Advertisement

Local Knowledge, Uses, and Factors Determining the Use of Strychnos spinosa Organs in Benin (West Africa)

  • Hospice Gérard Gracias AvakoudjoEmail author
  • Achille Hounkpèvi
  • Rodrigue Idohou
  • Mamidou Witabouna Koné
  • Achille Ephrem Assogbadjo
Original Article
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

Green monkey orange (Strychnos spinosa) is an important multipurpose tree in rural communities in sub-Saharan Africa, including Benin. The objectives of this study were to (i) examine the various indigenous uses of Strychnos spinosa, (ii) assess local perception of the major threats to Strychnos spinosa, and (iii) identify the conservation strategies adopted by local communities to ensure its sustainable use in Benin. A participatory rural appraisal study was undertaken across three climatic zones in Benin. Data were collected through structured questionnaires involving 733 informants from 22 ethnic and 7 sociolinguistic groups. Correspondence analysis (CA) showed that S. spinosa is most widely used in the Sudanian zone (20 uses). About 73% of the informants used Strychnos spinosa as food, and 68% used it for medicine. The most valued organs were fruits, leaves, bark, and seeds. The major threats to Strychnos spinosa were human activities rather than climatic factors. Religion and cultural values were the main strategies adopted by local communities to conserve the species. The value of Strychnos spinosa is well appreciated in Benin, and local knowledge depends on the particular climatic zone, ethnic group, study level, and gender.

Keywords

Strychnos spinosa Ethnobotany Local knowledge Traditional uses Wild edible fruits Benin 

Abstract

L'oranger de singe (Strychnos spinosa) est un arbre à usage multiple important pour les communautés rurales d'Afrique subsaharienne dont le Bénin. Les objectifs de cette étude étaient de (i) examiner les différentes utilisations indigènes de Strychnos spinosa, (ii) évaluer la perception locale des principales menaces pesant sur l’espèce et (iii) identifier les stratégies de conservation adoptées par les communautés locales pour assurer son utilisation durable au Bénin. Une recherche participative a été entreprise en milieu rural dans trois zones climatiques du Bénin. Les données ont été collectées au moyen de questionnaires structurés auxquels ont participé 733 personnes appartenant à 22 groupes ethniques et de 7 groupes sociolinguistiques. L'analyse factorielle de correspondance (AFC) a montré que S. spinosa est plus largement utilisé dans la zone soudanienne (20 utilisations). Environ 73% des personnes interrogées utilisent S. spinosa à des fins alimentaires et 68% l’utilisent à des fins médicinales. Les organes les plus prisés étaient les fruits, les feuilles, l’écorce et les graines. Les principales menaces pesant sur S. spinosa sont plus liées aux activités humaines qu’aux facteurs climatiques. Les principales stratégies adoptées par les communautés locales pour conserver l'espèce sont d’ordre religieux et culturels. L'étude a montré que les populations locales accordent de la valeur à Strychnos spinosa au Bénin et que les connaissances locales dépendent de la zone climatique, du groupe ethnique, du niveau d'étude et du sexe des enquêtés.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Our sincere appreciation goes to the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and West African Science Centre on Climate Change and Adapted Land Use (WASCAL) for providing the scholarship and financial support for this program. We are grateful to Amangbégnon Ignace Samson and Obognon Rodrigue Kpatindé for their help during the data collection, to Charles Kofi Nelimor for language editing, and also to members of the local communities who have accepted to share their knowledge with us. Finally, we acknowledge the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on this manuscript.

Ethics Research Standards

We strictly followed all the research ethics during this study. The objectives of the study were initially explained to the local authorities of the surveyed villages to obtain their approval regarding contents of the questionnaire that was asked to the population. After the completion of study, the preliminary result was presented to the opinion leaders of each village to ensure absence of any information that is a matter of community secrecy and/or indigenous knowledge whose divulgation would pose a threat to community survival. So, we assure that the outcome of this research is shareable with the scientific community.

References

  1. Adebowale, A. 2014. Biosystematic studies in southern African species of Strychnos L. (Loganiaceae). Ph.D. thesis, University of Kwazulu–Natal, Durbin, South Africa.Google Scholar
  2. Adomou, A. C. 2005. Vegetation patterns and environmental gradients in Benin: Implications for biogeography and conservation. Ph.D. thesis, Wageningen University, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  3. Akinnifesi, F. K. 2008. Indigenous fruit trees in the tropics: Domestication, utilization and commercialization. London: CABI Pub. in association with the World Agroforestry Centre.Google Scholar
  4. Albuquerque, U. P., R. F. P. Lucena, J. M. Monteiro, A. T. N. Florentino, and C. F. C. B. R. Almeida. 2006. Evaluating two quantitative ethnobotanical techniques. Ethnobotany Research and Applications 4:51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alexandre, D.–Y. 2002. Initiation à l’agroforesterie en zone sahélienne: Les arbres des champs du Plateau Central au Burkina Faso. Paris: IRD Éditions/Karthala.Google Scholar
  6. Arbonnier, M. 2002. Arbres, arbustes et lianes des zones sèches d’Afrique de l’Ouest. Montpellier–Paris: CIRAD–Museum d’Histoire Naturel.Google Scholar
  7. Arias Toledo, B., L. Galetto, and S. Colantonio. 2009. Ethnobotanical knowledge in rural communities of Cordoba (Argentina): The importance of cultural and biogeographical factors. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 5:40.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-5-40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Assogbadjo, A. E., R. Glèlè Kakaï, F. H. Adjallala, A. F. Azihou, G. F. Vodouhê, T. Kyndt, and J. T. C. Codjia. 2010. Ethnic differences in use value and use patterns of the threatened multipurpose scrambling shrub (Caesalpinia bonduc L.) in Benin. Journal of Medicinal Plants Research 5(9):1549–1557.Google Scholar
  9. Balima, L. H., B. M. I. Nacoulma, M. R. M. Ekué, F. N. Kouamé, and A. Thiombiano. 2018. Use patterns, use values and management of Afzelia africana Sm. in Burkina Faso: Implications for species domestication and sustainable conservation. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 14:23.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-018-0221-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Berihun, T. and E. Molla. 2017. Study on the Diversity and Use of Wild Edible Plants in Bullen District Northwest Ethiopia. Journal of Botany, Article ID 8383468.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/8383468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bero, J., H. Ganfon, M–C. Jonville, M. Frédérich, F. Gbaguidi, P. Demol, M. Moudachirou, and J. Quetin–Leclercq. 2009. In vitro antiplasmodial activity of plant used in Benin in traditional medicine to treat malaria. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 122(3):439–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bero, J., V. Hannaert, G. Chataigné, M–F. Hérent, and J. Quetin–Leclercq. 2011. In vitro antitrypanosomal and antileishmanial activity of plant used in Benin in traditional medicine and bio–guided fractionation of the most active extract. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 137(2):998–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bruschi, P., M. Mancini, E. Mattioli, M. Morganti, and M. Signorini. 2014. Traditional uses of plants in rural community of Mozambique and possible links with Miombo degradation and harvesting sustainability. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 10:52.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-10-59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Camou–Guerrero, A., V. Reyes–Garcia, M. Martínez–Ramos, and A. Casas. 2008. Knowledge and use value of plant species in a Rarámuri community: A gender perspective for conservation. Human Ecology 36:259–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Da Silva, V. A., L. H. C. Andrade, and U. P. De Albuquerque. 2006. Revising the cultural significance index: The case of the Fulni–ô in northeastern Brazil. Field Methods 18(1):98–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dadjo, C., A. E. Assogbadjo, B. Fandohan, R. Glèlè Kakaï, S. Chakeredza, T. D. Houehanou, P. Van Damme, and B. Sinsin. 2012. Uses and management of black plum (Vitex doniana Sweet) in Southern Benin. Fruits 67:239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dagnelie, P. 1998. Statistiques théoriques et appliquées. Bruxelles, Belgique: de Boeck et Larcier.Google Scholar
  18. De Caluwé, E., S. De Smedt, A. E. Assogbadjo, R. Samson, B. Sinsin, and P. Van Damme. 2009. Ethnic differences in use value and use patterns of Baobab (Adansonia digitata L.) in northern Benin. African Journal of Ecology 47:433–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gaoué, O. G., M. A. Coe, M. Bond, G. Hart, B. C. Seyler, and H. Mcmillen. 2017. Theories and major hypotheses in ethnobotany. Economic Botany 71(3):269–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gouwakinnou, G., A. Lykke, A. E. Assogbadjo, and B. Sinsin. 2011. Local knowledge, pattern and diversity of use of Sclerocarya birrea. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 7:8.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-7-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoet, S., C. Stévigny, M.–F. Hérent, and J. Quetin–Leclercq. 2006. Antitrypanosomal compounds from the leaf essential oil of Strychnos spinosa. Planta medica 72(05):480–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hoet, S., L. Pieters, G. G. Muccioli, J.–L. Habib–jiwan, F. R. Opperdoes, and J. Quetin–Leclercq. 2007. Antitrypanosomal activity of triterpenoids and sterols from the leaves of Strychnos spinosa and related compounds. Journal of Natural Products 70(8):1360–1363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoffman, B. and G. Gallaher. 2007. Importance indices in ethnobotany. Ethnobotany Research and Applications 5:201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Houehanou, T. D., A. E. Assogbadjo, R. Glele Kakaï, M. Houinato, and B. Sinsin. 2011. Valuation of local preferred uses and traditional ecological knowledge in relation to three multipurpose tree species in Benin (West Africa). Forest Policy and Economics 13:554–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Idohou R., B. Kassa, V. K. Salako, B. Fandohan, H. Yedomonhan, R. C. Gbedomon, R. L. Glele Kakai, and A. E. Assogbadjo. 2014. Biodiversity conservation in home gardens: Traditional knowledge, use patterns and implications for management. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 10(2):89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Isa, A. I., M. D. Awouafack, J. P. Dzoyem, M. Aliyu, R. A. Magaji, J. O. Ayo, and J. N. Eloff. 2014. Some Strychnos spinosa (Loganiaceae) leaf extracts and fractions have good antimicrobial activities and low cytotoxicities. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 14:456.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6882-14-456.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Johns, T. and P. B. Eyzaguirre. 2006. Linking biodiversity, diet and health in policy and practice. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 65:182–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Koura, K., J. C. Ganglo, A. E. Assogbadjo, and C. Agbangla. 2011. Ethnic differences in use values and use patterns of Parkia biglobosa in Northern Benin. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 7:42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Madzimure, J., E. T. Nyahangare, H. Hamudikuwanda, T. Hove, S. R. Belmain, P. C. Stevenson, and B. M. Mvumi. 2013. Efficacy of Strychnos spinosa (Lam.) and Solanum incanum L. aqueous fruit extracts against cattle ticks. Tropical Animal Health and Production 45(6):1341–1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nahayo, A., I. E. Ekise, and D. Niyigena. 2013. Assessment of the contribution of non–timber forest products to the improvement of local people’s livelihood in Kinigi sector, Musanze district, Rwanda. Ethiopian Journal of Environmental Studies and Management 6(6):698–706Google Scholar
  31. Nebel, S., A. Pieroni, and M. Heinrich. 2006. Ta chòrta: Wild edible greens used in the Graecanic area in Calabria, southern Italy. Appetite 47:333–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ngadze, R. T., R. Verkerk, L. K. Nyanga, V. Fogliano, and A. R. Linnemann. 2017. Improvement of traditional monkey orange (Strychnos spp.) fruits to enhance nutrition security in Zimbabwe. Food Security 9:621.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-017-0679-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ouinsavi, C., N. Sokpon, and O. Bada. 2005. Utilisation and Strategies of In Situ conservation of Milicia excelsa Welw, C.C. Berg, in Benin. Forest Ecology and Management 207:341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pasquini, M. W., C. Sánchez–Ospina, and J.–S. Mendoza. 2018. Traditional food plant knowledge and use in three Afro–Descendant communities in the Colombian Caribbean coast: Part II drivers of change. Economic Botany 72(3):295–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Phillips, O. and A. H. Gentry. 1993. The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru: I. Statistical hypotheses tests with a new quantitative technique. Economic Botany 47(1):15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Plantz Africa. Strychnos spinosa Lam. http://pza.sanbi.org/strychnos–spinosa (11 April 2017).
  37. Reyes-García, V., A. C. Luz, M. Gueze, J. Paneque–Gálvez, M. J. Macía, M. Orta–Martínez, J. Pino, and TAPS Bolivian Study Team. 2013. Secular trends on traditional ecological knowledge: An analysis of changes in different domains of knowledge among Tsimané men. Learning and Individual Difference 27:206–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ruffo, C. K., A. Birnie, and B. Tengnas. 2002. Edible wild plants of Tanzania. RELMA Technical Handbook Series, 27. Nairobi, Kenya: Regional Land Management Unit (RELMA), Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida).Google Scholar
  39. Salifou, C. F. A., K. S. Kassa, S. G. Ahounou, H. Moussa, I. O. Dotché, J. M. Agbozo, M. T. Issifou, and I. A. K. Youssao. 2017. Plantes lactogènes des bovins et leurs modes de préparation dans les élevages traditionnels au Bénin. Livestock Research for Rural Development 29(2). https://www.lrrd.cipav.org.co/lrrd29/2/sali29025.html.
  40. Shackleton, C. and S. Shackleton. 2004. The importance of non–timber forest products in rural livelihood security and as safety nets: A review of evidence from South Africa. South African Journal of Science 100(11–12):658–664.Google Scholar
  41. Suleiman, M. S., V. O. Wasonga, J. S. Mbau, A. Suleiman, and Y. A. Elhadi. 2017. Non–timber forest products and their contribution to households income around Falgore Game Reserve in Kano, Nigeria. Ecological Process 6(23):1–14.Google Scholar
  42. Thiombiano, D. N. E., N. Lamien, A. M. Castro–Euler, B. Vinceti, D. Agundez, and I. J. Boussim 2013. Local communities demand for food tree species and the potentialities of their landscapes in two ecological zones of Burkina Faso. Open Journal of Forestry 3(3):79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thomas, E. 2012. The impact of traditional lifestyle, provenance and contact history on plant use knowledge and management: A cross–cultural comparison of two small–scale societies from the Bolivian Amazon. Human Ecology 40(3):355–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Turner, N. J. and K. L. Turner. 2008. “Where our women used to get the food”: Cumulative effects and loss of ethnobotanical knowledge and practice; case study from coastal British Columbia. Botany 86(2):103–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Useful Tropical Plants. Strychnos spinosa. http://tropical.theferns.info/viewtropical.php?id=Strychnos+spinosa (30 August 2017).
  46. von Maydell, H. 1990. Trees and shrubs of the Sahel. Their characteristics and uses. Eschborn, Germany: Deutshe Gesellschaft fur Technishe Zusammenarbeit.Google Scholar
  47. World Agroforestry Centre. Strychnos spinosa. http://www.worldagroforestry.org/treedb/AFTPPDFS/Strychnos_spinosa.PDF (25 May 2018)

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.West African Science Service Center on Climate Change and Adapted Land Use (WASCAL) Graduate Research Program on Climate Change and Biodiversity, Unité de Formation et de Recherche BiosciencesUniversité Félix Houphoüet–BoignyAbidjanCôte d’Ivoire
  2. 2.Laboratory of Applied Ecology, Faculty of Agronomic SciencesUniversity of Abomey–CalaviCotonouBenin
  3. 3.Laboratoire de Biomathématiques et d’Estimations Forestières, Faculté des Sciences AgronomiquesUniversité d’Abomey–CalaviCotonouBenin
  4. 4.Ecole de Gestion et Production Végétale et SemencièreUniversité Nationale d’AgricultureKetouBenin
  5. 5.UFR Sciences de la NatureUniversité Nangui AbrogouaAbidjanCôte d’Ivoire
  6. 6.Centre Suisse de Recherches Scientifiques en Côte d’IvoireAbidjanCôte d’Ivoire

Personalised recommendations