Medicinal plant use at the beginning of the 21st century among the religious minority in Latgale Region, Latvia

Abstract

Background: As identified by scholars, even when communities co-habit the same natural environment, there may be visible differences due to cultural factors, and thus local knowledge on medicinal plants evolves along with the culture. This paper addresses the complexity of medicinal plant use across different social groups situated in the same natural environment with a focus on a distinct religious minority: Old Believers.Methods: This paper covers ethnobotanical data from 27 villages and populated areas in Dagda Municipality of Latgale, Latvia. The region is highly diverse, especially in terms of language and ethnic groups. In total, seventy-three interviewees were interviewed, of which nineteen represented Old Believers.Results: The number of used taxa among Old Believers (40 taxa) was half of that used by the other local community members such as Latgalians ( 81) and the multi-ethnic group (77). Because of the scarcity of available materials on plant uses by Old Believers, we speculate that religious characteristics such as self-isolation from other cultures might be one of the reasons for such a difference. On the other hand, historical aspects such as migration and the subsequent need for adaptation to the local flora could also partly explain the low number of medicinal taxa in comparison to the other groups. Conclusions:The study indicates that self-isolation, being a characteristic of Old Believers, potentially plays a role in medicinal plant use. We recommend further research to study in detail aspects of medicinal plant use in self-isolated communities within highly literate societies.

Homogenisation of Biocultural Diversity: Plant Ethnomedicine and Its Diachronic Change in Setomaa and Võromaa, Estonia, in the Last Century

“…The number of the used plants (86) recorded in the present study is comparable to the results obtained in earlier studies conducted in Ukraine with a smaller number of participants: 88 used plants by both Hutsuls living in Romania and Ukraine [ 46 ] and Romanians living in Ukraine. However, it is lower compared to the study among Hutsuls and Ukraine and Romania [ 41 ] and Romanians in Ukraine and Romania [ 42 ], both with comparable samples (111 and 108 taxa respectively) and much less compared to studies with larger samples: a study in Latgale (116) [ 43 ] and in Belarus (119) [ 44 , 45 ]. From the numbers of plants used, we cannot, however, detect remarkable erosion of knowledge, as the numbers are comparable to the recorded historical uses of plants among Setos and Võros.…”

“…The greatest overlap in use (20 out of 24 taxa) is with a study conducted nearby in Latgale a few years ago [ 43 ]. The second largest overlap (16 of the same taxa out of 24 total) is with a study more geographically distant—the Ljuban region of Belarus [ 44 , 45 ].…”

“…In order to discern the sources of homogenisation, we conducted a more focused comparison of taxa, which were named in at least three UR in this study (but not mentioned in more than 2 UR in historical sources), with studies carried out using a similar methodology within the territory of the former Soviet Union [ 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ] and a few studies based on historical sources of plant use in Estonia territory [ 47 , 48 , 49 ].…”

Traditional Uses of Medicinal Plants in South-Western Part of Lithuania

“…The data were structured into use reports (UR), which reflect the use of a particular part of the plant, prepared or used in a particular way, for a specific medicinal category, multiplied by the number of people mentioning such use [47]. Plant species were divided into six groups according to their frequency in the study site:…”

Ethnobotanical Survey of Culturally Important Plants and Mushrooms in North-Western Part of Croatia

“…FC, together with UR (provides information on the use of a plant or a plant part used by one informant for a specific medical category multiplied by the number of informants mentioning such use), is mainly used to determine the accuracy of ethnobotanical data. A higher value of UR points to a higher level of agreement among informants [ 91 ].…”