↓ Skip to main content

An ethnobotany of the Lukomir Highlanders of Bosnia

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 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
An ethnobotany of the Lukomir Highlanders of Bosnia & Herzegovina
Published in
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13002-015-0068-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan Ferrier, Lana Saciragic, Sabina Trakić, Eric C. H. Chen, Rachelle L. Gendron, Alain Cuerrier, Michael J. Balick, Sulejman Redžić, Emira Alikadić, John T. Arnason

Abstract

This aim of this study is to report upon traditional knowledge and use of wild medicinal plants by the Highlanders of Lukomir, Bjelašnica, Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H). The Highlanders are an indigenous community of approximately 60 transhumant pastoralist families who speak Bosnian (Bosanski) and inhabit a highly biodiverse region of Europe. This paper adds to the growing record of traditional use of wild plants within isolated communities in the Balkans. An ethnobotanical study using consensus methodology was conducted in Lukomir in Bjelašnica's mountains and canyons. Field work involved individual semi-structured interviews during which informants described plants, natural product remedies, and preparation methods on field trips, garden tours, while shepherding, or in settings of their choice. Plant use categories were ranked with informant consensus factor and incorporated into a phylogenetic tree. Plants cited were compared to other ethnobotanical surveys of the country. Twenty five people were interviewed, resulting in identification of 58 species (including two subspecies) from 35 families, which were cited in 307 medicinal, 40 food, and seven material use reports. Individual plant uses had an average consensus of five and a maximum consensus of 15 out of 25. There were a number of rare and endangered species used as poisons or medicine that are endemic to Flora Europaea and found in Lukomir. Ten species (including subspecies) cited in our research have not previously been reported in the systematic ethnobotanical surveys of medicinal plant use in B&H: (Elymus repens (L.) Gould, Euphorbia myrsinites L., Jovibarba hirta (L.) Opiz, Lilium bosniacum (Beck) Fritsch, Matricaria matricarioides (Less.) Porter ex Britton, Phyllitis scolopendrium (L.) Newman, Rubus saxatilis L., Silene uniflora Roth ssp. glareosa (Jord.) Chater & Walters, Silene uniflora Roth ssp. prostrata (Gaudin) Chater & Walters, Smyrnium perfoliatum L.). New uses not reported in any of the aforementioned systematic surveys were cited for a total of 28 species. Thirteen percent of medicinal plants cited are endemic: Helleborus odorus Waldst. et Kit., Gentiana lutea L., Lilium bosniacum (Beck) Fritsch, Silene uniflora Roth ssp. glareosa (Jord.) Chater & Walters., Silene uniflora Roth ssp. prostrata (Gaudin) Chater & Walters, Salvia officinalis L., Jovibarba hirta (L.) Opiz, and Satureja montana L. These results report on the cohesive tradition of medicinal plant use among healers in Lukomir, Bosnia and Herzegovina. This work facilitates the community's development by facilitating local and international conversations about their traditional medicine and sharing insight for conservation in one of Europe's most diverse endemic floristic regions, stewarded by one of Europe's last traditional Highland peoples.

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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 18%
Student > Master 15 16%
Researcher 11 12%
Other 6 6%
Professor 6 6%
Other 22 24%
Unknown 16 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 8%
Environmental Science 6 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 5%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 27 29%
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 11 December 2018.
All research outputs
#13,824,947
of 23,426,104 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#441
of 746 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,991
of 389,841 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#8
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,426,104 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 746 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 389,841 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 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 66% of its contemporaries.