| Title |
The Use of Phylogeny to Interpret Cross-Cultural Patterns in Plant Use and Guide Medicinal Plant Discovery: An Example from Pterocarpus (Leguminosae)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, July 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0022275 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
C. Haris Saslis-Lagoudakis, Bente B. Klitgaard, Félix Forest, Louise Francis, Vincent Savolainen, Elizabeth M. Williamson, Julie A. Hawkins |
| Abstract |
The study of traditional knowledge of medicinal plants has led to discoveries that have helped combat diseases and improve healthcare. However, the development of quantitative measures that can assist our quest for new medicinal plants has not greatly advanced in recent years. Phylogenetic tools have entered many scientific fields in the last two decades to provide explanatory power, but have been overlooked in ethnomedicinal studies. Several studies show that medicinal properties are not randomly distributed in plant phylogenies, suggesting that phylogeny shapes ethnobotanical use. Nevertheless, empirical studies that explicitly combine ethnobotanical and phylogenetic information are scarce. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 231 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 2% |
| Mexico | 3 | 1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 214 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 44 | 19% |
| Researcher | 37 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 31 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 6% |
| Other | 42 | 18% |
| Unknown | 45 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 114 | 49% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 24 | 10% |
| Environmental Science | 9 | 4% |
| Chemistry | 5 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 23 | 10% |
| Unknown | 51 | 22% |