Econ Bot. 2017;71(1):1-12. doi: 10.1007/s12231-017-9367-1. Epub 2017 Mar 6.
- 1
- School of Biological Sciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, Berkshire RG6 6BX UK.
Abstract
The
use of herbarium specimens as vouchers to support ethnobotanical
surveys is well established. However, herbaria may be underutilized
resources for ethnobotanical research that depends on the analysis of
large datasets compiled across multiple sites. Here, we compare two
medicinal use datasets, one sourced from published papers and the other
from online herbaria to determine whether herbarium and published data
are comparable and to what extent herbarium specimens add new data and
fill gaps in our knowledge of geographical extent of plant use. Using
Brazilian legumes as a case study, we compiled 1400 use reports from 105
publications and 15 Brazilian herbaria. Of the 319 species in 107
genera with cited medicinal uses, 165 (51%) were recorded only in the
literature and 55 (17%) only on herbarium labels. Mode of application,
plant part used, or therapeutic use was less often documented by
herbarium specimen labels (17% with information) than publications
(70%). However, medicinal use of 21 of the 128 species known from only
one report in the literature was substantiated from independently
collected herbarium specimens, and 58 new therapeutic applications, 25
new plant parts, and 16 new modes of application were added for species
known from the literature. Thus, when literature reports are few or
information-poor, herbarium data can both validate and augment these
reports. Herbarium data can also provide insights into the history and
geographical extent of use that are not captured in publications.
KEYWORDS:
Herbaria; ethnobotany; meta-analyses; mode of application; therapeutic use
