Advertisement

Environmental influence on the choice of medicinal animals: a case study from northeastern Brazil

  • Iamara da Silva Policarpo BritoEmail author
  • Anna Karolina Martins Borges
  • Sérgio de Faria Lopes
  • Thelma Lúcia Pereira Dias
  • Rômulo Romeu Nóbrega Alves
Open Access
Research
  • 163 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Animals from various taxonomic groups are commonly used in folk medicine, and their selection seems to be directly linked to their availability and accessibility. In the present study, we analyzed the use of animals as a source of folk medicines in a community in northeastern Brazil with access to aquatic and terrestrial animals. We hypothesize that the medicinal fauna is well represented by species of both habitat types.

Methods

For the collection of information, semi-structured questionnaires were applied to local residents.

Results

We recorded the use of 22 animals used as medicinal resources in the community, distributed among eight taxonomic categories, which are used to treat 38 types of diseases. Of the therapeutic animals, 14 species are terrestrial and 8 species can be considered aquatic occurring in marine or estuarine habitats.

Conclusions

Our data confirm the tendency of human communities to use affordable medicinal animals in local ecosystems. We also found that medicinal use represents a strategy of optimizing the use of resources and is related to the economic, historical, social, cultural, and ecological contexts in which the community is inserted.

Keywords

Folk medicine Zootherapy Medicinal animals 

Background

Medicinal plants and animals have been used in virtually all cultures as a source of medicine [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. Due to the extensive use of plant materials [6, 7, 8, 9, 10], traditional medicine is associated with herbalism. However, recent research on animal species used in folk medicinal practices worldwide shows that products derived from medicinal animals are used directly in the elaboration of natural remedies that are widely sought in folk medicinal practices [11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16] and involve a large number of species. For example, at least 1500 animal species have some medicinal use in folk Chinese medicine [17] and in Latin America, at least 584 species have been reported to be used in folk medicinal practices [18]. Worldwide, at least 284 reptiles and 47 amphibians [19], 110 primates [20], 108 mammalian carnivores [21], 266 marine invertebrates [11], and hundreds of terrestrial invertebrates are used in folk remedies [22].

Although the use of animals for medicinal purposes is widespread and important in several aspects (e.g., cultural, economic, social, and ecological), the subject has been insufficiently researched when compared with medicinal plants [23]. Nevertheless, in the last 20 years, studies investigating the importance of animal use in folk medicine have become more frequent worldwide [12, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28] supporting the belief that animal use is widespread and present in the most diverse folk medical systems in the world [12].

In Brazil, a country with significant biological and cultural richness, many medicinal animals have been registered in several localities [29, 30, 31], especially in coastal communities [23, 32, 33] and in the semiarid region [34, 35]. These studies reveal that there is a tendency to select local species for use in folk medicine. Thus, people living in coastal areas tend to use mostly aquatic/marine resources while people from arid zones tend to use more animals and less aquatic resources [23, 33, 34, 36]. This situation is similar to that observed in the selection of plant species used by human communities, whose choice is influenced by their availability and accessibility [37].

Given the above, the aim of this article was to analyze the use of animals in medicinal practices of a fishing community in the district of Diogo Lopes, municipality of Macau, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil. This fishing community is located in a peculiar region, where the dry forest extends to the coast. Therefore, the community has direct access to the animal resources that occur in a semiarid environment and the available fishing resources in the estuary and marine environment. Thus, the medicinal fauna used by the local population is expected to come from both the coastal area and the dry forest environments, since the diversity of environments enables the availability and access to a range of terrestrial and aquatic animals.

Methods

Study area

Diogo Lopes district is part of the municipality of Macau, located approximately 185 km from the state capital of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Brazil (Fig. 1). The main access is through the road BR-406 and it covers an area of 100 km2 (Santos 2003). Data from the area is based on the Macao Meteorological Station, with latitude 5° 07′ S, longitude 36° 38′ W, and altitude of six meters [38]. According to ECOPLAM [39], the district of Diogo Lopes has a warm semiarid climate and terrestrial ecosystems are classified as dry forest, dune fields, and saline environments. The population is formed mostly by fishermen. Both the adult male and female populations live on the banks of the estuary where they benefit from fishing resources that are common to the region [40].
Fig. 1

a Map of surveyed area, State of Rio Grande do Norte, northeast coast of Brazil. b Satellite image showing the coastal ecosystems and c partial view of the mangroves. Images: b Google Earth, c Getúlio Moura

Data collection

The execution of this research was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Health Sciences Center of the Federal University of Paraíba (No. 2,244,394). Data collection was performed in the first semester of 2018. However, prior to the data collection, a presentation and clarification on the objectives of the research were given, and permission was granted by the interviewees to record the information obtained.

Information on the use of animals for medicinal purposes was obtained through semi-structured questionnaires, complemented by free interviews and informal conversations [41]. Additionally, during the interviews, the snowball technique was applied, which according to Baldin and Munhoz [42] is a non-probabilistic sample form used in social research in which the participants of a study indicate new participants who also indicate new participants and so on. Ninety-five people were interviewed, 50 females and 45 males. All individuals interviewed claimed to have used animals as a medicinal resource at some point in their lives.

The interviews were conducted individually, and the questionnaires contained questions about the name of the animal used for medicinal purposes, the parts used, diseases treated, ways of preparation and use, limitations of use, adverse effects, ways of obtaining the animal, efficacy of the medicine, preference between the zootherapic or synthetic, and indications of people who were also using zootherapy.

Vernacular names of species were recorded as cited by informants, and animals were identified as follows: (1) analysis of specimens donated by informants; (2) analysis of photographs of the animals (or their parts) taken during the interviews; (3) through the vernacular names, with the help of taxonomists familiar with the fauna of the study area. In the case of animals whose identification was not possible using the methods previously described, a specimen was collected for later identification.

The conservation status of these species was assessed through the Red List of Threatened Species of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) [43] and the List of Brazilian Endangered Species [44].

Data analysis

Initially, the data obtained from the interviews were organized into spreadsheets. In addition, all diseases treated by the abovementioned zootherapeutic drugs were grouped into 10 categories, based on the classification used by the Brazilian Center for Disease Classification (1993) as follows: (1) respiratory tract diseases (RTD); (2) digestive tract diseases; (3) undefined diseases; (4) external causes of morbidity and mortality; (5) diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue; (6) injuries, poisoning and some other consequences of external causes; (7) diseases of the circulatory system; (8) skin and subcutaneous tissue diseases; (9) nervous system diseases; and (10) ear and mastoid apophysis disorders (Table 1).
Table 1

Categories of diseases treated with zootherapeutic resources in the surveyed communities, according to CBCD - Brazilian Center for Classification of Diseases (1993)

Categories

Diseases

Total

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders

Leg pain, plantar fasciitis, “hard nerves,” bone pain, joint pain, knee pain, hardened joints, spine pain, rheumatism, crooked knee

10

Respiratory tract diseases

Sore throat, flu, cough, throat inflammation, asthma, asthma crisis

7

Undefined diseases

Chest lump, inflammation, cracked heels, itching, healing

5

External causes of morbidity and mortality

Swelling, wound, barbs, thorn removal

4

Injury, poisoning, and some other consequences of external causes

Bruise, arm dislocation, ankle fracture

3

Diseases of the circulatory system

Hemorrhoids, stroke, thrombosis

3

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders

Boil, blackhead, acne

3

Nervous system disorders

Headache

1

Ear and mastoid apophysis disorders

Ear pain

1

Digestive tract diseases

Constipation

1

Relative importance

In order to assess which species are of greatest cultural importance to informants, the relative importance (RI) of the species (adapted from Bennett and Prance [45]) was calculated. The value is obtained by the formula: RI = NBS + NP, where NBS = number of body systems (disease categories), which is given by the number of body systems treated by a particular species (NBSS) over the total number of body systems treated by the most versatile species (NBS = NBSS/NBSVS), and NP = number of properties, which is given by the number of properties assigned to a given species (NPS) over the total number of properties assigned to the most versatile species (NPVS) NP = NPS/NPVS.

Results and discussion

The use of 22 animals as a medicinal resource was recorded from the informants (Table 2). Of this total, 19 are vertebrates and three invertebrates, distributed in eight taxonomic categories, of which mammals (n = 6 species), reptiles (n = 6), and fish (n = 4) were the most important. It is not surprising, given that vertebrates are the most commonly used animals in Brazilian folk medicine [29]. The prominence of the recorded taxonomic categories in the surveyed area has also been recorded in several studies, demonstrating their relevance as a therapeutic resource [23, 33, 36, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53].
Table 2

Zootherapies used in the fishing community of Diogo Lopes, Macau - RN

Class/family/species/“local name,” popular name (En/US)

Number of citations

Parts used

Diseases

Disease categories

IUCN (2018)

CITES

Brazilian list MMA (2014)

Mammalia

 Bovidae

  Ovis aries Linnaeus, 1758—“carneiro,” sheep

24

Fat, suet

Bruise, arm dislocation, ankle fracture, leg pain, swelling, plantar fasciitis, “hard nerves,” joint pain, knee pain, bone pain, hardened joints, crooked knee, cracked heels

Injury, poisoning and some other consequences of external causes, musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders, undefined diseases

0

0

0

 Canidae

  Canis familiaris Linnaeus, 1758—“cachorro,” dog

1

Feces

Throat inflammation

Respiratory tract diseases

0

0

0

  Cerdocyon thous (Linnaeus, 1766)—“raposa,” crab-eating fox

15

Fat, leather

Sore throat, throat inflammation, hemorrhoids, inflammation

Respiratory tract diseases, diseases of the circulatory system, undefined diseases

LC

II

0

 Cervidae

  Mazama sp.—“veado,” deer

1

Fat

Leg pain

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders

0

0

0

 Dasypodidae

  Euphractus sexcinctus (Linnaeus, 1758)—“tatu-peba,” six-banded armadillo

2

Fat

Thorn removal, ear pain

External causes of morbidity and mortality, ear and mastoid apophysis disorders

LC

0

0

 Delphinidae

  Sotalia guianensis (P.-J. van Bénéden, 1864)—“boto-cinza,” Guiana dolphin

4

Fat

Itching, throat inflammation, leg pain, “hard nerves”

Undefined diseases, respiratory tract diseases, musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders

DD

0

VU

Birds

 Cathartidae

  Coragyps atratus (Bechstein, 1793)—“urubu-de-cabeça-preta,” American black vulture

1

Liver

Asthma

Respiratory tract diseases

LC

0

0

 Phasianidae

  Gallus gallus (Linnaeus, 1758)—“galo,” chicken

11

Fat

Sore throat, throat inflammation, boil, chest lump, inflammation, constipation

Respiratory tract diseases, skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, undefined diseases, digestive tract diseases

LC

0

0

Reptilia

 Boidae

  Boa constrictor Linnaeus, 1758—“jiboia,” boa

2

Fat, oil

Ear pain, spine pain

Ear and mastoid apophysis disorders, musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders

0

0

0

 Cheloniidae

  Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus, 1758)—“tartaruga-verde,” green turtle

17

Fat, oil

Throat inflammation, bone pain, spine pain, rheumatism, stroke, thrombosis, boil, healing

Respiratory tract diseases, musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders, diseases of the circulatory system, skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, undefined diseases

EN

0

VU

 Iguanidae

  Iguana iguana (Linnaeus, 1758)—“Camaleão,” common green iguana

9

Fat, bones

Sore throat, throat inflammation, barbs, hemorrhoids

Respiratory tract diseases, external causes of morbidity and mortality, diseases of the circulatory system

0

0

0

 Teiidae

  Salvator merianae (Duméril & Bibron, 1839)—“lagarto teju,” tegu lizard

55

Fat

Sore throat, throat inflammation, wound, ear pain, knee pain

Respiratory tract diseases, external causes of morbidity and mortality, ear and mastoid apophysis disorders, musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders

LC

0

0

 Tropiduridae

  Tropidurus hispidus (Spix, 1825)—“lagartixa de lajedo,” Peters’ lava lizard

4

Meat, blood, head

Sore throat, throat inflammation

Respiratory tract diseases

0

0

0

 Viperidae

  Crotalus durissus Linnaeus, 1758—“cascavel,” South American rattlesnake

6

Fat, oil

Hardened joints, bone pain, spine pain, blackhead, acne, cracked heels, headache

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders, skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, nervous system disorders

LC

III

0

Amphibia

 Bufonidae

  Rhinella jimi (Stevaux, 2002)—“sapo cururu,” frog

1

Fat

Throat inflammation

Respiratory tract diseases

LC

0

0

Elasmobranchii

 Carcharhinidae

  Rhizoprionodon lalandii (Müller & Henle, 1839)—“tubarão,” Brazilian sharpnose shark

2

Liver oil

Stroke, healing

Diseases of the circulatory system, undefined diseases

DD

0

0

Actinopterygii

 Echeneidae

  Echeneis naucrates Linnaeus, 1758—“rêmora,” whitefin sharksucker

1

Sucker/fixer part

Asthma crisis

Respiratory tract diseases

LC

0

0

 Scombridae

  Scomberomorus cavalla (Cuvier, 1829)—“cavala,” king mackerel

1

Posts

Asthma crisis

Respiratory tract diseases

LC

0

0

 Syngnathidae

  Hippocampus reidi Ginsburg, 1933—“cavalo-marinho,” Long-snout Seahorse

1

Whole body

Asthma crisis

Respiratory tract diseases

NT

0

VU

Insecta

 Apidae

       

  Bee

7

Honey, gel

Flu, cough, leg pain

Respiratory tract diseases, musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders

0

0

0

Malacostraca

 Ocypodidae

  Ocypode quadrata (Fabricius, 1787)—“caranguejo maria-farinha,” ghost crab

1

Whole body

Asthma crisis

Respiratory tract diseases

0

0

0

Hydrozoa

 Physaliidae

  Physalia physalis (Linnaeus, 1758)—“caravela-portuguesa,” Portuguese man-of-war

1

Whole body

Wounds

External causes of morbidity and mortality

0

0

0

The most cited species by the individuals interviewed were Salvator merianae (Duméril and Bibron, 1839)—teju (55 citations), Ovis aries (Linnaeus, 1758)—sheep (24 citations), Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus, 1758)—green turtle (17 citations), Cerdocyon thous (Linnaeus, 1758)—fox (15 citations), and Gallus gallus (Linnaeus, 1758)—chicken (11 citations). The significant number of citations of S. merianae confirms the importance of the species as a therapeutic resource in the study area. Its medicinal use has been registered in several localities of the country [54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59]. The data show a prevalence of wild species (n = 19) being used as therapeutic resources when compared with domestic species (n = 3), corroborating the results reported by Alves and Rosa [33] on the predominant use of wild species in the folk Brazilian medicine. This trend has been recorded in various medical systems around the world [24, 30, 60, 61, 62, 63].

Regarding the relative importance of the species, although C. mydas (green turtle) was not the most cited by informants, it was the most used for a wide range of diseases, presenting an RI = 1.6. It was considered the most versatile species for multiple disease prescriptions, followed by sheep (O. aries), RI = 1.5; chicken (G. gallus), IR = 1.1; teju (S. merianae), RI = 1.0; and rattlesnake (Cortiles durissus Linnaeus, 1758), RI = 1.0 (Table 3).
Table 3

Relative importance of the most versatile medicinal animal species in the fishing community of Diogo Lopes - RN, Brazil

Species

Habitat

Relative importance

Chelonia mydas

Aquatic

1.6

Ovis aries

Terrestrial

1.5

Gallus gallus

Terrestrial

1.1

Salvator merianae

Terrestrial

1.0

Crotalus durissus

Terrestrial

1.0

Iguana iguana

Terrestrial

0.8

Cerdocyon thous

Terrestrial

0.8

Sotalia guianensis

Aquatic

0.8

Bee (Apidae)

Terrestrial

0.5

Boa constrictor

Terrestrial

0.4

Euphractus sexcinctus

Terrestrial

0.4

Tropidurus hispidus

Terrestrial

0.3

Echeneis naucrates

Aquatic

0.2

Ocypode quadrata

Aquatic

0.2

Hippocampus reidi

Aquatic

0.2

Physalia physalis

Aquatic

0.2

Rhinella jimi

Terrestrial

0.2

Rhizoprionodon lalandii

Aquatic

0.2

Mazama sp.

Terrestrial

0.2

Coragyps atratus

Terrestrial

0.2

Scomberomorus cavalla

Aquatic

0.2

Canis familiaris

Terrestrial

0.2

Among the animals listed in this study, 14 are terrestrial, most of them from the dry forest environment. Additionally, the use of aquatic animal species from marine/estuarine habitats was also reported (n = 8). Among these, the species with the highest importance index (RI) was the green turtle C. mydas. The data suggest that human communities tend to use medicinal animals in accessible environments in local ecosystems. As pointed out by Alves and Rosa [23], the use of local resources that are more easily accessible is probably related to cultural and historical aspects. This is because medicinal knowledge is focused on species that locals are familiar with, reflecting the transmission of knowledge across generations as well as financial constraints that limit access and use of other resources. This relationship between medicinal use and local knowledge has been recorded in several studies in different parts of the world. Adeola [64] noted that in Nigeria, the use of wild animals is linked to the environment in which people live and the relative abundance of species in that environment. Similar situation was recorded in India [24, 65] and Argentina [14, 25]. In Brazil, studies carried out in fishing communities have documented the strong tendency of aquatic animals to be used in folk medicinal practices [23, 32, 33, 52, 66, 67]. On the other hand, studies developed in populations of semiarid regions indicate the prevalence of terrestrial or endemic animals from these regions [30, 34, 35, 36, 59].

From the total number of records, it was possible to identify 14 products from whole animals or parts of their bodies, which are used to treat 38 diseases diagnosed by the community (Table 2). As for the methods of preparation of these products, the following were recorded: whole animals or parts are generally roasted and macerated and the resulting powder is ingested in the form of teas. Animal metabolism secretions such as lard, gel, blood, and tallow are used as ointments to massage the affected area or ingested pure or with coffee. Among these zootherapeutic products cited by informants, lard stood out as one of the most commonly used products (number of citations = 120), especially teju’s lard (S. merianae) which was reported to be widely used to treat throat problems. Most informants (78%) who cited the use of lard reported that it needs to be melted or heated and taken pure in the form of oil. When used externally, the lard is applied to the wound. According to Alves et al. [68], the frequency in which lard is used can be attributed to the fact that the main animals used are vertebrates, which have a large amount of fat in their body. Previous work has also reported the use of lard as the most commonly used raw material in the treatment and cure of various diseases [47, 50, 69, 70].

The categories of diseases with the highest number of citations were respiratory tract diseases (92 citations) and musculoskeletal system and connective tissue diseases (35 citations). The diseases with the highest number of citations were throat inflammation (54 citations) and sore throat (27 citations). This trend registered in the present study corroborates the pattern pointed out in other cities of the Northeast region, indicating that these categories are widely treated with medicinal animals [33, 58, 68, 71]. Additionally, according to the informants, it was possible to register the use of the same species in the treatment of more than one disease. An example was the ram (O. aries), whose parts (tallow and lard) are used to treat various illnesses such as bruise, arm twists, ankle fracture, leg pain, swelling, plantar fasciitis, joint pain, knee pain, cracking heels, bone pain, hard joints, and bent knee. Another animal of multiple medicinal uses in the study area is the turtle (C. mydas) which is used to treat throat inflammation, bone pain, stroke, back pain, rheumatism, boil, and thrombosis, being also used for healing. Other species have also been reported for various therapeutic indications: teju (S. merianae), chicken (G. gallus), chameleon (Iguana iguana Linnaeus, 1758), fox (C. thous), and rattlesnake (C. durissus).

The use of zootherapeutic products may be related to the use of resources that would otherwise be wasted [69]. According to these authors, populations tend to use leftovers of food for therapeutic purposes. Not surprisingly, therefore, several of the medicinal animals are hunted or fished by the local population for food purposes. An example is the teju (S. merianae), which represents an important source of protein and is one of the most hunted species used as food in traditional and/or indigenous communities [72], and its leftovers such as lard, tail, and tongue are used as medicines.

According to most informants, the use of animals listed as a medicinal resource was a common practice in the past and was most often obtained through hunting or given by older people (parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, or hunter friends). When asked about the preference for treating a disease, they reported that they preferred the folk medicine (from animals or plants) to medicines sold in pharmacies, but it was currently very difficult to get the animal. As pointed out by Alves et al. [54], some factors contribute to the reduction of use of zootherapics and herbal medicines. Among them are the decline of fauna and flora due to deforestation, burning, and hunting, and the presence of health centers with free distribution of medicines. This reduction in the use of zootherapics was also reported by informants in the study by Lima and Santos [73], who recorded that the species were decreasing as a consequence of hunting and deforestation activities for development.

Among the medicinal species recorded in the present study, the seahorse (Hippocampus reidi Ginsburg, 1933), the turtle (C. mydas), and the dolphin (Sotalia guianensis (P.-J. van Bénéden, 1864)) are present in the Red List of Threatened Species of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) [43] and the List of Endangered Brazilian Fauna Species [44]. The impacts of zootherapeutic practices on wild populations should be carefully investigated, since, unlike herbal remedies, the use of zootherapeutic products most often occurs after an animal is sacrificed [14]. However, it is important to point out that, despite being used in folk medicine, the impacts of zootherapeutic practice on threatened species are not significant, especially when compared with other factors triggering population decline such as habitat degradation and capture of these animals for other purposes that are not necessarily medicinal [74]. According to Alves et al. [75], understanding the trend and multiplicity of therapeutic use of animals is a particular concern from a conservationist point of view. This is noteworthy because threatened species such as those reported in this and other studies can be replaced by non-threatened species with similar properties.

Given the information obtained from the informants, it is noticeable that there is a tendency of using medicinal animals that occur near the sampled locality. This was especially clear in relation to species that are targeted for hunting and fishing, showing that the environment directly influences the choice of zootherapeutic resources and the medicinal use represents a strategy of optimizing the use of resources. Zootherapeutic practices are related to ecological, cultural, historical, sociological, economic, and health aspects [58, 76], connecting people to the environment and enriching local knowledge [77, 78].

Notes

Acknowledgements

We also would like to thank CNPq for the productivity grant awarded to RRNA and SFL. The authors thank the Brazilian Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) for the scholarship granted to the first author.

They especially thank all the interviewees who shared their knowledge.

Authors’ contributions

ISPB, AKMB, SFL, TLPD, and RRNA contributed to the writing of the manuscript, literature survey and interpretation, and analysis of taxonomic aspects; ISPB contributed to the ethnozoological data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) and CNPq/Edital Universal program (422041/2018-1).

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The research was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Hospital Universitário Lauro Wanderley (HULW) under the Certificate of Presentation for Ethical Consideration (CAAE) (No. 2,244,394). All interviewers consent to participate.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Albuquerque UP, Medeiros PM, Almeida ALS, Monteiro JM, Neto EMFL, Melo JG, et al. Medicinal plants of the caatinga (semi-arid) vegetation of NE Brazil: a quantitative approach. J Ethnopharmacol. 2007;114:325–54.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alves RRN, Rosa IL. Biodiversity, traditional medicine and public health: where do they meet? J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2007;3:9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boakye MK. Influence of ethnicity on cultural use of pangolins in Ghana and its implications on their conservation. Ethnobio Conserv. 2018;7:1–18.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hurrell JA, Puentes JP. Plant species and products of the traditional Chinese phytotherapy in the Ciudade Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina. Ethnobio Conserv. 2017;6:1–43.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Latorre EC, Canavero A, Pochettino ML. Comparison of medicinal plant knowledge between rural and urban people living in the biosphere reserve “Bioma PampaQuebradas del Norte”, Uruguay: an opportunity for biocultural conservation. Ethnobio Conserv. 2018;7:1–34.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calixto JB. Twenty-five years of research on medicinal plants in Latin America: a personal view. J Ethnopharmacol. 2005;100:131–4.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cunningham AB: An Africa-wide overview of medicinal plant harvesting, conservation and health care. Pages 116–129 in Bodeker G., Bhat K.K.S., J. B, P. V, eds. Medicinal plants for forest conservation and health care. Rome: Food & Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO); 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Halberstein RA. Medicinal plants: historical and cross-cultural usage patterns. Ann Epidemiol. 2005;15:686–99.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Iwu MM. Handbook of African medicinal plants. Boca Raton: CRC; 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zank S, Hanazaki N. Healing faith: knowledge, learning and social relationships of healers from Araripe plateau, Brazil. Ethnobio Conserv. 2016;5:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marques JGW. A fauna medicinal dos índios Kuna de San Blás (Panamá) e a hipótese da universalidade zooterápica. Vitória: 47a Reunião Anual da Sociedade Brasileira para o Progresso da Ciência; 1994. p. 324.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alves RRN, Rosa IL. Animals in traditional folk medicine: implications for conservation, vol. 1. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alves RRN, Policarpo IS. Animals and human health: where do they meet? In: RRN A, editor. Ethnozoology. Albuquerque: Elsevier; 2018. p. 233–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Castillo L, Ladio AH. Zootherapy and rural livestock farmers in semiarid Patagonia: the transfer of animal aptitudes for health. Ethnobio Conserv. 2019;8:1–23.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hajdari A, Pieroni A, Jhaveri M, Mustafa B, Quave C. Ethnomedical remedies among Slavic speaking people in South Kosovo. Ethnobio Conserv. 2018;7:1–42.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van Vliet N, Moreno J, Gómez J, Zhou W, Fa JE, Golden C, et al. Bushmeat and human health: assessing the evidence in tropical and sub-tropical forests. Ethnobio Conserv. 2017;6:1–45.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yinfeng G, Xueying Z, Yan C, Di W, Sung W. Sustainability of wildlife use in traditional Chinese medicine. In: Conserving China'Biodiversity: reports of the Biodiversity Working Group (BWG), China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development; 1997.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alves RRN, Alves HN. The faunal drugstore: animal-based remedies used in traditional medicines in Latin America. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2011;7:1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alves RRN, Vieira WLS, Santana GG, Vieira KS, PFGP M. Herpetofauna used in traditional folk medicine: conservation implications. In: RRN A, Rosa IL, editors. Animals in traditional folk medicine: implications for conservation. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2013. p. 109–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Alves RRN, Souto WMS, Barboza RRD, DMM B. Primates in traditional folk medicine: world overview. In: RRN A, Rosa IL, editors. Animals in traditional folk medicine: implications for conservation, vol. 1. Berlin: Springer; 2013. p. 135–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Alves RRN, Pinto LCL, Barboza RRD, Souto WMS, Oliveira REMCC, WLS V. A global overview of carnivores used in traditional medicines. In: RRN A, Rosa IL, editors. Animals in traditional folk medicine: implications for conservation, vol. 1. Berlin: Springer; 2013. p. 171–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Meyer-Rochow VB. Therapeutic arthropods and other, largely terrestrial, folk-medicinally important invertebrates: a comparative survey and review. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2017;13:1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Alves RRN, Rosa IL. From cnidarians to mammals: the use of animals as remedies in fishing communities in NE Brazil. J Ethnopharmacol. 2006;107:259–76.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mahawar MM, Jaroli DP. Traditional zootherapeutic studies in India: a review. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2008;4:17.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Martinez GJ. Use of fauna in the traditional medicine of native Toba (qom) from the Argentine Gran Chaco region: an ethnozoological and conservationist approach. Ethnobio Conserv. 2013;2:1–43.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Whiting MJ, Williams VL, Hibbitts TJ. Animals traded for traditional medicine at the Faraday market in South Africa: species diversity and conservation implications. In: RRN A, Rosa IL, editors. Animals in traditional folk medicine: implications for conservation. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2013. p. 421–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Altaf M, Umair M, Abbasi AR, Muhammad N, Abbasi AM. Ethnomedicinal applications of animal species by the local communities of Punjab, Pakistan. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2018;14:1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jugli S, Chakravorty J, Meyer-Rochow VB. Zootherapeutic uses of animals and their parts: an important element of the traditional knowledge of the Tangsa and Wancho of eastern Arunachal Pradesh, North-East India. In: Environment, development and sustainability; 2019. p. 1–36.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Alves RRN, Rosa IL, Santana GG. The role of animal-derived remedies as complementary medicine in Brazil. BioScience. 2007;57:949–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ferreira FS, Albuquerque UP, Coutinho HDM, Almeida WO, Alves RRN. The trade in medicinal animals in Northeastern Brazil. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2012;2012:1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ferreira FS, Fernandes-Ferreira H, Leo Neto N, Brito SV, Alves RRN. The trade of medicinal animals in Brazil: current status and perspectives. Biodivers Conserv. 2013;22:839–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Andrade JN, Costa-Neto EM. Primeiro registro da utilização medicinal de recursos pesqueiros na cidade de São Félix, Estado da Bahia, Brasil. Acta Scientiarum Biological Sci. 2005;27:177–83.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Alves RRN, Rosa IL. Zootherapeutic practices among fishing communities in North and Northeast Brazil: a comparison. J Ethnopharmacol. 2007;111:82–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Alves RRN, Oliveira MGG, Barboza RRD, Singh R, Lopez LCS, RRN A, et al. Forsch Komplementmed/research in complementary medicine, vol. 16; 2009. p. 305–12.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Alves RRN, Oliveira MGG, Barboza RRD, Lopez LCS. An ethnozoological survey of medicinal animals commercialized in the markets of Campina Grande, NE Brazil. Hum Ecol Rev. 2010;17:11–7.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Alves RRN, Melo MF, Ferreira FS, Trovão DMBM, Dias TLP, Oliveira JV, et al. Healing with animals in a semiarid northeastern area of Brazil. Environ Dev Sustain. 2016;18:1733–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Phillips O, Gentry AH. The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru: I. statistical hypotheses tests with a new quantitative technique. Econ Bot. 1993;47:15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    INMET. III Distrito de Meteorologia. Seção de Observação e Meteorologia Aplicada. Fornecimento de dados meteorológicos. In: Macau/RN. Recife: Estação 82594. Parâmetro. 203; 2000.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    ECOPLAM. Relatório de Avaliação Ambiental – RAA dos Campos Petrolíferos de Conceição, Salina Cristal e Macau, vol. 1. Natal: Petrobras – E & P – RN/CE - ASSEMA; 1997.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Santos DAS. Mapeamento da área submersa da laguna de Diogo Lopes - Barreiras (RN). Natal: Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte; 2003.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Albuquerque UP, Lucena RFP, Alencar NL. Métodos e técnicas para coletas de dados etnobiológicos. In: Albuquerque UP, RFP L, LVFC C, editors. Métodos e técnicas na pesquisa etnobiológica e etnoecológica. Recife: Nuppea; 2010. p. 41–66.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Baldin N, Munhoz EMB. Snowball (bola de neve): uma técnica metodológica para pesquisa em educação ambiental comunitária. In: X Congresso Nacional de Educação. Curitiba: Educere; 2011.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    IUCN. Red list of threatened species. Version 2018.1. www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 15 Sept 2019.
  44. 44.
    MMA – Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Lista das Espécies da Fauna Brasileira Ameaçadas de Extinção. Brasília: Biodiversidade; 2014.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bennett BC, Prance GT. Introduced plants in the indigenous pharmacopoeia of Northern South America. Econ Bot. 2000;54:90–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Policarpo IS, Barboza RRD, AKM B, RRN A. Mammalian fauna used in folk medicine among hunters in a semiarid region of Brazil. In: Environment, development and sustainability; 2018.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Silva MLV, Alves ÂGC, Almeida AV. A zooterapia no Recife (Pernambuco): uma articulação entre as práticas ea história. Biotemas. 2004;17:95–116.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Almeida CFCB, Albuquerque UP. Uso e conservação de plantas e animais medicinais no estado de Pernambuco (Nordeste do Brasil): um estudo de caso. Interciência. 2002;26:276–85.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Seixas CS, Begossi A. Ethnozoology of fishing communities from Ilha Grande (Atlantic forest coast, Brazil). J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2001;21:107–35.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Costa Neto EM. “Barata é um santo remédio”: introdução à zooterapia popular no estado da Bahia. Feira de Santana: UEFS; 1999.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Branch LC, Silva MF. Folk medicine of Alter do Chao, Para, Brazil. Acta Amazon. 1983;13:737–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Begossi A. Food taboos at Búzios Island (Brazil): their significance and relation to folk medicine. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 1992;12:117–39.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Alves RRN, Feijó A, Barboza RRD, Souto WMS, Fernandes-Ferreira H, Cordeiro-Estrela P, et al. Game mammals of the Caatinga biome. Ethnobio Conserv. 2016;5:1–51.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Alves RRN, Soares TC, Mourão JS. Uso de animais medicinais na comunidade de Bom Sucesso, Soledade, Estado da Paraíba, Brasil. Sitientibus Série Ciências Biológicas. 2008;8:142–7.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Silva NLG, Ferreira FS, Coutinho HDM, RRN A. Zooterápicos utilizados em Comunidades rurais do município de Sumé, Paraíba, Nordeste do Brasil. In: Costa Neto EM, RRN A, editors. Zooterapia - Os animais na medicina popular Brasileira. Recife: Nuppea; 2010. p. 245–67.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Alves RRN, Barbosa JAA, Santos SLDX, Souto WMS, Barboza RRD. Animal-based remedies as complementary medicines in the semi-arid region of Northeastern Brazil. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2011;2011:179876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Alves RRN, Neta ROS, Trovão DMBM, Barbosa JEL, Barros AT, Dias TLP. Traditional uses of medicinal animals in the semi-arid region of northeastern Brazil. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2012;8:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ferreira FS, Brito SV, Costa JGM, Alves R, Coutinho HDM, Almeida WO. Is the body fat of the lizard Tupinambis merianae effective against bacterial infections? J Ethnopharmacol. 2009;126:233–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Oliveira ES, Torres DF, Brooks SE, Alves RRN. The medicinal animal markets in the metropolitan region of Natal City, northeastern Brazil. J Ethnopharmacol. 2010;130:54–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Alonso-Castro AJ. Use of medicinal fauna in Mexican traditional medicine. J Ethnopharmacol. 2014;152:53–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Alves RRN, Souto WMS, Barboza RRD. Primates in traditional folk medicine: a world overview. Mammal Rev. 2010;40:155–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ceríaco LMP. A review of fauna used in zootherapeutic remedies in Portugal: historical origins, current uses, and implications for conservation. In: Alves RRN, Rosa IL, editors. Animals in traditional folk medicine. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2013. p. 317–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    El-Kamali HH. Folk medicinal use of some animal products in Central Sudan. J Ethnopharmacol. 2000;72:279–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Adeola MO. Importance of wild animals and their parts in the culture’ religious festivals, and traditional medicine, of Nigeria. Environ Conserv. 1992;19:125–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Chakravorty J, Meyer-Rochow V, Sampat G. Vertebrates used for medicinal purposes by members of the Nyishi and Galo tribes in Arunachal Pradesh (North-East India). J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2011;7:13.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Begossi A, Braga FMS. Food taboos and folk medicine among fishermen from the Tocantins River. Amazoniana. 1992;12:101–18.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Costa-Neto EM, Marques JGW. Faunistic resources used as medicines by artisanal fishermen from Siribinha Beach, State of Bahia, Brazil. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2000;20:93–109.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Alves RRN, Lima HN, Tavares MC, Souto WMS, Barboza RRD, Vasconcellos A. Animal-based remedies as complementary medicines in Santa Cruz do Capibaribe, Brazil. In: BMC complementary and alternative medicine; 2008.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Moura FBP, Marques JGW. Zooterapia popular na Chapada Diamantina: uma medicina incidental. Cien Saude Colet. 2008;13:2179–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Hanazaki N, Alves RRN, Begossi A. Hunting and use of terrestrial fauna used by Caiçaras from the Atlantic Forest coast (Brazil). J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2009;5:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Alves RRN. Fauna used in popular medicine in Northeast Brazil. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2009;5:1–30.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Saadoun A, Cabrera MC. A review of the nutritional content and technological parameters of indigenous sources of meat in South America. Meat Sci. 2008;80:570–81.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Lima JRB, Santos CAB. Recursos animais utilizados na medicina tradicional dos índios pankararu no Nordeste do Estado, Pernambuco, Brasil. Etnobiologia. 2010;8:39–50.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Alves RRN, Dias TLP. Usos de invertebrados na medicina popular no Brasil e suas implicações para conservação. Trop Conserv Sci. 2010;3:159–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Alves RRN, Oliveira TPR, Medeiros MFT. Trends in medicinal uses of edible wild vertebrates in Brazil. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2017;2017:4901329.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Lev E. Ethno-diversity within current ethno-pharmacology as part of Israeli traditional medicine – a review. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2006;2:4.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Alves RRN, Rosa IL. Why study the use of animal products in traditional medicines? J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2005;1:1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Janssen J, Gomez L. Common Sun Skink Eutropis multifasciata (Kuhl 1820) sold for Traditional Medicine in Indonesia and potential conservation implications. Ethnobio Conserv. 2019;8:1–8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s). 2019

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Iamara da Silva Policarpo Brito
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Anna Karolina Martins Borges
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sérgio de Faria Lopes
    • 2
  • Thelma Lúcia Pereira Dias
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rômulo Romeu Nóbrega Alves
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Programa de Pos-Graduacao em Ciências Biológicas (Zoologia)Departamento de Sistemática e Ecologia da Universidade Federal da ParaíbaJoão PessoaBrazil
  2. 2.Departamento de BiologiaUniversidade Estadual da ParaíbaCampina GrandeBrazil

Personalised recommendations