2013
DOI: 10.1590/s0001-37652013005000013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: This study analyzes three methods of data analysis to verify which one would be more appropriate to get information aiming the conservation, selecting the use value (VU) inventory in situ and conservation property index (IPC). It was developed in in Northeast Brazil, via interviewed householders (46 informants). The VU was calculated considering only the effective use of plants; the inventory in situ was made through the frequency of species occurrence in homes; and the IPC combining ethnobotanical and phytoss… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
25
0
6

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
1
25
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…The number of botanical families and genera identified in this study is similar to that reported in other studies conducted in the caatinga (Almeida et al 2012, Lucena et al 2013. This shows the relevance of native plants to livelihoods of rural communities who live in this biome.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The number of botanical families and genera identified in this study is similar to that reported in other studies conducted in the caatinga (Almeida et al 2012, Lucena et al 2013. This shows the relevance of native plants to livelihoods of rural communities who live in this biome.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…This index measures the importance of a given species by the number of uses it has (Lucena et al , 2013. To test differences between groups, different nonparametric tests were used since the data were not normally distributed (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Th e use of these methods has become more and more common in studies evaluating the impact caused by anthropic actions on vegetation (Dhar et al 2000;Kala 2000;Dzerefos & Witkowski 2001;Badola & Pal 2003;Dalle & Potvin 2004;Kala et al 2004;Oliveira et al 2007;Brehm et al 2010;Albuquerque et al 2011a;b;Idohou et al 2012;Lucena et al 2013). Janni & Bastien (2000), for example, recognized conservation priorities using the index of relative importance based on the proposal of Bennet & Prance (2000) to evaluate plants that have cultural use.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Quantitative approaches and methods in Ethnobotany studies have been getting more frequent in the last decades (Phillips & Gentry, 1993a, 1993b, Begossi, 1996, Dzerefos & Witkowski, 2001, Oliveira, Lins-Neto, Araújo, & Albuquerque, 2007, Lucena, Lucena, Araújo, Alves, & Albuquerque, 2013. Some studies evaluated species use-value for local populations, for showing which plants are preferred for each population (Phillips & Gentry, 1993b, Galeano, 2000, Crepaldi & Peixoto, 2010.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies also related use-values with species availability in their natural ecosystems (Phillips & Gentry, 1993b, Torres-Cuadro & Islebe, 2003, Ferraz, Albuquerque, & Meunier, 2006, testing the hypothesis of the ecological appearance (Phillips & Gentry, 1993b) and making possible to identify over-exploration of plants (Luoga, Witkowski, & Balkwill, 2000). However, Phillips and Gentry (1993b) calculated the use-values index based in the knowledge of local informants about useful species (potential utilization value) and Lucena et al (2013) adapted this index, using the frequency of collection of the vegetation species by local informants (real utilization value).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%