Economic Botany

, Volume 71, Issue 4, pp 303–313 | Cite as

Sharing Ethnobotanical Knowledge in Traditional Villages: Evidence of Food and Nutraceutical “Core Groups” in Bali, Indonesia

  • Giulia Caneva
  • Lorenzo TraversettiEmail author
  • Wawan Sujarwo
  • Vincenzo Zuccarello


The island of Bali has several aga (indigenous) villages that have survived despite the pressures of an intense tourist industry and agricultural changes. A rich ethnobotanical culture persists, but the meaning of differences in traditional ethnobotanical knowledge (TEK) remains under-explored. We analyzed information obtained from interviews of inhabitants from diverse villages on food and nutraceutical plants to identify plant patterns, i.e., relevant plant groups with species sharing a similar occurrence. Through cluster analysis, we identified 12 main groups of species and found that species were grouped based on traditional knowledge and the use each community made of plants on the whole, and not on growth forms nor on specific uses. The frequency distribution of species clusters showed a bimodal trend, with several groups present only in few villages, and a few groups present in almost all villages. The latter are defined as “core groups,” and represent the shared TEK of each aga community. Other “satellite species groups” embodied in the local TEK were related to small isolated communities. Cultural erosion caused by modernization, with the consequent fragmentation of information, was judged to be one of the main causes of increasing TEK heterogeneity.

Key Words

Cultural erosion fragmentation indigenous villages TEK ethnobotany 

Abstract (Italian)

L’isola di Bali possiede diversi villaggi indigeni (aga) che sopravvivono nonostante la crescente pressione legata al turismo e ai cambiamenti agricoli. A Bali ancora esiste una ricca cultura etnobotanica, ma sarebbe utile comprendere il significato delle differenze fra i villaggi relativamente alla conoscenza etnobotanica tradizionale (CET). Sono state quindi analizzate le informazioni sulle piante alimentari e nutraceutiche, al fine di identificare rilevanti gruppi di specie con riferimento a un uso tradizionale nei villaggi. Sono stati definiti dodici principali gruppi di specie sulla base della similarità ottenuta dalla cluster analysis, che sembra essere influenzata dalla conoscenza specifica di ogni villaggio, basata sulle sue tradizioni piuttosto che dalla forma biologica né dall’uso per cui le piante sono coltivate. La frequenza di distribuzione dei gruppi di specie nei villaggi è risultata bimodale, con alcuni gruppi presenti solo in pochi villaggi e pochi presenti in quasi tutti. Questi ultimi sono stati definiti “gruppi nucleari” e rappresentano la CET condivisa da ogni comunità aga. Gli altri gruppi, definiti “gruppi satellite” sono riferiti alla CET di piccole comunità locali. L’erosione colturale, con la conseguente frammentazione, è definibile come una delle cause principali di tale eterogeneità.



We also wish to express our gratitude to the informants who took part in our survey for sharing their knowledge and for their hospitality and assistance. Neil Ellwood revised the English language version.

Funding Information

We would like to thank the Italian Ministry for Higher Education and Research (MIUR) for financial support provided through Università Roma Tre.

Supplementary material

12231_2017_9395_MOESM1_ESM.docx (37 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 37 kb)

Literature Cited

  1. Alexiades, M.N. and J.W. Sheldon. 1996. Selected guidelines for ethnobotanical research: A field manual. New York: The New York Botanical Garden Press.Google Scholar
  2. Badan Pusat Statistik. 2015. Bali dalam angka 2015. Denpasar: Badan Pusat Statistik Press (in Indonesian).Google Scholar
  3. Benz, B., J.E. Cevallos, F.M. Santana, J.A. Rosales and S.M. Graf. 2000. Losing knowledge about plant use in the Sierra de Manantlan Biosphere Reserve Mexico. Economic Botany 54(2): 183–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkes, F. 1993. Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective. In: Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Concepts and Cases, eds. J. T. Inglis, 1–9. Ottawa: Canadian Museum of Nature and the International Development Research Centre.Google Scholar
  5. Brosi, B., M. Balick, R. Wolkow, R. Lee, M. Kostka, W. Raynor, R. Gallen, A. Raynor, P. Raynor and D. Ling. 2007. Cultural erosion and biodiversity: Canoe-making knowledge in Pohnpei, Micronesia. Conservation Biology 21: 875–879.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke, K.R. 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analysis of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of Ecology 18: 117–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ———. and R.M. Warwick. 2001. Change in marine communities: An approach to statistical analysis and interpretation, 2nd edition. Plymouth: PRIMER-E.Google Scholar
  8. De Caceres, M., F. Oliva, X. Font and S. Vives. 2007. Ginkgo, a program for non-standard multivariate fuzzy analysis. Advances in Fuzzy Sets and Systems 2(1): 41–56.Google Scholar
  9. Gower, J.C. 1966. Some distance properties of latent root and vector methods used in multivariate analysis. Biometrika 53: 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Green, T.A. 1997. Folklore: An encyclopedia of beliefs, customs, tales, music, and art. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO.Google Scholar
  11. Guarrera, P.M. and V. Savo. 2013. Perceived health properties of wild and cultivated food plants in local and popular traditions of Italy: A review. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 146: 659–680.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hanski, I. 1982. Dynamics of regional distribution: The core and satellite species hypothesis. Oikos, 38: 210–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heywood, V.H. 2011. Ethnopharmacology, food production, nutrition and biodiversity conservation: Towards a sustainable future for indigenous peoples. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 137: 1–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Huntington, H.P. 2000. Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: Methods and applications. Ecological Applications 10(5): 1270–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ju, Y., J. Zhuo, B. Lui and C. Long. 2013. Eating from the wild: Diversity of wild edible plants used by Tibetans in Shangri-la region, Yunnan, China. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 9(28).Google Scholar
  16. Keller, G.B., H. Mndiga and B.L. Maass. 2005. Diversity and genetic erosion of traditional vegetables in Tanzania from the farmer’s point of view. Plant Genetic Resources: Characterization and Utilization 3: 400–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Orloci, L. 1978. Multivariate analysis in vegetation research. 2nd ed. Junk: The Hague.Google Scholar
  18. Pringle, R. 2004. A short history of Bali: Indonesia’s Hindu realm. Crows Nest: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  19. Quinlan, M. and R. Quinlan. 2007. Modernization and medicinal plant knowledge in a Caribbean horticultural village. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 21: 169–192.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Reyes-García, V., V. Vadez, E. Byron, L. Apaza, W. Leonard, E. Perez and D. Wilkie. 2005. Market economy and the loss of folk knowledge of plant uses: Estimates from the Tsimané of the Bolivian Amazon. Current Anthropology 46: 651–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Stepp, J.R. 2004. The role of weeds as sources of pharmaceuticals. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 92: 163–166.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Sujarwo, W., I.B.K. Arinasa, F. Salomone, G. Caneva and S. Fattorini. 2014. Cultural erosion of Balinese indigenous knowledge of food and nutraceutical plants. Economic Botany 68(4): 426–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ———., ———, G. Caneva and P. M. Guarrera. 2015a. Traditional knowledge of wild and semi-wild edible plants used in Bali (Indonesia) to maintain biological and cultural diversity. Plant Biosystem 150(5): 971–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. ———., A.P. Keim, V. Savo, P. M. Guarrera and G. Caneva. 2015b. Ethnobotanical study of Loloh: Traditional herbal drinks from Bali (Indonesia). Journal of Ethnopharmacology 169: 34–48.Google Scholar
  25. ———. and G. Caneva. 2016. Using quantitative indices to evaluate the cultural importance of food and nutraceutical plants: Comparative data from the Island of Bali (Indonesia). Journal of Cultural Heritage 18: 342–348.Google Scholar
  26. Supomo, S. 2006. Indic transformation: The sanskritization of Jawa & the Javanization of the Bharata. In: The Austronesians: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, eds. P. Bellwood, J.J. Fox and D. Tryon, 309–332. Canberra: Australian National University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Tardío, J., M. Pardo-de-Santayana and R. Morales. 2006. Ethnobotanical review of wild edible plants in Spain. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 152: 27–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. The Plant list, 2016. The Plant list Database. (accessed 12.03.2016).
  29. Ugulu, I. 2011. Traditional ethnobotanical knowledge about medicinal plants used for external therapies in Alasehir, Turkey. International Journal of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants 1(2): 101–106.Google Scholar
  30. Voeks, R.A. and A. Leony. 2004. Forgetting the forest: Assessing medicinal plant erosion in eastern Brazil. Economic Botany 58: 294–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. ———. 2010. Ecotourism and ethnobotanical erosion: A possible rescue effect in Brazil’s Chapada Diamantina. In: Recent development and case studies in ethnobotany, eds. U.P. Albuquerque and N. Hanazaki, 228–245. SociedadeBrasileira de Etnobiologia e Etnoecologia.Google Scholar
  32. Westhoff, V. and E. van der Maarel. 1978. The Braun-Blanquet approach. In: Classification of plant communities, 2nd. eds. R.H. Whittaker, 287–399. Junk: The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giulia Caneva
    • 1
  • Lorenzo Traversetti
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wawan Sujarwo
    • 2
  • Vincenzo Zuccarello
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of ScienceUniversity Roma TreRomeItaly
  2. 2.Bali Botanic GardenIndonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI)BaliIndonesia
  3. 3.Department of Sciences and Biological and Environmental TechnologySalentoUniversityLecceItaly

Personalised recommendations