↓ Skip to main content

Medicinal plants sold at traditional markets in southern Ecuador

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
208 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Medicinal plants sold at traditional markets in southern Ecuador
Published in
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13002-016-0100-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fani Tinitana, Montserrat Rios, Juan Carlos Romero-Benavides, Marcelino de la Cruz Rot, Manuel Pardo-de-Santayana

Abstract

The traditional markets in southern Ecuador and within the Andean region are especially important for plant resource trading among local people, even since before Spanish colonization; therefore, ethnobotanical studies are currently necessary and important. These strategic spaces persist for the traditional medicine cultural value reflected in the higher consumption of medicinal plants, which span all socioeconomic levels of rural and urban people. The purpose of this study includes the following: 1) to create a novel list of medicinal plants sold at 33 traditional markets; 2) to establish medicinal plant use agreement amongst vendors with the Factor of Informant Consensus (FIC); and 3) to determine the most sold medicinal plant species using the Fidelity Level (FL). This study focus on traditional markets ethnobotany utilizes the largest sample of medicinal plants market vendors up to date in Ecuador, interviewing them at 33 traditional markets, located within the Loja province. In order to determine the most sold medicinal plants and their ethnobotanical information, structured questionnaires and personal conversations were conducted with 196 medicinal plant vendors, and voucher specimens were created. Agreement among vendors about the therapeutic use of medicinal plants was measured using the FIC, and the most sold medicinal plant species were assessed with the FL. This research registered 160 medicinal plant species, grouped in 126 genera and 57 families that were sold in 33 traditional markets. The uses of medicinal plants in southern Ecuador are related to a long history of traditional medicine health practices that has persisted until today as well as high plant diversity. The 53 therapeutic uses recorded were grouped into 12 medical categories that were adapted from the World Health Organization. Three medical categories shared the highest value for FIC = 0.92, which showed a high level of agreement of market vendors for 57 medicinal plant species sold to treat ailments related with digestive, dermatological, and sensorial systems. The FL index determined 11 culturally important medicinal plant species based on the reported uses by 40 or more market vendors. Two medicinal plant species had an FL = 100 %, Matricaria recutita and Gaiadendrum punctatum, used to treat digestive and respiratory systems ailments. In the Loja province, people continue to consume medicinal plant species sold at local markets to treat somatic and/or psychosomatic health ailments because sociocultural customs are strongly expressed in ancestral practices of wellbeing. When the largest values of FL (60.5 %-100 %) and FIC (0.81-0.92) indexes are combined, they demonstrated agreement among 196 market vendors in the use of seven medicinal plant species that were most sold for the 12 medical categories. This study stresses how important public policies are for the trade and quality of medicinal plant resources, particularly for local people practicing auto-medication. Reasons for the maintenance of traditional markets in southern Ecuador include lower cost of medicinal plants, confidence in traditional medicine, and/or sociocultural environment. In Ecuador, the sustainable management of wild medicinal plants diversity, particularly the most sold, is crucial for its conservation in nature.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 208 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 208 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 39 19%
Researcher 21 10%
Student > Master 21 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 8%
Other 33 16%
Unknown 59 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 34 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 6%
Chemistry 13 6%
Other 43 21%
Unknown 66 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 September 2016.
All research outputs
#11,499,824
of 18,883,809 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#459
of 694 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,877
of 273,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,883,809 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 694 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 273,681 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.