↓ Skip to main content

Plant species introduced by foreigners according to folk tradition in Norway and some other European countries: xenophobic tales or not?

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

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
Plant species introduced by foreigners according to folk tradition in Norway and some other European countries: xenophobic tales or not?
Published in
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13002-015-0056-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Torbjørn Alm

Abstract

In their quest to understand and interpret nature, people have frequently sought religious or divine origins for plant species and their characteristics. Less often, historical events or persons are involved. This study comprises eleven cases of the latter kind, all claiming that plant species have been introduced by foreigners or at least from foreign lands. Based on literature data and a few cases recorded during my own ethnobotanical field work, eleven European examples of pseudo-historical plant origins are presented here, including Cakile maritima, Cicuta virosa, Lathyrus japonicus, Leymus arenarius, Primula vulgaris, and Scopolia carniolica in Norway, Heracleum mantegazzianum and/or H. persicum in Denmark, Phoenix dactylifera and P. theophrastii in Greece, and Jacobaea vulgaris in Scotland. The only common trait in these stories is that foreigner or at least foreign lands are claimed as sources of the plant species. In most cases, the "historical" explanations given in folk tradition are demonstrably at odds with reality. In those cases that involve poisonous or potentially harmful species (Cicuta virosa, Heracleum mantegazzianum and/or H. persicum, Jacobaea vulgaris), or the "useless" Phoenix theophrastii, with its inedible fruits, the stories may be interpreted as xenophobic, blaming foreigners for introducing dangerous or worthless species. The remaining examples merely suggest a search for exotic and seemingly rational, if erroneous, origins for plant species and stands that people considered strange and unusual. The spreading vectors assumed in folk tradition are correct and well documented, e.g. ship cargos (including goods and packing materials), which are responsible for introducing ballast plants and other anthropochores, and wartime activities, introducing a broad range of species (polemochores). They do not, however, apply to the species included in this study, which are either indigenous plants or introduced ornamentals. The foreigners appearing in the folk tales serve mostly as suitably exotic explanations for what is perceived "alien" plants.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 21%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Lecturer 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Arts and Humanities 2 8%
Engineering 2 8%
Psychology 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 5 21%
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 17 January 2016.
All research outputs
#13,373,945
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#427
of 735 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,163
of 277,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#8
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 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 735 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 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 277,499 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.