Theories and Major Hypotheses in Ethnobotany

Economic Botany volume 71, pages269–287(2017)Cite this article

Abstract

Ethnobotany has evolved from a discipline that largely documented the diversity of plant use by local people to one focused on understanding how and why people select plants for a wide range of uses. This progress has been in response to a repeated call for theory-inspired and hypothesis-driven research to improve the rigor of the discipline. Despite improvements, recent ethnobotanical research has overemphasized the use of quantitative ethnobotany indices and statistical methods borrowed from ecology, yet underemphasized the development and integration of a strong theoretical foundation. To advance the field of ethnobotany as a hypothesis-driven, theoretically inspired discipline, it is important to first synthesize the existing theoretical lines of research. We review and discuss 17 major theories and hypotheses in ethnobotany that can be used as a starting point for developing research questions that advance our understanding of people–plant interactions. For each theory or major hypothesis, we identify its primary predictions and testable hypotheses and then discuss how these predictions have been tested. Developing research to test these predictions will make significant contributions to the field of ethnobotany and create the critical mass of primary literature necessary to develop meta-analyses and to advance new theories in ethnobotany.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Literature Cited

  1. Aarssen, L. W. 1997. On the progress of ecology. Oikos 80:177–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Albuquerque, U. P. 2006. Re-examining hypotheses concerning the use and knowledge of medicinal plants a study in the Caatinga vegetation of NE Brazil. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2:(30): 1-10

    Google Scholar 

  3. ———. 2009. Quantitative ethnobotany or quantification in ethnobotany? Ethnobotany Research and Applications 7:1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. ———., and R. F. de Oliveira. 2007. Is the use-impact on native Caatinga species in Brazil reduced by the high species richness of medicinal plants? Journal of Ethnopharmacology 113:156–170.

  5. ———., and Hanazaki N.. 2009. Commentary: Five problems in current ethnobotanical research—And some suggestions for strengthening them. Human Ecology 37:653–661.

  6. ———., and R. F. P. Lucena. 2005. Can apparency affect the use of plants by local people in tropical forests? Interciencia 30:506–511.

  7. ———., G. T. Soldati, S. S. Sieber, M. A. Ramos, J. C. De Sá, and L. C. De Souza. 2011. The use of plants in the medical system of the Fulni-ô people NE Brazil. A perspective on age and gender. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 133: 866–873.

  8. ———., M. A. Ramos, and J. G. Melo. 2012. New strategies for drug discovery in tropical forests based on ethnobotanical and chemical ecological studies. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 140:197–201.

  9. Alencar, N. L., T.A.des Araujo, E. L. C. de Amorim, U. P. Albuquerque, T. Antonio, D. S. Araújo, E. Lúcia, et al. 2009. Can the apparency hypothesis explain the selection of medicinal plants in an area of Caatinga vegetation? A chemical perspective. Acta Botanica Brasilica 23:911–911.

  10. Alencar, N. L., T. A. de Sousa Araújo, E. L. C. Amorim, and U. P. Albuquerque. 2010. The inclusion and selection of medicinal plants in traditional pharmacopoeias—Evidence in support of the diversification hypothesis. Economic Botany 64:68–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Alencar, N. L., F. R. Santoro, and U. P. Albuquerque. 2014. What is the role of exotic medicinal plants in local medical systems? A study from the perspective of utilitarian redundancy. Brazilian Journal of Pharmacognosy 24:506–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Alexiades, M. N. 1996. Selected guidelines for ethnobotanical research: A field manual. Bronx, New York: The New York Botanical Garden

    Google Scholar 

  13. Almeida, C. D. F. C. B. R., T. C. de Lima e Silva, E. L. C. de Amorim, M. B. D. S. Maia, and U. P. Albuquerque. 2005. Life strategy and chemical composition as predictors of the selection of medicinal plants from the Caatinga Northeast Brazil. Journal of Arid Environments 62:127–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Almeida, C. D. F. C. B. R., D. L. de Vasconcelos Cabral, C. C. B. Rangel de Almeida, E. L. Cavalcanti de Amorim, J. M. de Araújo, and U. P. Albuquerque. 2012. Comparative study of the antimicrobial activity of native and exotic plants from the Caatinga and Atlantic Forest selected through an ethnobotanical survey. Pharmaceutical Biology 50:201–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Amiguet, V. T., J. T. Arnason, P. Maquin, V. Cal, P. Sánchez-Vindas, and L. P. Alvarez. 2006. A regression analysis of Q’eqchi’ Maya medicinal plants from southern Belize. Economic Botany 60:24–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Atran, S. 1998. Folk biology and the anthropology of science: Cognitive universals and cultural particulars. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (04): 547–569.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Balick, M. 1996. Transforming ethnobotany for the new millennium. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 83 (10): 58–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Begossi, A. 1996. Use of ecological methods in ethnobotany: Diversity indices. Economic Botany 50:280–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bennett, B. C. 2005. Ethnobotany education, opportunities, and needs in the US. Ethnobotany Research & Applications 3:113–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bennett, B. C.. 2007. Doctrine of signatures: An explanation of medicinal plant discovery or dissemination of knowledge? Economic Botany 61:246–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. ———., and C. E. Husby. 2008. Patterns of medicinal plant use: An examination of the Ecuadorian Shuar medicinal flora using contingency table and binomial analyses. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 116:422–430.

  22. ———., and G. T. Prance. 2000. Introduced plants in the indigenous pharmacopoeia of northern South America. Economic Botany 1:90–102.

  23. Berlin B. 1973. Folk systematics in relation to biological classification and nomenclature. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4:259–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. ———., D. E. Breedlove, and P.H. Raven. 1973. General principles of classification and nomenclature in folk biology. American Anthropologist 75 (1): 214–242.

  25. Bhagwat, S. A., and C. Rutte. 2006. Sacred groves: Potential for biodiversity management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4:519–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Boster, J. S. 1986. Exchange of varieties and information between Aguaruna manioc cultivators. American Anthropologist 88:428–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Brandt, R., S.-L. Mathez-Stiefel, S. Lachmuth, I. Hensen, and S. Rist. 2013. Knowledge and valuation of Andean agroforestry species: The role of sex, age, and migration among members of a rural community in Bolivia. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 9:83.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Brown, C. H. 1977. Folk botanical life-forms: Their universality and growth. American Anthropologist 79(2): 317–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Brown, C.H. 2000. Folk classification: an introduction. Pages 65–68 In Minnis P.E. ed Ethnobotany: A reader.Norman, University of Oklahoma Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ceuterick, M., I. Vandebroek, B. Torry, and A. Pieroni. 2008. Cross-cultural adaptation in urban ethnobotany: The Colombian folk pharmacopoeia in London. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 120:342–359.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Charnov, E. L. 1976. Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theoretical Population Biology 9(2):129–136.

  32. Coe, M. A., and McKenna, D. J. 2017. The therapeutic potential of Ayahuasca. Pages 123–137. In D. Camfield, E. McIntyre, and J. Sarris. Evidence-based herbal and nutritional treatments for anxiety in psychiatric disorders. New York: Springer International Publishing.

  33. Colding, J., and C. Folke. 1997. The relations among threatened species, their protection, and taboos. Conservation Ecology 1(1):6. http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss1/art6/

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Colding, J., and C. Folke. 2001. Social taboos: “Invisible” systems of local resources management and biological conservation. Ecological Applications 11:584–600.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Coley, P. D., J. J. P. Bryant, and F. S. Chapin. 1985. Resource availability and plant antiherbivore defense. Science 230:895–899.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Coley, P. D., M. V Heller, R. Aizprua, B. Araúz, N. Flores, M. Correa, M. Gupta, et al. 2003. Using ecological criteria to design plant collection strategies for drug discovery. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:421–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Conklin, H. C. 1954. The relation of Hanunóo culture to the plant world. PhD dissertation, Yale University.

  38. Cristancho, S., and J. Vining. 2004. Culturally defined keystone species. Human Ecology Review 11:153–164.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Crona, B., and Ö. Bodin. 2006. What you know is who you know? Communication patterns among resource users as a prerequisite for co-management. Ecology and Society 11:7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Dafni, A., and E. Lev. 2002. The doctrine of signatures in present-day Israel. Economic Botany 56:328–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. de Lucena, R. F. P., P. M. de Medeiros, E. de L. Araújo, A. G. C. Alves, and U. P. Albuquerque. 2012. The ecological apparency hypothesis and the importance of useful plants in rural communities from Northeastern Brazil: An assessment based on use value. Journal of Environmental Management 96:106–115.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. de Oliveira Trindade, M. R., J. G. Jardim, A. Casas, N. M. Guerra, and R. F. P. de Lucena. 2015. Availability and use of woody plant resources in two areas of Caatinga in Northeastern Brazil. Ethnobotany Research and Applications 14:313–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Díaz-Reviriego, I., L. González-Segura, Á. Fernández-Llamazares, P. L. Howard, J. L. Molina, and V. Reyes-García. 2016. Social organization influences the exchange and species richness of medicinal plants in Amazonian homegardens. Ecology and Society 21:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Endara, M.-J., and P. D. Coley. 2011. The resource availability hypothesis revisited: A meta-analysis. Functional Ecology 25:389–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Estomba, D., A. Ladio, and M. Lozada. 2006. Medicinal wild plant knowledge and gathering patterns in a Mapuche community from North-western Patagonia. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 103:109–119.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Etkin, N. L. 1988. Ethnopharmacology: Biobehavioral approaches in the anthropological study of indigenous medicines. Annual Review of Anthropology 17:23–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Feeny, P. 1976. Plant apparency and chemical defense. Pages 1–40 in J. Wallace and R. Mansell, eds. Recent advances in phytochemistry (Vol. 10). New York, Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ferreira, F. S., U. P. Albuquerque, H. D. M. Coutinho, W. O. Almeida, and R. R. N. Alves. 2012. The trade in medicinal animals in northeastern Brazil. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine: eCAM, 2012, 126938. http://doi.org/10.1155/2012/126938.

  49. Ford, R. I. 1978. The nature and status of ethnobotany, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Ford, J. and O.G Gaoue. 2017. Alkaloid-poor plant families, Poaceae and Cyperaceae, are over-utilized for medicine in Hawaiian pharmacopoeia. Economic Botany 71(2): 123–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Franco, F. M., B. A. A. Ghani, and S. Hidayati. 2014. Biocultural importance of the Tanying [Koompassia excelsa Becc. Taub.] tree for the Berawan of Loagan Bunut, Sarawak, Malaysia. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 13:63–69.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Furusawa, T. 2009. Changing ethnobotanical knowledge of the Roviana people, Solomon Islands: Quantitative approaches to its correlation with modernization. Human Ecology 37:147–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Galeano, G. 2000. Forest use at the Pacific coast of Choco, Colombia: A quantitative approach. Economic Botany 54:358–376.

  54. Gandolfo, E. S., and N. Hanazaki. 2014. Distribution of local plant knowledge in a recently urbanized area Campeche District, Florianopolis. Urban Ecosystems17(3): 775–785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Garibaldi, A., and N. Turner. 2004. Cultural keystone species: Implications for ecological conservation and restoration. Ecology and Society 9(3): 1. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art1/

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Gavin, M. C. 2009. Conservation implications of rainforest use patterns: Mature forests provide more resources but secondary forests supply more medicine. Journal of Applied Ecology 46:1275–1282.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Gonçalves, P. H. S., U. P. Albuquerque, and P. M. Medeiros. 2016. The most commonly available woody plant species are the most useful for human populations: A meta-analysis. Ecological Applications 26:2238–2253.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Granovetter, M. S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78: 1360–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Hanazaki, N., D. F. Herbst, M. S. Marques, and I. Vandebroek. 2013. Evidence of the shifting baseline syndrome in ethnobotanical research. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 9:75.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Hoffman, B., and T. Gallaher. 2007. Importance indices in ethnobotany. Ethnobotany Research and Applications 5:201–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Hofisi, C., M. Hofisi, and S. Mago. 2014. Critiquing interviewing as a data collection method. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 5:60–64.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Hopkins, A. 2011. Use of network centrality measures to explain individual levels of herbal remedy cultural competence among the Yucatec Maya in Tabi, Mexico. Field Methods 23:307–328.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Hunn, E. 1975. Folk biology: A frontier of cognitive anthropology. Reviews in Anthropology, 2(2), 266–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Jernigan, K. 2012. Plants with histories: The changing ethnobotany of Iquito speakers of the Peruvian Amazon. Economic Botany 66:46–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Johns, T. 1986. Chemical selection in Andean domesticated tubers as a model for the acquisition of empirical plant knowledge. Pages 266–288, In: N. L. Etkin, ed. Plants used in indigenous medicine and diet: Biobehavioral approaches, South Salem, New York: Redgrave Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Kapur, S. K., A. K. Shahi, Y. K. Sarin, and D. E. Moerman. 1992. The medicinal flora of Majouri-kirchi forests (Jammu and Kashmir State), India. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 36:87–90.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Kawa, N. C., C. McCarty, and C. R. Clement. 2013. Manioc varietal diversity, social networks, and distribution constraints in rural Amazonia. Current Anthropology 54:764–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Krebs, C. J. 2000. Hypothesis testing in ecology. In: Boitani, L. and Fuller, T., Research techniques in animal ecology, Pages 1–14, New York: Columbia University Press.

  69. Kursar, T., and T. Capson. 1999. Ecologically guided bioprospecting in Panama. Pharmaceutical Biology 37:114–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Ladio, A. H. 2001. The maintenance of wild edible plant gathering in a Mapuche community of Patagonia. Economic Botany 55:243–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Lawrence, A., O. L. Phillips, A. R. Ismodes, M. Lopez, S. Rose, D. Wood, and A. J. Farfan. 2005. Local values for harvested forest plants in Madre de Dios, Peru: Towards a more contextualised interpretation of quantitative ethnobotanical data. Biodiversity and Conservation 14:45–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Lawton, J. H. 1999. Are there general laws in ecology? Oikos 84:177–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Leonti, M., O. Sticher, and M. Heinrich. 2002. Medicinal plants of the Popoluca, Mexico: Organoleptic properties as indigenous selection criteria. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 81:307–315.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Marquet, P. A., A. P. Allen, J. H. Brown, J. A. Dunne, B. J. Enquist, J. F. Gillooly, P. A. Gowaty, et al. 2014. On theory in ecology. BioScience 64:701–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Martin, G. J. 2007. Ethnobotany: A methods manual. Earthscan, London.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Mathez-Stiefel, S. L., R. Brandt, S. Lachmuth, and S. Rist. 2012. Are the young less knowledgeable? Local knowledge of natural remedies and its transformations in the Andean Highlands. Human Ecology 40:909–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. McCarter, J., and M. C. Gavin. 2015. Assessing variation and diversity of ethnomedical knowledge: A case study from Malekula Island, Vanuatu. Economic Botany 69(3): 251–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. McClatchey, W. C., A. Paul, T. Flaster, and V. McClatchey. 1999. An evaluation of educational trends in economic and ethnobotany. Ethnobotany Educational Publication Series 1:1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  79. McClatchey, W. C., G. E. Wagner, K. Hall, and P. Harrison. 2013. Vision and change for undergraduate ethnobiology education in the USA: Recommended curriculum assessment guidelines. Open Science Network in Ethnobiology, Fort Worth, Botanical Research Institute of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  80. McCune, L. M., and T. Johns. 2007. Antioxidant activity relates to plant part, life form and growing condition in some diabetes remedies. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 112:461–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  81. McDonald, D. R. 1977. Food taboos: A primitive environmental protection agency (South America). Anthropos 734–748.

  82. McKey, D. 1974. Adaptive patterns in alkaloid physiology. American Naturalist 108:305–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. McMillen, H. 2012. Ethnobotanical knowledge transmission and evolution: The case of medicinal markets in Tanga, Tanzania. Economic Botany 66:121–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Medin, D. L., and S. Atran. 2004. The native mind: Biological categorization and reasoning in development and across cultures. Psychological Review 111(4): 960–983.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Moerman, D. E. 1979. Symbols and selectivity: A statistical analysis of native American medical ethnobotany. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 1:111–119.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Moerman, D. E. 1991. The medicinal flora of native North America: An analysis. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 31:1–42.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  87. ———. 1996. An analysis of the food plants and drug plants of native North America. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 52:1–22.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  88. ———. 2002. Meaning, medicine, and the placebo effect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  89. ———., and G. F. Estabrook. 2003. Native Americans’ choice of species for medicinal use is dependent on plant family: Confirmation with meta-significance analysis. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 87:51–59.

  90. Müller-Schwarze, N. K. 2006. Antes and hoy día: Plant knowledge and categorization as adaptations to life in Panama in the twenty-first century. Economic Botany 60:321–334.

  91. Nascimento, V. T., R. F. P. Lucena, M. I. S. Maciel, and U. P. Albuquerque. 2013. Knowledge and use of wild food plants in areas of dry seasonal forests in Brazil. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 52:317–43.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Nascimento, A. L. B., W. S. F. Júnior, M. A. Ramos, P. M. de Medeiros, G. T. Soldati, F. R. Santoro, and U. P. Albuquerque. 2015. Utilitarian redundancy: Conceptualization and potential applications in ethnobiological research. In: U. P. Albuquerque, P. M. de Medeiros, and A. Casas, eds. Evolutionary ethnobiology, Pages 121–130, New York: Springer International Publishing.

  93. Paine, R. T. 1969. A note on trophic complexity and community stability. American Naturalist 103:91–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Perry, G., and E. R. Pianka. 1997. Animal foraging: Past, present and future. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 12: 360–364.

  95. Pfeiffer, J. M., and R. J. Butz. 2005. Assessing cultural and ecological variation in ethnobotanical research: The importance of gender. Journal of Ethnobiology 25:240–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Phillips, O., and A. H. Gentry 1993a. The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru: II. Additional hypothesis testing in quantitative ethnobotany. Economic Botany 47:33–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Phillips, O., and A. H. Gentry. 1993b. The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru: I. Statistical hypotheses tests with a new quantitative technique. Economic Botany 47:15–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Platten, S., and T. Henfrey. 2009. The cultural keystone concept: Insights from ecological anthropology. Human Ecology 37:491–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Poot-Pool W.S., van der Wal H., Flores-Guido S. Pat-Fernández, J.M. and L. Esparza-Olguín. 2015. Home garden agrobiodiversity differentiates along a rural-peri-urban gradient in Campeche, México. Economic Botany 69(3): 203–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Prance, G. T., K. Aiona, M. J. Balick, B. C. Bennett, K. Bridges, D. A. Burney, L. P. Burney, et al. 2007. Ethnobotany, the science of survival: A declaration from Kaua’i. Economic Botany 61:1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Quinn, J. F., and A. E. Dunham. 1983. On hypothesis testing in ecology and evolution. American Naturalist 122:602–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Quiroz, D., and T. van Andel. 2015. Evidence of a link between taboos and sacrifices and resource scarcity of ritual plants. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 11:5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Rea, A. M. 1981. Resource utilization and food taboos of Sonoran desert peoples. Journal of Ethnobiology 1:69–83.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Reyes-García V., V. Vadez, T. Huanca, W. Leonard, and T. McDade. 2007. Economic development and local ecological knowledge: a deadlock? Data from a native Amazonian society. Human Ecology 35:371–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Reyes-García, V., M. Guèze, A. C. Luz, J. Paneque-Gálvez, M. J. Macía, M. Orta-Martínez, J. Pino, et al. 2013a. Evidence of traditional knowledge loss among a contemporary indigenous society. Evolution and Human Behavior 34:249–257.

    PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Reyes-García, V., J. L. Molina, L. Calvet-Mir, L. Aceituno-Mata, J. J. Lastra, R. Ontillera, M. Parada, et al. 2013b. “Tertius gaudens”: germplasm exchange networks and agroecological knowledge among home gardeners in the Iberian Peninsula. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 9:53.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Rhoades, D. F., and R. G. Cates. 1976. Toward a general theory of plant antiherbivore chemistry. In: J. Wallace and R. Mansell, eds. Recent advances in phytochemistry. Pages 168–213. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Salick, J. Alcorn E. Anderson J. et. al., 2003. Intellectual Imperatives in Ethnobiology: NSF Biocomplexity Workshop Report (Report), St. Louis, Missouri Botanical Garden.

  109. Santos, F. S., U. P. Albuquerque, L. Martins, A. L. Silva, A. L. B. Nascimento, and J. M. Monteiro. 2014. An ethnopharmacological assessment of the use of plants against parasitic diseases in humans and animals. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 155:1332–1341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Saslis-Lagoudakis, C. H., J. A. Hawkins, S. J. Greenhill, C. A. Pendry, M. F. Watson, W. Tuladhar-Douglas, S. R. Baral, et al. 2014. The evolution of traditional knowledge: Environment shapes medicinal plant use in Nepal. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281:20132768.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Sih, A., and B. Christensen. 2001. Optimal diet theory: When does it work, and when and why does it fail? Animal Behaviour 61:379–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Smith, E. A., and M. Wishnie. 2000. Conservation and subsistence in small-scale societies. Annual Review of Anthropology 29(1): 493–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Sogbohossou, O.E., Achigan-Dako, E.G., Komlan, F.A. and A. Ahanchede. 2015. Diversity and differential utilization of Amaranthus spp. along the urban-rural continuum of southern Benin. Economic Botany 69(1): 9–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Soldati, G. T., and U. P. Albuquerque. 2012. A new application for the optimal foraging theory: The extraction of medicinal plants. Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2012:364564.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Souto, T., and T. Ticktin. 2012. Understanding interrelationships among predictors (age, gender, and origin) of local ecological knowledge. Economic Botany 66:149–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Srithi, K., H. Balslev, P. Wangpakapattanawong, P. Srisanga, and C. Trisonthi. 2009. Medicinal plant knowledge and its erosion among the Mien (Yao) in northern Thailand. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 123:335–342.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Stamp, N. 2003. Out of the quagmire of plant defense hypotheses. The Quarterly Review of Biology 39:258–275.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Stepp, J. R. 2004. The role of weeds as sources of pharmaceuticals. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 92(2): 163–166.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Stepp, J. R. and D. E. Moerman. 2001. The importance of weeds in ethnopharmacology. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 75:19–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Tardío, J., and M. Pardo-De-Santayana. 2008. Cultural importance indices: A comparative analysis based on the useful wild plants of southern Cantabria (northern Spain). Economic Botany 62:24–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Thomas, E., I. Vandebroek, S. Sanca, and P. Van Damme. 2009. Cultural significance of medicinal plant families and species among Quechua farmers in Apillapampa, Bolivia. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 122:60–67.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Ticktin, T. 2004. The ecological implications of harvesting non-timber forest products. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:11–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Torres-Avilez, W., P. M. de Medeiros, and U. P. Albuquerque. 2016. Effect of gender on the knowledge of medicinal plants: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2016. Article ID 6592363.

  124. Turner, N. J. 1973. Plant taxonomic systems and ethnobotany of three contemporary Indian groups of the Pacific Northwest (Haida, Bella Coola, and Lillooet), PhD Dissertation, University of British Columbia.

  125. Turner, N. J. 1988. “The importance of a rose”: Evaluating the cultural significance of plants in Thompson and Lillooet Interior Salish. American Anthropologist 90:272–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. ———. 2000. General plant categories in Thompson (Nlaka’pamux) and Lillooet (Stl’atl’imx), two Interior Salish languages of British Columbia. In: Minnis P.E. ed Ethnobotany: A reader. Pages 69–87. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

  127. Vandebroek, I., and M. J. Balick. 2012. Globalization and loss of plant knowledge: Challenging the paradigm. PLoS ONE 7:e37643.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Voeks, R. A. 2004. Disturbance pharmacopoeias: Medicine and myth from the humid tropics. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94:868–888.

  129. Voeks, R. A. 2007. Are women reservoirs of traditional plant knowledge? Gender, ethnobotany and globalization in northeast Brazil. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 28:7–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. ———., and A. Leony. 2004. Forgetting the forest: Assessing medicinal plant erosion in eastern Brazil. Economic Botany 58:94–106.

  131. Walker, B. H. 1992. Biodiversity and ecological redundancy. Conservation Biology 6:18–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Wasserman, S., and K. Faust. 1994. Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  133. Weiner, J. 1995. On the practice of ecology. Journal of Ecology 83:153–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Yessoufou, K., B. H. Daru, and A. M. Muasya. 2015. Phylogenetic exploration of commonly used medicinal plants in South Africa. Molecular Ecology Resources 15:405–413.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Zangerl, A. R., and C. E. Rutledge. 1996. The probability of attack and patterns of constitutive and induced defense: A test of optimal defense theory. American Naturalist 147:599–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Zarger, R. K., and J. R. Stepp. 2004. Persistence of botanical knowledge among Tzeltal Maya children. Current Anthropology 45:413–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is inspired by discussion with two generations of undergraduate students in the Theory and Methods in Ethnobotany (BOT 440) course taught by the lead author at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa whose questions and insights shaped this paper. We are grateful to Bob Voeks, Ulysses Albuquerque, and Tamara Ticktin for the comments and insightful discussion on the earlier versions of this manuscript and to two anonymous reviewers for the valuable comments on the manuscript. OGG is supported by a startup grant from the College of Natural Sciences at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Orou G. Gaoue

    Present address: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, 37996, USA

Affiliations

  1. Department of Botany, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI, 96822, USA

    Orou G. Gaoue, Michael A. Coe, Matthew Bond, Georgia Hart, Barnabas C. Seyler & Heather McMillen

  2. Faculty of Agronomy, University of Parakou, Parakou, Benin

    Orou G. Gaoue

  3. Department of Geography, Environmental Management and Energy Studies, University of Johannesburg, APK Campus, Johannesburg, South Africa

    Orou G. Gaoue

  4. U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station, New York City Urban Field Station, Bayside, NY, USA

    Heather McMillen

Authors
  1. Orou G. Gaoue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael A. Coe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matthew Bond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Georgia Hart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Barnabas C. Seyler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Heather McMillen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

OGG conceived of the idea for the paper, outlined and structured its content, drafted the introduction and discussion, and coordinated the overall process. MAC, MB, GH, and BCS drafted the sections on specific theories or major hypotheses. HM contributed primarily to the introduction and discussion with an emphasis on anthropological perspectives and contributions. All authors contributed to the final revision of the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Orou G. Gaoue.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gaoue, O.G., Coe, M.A., Bond, M. et al. Theories and Major Hypotheses in Ethnobotany. Econ Bot 71, 269–287 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-017-9389-8

Download citation

Key Words

  • Hypothesis-driven research
  • medicinal plant selection
  • optimal defense theory
  • utilitarian redundancy model
  • taboo as luxury
  • theory in ethnobotany.