Background
Methods
Study sites
Brea de Tajo | Canencia | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age group | Men | Women | Total | Men | Women | Total |
<19
| 42 (4) | 38 (4) | 80 (8) | 35 (3) | 25 (2) | 60 (5) |
20-39
| 81 (8) | 67 (7) | 148 (15) | 66 (7) | 56 (6) | 122 (13) |
40-59
| 74 (7) | 50 (5) | 124 (12) | 85 (8) | 45 (4) | 130 (12) |
>60
| 73 (7) | 98 (9) | 171 (16) | 88 (9) | 95 (9) | 183 (18) |
Total
| 270 (26) | 253 (25) | 523 (51) | 274 (27) | 221 (21) | 495 (48) |
Methodology
Ethnobotanical Knowledge and Practices
-
Informant personal attributes: sex, age, education level, occupation and number of years living in the village.
-
Do you know this plant? Two photographs/images of the plant were shown while asking the question.
-
Do you know its name?
-
Do you know its uses? If he/she mentioned any, he/she was asked: Which part of the plant is used? How is it prepared and consumed?
-
Do you use it nowadays? Did you use it in the past? If he/she used it only in the past, he/she was asked: Why don't you use it anymore?
-
Do you gather it nowadays? Did you gather it in the past? If he/she gathered it in the past, but don't gather it anymore, he/she was asked: Why don't you gather it anymore?
Recognizes the plant in the photographs | 0.25 |
Knows the name | 0.25 |
Knows the use, part of the plant used, mode of consumption, etc | 0.50 |
Uses it at present | 1.00 |
Used it in the past | 1.00 |
Harvests it at present | 1.00 |
Harvested it in the past | 1.00 |
Plant Sampling Methods
Results and Discussion
Ethnobotanical Knowledge and Practices
Brea de Tajo | Canencia | Total | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
≤19 | 20-39 | 40-59 | ≥60 | Total | ≤19 | 20-39 | 40-59 | ≥60 | Total | ||
Interviewees | 8 | 15 | 12 | 16 | 51 | 5 | 13 | 12 | 18 | 48 |
99
|
Recognized the plant | 4 | 14 | 6 | 16 | 40 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 18 | 32 |
72
|
Knew the name | 3 | 13 | 11 | 16 | 43 | 2 | 3 | 12 | 18 | 35 |
78
|
Knew its uses | 3 | 13 | 10 | 16 | 42 | 2 | 3 | 12 | 18 | 35 |
77
|
Use it at present | 0 | 1 | 4 | 12 | 17 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 9 | 18 |
35
|
Used it in the past | 0 | 7 | 7 | 16 | 30 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 18 | 33 |
63
|
Gather it at present | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 11 |
19
|
Gathered it in the past | 0 | 9 | 3 | 12 | 24 | 0 | 1 | 10 | 12 | 23 |
47
|
Knowledge about Biological and Ecological Characteristics of the Plant
Brea de Tajo | Canencia | Total | |
---|---|---|---|
Number of informants who mentioned habitat characteristics | 29 | 29 | 58 |
Roadsides, loose soils, poor soils | 24 (83%) | 23 (79%) | 47 (81%) |
Farming fields, both cultivated or fallow lands | 20 (69%) | 2 ( 7%) | 22 (38%) |
Water, humidity, rains | 3 (10%) | 12 (41%) | 15 (26%) |
Livestock | 0 ( 0%) | 13 (45%) | 13 (22%) |
Number of informants who mentioned historical abundance differences | 24 | 24 | 48 |
There are now less plants than before | 21 (88%) | 5 (21%) | 26 (54%) |
There are no differences between past and present abundance | 3 (120%) | 19 (79%) | 22 (46%) |
Uses
Gathering
Origin of the knowledge
Distribution of ethnobotanical knowledge and practices
Differences of ethnobotanical knowledge and practices between Brea de Tajo and Canencia
≤19 | 20-39 | 40-59 | >60 | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Brea de Tajo | 0.41 ± 0.16 aA | 2.02 ± 0.36 bA | 2.19 ± 0.54 bA | 3.75 ± 0.21 cA | 2.35 ± 0.24 A |
Canencia | 0.80 ± 0.58 aA | 0.60 ± 0.40 aB | 3.46 ± 0.38 bA | 3.56 ± 0.29 cA | 2.44 ± 0.27 A |
Total | 0.56 ± 0.23 a | 1.36 ± 0.29 a | 2.82 ± 0.35 b | 3.64 ± 0.18 b | 2.39 ± 0.17 |
Differences among age groups
Differences between men and women
Men | Women | |
---|---|---|
Brea de Tajo | 2.66 ± 0.31 a | 2.02 ± 0.35 a |
Canencia | 2.43 ± 0.36 a | 2.46 ± 0.43 a |
Total | 2.54 ± 0.24 | 2.22 ± 0.27 |
Differences regarding the time living in the village
<10 years | > 10 years | |
---|---|---|
Brea de Tajo | 0.21 ± 0.12 a | 2.63 ± 0.24 b |
Canencia | 0.70 ± 0.44 a | 3.16 ± 0.26 b |
Total | 0.55 ± 0.31 | 2.86 ± 0.18 |
Density of thistles
Area (ha) | Density (plants/ha) | Estimated total number of plants (area*density) | |
---|---|---|---|
Brea de Tajo | 0.85 | 750 ± 187 a | 637 ± 159 |
Canencia | 7.60 | 208 ± 29 b | 1583 ± 220 |
Total | 8.45 | 307 ± 43 | 1411 ± 184 |
Conclusions
-
Roadsides, loose and poor soils are the main habitat of cardillo on both localities. In farming lands, fallow lands or abandoned agricultural lands it grows more densely. Nevertheless, in pastured lands that were previously agricultural lands it does not grow so densely but it is easier available because the plant occupies a bigger area.
-
Gathering was carried out traditionally mainly by men while women were in charge of preparing it for its consumption. However, significant differences are not observed in knowledge and practices between men and women.
-
The main mode of transmitting this traditional knowledge is oral, thanks to close relatives, chiefly vertical transmission by parents. However horizontal transmission by friends was also mentioned as a way among the elder generations.
-
The knowledge and practice index (KP index) is an interesting tool for exploring the distribution of individual ethnobotanical knowledge and practice and for evaluating the prevalence of this edible use.
-
The main factors that have an influence in the variability of cardillos' KP index are the age group and lifetime living in the village. Though some differences appear between the two villages, as expected, the group ≥ 60 years is the one with the highest knowledge level, whereas the group ≤ 19 has the lowest one in both localities.
-
The use of cardillo has suffered an important decrease in both localities. It is currently gathered by less than the half of people that did it in past. Nevertheless, it is still gathered and consumed by 20% and 35% of the informants, respectively.
-
Although the availability of the plant differs between Brea de Tajo and Canencia, their KP indexes are not significantly different. This result suggests that the prevalence of ethnobotanical knowledge and uses depends more on the cultural importance of the plant and the transmission of such popular knowledge than on the resource's abundance.