↓ Skip to main content

Traditional medicinal plant use in Loja province, Southern Ecuador

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, October 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
296 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
178 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
Traditional medicinal plant use in Loja province, Southern Ecuador
Published in
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, October 2006
DOI 10.1186/1746-4269-2-44
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rainer W Bussmann, Douglas Sharon

Abstract

This paper examines the traditional use of medicinal plants in Loja province, Southern Ecuador.Two hundred fifteen plant species were collected, identified and their vernacular names and traditional uses recorded. This number of species indicates that the healers, market vendors and members of the public interviewed still have a very high knowledge of plants in their surroundings, which can be seen as a reflection of the knowledge of the population in general. However, the area represents only an outlier of the larger Northern Peruvian cultural area, where more than 500 species of plants are used medicinally, indicating that in Ecuador much of the original plant knowledge has already been lost.Most plant species registered are only used medicinally, and only a few species have any other use (construction, fodder, food). The highest number of species is used for the treatment of "magical" (psychosomatic) ailments (39 species), followed by respiratory disorders (34), problems of the urinary tract (28), Fever/Malaria (25), Rheumatism (23) and nervous system problems (20).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ecuador 6 3%
United States 3 2%
Italy 2 1%
Chile 1 <1%
Bolivia, Plurinational State of 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 160 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 13%
Researcher 24 13%
Student > Master 20 11%
Student > Bachelor 18 10%
Student > Postgraduate 12 7%
Other 46 26%
Unknown 34 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 43 24%
Social Sciences 17 10%
Chemistry 13 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 7%
Other 42 24%
Unknown 39 22%
Attention Score in Context

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 03 April 2022.
All research outputs
#13,860,181
of 23,482,849 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#440
of 747 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,673
of 67,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,482,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 747 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 67,371 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.