↓ Skip to main content

Multi-functionality of the few: current and past uses of wild plants for food and healing in Liubań region, Belarus

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Multi-functionality of the few: current and past uses of wild plants for food and healing in Liubań region, Belarus
Published in
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13002-017-0139-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Renata Sõukand, Yanina Hrynevich, Iryna Vasilyeva, Julia Prakofjewa, Yuriy Vnukovich, Jury Paciupa, Aliaksei Hlushko, Yana Knureva, Yulia Litvinava, Siarhei Vyskvarka, Hanna Silivonchyk, Alena Paulava, Mare Kõiva, Raivo Kalle

Abstract

This study examined the use of wild plants in the food, medicinal and veterinary areas within a small territory limited to one village council in the Liubań district of Belarus. The objectives of the research were to document the current and past uses of wild plants in this region for food and human/animal medication; to analyse the food, medicinal and veterinary areas in the context of wild plants; and to qualitatively compare the results with relevant publications concerning the wild food plants of Belarus. Fieldwork was carried out as a practical part of a development cooperation project in May 2016 in 11 villages of the Liubań district. One hundred thirty-four respondents were selected randomly. Information about local uses of wild plants was obtained via semi-structured interviews and the folk-history method. Interview records were digitalized and the data structured in Detailed Use Records (DUR), which were divided into food, medicinal and veterinary areas and then analysed to ascertain local perceptions. A total of 2252 DUR of wild plants were recorded. Eighty-eight wild plant taxa belonging to 45 plant families were used across all three areas. Of these, 58 taxa were used in the food, 74 in the medicinal and 23 in the veterinary areas. A relatively high percentage of the taxa were used in both the food and medicinal areas (55%) and an even greater percentage in both the medicinal and veterinary areas (87%). Comparison with earlier research on wild food plants shows the considerable difference among seldom-mentioned taxa or uses, showing possible regional differences despite the homogenization of the population during the Soviet era. As the majority of taxa with overlapping uses belonged to the most utilized plants, there appears to be clear a tendency to use plants in several different areas once they are brought into the home. This may be due to the need to maximize the versatility of limited resources. While the number of wild taxa used is relatively high, the mean number of taxa used per person is quite low, which indicates the relatively minor importance of wild plants in the respective areas in the study region. The low importance of snacks signals that unintended contact with nature has been lost.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 14%
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 10%
Student > Master 7 8%
Other 6 7%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 23 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 26%
Environmental Science 8 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Chemistry 4 5%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 27 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 February 2017.
All research outputs
#14,918,889
of 22,952,268 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#491
of 736 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,217
of 420,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#11
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,952,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 736 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 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 420,410 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.