| Literature DB >> 20028498 |
Sandra Polo1, Javier Tardío, Ainhoa Vélez-del-Burgo, María Molina, Manuel Pardo-de-Santayana.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This paper assesses the current ethnobotanical knowledge, use and management of Scolymus hispanicus L. in two localities of Central Spain and the relation with its natural abundance. It also addresses the influence of sociodemographic factors such as age, gender and time living in the village in the variation of knowledge and practice levels.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 20028498 PMCID: PMC2808299 DOI: 10.1186/1746-4269-5-42
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ethnobiol Ethnomed ISSN: 1746-4269 Impact factor: 2.733
Figure 1.
Figure 2Localization of the surveyed areas in the province of Madrid.
Figure 3Historical demography in Brea de Tajo and Canencia (INE 2009, .
Figure 4Current population of Brea de Tajo and Canencia organized by sex and age group (INE 2009, .
Population of each village divided by age and sex
| Brea de Tajo | Canencia | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age group | Men | Women | Total | Men | Women | Total |
| 42 (4) | 38 (4) | 80 (8) | 35 (3) | 25 (2) | 60 (5) | |
| 81 (8) | 67 (7) | 148 (15) | 66 (7) | 56 (6) | 122 (13) | |
| 74 (7) | 50 (5) | 124 (12) | 85 (8) | 45 (4) | 130 (12) | |
| 73 (7) | 98 (9) | 171 (16) | 88 (9) | 95 (9) | 183 (18) | |
| 270 (26) | 253 (25) | 523 (51) | 274 (27) | 221 (21) | 495 (48) | |
In brackets the number of informants interviewed
Scores given to the answers that form the KP index.
| Recognizes the plant in the photographs | 0.25 |
| Knows the name | 0.25 |
| Knows the use, part of the plant used, mode of consumption, etc | 0.50 |
| Uses it at present | 1.00 |
| Used it in the past | 1.00 |
| Harvests it at present | 1.00 |
| Harvested it in the past | 1.00 |
Number of positive respondents to each question divided by age groups.
| Brea de Tajo | Canencia | Total | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interviewees | 8 | 15 | 12 | 16 | 51 | 5 | 13 | 12 | 18 | 48 | |
| Recognized the plant | 4 | 14 | 6 | 16 | 40 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 18 | 32 | |
| Knew the name | 3 | 13 | 11 | 16 | 43 | 2 | 3 | 12 | 18 | 35 | |
| Knew its uses | 3 | 13 | 10 | 16 | 42 | 2 | 3 | 12 | 18 | 35 | |
| Use it at present | 0 | 1 | 4 | 12 | 17 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 9 | 18 | |
| Used it in the past | 0 | 7 | 7 | 16 | 30 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 18 | 33 | |
| Gather it at present | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 11 | |
| Gathered it in the past | 0 | 9 | 3 | 12 | 24 | 0 | 1 | 10 | 12 | 23 | |
Number of informants who mentioned cardillo ecological characteristics in each locality.
| Brea de Tajo | Canencia | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of informants who mentioned habitat characteristics | 29 | 29 | 58 |
| Roadsides, loose soils, poor soils | 24 (83%) | 23 (79%) | 47 (81%) |
| Farming fields, both cultivated or fallow lands | 20 (69%) | 2 ( 7%) | 22 (38%) |
| Water, humidity, rains | 3 (10%) | 12 (41%) | 15 (26%) |
| Livestock | 0 ( 0%) | 13 (45%) | 13 (22%) |
| Number of informants who mentioned historical abundance differences | 24 | 24 | 48 |
| There are now less plants than before | 21 (88%) | 5 (21%) | 26 (54%) |
| There are no differences between past and present abundance | 3 (120%) | 19 (79%) | 22 (46%) |
KP index value of the different age groups in the two surveyed localities (mean and standard error)
| ≤19 | 20-39 | 40-59 | >60 | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brea de Tajo | 0.41 ± 0.16 aA | 2.02 ± 0.36 bA | 2.19 ± 0.54 bA | 3.75 ± 0.21 cA | 2.35 ± 0.24 A |
| Canencia | 0.80 ± 0.58 aA | 0.60 ± 0.40 aB | 3.46 ± 0.38 bA | 3.56 ± 0.29 cA | 2.44 ± 0.27 A |
| Total | 0.56 ± 0.23 a | 1.36 ± 0.29 a | 2.82 ± 0.35 b | 3.64 ± 0.18 b | 2.39 ± 0.17 |
Means followed by different letters differ statistically (Man-Whitney U test, P < 0.05). Small letters compare differences in the same locality (rows) and capital letters in the same age group (columns).
KP index of men and women in the two surveyed localities (mean and standard error)
| Men | Women | |
|---|---|---|
| Brea de Tajo | 2.66 ± 0.31 a | 2.02 ± 0.35 a |
| Canencia | 2.43 ± 0.36 a | 2.46 ± 0.43 a |
| Total | 2.54 ± 0.24 | 2.22 ± 0.27 |
The same letter mean non-significant differences (P < 0.05)
KP index of the informants who have been living for less or more than ten years in the two surveyed villages (mean and standard error).
| <10 years | > 10 years | |
|---|---|---|
| Brea de Tajo | 0.21 ± 0.12 a | 2.63 ± 0.24 b |
| Canencia | 0.70 ± 0.44 a | 3.16 ± 0.26 b |
| Total | 0.55 ± 0.31 | 2.86 ± 0.18 |
Different letter means significant difference (P < 0.05)
Density and Estimated Total Number of Plants in Each Village.
| Area (ha) | Density (plants/ha) | Estimated total number of plants (area*density) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brea de Tajo | 0.85 | 750 ± 187 a | 637 ± 159 |
| Canencia | 7.60 | 208 ± 29 b | 1583 ± 220 |
| Total | 8.45 | 307 ± 43 | 1411 ± 184 |