Are the Young Less Knowledgeable? Local Knowledge of Natural Remedies and Its Transformations in the Andean Highlands

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235981304 Are the Young Less Knowledgeable? Local Knowledge of Natural Remedies and Its Transformations in the... Article in Human Ecology · December 2012 DOI: 10.1007/s10745-012-9520-5 CITATIONS READS 10 125 4 authors, including: Sarah-Lan Mathez-Stiefel Susanne Lachmuth 32 PUBLICATIONS 72 CITATIONS 20 PUBLICATIONS 128 CITATIONS Consultative Group on International Agricult… SEE PROFILE Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg SEE PROFILE Stephan Rist Universität Bern 106 PUBLICATIONS 1,142 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Tropical African plants in the face of climate change View project Biofuel Boom and Land Concentration in Coastal Peru: Dynamics of Exclusion and Reactions from Rural Communities View project All content following this page was uploaded by Stephan Rist on 30 July 2014. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately. Hum Ecol DOI 10.1007/s10745-012-9520-5 Are the Young Less Knowledgeable? Local Knowledge of Natural Remedies and Its Transformations in the Andean Highlands Sarah-Lan Mathez-Stiefel & Regine Brandt & Susanne Lachmuth & Stephan Rist # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012 Abstract A widespread concern among ethnobiologists is the rapid process of erosion of indigenous environmental knowledge observed worldwide. This paper examines the ongoing transformations of knowledge about natural remedies in the Quechua-speaking Andes. Freelisting exercises and interviews were conducted with 36 households at Bolivian and Peruvian study sites. (Generalized) linear mixedeffects models were used to analyze the effects of age on knowledge about medicinal plants, animals, minerals, and their uses. Our study demonstrates that younger participants knew as much about natural remedies as their elders. However, proportional knowledge about some medicinal use categories of natural remedies varied with age. We conclude that knowledge about natural remedies is generally not being lost at the study sites. Nevertheless, it is undergoing transformations in terms of specific medicinal uses. A careful understanding of these complex transformation processes is needed to better orient initiatives for the conservation of biocultural diversity in the Andes and elsewhere. S.-L. Mathez-Stiefel (*) : S. Rist Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern, Hallerstrasse 10, 3012 Bern, Switzerland e-mail: sarah-lan.stiefel@cde.unibe.ch S. Rist e-mail: stephan.rist@cde.unibe.ch R. Brandt : S. Lachmuth Department of Biology, Institute of Geobotany and Botanical Garden, Martin-Luther-University, Am Kirchtor 1, 06108 Halle, Germany R. Brandt e-mail: regine.brandt@botanik.uni-halle.de S. Lachmuth e-mail: susanne.lachmuth@botanik.uni-halle.de Keywords Ethnobiology . Indigenous environmental knowledge . Traditional medicine . Bolivia . Peru . Andes Introduction “Will tribal knowledge survive the millennium?,” asked Paul Alan Cox in an essay published at the turn of the century (Cox 2000). The rapid process of erosion of indigenous environmental knowledge observed worldwide is a widespread concern among ethnobiologists, anthropologists, and scholars from related disciplines. Indigenous environmental knowledge is amongst the key features of “biocultural diversity” (Maffi 2005; Pretty et al. 2009), a new field that has emerged during the last two decades as a response to the growing concern over the extinction crisis that is threatening biological, linguistic, and cultural diversity (Harmon 1996). Since the 1980s, concern for and interest in indigenous environmental knowledge have gradually spread outside the academic community to enter the circles of sustainable development and conservation. Both the Brundtland Report of 1987 and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development of 1992 “specifically identify indigenous knowledge as a critical resource for achieving sustainable development” (Alexiades 2009: 73), and the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity recognizes its significance for the preservation of biological diversity. Indigenous environmental knowledge encompasses knowledge of plants, animals, soils, and other natural components of the environment (Ellen and Harris 2003). An important part of this knowledge relates to the “use of natural and biological resources in the maintenance and restoration of normal functioning of human health,” which, together with their related cultural practices, constitute the subject of study of medical ethnobiology (Berlin and Berlin 2005: 235). Interest in indigenous environmental knowledge and its potential contribution to conservation and development is Hum Ecol especially relevant in the context of the Andes. Not only is the Andean region home to significant levels of biocultural diversity, as is the case in mountain areas globally (Stepp et al. 2005); a process of reaffirmation, strengthening and redefinition of collective identities has also developed among indigenous Andean peoples in the course of recent history (De La Cadena 2010; Chartock 2011). However, several studies affirm that Andean environmental knowledge is currently under great threat as a consequence of rapid modernization and its impact on Andean society (Alba Fernandez 1996; Galvin 2004; Ishizawa and Rengifo 2009). The present study is part of the BioAndes project, an international cooperation program for conservation of biocultural diversity in the Bolivian, Peruvian, and Ecuadorian highlands (AGRUCO et al. 2011). The program was designed based on the assumption that Andean environmental knowledge is an important local resource for more sustainable development that nevertheless is also undergoing a process of erosion. Against this background, and recognizing the importance of ethnomedical knowledge for local livelihoods, this research examines the ongoing transformations of knowledge about natural remedies at two Quechua-speaking study sites in the Andean highlands. Ideally, research on the transformation of knowledge about natural remedies, and in particular the verification of a presumed loss of knowledge, should be realized by means of a diachronic assessment that compares the levels of knowledge at the same study site, and with the same methodology, at two specific times in history. These types of studies are unfortunately infrequent, due to the lack of previous comparable research or because conditions for carrying out long-term research in a specific area are rarely met. According to Zent (2001), one way of indirectly assessing loss of knowledge about natural remedies in synchronic studies is to look at present patterns of intracultural variability and then to connect these patterns with social variables that are indicators of changing conditions, such as age, education, or language. For instance, a positive correlation between age and medicinal plant knowledge has often been interpreted as an indicator of loss of knowledge among youth and thus of an ongoing process of knowledge erosion between generations (Phillips and Gentry 1993; Zent 2001; Ladio and Lozada 2003; Voeks and Leony 2004; Estomba et al. 2005). Other scholars, however, have warned that this positive association with age does not necessarily imply a loss of knowledge over time. It can, for instance, simply reflect the fact that older people had more time to acquire knowledge during their lifetime or that they are more likely to become ill and thus have a greater interest in acquiring knowledge about natural remedies (Voeks and Leony 2004; Giovannini et al. 2011). Hence, comparing the knowledge of younger and older participants at a given time may or may not reveal a process of knowledge erosion (Quinlan and Quinlan 2007). The results of such an approach should thus be triangulated with data obtained by other methods. In this study, we first evaluated existing knowledge about natural remedies and their uses at the research sites and then determined whether there was a relation between age and this particular type of indigenous environmental knowledge by means of statistical tools. The results from this quantitative analysis were then interpreted in light of ethnographic data and existing literature on the study areas. Research Setting Research was conducted in two rural Quechua-speaking areas of the Andes: the sub-central Waca Playa (17°27′30″ S; 66°29′21″W), located at 3,950 m.a.s.l. in Cochabamba Department in the Bolivian Eastern Cordillera, and the district of Pitumarca (13°58′48″S; 71°25′W), located at 3,580 m.a.s.l. in Cusco Department in the Southern Peruvian Andes. A map of the study sites is provided in MathezStiefel and Vandebroek (2012: Fig. 1). The two case study sites were selected from among the BioAndes program’s seven implementation areas, owing to their similarities in terms of cultural and ecological characteristics, despite their geographical distance from each other. The two sites are located in similar altitudinal belts and ecoregions, namely the “Central Andean Puna” for Waca Playa, and the “Central Andean Wet Puna” for Pitumarca; both are home to the “montane grassland and shrubland” biome (Olson et al. 2001). However, human pressure and resulting degradation of vegetation cover, soil erosion, and destruction of natural habitats have seriously affected the natural fauna and flora. Nowadays, the two areas feature very diverse anthropogenic landscapes, with irrigated croplands in the lowlands, shrubs and rain-fed croplands on the slopes, and grasslands in the highlands. Both sites also have very comparable sociocultural settings, with over 95 % of the population being indigenous Quechua-speakers. Both areas were under Inka rule (fourteenth to fifteenth centuries in Waca Playa and thirteenth to fifteenth in Pitumarca), followed by Spanish colonization (sixteenth to nineteenth centuries). Local people are now organized in peasant communities which were created after the agrarian reforms (in 1953 in Bolivia and from 1968 to 1975 in Peru) that led to the redistribution of the land that constituted the haciendas (large land-holdings of colonial Hum Ecol descendants) to their former indigenous workers. These communities are characterized by common-pool resources (e.g., pastures), communitarian governance processes (decisions are taken at the monthly community assembly), and the celebration of collective festivals (e.g., the community Patron Saint). The inhabitants of the two areas are engaged mainly in small-scale subsistence farming: cultivation of grains, vegetable, fruits, potatoes and other Andean tubers and the herding of livestock. Farming is supplemented by temporal and permanent migration to the Amazonian lowlands and urban centers. (AGRUCO 2006; ETC Andes 2006) Direct observation showed that the two areas differ slightly in a number of socioeconomic characteristics. While the migration processes are extremely important in Waca Playa, where many young people emigrate permanently from their communities, they have drastically slowed down in recent years in Pitumarca, where there are more local offfarm activity options (e.g., temporal paid work for the municipality). Furthermore, basic services are somewhat better in Pitumarca than in Waca Playa. Whereas the former site is linked to the closest market town by a paved road (35 km.), the latter is accessed by a dirt road (40 km.). Complete secondary education is provided in Pitumarca, whereas it is only available up to the 8th grade in Waca Playa. Both sites also differ in terms of the availability of biomedical facilities (Mathez-Stiefel et al. 2012). In Waca Playa, a rudimentary medical post where an auxiliary nurse provides ambulatory health care to approximately 20 communities was established in 1995. In Pitumarca, a health center has been established since the 1960s, and now has 11 health professionals, including one medical doctor. Andean medicine remains important in both study areas, both among specialists such as healers, midwives and bonesetters and among laypeople. It is characterized by a rich pharmacopeia of plants, animals, and minerals (Hensen 1992; Delgadillo 2004; ETC Andes 2006; INC 2008). Methods Data Collection Field work for this study was conducted by the first author in two peasant communities from Waca Playa (Tres Cruces and Lambramani) and two communities from Pitumarca (Huito and Huasapampa). These communities, all typical of the region of Waca Playa and Pitumarca respectively, were selected because of their comparable altitudes (3,330 and 3,450 m.a.s.l. in Waca Playa and 3,680 and 3,700 m.a.s.l. in Pitumarca) and distance to the larger settlement (5 and 9 km. from Waca Playa and 4 and 5 km. from Pitumarca). Data were collected over a period of nine oneto-two-week visits to each study site (between March 2007 and May 2008 in Waca Playa; between June 2006 and April 2010 in Pitumarca). Initial workshops where prior informed consent for carrying out research was granted were conducted in the local language in each community. At these meetings, the research aims, outputs, and participating households were defined. The community assembly was requested to select a representative sample of young (recently married and/or with small children), middle-aged (with grown-up children that participate in family tasks), and elderly households (couples or widows whose children had left the household unit). Eighteen households were selected at each research site. In Waca Playa, nine households from the community of Tres Cruces (out of the community’s 49 households) and nine from the community of Lambramani (out of 40 households) participated in the study. In Pitumarca, eight households from the community of Huasapampa (out of 63 households) and ten from the community of Huito (out of 61 households) were selected. The age of the main interviewee in each household ranged from 27 to 71 years in Waca Playa and 21 to 76 years in Pitumarca. The interviewees comprised a roughly equal proportion of men and women (9/9 in Waca Playa and 7/11 in Pitumarca). The participating households were laypeople, with the exception of two specialists in indigenous medicine at each study site. In Waca Playa, these specialists were 50 and 71 years old. Both were bonesetters and accoucheurs, but one of them was also considered a yatiri (Andean healer) capable of curing japega (fright sickness) and other culture-bound illnesses. The two specialists from Pitumarca, aged 63 and 76 years, were considered yachayniuq (Andean healers): they were able to make diagnoses by observing coca leaves (Erythroxylum coca Lam.) and to cure a series of culture-bound illnesses that had spiritual causes, such as manchariska (fright sickness), wayra and uraña (various types of “bad winds”), qhaha (lightning) or hechicería (witchcraft). The method employed for determining the households’ knowledge about natural remedies and their uses at each study site was freelisting (Quinlan 2005): the adult (husband or wife) most knowledgeable about natural remedies, according to household members, was asked to list all the natural remedies (plants, animals, minerals) that he or she Hum Ecol knew, including the ones that were obtained from outside the research area. Moreover, he or she was requested to provide details about their origin, medicinal uses, parts used, preparation, and modes of application. If other household members were present during the freelisting exercise, such as the spouse of the main interviewee or the children, they were allowed to contribute to the answers. Participants were also asked whether or not they transmitted their knowledge about natural remedies to their children. These semistructured interviews were conducted in Quechua and/or Spanish with the assistance of a native Quechua-speaking interpreter. In order to minimize the methodological limitation of freelisting (participants may omit mention of remedies that they know), interviews were carried out during several visits to each household, and often in the field or during walks with the participants. At both study sites, additional ethnographic data about local practices related to the use of natural remedies were collected by means of participant observation and informal discussions with the participating households and other community members. When possible, voucher specimens of medicinal plants were collected together with the participants in the two case study areas according to ethnobotanical standards (Martin 1995). These were later identified by specialists at the Herbarium Vargas from the University Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cusco in Peru, and at the Herbarium Martin Cardenas the University Mayor de San Simon de Cochabamba in Bolivia. The accuracy of plant scientific names and authors’ names were verified with The International Plant Names Index (IPNI 2011) and Tropicos (Missouri Botanical Garden 2011) databases. Generally known cultivated plants (such as maize—Zea Mays L. or coca—Erythroxylum coca Lam.) were not collected, but were identified based on their local names in the Bolivia and Peru checklists of Tropicos (Missouri Botanical Garden 2011). Some plants could not be collected for logistical reasons, either because they grew outside the study area or because they were not available during the field work period. Animals used as remedies were not collected in the field, but were identified by zoologists acquainted with the local fauna, based on their local names and biological description. Minerals were not collected, but their local and sometimes also their Spanish names were recorded. Data Analysis Based on the data obtained through freelisting, inventories of medicinal plants, animals, and minerals were compiled for each study site. The proportions of locally versus externally obtained plants in Waca Playa and Pitumarca were compared with a Chi-square analysis, using a Yates correction for continuity. The total number of use reports for each kind of natural remedy (plants, animals, minerals) was calculated for each study site. A use report is the report by any household of the use of remedy X to treat illness Y. One use report could therefore have been mentioned by several households. The numbers of natural remedies (plants, animals, minerals, and the sum of all remedies) and their medicinal uses cited by each household during the freelisting exercises were recorded. For each household, the number of medicinal uses mentioned for each remedy was summed to determine the total number of use reports known (plant, animal, mineral, and sum of all remedies uses). When several household members participated in the interviews, the remedies and uses mentioned by each member were summed to obtain the household’s total knowledge. The main interviewee in each household contributed approximately 85 % of this information, as opposed to other household members. Additionally, the number of unique plant reports was also recorded. A unique plant report is the mention of a medicinal plant exclusively by one household at a given study site. A list of illnesses treated with natural remedies at each site was compiled based on the ethnobiological inventories. Based on qualitative analysis, these illnesses were then grouped into medicinal use categories common to the two study sites, in an attempt to reflect local conceptions of illnesses. Each household’s proportional knowledge about each medicinal use category was then calculated based on the use reports mentioned during the freelisting exercises by that household. Use reports related to illnesses poorly defined by the participants, such as “serious illness” or “all illnesses,” were removed from the data set and not considered in the analysis of medicinal use categories. The effect of age on knowledge about natural remedies and their medicinal uses was then appraised by means of statistical analyses (R software version 2.13.1) (R Development Core Team 2011) that integrated the data from both study sites, but also considered the effect of the study site on medicinal knowledge and on its age dependence. Linear mixed-effects models for response variables with normal error distribution (R package “nlme,” function “lme”) (Pinheiro et al. 2009) and generalized linear mixed-effects models for response variables with binomial error distribution (R package “lme4,” function “lmer”) (Bates et al. 2011) were applied. Previously logarithmized data on the numbers of remedies (plants, animals, minerals, all remedies), numbers of medicinal uses reported, and numbers of unique plant responses were used as response variables of the linear mixed-effects models. The proportions of use reports for the 11 medicinal use categories mentioned above were analyzed as response variables in the Hum Ecol Table 1 Parameter estimates for significant fixed effects terms (bold) of age, study site and the interaction of both with knowledge about natural remedies (medicinal plants, animals, minerals and all remedies) and their uses in Pitumarca (Peru) and Waca Playa (Bolivia) Fixed effects # plants (ln) # plant usereports (ln) # unique plant-reports (ln) # animals (ln) # animal usereports (ln) # minerals (ln) # mineral use-reports (ln) # all (ln) # all usereports (ln) Intercept # plants (ln) # animals (ln) # minerals (ln) # all (ln) Age [a] Site (Waca Playa) Age:site (Waca Playa) 3.751 nt nt −0.035 1.112*** nt −7.707 2.387*** nt 1.253 nt nt 0.128 nt 1.033*** 0.806 nt nt 0.361 nt nt 3.950 nt nt −0.075 nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt 1.033*** nt nt nt ns −0.493** nt ns ns nt ns 0.777* nt ns ns nt ns −0.110* nt ns −1.568** nt −0.006* ns nt ns −0.532** 1.109*** ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns Terms; ns not significant; nt not tested; levels of significance: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001 generalized linear mixed-effects models. Each model included age, which corresponded to the age of the main interviewee in each household, and study site, and the interaction of both as explanatory variables (fixed effects, see Tables 1 and 2). This interaction allowed quantification of different relationships between age and each response variable for the two study sites. The numbers of remedies reported (plants, animals, minerals, all remedies) were additionally included as corrective explanatory variables. To avoid pseudoreplication, we also considered the random effects of community at each study site. In a stepwise-backward procedure based on likelihood ratio tests (chi-square, χ2), maximal models were then simplified, as described by Crawley (2007). All non-significant terms (p>0.05) (“ns,” see Tables 1 and 2) were removed in order to obtain minimal adequate models for each response variable. The number of households that stated during the interviews that they transmitted their knowledge to their children was summed at each study site. Households that had no children or whose answer was not clear were removed from Table 2 Categories of illnesses treated by natural remedies in Waca Playa (Bolivia) and Pitumarca (Peru) Illness categories Description and/or examples Culture-bound Illnesses with multiple symptoms and/or etiology that can be considered part of Andean culture, such as problems with a social or spiritual cause or links with the hot/cold humoral classification of diseases—e.g. susto (fright sickness), wayra (bad winds), rayo or qhaha (lightening), colerina (anger), etc. Fresh or infected wounds, skin problems, insect bites Dermatological and wounds Fever Gastro-intestinal Genito-urological Gynecologicalobstetric Headache Musculoskeletal Preventive and tonic Respiratory Other illnesses Fever events (calentura or chiricalor) Stomach ache, diarrhea, intestinal parasites, gastritis Kidney inflammations or pains, prostate problems Conditions including pregnancy, labor, puerperium, infertility, and contraception treatments Headaches (also when caused by hangover) , dizziness Body pains, (e.g. back pain, sprains, cramps, and rheumatism) fractures Prevention of all types of illnesses or overall body weakness—daily or exceptional use of natural remedies that act as vitaminas (vitamins) or tónicos (tonics) Flu, common cold, several types of coughs, sore throat. Little-mentioned ailments (e.g. problems related to child growth, ear aches, eyes infections, teeth problems, measles, and hepatitis) Hum Ecol this final analysis (three households in Waca Playa and three households in Pitumarca). Results Knowledge About Natural Remedies in Waca Playa and in Pitumarca The ethnobotanical inventories compiled revealed a substantial knowledge about natural remedies and their uses at both study sites (Appendices 1 and 2). The households from Waca Playa mentioned a total of 150 medicinal plants with a total of 415 use reports. Sixteen of these medicinal plants grew outside the communities where the research was conducted (10.7 %). Of the 134 medicinal plants grown locally, 26.1 % were cultivated and 73.9 % wild. Most of the externally obtained plants were bought at markets (these were cultivated or wild plants from the lowlands) and a few plants were collected in the neighboring valleys. Twenty of the inventoried plants were only known by the two households who were healers. The participants also listed 24 animals used as remedies (10 domesticated and 14 wild) with a total of 51 use reports, and 8 minerals with a total of 15 use reports. The inventories of natural remedies from Waca Playa are listed in Appendix 1. In Pitumarca (Appendix 2), the numbers of natural remedies and medicinal use reports were notably larger than in Waca Playa. The participating households listed a total of 249 medicinal plants with a total of 774 use reports. Of these 249 plants, 200 were collected locally and 49 were brought from outside the communities studied (19.7 %). Of the plants found at the study site 25.5 % were cultivated and 74.5 % wild. Approximately half of the externally obtained plants were bought (these were either cultivated plants growing at lower altitudes or wild plants from the Amazon lowlands) and the other half were collected in the highlands of Pitumarca district, in the puna ecological belt. The medicinal plants known only by the two healers amongst the interviewed households amounted to a total of 21. Regarding the number of animal and mineral remedies, the households mentioned respectively 33 with 109 use reports (13 domesticated and 20 wild) and 24 with 49 use reports. Higher levels of knowledge about natural remedies were thus found in Pitumarca by comparison with Waca Playa. Furthermore, the proportion of externally versus locally obtained plants was also significantly higher at the former site than at the latter (χ2 (1) 04.934; P00.026). The greater ethnobiological inventories found in Pitumarca by comparison with Waca Playa were confirmed by the linear mixed-effect model analysis (see Table 1). This analysis demonstrated that knowledge about natural remedies (plants, χ2 (1) 07.977, p<0.01; minerals, χ2 (1) 08.03, p <0.01; all remedies, χ2 (1) 08.86, p<0.01) or their uses (animal use, χ2 (1) 05.07, p<0.05) was significantly higher in Pitumarca than in Waca Playa, except for the number of unique plant reports in relation to the total number of plants cited, which was slightly higher in Waca Playa than in Pitumarca (χ2 (1) 05.52, p<0.05). Effects of Age on Knowledge About Natural Remedies and Their Uses The effects of age on the numbers of medicinal plants, animals and minerals and the number of medicinal uses reported by 36 households from the two study sites are shown in Table 1. In both regions, medicinal knowledge was not affected by age, which suggests that it is not undergoing a process of erosion. The only exception was the number of mineral uses reported, which decreased slightly with age (χ2 (1) 06.45, p<0.05). This finding from the statistical analysis is consistent with the importance of processes of knowledge transmission observed at both study sites. Respectively 80 % and 87 % of the households from Waca Playa and Pitumarca affirmed during the interviews that they transmitted ethnobiological knowledge to their children, either actively through teaching or by giving them the opportunity to observe them as they collected, used, or administered natural remedies to other family members. Regarding the uses of medicinal plants, animals, and minerals, the participating households cited a total of 74 (Waca Playa) and 93 (Pitumarca) illnesses during the freelisting that were treated with these remedies. For the purpose of the analysis, these illnesses were grouped into eleven medicinal use categories common to the two study sites: (1) culturebound illnesses; (2) dermatological illnesses and wounds; (3) fever events; (4) gastro-intestinal illnesses; (5) genitourological illnesses; (6) gynecological-obstetric conditions; (7) headache events; (8) musculoskeletal problems; (9) preventive and tonic remedies; (10) respiratory illnesses; and (11) other illnesses. These illness categories are further detailed in Table 2. The detailed effects of age, study site and their interactions with the 36 households’ proportional knowledge of these eleven illness categories are shown in Table 3. The generalized linear mixed-effects models demonstrated that at both study sites there was no effect of age on the proportional knowledge about fever, gastro-intestinal, genitourological, gynecological-obstetric, and other uses. Nevertheless, the statistical analyses also revealed that age had an effect on knowledge about natural remedies for the following use categories: culture-bound, headache, dermatological/wounds, musculoskeletal, preventive/tonic, and respiratory uses. For instance, proportional knowledge about uses for culture-bound illnesses increased with age in Pitumarca, whereas the opposite was found for Waca ns ns 0.02* (−0.03)** Terms in significant interaction; ns, not significant; levels of significance: *P<0.05; **P<0.01; ***P<0.001 a ns ns (−0.02)** 0.05** ns ns (−0.04)* −3.06 ns 0.70** −1.69 (−0.02)*** ns −1.43 −0.03a −0.46a −1.53 −0.00a 0.83a −7.02 0.06a 3.59a −2.36 ns ns −3.83 ns (−1.04)* −2.40 ns ns −2.88 ns ns −2.88 −0.02a −1.61a −0.93 0.01a 0.30a Intercept Age [a] Site (Waca Playa) Age [a]:site (Waca Playa) Proportion other Proportion respiratory Proportion preventive / tonic Proportion musculoskeletal Proportion headache Proportion gyneco-logicalobstetric Proportion genitourological Proportion gastrointestinal Proportion fever Proportion dermatolo-gical/ wounds Proportion culturebound Fixed effects Table 3 Parameter estimates for significant fixed effects terms (bold) of age, study site and their interactions with proportional knowledge about medicinal use categories (culture-bound, dermatological/wounds, fever, gastro-intestinal, genito-urological, gynecological-obstetric, headache, musculoskeletal, preventive/tonic, respiratory, and other uses) mentioned in Pitumarca (Peru) and Waca Playa (Bolivia) Hum Ecol Playa. However, when analyzing the two sites separately, the negative effect of age for Waca Playa was not significant (χ2 (1) 03.129, p00.077), while a significant positive effect for Pitumarca remained (χ2 (1) 011.947, p<0.001). The proportional knowledge of uses for headache increased with age at both study sites, with an overall lower knowledge but a steeper increase with age in Pitumarca as compared to Waca Playa (significant interaction of age and site: χ2 (1) 0 9.213, p<0.01). The proportional knowledge of dermatological uses and wound treatments also increased with age in Waca Playa, but slightly decreased in Pitumarca (significant interaction of age and site: χ2 (1) 05.776, p<0.05). When testing the two sites separately though, the positive effect of age on dermatological uses and wound treatments for Waca Playa was significant (χ2 (1) 05.776, p<0.05), whereas the negative effect of age for Pitumarca was not (χ2 (1) 03.820, p00.051). At both sites, age had a negative effect on proportional knowledge about respiratory (χ2 (1) 012.566, p<0.001), musculoskeletal, and preventive/tonic uses. For musculoskeletal uses this negative effect was slight in Pitumarca and more marked in Waca Playa (significant interaction of age and site: χ2 (1) 06.873, p<0.01), whereas the opposite was shown concerning preventive/tonic uses (significant interaction of age and site: χ2 (1) 04.175, p<0.05). In summary, knowledge about culture-bound (in Pitumarca), headache (both sites), and dermatological and wounds (in Waca Playa) uses increased with age, while knowledge about respiratory, musculoskeletal, and preventive/tonic uses decreased with age at both sites. Discussion This study yielded four major findings. First, the results demonstrated that knowledge about natural remedies and their uses was considerable at both study sites. Even when considering only lay knowledge (i.e., excluding the knowledge of traditional healers), inventories of medicinal plants were as high as 130 in Waca Playa and 228 in Pitumarca. These figures are much higher than those obtained in surveys conducted among laypeople in other Quechua-speaking districts of the Bolivian Andes: Vandebroek et al. (2004) inventoried 36 medicinal plants in Cochabamba Department (50 participants, Apillapampa, 3,250 m.a.s.l.) and Fernandez et al. (2003) 56 plants in Potosi Department (56 participants, Uncia, 4,400 m.a.s.l.). In the Peruvian Central Andes, 87 plants were identified by means of a survey conducted with 150 participants (Canta, up to 2,800 m.a.s.l.) (De-la-Cruz et al. 2007). Second, contrary to most of the literature on the topic (e.g., Phillips and Gentry 1993; Caniago and Siebert 1998; Zent 2001; Voeks and Leony 2004; Estomba et al. 2005), results from the statistical analyses proved that younger Hum Ecol participants knew as much about plants, animals and minerals used as remedies as older participants. This finding, together with the high levels of knowledge about natural remedies found, suggest that there is no ongoing loss of this type of knowledge among Andean households at the study sites. We may even predict that this knowledge will prevail during the next decades, as implied by the high levels of parent-to-child transmission found among the participating households. The exception found for knowledge about mineral uses, which decreased slightly with age, is probably the result of the low number of uses reported per household (zero to four uses in Waca Playa and zero to eight in Pitumarca). A few elder households did report a low number of mineral uses, perhaps because they forgot to mention other uses they knew, which influenced the results. Comparison of our data with the literature seems to confirm that knowledge about natural remedies has been maintained in the last several decades at the study sites (Hensen 1992; Delgadillo 2004). In Waca Playa, a comprehensive ethnobotanical study carried out from 1990 to 1992 and published in 2004 lists a total of 123 wild and cultivated local medicinal plants collected with local experts (Delgadillo 2004). Another study carried out in a neighboring area in 1990 registered a total of 112 wild medicinal plants collected with local farmers (Hensen 1992). These figures are comparable to ours (134 local medicinal plants, 100 of which grow in the wild) and indicate that there was no loss of medicinal plant knowledge after the establishment of the Waca Playa medical post in 1995. In Pitumarca and neighboring areas, there exists to the best of our knowledge no other complete inventory of knowledge about natural remedies that could be used as the basis for such a comparison. However, a comparative study between Waca Playa and Pitumarca showed that the increased presence of primary health care services did not displace Andean medicinal practices and knowledge at the latter site (Mathez-Stiefel et al. 2012). Our results contradict the findings of researchers in the Andes (Galvin 2004) and elsewhere (Caniago and Siebert 1998; Hanazaki et al. 2000) that have interpreted a decline of knowledge about natural remedies as a consequence of the increased presence of biomedicine. Third, our work showed that there is a variation in the proportional knowledge about several medicinal use categories treated with natural remedies according to age. This last finding implies, in some cases, a transformation of this knowledge from one generation to the other; and, in others, a differential use of natural remedies during an individual’s lifespan. For instance, according to our ethnographic data, two explanations may be given for the lower level of knowledge about medicinal uses related to culture-bound illnesses found among the young Pitumarquinos First, it probably indicates a loss of specialized knowledge of Andean medicine, especially that of traditional healers. Second, it may reflect the fact that this specialized knowledge, linked to a deep understanding of Andean culture and cosmology, is acquired later in life, as compared to other types of knowledge. Indeed, culture-bound illnesses include amongst others health problems that specifically require the skills of an Andean healer, such as possession by ancestral spirits, witchcraft, divination and diagnosis, and animal sacrifice (Mathez-Stiefel et al. 2012). Moreover, they also include illnesses that can be cured by skilled laypeople, but for which patients generally consult a healer, such as wayra or malviento (several types of “bad winds”). This interpretation is consistent with both our ethnographic data and statistical analyses. On the one hand, informal discussions with the participants and field observations showed that healers, who are mostly elderly people, were disappearing in Pitumarca. On the other hand, the lower number of unique plant reports —in relation to the total numbers of medicinal plants mentioned—found in Pitumarca as compared to Waca Playa could indicate a loss of specialized knowledge and its replacement by increased general knowledge among the population. The increased presence of biomedical health care facilities at both study sites in recent decades could account for the lower level of knowledge about headaches, dermatological, and especially wound-related uses among the younger generation. We have shown elsewhere that households from Waca Playa and Pitumarca nowadays visit the medical center and use pharmaceuticals as painkillers, including treatment for headaches as well as for wounds and fractures (Mathez-Stiefel et al. 2012). Regarding greater knowledge about respiratory uses found among the younger generation, this could be explained by a change in the health context of the research areas in the last several decades and notably a higher occurrence of respiratory infections; but further studies should be done to corroborate this hypothesis. Indeed, both in Waca Playa and in Pitumarca, respiratory infections are currently among the most common illnesses afflicting the population (AGRUCO 2006; INC 2008). The negative effect of age on knowledge about natural remedies for musculoskeletal uses, including the treatment of back pain, sprains and bruises that typically result from hard work in the fields, reflects the fact that households face different types of illnesses during the course of life. Field observations revealed that agricultural activities were mostly carried out by the younger households, while the older ones reduced their physical activities progressively as they advanced in age. From our ethnographic knowledge of the study sites, we believe that the greater knowledge about preventive and tonic uses found among the younger generation mirrors a recent process of Hum Ecol revalorization of natural remedies as the best option to remain in good health. Another study confirms that there was such a revalorization in Pitumarca, where there was a clear preference for natural remedies over pharmaceuticals, which were seen as potentially harmful, addictive, and in some cases not efficient (Mathez-Stiefel et al. 2012). Furthermore, we observed at both study sites that nowadays community members turn increasingly to agroecological production modes and associate the consumption of “natural,” “healthy” agricultural products with the use of “natural,” “healthy” remedies. A last finding that deserves discussion is the contrasting situation found in the levels of knowledge about natural remedies between the two study sites. Not only were the number of natural remedies and medicinal uses reported significantly higher in Pitumarca as compared to Waca Playa, but knowledge about medicinal plants was more idiosyncratic and thus less shared among households at the latter site, as implied by the relatively higher number of unique plant responses found in Waca Playa. This last result is confirmed by a previous study that showed that there was more agreement about commonly known medicinal plants in Pitumarca than in Waca Playa (Mathez-Stiefel and Vandebroek 2012). Our finding is supported by the results of another study that showed that there is a prevalence of Andean medicinal knowledge and practices among households from Pitumarca as compared to Waca Playa (Mathez-Stiefel et al. 2012). That study demonstrated that there was both more elaborate knowledge about culture-bound illnesses and a higher preference for natural remedies over pharmaceuticals at the former site. These results are quite surprising, since Pitumarca is the site where there is a higher presence not only of biomedicine, but also of other factors of acculturation generally reported in the literature to account for a loss of knowledge about natural remedies such as formal education (Zent 2001; Quinlan and Quinlan 2007; Reyes-García et al. 2010; Wyndham 2010) and the market economy (Alcorn 1999; Reyes-García et al. 2005). The higher proportion of externally versus locally grown plants found in Pitumarca as compared to Waca Playa reveals that Pitumarquinos enriched their local therapeutic resource basis by including more elements from other ecological belts. This could result from higher levels of mobility between the Andean highlands and the Amazon lowlands and/or from greater plant and knowledge exchange at local markets in Pitumarca. This hypothesis also partly explains the differences in knowledge about natural remedies found between the study sites. However, it should be further tested in order to accurately interpret our findings. Conclusions Based on the results from this study, we conclude that knowledge about natural remedies is generally not being lost at the two study sites. Nevertheless, it is definitely undergoing transformations in terms of specific medicinal uses. The variation of proportional knowledge about medicinal use categories according to age does correspond in some cases to knowledge erosion. In others, however, it reflects a process of adaptation to a changing context, or simply the diverse health needs encountered during an individual’s lifespan. A careful understanding of these complex transformation processes is thus needed to better orient initiatives for the conservation of biocultural diversity and indigenous environmental knowledge in the Andes and elsewhere. Future studies could enrich the results of this work. For instance, studies that analyze the transformation of knowledge about natural remedies and health-seeking behavior in migration contexts, and more specifically in the lowlands and urban centers, would provide a broader understanding about what is happening with ethnomedical knowledge globally in the Andean region. Comparative studies realized at the same research sites at a future date could confirm whether there is an on-going revalorization of knowledge about natural remedies among laypeople and, parallel to this, a loss of specialized knowledge. Research on the differential occurrence of illness types during individuals’ lifespans and about changes in the occurrence of illnesses in the population over time would allow corroboration of our interpretations about the effect of age on medicinal use categories, and make it possible to better specify which of our results can be attributed to processes knowledge erosion. And last, comparative studies between the two research sites on the exchange of knowledge and remedies from different ecological belts could shed more light on the differences in the levels of knowledge encountered. Acknowledgments We sincerely thank members of the communities of Tres Cruces, Lambramani (Waca Playa, Bolivia), Huasampampa, and Huito (Pitumarca, Peru) for their generous participation in this study. Field work logistics were provided by implementing organizations of the BioAndes Program of the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), namely AGRUCO (Cochabamba, Bolivia), CEPROSI (Cusco, Peru), and ETC Andes (Lima, Peru). We thank the field assistants who helped with interview interpretations and/or translations in Bolivia and in Peru. Plant identifications were done by Magaly Mercado and Fructuosa De La Torre and animal identifications by Eberth Rocha and José Luis Mena. Ina Vandebroek is to be thanked for her contribution to data analysis. Funding for the present study was granted by the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) North-South (project TN3 and RP13 on Transformation of Agrarian Systems) and by the Swiss Commission for Research Partnerships with Developing Countries (KFPE)’s program “Jeunes Chercheurs” (funded by the SDC). Hum Ecol Appendix 1 Table 4 Plants, animals, and minerals used as remedies in Waca Playa, Bolivia. Plant voucher number: SM#(B): Sarah-Lan Mathez-Stiefel # (Bolivia), RB#: Regine Brandt #. Based on freelisting exercises conducted with 18 households Local name(s) in Quechua and/or Spanish Scientific name (plant family, voucher number) or (animal family, order, or class when not identified) Origin— status Plants Achuma Alfalfa Alisu Allqu kirkiña, kirkiña Altamisa Altea Añawiya Andreswaylla Apio Arroz Arveja Asna muña Asnakolitches Berros Betarraga Burro zapato Cafe Possibly Trichocereus bridgesii (Salm-Dyck) Britton & Rose (Cactaceae, photo SM(B)) Medicago sativa L. (Fabaceae, SM63(B)) Alnus acuminata Kunth (Betulaceae, SM31(B)) Not identified Ambrosia arborescens Mill. (Asteraceae, SM86(B)) Not identified Adesmia miraflorensis J. Rémy (Fabaceae, SM95(B)) Cestrum parqui L’Hér (Solanaceae, SM9(B), SM132(B), SM88(B)) Apium graveolens L. (Apiaceae, SM35(B)) Oryza sativa L. (Poaceae) Pisum sativum L. (Fabaceae) Not identified Not identified Mimulus glabratus Kunth (Scrophulariaceae, SM90(B)) Beta vulgaris L. (Amaranthaceae) Evolvulus repens D. Parodi (Convolvulaceae, SM140(B)) Coffea arabica L. (Rubiaceae) l—c l—c l—w l—w l—w l—w l—w l—w l—c e, b—c l—c l—w l—w l—w l—c l—w e, b—c 4 2 3 1 3 1 7 12 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 2 Not identified. Several possible species. Hordeum vulgare L. (Poaceae) e, b—c l—c 2 2 l—w l—c l—w 2 3 4 Chakatia Ch’iki Chiltuchiltu Chinchirkuma Ch’iñi muña, muña Ch’iñi t’ola Stipa sp. (Poaceae, SM99(B)) Aloysia citriodora Ortega ex Pers. (Verbenaceae, SM26(B)) Solanum spp. (S.cochabambense Bitter—S. sp.) (Solanaceae, RB 19.7—SM25(B), SM71(B)) Dodonaea viscosa Jacq. (Sapindaceae, SM43(B)) Not identified Not identified Mutisia acuminata Ruiz & Pav. (Asteraceae, SM8(B)) Clinopodium bolivianum (Benth.) Kuntze (Lamiaceae, SM15(B), SM93(B)) Baccharis sp. (Asteraceae, SM98(B)) l—w l—w l—w l—w l—w l—w 5 1 3 2 5 4 Ch’iñi wajranwayu Ch’iri mulli Ch’umach’uma Clavel, yuraq clavel Coca Cola de caballo Condor chaki Condor muña Culandro Solanum sp. (Solanaceae, SM44(B)) Not identified. Possibly Zanthoxylum coco Gill. ex Hook. & Arn. (Rutaceae) Salvia haenkei Benth (Lamiaceae, SM97(B)) Dianthus sp. (Caryophyllaceae) Erythroxylum coca Lam. (Erythroxylaceae) Not identified Not identified (SM120(B)) Not identified (SM56(B)) Coriandrum sativum L. (Apiaceae) l—w l—w l—w l—c e, b—c e—w e—w l—w Disconocera Durazno Gongona Haba Hierba wiña Perezia pungens Less. (Asteraceae, SM112(B)) Prunus persica (L.) Batsch (Rosaceae, SM55(B)) Not identified (SM5(B)) Vicia faba L. (Fabaceae) Not identified Canela Cebada Cebadilla Cedrón Celestina l—c l—w l—c l—c l—c l—w # use reports 2 1 3 4 10 1 3 2 1 2 7 1 1 1 Hum Ecol Table 4 (continued) Scientific name (plant family, voucher number) or (animal family, order, or class when not identified) Origin— status l—c l—c l—w e—w l—w l—w l—w l—w l—w l—w l—c l—w l—w l—w l—w l—w l—w 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 2 5 2 1 9 Layu, lobo Mentha viridis L. (Lamiaceae, SM4(B)) Foeniculum vulgare Mill. (Apiaceae, SM39(B), SM69(B)) Not identified Not identified Not identified Caiophora canarinoides Urb. & Gilg (Loasaceae, RB 23.15) Not identified Baccharis papillosa Rusby (Asteraceae, RB 2.9, RB 3.1, RB 7.10) Not identified Not identified Eucalyptus globulus Labill. (Myrtaceae, SM6(B), SM14(B), SM87(B)) Not identified Not identified Kentrothamnus weddellianus (Miers) M.C. Johnst. (Rhamnaceae, SM40(B)) Not identified Not identified Plantago spp. (P. orbignyana Steinh. ex Decne., P. lanceolata L.) (Plantaginaceae, SM61 (B), SM103(B)–SM125(B), SM129(B)) Trifolium amabile Kunth (Leguminosae, SM133(B)) l—w 2 Limón Linaza Llawi Llawlli Loma cedrón Loq’uloq’u Manka p’aki Manzana Manzanilla Margarita Citrus spp. (Rutaceae) Linum usitatissimum L. (Linaceae) Not identified Not identified Not identified Rumex spp. (Polygonaceae, SM126(B)–SM130(B)) Agalinis lanceolata (Ruiz & Pav.) D’Arcy (Scrophulariaceae, SM49(B), SM96(B)) Malus domestica Baumg. (Rosaceae) Matricaria chamomilla L. (Asteraceae, SM62(B)) Proustia cuneifolia D. Don (Asteraceae, SM47(B)) e, b—c l—c e—w l—w l—w l—w l—w l—c l—c l—w 6 2 4 1 2 5 2 1 8 2 Marihuana Menta Misi sillu Molle Molle suyku Muñi Mut’uchi Mut’uch’ila Nabu Cannabis sativa L. (Cannabaceae) Not identified. Possibly Mentha sp. (Lamiaceae) Not identified Schinus molle L. (Anacardiaceae, SM16(B), SM89(B)) Not identified Bidens pseudocosmos Sherff (Asteraceae, SM53(B), SM123(B)) Senna sp. (Asteraceae, SM52(B)) Senna aymara H.S. Irwin & Barneby (Caesalpiniaceae, SM19(B), SM51(B)) Brassica rapa L. (Brassicaceae, SM106(B)) e, b—c l—w e, b—w l—w l—w l—w l—w l—w l—w 1 1 1 15 1 3 4 1 1 Naranja Oregano Palta Papa Payqu Citrus spp. (Rutaceae) Origanum vulgare L. (Lamiaceae, SM54(B)) Persea americana Mill. (Lauraceae) Solanum tuberosum L. (Solanaceae) Chenopodium ambrosioides L. (Amaranthaceae, SM29(B), SM60(B), SM67(B), SM91 (B)) Petroselinum crispum (Mill.) Fuss (Apiaceae, SM64(B)) Not identified Not identified Not identified Not identified e, b—c l—c e, b—c l—c l—w 2 2 3 1 5 l—c l—w l—w l—w l—w 5 2 1 1 1 Local name(s) in Quechua and/or Spanish Hierbabuena Hinojo Ichhu maransila Inti kururu Iskay sonira Itapallu Jalajala Jatun t’ola Jusi ch’illka Kabrunsillo Kalistu, eucalipto Kanglia K’apak’apa Khiñi K’ila Kinsak’uchu, tres esquinas Lanti lanti Perejil Piki pijchana, jayaj pijchana Pinku pinku P’isqu chaki P’uchunqura # use reports Hum Ecol Table 4 (continued) Scientific name (plant family, voucher number) or (animal family, order, or class when not identified) Origin— status Not identified Not identified Malva parviflora L. (Malvaceae, SM32(B), SM33(B), SM73(B), SM83(B)) Sonchus oleraceus L. (Asteraceae, SM58(B), SM66(B), SM134(B)) l—w l—w l—w l—w 1 1 7 7 Gynoxys psilophylla Klatt (Asteraceae, SM20(B), SM104(B)) Polylepis subtusalbida (Bitter) M. Kessler & Schmidt-Leb. (Rosaceae, SM50(B), SM85 (B)) Aloysia gratissima (Gillies & Hook.) Tronc. (Verbenaceae, SM42(B)) Not identified Minthostachys ovata (Briq.) Epling (Lamiaceae, SM10(B), SM76(B)) l—w l—w 2 1 l—w e, b—w l—w 4 3 8 Chenopodium quinoa Willd. (Chenopodiaceae) Not identified Lepechinia graveolens (Regel) Epling (Lamiaceae, SM18(B)) Lucilia kunthiana (DC.) Zardini, Gamochaeta simplicicaulis (Willd. ex Spreng.) Cabrera (Asteraceae, SM117(B)–SM139(B)) Brassica oleracea L. (Brassicaceae, SM59(B)) Spartium junceum L. (Fabaceae, SM28(B)) Not identified (SM110(B)) Rosmarinus officilnalis L. (Lamiaceae) Rosa sp. (Rosaceae, SM142(B)) Verbena sp. (Verbenaceae, SM101(B)) Senecio sp. (Asteraceae, SM1(B)) Rumex sp. (Polygonaceae, SM22(B), SM70(B)) Ruta graveolens L. (Rutaceae, SM3(B)) Aloe vera (L.) Burm.f. (Aloaceae) Not identified l—c l—w l—w l—w 3 1 6 1 l—c l—c l—w l—c l—c l—w l—c l—w l—c l—c l—w 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 6 1 1 1 Not identified. Possibly Salvia sp. (Lamiaceae) Chrysanthemum parthenium Bernh. (Asteraceae, SM2(B), SM124(B)) Zea mays L. (Poaceae) Sambucus nigra L. subsp. peruviana (Kunth) Bolli (Adoxaceae, SM75(B)) Not identified Not identified (SM7(B)) Baccharis pentlandii DC. (Asteraceae, RB 22.1, RB 23.10) Chenopodium ambrosioides L. (Amaranthaceae, SM128(B)) Geranium bolivianum R. Knuth (Geraniaceae, SM77(B)) Not identified Nicotiana spp. (Solanaceae) Lupinus mutabilis Sweet (Fabaceae) l—w l—c l—c l—w l—w l—w l—w l—w l—w l—w e, b—c l—c 4 4 3 5 2 1 1 5 4 1 1 1 Thaqu Tian tian T’ola Tres crucenera Trigo Not identified Prosopis laevigata (Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd.) M.C. Johnst. (Mimosaceae, SM41(B)) Not identified (SM23(B), SM46(B)) Baccharis dracunculifolia DC. (Asteraceae, SM13(B), SM100(B)) Not identified Triticum sp. (Poaceae) l—w l—w l—w l—w l—w l—c 2 3 8 6 2 1 Tukampidu Tuquchi Tuwi Not identified Not identified Eupatorium lasiophthalmum Griseb. (Asteraceae, SM27(B)) l—w l—w l—w 1 1 1 Local name(s) in Quechua and/or Spanish Puka kullu Puka llave Q’ara malva, malva Q’ara sapi, qharasa, leche leche Q’ara tuwi, tuwi Qewiña Q’otuq’otu Q’owa Q’owa muña, aya muña, muña Quinua Quinua qara Raqacha, raqa raqa Rejoncillo Repollo Retama Riwasa Romero Rosa, yuraq rosa Rosalina Ruda, ruda blanca, ruda aya Rumansa, lantilanti Rura ajinku Sabila Sabuko Salvia Santa maría Sara, yuraq sara, maíz Sawku Sayaj payqu Sin verguenzita Sira chillka Sira payqu, ch’iñi payqu Sultaki, sultana Suyku Tabaco Tarwi T’eke martingu # use reports Hum Ecol Table 4 (continued) Scientific name (plant family, voucher number) or (animal family, order, or class when not identified) Origin— status Not identified Cleistocactus buchtienii Backeb. (Cactaceae, photo SM(B)) Ullucus tuberosus Caldas (Basellaceae) Pluchea fastigiata Griseb. (Asteraceae, RB 47.14) Verbena hispida Ruiz & Pav. (Verbenaceae, SM72(B)) Not identified Dunalia brachyacantha Miers (Solanaceae, SM11(B)) Not identified Iresine aff. diffusa Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd. (Amaranthaceae, SLS 113 (Bolivia)) Senecio clivicolus Wedd. (Asteraceae, SM30(B), SM48(B)) Not identified Gnaphalium dombeyanum DC. (Asteraceae. SM94(B), SM127(B)) Not identified Sigesbeckia jorullensis Kunth (Asteraceae, SM68(B)) Daucus carota Michx. (Apiaceae) Calceolaria engleriana Kraenzl. (Calceolariaceae, SM21(B), SM78(B)) l—w l—w l—c l—w l—w l—w l—w l—w l—w l—w e, b—w l—w l—w l—w l—c l—w Canis familiaris Conepatus chinga l—d l—w 3 1 Cabra Pseudalopex culpeus Capra hircus l—w l—d 2 2 Ch’ijririnka Ch’iñi, murciélago Condor Huallpa, gallina Jamp’atu, sapo Jurkuta, paloma K’ayla, rana Lajato Llama Misky huayronq’o, abeja Oveja Pichichiwan Pili, pato Q’orik’enti, picaflor Q’uchi, cerdo Quita q’uy, conejo Not identified (class: Insecta) Not identified (order: Chiroptera) Vultur gryphus Gallus gallus Probably Rhinella arenarum Probably Metriopelia ceciliae Probably Hypsiboas andinus Not identified Lama glama Apis melifera Ovis aries Zonotrichia capensis Anas sp. Sappho sparganura Sus scropha Galea musteloides l—w l—w l—w l—d l—w l—w l—w l—w l—d l—d l—d l—w l—d l—w l—d l—w 1 1 1 4 5 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 Runa, humano Taraqachi, tordo Homo sapiens Agelaloides badius l—d l—w Waca, vaca Wawa k’iro Total animal use-reports Bos taurus Not identified (order: Lepidoptera) l—d l—w – – e l Local name(s) in Quechua and/or Spanish Uchuy tuna Ulala Ulluku, papa lisa Uri uri Verbena Violeta Wajranwayu Wakansa Wakanwayu Waych’a Willka ch’iti Wira wira Wurajas Yakuyakuni Zzanahoria Zapatillan Total plant use-reports Animals Allqu, perro Aña thuya, zorrino Atoq, zorro Minerals Churu Jusk’u rumi # use reports 1 2 1 4 7 3 3 2 2 4 1 4 2 1 1 3 415 7 6 1 2 1 51 2 1 Hum Ecol Table 4 (continued) Local name(s) in Quechua and/or Spanish Kabranso K’ewita Kopala Millu, azufre Rumi runto, huevo de piedra Yana rumi, piedra negra Total mineral use-reports Scientific name (plant family, voucher number) or (animal family, order, or class when not identified) Origin— status – – – – – – l e e, b e, b e l # use reports 1 3 1 5 1 1 15 l locally collected, e externally obtained, b bought at markets, w wild, c cultivated, d domesticated Appendix 2 Table 5 Plants, animals, and minerals used as remedies in Pitumarca, Peru. Plant voucher number: SM#(P): Sarah-Lan Mathez-Stiefel # (Peru). Based on freelisting exercises conducted with 18 households Local name(s) in Quechua and/or Spanish Scientific name (plant family, voucher number) or (animal family, order, or class when not identified) Origin —status # use reports Plants Acelga Beta vulgaris var. cicla L. (Amaranthaceae) l—c 1 Achanqaray Begonia veitchii Hook.f. (Begoniaceae, SM13(P), SM30(P)) l—w 4 Ajana Not identified e—w 2 Aji amarillo Capsicum baccatum var. pendulum (Willd.) Eshbaugh (Solanaceae) l—c 1 Ajinku Artemisia absinthium L. (Asteraceae, SM73(P)) l—c 4 Ajo Allium sativum L. (Alliaceae) l—c 2 Akhanako Not identified e—w 2 Alcachofa Cynara scolymus L. (Asteraceae) l—c 1 Alfalfa Medicago sativa L. (Fabaceae, SM52(P)) l—c 5 Allqu kiska Acanthoxanthium ambrosioides (Hook. & Arn.) D. Loeve (Asteraceae, SM10(P)) l—c 12 Alucema Lavandula sp. (Lamiaceae) e, b—c Añanway kiska Not identified l—w 1 Angel tokay Stevia cuzcoensis Hieron. (Asteraceae, SM102(P)) l—w 2 3 6 Anis, tanta anis Tagetes filifolia Lag. (Asteraceae, SM107(P)) e, b—c Ankaraya Not identified l—w 1 Añu Tropaeolum tuberosum Ruiz & Pav. (Tropaeolaceae) l—c 2 Apio Apium graveolens L. (Apiaceae) l—c 3 Aqaqata Not identified l—w 3 Arwiarwi Cuscuta grandiflora Kunth (Convolvulaceae, SM45(P)) l—w 2 ato qallu Not identified e—w 2 ayrampu Not identified l—w 2 Betarraga Beta vulgaris L. (Amaranthaceae) l—c 1 Bolsa bolsa Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik. (Brassicaceae, SM41(P)) l—w 2 Cacao Theobroma cacao L. (Sterculiaceae) e, b—c 1 Cáncer qora Stachys arvensis L. (Lamiaceae, SM123(P)) l—w 8 Canela Not identified, several possible species. e, b—c 1 Capuli l—w 2 Cascarilla Prunus serotina Ehrh. subsp. capuli (Cav. ex Spreng.) McVaugh (Rosaceae, SM57(P)) Not identified e, b—w 2 Cebada Hordeum vulgare L. (Poaceae, SM122(P)) l—c 6 Cebolla Allium cepa L. (Alliaceae) l—c 1 Hum Ecol Table 5 (continued) Local name(s) in Quechua and/or Spanish Scientific name (plant family, voucher number) or (animal family, order, or class when not identified) Origin —status # use reports Cebolla china Allium sp. (Alliaceae) l—c 1 Cedrón Not identified. Possibly Aloysia citriodora Ortega ex Pers. (Verbenaceae) l—c 1 Chachakuma Not identified e, b—w 1 Ch’akiri Not identified e, b—w 1 Chanka piedra Not identified l—w 1 Chawi chawi Not identified l—w 1 Chichira Coronopus didymus (L.) Sm. (Brassicaceae, SM55(P)) l—w 1 Chilichili Not identified e—w 3 Chillka Baccharis latifolia Pers. (Asteraceae, SM75(P)) l—w 2 China kanlli Not identified l—w 3 Chinchamale Not identified l—w 3 Chinchirkuma Mutisia acuminata Ruiz & Pav. (Asteraceae, SM43(P), SM69(P)) l—w 5 Chiqchi Berberis carinata Lechl. (Berberidaceae, SM35(P)) l—w 3 Chiqchipa Tagetes multiflora Kunth (Asteraceae, SM68(P)) l—w 3 Ch’iqmo l—w 1 Chirichiri Melilotus indicus (L.) All., Trifolium amabile Kunth (Leguminosae SM24(P)– SM40(P)) Grindelia boliviana Rusby (Asteraceae, SM91(P)) l—w 8 Chonta Bactris gasipaes Kunth (Arecaceae) e, b—c 2 Chupelika Not identified l—w 1 Clavel, clavel rojo, clavel negro Dianthus sp. (Caryophyllaceae, SM83(P)) l—c 7 Coca Erythroxylum coca Lam. (Erythroxylaceae) e, b—c Cola de caballo Ephedra americana Endl. var. rupestris (Benth.) Ball (Ephedraceae, SM3(P)) l—w 6 Comino Cuminum cyminum L. (Apiaceae) e, b—c 3 Cóndor chiuchi Not identified l—w 1 Culandro Coriandrum sativum L. (Apiaceae) l—c 2 Dulserama Not identified l—w 4 Erwaymoro Not identified l—w 1 Estrella kiska, estrella Acicarpha tribuloides Juss. (Calyceraceae, SM92(P)) l—w 4 Eucalipto Eucalyptus globulus Labill. (Myrtaceae, SM78(P)) l—c 16 Forajas Not identified l—w 3 Fresa Fragaria vesca L. (Rosaceae) l—c 1 Grama Pennisetum clandestinum Hochst. ex Chiov. (Poaceae, SM54(P)) l—w 3 Grama dulce Not identified l—w 3 Haba Vicia faba L. (Fabaceae) l—c 2 Hawaq’ollay Echinopsis cuzcoensis (Britton & Rose) H. Friedrich & G.D. Rowley (Cactaceae, photo SM(P)) Hypochoeris sp. (Asteraceae, SM59(P)) l—c 2 l—w 4 Hayaq pilli, mayu pilli 16 Hierba luisa Cymbopogon citratus (DC.) Stapf (Poaceae) e, b—c 2 Hierbabuena Mentha viridis (L.) L. (Lamiaceae, SM5(P)) l—c 8 Higo Ficus sp. (possibly F. carica L.) (Moraceae) l—c 1 Hinojo Foeniculum vulgare Mill. (Apiaceae, SM51(P)) l—c 4 Huacatay Tagetes minuta L. (Asteraceae) l—c 1 Huk’ucha kisa Not identified l—w 3 Husq’a Astragalus garbancillo Cav. (Fabaceae, SM64(P)) l—w 3 Inti sunka Not identified e—w 1 Iru ichhu Not identified l—w 2 Isla puña Not identified (SM34(P)) l—w 1 Jatun oqoruru Not identified (SM62(P)) l—w 6 Kanlli Margyricarpus pinnatus (Lam.) Kuntze (Rosaceae, SM89(P)) l—w 6 Hum Ecol Table 5 (continued) Local name(s) in Quechua and/or Spanish Scientific name (plant family, voucher number) or (animal family, order, or class when not identified) Origin —status # use reports Kantus Not identified l—w 1 K’aska rupu Not identified l—w 1 Khanakhana Sonchus asper (L.) Hill (Asteraceae, SM113(P)) l—w 1 Kharu Colletia spinosissima J.F. Gmel. (Rhamnaceae, SM21(P)) l—w 5 Kharwa Not identified l—w 1 Khunuka Satureja vana Epling (Lamiaceae, SM99(P)) l—w 3 Kiko Bidens triplinervia Kunth (Asteraceae, SM28(P)) l—w 2 Kinsa k’ochu Not identified l—w 2 Kisa Not identified l—w 2 Kiska khana Not identified l—w 2 Kiswar Buddleja incana Ruiz & Pav. (Loganiaceae) l—w 1 3 Konfray Not identified (SM56(P)) l—c K’upi k’upi Not identified (SM58(P)) l—w 2 K’uri kisa Not identified l—w 4 K’usmayllu Solanum radicans L.f. (Solanaceae, SM7(P)) l—c 2 Labrán Alnus acuminata Kunth (Betulaceae, SM74(P)) l—w 1 Limón Citrus aurantiifolia (Christm.) Swingle (Rutaceae) e, b—c 3 Linaza Linum usitatissimum L. (Linaceae) l—c 3 Llampu rup’u Not identified l—w 1 Llantén Plantago major L. (Plantaginaceae, SM96(P)) l—w 7 Llauli, china llauli Barnadesia horrida Muschl. (Asteraceae, SM26(P)) l—w 6 Llausap’anku Not identified e, b—w 2 Lloqe pako Not identified l—w 1 Lorapa Not identified (SM15(P)) l—w 3 Maiz Zea mays L. (Poaceae) l—c 5 Malva Malvastrum sp. (Malvaceae, SM18(P)) l—c 9 Mamani alqa Not identified l—w 2 Mani Arachis hypogeae L. (Fabaceae) e, b—c 1 Manka phaki l—w 5 Manzana Ageratina sternbergiana (D.C.) R.M. King & H. Rob. (Asteraceae, SM27(P), SM109(P)) Malus domestica Baumg. (Rosaceae) l—c 1 Manzanilla Matricaria recutita L. (Asteraceae, SM82(P)) l—c 16 Maransira Not identified l—w 1 Marqu Not identified l—w 4 Matapalo Not identified e, b—w 5 Maych’a Senecio rudbeckiifolius Meyen & Walp. (Asteraceae, SM71(P)) l—w 4 Mayu cidra Not identified l—w 1 Mayu kisa Not identified l—w 1 Mayu rabanos Not identified l—w 1 Mejorana Not identified l—w 1 Menta Not identified l—w 1 Miskiqallara Puya ferruginea (Ruiz & Pav.) L.B.Sm. (Bromeliaceae, SM36(P)) l—w 1 Molle Schinus molle L. (Anacardiaceae, SM8(P)) l—w 4 Mula verbena Verbena spp. (V. litoralis Kunth, V. hayekii Moldenke (Verbenaceae, SM29(P)– SM42(P)) Minthostachys spp. (M. setosa (Briq.) Epling, M. spicata (Benth.) Epling (Lamiaceae, SM33(P)–SM120(P)) Muehlenbeckia volcanica (Benth.) Endl. (Polygonaceae, SM31(P)) l—w 4 l—w 10 l—w 7 Mutuy Senna birostris (Vogel) H.S. Irwin & Barneby (Caesalpinaceae, SM20(P)) l—w 15 Nabo, yuyo Brassica rapa subsp. campestris (L.) A. R. Clapham (Brassicaceae, SM4(P)) l—w 7 Muña Muñak’a Hum Ecol Table 5 (continued) Local name(s) in Quechua and/or Spanish Scientific name (plant family, voucher number) or (animal family, order, or class when not identified) Origin —status # use reports Naranja Citrus sp. (Rutaceae) e, b—c 2 Naywa Not identified l—w 1 Nina goncha Not identified l—w 1 Oca Oxalis tuberosa Molina (Oxalidaceae) l—c 1 Oqa oqa Oxalis picchensis R. Knuth (Oxalidaceae, SM16(P)) l—w 4 Oqayqora Descurainia myriophylla R.E.Fr. (Brassicaceae, SM118(P)) l—w 1 Oqaysuru Not identified l—w 1 Oq’e thurpa Not identified e—w 3 Oqoruru, allqu oqoruru Mimulus glabratus Kunth (Scrophulariaceae, SM19(P), SM38(P)) l—w 10 Orégano Origanum vulgare L. (Lamiaceae) l—c 2 Orqu chiqchi Not identified l—w 1 Orqu grama Not identified l—w 1 Orqu kisa Urtica urens L. (Urticaceae, SM72(P)) l—w 4 Orqu llauli Dasyphyllum leiocephalum (Wedd.) Cabrera (Asteraceae, SM77(P)) l—w 2 Orqu muña Satureja boliviana Briq (Lamiaceae, SM658(P)) l—w 3 Orqu q’olo Not identified l—w 1 Orqu wamanlipa Not identified e—w 1 Orqu zapatilla Calceolaria engleriana Kraenzl. (Scrophulariaceae, SM46(P)) l—w 1 Pacha husqa Not identified e—w 2 Pacha muña Not identified (SM60(P)) l—w 6 Pacha thurpa Not identified e—w 1 Palma real Not identified l—c 2 Palmayver Not identified l—w 1 P’alta kisa Not identified l—w 3 Pampa anis Spergularia andina Rohrb. (Caryophyllaceae, SM37(P)) l—w 3 Pampa comino Not identified l—w 1 Pampa culandro Oreomyrrhis andicola (Kunth) Endl. ex Hook. f. (Apiaceae, SM22(P)) l—w 3 Pampa rosas Not identified l—w 1 Papa Solanum tuberosum L. (Solanaceae) l—c 3 Papaya Carica papaya L. (Caricaceae) e, b—c 1 Patakiska l—w 6 P’ataku Austrocylindropuntia subulata (Muehlenpf.) Backeb. subsp. exaltata (A. Berger) D.R. Hunt (Cactaceae, photo SM) Not identified l—w 1 Payqu Not identified l—w 4 Pensamiento, michimichi Cypella herrerae Diels ex R.C. Foster (Iridaceae, SM80(P)) l—c 3 Perejil Petroselinum sativum Hoffm. (Apiaceae, SM9(P)) l—c 9 Pergolares Basella alba L. (Basellaceae, SM12(P)) l—w 2 Phallcha Not identified e—w 1 Phasku qollana Hesperoxiphion herrerae (R.C. Foster) Ravenna (Iridaceae, SM119(P)) l—w 1 Phuña Not identified e—w 1 Pilipili, diente de leõn Taraxacum officinale F.H. Wigg. (Asteraceae, SM6(P)) l—w 5 Pimpinilla Pimpinella anisum L. (Rosaceae, SM79(P)) l—c 5 Pinku pinku Not identified l—w 5 Pino Pinus spp. (Pinaceae) l—c 1 P’irka Not identified (SM70(P)) l—w 4 Pomelo Citrus sp. (Rutaceae) e, b—c 1 2 Puka phallcha Not identified l—w Puka thurpa Not identified e—w 7 Puka t’ikaq achanqaray Not identified l—w 2 Hum Ecol Table 5 (continued) Local name(s) in Quechua and/or Spanish Scientific name (plant family, voucher number) or (animal family, order, or class when not identified) Origin —status # use reports Puka t’ikaq chili chili Not identified e—w 1 Puka t’ikaq kisa Cajophora cirsiifolia C. Presl (Losaceae, SM25(P)) l—w 11 P’uku p’uku Dichondra sp. (Convolvulaceae, SM39(P)) l—w 4 Pupusa Xenophyllum poposum (Phil.) V.A. Funk (Asteraceae, SM93(P)) e—w 9 Pura pura Not identified e—w 3 Putapaya Pelargonium fragrans Willd. (Geraniaceae, SM81(P)) l—c 2 Qalawala l—w 2 Qalyara Polypodium angustifolium var. amphostenon (Kunze ex Klotzsch) Baker (Polypodiaceae, SM103(P)) Not identified l—w 3 Qamasayri Nicotiana glauca Graham (Solanaceae, SM17(P)) l—w 2 Q’ellu t’ikaq kisa Not identified l—w 3 Q’era Not identified l—w 1 Q’eto q’eto Achyrocline saturejoides (Lam.) DC. (Asteraceae, SM23(P)) l—w 1 Qhayan qhayan Valeriana decussata Ruiz & Pav. (Valerianaceae, SM61(P)) l—w 3 Queuña Polylepis incana Kunth (Rosaceae, SM87(P)) l—w 2 Quwimirachi Erodium cicutarium (L.) L’Her. ex Aiton (Geraniaceae, SM32(P)) l—w 2 Retama Spartium junceum L. (Fabaceae, SM76(P)) l—c 2 Rokotorokoto Abutilon hirtum (Lam.) Sweet (Malvaceae, SM85(P)) l—c 2 Romero Rosmarinus officinalis L. (Lamiaceae) l—c 5 Ruda Ruta spp. (R. chalepensis L., R. graveolens L. (Rutaceae, SM11(P)–SM111(P)) l—c 5 Rumiunku Not identified l—w 1 Runa oqoruru Not identified l—w 2 Rup’u rup’u Not identified l—w 1 Sabila Aloe vera (L.) Burm.f. (Aloaceae) l—c 5 Sachaparaqay l—w 1 Salvia Colignonia parviflora subsp. biumbellata (Ball) J.E. Bohlin (Nyctaginaceae, SM73(P)) Lepechinia meyenii (Walp.) Epling (Lamiaceae, SM88(P), SM106(P)) l—w 5 Sangre de grado Not identified e, b—w 6 Sano sano Not identified e, b—w 2 Santa maría Tanacetum parthenium Sch. Bip. (Asteraceae, SM14(P)) l—w 3 Sapan qari Not identified l—w 1 Sapan t’ika kisa Not identified l—w 1 Sarsaparilla Not identified l—w 1 Sasawi Leucheria daucifolia (D. Don) Crisci (Asteraceae, SM94(P)) e—w 9 Sauco Sambucus peruviana Kunth (Caprifoliaceae, SM49(P)) l—w 5 Sink’awi Echinopsis maximiliana Heyder ex A. Dietr. (Cactaceae, photo SM(P)) l—w 3 Soldakisolda Not identified l—w 1 Solema Not identified l—w 1 Sotuma Not identified e—w 8 T’ankar Lycianthes lycioides Hassl. (Solanaceae, SM86(P)) l—w 2 T’antara Not identified l—w 2 Thurpa Not identified e—w 6 Tikle tikle Not identified e, b—w 2 Toronjil Melissa officinalis L. (Lamiaceae) l—c 5 Trigo Triticum sp. (Poaceae) l—c 1 Uña de gato Not identified e, b—w 8 Uñaka Not identified l—w 2 Up’usuru Bowlesia sodiroana H. Wolff (Apiaceae, SM44(P) l—w 1 Uva Vitis vinifera L. (Vitaceae) e, b—c 3 Hum Ecol Table 5 (continued) Local name(s) in Quechua and/or Spanish Scientific name (plant family, voucher number) or (animal family, order, or class when not identified) Origin —status # use reports Valeriano Not identified l—w Verbena Stachys bogotensis Kunth (Lamiaceae, SM47(P)) l—w 1 1 Vicuña thurpa Not identified e—w 2 Violeta ambarones Chrysanthemum sp. (Asteraceae, SM84(P)) l—c 4 Waca muñu Not identified l—c 1 Wachanccay Not identified l—w 1 Walpa walpa Tropaeolum peregrinum L. (Tropaeolaceae, SM90(P)) l—w 1 Wamanlipa Senecio tephrosioides Turcz. (Asteraceae, SM95(P)) e—w 7 Waraqo Opuntia floccosa Salm-Dyck (Cactaceae, photo SM) e—w 7 Watakhawa Not identified l—w 1 Waylwa Not identified l—w 4 Wayra kopal Not identified l—w 2 Wayurkuma Not identified l—w 6 Wichullu Not identified l—w 8 Wikiki Not identified e, b—w 1 Wikuntuy Not identified e—w 1 Wiraqoya Not identified e, b—w 1 Yana kisa Urtica urens L. (Urticaceae, SM50(P)) l—w 8 Yanaruku Not identified l—w 1 Yaqay Not identified l—w 1 Yarita Not identified e—w 2 Yawarch’unka Oenothera multicaulis Ruiz & Pav. (Onagraceae, SM63(P)) l—w 11 Yunka p’irka Not identified l—w 2 Yunka wichullu Not identified e, b—w 1 Yuraq rosa Rosa sp. (Rosaceae) l—c 1 Yuraq t’ikaq cáncer Stachys herrerae Epling (Lamiaceae, SM48(P)) l—w 2 Yuraq t’ikaq oqa oqa, pampa vinagrera Not identified l—w 2 Yuraq verbena Not identified l—w 2 Zanahoria Daucus carota Michx. (Apiaceae) l—c 3 Zaptilla, pukuchu pukuchu Calceolaria spp. (C. sparsiflora Kunze, C. virgata Ruiz & Pav., C. aurea Pennell) (Calceolariaceae, SM1(P)–SM111(P) -, SM110(P)) l—w 4 Total plant use-reports 774 Animals Abeja Apis melifera l—d 5 Añas, zorrino Conepatus spp. l—w 6 Atoq, zorro Lycalopex spp. l—w 2 Burro Equus asinus l—d 1 Caballo Equus caballus l—d 1 Cabra, cabra negra Capra hircus l—d 4 Cóndor Vultur gryphus e—w 3 Culebra Not identified (suborder: Serpentes) l—w 3 Cuy, cuy negro, cuy tricolor Cavia porcellus l—d 4 Gallina, gallina negra, gallina roja Gallus gallus l—d 11 Gato negro Felis catus l—d 2 Gusano de qayara Not identified l—w 1 Hacchi, águila Not identified (family: Accipitridae) l—w 2 Hak’ajllu Not identified (class: Aves) l—w 1 Huku, búho Not identified (family: Stripidae) l—w 1 Hum Ecol Table 5 (continued) Local name(s) in Quechua and/or Spanish Scientific name (plant family, voucher number) or (animal family, order, or class when not identified) Origin —status # use reports Khallwa, golondrina Not identified (family: Hirundinidae) l—w 3 Llama Lama glama l—d 1 Mula Hybrid between Equus asinus and Equus caballus l—d 3 Murciélago Not identified (order: Chiroptera) l—w 1 Oveja, cordero, oveja negra Ovis aries l—d 10 Parihuana Phoenicoparrus spp., Phoenicopterus chilensis e—w 2 Qalaiwa, lagartija Not identified (suborder: Lacertilia) l—w 4 Q’ente, picaflor Not identified (class: Aves) l—w 2 Q’uchi, cerdo Sus domesticus l—d 3 Rana Not identified (order: Anura) l—w 4 Runa, humano Homo sapiens l—d 10 Suri Pterocnemia pennata e—w 1 Taparako Not identified (order: Lepidoptera) l—w 1 Taruka, venado Hippocamelus antisensis l—w 3 Thiscu thiscu, saltamonte Not identified (class: Insecta) l—w 1 Uru, araña Not identified (order: Araneae) l—w 3 Vicuña Vicugna vicugna e—w 4 Waca, vaca, vaca crespa Bos taurus l—d Total animal use-reports 6 109 Minerals Apachik jallp’a, apachita qopa, tierra de apachetas Barro podrido – l – l 1 Ch’aqu, arcilla – l 10 Cheka taku – e 1 Dolaquispe – l 1 Hasnaq t’uro – l 1 Iglesias jallp’a, tierra de las iglesias – l 1 Kuti parqay – l 1 Lisa rumi, qespi rumi – l 3 Machu rumi, llampu – l 2 Mayu qopa, resíduos del rio – l 3 Mayu rumi, piedra del rio – l 2 Mujo rumi – l 1 Panteon qopa, tierra de cementerio – l 3 Perra hima – l 1 Qhaha chunta – l 1 Qhaha kuti – l 1 Rumi, cualquier piedra – l 1 Sal – e, b 1 Santuara – e, b 1 Taku rumi – l 2 Tierra donde se asustó, no vista por el sol, donde se cruzan caminos Torre, cuarzo – l 3 – l 1 l locally collected, e externally obtained, b bought at markets, w wild, c cultivated, d domesticated 2 Hum Ecol References AGRUCO (2006). Diagnostico Participativo Comunitario del “Municipio de Tapacarí y Las Zonas Bioculturales de la Subcentral de Waca Playa y Comunidad Tallija-Confital”. AGRUCO, Cochabamba. AGRUCO, ETC Andes, and EcoCiencia (2011). Revalorización y Conservación de la Diversidad Biocultural Andina: Experiencias y Aprendizajes del Programa Regional BioAndes. AGRUCO, Cochabamba. Alba Fernandez, J. J. (1996). Entre la Pervivencia y la Muerte: Los Campo Jampiris de Campero. Estudio Diagnostico de los Recursos Tradicionales de Salud en las Comunidades Quechuas de la Provincia Campero. Editora El Pais, Santa Cruz. Alcorn, J. (1999). Indigenous resource management systems. In Posey, D. A. (ed.), Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. Intermediate Technology Publications, London, pp. 203–206. Alexiades, M. N. (2009). The cultural and economic globalisation of traditional environmental knowledge systems. In Heckler, S. (ed.), Landscape, Process and Power: Re-Evaluating Traditional Environmental Knowledge. Berghahn, Oxford, pp. 68–98. Bates, D., Maechler, M., and Bolker, B. (2011). lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using S4 Classes. R package version 0.999375-39. Published on the Internet http://CRAN.R-project.org/package0lme4. Berlin, E. A., and Berlin, B. (2005). Some Field Methods in Medical Ethnobiology. Field Methods 17: 235–268. Caniago, I., and Siebert, S. F. (1998). Medicinal Plant Ecology, Knowledge and Conservation in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Economic Botany 52: 229–250. Chartock, S. (2011). How Movement Strength Matters: Social Movement Strength and the Implementation of Ethnodevelopment in Ecuador and Peru. Studies in Comparative International Development 46: 298–320. Cox, P. A. (2000). Will Tribal Knowledge Survive the Millennium? Science 287: 44–45. Crawley, M. J. (2007). The R Book. Wiley, West Sussex. De La Cadena, M. (2010). Indigenous Cosmopolitics in the Andes: Conceptual Reflections Beyond “Politics”. Cultural Anthropology 25: 334–370. De-la-Cruz, H., Vilcapoma, G., and Yevallos, P. A. (2007). Ethnobotanical Study of Medicinal Plants Used by the Andean People of Canta, Lima, Peru. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 111: 284–294. Delgadillo, J. (2004). La Flora Nativa en la Vida de las Comunidades Campesinas de los Andes. Caso Comunidad Tres Cruces, Cochabamba—Bolivia. Universidad Internacional de Andalucía, Huelva. Ellen, R., and Harris, H. (2003). Introduction. In Ellen, R., Parkes, P., and Bicker, A. (eds.), Indigenous Environmental Knowledge and its Transformations: Critical Anthropological Perspectives. Routledge, London, pp. 1–33. Estomba, D., Ladio, A., and Lozada, M. (2005). Medicinal Wild Plant Knowledge and Gathering Patterns in a Mapuche Community from North-Western Patagonia. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 103: 109–119. ETC Andes (2006). Informe del Diagnóstico Participativo Comunitario de las Zonas Bioculturales Seleccionadas Para el Perú: Distrito de Pitumarca, Provincia de Canchis, Cusco. ETC Andes - BioAndes, Lima. Fernandez, E. C., Sandi, Y. E., and Kokoska, L. (2003). Ethnobotanical Inventory of Medicinal Plants Used in the Bustillo Province of the Potosi Department, Bolivia. Fitoterapia 74: 407–416. Galvin, M. (2004). La Connaissance Métisse. Une Analyse de la Politique de Protection des Connaissances Traditionnelles au Pérou. University of Geneva, Geneva. Giovannini, P., Reyes-Garcia, V., Waldstein, A., and Heinrich, M. (2011). Do Pharmaceuticals Displace Local Knowledge and Use of Medicinal Plants? Estimates from a Cross-Sectional Study in a Rural Indigenous Community, Mexico. Social Science & Medicine 72: 928–936. Hanazaki, N., Tamashiro, J. Y., Leitao-Filho, H. F., and Begossi, A. (2000). Diversity of Plant Uses in Two Caiçara Communities from the Atlantic Forest Coast, Brazil. Biodiversity and Conservation 9: 597–615. Harmon, D. (1996). Losing Species, Losing Languages: Connections Between Biological and Linguistic Diversity. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 15: 89–108. Hensen, I. (1992). La Flora en la Comunidad de Chorojo. Su Uso, Taxonomia Científica y Vernacular. AGRUCO, Cochabamba. INC (2008). Diagnostico Situacional y Socioeconómico del Distrito de Pitumarca—Canchis. INC, Cusco. IPNI. (2011). The International Plant Names Index. Published on the Internet http://www.ipni.org. Ishizawa, J., and Rengifo, G. (2009). Biodiversity regeneration and intercultural knowledge transmission in the Peruvian Andes. In Bates, P., Chiba, M., Kube, S., and Nakashima, D. (eds.), Learning & Knowing in Indigenous Societies Today. UNESCO, Paris, pp. 59–71. Ladio, A. H., and Lozada, M. (2003). Comparison of Wild Edible Plant Diversity and Foraging Strategies in Two Aboriginal Communities of Northwestern Patagonia. Biodiversity and Conservation 12: 937–951. Maffi, L. (2005). Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological Diversity. Annual Review of Anthropology 34: 599–617. Martin, G. J. (1995). Ethnobotany. A Methods Manual. Chapman & Hall, London. Mathez-Stiefel, S.-L., and Vandebroek, I. (2012). Distribution and Transmission of Medicinal Plant Knowledge in the Andean Highlands: A Case Study from Peru and Bolivia. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 18 pages. Mathez-Stiefel, S.-L., Vandebroek, I., and Rist, S. (2012). Can Andean Medicine Coexist with Biomedical Healthcare? A Comparison of Two Rural Communities in Peru and Bolivia. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 8:26. Missouri Botanical Garden. (2011). Tropicos.org. Published on the Internet http://www.tropicos.org. Olson, D. M., Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E. D., Burgess, N. D., Powell, G. V. N., Underwood, E. C., D’Amico, J. A., Ittoua, I., Strand, H. E., Morrison, J. C., Loucks, C. J., Allnutt, T. F., Ricketts, T. H., Kura, Y., Lamoreux, J. F., Wettengel, W. W., Hedao, P., and Kassem, K. R. (2001). Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Life on Earth. BioScience 51: 933–938. Phillips, O., and Gentry, A. H. (1993). The Useful Plants of Tambopata, Peru: II. Additional Hypothesis Testing in Quantitative Ethnobotany. Economic Botany 47: 33. Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., Debroy, S., Sarkar, D., and R CoreTeam. (2009). nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R package version 3.1–96. Pretty, J., Adams, B., Berkes, F., Ferreira de Athayde, S., Dudley, N., Hunn, E., Maffi, L., Milton, K., Rapport, D., Robbins, P., Sterling, E., Stolton, S., Tsing, A., Vintinner, E., and Pilgrim, S. (2009). The Intersections of Biological Diversity and Cultural Diversity: Towards Integration. Conservation and Society 7: 100–112. Quinlan, M. (2005). Considerations for Collecting Freelists in the Field: Examples from Ethnobotany. Field Methods 17: 219– 234. Quinlan, M. B., and Quinlan, R. J. (2007). Modernization and Medicinal Plant Knowledge in a Caribbean Horticultural Village. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 21: 169–192. R Development Core Team. (2011). The R Project for Statistical Computing. R version 2.13.1. Published on the Internet http://www.r-project.org/. Reyes-García, V., Vadez, V., Byron, E., Apaza, L., Leonard, W. R., Perez, E., and Wilkie, D. (2005). Market Economy and the Loss of Folk Knowledge of Plant Uses: Estimates from the Tsimane’ of the Bolivian Amazon. Current Anthropology 46: 651–656. Hum Ecol Reyes-García, V., Kightley, E., Ruiz-Mallén, I., Fuentes-Peláez, N., Demps, K., Huanca, T., and Martínez-Rodríguez, M. R. (2010). Schooling and Local Environmental Knowledge: Do They Complement or Substitute Each Other? International Journal of Educational Development 30: 305. Stepp, J. R., Castaneda, H., and Cervone, S. (2005). Mountains and Biocultural Diversity. Mountain Research and Development 25: 223–227. Vandebroek, I., Calewaert, J.-B., De Jonckheere, S., Sanca, S., Semo, L., Van Damme, P., Van Puyvelde, L., and De Kimpe, N. (2004). Use of Medicinal Plants and Pharmaceuticals by Indigenous Communities in the Bolivian Andes and Amazon. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 82: 243–250. Voeks, R. A., and Leony, A. (2004). Forgetting the Forest: Assessing Medicinal Plant Erosion in Eastern Brazil. Economic Botany 58 (Supplement): s294–s306. Wyndham, F. S. (2010). Environments of Learning: Raramuri Children’s Plant Knowledge and Experience of Schooling, Family and Landscape in the Sierra Tarahumara, Mexico. Human Ecology 38: 87–99. Zent, S. (2001). Acculturation and ethnobotanical knowledge loss among the Piaroa of Venezuela. Demonstration of a quantitative method for the empirical study of traditional environmental knowledge change. In Maffi, L. (ed.), On Biocultural Diversity. Linking Language, Knowledge, and the Environment. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp. 190–211.