4.7 Article

Ethnoveterinary knowledge in Navarra (Iberian Peninsula)

期刊

JOURNAL OF ETHNOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 130, 期 2, 页码 369-378

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jep.2010.05.023

关键词

Ethnobotany; Navarra; Spain; Medicinal plants; Ethnoveterinary; Traditional knowledge

资金

  1. Navarra Government
  2. Foundation Universidad de Navarra

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim of the study: To collect, analyze and evaluate the ethnoveterinary knowledge about medicinal plants in a northern Iberian region (Navarra, 10,421 km(2), 620,377 inhabitants). Methodology: Field work was conducted between 2003 and 2007, using semi-structured questionnaire and participant observation as well as transects walks in wild herbal plant collection areas. We performed semi-structured interviews with 667 informants (mean age 72; 55.47% women, 44.53% men) in 265 locations, identified the plant reported and analyzed the results, comparing them with those from other territories. Results: Out of 287 species reported to be used in the health field (human and veterinary medicine), 36 are linked to veterinary medicine. 69.4% of these species are new or rarely reported in veterinarian uses. The most frequently used plants were Malva sylvestris, Juglans regia and Verbena officinalis. All different plant parts were used; aerial part was exploited more frequently than other plant parts. Most remedies listed used a single ingredient, typically soaked in water. The route of administration was primarily oral followed by topical applications. These remedies are mostly for cows, calves, sheep, pigs and horses, but cover almost all domestic animal species. The main ailments treated are digestive troubles, wounds and dermatological problems, and respiratory affections. Conclusions: The folk knowledge about medicinal plant use is still alive in the studied region, and a number of scarcely reported plant uses has been detected, some of them with promising phytotherapeutical applications. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据