Research Signpost 37/661 (2), Fort P.O.

, Trivandrum-695 023, Kerala, India

Current Topics in Ethnobotany, 2008: 113-124 ISBN: 978-81-308-0243-5 Editors: Ulysses Paulino de Albuquerque and Marcelo Alves Ramos

When intention matters: Comparing three ethnobotanical data collection strategies

Jlio Marcelino Monteiro, Reinaldo Farias Paiva de Lucena Nlson Leal Alencar, Viviany Teixeira do Nascimento Thiago Antnio de Sousa Arajo, Marcelo Alves Ramos and Ulysses Paulino de Albuquerque Department of Biology, Applied Ethnobotany Laboratory, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, 52101-030, Dois Irmos, Recife, Brazil

Abstract
Methodological procedures used in ethnobotanical investigations have been the target of criticism in terms of their reliability and efficiency in gathering certain types of information. The great variety of research topics to be pursued and the urgency of recording local knowledge concerning biodiversity indicate the need for an examination of our investigative methods. The present work was designed to compare the species richness of useful plants as determined by
Correspondence/Reprint request: Dr. Ulysses P. Albuquerque, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco Departamento de Biologia, rea de Botnica, Laboratrio de Etnobotnica Aplicada, Rua Dom Manoel de Medeiros s/n, 52-171-900 Dois Irmos, Recife, Pernambuco Brazil. E-mail: upa@db.ufrpe.br

114

Jlio Marcelino Monteiro et al.

three different methodologies: a general survey, a survey of a specific cultural domain (both of these approaches using semi-structured interviews), as well as an in situ inventory. This project was undertaken in an area of caatinga (semiarid) vegetation in Pernambuco State, NE Brazil, and an effort was made to include the same participants in all stages. Our results indicated that focused surveys are appropriate for research projects directed towards identifying the richness of useful species in specific categories; while the general survey technique will reveal the greatest overall species richness, and can be used when limited temporal and financial resources are available.

1. Introduction
In the last few years ethnobotanical researchers have used a number of different research methods and techniques, some of them derived from traditional fields of sciences such as ecology and anthropology (see [1-3] for a discussion of some methodologies). However, some researchers have criticized the tools currently employed in ethnobotanical investigations [4-7] because, depending on the principal focus of the research, the choice of data collection methodologies [8], selection of informants [4], and/or the sites and circumstances of the interviews [9] can represent considerable sources of bias. Interviews, free lists, and questionnaires are very common tools used for data collection in ethnobotanical studies and, depending upon the objectives of the study, these surveys can be performed at various levels of specificity. Interviews, for example, can examine the general use of species in a given region [10-15], or they can focus on a specific use-domain [16-19], or on a previously selected species or group of species [20,21]. However, few publications have critically evaluated and compared the efficiency and limitations of these methods. The present work sought to undertake an explorative analysis of information gathered using different methodological strategies in the same research area, employing species richness to quantitatively evaluate information gathered in the field. The work presented here examined the results from three different approaches to data collection: general interviews, specific interviews (focused), and an in situ inventory. It was our expectation that focused surveys would reveal a larger diversity of useful plants than general surveys. In the same sense, we expected that in situ inventories would yield comparatively poorer results than the other survey strategies, as there is evidence to indicate that people tend to know about a greater number of plants than they effectively use [19, 22,23].

2. Study area
The present study was undertaken in an area of hypoxerophytic Caatinga vegetation in the municipality of Caruaru, in the state of Pernambuco,

When intention matters: Comparing three ethnobotanical data collection strategies

115

northeastern Brazil. The community examined, Riacho de Malhada de Pedra, has 123 inhabited residences and a total population of approximately 493 people [24]. This is a typically regional rural community based on subsistence agriculture and limited cattle breeding. Other ethnobotanical studies have been undertaken in the area and can be referred to for more detailed information concerning the physical and cultural aspects of the study locality [6,15,25-29]. The native resources of the region are used in many different manners by the local inhabitants, with strong emphasis on the exploitation of wood products for construction and as fuel [26,28].

3. Materials and methods

We compared three methodological strategies for obtaining information on local native wood plants: general surveys, focused surveys, and in situ inventories. These three approaches had been used in diachronic surveys with specific focuses previously undertaken in the area, and qualitative differences had appeared between the information gathered in each. The general and focused approach used semi-structured interviews [30,31], and differed only in the focus of their investigations: gathering information concerning the general use of native plants, or examining plant use in specific cultural domains, respectively. The in situ inventory method involved the field identification of species while actually being used by the informants. The research was undertaken between 2003 and 2006 during monthly visits to the community lasting several days each. All residences in the community were visited during the survey, however some people not cooperating with the study, so we have different numbers of informants in the methodologies chosen. Botanical material from all specimens was collected and deposited at the PEUFR herbarium (Prof. Vasconcelos Sobrinho, Departamento de Biologia, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Brazil).

3.1 General interviews

Semi-structured interviews were used in the general and focused surveys to gather data concerning knowledge and use of native plant species. The questions solicited information concerning the native species that were known to the interviewees and the specific uses of these natural resources. These uses were subsequently organized into eight use-categories (food, forage, medicinal, ethnoveterinary, technological, fuel, construction, and other-uses) defined according to criteria adopted by Phillips and Gentry [12] and Galeano [10]. The category of other-uses included magic/religious applications, poisons, and personal hygiene uses. The survey itself involved 98 head-of-household informants (55 men and 43 women) who agreed to participate in the research. The informants were

116

Jlio Marcelino Monteiro et al.

selected without regard to their sex or age, the latter varying from 17 to 83 years. The inclusion criterion adopted for interviews in this phase was simply to question the person responsible for the household at the moment of the interview. This series of interviews indicated that three use-categories were particularly important to the local community: medicinal, fuel (fuelwoods), and construction (fences). These three domains were selected for more intensive examination in the second more focused phase of the study (described as follows).

3.2 Focused surveys

The focused surveys sought detailed information concerning species utilized as fuelwoods and for medicinal purposes, and was undertaken using semi-structured interviews. The focused survey of fuelwoods counted on the participation of 102 informants (52 men and 50 women), with ages between 20 and 85 years. The criterion used for selecting the interviewees was the same as described above for the general interviews. The questions posed were directed specifically towards examining knowledge of plants used as energy sources. This experimental phase involved a larger number of interviewees than any other. The focused survey of medicinal plants interviewed 91 people (34 men and 57 women), with ages varying from 18 to 85 years. Additionally, two very popular native species, [Myracrodruon urundeuva Allemo (voucher number: 46634) and Anadenanthera colubrina (Vell.) Brenan (voucher number: 43824) previously examined in detail by Monteiro et al. [26], were used to the information obtained in the interviews focused on the medicinal plant category. One hundred and one people were interviewed during this experimental phase (61 women and 40 men), with ages varying from 17 to 82 years.

3.3 In situ inventory

The in situ inventory focused only on plants known for their use in fence construction and as fuelwoods, and involved detailed studies in the field [32,33]. To initiate the surveys of the species used in fence constructions, properties in the community were identified that had fences at least 50 meters long. A total of 50 fences were examined, and interviews were held with 38 informants who were responsible for the construction or maintenance of more than one fence in the region. Each informant was invited to identify each of the component fence elements in the field and collaborate in the collection of botanical samples for identification. The analysis of fuelwoods used by the community involved the inspection of firewood stocks present in their houses. Thirty three families were identified during the focused survey described previously as using fuelwood in their

When intention matters: Comparing three ethnobotanical data collection strategies

117

home, and we were allowed to inspect the wood stocks in 22 of those residences during the in situ inventory [33]. The plants in the firewood stocks present at the time of inspection were identified by the informants.

3.4 Data analysis

The results of these surveys were analyzed in a straightforward manner, comparing only the quantitative count of species (not ethnospecies) encountered by each methodological strategy and the species unique to each method were subsequently analyzed. As such, only data obtained from the semi-structured interviews of the general or focused surveys were used to calculate the use-values of the species identified in each situation, using the formula: UV = Ui/n, as modified by Rossato et al. [34] and Silva and Albuquerque [35], where: Ui = the number of uses (or citations) mentioned by each informant; n = the total number of informants. The species common to pairs of surveys were subsequently ranked based on their use-values. We assumed that the use-values were a measure of the local importance of these species and reflected the potential use of each resource [6]. The differences in the use-values attributed to the species in the general and focused surveys for the three use-categories were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test [36]. With the data obtained from the ranking of the use-values of species common to pairs of surveys, a scoring system was adopted according to Gaugris and van Rooyen [37]: with a value of (1) given to each species that held the same ranking position in two methods; (0.75) for each species that demonstrated a ranking position within +/- one position in two methods; (0.5) for each species that demonstrated a ranking position within +/- two positions; (0.25) for each species that demonstrated a ranking position within +/- three positions; and (0) for each species that demonstrated a ranking position within +/- four positions or more in two methods.

4. Results and discussion

4.1 Comparing methodologies
The general survey registered less species richness in both the fuelwood (27 species) and medicinal categories (20 species) than did the focused survey (39 and 27 species, respectively) (Table 1). A large number of species were common to both methods, as 76% of the plants identified as fuelwoods and 65% of the plants cited as medicinal in the general survey were also listed in the focused survey. This result supports our premise that the more focused the research greater is the probability of enriching the lists of useful plants. The numbers of species unique to each of the methods varied from 5 to 17. These results suggest that directed surveys will yield more detailed information than general surveys when specific cultural domains are being investigated.

118

Jlio Marcelino Monteiro et al.

Table 1. Number of species registered in the general and focused surveys of medicinal plants and fuelwoods in the community of Riacho de Malhada de Pedra, Caruaru, Pernambuco State, Brazil.
Use categories Fuelwood Total species Exclusive species Shared species Total species Exclusive species Shared species General Survey 27 5 22 (76%) 20 7 13(65%) Focused Survey 39 17 22 (56%) 27 14 13(48%)

Medicinal

Within the medicinal category, the species exclusive to only one type of survey were actually rarely cited, while the regionally most important species appear under all situations. This same pattern was seen with the fuelwood species cited in the focused survey, while the other species cited appear to be the result of opportunist collection in the region [33]. The numbers of therapeutic indications for A. colubrina (Vell.) Brenan and M. urundeuva Allemo, for example, were greater in the focused survey (22 and 29 indications, respectively) than in the general survey (9 and 6 indications, respectively). The species richness of fuelwoods was larger in the general survey (27) than in the in situ inventory (25 species) (Figure 1). The opposite was observed with fences, where the in situ survey recorded almost twice as many species (42) than the general survey (24 species) (Figure 1). A large percentage of the fuelwood species were shared by both methods, as 76% of the plants listed in the in situ fuelwood inventory were also listed in the general survey. In the case of the fences, 87% of the species recorded in the general survey were also recorded in the in situ inventory. The species richness cited in the focused survey of fuelwoods (39 species) was larger than that cited in the in situ inventory (25 species), but a large number of species were shared by both methods, with 76% of the plants cited in the in situ fuelwood survey being also cited in the general [Table 1]. Interestingly, the results of Reyes-Garcia et al. [21] were different than ours. These authors noted that 43 ethnospecies were recorded as being known for fuelwood, although 72 ethnospecies were observed being used. The same phenomenon was observed with edible plants. It is possible that differences in the observational efficiency of the two projects may account for these disparities, as Reyes-Garcia et al. made weekly observations in their community during a full year, while our in situ inventory of fuelwoods was restricted to a single observational event. The in situ inventory of the fences was clearly superior to the general survey, confirming our expectations. An in situ inventory also guarantees the

When intention matters: Comparing three ethnobotanical data collection strategies

119

Figure 1. Richness of species through the different methodological strategies.

true use of a given resource will be noted, while general surveys, in principal, give no assurance that the species cited are in fact being used. The results of the analysis of fuelwoods, however, ran contrary to our expectations and to tendencies recorded in the literature [21], with species richness being greater in the general survey than in the in situ inventory. This may have occurred for two reasons: 1) the fuelwood stocks are renewed constantly while the in situ inventory registered only a single moment of its species richness, making it very possible that a longer term monitoring would record a larger number of species; 2) personal preferences and/or species availability may bias the representation of plants in the fuelwood stocks. Gavin and Anderson [38] reported similar findings during their investigations, as some species encountered during a rapid inventory were not registered during

120

Jlio Marcelino Monteiro et al.

a long-duration survey, and these authors suggested: 1) the possibility that the long-term study may have occurred during an atypical year for certain types of uses; 2) the use of certain products may have been influenced by seasonal factors; or 3) information concerning a given species was obtained during a rare event or a recent collection by an informant. An ample survey that also includes various use-categories will permit an efficient overall view of the useful species of a region, although this information may not be sufficiently robust for detailed studies directed towards areas such as resource management or conservation. In principal, our general survey was equivalent to the rapid evaluation techniques tested by Gavin and Anderson [38], as it can furnish useful preliminary data as well as a list of widely known species. Reyes-Garca et al. [21] collected information using a free-listing technique and scan observations that record the plants used by informants in the last 24 hours. Scan observations were reasonably efficient in surveying species, although information on their use-richness was considerably less comprehensive. A study by Gaugris and van Rooyen [36] indicated that quantitative information collected through the use of questionnaires not accompanied by ground-proofing must be viewed with caution. These authors suggested that questionnaires should be accompanied by full in situ inventories in order to obtain more information concerning the utilization of natural resources.

4.2 Evaluation and ordering of species based on their usevalues

On average, medicinal species common to both the general and focused surveys tended to be more highly valued in the general survey (average: 0.23; standard deviation: 0.35) than in the focused survey (average: 0.29; standard deviation: 0.31). The opposite was observed in the case of plants known to be used as fuelwoods and, on average, species were more highly valued in the focused survey (average: 0.25; standard deviation: 0.30) than in the general survey (average: 0.09; standard deviation: 0.11). These differences were not significant (p> 0.05), however, which implies that the two techniques are essentially equivalent when used to measure the potential uses of plants. The differences observed between the individual attributes of a given species in the general and focused surveys reflect the fact that their use-values are strongly influenced by the number of people citing a given species [6], nevertheless, our results indicated that the two approaches are essentially similar when used to determine the relative importance of the plants by the use-value technique. When the ordination of the species according to their usevalue was examined, however, important differences between the two survey methods were revealed (Table 2). When considering the species in the medicinal

When intention matters: Comparing three ethnobotanical data collection strategies

121

Table 2. Scores of the comparisons of specific vs. general surveys. Species that appear in the same ranking position in both survey types (score value 1.00); species that demonstrate a variation of +/- one position in both survey types (score 0.75); species that demonstrate a variation of +/- two positions in both survey types (score 0.50); species that demonstrate a variation of +/- three positions in both survey types (score 0.25); species that demonstrate a variation greater than four positions in both survey types (score 0). General vs Focused Survey Medicinal (n= 13 - 39%*) 1.00 1(8%) 0.75 3(23%) 0.50 3(23%) 0.25 1(8%) 0 5(38%) * Species encountered in both survey types. Scores

Fuelwood (n=22 - 48%*) 4(18%) 6(27%) 5(23%) 4(18%) 3(14%)

category that were identified in both the general and focused survey techniques, a low level of similarity was observed in their rankings, as even the lowest scoring level (positioning difference equal or greater than 4) demonstrated only 39% similarity between the two ranking lists. In the fuelwood category, the ranking similarity was greater at the higher scoring levels (demonstrating that the species tended to occupy approximately the same positions by both methods) (Table 2). In general then, the results of the two different surveys were found to be distinctly different when an ordered list of the potentially important plants from the region was desired. These differences may be also a result of bias introduced by the selection of the usevalue to order the species, or from procedures used in selecting the informants (as the use-value depends on the entire set of information and informants in a given sample). For example, the presence of one person with significant knowledge about the plants could significantly affect the results obtained concerning the use-value of any given plant. As such, it would be best to involve the same participants in all survey steps to attempt to reduce this source of bias.

Conclusions
Our results indicated that focused surveys are appropriate for research projects focused on identifying the richness of useful species in specific categories in a given region, or those directed towards bioprospecting. However, if the research goal is to give a wide and rapid diagnosis of an area, a general survey will provide an efficient register of the most locally important species. General surveys can also aid in formulating conservation strategies for

122

Jlio Marcelino Monteiro et al.

threatened areas and in providing rapid responses to questions related to sustainable management. Considering the numbers of shared species between the general and focused surveys, the choice of a method to be used will depend on the results desired. The general survey technique reveals the greatest species richness and can be used when the researchers have limited temporal and financial resources. In general, and respecting the limitations of the approaches used here, the in situ inventory represents an interesting strategy for identifying the species actually used, and even allows an estimation of the volume of resources consumed [see 37]. However, its efficiency will depend on the type and focus of the investigation, for as seen in the case of plants used as fuelwoods, this technique is more precise when monitoring is used in stead of point evaluations. The in situ inventory is more adequate for situations in which time and research are not as restricted. Finally, we share the opinion of ReyesGarca et al. [39] that these different techniques can capture distinct dimensions of knowledge, which implies that researchers must be aware from the start of the specific goals of their studies and of the use of the data to be collected. The results of the analysis of fuelwood, for example, indicated that preconceived expectations are not always met.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Empresa Pernambucana de Pesquisas Agropecurias (IPA) in Caruaru, Pernambuco, for logistical support at their experimental station; CNPq for financial support and grant given to U. P. Albuquerque; and the informants in the community for their hospitality and solicitude.

References
Cohen, J. H. 2000, Field Methods, 12(4), 316. Brewer, D. D. 2002, Field Methods, 14(1), 108. Maxwell, J.A. 2004, Field Methods, 16(3), 243. Tongco, M.D.C. 2007, Ethnobotany Research and Applications, 5, 147. Albuquerque, U.P., and Lucena, R.F.P. 2005, Interciencia, 30, 506. Albuquerque, U.P., Lucena, R.F.P., Monteiro, J.M., Florentino, A.T.N., and Almeida, C.F.C.B.R. 2006, Ethnobotany Research and Applications, 4, 51. 7. Silva, V.A., Andrade, L.H.C., and Albuquerque, U.P. 2006, Field Methods, 18. 98. 8. Edwards, S., Nebel, S., and Heinrich, M. 2005. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 100(2005), 30. 9. Boeije, H.R. 2004, Field Methods, 16 (1), 3. 10. Galeano, G. 2000, Forest use at the Pacific Coast of Choc, Colombia: a quantitative approach, Economic Botany, 54, 358. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

When intention matters: Comparing three ethnobotanical data collection strategies

123

11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

27. 28. 29. 30.

31. 32.

33.

34. 35.

Phillips, O., and Gentry, A.H. 1993, Economic Botany, 47, 15. Phillips, O., and Gentry, A.H. 1993, Economic Botany, 47, 33. Albuquerque, U.P., and Andrade, L.H.C. 2002, Interciencia, 27, 336. Cunha, L.V.F., and Albuquerque, U.P. 2006, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 114, 1. Lucena, R.F.P., Albuquerque, U.P., Monteiro, J.M., Almeida, C.F.C.B.R., Florentino, A.T.N., and Ferraz, J.S.F. 2007, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 125, 281. Ayuk, E.T. 1997, Agricultural Systems, 54, 189. Tabuti, J.R.S., Dhillion, S.S., and Lye, K.A. 2003, Biomass and Bioenergy, 25, 581. Begossi, A., Hanazaki, N., and Tamashiro, J.Y. 2002, Human Ecology, 30(3), 281. Ladio, A.H., and Lozada, M. 2004, Biodiversity and Conservation, 13, 1153. Gomez-Beloz, A. 2002, Economic Botany, 56(3), 231. Reyes-Garcia, V., Huanca, T., Vadez, V., Leonard, W., and Wilkie, D. 2006, Economic Botany, 60(1), 62. Reyes-Garcia, V., Valdez, V., Huanca, T., Leonard, W., and Wilkie, D. 2005, Ethnobotany Research and Applications, 3, 201. Albuquerque, U.P. 2006, Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 2,30. Relatrio Anual. 2004, Prefeitura Municipal de Caruaru. Relatrio Anual da Unidade de Sade da Famlia de Serra Velha, Pernambuco, Brasil. Monteiro, J.M., Lins-Neto, E.M.F., Amorim, E.L.C., Strattmann, R.R., Arajo, E.L., and Albuquerque, U.P. 2005, Revista rvore, 29, 999. Monteiro, J.M., Almeida, C.F.C.B.R., Albuquerque, U.P., Lucena, R.F.P., Florentino, A.T.N., and Oliveira, R.L.C. 2006, Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 2, 1. Monteiro, J.M., Albuquerque, U.P., Lins-Neto, E.M.F., Arajo, E.L., and Amorim, E.L.C. 2006, Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 105, 173. Florentino, A.T.N., Arajo, E.L., and Albuquerque, U.P. 2007, Acta Botanica Braslica, 21(1), 37. Oliveira, R.L.C., Lins Neto, E.M.F., Arajo, E.L., and Albuquerque, U.P. 2007, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 132, 189. Albuquerque, U.P., and Lucena, R.F.P. 2004, Seleo e escolha dos informantes, U.P. Albuquerque and Lucena, R.F.P., (Eds.), Mtodos e tcnicas na pesquisa etnobotnica,. Editora NUPEEA, Recife. Martin, G.J. 1995, Ethnobotany: a methods manual. Chapman & Hall. Nascimento, V.T. 2007, Estratgias rurais de uso e manejo de plantas para a construo de cercas em uma rea de caatinga no municpio de Caruaru, Pernambuco. MSc. Dissertation, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco. Ramos, M.A. 2007, Plantas usadas como combustvel em uma rea de caatinga (Nordeste do Brasil): Seleo de espcies, padres de coleta e qualidade do recurso. MSc. Dissertation, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Cincias Florestais. Rossato, S.C., Leito-Filho, H.F., Begossi, A. 1999, Economic Botany, 53, 387. Silva, V.A., Albuquerque, U.P. 2004, Tcnicas para anlise de dados etnobotnicos, U.P. Albuquerque and Lucena, R.F.P., (Eds.), Mtodos e tcnicas na pesquisa etnobotnica,. Editora NUPEEA, Recife.

124

Jlio Marcelino Monteiro et al.

36. Sokal, R.R., and Rholf, F.G. 1995, Biometry. New York: Freeman and Company. 37. Gaugris, J.Y., and van Rooyen, M.W. 2006, Ethnobotany Research and Applications, 4,119. 38. Gavin, M.C., and Anderson, G.J. 2005, Economic Botany, 59(2), 112. 39. Reyes-Garca, V., Vadez, V., Tanner, S., Huanca, T., Leonard, W.R., and McDade, T. 2006, Measuring what people know about the environment: A review of quantitative studies. Tsimane' Amazonian Panel Study Working.