Taste and chemical composition as drives for utilitarian redundancy and equivalence: a case study in local medical systems in Northeastern Brazil

Background We aimed to verify whether the taste and chemical composition influence the selection of plants in each medicinal category, whether within a socio-ecological system or between different socio-ecological systems. To this end, we use the theoretical bases of the Utilitarian Redundancy Model and the Utilitarian Equivalence Model. We studied the local medical systems of four rural communities in northeastern Brazil, used as models to test our assumptions. Methods The data on medicinal plants and local therapeutic function were obtained from semi-structured interviews associated with the free-listing method, allowing to generate indexes of similarity of therapeutic use between the plants cited in each region. During the interviews, each informer was also asked to report the tastes of the plants cited. Subsequently, we classified each plant in each region according to the most cited taste. The data about the chemical composition of each plant were obtained from a systematic review, using Web of Knowledge and Scopus databases. Results Pairs of plants with similar tastes are 1.46 times more likely to have the same therapeutic function within a local medical system (redundancy), but not between medical systems (equivalence). We also find that chemical compounds are not primarily responsible for utilitarian redundancy and equivalence. However, there was a tendency for alkaloids to be doubly present with greater expressiveness in pairs of equivalent plants. Conclusions The results indicate that each social group can create its means of using the organoleptic characteristics as clues to select new species as medicinal. Furthermore, this study corroborates the main prediction of the Utilitarian Equivalence Model, that people in different environments choose plants with traits in common for the same functions.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND

40 more references, whose wording the paper’s licence keeps private.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.