
measure individual traditional botanical knowledge. Most
of these techniques have been proposed, in the final
analysis, to reveal the group of plants most important to a
given culture. Recent works have focused on confronting
these techniques, called indices of cultural significance or
Relative Importance, in different situations (Silva et al.
2006; Albuquerque et al. 2006) or on perfecting them
(Reyes-Garcia et al. 2006b; Garibay-Orijel et al. 2007).
Some studies have suggested that the use of these
techniques may be problematic if authors do not have a
clear grasp of their limitations or what is, in fact, being
measured (Albuquerque and Lucena 2005; Albuquerque
et al. 2006; Tardío and Pardo-de-Santayana 2008). Begossi
(1996), for example, proposed using ecological diversity
indices in ethnobotanical studies, and since then various
researchers have incorporated these indices into their
analyses (based on the number of people that cite a given
species during interviews) with the view that these indices
capture the essence of the diversity of the useful plants
known within a given community. On the other hand, the
use of diversity indices to measure local knowledge
suggests that all of the species have equal local importance,
because those indices only reflect the heterogeneity of the
types of information within a sample, no matter what
information is considered. However, it is assumed that the
responses of these people are a valid indication of the
Hum Ecol (2009) 37:653–661
degree to which a given taxon is really locally “present.”
Yet these analyses do not clearly define (like most of the
relative importance indices) whether the species referred
to make up part of the set of actively used species. There
is much evidence showing that people cite more species
as useful during interviews than they effectively use
(Albuquerque 2006). The interpretation of these data,
however, varies greatly among researchers.
There seems to be a current tendency to substitute the
importance of the basic quality of the data for “modern”
methodologies (that is, quantitative techniques) and statistics
(see Belovsky et al. 2004, in terms of ecology). Research
roles should not become inverted, with methodology
becoming the main focus of the research. Methodologies
and statistics are only tools to aid researchers in their
investigations. Many multivariate analysis techniques (Höft
et al. 1999), for example, are not appropriate for elucidating
causalities. They are, however, excellent tools for perceiving
patterns that, in turn, can indicate possible investigative paths
to follow. We specifically cite multivariate methods because
they are multiplying in usage in many different areas, but
they also have many weak points, principally in terms of the
comprehension of the techniques used by the authors. In his
presentation on the use of multivariate methods in ethno-
biology, Peroni (2002) points out that it is easy to be
impressed by the elegance of multivariate analyses while
losing sight of the motivation for using these techniques in
the first place. We often have the impression that the data
were collected first and the researchers only later asked
themselves what methods or techniques could be applied.
On the other hand, it is very disconcerting to encounter
works that bring with them very good and original ideas but
that have irreparable faults in their methodologies. Some of
these situations are very simple, without grave implications,
while others can be complex and much more serious. The
most simple faults, for example, include using the calculation
of Use-Values as originally proposed by Phillips and Gentry
(1993a, b) to conclude that the species with the highest
values are those that suffer the greatest use-pressure—even
though the precautions that must be taken before making this
type of interpretation have been exhaustively discussed—and
no study has yet demonstrated a direct relationship between
these two variables. Additionally, the use-value is based on
knowledge about what people say they use, but that does not
imply actual use (see Albuquerque et al. 2006). This last
example reflects more conceptual problems than statistical or
methodological ones.
Are the Results Adequately Interpreted?
Over-simplified interpretations of results represent one of
the most common weaknesses of many authors, which can
657
also lead to ingrained interpretations of some phenomena.
One example of this type of common interpretation is that
the intensive use of exotic plants in a given culture reflects
acculturation. The simple analysis of the richness of exotic
plants has been used as evidence for this idea (accultura-
tion). The way in which the question is approached may
mask the presence of other factors that could explain this
phenomenon in another (and perhaps much more robust)
manner (e.g. Albuquerque 2006 for an alternative hypoth-
esis). Another example, related to an author’s ideological or
conceptual vision, attributes the observation that older
people often know more useful plants than younger people
to the erosion of local knowledge. In principle we might
expect to encounter this type of situation, for it is a basic
premise that older people have had much more experience
with these resources over the course of their lives. It is
possible, however, that different factors affect the dynamics
of local knowledge and that a very careful analysis of the
data gathered from a well-designed research plan could
address these questions. Caution is also needed in making
statements concerning acculturation for two basic reasons.
First, rarely does a researcher have information concerning
the previous knowledge of a given group or community (for
example, local knowledge of plants before urbanization of a
given community). Second, it is always necessary to
remember that culture and knowledge are dynamic and
that the incorporation of new items and the loss of
information are both parts of long-term adaptative process-
es and should never be interpreted at any single moment in
time.
Can We Strengthen the Integration
Between Ethnobotany and Other Disciplines?
The theory of evolution can lend powerful tools to help
explain the complex web of relationships associated with
biodiversity. The application of many aspects of evolution-
ary theory to ethnobotanical problems might greatly
strengthen many areas of research. Ethnobotanists have
much to learn not only in terms of insight into biological
evolution, but also in terms of cultural evolution—in much
the same way as other interface-disciplines, such as
cultural ecology and ecological anthropology (see Viertler
1988; Kormondy and Brown 1998; Neves 2002). There
are many theoretical models that can be applied to and
evaluated in ethnobotany such as, for example, the theory
of optimal foraging and other similar optimization models
from ecology. Critical examination of some of these
models requires the assumption that many aspects of
human behavior are selected by evolution and adaptative
in relation to plants. Additionally, ecological models can
be useful in the development of robust theories concerning
658
the relationships between people and plants (see, for
example, Albuquerque and Oliveira 2007). The theory of
island biogeography (McArthur and Wilson 1967), as
another example, has been used to explain the differences
in the species richness of useful plants on Brazilian islands
(Hanazaki et al. 2000). We are still quite far from rejecting
or accepting the validity of some of these models, since
there is not yet enough clear data from systematic studies.
The absence of such evidence is not so much due to a lack
of interest among the ethnobotanical community to test
hypotheses but instead a lack of sufficient replication of
these studies. “By replication we mean repeated studies in
different ecosystems and in the same ecosystem over
time” (Belovsky et al. 2004). Once again, the ethnobo-
tanical community must define central investigative ques-
tions and replicate studies that have already been
performed in different parts of the world. Comparative
studies will allow us to identify similarities and differ-
ences in the use of plant resources and aid in the
development of a well-formulated theory for ethnobotany,
as suggested by Belovsky et al. (2004) for ecology.
Additionally, this set of research results could give rise
to a metanalyses that would unite numerical data from
more than one study. In other words, metanalyses combine
the results of several studies with common or related
research hypotheses (see Moerman 1991, 1996 and
Moerman et al. 1999). Metanalyses are robust sources of
scientific evidence and increase the precision of global
results when adequately applied. For example, Moerman
et al. (1999), in a comparative analysis of five medicinal
floras, used a method with regression residuals and found
that medicinal species “are distributed in a highly non-
random fashion across subclasses and families as well as
across groups defined in terms of growth habit and life
pattern.”
Some Suggestions for Strengthening Ethnobotanical
Research
In our view, the situations illustrated above indicate a need
for the ethnobotanical community to collectively construct
the lines of development that ethnobotany will follow for
the coming years, and these actions should include the
following:
1. The continued formation of ethnobotanists, with em-
phasis on developing skills in the areas of scientific
writing and the methods and philosophy of science. We
feel that problems related to training good scientists are
not exclusive to the area of ethnobotany. In fact, many
researchers have been calling attention to the problems
of fraud and bad conduct among scientists for many
Hum Ecol (2009) 37:653–661
years (Broad 1981; Marshall 2000; Geggie 2001;
Kintish 2005). There is little doubt that many of the
problems described above can be attributed to ques-
tionable behavior on behalf of researchers, and this
indicates the necessity for improving the quality of the
scientific culture that is being passed on to our students.
This is, without a doubt, a question that requires
immediate attention. One of the most important
characteristics of science is its capacity for self-
correction. However, if we do not “replicate” studies,
for example, we will not be able to detect some types of
problems. We should not, perhaps, be so alarmed that
many of our colleagues are expressing doubts and
concerns about the quality of science today, but as
professionals in the area we must motivate our students
to improve their critical abilities. It would also be very
useful to include discussions about scientific writing
and experimental design in normal ethnobotanical
courses. We can, and we should, rapidly advance
towards solving the problems mentioned earlier.
2. Definition of global investigation strategies and lines of
action. It will be necessary for ethnobotanists to
embrace this action. The complexity of our discipline
sets forth many theoretical, epistemological, and meth-
odological challenges. We will need to establish the
most desirable future for ethnobotany, as well as the
potential benefits of this research for the scientific
community and society in general. The definition of
global strategies, however, requires a process of
reflection about our field, its theoretical problems, and
how the questions we frame and the responses we are
searching for can help to build a better society. Without
a doubt, the first challenge is to create a forum in which
these discussions can be initiated. One suggestion is
that we take advantage of the opportunity offered by
the International Congress in Ethnobotany, which is
held every four years, to begin these discussions,
perhaps in the form of workshops. This practice of
discussion and reflection on ideas within our field of
investigation has already been put into practice, for
example, in the documents of the Intellectual Imper-
atives in Ethnobiology (NSF Report 2003).
3. Elaboration of research agendas based on questions that
will advance the field into high priority areas, such as
biodiversity conservation. In our opinion, these re-
search agendas could be more regional and perhaps
associated with the global strategies discussed above.
An example of a basic question would ask what type
of knowledge is needed to effectively corroborate the
strategies directed towards biodiversity conservation
or the discovery of new drugs of medical and
pharmaceutical interest (Albuquerque and Hanazaki
2006; Albuquerque 2008). The definition of these
Hum Ecol (2009) 37:653–661
strategies would have to be openly discussed by the
scientific community in a given region. The first step
is to define what needs to be done within a measurable
time frame, which will function as a mechanism to
promote vigilance and assess progress. In Brazil, for
example, we could take advantage of the meetings of
the Brazilian Society of Ethnobiology and Ethno-
ecology and the Brazilian Botanical Society to form a
network of interested researchers and begin to respond
to these questions. The recognition of the value of
ethnobotanical research by other areas of the natural
sciences, such as ecology and conservation biology,
would also help define new lines of action for the
application of local knowledge to the understanding of
and response to ecological problems (see Brook and
McLachlan 2008).
4. Construction of standardized methodological protocols
to address basic questions and to allow data collected in
different regions to be more easily compared and make
the associated results more amenable to generalizations.
We feel that this fourth suggestion is one of the most
important to the advancement of ethnobotanical knowl-
edge. Some might argue that the definition of protocols
could act as a limiting force, since our research
objectives as well as the socio-environmental contexts
of the communities we study are very diverse. We agree
with this observation. However, basic protocols adapted
for specific questions can be extremely useful and
allow us to accumulate information from different parts
of the world concerning the same theme. This would
certainly advance our comprehension of the complex
phenomenon of the expression of human–plant rela-
tionships. These protocols would need to be exhaus-
tively debated in terms of their methodological and
interpretative limits. Once again, congresses and meet-
ings should be promoted to discuss these questions
among ethnobotanists interested in constructing a
dynamic and constantly advancing ethnobotanical
science.
Finally, we stress the necessity of maintaining a high
level of self-criticism concerning research procedures in
ethnobotany, with the aim of progressive improvement in
the quality of our work and in the formation of
ethnobotanists themselves. Researchers must truly incor-
porate the ideas that testing hypotheses can help the field
of ethnobotany advance rapidly in the direction of
constructing a sound theoretical background and that it
is necessary to assume all of the implications of a
hypothetical–deductive approach. As ethnobotanists, we
should ask ourselves if the approaches we are using is
the most adequate for evaluating the questions we wish
to address.
659
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the CNPq for
financial support (“Edital Universal”) and for grants awarded to U.P.
Albuquerque, N. Hanazaki for fruitful discussions with her students
at the Laboratory of Human Ecology and Ethnobotany (UFSC), and
especially Dr. Daniel Moerman for valuable comments and
criticisms.
References
Albuquerque, U. P. (2005). Introdução à Etnobotânica. Rio de Janeiro,
Interciência.
Albuquerque, U. P. (2006). Re-Examining Hypotheses Concerning the
Use and Knowledge of Medicinal Plants: A Study in the
Caatinga Vegetation of NE Brazil. Journal of Ethnobiology and
Ethnomedicine 2: 30. doi:10.1186/1746-4269-2-30.
Albuquerque, U. P. (2008). Etnobotânica aplicada para a conservação
da biodiversidade. In Albuquerque, U. P., Lucena, R. F. P., and
Cunha, L. F. V. (eds.), 2008. Métodos E Técnicas Na Pesquisa
Etnobotânica. Comunigraf/NUPEEA, Recife.
Albuquerque, U. P. (2009). Quantitative Ethnobotany or Quantification
in Ethnobotany? Ethnobotany Research & Applications 7: 1–3.
Albuquerque, U. P., and Hanazaki, N. (2006). As Pesquisas
Etnodirigidas Na Descoberta De Novos Fármacos De Interesse
Médico E Farmacêutico: Fragilidades E Perspectivas. Revista
Brasileira de Farmacognosia 16: 678–689.
Albuquerque, U. P., and Lucena, R. F. P. (2005). Can Apparency
Affect the Use of Plants by Local People in Tropical Forests?
Interciencia 30: 506–511.
Albuquerque, U. P., and Oliveira, R. F. (2007). Is The Use-Impact on
Native Caatinga Species in Brazil Reduced by the High Species
Richness Of Medicinal Plants? Journal of Ethnopharmacology
113: 156–170. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2007.05.025.
Albuquerque, U. P., Lucena, R. F. P., Monteiro, J. M., Florentino,
A. T. N., and Almeida, C. F. C. B. R. (2006). Evaluating Two
Quantitative Ethnobotanical Techniques. Ethnobotany Research
& Applications 4: 51–60.
Albuquerque, U. P., Lucena, R. F. P., and L. F. V. Cunha (Eds.). 2008.
Métodos e técnicas na pesquisa etnobotânica. Comunigraf/
NUPEEA, Recife.
Alexiades, M. N. (1996). Selected Guidelines for Ethnobotanical
Research: A Field Manual. New York Botanical Garden, New York.
Alexiades, M. N. (2003). Ethnobotany in the Third Millennium:
Expectations and Unresolved Issues. Delpinoa 45: 15–28.
Almeida, C. F. C. B. R., Silva, T. C. L., Amorim, E. L. C., Maia,
M. B. S., and Albuquerque, U. P. (2005). Life Strategy and
Chemical Composition as Predictors of the Selection of Medicinal
Plants from the Caatinga (Northeast Brazil). Journal of Arid
Environments 62: 127–142. doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2004.09.020.
Begossi, A. (1996). Use of Ecological Methods in Ethnobotany:
Diversity Indices. Economic Botany 50: 280–289.
Belovsky, G. E., Botkin, D. B., Crowl, T. A., Cummins, K. W., Franklin,
J. F., Hunter, M. L. Jr., Joern, A., Lindenmayer, D. B., MacMahon,
J. A., Margules, C. R., and Scott, M. (2004). Ten Suggestions to
Strengthen the Science of Ecology. BioScience 54(4): 345–350.
doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0345:TSTSTS]2.0.CO;2.
Berlin, B., Breedlove, D. E., and Raven, P. H. (1966). Folk
taxonomies and biological classification. Science 154(3746):
273–275. doi:10.1126/science.154.3746.273.
Berlin, B., Breedlove, D. E., and Raven, P. H. (1968). Covert
Categories and Folk Taxonomies. American Anthropologist 70
(2): 290–299. doi:10.1525/aa.1968.70.2.02a00050.
Berlin, B., Breedlove, D. E., and Raven, P. H. (1973). General Principles of
Classification and Nomenclature in Folk Biology. American Anthro-
pologist 75(1): 214–242. doi:10.1525/aa.1973.75.1.02a00140.
660
Bridges, K. W., and Lau, Y. H. (2006). The Skill Acquisition Process
Relative to Ethnobotanical Methods. Ethnobotany Research &
Applications 4: 115–118.
Broad, W. J. (1981). Fraud and the Structure of Science. Science 212
(4491): 137–141. doi:10.1126/science.7209527.
Brook, R. K., and McLachlan, S. M. (2008). Trends and Prospects for
Local Knowledge in Ecological and Conservation Research and
Monitoring. Biodiversity and Conservation 17: 3501–3512.
doi:10.1007/s10531-008-9445-x.
Byg, A., and Balslev, H. (2001). Diversity and Use of Palms in
Zahamena, Eastern Madagascar. Biodiversity and Conservation
10: 951–970. doi:10.1023/A:1016640713643.
Castañeda, H., and Stepp, J. R. (2007). Ethnoecological Importance
Value (EIV) Methodology: Assessing the Cultural Importance of
Ecosystems as Sources of Useful Plants for the Guaymi People of
Costa Rica. Ethnobotany Research & Applications 5: 249–257.
Clément, D. (1998). The Historical Foundations of Ethnobiology.
Journal of Ethnobiology 18: 161–187.
Conklin, H. (1954). The Relation of the Hanunóo Culture to the
Plant World. PhD. Dissertation. Yale University, New Haven,
Connecticut.
Cotton, C. M. (1996). Ethnobotany—Principles and Applications.
Wiley, Chichester.
Cunha, L. V. F., and Albuquerque, U. P. (2006). Quantitative
Ethnobotany in an Atlantic Forest Fragment of Northeastern
Brazil—Implications to Conservation. Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment 114: 1–25. doi:10.1007/s10661-006-1074-9.
Cunningham, A. B. (2001). Applied Ethnobotany. Earthscan, London.
Ellen, R. (2006). Ethnobiology and the Science of the Humankind.
Blackwell, Oxford.
Estomba, D., Ladio, A., and Lozada, M. (2006). Medicinal wild plant
knowledge and gathering patterns in a Mapuche community from
North-western Patagonia. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 103(1):
109–119.
Ford, R. I. (1978). Ethnobotany: Historical diversity and synthesis. In
Ford, R. I. (ed.), The Nature and Status of Ethnobotany.
(Anthropological Papers 67, Museum of Anthropology, University
of Michigan). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp. 33–50.
Galeano, G. (2000). Forest Use at the Pacific Coast of Choco, Colombia:
a quantitative approach. Economic Botany 54(3): 358–376.
Garibay-Orijel, R., Caballero, J., Estrada-Torres, A., and Cifuentes, J.
(2007). Understanding Cultural Significance, the Edible Mush-
rooms Case. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 3: 4.
doi:10.1186/1746-4269-3-4.
Geggie, D. (2001). A Survey of Newly Appointed Consultants:
Attitudes Towards Research Fraud. Journal of Medical Ethics 27:
344–346. doi:10.1136/jme.27.5.344.
Hanazaki, K. N., Tamashiro, J. Y., Leitão-Filho, H. F., and Begossi, A.
(2000). Diversity of Plant Uses in Two Caiçaras Communities
from the Atlantic Forest Coast, Brazil. Biodiversity and Conser-
vation 9: 597–615. doi:10.1023/A:1008920301824.
Hoffman, B., and Gallaher, G. (2007). Importance Indices in
Ethnobotany. Ethnobotany Research & Applications 5: 201–218.
Hoft, M., Barik, S. K., and Lykke, A. M. (1999). Quantitative
Ethnobotany—Applications of Multivariate and Statistical Anal-
yses in Ethnobotany. People and Plants working paper 6.
UNESCO, Paris.
Johns, T. (1996). The Origins of Human Diet and Medicine. The
University of Arizona Press, Arizona.
Kida, T. (2006). Don’t Believe Everything You Think: The 6 Basic
Mistakes We Make in Thinking. Prometheus Books, New York.
Kintish, E. (2005). Scientific Misconduct: Researcher Faces Prison for
Fraud in NIH Grant Applications and Papers. Science 307: 1851.
doi:10.1126/science.307.5717.1851a.
Kormondy, E. J., and Brown, D. E. (1998). Fundamentals of Human
Ecology. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
Hum Ecol (2009) 37:653–661
Kroeber, A. L. (1920). Review of Uses of Plants by the Indians of the
Missouri River region, by Melvin Randolph Gilmore. American
Anthropologist 22: 384–385. doi:10.1525/aa.1920.22.4.
02a00120.
Ladio, A. H., and Lozada, M. (2004). Patterns of Use Knowledge of
Wild Edible Plants in Distinct Ecological Environments: A Case
Study of a Mapuche Community from Northwestern Patagonia.
Biodiversity and Conservation 13: 1153–1173. doi:10.1023/B:
BIOC.0000018150.79156.50.
Ladio, A. H., Lozada, M., and Weigandt, M. (2007). Comparison of
Traditional Wild Plant Knowledge Between Aboriginal Commu-
nities Inhabiting Arid and Forest Environments in Patagonia,
Argentina. Journal of Arid Environments 69: 695–715.
doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2006.11.008.
Lucena, R. F. P., Araújo, E. L., and Albuquerque, U. P. (2007). Does the
Use-Value of Woody Plants of the Caatinga (Northeastern Brazil)
Explain their Local Availability. Economic Botany 61: 347–361.
doi:10.1663/0013-0001(2007)61[347:DTLAOW]2.0.CO;2.
Marshall, E. (2000). Scientific Misconduct—How Prevalent Is Fraud?
That’s a Million-Dollar Question. Science 290(5497): 1662–
1663. doi:10.1126/science.290.5497.1662.
Martin, G. J. (1995). Ethnobotany. Chapman & Hall, London.
McArthur, R. H., and Wilson, E. O. (1967). The Theory of Island
Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
McClatchey, W. (2006). Improving Quality of International Ethnobot-
any Research and Publications. Ethnobotany Research &
Applications 4: 1–9.
Moerman, D. E. (1991). The Medicinal Flora of Native North
America: An Analysis. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 31: 1–
42. doi:10.1016/0378-8741(91)90141-Y.
Moerman, D. E. (1996). An Analysis of the Food Plants and Drug
Plants of Native North America. Journal of Ethnopharmacology
52: 1–22. doi:10.1016/0378-8741(96)01393-1.
Moerman, D. E., Pemberton, R. W., Kiefer, D., and Berlin, B. (1999).
A Comparative Analysis of Five Medicinal Floras. Journal of
Ethnobiology 19: 46–67.
Monteiro, J. M., Lucena, R. F. P., Alencar, N. L., Nascimento, V. T.,
Araújo, T. A. S., and Albuquerque, U. P. (2008). When Intention
Matters: Comparing Three Ethnobotanical Data Collection
Strategies. In Albuquerque, U. P., and Ramos, M. A. (eds.),
Current Topics in Ethnobotany. Research Signpost, Kerala, India.
Nazarea, V. (1999). Ethnoecology: situated knowledge/located lives.
University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Neves, W. (2002). Antropologia Ecológica. Cortez, São Paulo.
NSF Report (2003). Intelectual Imperatives in Ethnobiology. NSF
Biocomplexity Report. Missouri Botanical Garden, Missouri.
Peroni, N. (2002). Coleta E Análise De Dados Quantitativos Em
Etnobiologia: Introdução Ao Uso De Métodos Multivariados. Pp.
155–180. In. Métodos de Coleta e Análise de Dados em Etnobio-
logia, Etnoecologia e Disciplinas Correlatas. M.C.M. Amorozo, L.C.
Ming, and S.M.P. Silva. (eds). Unesp/CNPq, Rio Claro.
Peroni, N., Begossi, A., and Kageyama, P. Y. (2007). Molecular
Differentiation, Diversity, and Folk Classification of Sweet and
Bitter Cassava in Caiçara and Caboclo Management Systems
(Brazil). Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 54: 1333–1349.
doi:10.1007/s10722-006-9116-2.
Phillips, O. (1996). Some quantitative methods for analyzing
ethnobotanical knowledge. In Alexiades, M. (ed.), Selected
guidelines for ethnobotanical research: a field manual. The New
York Botanical Garden, New York, pp. 171–197
Phillips, O., and Gentry, A. H. (1993a). The Useful Plants of
Tambopata, Peru: I. Statistical Hypotheses Tests with A New
Quantitative Technique. Economic Botany 47: 15–32.
Phillips, O., and Gentry, A. H. (1993b). The Useful Plants of
Tambopata, Peru: II. Statistical Hypotheses Tests with a New
Quantitative Technique. Economic Botany 47: 33–43.
Hum Ecol (2009) 37:653–661
Reyes-Garcia, V., Vadez, V., Tanner, S., McDade, T., Huanca, T.,
and Leonard, W. (2006a). Evaluating Indices of Traditional
Ecological Knowledge: A Methodological Contribution. Jour-
nal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2: 21. doi:10.1186/
1746-4269-2-21.
Reyes-Garcia, V., Vadez, V., Huanca, T., Leonard, W., and Wilkie, D.
(2006b). Cultural, Practical, and Economic Value of Wild
Plants: A Quantitative Study in the Bolivian Amazon. Eco-
nomic Botany 60: 62–74. doi:10.1663/0013-0001(2006)60[62:
CPAEVO]2.0.CO;2.
Reyes-Garcia, V., Martí, N., McDade, T., Tanner, S., and Vadez, V.
(2007). Concepts and Methods in Studies Measuring Individual
Ethnobotanical Knowledge. Journal of Ethnobiology 27: 182–
203. doi:10.2993/0278-0771(2007)27[182:CAMISM]2.0.CO;2.
Shackeroff, J. M., and Campbell, L. M. (2007). Traditional Ecological
Knowledge in Conservation Research: Problems and Prospects
for their Constructive Engagement. Conservation and Society 5:
343–360.
661
Silva, V. A., Andrade, L. H. C., and Albuquerque, U. P. (2006).
Revisiting the Cultural Significance Index: The Case of the
Fulni-ô in Northeastern Brazil. Field Methods 18: 98–108.
doi:10.1177/1525822X05278025.
Tardío, J., and Pardo-de-Santayana, M. (2008). Cultural Importance
Indices: A Comparative Analysis Based on the Useful Wild Plants
of Southern Cantabria (Northern Spain). Economic Botany 62:
24–39.
Toledo, V. M. (1995). New Paradigms for a new ethnobotany: Reflections
on the case of Mexico. In Schultes, R. E., and Reis, S. V. (eds.),
Ethnobotany: Evolution of a Discipline. Discorides, Portland.
Vandebroek, I., Calewaert, J., de Jonckheere, S., Sanca, S., Semo, L.,
van Damme, P., Van Puyvelede, L., and de Kimpe, N. (2004).
Use of Medicinal Plants and Pharmaceuticals by Indigenous
Communities in the Bolivian Andes and Amazon. Bulletin of the
World Health Organization 84: 243–250.
Viertler, R. B. (1988). Ecologia Cultural: Uma Antropologia Da
Mudança. São Paulo: Ática.