Research Signpost

37/661 (2), Fort P.O., Trivandrum-695 023, Kerala, India

Current Topics in Ethnobotany, 2008: 113-124 ISBN: 978-81-308-0243-5
Editors: Ulysses Paulino de Albuquerque and Marcelo Alves Ramos
7
When intention matters:
Comparing three ethnobotanical
data collection strategies


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




Abstract
Methodological procedures used in ethnobotanical
investigations have been the target of criticism in
terms of their reliability and efficiency in gathering
certain types of information. The great variety of
research topics to be pursued and the urgency of
recording local knowledge concerning biodiversity
indicate the need for an examination of our investigative
methods. The present work was designed to compare
the species richness of useful plants as determined by

Correspondence/Reprint request: Dr. Ulysses P. Albuquerque, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco
Departamento de Biologia, rea de Botnica, Laboratrio de Etnobotnica Aplicada, Rua Dom Manoel de
Medeiros s/n, 52-171-900 Dois Irmos, Recife, Pernambuco Brazil. E-mail: upa@db.ufrpe.br
J lio Marcelino Monteiro et al. 114
three different methodologies: a general survey, a survey of a specific cultural
domain (both of these approaches using semi-structured interviews), as well as
an in situ inventory. This project was undertaken in an area of caatinga (semi-
arid) vegetation in Pernambuco State, NE Brazil, and an effort was made to
include the same participants in all stages. Our results indicated that focused
surveys are appropriate for research projects directed towards identifying the
richness of useful species in specific categories; while the general survey
technique will reveal the greatest overall species richness, and can be used when
limited temporal and financial resources are available.

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

2. Study area
The present study was undertaken in an area of hypoxerophytic Caatinga
vegetation in the municipality of Caruaru, in the state of Pernambuco,
When intention matters: Comparing three ethnobotanical data collection strategies
115
northeastern Brazil. The community examined, Riacho de Malhada de
Pedra, has 123 inhabited residences and a total population of approximately
493 people [24]. This is a typically regional rural community based on
subsistence agriculture and limited cattle breeding. Other ethnobotanical
studies have been undertaken in the area and can be referred to for more
detailed information concerning the physical and cultural aspects of the study
locality [6,15,25-29]. The native resources of the region are used in many
different manners by the local inhabitants, with strong emphasis on the
exploitation of wood products for construction and as fuel [26,28].

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

3.1 General interviews
Semi-structured interviews were used in the general and focused surveys
to gather data concerning knowledge and use of native plant species. The
questions solicited information concerning the native species that were known
to the interviewees and the specific uses of these natural resources. These uses
were subsequently organized into eight use-categories (food, forage,
medicinal, ethnoveterinary, technological, fuel, construction, and other-uses)
defined according to criteria adopted by Phillips and Gentry [12] and Galeano
[10]. The category of other-uses included magic/religious applications,
poisons, and personal hygiene uses.
The survey itself involved 98 head-of-household informants (55 men and
43 women) who agreed to participate in the research. The informants were
J lio Marcelino Monteiro et al. 116
selected without regard to their sex or age, the latter varying from 17 to 83
years. The inclusion criterion adopted for interviews in this phase was simply
to question the person responsible for the household at the moment of the
interview. This series of interviews indicated that three use-categories were
particularly important to the local community: medicinal, fuel (fuelwoods),
and construction (fences). These three domains were selected for more
intensive examination in the second more focused phase of the study
(described as follows).

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

3.3 In situ inventory
The in situ inventory focused only on plants known for their use in fence
construction and as fuelwoods, and involved detailed studies in the field
[32,33]. To initiate the surveys of the species used in fence constructions,
properties in the community were identified that had fences at least 50 meters
long. A total of 50 fences were examined, and interviews were held with 38
informants who were responsible for the construction or maintenance of more
than one fence in the region. Each informant was invited to identify each of the
component fence elements in the field and collaborate in the collection of
botanical samples for identification.
The analysis of fuelwoods used by the community involved the inspection
of firewood stocks present in their houses. Thirty three families were identified
during the focused survey described previously as using fuelwood in their
When intention matters: Comparing three ethnobotanical data collection strategies
117
home, and we were allowed to inspect the wood stocks in 22 of those
residences during the in situ inventory [33]. The plants in the firewood stocks
present at the time of inspection were identified by the informants.

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

4. Results and discussion
4.1 Comparing methodologies
The general survey registered less species richness in both the fuelwood
(27 species) and medicinal categories (20 species) than did the focused survey
(39 and 27 species, respectively) (Table 1). A large number of species were
common to both methods, as 76% of the plants identified as fuelwoods and
65% of the plants cited as medicinal in the general survey were also listed in
the focused survey. This result supports our premise that the more focused the
research greater is the probability of enriching the lists of useful plants. The
numbers of species unique to each of the methods varied from 5 to 17. These
results suggest that directed surveys will yield more detailed information than
general surveys when specific cultural domains are being investigated.
J lio Marcelino Monteiro et al. 118
Table 1. Number of species registered in the general and focused surveys of medicinal
plants and fuelwoods in the community of Riacho de Malhada de Pedra, Caruaru,
Pernambuco State, Brazil.

Use categories General Survey Focused Survey
Total species 27 39
Exclusive species 5 17 Fuelwood
Shared species 22 (76%) 22 (56%)
Total species 20 27
Exclusive species 7 14 Medicinal
Shared species 13(65%) 13(48%)

Within the medicinal category, the species exclusive to only one type of
survey were actually rarely cited, while the regionally most important species
appear under all situations. This same pattern was seen with the fuelwood
species cited in the focused survey, while the other species cited appear to be
the result of opportunist collection in the region [33]. The numbers of
therapeutic indications for A. colubrina (Vell.) Brenan and M. urundeuva
Allemo, for example, were greater in the focused survey (22 and 29
indications, respectively) than in the general survey (9 and 6 indications,
respectively).
The species richness of fuelwoods was larger in the general survey (27)
than in the in situ inventory (25 species) (Figure 1). The opposite was observed
with fences, where the in situ survey recorded almost twice as many species
(42) than the general survey (24 species) (Figure 1). A large percentage of the
fuelwood species were shared by both methods, as 76% of the plants listed in
the in situ fuelwood inventory were also listed in the general survey. In the
case of the fences, 87% of the species recorded in the general survey were also
recorded in the in situ inventory. The species richness cited in the focused
survey of fuelwoods (39 species) was larger than that cited in the in situ
inventory (25 species), but a large number of species were shared by both
methods, with 76% of the plants cited in the in situ fuelwood survey being also
cited in the general [Table 1].
Interestingly, the results of Reyes-Garcia et al. [21] were different than
ours. These authors noted that 43 ethnospecies were recorded as being known
for fuelwood, although 72 ethnospecies were observed being used. The same
phenomenon was observed with edible plants. It is possible that differences in
the observational efficiency of the two projects may account for these
disparities, as Reyes-Garcia et al. made weekly observations in their
community during a full year, while our in situ inventory of fuelwoods was
restricted to a single observational event.
The in situ inventory of the fences was clearly superior to the general
survey, confirming our expectations. An in situ inventory also guarantees the
When intention matters: Comparing three ethnobotanical data collection strategies
119



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

true use of a given resource will be noted, while general surveys, in principal,
give no assurance that the species cited are in fact being used.
The results of the analysis of fuelwoods, however, ran contrary to our
expectations and to tendencies recorded in the literature [21], with species
richness being greater in the general survey than in the in situ inventory. This
may have occurred for two reasons: 1) the fuelwood stocks are renewed
constantly while the in situ inventory registered only a single moment of its
species richness, making it very possible that a longer term monitoring would
record a larger number of species; 2) personal preferences and/or species
availability may bias the representation of plants in the fuelwood stocks. Gavin
and Anderson [38] reported similar findings during their investigations, as
some species encountered during a rapid inventory were not registered during
J lio Marcelino Monteiro et al. 120
a long-duration survey, and these authors suggested: 1) the possibility that the
long-term study may have occurred during an atypical year for certain types of
uses; 2) the use of certain products may have been influenced by seasonal
factors; or 3) information concerning a given species was obtained during a
rare event or a recent collection by an informant.
An ample survey that also includes various use-categories will permit an
efficient overall view of the useful species of a region, although this
information may not be sufficiently robust for detailed studies directed towards
areas such as resource management or conservation. In principal, our general
survey was equivalent to the rapid evaluation techniques tested by Gavin and
Anderson [38], as it can furnish useful preliminary data as well as a list of
widely known species. Reyes-Garca et al. [21] collected information using a
free-listing technique and scan observations that record the plants used by
informants in the last 24 hours. Scan observations were reasonably efficient in
surveying species, although information on their use-richness was considerably
less comprehensive. A study by Gaugris and van Rooyen [36] indicated that
quantitative information collected through the use of questionnaires not
accompanied by ground-proofing must be viewed with caution. These authors
suggested that questionnaires should be accompanied by full in situ inventories
in order to obtain more information concerning the utilization of natural
resources.

4.2 Evaluation and ordering of species based on their use-
values
On average, medicinal species common to both the general and focused
surveys tended to be more highly valued in the general survey (average: 0.23;
standard deviation: 0.35) than in the focused survey (average: 0.29; standard
deviation: 0.31). The opposite was observed in the case of plants known to
be used as fuelwoods and, on average, species were more highly valued in the
focused survey (average: 0.25; standard deviation: 0.30) than in the general
survey (average: 0.09; standard deviation: 0.11). These differences were not
significant (p>0.05), however, which implies that the two techniques are
essentially equivalent when used to measure the potential uses of plants.
The differences observed between the individual attributes of a given
species in the general and focused surveys reflect the fact that their use-values
are strongly influenced by the number of people citing a given species [6],
nevertheless, our results indicated that the two approaches are essentially
similar when used to determine the relative importance of the plants by the
use-value technique. When the ordination of the species according to their use-
value was examined, however, important differences between the two survey
methods were revealed (Table 2). When considering the species in the medicinal
When intention matters: Comparing three ethnobotanical data collection strategies
121
Table 2. Scores of the comparisons of specific vs. general surveys. Species that appear
in the same ranking position in both survey types (score value 1.00); species that
demonstrate a variation of +/- one position in both survey types (score 0.75); species
that demonstrate a variation of +/- two positions in both survey types (score 0.50);
species that demonstrate a variation of +/- three positions in both survey types (score
0.25); species that demonstrate a variation greater than four positions in both survey
types (score 0).

General vs Focused Survey
Scores Medicinal
(n= 13 - 39%*)
Fuelwood
(n=22 - 48%*)
1.00 1(8%) 4(18%)
0.75 3(23%) 6(27%)
0.50 3(23%) 5(23%)
0.25 1(8%) 4(18%)
0 5(38%) 3(14%)
* Species encountered in both survey types.

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

Conclusions
Our results indicated that focused surveys are appropriate for research
projects focused on identifying the richness of useful species in specific
categories in a given region, or those directed towards bioprospecting.
However, if the research goal is to give a wide and rapid diagnosis of an area, a
general survey will provide an efficient register of the most locally important
species. General surveys can also aid in formulating conservation strategies for
J lio Marcelino Monteiro et al. 122
threatened areas and in providing rapid responses to questions related to
sustainable management. Considering the numbers of shared species between
the general and focused surveys, the choice of a method to be used will depend
on the results desired. The general survey technique reveals the greatest
species richness and can be used when the researchers have limited temporal
and financial resources.
In general, and respecting the limitations of the approaches used here, the
in situ inventory represents an interesting strategy for identifying the species
actually used, and even allows an estimation of the volume of resources
consumed [see 37]. However, its efficiency will depend on the type and focus
of the investigation, for as seen in the case of plants used as fuelwoods, this
technique is more precise when monitoring is used in stead of point
evaluations. The in situ inventory is more adequate for situations in which time
and research are not as restricted. Finally, we share the opinion of Reyes-
Garca et al. [39] that these different techniques can capture distinct
dimensions of knowledge, which implies that researchers must be aware from
the start of the specific goals of their studies and of the use of the data to be
collected.
The results of the analysis of fuelwood, for example, indicated that
preconceived expectations are not always met.

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

References
1. Cohen, J . H. 2000, Field Methods, 12(4), 316.
2. Brewer, D. D. 2002, Field Methods, 14(1), 108.
3. Maxwell, J .A. 2004, Field Methods, 16(3), 243.
4. Tongco, M.D.C. 2007, Ethnobotany Research and Applications, 5, 147.
5. Albuquerque, U.P., and Lucena, R.F.P. 2005, Interciencia, 30, 506.
6. Albuquerque, U.P., Lucena, R.F.P., Monteiro, J .M., Florentino, A.T.N., and
Almeida, C.F.C.B.R. 2006, Ethnobotany Research and Applications, 4, 51.
7. Silva, V.A., Andrade, L.H.C., and Albuquerque, U.P. 2006, Field Methods, 18. 98.
8. Edwards, S., Nebel, S., and Heinrich, M. 2005. J ournal of Ethnopharmacology,
100(2005), 30.
9. Boeije, H.R. 2004, Field Methods, 16 (1), 3.
10. Galeano, G. 2000, Forest use at the Pacific Coast of Choc, Colombia: a
quantitative approach, Economic Botany, 54, 358.
When intention matters: Comparing three ethnobotanical data collection strategies
123
11. Phillips, O., and Gentry, A.H. 1993, Economic Botany, 47, 15.
12. Phillips, O., and Gentry, A.H. 1993, Economic Botany, 47, 33.
13. Albuquerque, U.P., and Andrade, L.H.C. 2002, Interciencia, 27, 336.
14. Cunha, L.V.F., and Albuquerque, U.P. 2006, Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment, 114, 1.
15. Lucena, R.F.P., Albuquerque, U.P., Monteiro, J .M., Almeida, C.F.C.B.R.,
Florentino, A.T.N., and Ferraz, J .S.F. 2007, Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment, 125, 281.
16. Ayuk, E.T. 1997, Agricultural Systems, 54, 189.
17. Tabuti, J.R.S., Dhillion, S.S., and Lye, K.A. 2003, Biomass and Bioenergy, 25, 581.
18. Begossi, A., Hanazaki, N., and Tamashiro, J .Y. 2002, Human Ecology, 30(3), 281.
19. Ladio, A.H., and Lozada, M. 2004, Biodiversity and Conservation, 13, 1153.
20. Gomez-Beloz, A. 2002, Economic Botany, 56(3), 231.
21. Reyes-Garcia, V., Huanca, T., Vadez, V., Leonard, W., and Wilkie, D. 2006,
Economic Botany, 60(1), 62.
22. Reyes-Garcia, V., Valdez, V., Huanca, T., Leonard, W., and Wilkie, D. 2005,
Ethnobotany Research and Applications, 3, 201.
23. Albuquerque, U.P. 2006, J ournal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 2,30.
24. Relatrio Anual. 2004, Prefeitura Municipal de Caruaru. Relatrio Anual da
Unidade de Sade da Famlia de Serra Velha, Pernambuco, Brasil.
25. Monteiro, J .M., Lins-Neto, E.M.F., Amorim, E.L.C., Strattmann, R.R., Arajo,
E.L., and Albuquerque, U.P. 2005, Revista rvore, 29, 999.
26. Monteiro, J .M., Almeida, C.F.C.B.R., Albuquerque, U.P., Lucena, R.F.P.,
Florentino, A.T.N., and Oliveira, R.L.C. 2006, J ournal of Ethnobiology and
Ethnomedicine, 2, 1.
27. Monteiro, J .M., Albuquerque, U.P., Lins-Neto, E.M.F., Arajo, E.L., and Amorim,
E.L.C. 2006, J ournal of Ethnopharmacology, 105, 173.
28. Florentino, A.T.N., Arajo, E.L., and Albuquerque, U.P. 2007, Acta Botanica
Braslica, 21(1), 37.
29. Oliveira, R.L.C., Lins Neto, E.M.F., Arajo, E.L., and Albuquerque, U.P. 2007,
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 132, 189.
30. Albuquerque, U.P., and Lucena, R.F.P. 2004, Seleo e escolha dos informantes,
U.P. Albuquerque and Lucena, R.F.P., (Eds.), Mtodos e tcnicas na pesquisa
etnobotnica,. Editora NUPEEA, Recife.
31. Martin, G.J . 1995, Ethnobotany: a methods manual. Chapman & Hall.
32. Nascimento, V.T. 2007, Estratgias rurais de uso e manejo de plantas para a
construo de cercas em uma rea de caatinga no municpio de Caruaru,
Pernambuco. MSc. Dissertation, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco.
33. Ramos, M.A. 2007, Plantas usadas como combustvel em uma rea de caatinga
(Nordeste do Brasil): Seleo de espcies, padres de coleta e qualidade do
recurso. MSc. Dissertation, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Cincias
Florestais.
34. Rossato, S.C., Leito-Filho, H.F., Begossi, A. 1999, Economic Botany, 53, 387.
35. Silva, V.A., Albuquerque, U.P. 2004, Tcnicas para anlise de dados
etnobotnicos, U.P. Albuquerque and Lucena, R.F.P., (Eds.), Mtodos e tcnicas
na pesquisa etnobotnica,. Editora NUPEEA, Recife.
J lio Marcelino Monteiro et al. 124
36. Sokal, R.R., and Rholf, F.G. 1995, Biometry. New York: Freeman and Company.
37. Gaugris, J .Y., and van Rooyen, M.W. 2006, Ethnobotany Research and
Applications, 4,119.
38. Gavin, M.C., and Anderson, G.J . 2005, Economic Botany, 59(2), 112.
39. Reyes-Garca, V., Vadez, V., Tanner, S., Huanca, T., Leonard, W.R., and McDade,
T. 2006, Measuring what people know about the environment: A review of
quantitative studies. Tsimane' Amazonian Panel Study Working.