Open Access

Effects of socio-economic household characteristics on traditional knowledge and usage of wild yams and medicinal plants in the Mahafaly region of south-western Madagascar

  • Jessica N Andriamparany1,
  • Katja Brinkmann1Email author,
  • Vololoniaina Jeannoda2 and
  • Andreas Buerkert1
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine201410:82

https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-10-82

Received: 25 July 2014

Accepted: 24 November 2014

Published: 30 December 2014

Abstract

Background

Rural households in the Mahafaly region of semi-arid SW-Madagascar strongly depend on the exploitation of natural resources for their basic needs and income regeneration. An overuse of such resources threatens the natural environment and people’s livelihood. Our study focuses on the diversity and use of wild yams and medicinal plants.

Methods

We hypothesized that knowledge on the use of these resources highly depends on farmers’ socio-economic household characteristics. To test this hypothesis, an ethnobotanical survey was conducted based on semi-structured interviews recording socio-economic base data and information on local knowledge of medicinal and wild yam species. This was followed by field inventories compiling plant material for botanical identification.

Results

Six species of wild yam and a total of 214 medicinal plants from 68 families and 163 genera were identified. Cluster and discriminant analysis yielded two groups of households with different wealth status characterized by differences in livestock numbers, off-farm activities, agricultural land and harvests. A generalized linear model highlighted that economic factors significantly affect the collection of wild yams, whereas the use of medicinal plants depends to a higher degree on socio-cultural factors.

Conclusions

Wild yams play an important role in local food security in the Mahafaly region, especially for poor farmers, and medicinal plants are a primary source of health care for the majority of local people. Our results indicate the influence of socio-economic household characteristics on the use of forest products and its intensity, which should be considered in future management plans for local and regional forest conservation.

Keywords

Discriminant analysis Local knowledge Medicinal plants Socio-economic factors Wild yams

Background

Madagascar constitutes one of the most important biodiversity hotspots worldwide with more than 90% of its plant and animal species being endemic, however, these resources are severely threatened by ecosystem degradation [1, 2]. With a gross national income (GNI) per capita of $828 [3], Madagascar ranks 151 out of 187 countries on the Human Development Index (HDI). Altogether, 74% of the population lives in rural areas of which 78% are considered poor [4] and mostly depend on the direct exploitation of natural resources (fields, water, forests) for their livelihoods.

The arid south-western region of Madagascar, commonly referred to as the Mahafaly region, is the country’s economically and climatically most disadvantaged area. It is characterised by high biotic endemism, listed as one of the 200 most important ecological regions in the world [5]. The subsistence production of the rural population comprises fishery, agriculture, livestock husbandry, and the collection of forest resources. Farmers’ livelihoods and economic development is hampered by a low level of education, limited income alternatives and poor infrastructure. The productivity of the cropland is limited by highly unpredictable rainfall and soil fertility constraints very similar to those encountered in the West African Sahel [6, 7]. Therefore, collection of forest products provides an important supplementary source of income [8], and an overuse of such resources threatens people’s livelihood. Among these forest products, the collection of wild yam (Dioscorea spp.) species and medicinal plants were identified as important for the local population [8, 9], as they contribute to the well-being of rural households in terms of direct use, human nutrition and income generation.

Medicinal plants constitute an important alternative to conventional medicine, especially for poor communities in rural areas without access to health services and they display a very large diversity in terms of species number [10]. According to the World Health Organization, approximately 80% of the world’s inhabitants rely predominantly on traditional medicine for their primary health care [11]. Of approximately 13,000 species present in Madagascar, about 3,500 are reported to have medicinal properties [12]. Madagascar has also a rich diversity of yam with altogether 40 species of which 27 are endemic and most of them have edible tubers [13], which are a staple food in many tropical countries. Wild yams have been reported to play an important role in rural household livelihoods system where they are traditionally eaten during periods of food insecurity [14]. The genus Dioscorea is distributed in various areas in Madagascar, but 24 species including 20 endemics were observed in the south western region [15]. These species are all edible, but the intensity of local usage depends on taste, local needs, market prices, location and harvested amounts. Other factors governing tuber use are differences in culture, gender, language, ethnicity, political belief system, personal preferences, appropriation skills and the availability of these resources in collection areas [16].

Detailed information on the importance of wild yams and medicinal plants for people’s livelihood and the factors influencing the intensity of their use are urgently required for natural resource management policy and planning and is lacking for SW-Madagascar. Therefore, the objective of this study was to analyse the diversity and use of wild yams and medicinal plants in the Mahafaly region, and to identify their role in the livelihoods of local people. We hypothesized that local knowledge on the usage of wild yams and medicinal plants depends on the socio-economic conditions and wealth status of households. Thereby, poorer households depend to a higher degree on forest resources and have a higher knowledge on their use than well-off farmers.

Materials and methods

Description of the study area

The study area is situated in the northern part of the Mahafaly region. The studied villages are located on the adjacent coast (littoral) and on the west side (plateau) of the Tsimanampetsotsa National Park (24°03′-24°12′S, 43°46′-43°50′E; Figure 1). The area is characterized by a dry and spiny forest vegetation with the highest level of endemism in plant species registered in Madagascar (48% of genera and 95% of species; [17]). The natural vegetation consists of a deciduous forest characterized by drought tolerant woody species of Didieraceae and Euphorbiaceae, xerophytic bushland and savannah. In the littoral zone dry forests on sandy soil dominate while on the plateau dry and spiny forests on tertiary limestone or ferruginous soil occur [18]. The semi-arid climate is characterized by an annual mean temperature of 24°C and a highly variable annual rainfall ranging between 300–350 mm in the littoral and 400-450 mm on the plateau [19]. The dry season lasts nine to ten months and the rainy season five months from November to April. The unreliability and unpredictability of rainfall is one of the major factors limiting agricultural production by the predominantly small holder farmers and herders, which partly rely on forest products to fulfil their daily needs throughout the year. During the past 40 years forest cover declined by 45% due to slash and burn agriculture and uncontrolled bushfires [20, 21]. In addition, the region has the lowest education rate of Madagascar and the majority of the households were classified as poor [22] in combination with a lack of basic health services and infrastructure. Altogether, 41% of the local population on the Mahafaly region is affected by food insecurity and famine [23]. Rapid population growth and the recent expansion of the Tsimanampetsotsa National Park (from 42,200 to 203,000 ha in 2007) have increased the pressure on the forests resources in and outside the park area [21, 24, 25]. Combined with the effects of climate change this leads to an increasing over-use of the natural resources in the Mahafaly region.
Figure 1

Location of the study area in the Mahafaly region of SW-Madagascar.

In the Mahafaly region wild yams are used to supplement cassava (Manihot esculanta Krantz) and maize (Zea mays L.), especially during hunger periods (‘Kere’). Local reports indicate that during the past years the amount of harvested wild yam tubers has strongly increased given a rising insufficiency of crop production.

Field survey

The field work was conducted from June to December 2012 in five villages that were part of a larger village and household survey [21, 26]: (1) Efoetse in the littoral (S 24°4′42,41″- E 43°41′54,78″), (2) Ampotake (S 23°52′27,78″- E 43°58′36,55″), (3) Andremba (S 23°58′17,60″- E 44°12′17,05″), (4) Itomboina (S 23°51′59,15″- E 44°5′10,9″) and (5) Miarintsoa (S 23°50′14,21″- E 44°6′17,68″) on the plateau. Village selection was based on (1) market accessibility, (2) distance to the national park, (3) intensity of forest product collection of village inhabitants and (4) diversity of household activities. For each village, 50 households (HH) were randomly selected based on a complete household list (total N = 250). Pre-testing interviews and field observations were performed with key informants selected by snowball sampling [27]. Semi-structured interviews [28] were conducted with the household head after we received his consent. The Code of Ethics of the International Society of Ethnobiology was followed. If household head disagreed to take part in an interview, an alternative household was chosen based on an existing household list of the village. The questionnaire was divided in three thematic sections: (1) Information on socio-cultural and economic characteristic (family size, source of income, agricultural harvest, origin of the head and spouse, land area available for cultivation, livestock owned, harvest satisfaction, education level, ethnic group, religion, gender affiliation and age of respondents); (2) Household consumption, collection and use of wild yam species; (3) Medicinal plants and the knowledge about their uses. Respondents were also asked about specific plant parts used and the habitat from which they collected the plant material. All interviews were supplemented with field observations and forest walks. Since informants were only able to mention the local species name, plant specimen were collected in the field to establish a digital herbarium of inventoried specimens for botanical identification [29] in the Herbarium of the Botanical and Zoological Parc of Tsimbazaza (PBZT) in Antananarivo (Madagascar), following the nomenclature of the Tropicos database of the Missouri Botanical Gardens [30].

In the absence of any formal ethics committee the concept, content and questions related to this study conducted within the participatory SuLaMa (sustainable Land Management in South-Western Madagascar) project (http://www.sulama.de) were discussed and approved at the governmental and the village level in several meetings as were the outcomes of the interviews.

Data analysis

The consumption, collection intensity and usage of wild yams were analysed using the following interview data: number of species collected, frequency of collection per month, period of collection per year, average number of tubers collected per collection event (estimated by the number of harvest holes), number of collectors per households, type of consumption (staple or additional food) and sale of tubers. The types of medicinal usage were categorized in different medicinal categories according to Cook [31]. To estimate the informant knowledge on the use of medicinal plants, the diversity of medicinal plant uses [32, 33] was calculated for each informant. The species (UVS) and the family use values (FUV) were computed (Table 1) [34, 35] to compare the importance of plant species and families.
Table 1

Ethnobotanical indices used for measuring informant’s medicinal plant knowledge in the Mahafaly region of SW-Madagascar

Indices

Calculation

Description

Diversity of medicinal plant use (D)

D = 1/∑ Pi2, where Pi2 is equal to the number of times a species was mentioned by informant ‘i’ divided by the total number of informants answer.

Simpson’s Reciprocal Index [32], adapted by [33]. Measures how many medicinal plant species an informant uses and how evenly his uses are distributed among the species.

Species use value (UV S )

UVS = ∑ UVis/ni, where UVis is the sum of the total number of use citations by all informants for a given species and ni is the total number of informants.

Evaluates the relative importance of each plant species based on its relative use among informants [34], adapted by [35].

Family use value (FUV)

FUV = ∑UVs/ns, where ∑UVS is the sum of species use value (UVs) within a family and ns the number of species within a family.

Evaluates the use importance of a given plant family [34].

All statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS 17.0. A two-step cluster analysis was used to identify household groups based on socio-economic characteristics and plant use patterns. The existence of collinearity was tested based on correlation coefficients and suspicious data was removed from the dataset resulting in the following parameters used for cluster analysis: Education level, agricultural harvest, household activities, family size, tropical livestock units, agricultural area, medicinal plants used, number of medicinal uses and diversity of medicinal plant use (D), wild yam species collected, amount of tubers harvested (number of holes harvested for each collection), frequency of collection, sale, collection period and use of wild yams.

To evaluate the contribution of each variable in separating the resulting households groups, a Discriminant Analysis (DA) was conducted using the standardized canonical coefficients, canonical correlation coefficients, Eigen value and Wilk’s Lambda. A structure coefficient matrix was established which allowed to assess the importance of each variable in relation to the discriminant function.

A One Way ANOVA (Analysis of variance) was performed to compare the differences of knowledge and use between communities in relation to their location (villages). Additionally, we used Jaccard’s similarity index, which was based on species usage data to determine the similarity of species usage among villages [36].

To determine which cultural and socio-economic variables influence the use intensity and knowledge on medicinal plants and wild yams (response variables), we used a Generalized Linear Model (GLM) based on a Poisson distribution. The GLM consisted of two models with eight response variables, which explain the relationship between predictors and the knowledge on medicinal plants (number of medicinal plants used) and the use of wild yams (frequency of yam collection per month). The performance and the fit of the models were assessed using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC; [37]). In each model, we only included main effects and choose the Type III analyses and Wald chi-square as statistical tests. The 0.05 significance level was used to assess if an independent variable related significantly to a dependent variable.

Results and discussions

Socio-economic characteristics of the interviewed households

Average household size varied between 6.3 persons in Itomboina and 7.2 persons in Miarintsoa (Table 2) whereby big households typically comprised a polygamous household head. Thus, each sub-family might live separately, but all family members eat together and share the same income. The education level of the households was highly variable across the villages, but in general, 30% of interviewed households did not receive formal education and only half visited at least the first year of primary school. The village with the highest rate of illiteracy, Ampotake, had no school. However, in Efoetse, where public and even private schools are available, literacy was high. The majority of the households comprise small holder farmers, which conduct different off-farm activities for cash income generation, such as salaried work, artisanal activities, trading, fishing, charcoal production or the collection of wood and other forest resources. The average household’s agricultural area was 2.2 ha of which some was partly left uncultivated due to heavy weed encroachment or a perceived decline in soil productivity. For the majority of households, periods of food insecurity due to unpredictable and insufficient rainfall are frequent and people heavily depend on supplementary off-farm income. Most of the household heads were born in the village where they live, only 26% are immigrants. The majority of households (60%) has traditional religious beliefs (ancestor reverence) and conduct ritual practices, while 30% are Christian (Catholic, Protestant or Anglicans).
Table 2

Socioeconomic characteristics of the interviewed households (HH) in the five villages of the Mahafaly region in SW-Madagascar

Characteristics

Ampotaka (n = 55)

Andremba (n = 50)

Itomboina (n = 50)

Miarintsoa (n = 50)

Efoetse (n = 50)

Total

Age of the respondents

41.7±17.3

44.2±15.5

46.7±18.3

40.4±17.6

42.6±19.9

43.1±17.8

Family size

6.8±3.9

6.4±3

6.3±3.3

7.2±3.7

6.7±2.3

6.7±3.3

TLU

1.6±3.1

5.1±9.2

4.8±7.5

6.9±10.9

9.2±12.8

5.5±9.5

Land owned (ha)

1.6±1.4

1.7±1.1

2.3±2.1

2.7±2.1

2.7±2.1

2.2±1.8

Agricultural harvest (%)

Low

44

36

62

32

14

38.0

Medium

50

42

36

52

66

49.2

High

6

20

2

16

20

12.8

HH activities (%)

Low

42

38

38

24

46

37.6

Medium

36

46

44

46

40

42.4

High

22

16

18

30

14

20.0

Education level

Low

52

22

32

16

24

29.2

Visit primary school

34

56

50

54

54

49.6

Finish primary school

14

22

18

30

22

21.2

Origin of the head of the HH (%)

Born in the village

28

10

40

38

18

26.8

Not born in the village

72

90

60

62

82

73.2

Gender of the respondent (%)

Male

60

70

64

74

84

70.4

Female

40

30

36

26

16

29.6

Religion (%)

No religion

14

8

4

6

17

9.7

Traditional

60

62

64

58

55.3

59.9

Christian

26

30

32

36

27.7

30.4

Diversity and traditional use of plants

Wild yams

Altogether, six endemic species of wild yam were identified as potential food resource in the Mahafaly region: Dioscorea ovinala Baker (local name: ‘Angily’), Dioscorea alatipes Burk. & H. Perr. (‘Ovy’), Dioscorea nako H. Perr. (‘Fandra’), Dioscorea fandra H. Perr. (‘Andraha’), Dioscorea bemandry Jum. & H. Perr. (‘Baboky’) and Dioscorea soso Jum. & H. Perr. (‘Sosa’). Two thirds of the interviewed households (70%) were collecting wild yams. Yam collection was only uncommon in Efoetse where yams could be purchased from nearby markets. This is mainly due to the limited access to forest and yam resources in the littoral zone, where larger forest areas are lacking except of the Tsimanampetsotsa National Park area. In addition, wild yam species are relatively rare on the adjacent side of the national park where only D. nako occurs.

Wild yam tubers are used as a staple food by 42% of the households where they substitute cassava, maize or sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.), especially in villages situated near forest areas, where daily plant collection is possible. Respondents mentioned that they eat yams before the meal to reduce the quantity of staple food during the lean season. D. alatipes was most frequently collected (99% of yams collecting households), mainly because of its sweet taste and nutritional value. The so called water yam, D. bemandry, was also important and collected by 88% of households, because of its sweet taste and its big and long tubers (50–120 cm long). D. soso had the lowest collection rate (34% of households) given its scarce occurrence in the surrounding forests, although its taste is also appreciated by the local population.

Medicinal plants

Altogether, 221 medicinal plants are used by the local people in the Mahafaly region (Table 3) of which 214 plant species were taxonomically identified and belong to 163 genera in 68 plant families. These plants are used to treat 46 diseases of human and livestock. Most species belonged to the Fabaceae (34 species), followed by Apocynaceae (17 species), Euphorbiaceae (16 species) and Malvaceae (10 species; Figure 2). Some families, such as the Aizoaceae, Aristolochiaceae, Flacourtiaceae, Myrtaceae, Sapotaceae, and Moringaceae were represented by only one species. Plant families with the highest FUV are Rutaceae (1.53), Capparaceae (1.37), Hernandiaceae (1.27) and Asteraceae (1.24). Among the 46 uses reported, the most common are digestive disorders, muscular skeletal problems and cosmetic care for women.The growth forms of the recorded plants species are shrubs (38%), trees (28%), herbs (20%), lianas (11%), vines (2%), and epiphytes (less than 1%; Figure 3A). Most medicinal plants (82%) are collected in forest areas, 14% are cultivated and the rest is typically found in fallow land or rangelands such as bushland and grassland. Although the majority of the used plants are endemic to Madagascar (68%), exotic plants or plants that have a large worldwide distribution are used as well. Altogether, 95% of the recorded medicinal plants can be found in the Mahafaly region, the remainder are species bought or imported from the nearest town or from neighbouring regions.
Table 3

List of medicinal plants species used in the Mahafaly region, SW-Madagascar

Scientific name

Family

Local name

Use value

Citation (%)

Habitat

Parts used

Voucher number*

Cedrelopsis grevei Baill.

Rutaceae

Katrafay

3.06

99.6

Forest

Lv,Br,Tr

R. Rabevohitra 2390

Croton sp. 6

Euphorbiaceae

Tambio

3

0.4

Forest

Sb

-

Boscia tenuifolia A. Chev.

Capparaceae

Lalangy

2

0.4

Forest

Ar

-

Pluchea grevei (Baill.) Humbert 

Asteraceae

Samonty

1.91

5.5

Forest

Lv

J.Bosser 9917

Aloe divaricata A. Berger

Xanthorrhoeaceae

Vahondrandro

1.87

100

Forest

Lx

Reynold 7860

Cadaba virgata Bojer

Capparaceae

Tsihariharinaliotse

1.5

0.9

Forest

Ar

Bewerley Lewis 534

Tamarindus indica L.

Fabaceae

Kily

1.47

59.2

Forest, Fallow

Lv,Br,Fr

Thomas B. Croat 31108

Neobeguea mahafaliensis Leroy, Jean F. P.

Meliaceae

Handy

1.44

91.1

Forest

Sb,Tr

R. Decary 16206

Croton sp. 4

Euphorbiaceae

Zalazala

1.38

14.5

Forest

Br

-

Ficus lutea Vahl.

Moraceae

Amonta

1.38

6.8

Forest

Ar

G McPherson 14634

Psiadia angustifolia (Humbert) Humbert

Asteraceae

Ringandringa

1.38

22.1

Forest

Lv

RN 3806

Sida rhombifolia L.

Malvaceae

Mandravasarotse

1.38

6.8

Fallow

Ar

Thomas B. Descoings 30725

Croton geayi Leandri

Euphorbiaceae

Pisopiso

1.36

72.3

Forest

Sb,Br

H. Humbert 2397

Lemuropisum edule H. Perrier

Fabaceae

Berotse

1.36

10.6

Forest

Sb

J. Bosser 1984

Acacia sakalava Drake

Fabaceae

Roymena

1.33

1.3

Savanna, Forest

Ar

J.F. Villiers 4056

Dalbergia sp.

Fabaceae

Manary

1.33

12.8

Forest

Br

-

Acacia bellula Drake

Fabaceae

Rohy

1.3

14

Forest

Ar

R. Ranaivojaona 492

Hernandia voyronii Jum.

Hernandiaceae

Hazomalany

1.3

4.3

Forest

Tr

J.Bosser 9178

Euphorbia tirucalli L.

Euphorbiaceae

Laro

1.29

53.6

Forest

Lv,St

P.B. Phillipson 2480

Coffea grevei Drake ex A.Chev

Rubiaceae

Hazombalala

1.28

31.5

Forest

Sb,Ar

C.C.H. Jonngkind 3746

Aloe vaombe Decorse & Poisson

Xanthorrhoeaceae

Vahombe

1.25

37.9

Forest

Lx

H. Humbert 5418

Cynanchum mahafalense Jum. & H. Perrier

Apocynaceae

Vahimasy

1.25

19.2

Forest

Sb,St

B. Descoings 3251

Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Mansf. & Naka

Cucurbitaceae

Voamanga

1.24

20.9

Crop field

Ar

J. Bosser 13567

Croton kimosorum Leandri

Euphorbiaceae

Zanompoly

1.24

26.8

Forest

Br

J. Bosser 10429

Gyrocarpus americanus Jacq.

Hernandiaceae

Kapaipoty

1.24

10.6

Forest

Lv

P.B. Phillipson 2350

Operculicarya decaryi H. Perrier

Anacardiaceae

Jabihy

1.24

52.3

Forest

Br,Tr

P. Morat 696

Tetrapterocarpon geayi Humbert

Fabaceae

Hazolava/Voaovy

1.24

38.7

Forest

Sb,Br

B. Descoings 1433

Erythroxylum retusum Baill. ex O.E. Schulz

Erythroxylaceae

Montso

1.23

71.9

Forest

Lv

P.B. Phillipson 2464

Mangifera indica L.

Anacardiaceae

Mangavato

1.23

4.7

Crop field

Br

_

Polycline proteiformis Humbert

Asteraceae

Zira

1.22

3.4

Forest

Sb,ar

J. Bosser 248

Leptadenia madagascariensis Decne.

Apocynaceae

Taritarika/Mozy

1.21

46.4

Forest

Sb,Ar

B. Descoings 1243

Ruellia anaticollis Benoist

Acanthaceae

Reforefo

1.21

7.2

Forest

Ar

P.B.Phillipson 1795

Bulbostylis xerophila H. Cherm.

Cyperaceae

Foentany

1.2

2.1

Forest

Ar

M.R. Decary 8531

Grewia sp.

Malvaceae

Malimatse

1.2

2.1

Forest

Br

-

Mundulea sp. 1

Fabaceae

Sofasofa

1.2

6.4

Forest

Ar

-

Oeceoclades decaryana (H. Perrier) Garay & P. Taylor

Orchidaceae

Hatompototse

1.2

2.1

Forest

St

Gordon Mc Pherson 17376

Paederia grandidieri Drake

Rubiaceae

Tamboro

1.19

11.1

Forest

Lv

P.B. Phillipson 2810

Salvadora angustifolia Turill

Salvadoraceae

Sasavy

1.19

79.6

Forest

Lv,Sb

P.B. Phillipson 3711

Vanilla madagascariensis Rolfe

Orchidaceae

Amalo

1.19

8.1

Forest

St

-

Aristolochia acuminate Lamk.

Aristolochiaceae

Totonga

1.18

41.3

Forest

Sb

P. Morat 3512

Commiphora lamii H. Perrier

Burseraceae

Holidaro

1.17

5.1

Forest

Br

C.C.H. Jongkind 3681

Cassia siamea Lam.

Fabaceae

Farefare

1.16

21.3

Forest

Br

M. B. Dupuy M98

Didierea madagascariensis Baill.

Didieraceae

Sono

1.16

12.8

Forest

Tr

D. Lorence 1928

Securinega perrieri Leandri

Phyllanthaceae

Hazomena

1.16

10.6

Forest

Lv

Herb., Inst.Sci. Mad. 4497

Commiphora mahafaliensis Capuron

Burseraceae

Maroampotony

1.15

8.5

Forest

Ar

-

Cynanchum grandidieri Liede & Meve

Apocynaceae

Betondro

1.15

24.7

Forest

Sb

-

Indigofera compressa Lam.

Fabaceae

Hazomby

1.15

36.6

Forest

Ar

M.R. Decary 9147

Ipomoea pes-caprae (L.) R. Br.

Convolvulaceae

Fobo

1.15

8.5

Seaside

Sb

Robert W. Books 19

Solanum hippophaenoïdes Bitt.

Solanaceae

Hazonosy

1.15

25.5

Forest

Lv,Sb

-

Croton sp. 5

Euphorbiaceae

Andriambolafotsy

1.14

3

Forest

Lv

-

Mundulea sp. 2

Fabaceae

Taivosotse

1.14

3

Forest

Ar

-

Zygophyllum depauperatum Drake

Zygophyllaceae

Filatatao

1.14

3

Forest

Lv

J. Bosser 10129

Blepharis calcitrapa Benoist

Acanthaceae

Sitsitse

1.13

19.6

Forest

Sb

H. Humbert 5136

Commiphora monstruosa (H. Perrier) Capuron

Burseraceae

Taraby

1.13

19.2

Forest

Ar,Tr

-

Cynanchum perrieri Choux

Apocynaceae

Ranga

1.13

66.8

Forest

St

Labat J-N 2414

Henonia scoparia Moq.

Amaranthaceae

Fofotse

1.13

10.2

Forest

Lv

M.R. Decary 2531

Hypoestes phyllostachya Baker

Acanthaceae

Fotivovona

1.13

13.6

Forest

Ar

J. Bosser 43

Indigofera mouroundavensis Baill.

Fabaceae

Sambobohitse

1.13

3.4

Forest

Sb

Jacqueline & M. Peltier 3171

Opuntia sp. 2

Cactaceae

Raketamena

1.13

6.4

Crop field, Fallow

Sb

-

Stereospermum nematocarpum DC.

Bignoniaceae

Mahafangalitse

1.13

23.4

Forest

Br

Herb. Inst. Sci. Mad. 4630

Streblus sp.

Moraceae

Hazondranaty

1.13

20.4

Forest

Sb.Tr

 

Zea mays L.

Poaceae

Tsako

1.13

6.4

Crop field

Fr

-

Ziziphus spina-christi (L.) Willd.

Rhamnaceae

Tsinefo

1.13

34.5

Crop field, Fallow

Br

J. Bosser 416

Euphorbia stenoclada Baill.

Euphorbiaceae

Samata

1.12

28.9

Forest

Lv,Sb

RN 4768

Grewia leucophylla Capuron

Malvaceae

Fotilambo

1.12

7.2

Forest

Sb,Br

Michelle Sauther 23

Rhigozum madagascariense Drake

Bignoniaceae

Hazonta

1.12

17.9

Forest

Ar

J. Bosser 14420

Grewia humblotii Baill.

Malvaceae

Sely

1.11

26.4

Forest

Sb,Br

-

Lasiocladus anthospermifolius Bojer ex Nees

Acanthaceae

Maintemaso

1.11

24.3

Forest

Lv,Sb

J.N. Labat 2696

Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.

Fabaceae

Ambatry

1.1

15.3

Crop field

Ar

Thomas B. Croat 32106

Cynanchum nodosu (Jum. & H. Perrier) Desc.

Apocynaceae

Try

1.1

24.3

Forest

Sb

P.B. Phillipson 1671

Adenia olaboensis Claverie

Passifloraceae

Hola

1.09

4.7

Forest

Lx

Jacqueline & M. Peltier 1396

Azima tetracantha Lam.

Salvadoraceae

Tsingilo

1.09

9.4

Forest

Lv

M.R Decary 3470

Hydnora esculenta Jum. & H. Perrier

Hydnoraceae

Voantany

1.09

9.8

Forest

Sb

Herb., Inst.sci. Mad. 2

Sclerocarya birrea subsp. caffra (Sond.) Kokwaro

Anacardiaceae

Sakoa/Sakoamanga

1.09

38.7

Savana

Lv,Br

D.J. Mabberley 732

Secamone tenuifolia Decne.

Apocynaceae

Langolora

1.09

14.5

Forest

Sb

J. Bosser 17209

Abutilon indicum (L.)Sweet

Malvaceae

Lahiriky

1.08

22.1

Forest, Fallow

Ar

L.J. Dorr 4056

Capuronianthus mahafalensis J.-F. Leroy

Meliaceae

Ringitse

1.08

5.1

Forest

Sb

_

Mollugo decandra Scott-Elliot

Molluginaceae

Andriamanindry

1.08

10.2

Forest

Ar

H. Humbert 5293

Moringa drouhardii Jum.

Moringaceae

Maroserana

1.08

5.5

Forest

Ar

B. Descoings 2411

Pentarhopalopilia madagascariensis Cavaco & Keraudren

Opiliaceae

Fandriandambo

1.08

10.2

Forest

Ar

B. Descoings 1214

Ximenia perrieri Cavaco & Keraudren

Ximeniaceae

Kotro

1.08

26.8

Forest

Lv,Sb

Rauh 1221

Cymbopogon excavatus (Hochst.) Stapf ex Burtt Davy

Poaceae

Ahibero

1.07

1.7

Forest

Lv

Bosser 5208

Avicennia marina (Forssk.) Vierh.

Acanthaceae

Afiafy

1.06

3.8

Forest

Br

James L. Zarucchi 7552

Enterospermum pruinosum (Baill.) Dubard & Dop

Rubiaceae

Mantsake

1.06

7.2

Forest

Br

-

Hyphaene sp.

Arecaceae

Satra

1.06

22.1

Crop field

Lv,Sb

 

Zingiber officinale Roscoe

Zingiberaceae

Sakaviro

1.06

14.5

Crop field

Sb

M.R. Decary 1440

Chloroxylon falcatum Capuron

Rutaceae

Mandakolahy

1.05

35.3

Forest

St

-

Jatropha mahafalensis Jum. & H.Perrier

Euphorbiaceae

katratra

1.05

46

Forest

Lv,Lx

H. Humbert 2521

Pentatropis nivalis subsp. madagascariensis (Decne.) Liede & Meve

Apocynaceae

Tinaikibo

1.05

61.7

Forest

Ar

-

Agave sisalana Perrine

Agavaceae

Lalohasy

1.04

19.6

Forest

Lx

-

Commiphora simplicifolia H. Perrier

Burseraceae

Sengatse

1.04

10.6

Forest

Ar

Z.S. Rogers 870

Hippocratea angustipetala H. Perrier

Celastraceae

Vahimpindy

1.04

11.1

Forest

Ar

-

Musa sp.

Musaceae

Kida

1.04

46.8

Crop field

Fr

-

Pentopetia androsaemifolia Decne.

Apocynaceae

Ntsompia

1.04

9.8

Crop field, Fallow

Lv

Arne Anderberg 123

Strychnos sp. 2

Loganiaceae

Mangerivorika

1.04

19.6

Forest

Ar

-

Tridax procumbens L.

Asteraceae

Angamay

1.04

53.6

Crop field, Fallow

Lv

P.B. Phillipson 1791

Uncarina stellulifera Humbert

Pedaliaceae

Farehitse

1.04

9.8

Forest

Lv

P.B. Phillipson 2723

Delonix floribunda (Baill.) Capuron

Fabaceae

Fengoky

1.03

40

Forest

Lx

J. Bosser 13584

Jatropha curcas L.

Euphorbiaceae

Savoa

1.03

39.2

Forest

Lv,Sb,Lx

P.B. Phillipson 1725

Loeseneriella rubiginosa (H. Perrier) N. Hallé

Celastraceae

Timbatse

1.03

35.7

Forest

Lv

B. Du puy MB 570

Terminalia ulexoides H. Perrier

Combretaceae

Fatra

1.03

13.6

Forest

Sb

L. J. Dorr 4057

Androya decaryi H.Perrier

Scrophulariaceae

Manateza

1.02

23

Forest

Lv

Herbier du Laboratoire de Botanique 1777

Fernandoa madagascariensis (Baker) A.H. Gentry

Bignoniaceae

Somontsoy

1.02

46.8

Forest

Lv,Br

L.J. Dorr 3960

Ocimumcanum Sims.

Lamiaceae

Romberombe

1.02

37.9

Forest

Ar

B. Croat 31282

Tabernaemontana sp.

Apocynaceae

Feka

1.01

40.4

Forest

Sb

-

Zanthoxylum tsihanimposa H.Perrier

Rutaceae

Manongo

1.01

60

Forest

Sb

P. Morat 4677

Abrus precatorius L.

Fabaceae

Voamena

1

2.6

Forest

Ar

J. Bosser 19395

Acacia farnesiana (L.) Willd.

Fabaceae

Kasy

1

1.7

Savanna

Ar

D.J. & B.P. Dupuy M69

Acacia sp. 5

Fabaceae

Anadrohy

1

0.4

Forest

Br

-

Acacia viguieri Villiers & Du Puy

Fabaceae

Roybenono

1

3

Forest

Ar

H. Humbert 2487

Adansonia rubrostipa Jum. & H.Perrier

Malvaceae

Fony

1

2.6

Forest

Fr

J. Bosser 15743

Adansonia za Baill.

Malvaceae

Zan

1

4.3

Forest

Fr

P.B. Phillipson 2638

Aerva javanica (Burm. f.) Juss.

Amaranthaceae

Volofoty

1

6

Forest

Sb

M.R. Decary 18863

Alantsilodendron alluaudianum (R.Vig.) Villiers

Fabaceae

Havoa

1

0.4

Forest

Ar

-

Albizia bernieri E. Fourn. ex Villiers

Fabaceae

Halimboro

1

2.1

Forest

Br

P.B. Phillipson 5285

Albizia tulearensis R.Vig.

Fabaceae

Mendoravy

1

0.4

Forest

Br

D.J. & B. P. Dupuy M54

Allium sativum L.

Amaryllidaceae

Tongologasy

1

5.5

Crop field

Sb

-

Aloe antandroi (R.Decary) H. Perrier

Xanthorrhoeaceae

Sotry

1

2.1

Forest

Lv

M.R. Decary 9886

Alysicarpus vaginalis (L.) D.C.

Fabaceae

Tokampototse

1

6.4

Crop field, Fallow

Ar

Thomas B. Croat 31195

Amaranthus viridis L.

Amaranthaceae

Beamena

1

0.4

Crop field, Fallow

Ar

-

Anisotes madagascariensis Benoist

Acanthaceae

Hazontsoy

1

1.3

Forest

Ar

Rauh 1097

Arachis hypogaea L.

Fabaceae

Kapiky

1

17.5

Crop field

Fr

-

Asparagus calcicola H. Perrier

Asparagaceae

Fio

1

0.4

Forest, Fallow

Sb

J. Bosser 10599

Azadirachta indica A. Juss.

Meliaceae

Nimo

1

6.4

Forest

Lv

Armand Rakotozafy 1798

Barleria brevituba Benoist

Acanthaceae

Patipatikantala

1

0.4

Savanna, Fallow

Ar

P. Morat 627

Bathiorhamnus cryptophorus Capuron

Rhamnaceae

Losy

1

11.5

Forest

Sb

-

Berchemia discolor (Klotzsch) Hemsl.

Rhamnaceae

Vorodoke

1

1.7

Forest

Ar

-

Calopyxis grandidieri (Drake) Capuron ex Stace

Combretaceae

Tsambara

1

1.7

Forest

Fr

B Lewis 1294

Capsicum sp.

Solanaceae

Sakay

1

21.3

Crop field

Fr

 

Capurodendron androyense Aubrév.

Sapotaceae

Nato

1

11.5

Forest

Sb,Br

J. Bosser 10352

Carica papaya L.

Caricaceae

Papaye

1

6

Crop field

Lv

Herbier du Jardin Botanique 324

Carissa spinarum L.

Apocynaceae

Lamontindahy

1

0.4

Forest

Ar

-

Chadsia grevei Drake

Fabaceae

Sanganakoholahy

1

7.7

Forest

Ar

D.J. & B.P. Dupuy M38

Chamaesyce hirta (L.) Millsp.

Euphorbiaceae

Kimenamena

1

7.7

Crop field

Lv

Robert W. Brooks 8

Citrus medica L.

Rutaceae

Tsoha

1

0.4

Crop field

Sb

-

Cocos nucifera L.

Arecaceae

Voanio

1

0.4

Seaside

Fr

-

Colvillea racemosa Bojer

Fabaceae

Sarongaza

1

14

Forest

Br

P.B. Phillipson 2802

Commiphora humbertii H. Perrier

Burseraceae

Andrambely

1

0.4

Forest

Lv

S. Eboroke 870

Commiphora marchandii Engl.

Burseraceae

Vingovingo

1

0.4

Forest

Ar

James S. Miller 6160

Cordia caffra Sond.

Boraginaceae

Varo

1

1.7

Forest

Lv

Thomas B .Croat 30787

Crinum asiaticum L.

Amaryllidaceae

Tongolondolo

1

0.4

Forest

Sb

-

Crotalaria androyensis R. Vig.

Fabaceae

Katsankantsa

1

0.9

Forest

Ar

M.R. Decary 9517

Crotalaria fiherenensis R.Vig.

Fabaceae

Voniloha

1

0.9

Savanna, Forest, Fallow

Ar

_

Croton catatii Baill.

Euphorbiaceae

Somorombohitse

1

0.9

Forest

Ar

M.R. Decary 10495

Cryptostegia madagascariensis Bojer ex Decne

Apocynaceae

Lombiry

1

4.7

Forest

Lv,Sb

P.B. Phillipson 2622

Cucurbita maxima Duch.

Cucurbitaceae

Trehaky

1

0.4

Crop field

Ar

J.Bosser 13577

Cymbopogon citratus (DC.) Stapf

Poaceae

Veromanitse

1

0.4

Crop field

Ar

-

Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.

Poaceae

Kidresy

1

4.7

Forest

Ar

J. Bosser 10540

Cyphostemma amplexicaule Desc.

Vitaceae

Tahezantrandrake

1

1.3

Forest

Lv

J. Bosser 19194

Dicoma incana (Baker) O. Hoffm.

Asteraceae

Peha

1

10.2

Forest

Sb

P.B. Phillipson 2426

Dicraeopetalum mahafaliense (M.Pelt.) Yakovlev

Fabaceae

Lovainafy

1

1.7

Forest

Br

Thomas B. Croat 30969

Dioscorea bemandry Jum. & H. Perrier

Dioscoreaceae

Baboke

1

0.4

Forest

Sb

L.R. Caddick 339

Dioscorea fandra H. Perrier

Dioscoreaceae

Andraha

1

2.1

Forest

Sb

Gordon McPherson 17451

Dioscorea nako H. Perrier

Dioscoreaceae

Fandra

1

0.4

Forest

Sb

L.R. Caddick 331

Dioscorea ovinala Baker

Dioscoreaceae

Behandaliny

1

0.9

Forest

Ar

J.N. Labat 2111

Diospyros tropophylla (H. Perrier) G.E. Schatz & Lowry

Ebenaceae

Remeloky

1

2.1

Forest

Ar

P. Morat 565

Ehretia decaryi J. S. Mill.

Boraginaceae

Lampana

1

6

Forest

Ar

J. Bosser 10116

Enterospermum madagascariense (Baill.) Homolle

Rubiaceae

Masonjoany

1

0.4

Forest

Tr

-

Erythrophysa aesculina Baill.

Sapindaceae

Handimbohitse

1

2.6

Forest

Ar

G.E. Schatz 1777

Euclinia suavissima (Homolle ex Cavaco) J.-F. Leroy

Rubiaceae

Voafotaky

1

0.9

Forest

Fr

J. Bosser 13353

Euphorbia arahaka Poisson

Euphorbiaceae

Samatafoty

1

14.9

Savanna, Forest, crop field

Lv

M.D. Decary 3008

Ficus polita Vahl

Moraceae

Aviavy

1

3.8

Forest

Br

M.R. Decary 5031

Ficus sp.

Moraceae

Nonoka

1

1.7

Fallow, Forest

Br

-

Ficus trichopoda Baker

Moraceae

Fihamy

1

39.2

Forest

Tr

S.T. Malcomber 1116

Flacourtia indica (Burm. f.) Merr.

Salicaceae

Lamonty

1

3.8

Forest

Sb,Fr

C.C.H. Jongkind 3720

Gnidia linearis (Leandri) Z.S. Rogers

Thymeleaceae

Ronisa

1

1.3

Forest

Lv

Z.S. Rogers 930

Gonocrypta grevei (Baill.) Costantin & Gallaud

Apocynaceae

Piravola

1

6.8

Forest

Lx

P.B. Phillipson 1669

Gossypium arboreum L.

Malvaceae

Hasy

1

3.8

Crop field, Fallow

Lv

H. Humbert 5166

Grewia grevei Baillon

Malvaceae

Tombokampaha

1

0.9

Forest

Ar

J. Bosser 19338

Grewia microcyclea (Burret) Capuron & Mabb.

Malvaceae

Hazofoty

1

3.8

Forest

Br

Jacqueline & M. Peltier 1285

Helinus integrifolius (Lam.) Kuntze

Rhamnaceae

Masokarany

1

2.1

Forest

Ar

P.B. Phillipson 1737

Indigofera tinctoria L.

Fabaceae

Sarikapiky

1

49.4

Fallow, Savanna

Ar

J.N. Labat 2104

Ipomea sp. 1

Convolvulaceae

Sarivelahy

1

1.7

Forest, Savanna, Fallow

Lv

-

Ipomea sp. 2

Convolvulaceae

Velahy

1

1.3

Forest

Lx

-

Kalanchoe beharensis Drake

Crassulaceae

Mongy

1

0.4

Forest

Lv

James L. Zarucchi 7471

Kalanchoe sp.

Crassulaceae

Relefo

1

3.4

Forest

Lv

-

Karomia microphylla (Moldenke) R.B. Fern.

Lamiaceae

Forimbitika

1

0.9

Forest

Br

P.B. Phillipson 3438

Kleinia madagascariensis (Humbert) P. Hallyday

Asteraceae

Malaohira

1

2.6

Forest

Ar

P.B. Phillipson 2475

Koehneria madagascariensis (Baker) S.A. Graham, Tobe & Baas

Lythraceae

Fizolotsora

1

1.7

Forest

Ar

L.J. Dorr 4063

Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet

Fabaceae

Antaky

1

9.4

Crop field

Fr

Michelle Sauther 27

Leucosalpa grandiflora Humbert

Orobanchaceae

Tamborisahy

1

1.7

Forest

Sb

P. Morat 2978

Maerua filiformis Drake

Capparaceae

Somangy

1

1.3

Forest

Lv,Ar

P.B. Phillipson 2417

Maerua nuda Scott-Elliot

Capparaceae

Somangilahy

1

1.7

Forest

Lv

J. Bosser 10507

Manihot esculenta Crantz

Euphorbiaceae

Balahazo

1

8.1

Crop field

Lv,Sb

-

Margaritaria anomala (Baill.) Fosberg

Phyllanthaceae

Tsivano

1

18.7

Forest

Sb

-

Marsdenia cordifolia Choux

Apocynaceae

Bokabe

1

2.6

Forest

Lx

P.B. Phillipson 2741

Mundulea stenophylla R. Vig.

Fabaceae

Rodrotse

1

1.7

Forest

Lv

M.R. Decary 2527

Olax andronensis Baker

Olacaceae

Bareraky

1

0.4

Forest

Sb

L.J. Razafintsalama 785

Opuntia monacantha Haw.

Cactaceae

Notsoky

1

2.6

Fallow, Savanna

Fr

-

Pachypodium geayi Costantin & Bois

Apocynaceae

Vontake

1

0.4

Forest

Tr

P.B Phillipson 2610

Panicum pseudowoeltzkowii A. Camus

Poaceae

Ahikitoto

1

0.4

Forest

Lv

J. Bosser 308

Panicum sp.

Poaceae

Mandavohita

1

0.4

Fallow, Forest, Savanna

Ar

-

Persea americana Mill.

Lauraceae

Zavoka

1

0.9

Crop field

Fr

_

Pervillaea phillipsonii Klack.

Apocynaceae

Sangisangy

1

0.4

Forest

Ar

P.B. Phillipson 3472

Phaseolus lunatus L.

Fabaceae

Kabaro

1

5.5

Crop field

Fr

J. Bosser 1011

Phyllanthus casticum Willemet

Phyllanthaceae

Sanira

1

6

Forest

Lv

P.B. Phillipson 2392

Plumbago aphylla Bojer ex Boiss.

Plumbaginaceae

Motemote

1

1.7

Forest

Ar

H. Humbert 19960

Poupartia minor (Bojer) L. Marchand

Anacardiaceae

Sakoakomoky

1

2.1

Forest

Br

P.B. Phillipson 1813

Psidium sp.

Myrtaceae

Goavy

1

0.4

Crop field, Fallow

Lv

-

Radamaea montana Benth.

Orobanchaceae

Tamotamo

1

31.5

Forest

Sb

J. Bosser 6071

Rhopalopilia hallei Villiers

Opiliaceae

Malainevotsy

1

11.5

Forest

Ar

-

Ricinus communis L.

Euphorbiaceae

Kinana

1

5.5

Crop field, Fallow

Lv

Thomas B. Croat 28615

Roupellina boivinii (Baill.) Pichon

Apocynaceae

Lalondo

1

0.9

Forest

Lv

-

Secamone geayi Costantin & Gallaud

Apocynaceae

Kililo

1

4.7

Forest

Ar

J. Bosser 15917

Strychnos madagascariensis Poir.

Loganiaceae

Bakoa

1

7.7

Forest

Sb,Fr

J. Bosser 14492

Tephrosia purpurea (L.) Pers.

Fabaceae

Engetsengetse

1

5.1

Forest

Lv

Jacqueline & M. Peltier 9936

Terminalia disjuncta H. Perrier

Combretaceae

Taly

1

1.7

Forest

Ar

B. Dupuy 629

Trema orientalis (L.) Blume

Cannabaceae

Andrarezona

1

0.4

Forest

Tr

B. Lewis 1292

Typha angustifolia L.

Typhaceae

Vondro

1

0.4

Forest

Lv

M.R. Decary 14868

Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.

Fabaceae

Loji

1

20.4

Crop field

Fr

Thomas B. Croat 32050

Xerophyta tulearensis (H. Perrier) Phillipson & Lowry

Velloziaceae

Tsimatefaosa

1

0.4

Forest

Ar

P.B Phillipson 2459

Xerosicyos danguyi Humbert

Cucurbitaceae

Tapisaky

1

1.3

Forest

Lv

Thomas B. Croat 30795

Ziziphus mauritiana Lam.

Rhamnaceae

Konazy

1

0.4

Savanna

Br

D. Seigler 12891

Ziziphus mucronata Willd.

Rhamnaceae

Tsinefonala

1

4.7

Forest

Br

Harb. Inst. Sci. Mad. 4517

Lv = Leaves, Ar = Aerial parts, Sb = Subterranean parts, Fr = Fruits or seeds, Lx = Sap or latex, Tr= Trunk, St = Stems, Br =stem barks; (*) Voucher number represents the number of the specimens from which our plants were determined in Tsimbazaza Herbarium, Madagascar.

Figure 2

Most important plant families identified by family use value (FUV, description see Table 1 ) and number of medicinal plant species per family used in the Mahafaly region in SW-Madagascar.

Figure 3

Proportion of life forms used as medicinal plants (A); Proportion of plant parts used for traditional healing (B) in the Mahafaly region of SW-Madagascar.

The most frequently collected plant parts are the aboveground plant material (i.e., stems and leaves, 25%), leaves (23%) and subterranean parts (roots and tubers, 20%; Figure 3B). Single stems are not often used for medicinal purposes (2%), whereas the roots of plants are used, especially for post-delivery treatment, women genital and cosmetic care, such as Ximenia perrieri (‘Kotro’). Sometimes people use different parts of the same plant, especially if it has a high use value (i.e. used for different medicinal purposes), such as Neobeguea mahafaliensis (‘Handy’). The stem barks of this species are used to treat muscular-skeletal problems and its below ground parts serve women during the post-delivery process.

Regarding the use of species, Aloe divaricata (used by 100% of informants), Cedrelopsis grevei (100%) and Neobeguea mahafaliensis (91%) predominate. Aloe divaricata is a locally important species with 28 different uses. Altogether, 46 types of medicinal uses were reported (Cook [31]; Table 4). Some species, such as Operculicarya decaryi, may also be used in multiple ways such as a body tonic, for women genital care and to alleviate nutritional disorders during famine periods. Tamarindus indica was used to treat eye problems, but it is similarly important to alleviate nutritional disorders.
Table 4

Categories of diseases and their respective most cited plant species in the Mahafaly region of SW Madagascar

Diseases and use category

Most cited species

Digestive disorders

Aloe divaricata A. Berger, Cedrelopsis grevei Baill.

Muscular_Skeletal

Neobeguea mahafaliensis J.-F. Leroy, Cedrelopsis grevei Baill.

Eye problems

Tamarindus indica L., Jatropha mahafalensis Jum. & H. Perrier, Fernandoa madagascariensis (Baker) A.H. Gentry

Wound/Injury/Swelling

Tridax procumbens L., Tabernaemontana sp., Croton geayi Leandri

Ear infections

Citrullus lanatus (thunb.) Matsum. & Nakai, Cynanchum grandidieri Liede & Meve

Flue/Fever

Ocimum canum Sims., Croton geayi Leandri

Skin disorders

Lemuropisum edule H. Perrier

Post delivery care

Erythroxylum retusum Baill. ex O.E. Schulz, Salvadora angustifolia Turill, Loeseneriella rubiginosa (H. Perrier) N. Hallé

Toothache

Zanthoxylum tsihanimposa H.Perrier, Euphorbia tirucalli L.

Venereal infections

Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers., Euphorbia tirucalli L., Blepharis calcitrapa Benoist

Respiratory system disorders

Cynanchum perrieri Choux, Indigofera compressa Lam.

Malaria

Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp., Indigofera tinctoria L.

Sprains

Aloe divaricata A.Berger, Delonix floribunda (Baill.) Capuron

New born care

Coffea grevei Drake ex A. Chev, Pentatropis nivalis subsp. madagascariensis (Decne.) Liede & Meve

Circulatory system disorders

Opuntia sp. (Raketamena)

Woman genital hygiene

Ximenia perrieri Cavaco & Keraudren, Operculicarya decaryi H. Perrier, Cedrelopsis grevei Baillon

Cosmetic/Hair care

Ficus trichopoda Baker, Cedrelopsis grevei Baill.

Body tonic

Erythroxylum retusum Baill. ex O.E. Schulz, Neobeguea mahafaliensis J.-F. Leroy, Operculicarya decaryi H. Perrier

Nutritional disorders

Tamarindus indica L., Adansonia za Baill., Operculicarya decaryi H. Perrier

Livestock disease

Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.

Apparently digestive system disorders (13%), wound and injury problems (12%) and post-delivery care for women (11%) represented the most prevalent health problems in the study area. The use of medicinal plants in cosmetic and genital care of women amounted to 8%, similar to plant use for ‘body tonic’ after hard physical work.

Plant uses and knowledge patterns among households

Based on their socio-economic characteristics and the use intensity of forest products, the cluster analysis revealed two groups of households (Table 5). The well-off farmers represent households with a high number of livestock, off-farm activities and a higher education level. They use yam as a supplementary food, practice a more sustainable harvest technique and collect less wild yam tubers compared with the poorer farmers. The latter are characterized by lower household assets and off-farm activities. Farmers of this group collect more yam species and use their tubers as staple food.
Table 5

Results of two step cluster and discriminant analysis of 250 interviewed rural households in the Mahafaly Region of SW-Madagascar

Selected variables

Cluster group

Discriminant analysis

 

Well-off farmers

Less well-off farmers

 

Mean ± SD

Mean ± SD*

Wilks’ Lambda

Sig

Structure coefficients

Education level

1.03 ± 0.71

0.86 ± 0.69

0.986

0.068

0.116

Agricultural harvest

1.23 ± 0.42

0.52 ± 0.63

0.747

0.000**

0.574

Households activities

1.11 ± 0.71

0.26 ± 0.44

0.928

0.000**

0.274

Family size

7.35 ± 3.55

6.4 ± 3.20

0.982

0.037*

0.133

Tropical livestock unit 1)

12.53 ± 12.32

2.18 ± 5.40

0.746

0.000**

0.577

Agricultural area

2.86 ± 2.30

1.19 ± 1.60

0.945

0.000**

0.239

Medicinal plants used

27.77 ± 13.55

32.7 ± 14.30

0.974

0.011*

−0.162

Number of medicinal uses

13.87 ± 4.27

15.6 ± 3.60

0.976

0.016*

−0.153

Diversity of medicinal plant use

23.35 ± 2.12

25.92 ± 2.10

0.988

0.089

−0.108

Wild yam species collected

2.23 ± 2.71

3.17 ± 2.17

0.960

0.002**

−0.201

Yam tubers harvested per collection event 2)

6.72 ± 6.74

13.02 ± 10.33

0.908

0.000**

−0.314

Frequency of collection

2.35 ± 2.71

5.83 ± 5.23

0.886

0.000**

−0.354

Sale

3.95 ± 11.09

17.03 ± 24.12

0.920

0.000**

−0.291

Collection period

2.40 ± 2.29

13.78 ± 2.79

0.943

0.000**

−0.243

Use of wild yams

1.73 ± 0.44

1.49 ± 0.50

0.948

0.000**

0.231

   

Eigen Value = 1.026

   

Percentage variance = 50.41

1)[38]2)Number of harvest holes per collection event, *significance level at p ≤ 0.05, **significance level at p ≤ 0.01.

Most of the socio-economic variables used for the cluster analysis were effective in discriminating the two defined household groups except for the education level and the diversity of medicinal plant use. Together the predictors accounted for 51% of the between-group variability. Based on the conclusions of Rach et al. that structure coefficients ≥ 0.30 indicate a strong discriminating power [39], households cluster groups were determined by the amount of agricultural harvest, livestock owned by household, and the frequency of wild yams collection. In contrast, the number of medicinal plants used and the use intensity of medicinal plants differed only slightly among the two groups.

Plant uses and knowledge patterns among villages

Collection and use of forest plants differed between the littoral (Efoetse) and the plateau (the other three villages) which may be mainly explained by the lack of forest resources and wild yams in the coastal area. The number of medicinal plants and wild yam species used were higher on the plateau (Ampotake, Andremba, Itomboina, Miarintsoa), and the number of species collected was highest in Itomboina and Miarintsoa (Table 6). However, the collection frequency, period, and the amount of harvested wild yam were higher in Ampotake. This may be mainly due to the proximity of community based forests, where collection of forest products is not restricted. Itomboina and Miarintsoa are situated in the middle of the plateau, where different soil types (ferralitic, red sandy and calcareous soils) and forest habitats prevail, which may explain the high diversity in species collection by the informants. Knowledge, traditional uses and the number of species used differ significantly (P < 0.01) among villages. Overall, the knowledge and the uses of plants are higher in Ampotake than in the other villages. In Ampotake, Miarintsoa and Itomboina, similar medicinal plant species are used as indicated by the Jaccard similarity indices ranging between 0.68-0.7 (Table 7).
Table 6

Descriptive statistics of variables (Mean ± SD) used in evaluating the knowledge and uses of wild yams and medicinal plants of the Mahafaly region in SW-Madagascar

Variables

Ampotake (n = 50)

Andremba (n = 50)

Itomboina (n = 50)

Miarintsoa (n = 50)

Efoetse (n = 50)

Collection of wild yams (%):

     

D. alatipes

92.16

80.3

80

42

0

D. bemandry

94.12

51.52

80

87.23

0

D. fandra

54.9

60.61

60

59.57

0

D. ovinala

76.47

62.12

64.44

46.81

0

D. nako

43.14

21.21

66.67

48.94

0

D. soso

7.84

39.39

46.67

21.28

0

Number of wild yams species collected

3.9 ± 1.1

3.9 ± 1.3

4.2 ± 1.4

4.9 ± 1.9

0

Frequency of wild yams collection1)

9.8 ± 5.7

5.1 ± 2.5

5.6 ± 2.9

5.7 ± 3.9

0

Period of collection (months/year)

5.7 ± 1.9

4.1 ± 1.9

4.2 ± 1.4

4.9 ± 1.9

0

Wild yams harvested2)

21 ± 9

12.8 ± 5.8

14.1 ± 5.6

13.1 ± 7.6

0

Unsustainable harvest technique (%)

89.6

81.5

89.5

78.6

-

Sustainable harvest technique (%)

10.4

18.5

10.5

21.4

-

Monthly income, from wild yams (US$)3)

5.5 ± 7.4

1.3 ± 3.5

2.0 ± 3.0

1.3 ± 2.5

0

Number of medicinal species used

43.5 ± 12

29.8 ± 11.8

36.6 ± 10

27.4 ± 12.4

18.4 ± 9.7

Diversity of medicinal plant use

33.5 ± 10.3

23.9 ± 8.6

32.2 ± 7.7

23.4 ± 10.2

14.7 ± 7.7

Number of medicinal uses

17.6 ± 3.1

14.4 ± 3.2

16.7 ± 1.9

12.6 ± 3.3

12.8 ± 4.6

1)Times per month; 2)Number of harvest holes per collection event; 3)US$ = 2422 Ariary, 9.07.2014.

Table 7

Similarity among medicinal plant species usage in the studied villages (Jaccard similarity indices, 1 = similar) in the Mahafaly region of SW Madagascar

 

Ampotake

Andremba

Itomboina

Miarintsoa

Efoetse

Ampotake

1

0.59

0.7

0.68

0.54

Andremba

0.59

1

0.58

0.58

0.43

Itomboina

0.7

0.58

1

0.71

0.55

Miarintsoa

0.68

0.58

0.71

1

0.51

Efoetse

0.54

0.43

0.55

0.51

1

Effects of socio-economic characteristics on the use and knowledge of plants

The number of livestock owned (TLU), education level, family size and agricultural harvest were significant predictors for the number of medicinal plants used and the frequency of yam collection. The TLU and the age of respondents significantly affected the collection of wild yams (P < 0.001; Table 8). In the study region, a high number of livestock owned is a sign of wealth. Households with a low TLU are characterized by higher yam collection intensities. For the number of medicinal plants used, the only significant predictor variables were family size and healer consultancy. The latter indicates how often a household asked a traditional healer for advice on appropriate medicinal plants. The higher the diversity of different household activities (salaried work, trading, artisanal), the more cash income is produced. Consequently, the households have the possibility to buy food during difficult seasons, and depend less on wild food collection. In addition, female respondents use and know more plants than men. Age did not affect the use and knowledge on medicinal plants, which is maybe due to the direct knowledge transfer within one household. In this study, 79% of the households did not report to consult a traditional healer in case of illness.
Table 8

Generalized linear Model (GLM) showing the effect of selected independent variables on the number of medicinal plants used and the collection frequency of wild yam (n = 250) in rural villages of the Mahafaly region in SW-Madagascar

Independent variable

Number of medicinal plants used

Frequency of yam collection (Frequency month-1)

 

B*

P

r

B

P

R

Education level

−0.087

.029

−0.083

−0.249

0.008

−0.118

Tropical livestock unit

−0.007

.038

−0.192

−0.460

0.000

−0.263

Agricultural harvest

−0.127

.002

−0.270

−0.251

0.012

−0.229

Age

0.002

.217

0.119

−0.014

0.000

−0.209

Family size

0.027

.001

0.119

0.056

0.003

0.092

Gender

0.125

.029

0.128

0.153

0.232

0.124

Healer consultancy

−0.472

.000

−0.380

-

-

-

Households activities

-

-

-

0.053

0.550

0.038

(*) Beta coefficient; (r) regression coefficient, (−) the variable was not included in the model.

Discussion

Characteristics of the interviewed households

The basic characteristics of the interviewed households correspond to the results of INSTAT [22] for SW Madagascar even though our survey indicated a higher education level. In Ampotake, the majority of the households heads (52%) are illiterate, which reflects the percentage of the non-educated people in the rural area in this region. The average land size per household (2.2 ha) corresponds to the respective value in Mozambique [40]. In this study, we used off-farm activities to determine the different cash income sources and diversification level of households based on the assumption that higher diversification leads to higher income [41, 42].

Traditional knowledge and usage of wild yams

Among the six species of wild yam recorded, only D. alatipes and D. bemandry were frequently harvested by local people to substitute for staple food. This is comparable to the collection of wild yam species in the dry forest of NW-Madagascar [43]. Mavengahama et al. [44] recorded a similar importance of wild yam collection for rural livelihoods in South Africa, where wild vegetable are of high importance in supplementing staple food diets based on maize, sorghum (Sorghum bicolor Moench.), and millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.).

In our study, the collection intensity of wild yams depended not only on the availability of the species, but also on the taste of the yam tubers. For Malagasy yams, the preference in taste was analysed by Jeannoda et al. [14] who observed a significant correlation (P < 0.001) between the preference and the sensitivity to saccharose. Polycarp et al. [45] stated that the high level of carbohydrate and energy with appreciable levels of minerals makes yam a very nutritious source of food. Bhandari et al. [46] found that the nutritional composition of selected wild yams in Nepal was similar to those reported for cultivated species of yam. When analyzing the nutritional value of Malagasy yam germplasm, including those of wild species, Jeannoda et al. [14] determined high contents of calcium in Dioscorea ovinala, which makes some wild yams physiologically important.

However, a decline in the availability of wild yams was already reported by the respondents of our study who are forced to increase the search radius for tuber harvests. One main reason for the decline in this essential resource securing local livelihood strategies against drought related hunger risks may be the exploitative harvesting methods used by the majority of the collectors in the Mahafaly region, which hampers the regeneration of the species. In contrast, Ackermann [43], who conducted a study in the NW-Madagascar reported that traditional people try to harvest the tubers carefully to guarantee the survival of the plant stand. In our study only 15% of the household took care of the regeneration of the lianas. While the sale of wild yam tubers provides valuable cash income for many households it may also be one of the causes for its overexploitation and increasingly threatened existence [47]. About 20% of the harvested tubers per households are sold on local markets.

Traditional knowledge and usage of medicinal plants

The majority of the medicinal plants used by the local people belong to the Fabaceae, Apocynaceae and Euphorbiaceae. In contrast to yams, none of the interviewed households was selling medicinal plants. Local people complained that some species are nowadays hard to find, which was confirmed by our field observation. Hamilton [48] stated that globally 4,160 to 10,000 medicinal plants are endangered by habitat losses or overexploitation in areas where rural families traditionally collected them. The present study shows that the most popular plants with high use values, such as Aloe divaricata, Erythroxylum retusum, Cedrelopsis grevei, Neobeguea mahafaliensis, Salvadora angustifolia and Croton geayi are native species collected from forest habitats. This shows that the wild habitats are important for local communities in terms of basic needs. Beltrán-Rodríguez et al. [49] also pointed to the importance of wild habitats for peoples’ livelihood in a rural community of Mexico and found a greater diversity of plant uses in wild habitats than in managed environments.

Some plants are less frequently used, which does not decrease their importance since most of them are needed for very specific therapeutic purposes. The increasing scarcity of such plants may also enhance the loss of traditional knowledge about the medicinal uses [50, 51]. On the other hand there are cultivated species such as Tamarindus indica and Sclerocarya birrea subsp. caffra, Citrullus lanatus and Ziziphus spina-christi, which are nowadays used more intensively for medicinal purposes.

Different parts of the same plant are used for different purposes or by different population groups. Sometimes, a specific plant part is used for children and another part of the same plant for adults to treat a disease such as in the case of Aloe divaricate. The use of plant roots as traditional remedies is often problematic as it prevents plant regeneration [52]. Muthu et al. [53] reported that the choice of plant species most used by people depended largely on the type of diseases treated. In our study, digestive disorders, post-delivery care, body injuries and wounds were the most frequently mentioned diseases. This is comparable to similar studies conducted in Africa [54, 55] China [56] and in Colombia [57], where digestive disorders were most frequently treated by medicinal plants. Compared to other developing countries, where sexually transmitted infections are most commonly treated with herbal medicines [58] this category was rarely cited in our study. Except for venereal diseases which are treated using a combination of different species [59, 60] the majority of plant species utilized had a single therapeutic use.

Some of the recorded medicinal plants in Madagascar are already pharmaceutically analysed and the active ingredients confirm traditional therapeutic uses. For example, Koehneria madagascariensis has a large and strong antimicrobial activity [61]. Hernandia voyronii[62] is known for its antimalarial active substances, Neobeguea mahafaliensis and Cedrelopsis greveii for effectiveness against cardiovascular diseases [63]. Although the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that 60-70% of Madagascar inhabitants have ready access to primary health care [64], accessibility of effective modern medicines is still a challenge for the local population in the Mahafaly region and they thus make use of native plants for alternative treatment.

Effects of socio-economic conditions on the use of wild yams and medicinal plants

Our study revealed that the collected quantities and qualities of plants vary greatly between households. Very poor and poor farmers consume and sale more yams and have higher knowledge on traditional usages of medicinal plants than well-off or “rich” individuals. Households with lacking off-farm income collect and consume more frequently wild yams than households with regular off-farm income. In addition, the regression results revealed, that households with more cropland and higher crop harvest collect less forest products. This was also confirmed by Reddy and Chakravarty [65] in India. Variables showing the collection and consumption of wild yams (P < 0.01) were important discriminators for household groups in contrast to the variables on the use of medicinal plants (P < 0.05).

The use of forest products was significantly higher in villages near forests, where wild yams and medicinal plants are more readily available. This confirms findings of Banana and Turiho-Habwe [66] in Uganda and Kerapeletswe and Lovett [67] in Botswana, where the dependency on the forests for food supply decreased rapidly with an increasing distance of the respondent’s home from the forests. Furthermore, poor market access may increase the importance of forest products to sustain people’s livelihood [68].

The number of livestock owned by the household, education level, agricultural harvest and family size affected the collection of wild yams and the usage of medicinal plants. Livestock and off farm activities determine the wealth condition of the household in this region and were negatively correlated with the use of wild yams and medicinal plants. However, we cannot generalize these findings as with time and location the direction of the relationship may change [69]. Socio-cultural factors are of higher importance for the use of medicinal plants than for the collection of wild yams. In contrast to other findings [49] female respondents use more plant species than males. The use of medicinal plants is the basic health care for the majority of the households and the knowledge about their use was maybe shared over generations, which might explain, that there is no significant influence of informant age on the collection intensity of medicinal plants. In the study of Kirstin [70] on the usage of Budongo’s forest products, the use of wild food such as Dioscorea spp. increased with age, whereas young village people focused on the use of fruits and wild game because of their higher income potential. This might also be true for our study region, were younger farmers predominate in collecting wild yams for sale.

Overall, this study indicates that a household’s wealth status affects the traditional knowledge and use intensity of forest products, which confirms previous studies [49, 71, 72]. The World Resources Institute [4] reported that families facing poverty, sickness, drought, wars and economic crisis depend to a higher degree on the collection of wild resources. Although, our study focused only on medicinal plants and wild yams as forest products, the rate of change in social and economic attributes of rural households is likely proportional to the rate of change in resource use [73]. Therefore, whatsoever the products extracted, a household’s socio-economic dynamics ultimately drives its ability to use village forest resources.

Conclusions

Our results revealed that wild yams play an important role in local food security in the Mahafaly region, especially for poor farmers. On the other hand, medicinal plants are a primary source of health care for the majority of local people in SW-Madagascar and the results of this study can help to identify the most useful plant species and their importance for the local people. In many rural areas of developing countries, common property resource management plans may allow to combine poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation. In our study region the forest patches around the Tsimanampetsotsa National Park are managed by local communities. Our results indicate the influence of socio-economic household characteristics on the use of forest products and its intensity, which should be considered in future management plans for local and regional forest conservation.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the local people of the Mahafaly region for their trust and hospitality during the field part of this study. We also acknowledge the SuLaMa project team, especially the group of interviewers supervised by Regina Neudert and Miandrazo Rakotoarisoa, for their support during data collection. We thankfully acknowledge the support of DAAD for the scholarship grant for this research and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research for funding (BMBF, FKZ: 01LL0914C).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Organic Plant Production and Agroecosystems Research in the Tropics and Subtropics, University of Kassel
(2)
Department of Biology and Vegetation Ecology, University of Antananarivo

References

  1. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kents J: Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature. 2000, 403: 853-858. 10.1038/35002501.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. UNPF (United Nations Population Fund: State of World Population. 2008, New York, USA: Reaching Common Ground: Culture, Gender and Human RightsGoogle Scholar
  3. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme): Human Development Report. 2013, New York: The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse World. United Nations development ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  4. WRI (World Resources Institute): The Wealth of the poor: Managing ecosystems to fight poverty. 2005, Washington, DC, http://www.iied.org,Google Scholar
  5. Olson DM, Dinerstein E: The global 200: Priority Ecoregions for Global. Ann Mo Bot Gard. 2002, 89: 199-224. 10.2307/3298564.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Bationo A, Lompo F, Koala S: Nutrient balances as indicators of production and sustainability in sub-Saharan African agriculture. Edited by: Smaling EMA. 1998, 71: 19-36. Research on nutrient flows and balances in West Africa: State-of-the-art, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,Google Scholar
  7. Buerkert A, Hiernaux P: Nutrients in the West African Sudano-Sahelian zone: losses, transfers and role of external inputs. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci. 1998, 161: 365-383.Google Scholar
  8. SuLaMa (Sustainable Landmanagement in south-western Madagascar: Recherche participative pour appuyer la gestion durable des terres du Plateau Mahafaly dans le sud-ouest de Madagascar. Diagnostic participatif de la gestion des ressources naturelles sur le plateau Mahafaly Commune Rurale de Beheloka, Toliara. 2011, Madagascar: Rapport Final. Project SuLaMaGoogle Scholar
  9. The SuLaMa: (Sustainable Landmanagement in south-western Madagascar) webpage. [http://www.sulama.de/index.php/en/]
  10. Shippmann U, Leaman DJ, Cunningham AB: Impact of Cultivation and Gathering of Medicinal Plants on Biodiversity: Global Trends and Issues Published in Biodiversity and the Ecosystem Approach in Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Satellite event on the occasion of the Ninth Regular Session of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. 2002, Rome: Inter-Departmental Working Group on Biological Diversity for Food and AgricultureGoogle Scholar
  11. Cao S, Kingston DGI: A biodiversity conservation and drug discovery: can they be combined? The suriname and Madagascar Experiences. Pharm Biol. 2009, 47: 809-823. 10.1080/13880200902988629.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Rasoanaivo P: Traditional medicine Programs in Madagascar. 2006, Washington, DC: World Bank, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/10739,Google Scholar
  13. Burkill IH, Perrier de la Bathie H: Dioscoreaceae dans la flore de Madagascar et des Comores. 1950, Paris: Museum d’Histoire NaturelleGoogle Scholar
  14. Jeannoda VH, Razanamparany JL, Rajaonah MT, Monneuse MO, Hladik A, Haladik CM: Les ignames (Dioscorea spp.) de Madagascar: espèces endémiques et formes introduites; diversité, perception, valeur nutritionnelle et systèmes de gestion durable. Revue d’Ecologie Terre Vie. 2007, 62: 191-207.Google Scholar
  15. Tostain S, Cheban AS, Damson S, Mananjo H, Rejo-Fienena F: Les espèces d’ignames (Dioscorea sp.) dans le Sud de Madagascar, inventaires et aires de répartition. Les ignames malgaches, une ressource à préserver et à valoriser. Actes du colloque. Edited by: Tostain S, Rejo-Fienena F. 2010, Toliara: University of Toliara, 22-39.Google Scholar
  16. Bardhan P, Dayton-Johnson J: Heterogeneity and Commons Management. 2000, Bloomington, Indiana: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Common Property. IASCOGoogle Scholar
  17. Elmqvist T, Pyykönen M, Tengö M, Rakotondrasoa F, Rabakonandrianina E, Radimilahy C: Patterns of loss and regeneration of tropical dry forest in Madagascar: the social institutional context. PLoS One. 2007, 2 (5): e402-10.1371/journal.pone.0000402. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000402PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Du Puy DJ, Moat JF: Vegetation mapping and classification in Madagascar (using GIS): implications and recommendations for the conservation of biodiversity. Chorology, taxonomy and ecology of the African and Madagascan floras. Edited by: Huxley CR, Lock JM, Cutler DF. 1998, Kew: Royal Botanic Gardens, 97-117.Google Scholar
  19. UPDR (Unité de Politique pour le Développement Rural): Monographie de la Région Sud-Ouest. 2003, Madagascar: Ministere de l’agriculture, de l’élevage et de la pêcheGoogle Scholar
  20. Sussman RW, Green GM, Porton I, Andrianasolondaibe OL, Ratsirarson JA: Survey of the habitat of Lemur catta in southwestern and southern Madagascar. Primate Conserv. 2003, 19: 32-57.Google Scholar
  21. Brinkmann K, Fanambinantsoa N, Ratovonamana RY, Buerkert A: Causes of deforestation processes in southwestern Madagascar during the past 40 years: What can we learn from settlement characteristics?. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2014, 195: 231-243.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Institut National de la Statistique (INSTAT): Enquête Périodique auprès des Ménages. 2010, Antananarivo: République de MadagascarGoogle Scholar
  23. WFP (World Food Programme): Global food security update. 2013, Washington, DC: Tracking food security trends in vulnerable countriesGoogle Scholar
  24. Mamokatra: Etude pour l’élaboration d’un plan d’amén-agement et de gestion au niveau de la Reserve Naturelle Intégrale de Tsimanampetsotsa: Diagnostic physic-bio-écologique. Deutsche Forstservice GmbH. 1999, Antananarivo: Feldkirchen et Entreprise d’Etudes de Développement rural,Google Scholar
  25. Ratovomanana RY, Rajeriarison C, Roger E, Kiefer I, Ganzhorn JU: Impact of livestock grazing on forest structure, plant species composition and biomass in southwestern Madagascar. Scripta Botanica Belgicaheld. 2013, Antannanarivo, Madagascar: African Plant diversity, Systematic and Sustanaible Development-Proceedings of XIXth AETFAT congress, 50: 82-92.Google Scholar
  26. Neudert R, Andriamparany NJ, Rakotoarisoa M, Götter J: Income diversification, wealth, education and well-being in rural south-western Madagascar: Results from the Mahafaly Region. Dev South Afr. in pressGoogle Scholar
  27. Stepp JR: Advances in ethnobiological field methods. Field Methods. 2005, 17: 211-218. 10.1177/1525822X05277459.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Berlin EA: Some field methods in medical ethnobiology. Field Methods. 2005, 17: 235-268. 10.1177/1525822X05277532.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Martin G: Ethnobotany: A methods manual. 1995, London, UK: Chapman & HallView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Tropicos.org. Missouri Botanical Garden. http://www.tropicos.org,
  31. Cook FEM: Economic botany data collection standard. 1995, Kent, UK: Royal Botanic GardensGoogle Scholar
  32. Simpson EH: Measurement of diversity. Nature. 1949, 163: 688-10.1038/163688a0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Byg A, Balslev H: Diversity and use of palms in Zahamena, eastern Madagascar. Biodivers Conserv. 2001, 10: 951-970. 10.1023/A:1016640713643.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Phillips O, Gentry AH: The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru. Statistical hypotheses tests with a new quantitative technique. Econ Bot. 1993, 47: 15-32. 10.1007/BF02862203.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Albuquerque UP, Medeiros PM, Almeida AL, Monteiro JM, LinsNeto EMF, Melo JG, Santos JP: Medicinal plants of the caatinga semi-arid vegetation of NE Brazil. A quantitative approach. J Ethnopharmacol. 2007, 114: 325-354. 10.1016/j.jep.2007.08.017.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Mueller-Dombois D, Ellenberg H: Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. 1974, New York: John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  37. Burnham KP, Anderson DR: Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. 2002, New York: Springer-Verlag, 0-387-95364-7, 2Google Scholar
  38. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO): Production Yearbook 1985. 1986, Rome: FAO, 39:Google Scholar
  39. Ali S: Research methodology: Data Analysis. ABAC J. 1999, 19: 52-74.Google Scholar
  40. Jayne TS, Yamano T, Weber M, Tschirley D, Benfica R, Chapoto A, Zulu B: Smallholder income and land distribution in Africa: Implications for poverty reduction strategies. Food Policy. 2003, 28: 253-275. 10.1016/S0306-9192(03)00046-0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Beyene AD: Determinants of off-farm participation decision of farm households in Ethiopia. Agrekon. 2008, 47: 140-161. 10.1080/03031853.2008.9523794.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Bigsten A, Tengstam S: Smallholder diversification and income growth in Zambia. J Afr Econ. 2011, 20: 781-822. 10.1093/jae/ejr017.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Ackermann K: Utilisation of wild growing yams as supplementary nutrition and its impact on the dry forest ecosystem in north-western Madagascar. Schweizerische Zeitschrift Für Forstwesen. 2004, 155: 80-88. 10.3188/szf.2004.0080.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Mavengahama S, McLachlan M, Clercq W: The role of wild vegetable species in household food security in maize based subsistence cropping systems. Food Secur. 2013, 5: 227-233. 10.1007/s12571-013-0243-2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Polycarp D, Afoakwa EO, Budu AS, Otoo E: Characterization of chemical composition and anti-nutritional factors in seven species within the Ghanaian yam (Dioscorea) germplasm. Intern Food Res J. 2012, 19: 985-992.Google Scholar
  46. Bhandari MR, Kasai T, Kawabata J: Nutritional evaluation of wild yam (Dioscorea spp.) tubers of Nepal. Food Chem. 2003, 82: 619-623. 10.1016/S0308-8146(03)00019-0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Termote C, Damme P, Dhed’a Djailo B: Eating from the wild: Turumbu, Mbole and Bali traditional knowledge on non-cultivated edible plants, District Tshopo, DRCongo. Genet Resour Crop Evol. 2010, 58: 585-618.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Hamilton AC: Medicinal plants, conservation and livelihoods. Biodivers Conserv. 2004, 13: 1477-1517.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Beltrán-Rodríguez L, Ortiz-Sánchez A, Mariano NA, Maldonado-Almanza B, Reyes-García V: Factors affecting ethnobotanical knowledge in a mestizo community of the Sierra de Huautla Biosphere Reserve Mexico. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2014, 10: 14-10.1186/1746-4269-10-14.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Benz BF, Santana F, Pineda R, Cevallos J, Robles L, DeNiz D: Characterization of mestizo plant use in the Sierra de Manantlán, Jalisco-Colima, México. J Ethnobiol. 1994, 14: 23-41.Google Scholar
  51. Chaudhary MI, He Q, Cheng YY, Xiao PG: Ethnobotany of medicinal plants from Tian Mu Shan Biosphere Reserve, Zhejiang-Province, China. Asian J Plant Sci. 2006, 5: 646-653.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Flatie T, Gedif T, Asres K, Gebre-Mariam T: Ethnomedical survey of Berta ethnic group Assosa Zone, Benishangul-Gumuz regional state, mid-west Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2009, 5: 14-10.1186/1746-4269-5-14. doi:10.1186/1746-4269-5-14PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Muthu C, Ayyanar M, Raja N, Ignacimuthu S: Medicinal plants used by traditional healers in Kancheepuram district of Tamil Nadu. India J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2006, 2: 43-10.1186/1746-4269-2-43. doi:10.1186/1746-4269-2-43View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Maroyi A: Traditional use of medicinal plants in south-central Zimbabwe: review and perspectives. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2013, 9: 31-10.1186/1746-4269-9-31. doi:10.1186/1746-4269-9-31PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Ribeiro A, Romeiras MM, Tavares J, Faria MT: Ethnobotanical survey in Canhane village, district of Massingir, Mozambique: medicinal plants and traditional knowledge. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2010, 6: 33-10.1186/1746-4269-6-33. doi:10.1186/1746-4269-6-33PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Ghorbani A, Langenberger G, Feng L, Sauerborn J: Ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants utilised by Hani ethnicity in Naban River Watershed National Nature Reserve, Yunnan, China. J Ethnopharmacol. 2011, 134: 651-667. 10.1016/j.jep.2011.01.011.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Cadena-González AL, Sørensen M, Theilade I: Use and valuation of native and introduced medicinal plant species in Campo Hermoso and Zetaquira, Boyacá, Colombia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2013, 9: 23-10.1186/1746-4269-9-23. doi:10.1186/1746-4269-9-23PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Van Vuuren SF, Naidoo D: An antimicrobial investigation of plants used traditionally in southern Africa to treat sexually transmitted infections. J Ethnopharmacol. 2010, 130: 552-558. 10.1016/j.jep.2010.05.045.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Zonyane S, Van Vuuren SF, Makunga NP: Pharmacological and phyto-chemical analysis of a medicinal plant mixture that is used as traditional medicine in Western Cape. Paper presented at South Africa Association of Botanist 38th Annual Conference (15–18 January 2012). 2012, Pretoria: University of PretoriaGoogle Scholar
  60. Bussmann RW, Sharon D: Traditional medicinal plant use in northern Peru: tracking two thousand years of healing culture. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2006, 2: 47-10.1186/1746-4269-2-47. doi:10.1186/1746-4269-2-47PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Rakotonirina EF, Rajaonarison JF, Raoelison EG, Rajaonarivelo JP, Manga N, Solofoniaina M, Rakotonirina B, Randriamampionona D, Rabemanantsoa C, Cheuk K, Urveg-Ratsimamanga S, Leclercq JQ: Antimicrobial activity of 23 endemic plants in Madagascar. Trop J Pharm Res. 2010, 9: 165-171.Google Scholar
  62. Ratsimamanga-Urverg S, Rasoanaivo P, Milijaonina R, Rakotoarimanga J, Rafatro H, Robijaona B, Rakoto-Ratsimamanga A: In votro antimalarial activity, chlorochuine potentiating effect and cytotoxicity of alkaloids of Hernandia voyroni. Phytoterapy Res. 1994, 8: 18-21. 10.1002/ptr.2650080105.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Ralay Ranaivo H, Rakotoarison O, Tesse A, Schott C, Randriantsoa A, Lobstein A, Andriantsitohaina R: Cedrelopsis grevei induced hypotension and improved endothelial vasodilatation through an increase of Cu/Zn SOD protein expression. Am J Physiol Heart Circulatory Physiol. 2004, 286: 775-781. 10.1152/ajpheart.00584.2003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. WHO (World Health Organization): Primary health care: back to basics in Madagascar. Bull World Health Org. 2008, 86: 417-496.Google Scholar
  65. Reddy SRC, Chakravarty SP: Forest dependence and income distribution in a subsistence economy: Evidence from India. World Dev. 1999, 27: 1141-1149. 10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00057-1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Banana AY, Turiho-Habwe W: A socio-economic analysis of forest foods consumption: the local community use of forests of Hoima and Masindi districts, western Uganda. African Crop Sci. 1997, 3: 1435-1442.Google Scholar
  67. Kerapeletswe CK, Lovett JC: The likely effects of inequality and globalization on sustainable management of common pool resources: The case of Basarwa (Bushmen) of Botswana. http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/handle/10535/1173,
  68. Gunatilake H: The role of rural development in protecting tropical rainforests: evidence from Sri Lanka. J Environ Manag. 1998, 53: 273-292. 10.1006/jema.1998.0201.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  69. Mcelwee PD: Forest environmental income in Vietnam: household socioeconomic factors influencing forest use. Environ Conserv. 2008, 35: 147-159.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  70. Kirstin RJ: Local use of Budongo’s forest products. M.Sc. Thesis. 1993, U.K: University of OxfordGoogle Scholar
  71. Khanal KP: Economic evaluation of community forestry in Nepal and its equity distribution effect. M.Sc. Thesis. 2001, Copenhagen, Denmark: The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural UniversityGoogle Scholar
  72. Sapkota IP, Odén PC: Household characterstics and dependency on community forests. Int J Soc Forestry. 2008, 1: 123-144.Google Scholar
  73. Kant S: A dynamic approach to forest regimes in developing economies. Ecol Econ. 2000, 32: 287-300. 10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00100-7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Andriamparany et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.