The Current Status of Ethnobiology in Ecuador

Abstract

This article gives an account of the current status of ethnobiology in Ecuador. Our goal is a generalized diagnosis of Latin America’s ethnobiological research production, which portrays Ecuadorian ethnobiology as practically non-existent. We perform an updated search of online databases, using a range of keywords, to show that elements of an ethnobiological research program are indeed present in Ecuadorian scholarship. While ethnobotany is the most developed sub-discipline of ethnobiology in Ecuador, there is also research on ethnomedicine, ethnozoology, and, to a lesser extent, ethnomycology. The development of these sub-disciplines promotes further ethnobiological scholarship in Ecuador. Beyond these sub-disciplines, ethnobiology is interwoven with contemporary anthropological accounts that emphasize the relationships between nature and culture and shine a light on the epistemic plurality of ethnobiology. If ethnobiology in Ecuador is distinguished by an epistemic plurality—understood through these different styles of reasoning—then it can be characterized without being confined to sub-disciplines with the ethno- prefix.

The scholarly publishing landscape of ethnobotany in the Philippines

“…The general pattern reveals that researchers working in Philippine ethnobotany mainly focused on the documentation of medicinal plants, coinciding similar trend reported in the quantitative study of ethnobiology literature in Ecuador (González-Rivadeneira et al 2018). The shift in the dominance of Manobo in Mindanao as the most studied IPs during Phase II reflects the growing interest of researchers towards understudied IPs, where majority of previously conducted ethnobotanical work focused on the IPs situated in Luzon (Dapar & Alejandro 2020).…”

“…Articles used in this present study were retrieved from those available in Google Scholar. Though Scopus and/or WoS have been the recommended index databases in retrieving quality-oriented articles (Falagas et al 2008, Mongeon & Paul-Hus 2016 in most bibliometric analysis studies (González-Rivadeneira et al 2018;Pathak and Bharati 2020;Ritter et al 2015), there have been only few papers concerning Philippine ethnobotany indexed in Scopus (Dapar & Alejandro 2020) while a quick check in the WoS revealed there are only 44 unscreened documents indexed from 2003-2022. In addition, majority of the journals, particularly publishers based in the Philippines have not been indexed yet by Scopus and/or WoS (Tecson-Mendoza 2015).…”

“…The growth of ethnobotany research has been rampantly seen in developing countries as revealed in different bibliometricapproached studies (González-Rivadeneira et al 2018;Hidayati et al 2015;Pathak and Bharati 2020;Ritter et al 2015). One of the latest bibliometric studies was conducted by Ritter et al (2015) in Brazil and by Pathak and Bharati (2020) in India.…”

Directions In Brazilian Ethnobiology

“…Instead, the scenario outlined at that time showed the apparent dominance of research categorized as ethnobotanical, which persists today. Furthermore, Brazilian authors publish more papers on ethnobotany than any other approach, focusing on medicinal plants (Gonzalez-Rivadeneira et al 2018;Pathak and Bharati 2020;Phumthum 2020;Ritter et al 2015). In Brazil, researchers who do not necessarily identify as ethnobiologists have made notable contributions to understanding the interaction between people and biota (e.g., Sena et al 2022).…”

Exploring the ethnobiological practices of fire in three natural regions of Ecuador, through the integration of traditional knowledge and scientific approaches

“…A review of ethnobiology in Latin America has shed light on the current state of ethnobiological research in the region [ 9 ]. Countries like Brazil and Mexico appear to be leaders in the field, whereas in Ecuador, there seems to be no research in this area [ 10 ]. Ecuador ranks last in Latin America in terms of scientific production specifically related to ethnobiology.…”