| Title |
Traditional uses of medicinal animals in the semi-arid region of northeastern Brazil
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1746-4269-8-41 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rômulo Romeu Nóbrega Alves, Rita Oliveira de Sousa Neta, Dilma Maria de Brito Trovão, Jose Etham de Lucena Barbosa, Adrianne Teixeira Barros, Thelma Lucia Pereira Dias |
| Abstract |
The present work presents an inventory of the traditional medicinal uses of animals in the municipality of Bom Sucesso in Paraíba State (PB) in the semiarid northeastern region of Brazil. Information was obtained through the use of semi-structured interviews with 50 people who use zootherapeutic products. A total of 25 animal species used for medicinal purposes were identified (18 vertebrates and seven invertebrates) distributed among five taxonomic categories; the groups with the largest numbers of citations were: mammals (8 citations), insects (7), and reptiles (5). The most cited animal species were: Tubinambis merianae "teju" lizards (44 citations); Apis mellifera Italian honeybees (318 citations); Gallus gallus chickens (31 citations); Ovis aries sheep (31 citations); Crotalus durissus rattlesnakes (14 citations); Boa constrictor (12 citations); and Bos taurus cattle (12 citations). A significant number of illnesses and conditions treated with animal-based medicines were cited, and the category with the greatest number of citations was "problems affecting the respiratory system". Our results suggest that the use of zootherapeutics in the region is persistent, and that knowledge about these curative practices is an integral part of the regional culture. As such, studies concerning the uses of zootherapeutics are important windows to understanding human/environmental/cultural interactions and a pathway to conciliating regional cultures with efforts to conserve the native fauna. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
| Chile | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| India | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 74 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 21 | 27% |
| Unknown | 14 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 26 | 33% |
| Environmental Science | 11 | 14% |
| Unspecified | 7 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 15% |
| Unknown | 19 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 November 2022.
All research outputs
#15,578,089
of 23,153,849 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#520
of 740 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,253
of 173,667 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,153,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 740 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 173,667 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.