↓ Skip to main content

Medicinal plant knowledge in Caribbean Basin: a comparative study of Afrocaribbean, Amerindian and Mestizo communities

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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 plant knowledge in Caribbean Basin: a comparative study of Afrocaribbean, Amerindian and Mestizo communities
Published in
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13002-015-0008-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wendy Torres-Avilez, Martha Méndez-González, Rafael Durán-García, Isabelle Boulogne, Lionel Germosén-Robineau

Abstract

The Caribbean Basin has complex biogeographical and cultural histories that have shaped its highly diverse botanical and cultural landscapes. As a result, the current ethnic composition of the Basin is a heterogeneous mixture including Amerindian, Afrocaribbean and a wide range of Mestizo populations. A comparison was done of the medicinal plant repertoires used by these groups to identify the proportion of native species they include and any differences between the groups. The TRAMIL program has involved application of ethnopharmacological surveys to gather data on the medicinal plants used for primary care in 55 locations the Caribbean Basin. Three Afrocaribbean, three Amerindian and three Mestizo communities were selected taking in account the Ethnic prevalence. Differences in native and exotic plant used by groups and between groups were done using contingency tables. Identification of differences in the numbers of native and exotic plants used within each group was done with a one sample Z -test for proportions. Similarity in medicinal species use was estimated using the Sørensen Similarity Index. Species use value (UV) was estimated and a principal components analysis (PCA) run to determine differences between groups. The 1,753 plant records generated from the surveys of the nine communities included in the analysis covered 389 species from 300 genera and 98 families. The studied groups used different numbers of native and exotic species: Afrocaribbean (99 natives, 49 exotics); Amerindian (201 natives, 46 exotics); and Mestizo (63 natives, 44 exotics). The proportion of natives to exotics was significantly different in between the Afrocaribbean and Amerindian communities, and between the Amerindian and Mestizo communities, but not between the Afrocaribbean and Mestizo communities. In the PCA, the groups were disparate in terms of the use value they assigned to the medicinal species; these were determined according to species with high use value and those used exclusively be a particular group CONCLUSIONS: Although migration, cultural intermixing and a consequent hybridization of medicinal plant knowledge have occurred in the Caribbean Basin, the results highlight differences between the three studied groups in terms of the medicinal plant repertoire they employ for primary health care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Mexico 1 1%
Unknown 73 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 17%
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Master 11 14%
Other 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Other 16 21%
Unknown 6 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 34%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 8%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 13 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 24 April 2018.
All research outputs
#13,195,932
of 22,793,427 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#421
of 734 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,223
of 255,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#11
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,793,427 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 734 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 255,477 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.