Gardeners' use of medicinal plants grown in

Gardeners’ use of medicinal plants grown in homegardens of organic and non-organic farms in Eastern Tyrol, Austria Master Thesis Submitted by Eva Vogel Student ID BOKU: 11723465 Student ID Hohenheim: 654524

Supervisors Ao. Univ. Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Dr. nat. techn. Christian R. Vogl Prof. Dr. Claudia Bieling Dr. Mag. Brigitte Vogl-Lukasser Vienna, November 11, 2018

Drawing by Eva Vogel based on an illustration by Otto Karl Berg and Carl Friedrich Schmidt

Master Thesis | Eva Vogel | WS 2018

Acknowledgements First of all, I would like to express my thanks to the gardeners of Eastern Tyrol who participated in the project and without whom I could not have done this research. A special thanks goes to the 17 gardeners of the subsample for spending their time and interest on an additional interview and for generously sharing their knowledge with me. I would like to thank my supervisors Prof. Dr. Christian R. Vogl, Dr. Mag. Brigitte Vogl-Lukasser and Prof. Dr. Claudia Bieling very much for their constructive support, input and guidance throughout the whole process of my master thesis. Moreover, I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Christian Vogl, Dr. Mag. Brigitte Vogl-Lukasser and Dr. Mag. Heidemarie Pirker for integrating me in the project, for the close and pleasant collaboration and for two wonderful and interesting months that I spent with them in the beautiful landscapes of Eastern Tyrol. Thanks to my temporary flat mates Semra, Julia and Irene for the time we spent together in our beautiful cabin, gathering wild plants and mushrooms, cooking, star gazing and chatting. Thanks to the whole Vogl-family for being such great hosts and for having us over for delicious food, wine, music and chats. I would like to thank the University of Hohenheim for financially supporting my master studies by means of the two scholarships Deutschlandstipendium and Herzog-Carl Stipendium. Last but not least I am very grateful for the continuous support that I got from my parents and Vladimir throughout my entire studies. Thank you all very much!

i


Abstract Vogel, Eva. 2018. Gardeners’ use of medicinal plants grown in homegardens of organic and nonorganic farms in Eastern Tyrol, Austria. Master thesis at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna.

Homegardens are horticultural cultivation spaces where annual, biennial and perennial cultivated plants are grown and used to fulfill various family needs such as food and medical care. In the year 1998 Vogl & Vogl-Lukasser (2003) investigated plant species composition and use in 196 homegardens of Eastern Tyrol, Austria. This thesis aims to study gardeners’ use of medicinal plants and to compare results from the years 1998 and 2018. In spring and summer 2018 occurrence and abundance of cultivated plant taxa were surveyed in 62 homegardens of 14 organic and 48 non-organic farms in 11 communities of Eastern Tyrol. Interviews about the person, household and plant use were carried out with gardeners. In 17 homegardens additional interviews were carried out inquiring in-depth the use of medicinal plants. Number of medicinal plant taxa used per gardener did not significantly differ between the years 1998 and 2018. In both years Calendula officinalis L., Salvia L. sp. and Matricaria recutita L. were the most popular medicinal plants and the families Lamiaceae and Asteraceae most often represented. In the year 1998 there was a positive correlation between gardener age and number of medicinal plant taxa used, but none in the year 2018. Neither in 1998 nor 2018 number of medicinal plant taxa used differed between gardeners of homegardens on organic and non-organic farms. Results of the subsample in the year 2018 found herbal tea as most common preparation method. Ailments within the categories Respiratory System Disorders (20.8 %), Inflammations (18.1 %) and Injuries (15.3 %) were most commonly treated in humans. In animals mostly ailments within the categories Injuries (32.3 %), Inflammations (22.6 %) and Digestive System Disorders (16.1 %) were treated. Homegardens are important reservoirs of medicinal plants providing easy and immediate access. This study and similar research about the use of medicinal plants can be instrumental to make ethnomedicinal knowledge visible.

ii


Kurzfassung Vogel, Eva. 2018. Verwendung von Heilpflanzen in Hausgärten auf biologischen und konventionellen landwirtschaftlichen Betrieben in Osttirol, Österreich. Masterarbeit an der Universität für Bodenkultur Wien.

Hausgärten sind gartenbaulich genutzte Flächen, in denen ein-, zwei- und mehrjährige Pflanzen angebaut werden um verschiedene Bedürfnisse zu erfüllen, wie die Versorgung mit Nahrungs- oder Heilmitteln. Im Jahr 1998 untersuchten Vogl & Vogl-Lukasser (2003) Pflanzenzusammensetzung und verwendung in 196 Hausgärten Osttirols. Ziel dieser Masterarbeit ist es die Verwendung von Heilpflanzen der GärtnerInnen zu untersuchen und Ergebnisse aus den Jahren 1998 und 2018 zu vergleichen. Im Frühjahr und Sommer 2018 wurden Vorkommen und Häufigkeit von Kulturpflanzen in 62 Hausgärten auf 14 biologischen und 48 konventionellen landwirtschaftlichen Betrieben in elf Gemeinden Osttirols aufgenommen. Die GärtnerInnen wurden zu Person, Haushalt und Pflanzennutzung befragt. Zusätzlich wurden 17 der GärtnerInnen eingehend über die Verwendung von Heilpflanzen befragt. Die Anzahl der pro GärtnerInnen verwendeten Heilpflanzen unterschied sich unwesentlich zwischen den Jahren 1998 und 2018. In beiden Jahren wurden Calendula officinalis L., Salvia L. sp. und Matricaria recutita L. am häufigsten für Heilzwecke verwendet und waren die Pflanzenfamilien Lamiaceae und Asteraceae am häufigsten vertreten. Im Jahr 1998 gab es eine positive Korrelation zwischen Alter der GärtnerInnen und Anzahl verwendeter Heilpflanzen, nicht jedoch im Jahr 2018. Die Anzahl verwendeter Heilpflanzen unterschied sich in beiden Jahren nicht zwischen GärtnerInnen von biologischen und konventionellen Betrieben. Ergebnisse der Teilstichprobe aus dem Jahr 2018 zeigen, dass Kräutertee die häufigste Zubereitungsmethode war. Beim Menschen wurden am häufigsten Atemwegserkrankungen (20,8 %), Entzündungen (18,1 %) und Verletzungen (15,3 %) behandelt. Bei Tieren behandelten GärterInnen am häufigsten Verletzungen (32,2 %), Entzündungen (22,6 %) und Verdauungsstörungen (16,1 %). Diese und ähnliche Forschungsarbeiten über die Verwendung von Heilpflanzen können dazu beitragen ethnomedizinisches Wissen zu erhalten und weiterzutragen.

iii


Table of contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 2. Literature review ............................................................................................................ 2 2.1. Definition of and research on homegardens .................................................................. 2 2.2. Definition of medicinal plants ......................................................................................... 4 2.3. Uses of medicinal plants ................................................................................................. 5 2.3.1. Uses for human treatment .................................................................................................... 5 2.3.2. Ethnoveterinary uses ............................................................................................................. 9 2.3.3. The food-medicine continuum ............................................................................................ 10

2.4. Differences in knowledge and use of medicinal plants ................................................ 10 2.4.1. Gardener’s age affecting knowledge and use of medicinal plants ...................................... 10 2.4.2. Homegardens of organic compared to non-organic farms ................................................. 11 2.4.3. Accessibility affecting the use of medicinal plants .............................................................. 12

3. Subject of interest ........................................................................................................ 12 3.1. Aims .............................................................................................................................. 12 3.2. Research questions ....................................................................................................... 13 3.3. Hypotheses ................................................................................................................... 13 4. Methods ....................................................................................................................... 14 4.1. Study area ..................................................................................................................... 14 4.2. Research strategy ......................................................................................................... 15 4.3. Interview partners ........................................................................................................ 15 4.4. Data collection .............................................................................................................. 16 4.4.1. “Homegrown” data collection ............................................................................................. 16 4.4.2. Subsample data collection .................................................................................................. 17

4.5. Data saving ................................................................................................................... 19 4.6. Data analysis ................................................................................................................. 19 4.6.1. Statistical data analysis ....................................................................................................... 19 4.6.2. Qualitative data analysis ..................................................................................................... 21

iv


4.7. Material and equipment ............................................................................................... 21 4.8. Consideration of ethical implications ........................................................................... 22 5. Results .......................................................................................................................... 22 5.1. Diversity of medicinal plant taxa used in the years 1998 and 2018 ............................. 22 5.2. Medicinal plant taxa composition in the years 1998 and 2018 .................................... 23 5.2.1. Most common medicinal plant taxa .................................................................................... 23 5.2.2. Changes in medicinal plant taxa composition ..................................................................... 25

5.3. Most represented plant families in the years 1998 and 2018 ...................................... 27 5.4. Factors influencing medicinal plant use in the years 1998 and 2018 ........................... 28 5.4.1. Influence of age on the use of medicinal plants .................................................................. 28 5.4.2. Gardeners of organic farms compared to non-organic farms ............................................. 29

5.5. The food-medicine continuum in the years 1998 and 2018 ......................................... 31 5.6. Uses of medicinal plants within the subsample in the year 2018 ................................ 33 5.6.1. Overview of use reports ...................................................................................................... 33 5.6.2. Medicinal plants used for human treatment ...................................................................... 35 5.6.2.1. Ailment categories and commonly represented plant taxa ........................................................ 35 5.6.2.2. Use reports for human treatment ............................................................................................... 37

5.6.3. Ethnoveterinary uses of medicinal plants ........................................................................... 51 5.6.3.1. Ailment categories and represented plant taxa .......................................................................... 51 5.6.3.2. Ethnoveterinary use reports ....................................................................................................... 51

5.6.4. Non-medicinal uses and primary uses of medicinal plants ................................................. 55 5.6.5. Gardeners’ use of common 1998 medicinal plants ............................................................. 57 5.6.6. Reasons for no longer using medicinal plants ..................................................................... 58

5.7. Sources of medicinal plants in the year 2018 ............................................................... 60 6. Discussion .................................................................................................................... 61 6.1. Diversity and composition of medicinal plants ............................................................. 61 6.2. Most represented plant families .................................................................................. 62 6.3. Factors influencing medicinal plant use ....................................................................... 63 6.4. The food-medicine continuum ..................................................................................... 63 v


6.5. Uses of medicinal plants within the subsample in the year 2018 ................................ 64 6.5.1. Medicinal plants used for human treatment ...................................................................... 64 6.5.2. Ethnoveterinary uses of medicinal plants ........................................................................... 65 6.5.3. Non-medicinal uses and primary uses of medicinal plants ................................................. 65 6.5.4. Reasons for no longer using medicinal plants ..................................................................... 65

6.6. Sources of medicinal plants .......................................................................................... 66 7. Conclusion and outlook ................................................................................................ 67 8. Summary ...................................................................................................................... 68 9. References .................................................................................................................... 70 10. List of figures .............................................................................................................. 74 11. List of tables ............................................................................................................... 75 12. List of appendices ....................................................................................................... 76 13. Appendix .................................................................................................................... 77

vi


1. Introduction According to statistics by the World Health Organization (WHO) about 70-80 % of the world’s population primarily depend on traditional herbal medicine as their main source to fulfill basic healthcare needs (Bodeker et al., 2005; Hamilton, 2004). Herbal medicines are derived from plants and plant materials holding medicinal properties (Calapai, 2008) and are used in many regions and across all social classes (Disch, Drewe, & Fricker, 2017). Especially people from developing countries ascribe high values to medicinal plants, because many species can contribute to their income, livelihood security, cultural identity and healthcare (Ekor, 2014; Hamilton, 2004). Also in European countries public interest in herbal medicine has increased within the past decade (Ekor, 2014; Leonti & Verpoorte, 2017). Its use for disease prevention and treatment is increasingly preferred over the use of conventional medicine that might contain harmful chemicals (Disch et al., 2017). This is because people perceive the use of herbal medicine to be a more holistic and less detrimental way to sustain health and to treat diseases (Leonti & Verpoorte, 2017). On the one hand accessibility to medicinal plants in Europe is provided through sales in shops and markets and on the other hand through wild harvests and self-cultivation (Leonti & Verpoorte, 2017). Self-cultivation is practiced in private spaces, such as homegardens (Leonti & Verpoorte, 2017) that are often able to fulfill a variety of family needs, such as providing medicinal plants (Eyzaguirre & Linares, 2004; Galluzzi, Eyzaguirre, & Negri, 2010). Homegardens ensure in addition to pleasure of gardening and trust in the quality of produce, also high self-sufficiency and require low external inputs (Vogl-Lukasser, Vogl, & Bolhár-Nordenkampf, 2002; Vogl & Vogl-Lukasser, 2003). Despite the potential of European homegardens to act as a source of self-cultivated medicinal plants, little research is available up to date. Foundation of this thesis is the study from 1998 by Vogl & Vogl-Lukasser (2003) who investigated plant species composition and use in 196 homegardens of Eastern Tyrol, Austria. In the year 2018 the study from 20 years ago was repeated in the context of the project “Homegrown – There is nothing like a homegarden!” led by Prof. Dr. Christian R. Vogl. To get a better insight into medicinal plants that are grown and used in homegardens in the year 2018, a closer look at the practices involved is needed. These practices depend on the person who is in charge of the homegarden – herein referred to a gardener. Documenting ethnobotanical practices of the gardeners related to medicinal plants is not only important for gardeners who desire to fulfill subsistence of medicinal plants in their gardens, but also for the general public in both rural and urban areas driven by their rising interest in herbal medicine – such as in the context of alternative agricultural movements like urban gardening or community gardens that are recently sprouting in many European cities (Lohrberg et al., 2016).

1


2. Literature review 2.1. Definition of and research on homegardens Homegardens in tropical regions – also known under synonyms like household, homestead, backyard or house gardens (Kumar & Nair, 2004) – are defined as multistory microenvironments characterized by a specific structure of several strata that often include trees, shrubs, annual and perennial plant species which are cultivated around the gardener’s homestead (Eyzaguirre & Linares, 2004; Kumar & Nair, 2004). In contrast, in temperate regions homegardens do not necessarily have to include trees by definition but are generally described as small cultivation spaces close to the farmers’ household, where annual, biennial and perennial cultivated plants are grown (Vogl-Lukasser & Vogl, 2018). The horticultural area of homegardens is most commonly used for cultivation of vegetable, fruit and herb species that are devoted for household use (Kumar & Nair, 2004) with the result of generating “secondary direct or indirect income” (Niñez, 1984). Main characteristics of homegardens are complex structures and multifunctional land-use systems, thereof the gardeners themselves as well as ecosystems can benefit (Galluzzi et al., 2010). Homegardens can be found in both urban and rural areas (Galhena, Freed, & Maredia, 2013). Several authors defined the term homegarden, yet there is no universally agreed upon definition (tab. 1). Homegardens are important agricultural systems as they provide numerous benefits for the gardeners and the environment by holding social, cultural, economic, environmental and ecological values. That is, homegardens can create space for a social and cultural ground where knowledge exchange of agricultural practices between different generations and households happens (Galluzzi et al., 2010). Additionally, homegardens are described to be multifunctional land-use system that often comprise a variety of plant species and hence accomplish a number of uses to fulfill family needs through the cultivation of plants used for food, fuel, fiber, animal fodder, ornamentals, medicine and more (Eyzaguirre & Linares, 2004; Galluzzi et al., 2010; Vogl-Lukasser & Vogl, 2004). An economic value can be attributed to homegardens as they enable self-supply of foodstuff and other goods as well as the potential of additional income through sales and services resulting in improvement of the gardeners’ livelihood (Galluzzi et al., 2010; Kumar & Nair, 2004). Homegardens gain more and more attentation on a global scale but especially in developing countries with their potential to ensure food and nutritional security of households (Galhena et al., 2013). Furthermore, the role of homegardens as a source of biodiversity and its multiple environmental and ecological benefits are well known (Galhena et al., 2013) and therefore homegardens are often described as ‘hotspots for agrobiodiversity’ (Eyzaguirre & Linares, 2004; Galluzzi et al., 2010). In particular homegardens are linked to the preservation of traditional crop varieties (Galluzzi et al., 2010). 2


Table 1 Definitions of the term homegarden over time (years 1984 – 2018). Bold: Homegardens’ main characteristics. Authors

Definitions of the term homegarden

Notes

Niñez (1984)

“The household garden is a subsystem within larger food procurement systems which aims at production of household consumption items either not obtainable, readily availabe, or affordable through field agriculture, shifting cultivation, hunting, gathering, fishing, livestock husbandry, or wage earning. Household gardens supply and supplement subistence requirements and generate secondary direct or indirect income. They tend to be located close to permanent or semi-permanent dwellings for convenience and security.”

Based on research and observations of homegardens in developed and developing countries from five continents

Vogl & Vogl-Lukasser (2003)

“The terms homegarden or garden refer in this paper to the small, fenced Study from the year 1998 in plot close to the farmers' homestead, where annual, biennial and Eastern Tyrol, Austria perennial cultivated species are grown in beds.”

Kumar & Nair (2004)

“Intimate, multi-story combinations of various trees and crops, sometimes in association with domestic animals, around homesteads.”

Not a real definition but a concept homegardens refer to

Landon-Lane (2004)

“The most important characteristics of home gardens are their location adjacent to homes, close association with family activities and a wide diversity of crop and livestock species to meet family needs. They have played a central role in household security for food, fuel, fibre, materials and even land ownership, as people changed from an exclusively hunting and gathering lifestyle and settled in small communities.”

Published in FAO Diversification booklet 2

EIONET (2017)

“A plot of cultivated ground adjacent to a dwelling and usually devoted in whole or in part to the growing of herbs, fruits, flowers, or vegetables for household use.”

EIONET = European Environment Information and Observation Network

Vogl-Lukasser & Vogl (2018)

“Farmers’ home gardens […] are small, manually operated horticultural cultivation spaces adjacent to the farmers’ households, in which annual, biennial and perennial cultivated plants are grown”

Study from the year 2013 in Eastern Tyrol, Austria

Opposite to the multiple benefits, several constraints related to establishing and maintaining homegardens are mentioned in literature. Major constraints are foremost limited access to suitable land as well as lacking ownership or usage rights as basic requirements for setting up a homegarden (Galhena et al., 2013). Further, the establishment of homegardens is often restricted by lacking access to capital, water, agricultural material, labor and other (Galhena et al., 2013). Research on homegardens is manifold and includes many different foci being researched such as biodiversity, soil characteristics, crop yield, nutrient management and food security (Mellisse et al., 2018; Montagnini, 2006). Another focus of various authors is set on the use and knowledge of medicinal plants grown in homegardens (Gökçebağ & Özden, 2017; Padalia, Bargali, & Bargali, 2015; Raj et al., 2018). The interest in such research is present because medicinal plants represent a highly important component in homegardens all over the world, and especially in developing countries where almost 80 % of the gardeners are using medicinal plants for treating and preventing diseases or fostering health in both humans and livestock (Rao & Rajeswara Rao, 2006).

3


Homegardens are a worldwide phenomenon and exist in both tropical and temperate regions (Niñez, 1984). However, past and current research predominantly focuses on homegardens in tropical regions of South and Central America, Africa and South Asia (Kumar & Nair, 2004; Mellisse et al., 2018; Montagnini, 2006; Rao & Rajeswara Rao, 2006). That means most research is done on homegardens in developing countries. Thus, rather little research on homegardens located in temperate regions of developed countries is available (Galhena et al., 2013; Galluzzi et al., 2010). Moreover, up to date there is only few literature published on European homegardens (Agelet, Bonet, & Vallès, 2000; Holl, 2005; Reyes-García et al., 2010). In the specific case of Austria there is only a small number of researcher studying Austrian homegardens with a focus on homegardens in Eastern Tyrol, yet not with a specific emphasis on the use of medicinal plants (Vogl-Lukasser & Vogl, 2004; Vogl-Lukasser, Vogl, Gütler, & Heckler, 2010; Vogl & Vogl-Lukasser, 2003).

2.2. Definition of medicinal plants In literature various terms related to medicinal plants are used, such as herbal medicines, herbal medicinal products, herbal preparations and herbal substances and it should be clearly differentiated between (tab. 2). Following Fellows' (1991) definition, medicinal plants are plants that contain one or more substances which have beneficial effects on the physiology of sick mammals and which are purposively used by man for that exact matter. Herbal medicine in contrast is defined as a category of plant products that are used for therapeutic effects (Calapai, 2008). The European Medicines Agency (EMA) gives detailed definitions of herbal medicinal products, herbal preparations and herbal substances (tab. 2). The knowledge and use of plants as medicine goes back for thousands of years (Phillipson, 2001; Samuelsson, 2004). Various uses of plants for the treatment and prevention of diseases were already documented in written form by the ancient Chinese, Indians and North Africans (Phillipson, 2001), as well as in ancient Greece medicinal plants were already used for a long time. The Greek philosopher and botanist Theophrastus who lived from 371-287 BC is often described as the ‘father of botany’ for his studies on (medicinal) plants (Phillipson, 2001). Around 40-90 AD the Greek physician, botanist and pharmacologist Pedanius Dioscorides described the importance of cultivated and gathered vegetable and crop species not only as food but also as medicine (Leonti, 2012; Leonti et al., 2010). Back then medicinal plants were used in form of untreated drugs by preparing powders, tinctures, herbal teas or other herbal formulas (Samuelsson, 2004).

4


Table 2 Definitions of medicinal plants, herbal medicines, herbal medicinal products, herbal preparations and herbal substances. Authors

Definitions

Notes

Fellows (1991)

“The term ‘medicinal’ as applied to a plant indicates that it contains a substance or substances which modulate beneficially the physiology of sick mammals, and that it has been used by man for that purpose.”

Calapai (2008)

“Herbal medicines are considered a category of products used for therapeutic purposes that are derived from plants and plant materials.”

EMA (2011) European Medicines Agency

“Herbal medicinal products: any medicinal product, exclusively containing as active substances one or more herbal substances or one or more herbal preparations, or one or more such herbal substances in combination with one or more such herbal preparations.”


“Herbal preparations: are obtained by subjecting herbal substances to treatments such as extraction, distillation, expression, fractionation, purification, concentration or fermentation. These include comminuted or powdered herbal substances, tinctures, extracts, essential oils, expressed juices and processed exudates.”

‘herbal preparation’ equivalent to ‘herbal drug preparation’ as defined in the European Pharmacopoeia” (EMA, 2006).


“Herbal substances: all mainly whole, fragmented or cut plants, plant parts, algae, fungi, lichen in an unprocessed, usually dried form but sometimes fresh. Certain exudates that have not been subjected to a specific treatment are also considered to be herbal substances. Herbal substances are precisely defined by the plant part used and the botanical name according to the binomial system (genus, species, variety and author).”

‘herbal substance’ equivalent to ‘herbal drug’ as defined in the European Pharmacopoeia” (EMA, 2006).

2.3. Uses of medicinal plants 2.3.1. Uses for human treatment It is estimated that in Europe more than 1,300 plant species are used for herbal medicines, of which most (90 %) are retrieved from wild harvests (Chen et al., 2016). Studies from across Europe document various uses of medicinal plants in folk medicine in form of homemade remedies. The following table (tab. 3) lists a selection of plant taxa that are commonly used in folk medicine in several European countries (Turkey, Italy, Montenegro, Albania) for the treatment of specific ailments occurring in humans. Almost all plant taxa listed are native to Austria, except Allium cepa L. cepa Grp., Calendula officinalis L. and Salvia verticillata L., yet are cultivated in Austria (IPK Gatersleben, 2018). The four studies from Turkey, Italy, Montenegro and Albania (Kültür, 2007; Mattalia, Quave, & Pieroni, 2013; Menkovic et al., 2011; Pieroni, 2017) report common ailments that are sought to be treated with herbal remedies such as gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases, influenza, cold, fever, treatment of wounds, urinary tract ailments, skin problems, cardiovascular diseases, rheumatic diseases and more. Common preparation methods of medicinal plants are fresh use (crushing, cutting), herbal tea, oil,

5


salve, decoction, infusion, heating and maceration. Plant parts used are either aerial parts – mostly leaves but sometimes also flowers, bulbs and fruits –, roots or a combination. Certain plant species stand out for their popular use to treat multiple human ailments (tab. 3). This is for one Matricaria recutita L. (common chamomile) from the Asteraceae family of which the flowering tops are used and prepared as infusion or herbal tea for the treatment of bronchitis, asthma, cough, cold, influenza, fever, diarrhea, stomach ache, wounds and burns, and is used as anti-inflammatory agent for inflammations of the gastrointestinal tract, skin, mouth or pharynx (Kültür, 2007; Mattalia et al., 2013; Menkovic et al., 2011; Pieroni, 2017). Furthermore, the leaves and roots of Urtica dioica L. (common nettle) from the Urticaceae family are used in fresh form, as infusion or decoction to treat cough, asthma, bronchitis, stomach ache, fever, skin complaints, hemorrhoids, edema, nephritis, arthritis, anemia and neuralgia. Urtica dioica L. is also used as depurative, anti-rheumatic, analgesic and anti-inflammatory agent especially for inflammations of the urinary tract (Kültür, 2007; Mattalia et al., 2013; Menkovic et al., 2011). Further common plant taxa of the family Asteraceae used for their medicinal effects are Achillea millefolium L., Arnica montana L., Calendula officinalis L. and Taraxacum sect. ruderalia Kirschner (tab. 3). Common uses in folk medicine of the taxa Allium cepa L. cepa Grp., Chelidonium majus L., Filipendula ulmaria (L.) Maxim., Plantago lanceolata L., Salvia L. sp. and Sambucus nigra L. are listed as well (tab. 3). The study from the year 1998 on homegardens in Austria revealed that digestive trouble, colds and inflammations are the most common illnesses that were sought to be treated with medicinal plants within the 196 homegardens studied (Vogl & Vogl-Lukasser, 2003).

6


Table 3 Plant taxa that are used in folk medicine in several European countries (Turkey, Italy, Montenegro and Albania). Botanical taxa and plant family are given as well as plant part(s) used, preparation method and ailments treated respectively. Moreover, appearance of the plant taxa in Austria is mentioned. Botanical taxon, family

Plant part(s) Preparation method used

Ailments treated

Authors

Status in Austria

Achillea millefolium L., Asteraceae

Flowers

Eating dried flowers

Diarrhea, stomach diseases

Kültür (2007)

Aerial parts

n/a

Loss of appetite, diarrhea, cramps, hemorrhoids, menstrual complaints, inflammation of the skin

Menkovic et al. (2011)

Native, cultivated

Herbal tea

Externally applied to eye inflammations

Pieroni (2017)

Allium cepa L. cepa Grp., Bulbs Liliaceae

Externally applied with salt

Treatment of bruises

Pieroni (2017)

Cultivated

Rubbed with salt

Sprain, bruises, edema

Kültür (2007)

Heated

Inflamed wounds

Excreted inside, oil and soap

Wounds, analgesic

Heated and crushed

Hemorrhoids, laxative

Flowers

Bulbs

Arnica montana L., Asteraceae

Flowers, leaves

Leaves macerated in oil

Use as anti-inflammatory, treatment of bruises

Mattalia et al. (2013)

Native, cultivated

Calendula officinalis L., Asteraceae

Aerial parts

Salve

Psoriasis

Kültür (2007)

Neophyte, cultivated

Chelidonium majus L., Papaveraceae

Leaves

n/a

Externally applied on skin inflammations


Native

Latex

Fresh

Inflamed wounds, eczema, warts, itching, hemostatic

Kültür (2007)

Aerial parts

n/a

Liver and gallbladder complaints, externally for skin conditions (blister rashes, scabies, warts)


Filipendula ulmaria (L.) Maxim., Rosaceae

Flowers

n/a

Cough, bronchitis, fever, cold, rheumatism of joints and muscles


Native

Matricaria recutita L., Asteraceae

Flowers

n/a

Inflammation of gastrointestinal tract, skin, mouth or pharynx, cough, bronchitis, fever, colds, wounds, burns


Native, cultivated

Flowering tops

Infusion

Anti- inflammatory and mild laxative


Flowering tops

Infusion

Cough, asthma, bronchitis, stomach ache, cold, flu, kidney stones, antiinflammatory

Kültür (2007)

Flowering tops

Herbal tea

Intestinal discomforts, diarrhea, cough

Pieroni (2017)

7


Table 3 continued

Botanical taxon, family Plantago lanceolata L., Plantaginaceae

Plant part(s) Preparation method used

Ailments treated

Authors

Status in Austria

Leaves

Fresh, externally applied

Relief of pain (animal bites)


Native, cultivated

Leaves

n/a

Cold, cough, bronchitis, fevers, externally, inflammation of mouth, pharynx and skin


Leaves

Fresh

Inflamed wounds, cuts, wounds

Kültür (2007)

Leaves

n/a

Digestive infusion and stomachic


Native (S. pratensis)

Leaves

Decoction

Cardiovascular diseases

Kültür (2007)

Flowers

Syrups and decoction

Compresses as an eye anti- inflammatory


Native, cultivated

Flowers

Heated with bran

Externally applied on pains (esp. children)

Fruits

Jam

Laxative, diarrhea

Flowers, fruits

n/a

Colds, influenza, fruits in diarrhea


Taraxacum sect. ruderalia Kirschner, Asteraceae

Leaves

Infusion

Digestion


Flowers

Infusion

Depurative

Native, cultivated

Urtica dioica L., Urticaceae

Leaves

Infusion

Depurative, anti-rheumatic


Roots, leaves

n/a

Menkovic et al. (2011) Blood purifier, fever, arthritis, anemia, inflammatory diseases of urinary tract, skin complaints, neuralgia, hemorrhoids, hair problems

Native, cultivated

Roots

Decoction

Nephritis, stomach ache, baldness, prostatitis, cough, asthma, bronchitis

Kültür (2007)

Leaves

Decoction

Stomach ache, antiemetic, cough, asthma, bronchitis

Fresh, cutting

Analgesic

Boiling

Edema

Salvia L. sp., Lamiaceae

Sambucus nigra L., Caprifoliaceae

8

Neophyte (S. verticillata)


2.3.2. Ethnoveterinary uses On a European scale, data on ethnoveterinary uses (practices to prevent and cure animal diseases and ailments) of medicinal plants is available for only 12 European countries, whereat research from Italy, Spain and Turkey provides most extensive and comprehensive data (Mayer et al., 2014). Some current literature on ethnoveterinary knowledge and use of medicinal plants for both Austria (Scheuch, 2016; Vogl, Vogl-Lukasser, & Walkenhorst, 2016) and Switzerland (Bischoff et al., 2016; Disler et al., 2014; Mayer et al., 2017; Schmid et al., 2012) is available as well. Studies from both Austria and Switzerland show that most livestock farmers hold knowledge about medicinal plants and actually used a wide range of medicinal plants in various preparations for the treatment of ailments occurring in livestock (Bischoff et al., 2016; Disler et al., 2014; Mayer et al., 2017; Schmid et al., 2012; Vogl et al., 2016). The most common livestock species treated with herbal remedies is cattle, followed by the small ruminants sheep and goats (Bischoff et al., 2016; Disler et al., 2014; Mayer et al., 2017; Scheuch, 2016). To a much smaller extent pigs, poultry and horses are treated (Mayer et al., 2017, 2014). A study from Switzerland on plant based homemade remedies that are used for the treatment of livestock shows that most often remedies are used for therapeutic measures (93 %), and only rarely (7 %) in a preventative matter (Bischoff et al., 2016). Especially in the context of organic farming, fodder and feeding was mentioned to be one of the most important aspects in order to prevent diseases and ensure health and welfare of livestock (Vogl et al., 2016). The most relevant plant family within ethnoveterinary uses is the Asteraceae family and most often documented plant species used for herbal remedies are Matricaria recutita L., Calendula officinalis L. (belonging both to Asteraceae) and Urtica dioica L. (Bischoff et al., 2016; Disler et al., 2014; Mayer et al., 2017; Scheuch, 2016; Schmid et al., 2012). Plant parts most commonly used are leaves, flowers, fruits, seeds and berries depending on the plant species (Bischoff et al., 2016; Disler et al., 2014; Scheuch, 2016). Within ethnoveterinary practices medicinal plants are most commonly used for the treatment of skin disorders and sores, gastrointestinal diseases and metabolic dysfunctions present in livestock species (Bischoff et al., 2016; Disler et al., 2014; Mayer et al., 2017). For the treatment of gastrointestinal diseases, the species Matricaria recutita L., Coffea arabica L. and Linum usitatissimum L. are most commonly used (Bischoff et al., 2016; Disler et al., 2014; Schmid et al., 2012). Also for the treatment of skin disorders Matricaria recutita L. is mentioned among plant species most commonly used next to Calendula officinalis L. and Picea abies (L.) Karst. (Bischoff et al., 2016; Disler et al., 2014; Schmid et al., 2012).

9


2.3.3. The food-medicine continuum Homegardens are not only a source of food but can also act as a source of medicinal plants among other products that are used to fulfill family needs. However, plants are not necessarily limited to a mere single function severing as either foodstuff or medicine. The theory about the so called foodmedicine continuum describes a dual functionality of many plant species that can serve both a nutritional and medicinal purpose (Leonti, 2014; Pieroni & Price, 2006; Towns & Andel, 2016). Medicinal effects are especially accredited to many cultivated or wild-gathered plant species that generate fruits, vegetables and spices. The consumption of these kind of food items is recognized to foster health as well as to prevent diseases next to their nutritional values (Leonti, 2012). Already around 40-90 AD the Greek botanist Dioscorides declared within his pharmacopoeia De Materia Medica – one of the most influential books about herbal drug-making – the significant role of cultivated and gathered vegetable and crop species both as food and medicine (Leonti, 2012; Leonti et al., 2010). More recently several studies on homegardens from across the world also demonstrate the dual function of certain plant species that exhibit both nutritional and medicinal values. A study on homegardens in Benin, Africa lists numerous plant species that were used both as food and medicine such as Lactuca sativa L., Zea mays L. and Solanum lycopersicum L. (Salako et al., 2014). In homegardens of Mexico a couple of plant species such as Aloe vera (L.) Burm. f. and Rosmarinus officinalis L. were reported to be used for both purposes as well (Oritz-Sánchez et al., 2015). Moreover, results of a study from Catalonia indicate medicinal uses of a large proportion of plants species cultivated in homegardens next to their primary nutritional uses (Rigat, Garnatje, & Vallès, 2011). The species Lactuca sativa L., Solanum lycopersicum L. and Rosmarinus officinalis L. were also reported to be commonly grown in Austrian homegardens, however a dual function in the use of these species was not explicitly mentioned (Vogl-Lukasser & Vogl, 2004; Vogl & Vogl-Lukasser, 2003).

2.4. Differences in knowledge and use of medicinal plants 2.4.1. Gardener’s age affecting knowledge and use of medicinal plants Knowledge and use of medicinal plants may be influenced by certain demographic characteristics such as age, sex, education level and other (Ayantunde et al., 2008; Quinlan & Quinlan, 2007). Supposedly ethnobotanical knowledge accumulates with increasing age through the life cycle (Beltrán-Rodríguez et al., 2014). Several studies show a positive correlation between respondents’ age and knowledge and use of medicinal plants. One study that investigated knowledge of medicinal plants held by people from the regional state Afar in Ethiopia found that older informants (age 40 ≤ 70) were significantly more knowledgeable about medicinal plants compared to younger informants (age 18 ≤ 39)

10


(Teklehaymanot, 2017). Another study from Benin shows that people within the age classes 30-60 years and over 60 years mentioned a significantly higher number of medicinal plants used for diabetes treatment than younger people (Laleye, Mensah, Assogbadjo, & Ahissou, 2015). Furthermore, two studies from Brazil present similar results: one study that looked into intracultural variation in the knowledge of medicinal plants in a community of Northeastern Brazil shows a positive correlation between number of medicinal plants known and respondents’ age (de Almeida et al., 2012). Greatest knowledge about medicinal plants held by women occurred in the age class 49-58 (109 species) and held by men in the age class 59-68 (89 species). In subsequent age groups however a decrease in the number of medicinal plants known was observed, which is explained by memory loss with increasing age (de Almeida et al., 2012). In another study from Brazil a correlation between use of medicinal plants and increasing age was reported (Wayland & Walker, 2014).

2.4.2. Homegardens of organic compared to non-organic farms The knowledge and actual use of medicinal plants can vary within the same geographical area among gardeners. One factor that could explain these variations might be the management type of the farms homegardens belong to (organic compared to non-organic). Homegardens can get certified organic, however in the year 1998 it was only documented whether the farms to which the homegardens belong were certified organic or not (Vogl & Vogl-Lukasser, 2003). In the specific case of Austria the study by Vogl and Vogl-Lukasser (2003) from the year 1998 showed that almost half of the 196 homegardens in Eastern Tyrol belonged to organic farms. Back then a total of 1,830 farms were managed in Eastern Tyrol, of which 574 were certified organic (Vogl & Vogl-Lukasser, 2003). Organic farming in the EU and thus in Austria is regulated by the European Council Regulations on Organic Farming no. 834/2007 and no. 889/2008 (Bundesministerium für Arbeit, Soziales, Gesundheit und Konsumentenschutz 2015). According to these regulations organic livestock production has to maintain certain rules on disease prevention and treatment of animals. The preventative use of chemically-synthetic allopathic veterinary medicine (including antibiotics) is forbidden and only to be used under very strict circumstances (Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union, 2007 & 2008). The regulations stipulate a preferable use of phytotherapeutic and homeopathic medicines for prevention and treatment of livestock diseases (Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union, 2008). This in turn might imply that gardeners of organic farms have a greater incentive to use medicinal plants and thereof derived herbal medicines for ethnoveterinary uses in comparison to gardeners of non-organic farms. Studies from Switzerland on herbal remedies used in ethnoveterinary medicine indicate the importance that organic farmers ascribe to the use of homemade herbal remedies for the treatment of their livestock (Disler et al., 2014; Schmid et al., 2012). 11


However, in opposition to that, the study from the year 1998 on homegardens in Eastern Tyrol did not report significant differences regarding occurrence and abundance of medicinal plants used in homegardens of organic farms compared to non-organic farms (Vogl & Vogl-Lukasser, 2003).

2.4.3. Accessibility affecting the use of medicinal plants Availability and accessibility of herbal medicine and herbal remedies has increased within the past years, as it is nowadays offered not only in pharmacies and drug stores but also in supermarkets and food stores (Ekor, 2014). Access to herbal medicinal products in Austria is provided through pharmacies but also through the wide spread drug store dm drogerie markt to mention one example. dm drogerie markt offers – next to food and sanitary items – a wide range of medicinal products, many of them plant based (dm drogerie markt, 2018). Thus, another factor that might influence cultivation and use of medicinal plants in homegardens is nowadays convenient access to and higher affordability of medicinal products. In the study from the year 1998 in Eastern Tyrol, Austrian gardeners stated that because of well-established and more affordable medical supply at that time, the need for selfcultivation of medicinal plants and thereof derived herbal remedies for the treatment of humans and animals was not as exigent anymore (Vogl & Vogl-Lukasser, 2003).

3. Subject of interest 3.1. Aims Aim of the study is to compare the diversity and composition of medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners in 62 homegardens of Eastern Tyrol in the year 2018 with data obtained in the year 1998, and hence to point out potential changes over time. Furthermore, factors that might affect gardeners’ use of medicinal plants in the year 2018 are inquired into and discussed in the context of the former research. This is done by (1) identifying whether or not the use of medicinal plants correlates with gardeners’ age and (2) by comparing gardeners of organic and non-organic farms regarding their use of medicinal plants to document potential differences. The study also aims to reveal which medicinal plant taxa are mainly used for their single medicinal purpose and which are used both as medicine and food. Moreover, data obtained from a subsample of 17 homegardens should provide detailed information about (i) uses of medicinal plants for human treatment, (ii) ethnoveterinary uses of medicinal plants, (iii) primary uses of medicinal plants (e.g. use as foodstuff, medicine, etc.), (iv) most common medicinal plant taxa in the year 1998 and their use in the year 2018 and (v) reasons for no longer using medicinal plants. Last but not least the study aims to depict gardeners’ sources of medicinal plants other than the homegardens itself. Based on the study’s aims and findings of the literature review, the following research questions and hypotheses were formulated and are addressed within this study. 12


3.2. Research questions RQ1

What has changed in the diversity and composition of medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners between the years 1998 (Vogl & Vogl-Lukasser, 2003) and 2018?

RQ2

What are medicinal plants primarily used for by gardeners in the year 2018?

RQ3

What are gardeners’ reasons for no longer using medicinal plants in the year 2018?

3.3. Hypotheses H1

Plant species commonly used in European folk medicine for the treatment of ailments in humans and animals are Matricaria recutita L., Calendula officinalis L. and Urtica dioica L. (Bischoff et al., 2016; Disler et al., 2014; Kültür, 2007; Mattalia et al., 2013; Mayer et al., 2017; Menkovic et al., 2011; Pieroni, 2017; Scheuch, 2016; Schmid et al., 2012) and are expected to be among the most common medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners of Eastern Tyrol.

H2

Studies from the Western Italian Alps and Montenegro reported the families Asteraceae, Lamiaceae and Rosaceae to be most often represented by medicinal plants used (Mattalia et al., 2013; Menkovic et al., 2011). In the case of Eastern Tyrol, it is expected that gardeners use most commonly medicinal plant taxa belonging to these families as well.

H3

Studies from Africa and Brazil show a positive correlation between respondents’ age and their knowledge and use of medicinal plants (de Almeida et al., 2012; Laleye et al., 2015; Teklehaymanot, 2017; Wayland & Walker, 2014), therefore within this study it is expected that gardeners of older age use a greater variety of medicinal plant taxa compared to younger gardeners.

H4

In the year 1998 no significant differences were documented between homegardens of organic and non-organic farms in regard to occurrence of medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners (Vogl & Vogl-Lukasser, 2003). Same results are expected in the year 2018.

H5

Several authors documented a dual function of certain plant taxa both as food and medicine (Oritz-Sánchez et al., 2015; Rigat et al., 2011; Salako et al., 2014). Thus, it is expected that many medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners serve both a medicinal and nutritional purpose.

H6

In the study from the year 1998 gardeners did not depend on their own formulas anymore due to well-established and affordable medical supply (Vogl & Vogl-Lukasser, 2003). Leading to the assumption that in the year 2018 gardeners use less medicinal plants from their homegardens but rather purchase them from external sources such as pharmacies, online, drugstores or other stores. 13


4. Methods 4.1. Study area In the context of the project “Homegrown”, the study area in the year 2018 was the same as in the study from the year 1998 (Vogl & Vogl-Lukasser, 2003). Ethnobotanical data was collected by the project researchers Dr. Mag. Brigitte Vogl-Lukasser and Dr. Mag. Heidemarie Pirker with my assistance in 62 homegardens that are located in 11 communities (Amlach, Assling, Gaimberg, Innervillgraten, Kals, Matrei in Osttirol, Kartitsch, Nikolsdorf, Obertilliach, St. Veit in Deferregen and Virgen) within the federal state Eastern Tyrol, Austria. Additional interviews were conducted by me in 17 of the same 62 homegardens. Eastern Tyrol – the Austrian part of the Eastern Alps – is situated in the Southwest of Austria (fig. 1) within the temperate climate zone. Published climate data of the town Lienz from the years 1971-2000 indicates a mean annual precipitation of 915 mm and a mean annual temperature of 7°C with an absolute maximum 37.7°C in July and an absolute minimum of -24.7°C in January (Zentralanstalt für Meteorologie und Geodynamik, 2002). Altitudes of the surveyed homegardens range from 600 - 1641 m above sea level.

Germany

Italy

100 km

23.07.18

Master Thesis

I

Farmers’ knowledge and use of medicinal plants grown in homegardens in Lienz (Austria)

I

Eva Vogel

1

1

Figure 1 Map of Austria (top right) showing the Austrian federal states. Ethnobotanical surveys were conducted in 62 2 homegardens located within the federal state Eastern Tyrol, highlighted in orange. Close up map of Eastern Tyrol in the lower 1 left. Sources: Andreas Griessner, retrieved 03.04.2018 from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Austria_all.svg; 2 basemap.at 2018.

14


4.2. Research strategy The research strategy of this study follows a deductive approach as I elaborated hypotheses based on previous research (Newing, 2011). Besides hypotheses also a few research questions are guiding the study which follows an inductive approach (Newing, 2011). Research questions were formulated only in case when there was no research available that could serve as a foundation for hypotheses on the specific topics. For the matter of this study mixed methods were used – both quantitative and qualitative methods as described by Newing (2011) and Bernard (2006). Within the sample of 62 homegardens quantitative data about medicinal plant use was collected in the year 1998 by Dr. Mag. Brigitte Vogl-Lukasser and in the year 2018 by Dr. Mag. Brigitte Vogl-Lukasser and Dr. Mag. Heidemarie Pirker and me. For the sake of this thesis, I conducted quantitative data analysis of medicinal plant use within the 62 homegardens in the years 1998 and 2018. Within the subsample of 17 homegardens I collected qualitative data about gardeners’ use of medicinal plants in the year 2018 that I analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively. The 62 homegardens were selected by random sampling, while the 17 homegardens of the subsample were selected by a targeted sampling strategy (Newing, 2011).

4.3. Interview partners The “Homegrown” project researchers Dr. Mag. Brigitte Vogl-Lukasser and Dr. Mag. Heidemarie Pirker selected by random sampling 72 out of the 196 homegardens that were studied in the year 1998 by Vogl & Vogl-Lukasser (2003). They surveyed all 72 homegardens regarding details about the person, household and garden structures. However, for only 62 homegardens they conducted ethnobotanical surveys as in nine cases structure of the gardens has changed significantly, which made a botanical comparison between the years 1998 and 2018 inappropriate. These nine gardens were no longer clearly circumscribable and/or plants were dispersed to other areas around the house (e.g. a single raised bed at another location). In another case one gardener cancelled due to personal reasons. All of the homegardens belong to farms (either organic or non-organic) and are managed by the women farmers. The interviewed women farmers are herein referred to gardeners and the term homegardens is defined as “small, manually operated horticultural cultivation spaces adjacent to the farmers’ households, in which annual, biennial and perennial cultivated plants are grown”, following the definition by Vogl-Lukasser & Vogl (2018). In 2017 the project researcher visited all 196 homegardens surveyed in the year 1998 in order to get an overview whether the gardens still exist or not. In April 2018 they contacted gardeners of the homegardens via phone in order to request participation of the primary gardeners in the “Homegrown” project. When there was no more homegarden or when gardeners were not willing to participate in the project, another randomly chosen homegarden moved up instead. The primary gardener was defined as the person who 15


reportedly carries out most of the work in the homegarden and is responsible for most of the decisions concerning garden management. This strategy of choosing the primary gardener as interview partners follows an approach as it was done in the study from the year 1998 and by another study on homegardens (Reyes-García et al., 2010; Vogl & Vogl-Lukasser, 2003). Current age of the 62 gardeners ranged from 26 to 87 years, all of whom are female. All 62 homegardens were part of farms, thereof 48 were non-organic and 14 were certified organic according to the European Council Regulations on Organic Farming no. 834/2007 and no. 889/2008 (Bundesministerium für Arbeit, Soziales, 2015). Additionally, Dr. Mag. Brigitte Vogl-Lukasser, Dr. Mag. Heidemarie Pirker and me chose a subsample of 17 out of the 62 homegardens in which I investigated gardeners’ use of medicinal plants in depth. The 17 homegardens were chosen following a targeted sampling strategy (Newing, 2011). Here, gardeners who used the highest number of medicinal plant taxa were selected. Two homegardens of the subsample were on organic farms and 15 were on non-organic farms. All 17 gardeners are female and gardeners’ current age ranged from 35 to 77 years.

4.4. Data collection 4.4.1. “Homegrown” data collection For the purpose of the “Homegrown” project, Dr. Mag. Brigitte Vogl-Lukasser and Dr. Mag. Heidemarie Pirker collected in the year 2018 in 62 homegardens information about the person, household and garden structure as well as ethnobotanical data about all cultivated and non-cultivated (i.e. spontaneously reproducing) plants in the homegardens. Within this study, the term cultivated plant taxa refers to domesticated and wild plants under incipient management (tolerated, encouraged or protected) as described by Vogl-Lukasser & Vogl (2018). In the year 1998 cultivated and non-cultivated plants were inventoried within three surveys – in early May, July and October (Vogl-Lukasser & Vogl, 2018; Vogl & Vogl-Lukasser, 2003). Ethnobotanical surveys in the year 2018 took place in two periods: one period in spring (April – May 2018) where early bloomers were surveyed, and a second period in summer (July – August 2018) where all remaining plants were surveyed, I assisted in the latter. Spoken language in the interviews was German. Interview environment was usually the homegarden itself, in a few cases gardeners had to deal with other tasks during the interviews (e.g. task in the household). The project researchers used for each homegarden a questionnaire inquiring details about the person and household. Within this questionnaire information about gardeners’ sex, age, education, length of homegarden management, function in the homegarden and profession (agriculture or other; full time or part time) was documented. Besides, it was asked for the number of household members, how many of them are under 18 years old and how many are additionally taking care of the garden.

16


Secondly, all cultivated and wild plants grown in the homegardens were inventoried by the project researchers with my assistance and for each plant taxon an ethnobotanical questionnaire was used. Here details about origin, augmentation, cultivation, management and use of the plant as well as the number of individuals were inquired. One potential answer regarding the use, was the use as medicinal plant among others (foodstuff, ornamental, cultural, fertilizer, etc.). Thus this data collection gives information about all plants that were used as for medicinal purposes in each of the 62 homegardens. Inventoried plants were identified by Dr. Mag. Brigitte Vogl-Lukasser and Dr. Mag. Heidemarie Pirker, following identification methods as done by Vogl-Lukasser & Vogl (2018). The nomenclature of inventoried plants is based on Erhardt et al. (2014). The nomenclature of cultivated plants is aligned with the International Code for the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants (ICNCP) and the International Code for the Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants (ICBN). Botanical plant names used in the study from 1998 that were not valid anymore were renamed according to Erhardt et al. (2014), ICNCP and ICBN. The identification of inventoried plants was done at either genus, species (sp.), subspecies (ssp.) or varietas (var.) taxonomical level. Popular garden plants such as species of the genus Rosa L. were summarized under the term Cultivars (e.g. Rosa L. Cultivars) or Groups (e.g. Allium cepa L. cepa Grp.). All different taxonomical levels that plants are identified at are subsequently referred to as ‘plant taxa’ or ‘botanical taxa’.

4.4.2. Subsample data collection For a subsample of 17 out of the 62 homegardens I collected detailed data about gardeners’ use of medicinal plants during the summer collection period in July and August 2018. I interviewed the gardeners of the subsample by using questionnaires with three different sections (section A, B and C). All interviews were audio recorded with the permission of the gardeners. Spoken language was German and interview environment was usually the house or the garden. Questionnaire section A For each homegarden of the subsample I prepared questionnaire section A, that listed all plant taxa that were used for medicinal purposes in the years 1998 and 2018, including information whether used for human, animal or both. In case that a plant taxon was used in the year 1998 but not used anymore in the year 2018 I asked for the reason why so. Questionnaire section B In questionnaire section B I asked gardeners of the subsample to further specify the use of each plant taxon for medicinal purposes based on a semi-structured interview asking the following questions:

17


(1)

Which ailment(s) are treated with this plant?

(2)

For whom is it used – human (child, adult, senior) or animal (which animal)? (child: < 18 years, adult: > 18 years, senior: > 60 years)

(3)

Which plant part(s) are used? together with other plants (if yes, which)?

(4)

What is the preparation method?

(5)

How is it applied?

(6)

How often was is used within the past 12 months?

(7)

What is the effectiveness on a scale from 1-5 (1 = worst, 5 = best)

(8)

Are other remedies used to treat this ailment?

(9)

Which is the preferred remedy for the treatment of this ailment?

The order and exact wording of the questions was adapted to the individual situations in order to keep the interviews as comfortable and natural as possible. Afterwards I sorted all ailments reported by gardeners of the subsample into “ailment categories” according to Cook (1995), such as Digestive System Disorders, Infections, Inflammations and Injuries among others. One set of information gardeners gave on the use of a plant taxon used to treat ailment(s) within one ailment category is herein described with the term “use report”. For example, a gardener uses herbal tea made from Salvia officinalis L. for the treatment of cough and bronchitis (both category Respiratory System Disorders), which is summarized as a single use report. If the gardener uses Salvia officinalis L. to treat an ailment from another ailment category as well (e.g. sore throat, category Inflammations), a separate use report was generated, resulting in one or more use reports per plant taxon and per gardener. If the use of a plant taxon was mentioned for the same ailment in both human and animal, two separate use reports were generated. Results obtained from the semi-structured interviews should provide an in depth understanding about gardeners’ use of medicinal plants. Furthermore, I inquired for each plant taxon its origin: whether obtained from the homegarden only or also purchased, obtained from around the house or farm, from family/ neighbors or harvested from the wild. Last I asked the gardeners whether the plant taxon is also used for other purposes than a medicinal one (e.g. foodstuff, ornamental, cultural, fertilizer etc.) and for its primary use. Questionnaire section C Questionnaire section C listed the in 1998 eight most commonly used medicinal plant taxa. Here I asked gardeners whether they use the plants in 2018 or not. Most common plant taxa in the year 1998 were Calendula officinalis L., Matricaria recutita L., Salvia officinalis L., Mentha L. sp., Althaea officinalis L., Melissa officinalis L., Artemisia absinthium L. and Thymus L. sp. (in chronological order). In case the

18


plant taxon was used for medicinal purposes and grown within the homegarden, it was already documented within questionnaire section B. In case the plant taxon was used for medicinal purposes but not grown within the homegarden it was asked for the ailment(s) treated with it, preparation method, how often is was used within the past 12 months, and where gardeners obtain the plant from. In case the plant taxon was not used for medicinal purposes it was simply noted as “not used”. Parameters used within this study are defined as follows: •

Diversity:

•

Composition: compilation of all medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners as a collective

•

Frequency:

number of different plant taxa used for medicinal purposes

number of times a plant taxon was used for medicinal purposes

4.5. Data saving Collected data was stored and categorized in a Microsoft Access database (Microsoft Inc. 2013) by Dr. Mag. Brigitte Vogl-Lukasser and Dr. Mag. Heidemarie Pirker and me. For the purpose of the “Homegrown” project, voucher specimen of plants that are no typical garden plants such as weeds and certain ornamental plants were taken and collected in an herbarium. Each plant taxon is therein represented usually with multiple individuals and labelled correspondingly with botanical name and associated plant family.

4.6. Data analysis 4.6.1. Statistical data analysis For simple quantitative data analysis, I used Microsoft Excel 2010. For statistical data analysis, I used the software SPSS (IBM SPSS Statistics 25). In all statistical analyses conducted, the probability value p was calculated with four levels of significance: p ≥ 0.05 to < 0.1

tendency

(chance ≥ 5 % to < 10 %)

p ≤ 0.05

significant

(chance ≤ 5 %, marked with *)

p ≤ 0.01

very significant

(chance ≤ 1 %, marked with **)

p ≤ 0.001

highly significant

(chance ≤ 1 ‰, marked with ***)

19


a) Diversity of medicinal plant taxa used in the years 1998 and 2018 To test for a significant difference in the number of medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners in the year 1998 (n = 62) compared to the year 2018 (n = 62), I first tested the difference scores between the two variables for normal distribution with the Shapiro-Wilk Test. Results of the Shapiro-Wilk Test show no normal distribution (p = 0.000) and thus I used the Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test to test for a significant difference between number of medicinal plants used by gardeners in the years 1998 and 2018. With the Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test the probability value p was calculated with four levels of significance as described above. b) Influence of age on the use of medicinal plants To check for a correlation between gardener age and number of medicinal plant taxa used, I first created a scatter plot to visualize a potential relationship. I used the Pearson correlation to test for significant correlations. The correlation coefficient r was calculated, which ranges from -1.0 to 1.0. r = -1

perfectly negative linear relation

r = 0

no linear relation

r = 1

perfectly positive linear relation

With the Pearson correlation the probability value p was calculated with four levels of significance as described above. c) Gardeners of organic farms compared to non-organic farms In the year 1998, 32 homegardens were part of organic farms and 30 homegardens were part of nonorganic farms. I tested the number of medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners of organic farms and non-organic farms each for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk Test. Results of the Shapiro-Wilk Test show that neither the scores of homegardens on organic farms (f = 32, p = 0.001) nor the scores of homegardens on non-organic farms are normally distributed (f = 30, p = 0.000). Results of the Levene's Test show that a homogeneous variance is given (pmean = 0.119, pmedian = 0.225) as the significance level p > 0.05. In the year 2018, 14 homegardens were part of organic farms and 48 homegardens were part of nonorganic farms. I tested the number of medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners of organic farms and non-organic farms each for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk Test. Results of the Shapiro-Wilk Test show that neither the scores of homegardens on organic farms (f = 14, p = 0.004) nor the scores of homegardens on non-organic farms are normally distributed (f = 48, p = 0.000). Results of the Levene's Test show that a homogeneous variance is given (pmean = 0.903, pmedian = 0.938). 20


I conducted the same tests for both the years 1998 and 2018 looking at the number of medicinal plant taxa that gardeners used for the treatment of animals only. Results of the Shapiro-Wilk Test show that in the year 1998 neither the scores of homegardens on organic farms (f = 32, p = 0.000) nor the scores of homegardens on non-organic farms are normally distributed (f = 30, p = 0.000). Results of the Levene's Test show that a homogeneous variance is given (pmean = 0.353, pmedian = 0.227). Results of the Shapiro-Wilk Test show that in the year 2018 neither the scores of homegardens on organic farms (f = 14, p = 0.000) nor the scores of homegardens on non-organic farms are normally distributed (f = 48, p = 0.000). Results of the Levene's Test show that a homogeneous variance is given (pmean = 0.227, pmedian = 0.418). Subsequently, for both the years 1998 and 2018 I conducted Independent Samples T Tests (2-tailed, homogeneous variance) to compare the number of medicinal plant taxa used between gardeners of organic farms and non-organic farms in the years 1998 and 2018 respectively. With the Independent Samples T Test the probability value p was calculated with four levels of significance as described above. As the normality assumption is violated in both the years 1998 and 2018, additionally to the Independent Samples T Test, the Mann-Whitney Test was used. With the Mann-Whitney Test the probability value p was calculated with four levels of significance as described above.

4.6.2. Qualitative data analysis The interviews that I conducted with gardeners of the subsample (n = 17) inquired details about gardeners’ use of medicinal and thus generated qualitative data which I mainly analyzed qualitatively. I translated all notes that I wrote down in the interviews into English and implemented them into a database. Data was examined for common threads and patterns which were coded following approaches described by Miles, Huberman, & Saldana (2013) and Newing (2011). Similar descriptions of how gardeners prepare remedies made from medicinal plants and how remedies are applied were summarized and are presented in form of tables in the results part.

4.7. Material and equipment For the identification of plant taxa, several botanical field guides were used by Dr. Mag. Brigitte VoglLukasser, Dr. Mag. Heidemarie Pirker and me (Adler, Oswald, & Fischer, 1994; Jäger, Schubert, & Werner, 1991; Spohn, Spohn, & Golte-Bechtle, 2005). Nomenclature of surveyed plant taxa is based on Erhardt et al. (2014). For the documentation of the homegardens and specific plants we used two DSLR cameras (Nikon D750 and Nikon D40X). Plant individuals that we took as voucher specimen were pressed and dried using absorbing paper, cardboard and bar clamps and subsequently collected in an herbarium. 21


4.8. Consideration of ethical implications Permissions for interviewing the 62 gardeners were requested by Dr. Mag. Brigitte Vogl-Lukasser and Dr. Mag. Heidemarie Pirker in the course of getting in contact with the primary gardeners in April 2018 and asking for their participation in the “Homegrown” project. During the summer collection period, I asked gardeners who we identified appropriate for the subsample (n = 17) for their participation in an additional interview. Permissions for taking pictures of the garden and/or plants were requested on site by asking the responsible gardeners in person. All data obtained within this study is confidential and has no permission for any use by third party. The data used in this thesis is handled anonymously in order to protect the participants’ privacy. Throughout the research the Code of Ethics of the International Society of Ethnobiology was followed (International Society of Ethnobiology, 2006). Each gardener will receive an information sheet with a short German version of the final results after the thesis has been completed either via email or post.

5. Results 5.1. Diversity of medicinal plant taxa used in the years 1998 and 2018 Results of the Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test indicate that the number of medicinal plant taxa used in the year 1998 per gardener did not significantly differ from the number of medicinal plant taxa used in the year 2018 per gardener (Z = -1.883, p = 0.060). However, the number of medicinal plant taxa used in the year 2018 (median = 2.0, arithmetic mean = 2.85) tends to be higher compared to the year 1998 (median = 1.5, arithmetic mean = 2.19) (fig. 2). The graph also indicates a greater variety in the number of medicinal plants used by gardeners in the year 2018 (min. = 0, max. = 12) than in in the year 1998 (min. = 0, max. = 9). The box plot of the year 2018 ranges from zero to eleven medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners and covers a wider range than the box plot of the year 1998 which ranges from zero to seven medicinal plant taxa used. The graph also depicts single outliers in each of the years – one gardener in the year 1998 who used the maximum of nine different medicinal plant taxa and one gardener in the year 2018 who used the maximum of 12 medicinal plant taxa. Furthermore, the interquartile range (the middle 50 %) is slightly more extended in the year 2018 compared to the year 1998. Both the upper and lower whiskers are more extended in the year 2018 compared to the year 1998. In the year 1998 the lower whisker (the lower 25 %) is not even visible because all gardeners within the lower 25 % did not use any plant taxa for medicinal purposes. The upper whisker (the upper 25 %) of the 2018 box plot is 1.5 times longer than the upper whisker of the 1998 box plot.

22


30

Number of medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners

12

10 39

8

6

4

2

0

1998 (n = 62)

2018 (n = 62) Year

Figure 2 Box-Whisker Plots comparing 62 homegardens of Eastern Tyrol surveyed in the years 1998 (n = 62) and 2018 (n = 62) in regard to number of medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners. Results of the Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test indicate no significant differences between the years 1998 and 2018 (Z = -1.883, p = 0.060). 1998: min. = 0, max. = 9, median = 1.5, arithmetic mean = 2.19; 2018: min. = 0, max. = 12, median = 2.0, arithmetic mean = 2.85. Raw data available in appendix 1.

5.2. Medicinal plant taxa composition in the years 1998 and 2018 5.2.1. Most common medicinal plant taxa In the year 1998 gardeners of the 62 homegardens used altogether a total of 36 different plant taxa for medicinal purposes. Twenty years later there is a higher variety in the composition with a total of 52 different plant taxa used by gardeners of the same 62 homegardens (complete list of all medicinal plant taxa used attached in appendix 2). It has to be mentioned that in 17 out of the 62 homegardens a change of the primary gardener occurred in the meantime. In both the years 1998 and 2018 Calendula officinalis L., Salvia L. sp. and Matricaria recutita L. were the most popular plant taxa used by gardeners for medicinal purposes (fig. 3). In the year 1998 Matricaria recutita L. (f = 26) was the most commonly used medicinal plant taxon, followed by Salvia officinalis L. (f = 24) and Calendula officinalis L. (f = 23). In the year 2018 gardeners used most often Calendula officinalis L. (f = 23) as medicinal plant, closely followed by Salvia L. sp. (f = 21) and Matricaria recutita L. (f = 19). Page 1

23


A couple of other plant taxa were also commonly used by gardeners in both the years 1998 and 2018, such as Mentha L. sp., Althaea officinalis L., Artemisia absinthium L., Hypericum perforatum L. and Monarda L. Cultivars (fig. 3). However, there are certain plant taxa which were used by a higher number of gardeners in the year 2018 compared to the year 1998. For example, Thymus L. sp. is the fourth most common medicinal plant taxon used in the year 2018 (f = 15), but only three gardeners used thyme as medicinal plant in the year 1998. Other medicinal plant taxa that are used to a greater extent in the year 2018 are Urtica L. sp. (U. dioica L. and U. urens L.), Allium cepa L. cepa Grp., Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata (L.) Alef. and Malva neglecta Wallr. On the other hand, the two plant taxa Melissa officinalis L. and Valeriana officinalis L. were used by a higher number of gardeners in the year 1998 (fig. 3). All medicinal plant taxa were primarily used for the treatment of humans in both the years 1998 and 2018. For the treatment of animals specifically, gardeners used most commonly Matricaria recutita L. and Calendula officinalis L. in both years. Matricaria recutita L. was used by nine gardeners in the year 1998 and by eight gardeners in the year 2018, while Calendula officinalis L. was used by 15 gardeners in the year 1998 and by nine gardeners in the year 2018 for ethnoveterinary purposes (appendix 3 and appendix 4). 30

Year

Frequency of gardeners who used plant taxa

26

25

2018 (n = 62)

24

23 23

1998 (n = 62)

21

20

15

19

15

5

0

11

10

10

3

9

8

8

7

3

2

8

4 4

0

4

4

0

3 3 1

4

3 1

1

3 0

Most common medicinal plant taxa used

Figure 3 Medicinal plant taxa that were most commonly used by gardeners of homegardens in the years 1998 (n = 62) and 2018 (n = 62). Only medicinal plant taxa that were used by at least three gardeners in either the year 1998 or 2018 are presented. Listed accordingly to the highest number of gardeners who used them in the year 2018. Detailed numbers including frequency of gardeners using them for the treatment of humans and animals are given in appendix 3 and 4.

24


5.2.2. Changes in medicinal plant taxa composition When looking at the total number of medicinal plant taxa used by the 62 gardeners, a change between the years 1998 and 2018 can be observed: in the year 1998 gardeners used 36 different plant taxa, 20 years later gardeners used 52 different plant taxa for medicinal purposes (appendix 2). Besides an increased number of medicinal plant taxa used in the year 2018, the composition of plant taxa differs between the years 1998 and 2018, that is some plant taxa were additionally used in the year 2018 and some plant taxa were used in in the year 1998 but no longer used in the year 2018. In total there are eight plant taxa which were used for medicinal purposes back in the year 1998 but were not used anymore in the year 2018 (tab. 4). Almost all of these plant taxa were used by a single gardener respectively. Valeriana officinalis L. makes an exception which was used as a medicinal plant by three gardeners in the year 1998 but not used in the year 2018. In contrast, there are 24 plant taxa which gardeners did not use back in the year 1998 but gardeners reported to use them in the year 2018 (tab. 4). Almost all of the 24 plant taxa are used by a single gardener respectively. However, certain plant taxa stand out as exceptions. Eight gardeners reported to use Allium cepa L. cepa Grp. as medicinal plant in the year 2018, back in the year 1998 not a single gardener used the plant. Furthermore, Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata (L.) Alef. was used by four gardeners and Urtica urens L. by three gardeners in the year 2018 but for neither of them a medicinal use was reported in the year 1998. The plant taxa Petroselinum crispum (Mill.) Fuss, Plantago lanceolata L. and Taraxacum sect. ruderalia Kirschner were used by two gardeners each in the year 2018 and used by none of the gardeners in the year 1998.

25


Table 4 List of medicinal plant taxa that were used in the year 1998 only and in the year 2018 only. Total number of gardeners who used the plant taxa as well as number of gardeners who used them for the treatment of humans and animals is listed respectively. Botanical taxa

Family

Plant taxa used in the year 1998 only

Artemisia abrotanum L.

Asteraceae

1

1

0

Malva moschata L.

Malvaceae

1

1

0

Malva sylvestris L. ssp. mauritiana (L.) Boiss. Ex Cout.

Malvaceae

1

1

0

Mentha pulegium L.

Lamiaceae

1

0

1

Origanum majorana L.

Lamiaceae

1

1

0

Ribes rubrum L.

Grossulariaceae

1

1

0

Valeriana officinalis L.

Valerianaceae

3

3

0

Veronica spicata L.

Scrophulariaceae

1

1

0

Plant taxa used in the year 2018 only

Agrimonia eupatoria L.

Rosaceae

1

1

0

Allium cepa L. cepa Grp.

Liliaceae

8

8

0

Armoracia rusticana P.Gaertn., B.Mey. et Scherb.

Brassicaceae

1

1

0

Arnica montana L.

Asteraceae

1

1

0

Bellis perennis L.

Asteraceae

1

1

0

Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata (L.) Alef.

Brassicaceae

4

3

1

Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik.

Brassicaceae

1

1

0

Centaurea cyanus L.

Asteraceae

1

1

0

Chelidonium majus L.

Papaveraceae

1

1

0

Cistus L. Cultivars

Cistaceae

1

1

0

Inula helenium L.

Asteraceae

1

1

0

Lamium album L.

Lamiaceae

1

1

0

Levisticum officinale W.D.J. Koch

Apiaceae

1

1

0

Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.

Solanaceae

1

1

0

Petroselinum crispum (Mill.) Fuss

Apiaceae

2

2

0

Plantago lanceolata L.

Plantaginaceae

2

2

0

Ribes nigrum L.

Grossulariaceae

1

1

0

Rosmarinus officinalis L.

Lamiaceae

1

1

0

Rubus idaeus L.

Rosaceae

1

1

0

Salvia nemorosa L.

Lamiaceae

1

1

0

Taraxacum sect. ruderalia Kirschner

Asteraceae

2

2

0

Thymus pulegioides L.

Lamiaceae

1

1

0

Urtica urens L.

Urticaceae

3

3

1

Veronica teucrium L.

Scrophulariaceae

1

1

0

26

f (gardeners)

f (human use)

f (animal use)


5.3. Most represented plant families in the years 1998 and 2018 The total of 36 plant taxa that gardeners used in the year 1998 for medicinal purposes represent 12 different families. In the year 2018, gardeners used in total 52 medicinal plant taxa which belong to 19 different families (appendix 7). In both years the families Lamiaceae and Asteraceae were by far most often represented, holding the highest number of different plant taxa used by the 62 gardeners (fig. 4). In the year 1998 gardeners used 12 different plant taxa from Lamiaceae family for medicinal purposes, whereof Salvia officinalis L. (f = 24), Mentha L. sp. (f = 11) and Melissa officinalis L. (f = 4) were the most common ones (appendix 5). In the year 2018 the Lamiaceae family was represented by 14 different plant taxa whereof Salvia officinalis L. (f = 20), Thymus L. sp. (f = 15) and Mentha L. sp. (f = 9) were most commonly used (appendix 6). Within the Asteraceae family, gardeners used eight different plant taxa in the year 1998 and 12 different plant taxa in the year 2018, whereof Matricaria recutita L. (f = 26; f = 19) and Calendula officinalis L. (f = 23; f = 23) were most commonly used in both years. Another rather common plant taxon of the Asteraceae family is Artemisia absinthium L. that was used by four gardeners each in the years 1998 and 2018. Gardeners used four plant taxa of the Malvaceae family in the year 1998 and two plant taxa in the year 2018. Althaea officinalis L. was the most commonly used taxon of the Malvaceae family in both the years 1998 (f = 8) and 2018 (f = 7). The family Boraginaceae is represented by the two taxa Borago officinalis L. and Symphytum officinale L. that were used in both years. Within the family Chenopodiaceae gardeners used Beta vulgaris L. ssp. vulgaris var. vulgaris and Chenopodium bonushenricus L. in both years. Scrophulariaceae family is represented by Verbascum densiflorum Bertol. and Veronica spicata L. in the year 1998 and by Verbascum densiflorum Bertol. Veronica teucrium L. in the year 2018. In the year 2018 gardeners used both Urtica dioica L. and Urtica urens L. from the Urticaceae family for medicinal purposes, while in the year 1998 only Urtica dioica L. was used. Eight families were represented by medicinal plant taxa used in 2018 only, which are Brassicaceae (f = 3), Apiaceae (f = 2) and Rosaceae (f = 2) as well as Cistaceae, Liliaceae, Papaveraceae, Plantaginaceae and Solanaceae which are represented by a single plant taxon each (appendix 7). The only family that was represented in the year 1998 but not in the year 2018 is Valerianaceae, whereof gardeners used Valeriana officinalis L. The complete lists of represented families and respective plant taxa used by gardeners in the years 1998 and 2018 are attached in appendix 5 and appendix 6.

27


16 14

Number of plant taxa

12

Year

14 12

2018 (n = 62)

12

1998 (n = 62)

10 8

8

6 4

4 3 2

2 0

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1 0

0

0

Represented families

Figure 4 Most represented families in terms of number of medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners in the years 1998 (n = 62) and 2018 (n = 62). Families represented by at least two plant taxa in either year 1998 or 2018 are depicted only. Complete lists of represented families and respective plant taxa used by gardeners in the years 1998 and 2018 are attached in appendix 5 and appendix 6.

5.4. Factors influencing medicinal plant use in the years 1998 and 2018 5.4.1. Influence of age on the use of medicinal plants When comparing the number of medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners in the years 1998 and 2018 in relation to current age of the gardeners, no uniform relations can be observed (fig. 5). Results of the Pearson correlation show a positive correlation between gardener age and number of medicinal plant taxa used in the year 1998 (n = 62, r = 0.274, p = 0.031*). By contrast, in the year 2018 according to Pearson correlation there is no significant correlation between gardener age and number of medicinal plant taxa used, yet results show a negative relation (n = 62, r = -0.081, p = 0.532). The age range of gardeners was greater in the year 2018 with a minimum age of 26 years and a maximum age of 87 years compared to the year 1998 where gardeners’ age ranged from a minimum of 30 years to a maximum of 77 years.

28


Year

Number of medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners

12

1998 (n = 62) 2018 (n = 62) 1998 (n = 62) 2018 (n = 62)

10

1998 (n = 62) : R2 Quadratisch =0,083 2018 (n = 62) : R2 Quadratisch =0,016

8

6

4

2

0 20

40

60

80

Gardener age (years)

Figure 5 Scatter plot depicting the relation between gardener age and number of medicinal plant taxa used in both the years 1998 (n = 62) and 2018 (n = 62). Results of the Pearson correlation show a positive correlation between gardener age and number of medicinal plant taxa used in the year 1998 (n = 62, r = 0.274, p = 0.031*). In contrast, results of the Pearson correlation do not show a significant correlation between gardener age and number of medicinal plant taxa used in the year 2018 (n = 62, r = -0.081, p = 0.532).

5.4.2. Gardeners of organic farms compared to non-organic farms Between the years 1998 and 2018 a major change in the share of organic farms occurred whereof the 62 homegardens surveyed were part. In the year 1998 more than half (f = 32, 51.6 %) of the farms were certified organic, in the year 2018 however only 22.6 % (f = 14) of the farms were certified organic. Twenty of the 32 certified organic farms in the year 1998 got decertified in the meantime and two farms that were not certified in the year 1998 got certified in the meantime (appendix 1). Results of the Independent Samples T Test (p = 0.110) and the Mann-Whitney Test (p = 0.097) indicate that in the year 1998 (n = 62) there was no significant difference between the number of medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners of homegardens on organic compared to non-organic farms. In the year 2018 (n = 62) no significant difference between gardeners of organic farms and non-organic farms in regard to the number of medicinal plant taxa used was detected either as indicated by the Independent Samples T Test (p = 0.851) and the Mann-Whitney Test (p = 0.700).

29

Page 1


However, in the year 1998 (fig. 6) number of medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners of organic farms (min. = 0, max. = 9, median = 2.0, arithmetic mean = 2.66) tends to be higher compared to non-organic farms (min. = 0, max. = 7, median = 1.0, arithmetic mean = 1.70). In the year 2018 (fig. 6), there is a slightly greater range in the number of medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners of organic farms (min. = 0, max. = 12) compared to gardeners of non-organic farms (min. = 0, max. = 11). The median of both groups is the same (median = 2.0), while the arithmetic mean is even a little higher for gardeners of non-organic farms (arithmetic mean = 2.90) in comparison to gardeners of organic farms (arithmetic mean = 2.71). The inter-quartile range (middle 50 %) is more extended for number of medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners of organic farms than by gardeners of non-organic farms (fig. 6).

Figure 6 Box-Whisker Plots comparing number of medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners of homegardens on non-organic and organic farms in both the years 1998 and 2018. 1998: Results of both the Independent Samples T Test (p = 0.110) and the Mann-Whitney Test (p = 0.097) indicate no significant difference between non-organic farms (f = 30) and organic farms (f = 32). Non-organic: min. = 0, max. = 7, median = 1.0, arithmetic mean = 1.70. Organic: min. = 0, max. = 9, median = 2.0, arithmetic mean = 2.66. 2018: Results of both the Independent Samples T Test (p = 0.851) and the Mann-Whitney Test (p = 0.700) indicate no significant difference between non-organic farms (f = 48) and organic farms (f = 14). Non-organic: min. = 0, max. = 11, median = 2.0, arithmetic mean = 2.90. Organic: min. = 0, max. = 12, median = 2.0, arithmetic mean = 2.71.

When looking at medicinal plant taxa that were used by gardeners for ethnoveterinary purposes only in the year 1998 (fig. 7) the results of the Mann-Whitney Test (p = 0.049*) indicate that gardeners of homegardens on organic farms used significantly more medicinal plants than gardeners of

30


homegardens on non-organic farms, however results of the Independent T Test (p = 0.227) did not point out a significant difference. In the case of the year 2018, neither results of the Independent T Test (p = 0.418) nor results of the Mann-Whitney Test (p = 0.456) indicate a significant difference or tendency between the number of medicinal plant taxa used for ethnoveterinary purposes by gardeners of homegardens on organic compared to non-organic farms. However, in the year 2018 there is an adverse relation compared to the year 1998, where gardeners of homegardens on non-organic farms (arithmetic mean = 0.50) use insignificantly more medicinal plant taxa compared to gardeners of homegardens on organic farms (arithmetic mean 0.29) (fig. 7).

Figure 7 Box-Whisker Plots comparing number of medicinal plant taxa used for ethnoveterinary purposes by gardeners of homegardens on non-organic and organic farms in both the years 1998 and 2018. 1998: Results of the Independent Samples T Test (p = 0.227) indicate no significant difference, while results of the Mann-Whitney Test (p = 0.049*) indicate a significant difference between non-organic farms (f = 30) and organic farms (f = 32). Non-organic: min. = 0, max. = 5, median = 0.0, arithmetic mean = 0.37. Organic: min. = 0, max. = 3, median = 0.0, arithmetic mean = 0.66. 2018: Results of both the Independent Samples T Test (p = 0.418) and the Mann-Whitney Test (p = 0.456) indicate no significant difference between non-organic farms (f = 48) and organic farms (f = 14). Non-organic: min. = 0, max. = 5, median = 0.0, arithmetic mean = 0.50. Organic: min. = 0, max. = 2, median = 0.0, arithmetic mean = 0.29.

5.5. The food-medicine continuum in the years 1998 and 2018 Out of the 36 medicinal plant taxa used by the gardeners (n = 62) in the year 1998 an additional use as foodstuff was reported for 18 (50 %) of the plant taxa by one or more of the gardeners (appendix 8). Most commonly Salvia officinalis L. was used for both purposes, with a total of ten gardeners who used

31


the plant both as foodstuff (spice or beverage) and medicinal plant (fig. 8). Matricaria recutita L. was used by five gardeners as foodstuff (beverage) besides its use for medicinal purposes. As well Calendula officinalis L. was used by five gardeners both as foodstuff (beverage) and medicinal plant. Furthermore, Mentha L. sp. and Thymus L. sp. were used by three gardeners each both for medicinal purposes and as foodstuff (spice or beverage). Melissa officinalis L., Hyssopus officinalis L. and Sambucus nigra L. were used by two gardeners each as foodstuff besides serving a medicinal purpose. For further ten plant taxa one gardener respectively reported to use the plant both for medicinal purposes and as foodstuff (appendix 8). Althaea officinalis L. (f = 8), Artemisia absinthium L. (f = 4) were the most common medicinal plants in the year 1998 that were used for medicinal purposes only. Another 11 plant taxa – used by a single gardener each – were used for medicinal purposes only in the year 1998, those are Achillea millefolium L., Artemisia vulgaris L., Borago officinalis L., Chenopodium bonus-henricus L., Lavandula angustifolia Mill., Malva moschata L., Malva neglecta Wallr., Symphytum officinale L., Tanacetum parthenium (L.) Sch. Bip., Verbascum densiflorum Bertol. and Veronica spicata L. In the year 2018 gardeners (n = 62) used a total of 52 plant taxa for medicinal purposes whereof 30 (57.7 %) plant taxa were used by one or more gardeners as foodstuff as well (appendix 9). Just like in the year 1998, Salvia L. sp. (f = 15, S. officinalis L. and S. nemorosa L.) was the most common plant taxon used both as foodstuff (spice or beverage) and medicinal plant (fig. 8). Thymus L. sp. (f = 13) is another very common plant taxon that was used for medicinal purposes and as foodstuff (spice or beverage), as well as Calendula officinalis (f = 10) was commonly used as foodstuff (beverage, spice or food) besides its use as medicinal plant (fig. 8). Mentha L. sp. and Allium cepa L. cepa Grp. were used by 8 gardeners each for both purposes. The plant taxa Matricaria recutita L., Urtica L. sp., Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata (L.) Alef., Althaea officinalis L. and Monarda L. Cultivars were used by three or more gardeners both as foodstuff and medicinal plant (fig. 8). Another 20 plant taxa were used by one or two gardeners only both as foodstuff and medicinal plant (appendix 9). Most common medicinal plants used by gardeners in the year 2018 for medicinal purposes only were Artemisia absinthium L. (f = 4), Symphytum officinale L. (f = 3) and Plantago lanceolata L. (f = 2). Further 13 plant taxa were used by a single gardener respectively as medicinal plant only: Agrimonia eupatoria L., Arnica montana L., Bellis perennis L., Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik., Centaurea cyanus L., Chelidonium majus L., Chenopodium bonus-henricus L., Cistus L. Cultivars, Inula helenium L., Lamium album L., Primula elatior (L.) Hill, Verbascum densiflorum Bertol. and Veronica teucrium L.

32


Frequency of gardeners who used plant taxa

16

15

Year

14

13

2018 (n = 62)

12 10

1998 (n = 62) 10

10 8

8 6 4

8

5

5 5 4

3

4

3

3

3 2

2

1 0

0

2

2

2 2

2

1 0

0

0

0

0

0

Plant taxa used both as medicinal plants and foodstuff

Figure 8 Plant taxa used both as medicinal plants and foodstuff by gardeners in the years 1998 (n =62) and 2018 (n = 62). Sorted accordingly to the highest number of gardeners who used the taxa for both purposes in the year 2018.

5.6. Uses of medicinal plants within the subsample in the year 2018 5.6.1. Overview of use reports A total of 247 use reports for 35 different plant taxa was collected from 17 gardeners of the subsample for the treatment of ailments occurring in both humans and animals. All plant taxa were predominantly and sometimes merely used for the treatment of ailments occurring in humans. Only ten out of the 35 plant taxa were used for the treatment of ailments occurring in animals as well. The plant taxa with the highest number of use reports are Calendula officinalis L. (f = 46), Salvia L. sp. (f = 38), Matricaria recutita L. (f = 28), Symphytum officinale L. (f = 17), Allium cepa L. cepa Grp. (f = 15), Hypericum perforatum L. (f = 15), Thymus L. sp. (f = 15), Urtica L. sp. (f = 11) and Mentha L. sp. (f = 10). For another 12 plant taxa the number of use reports documented ranges between two and six. For nine plant taxa only a single use report was collected, these are Chenopodium bonus-henricus L., Helianthus tuberosus L., Malva neglecta Wallr., Melissa officinalis L., Petroselinum crispum (Mill.) Fuss, Primula elatior (L.) Hill., Tanacetum parthenium (L.) Sch. Bip., Taraxacum sect. ruderalia Kirschner and Veronica teucrium L. – all of which were used for treating humans only. Oftentimes, use reports documented for the same plant taxa and described by different gardeners are similar to each other 33


showing only little individual variation. Similar use reports are summarized for the treatment of humans (tab. 6) and for the treatment of animals (tab. 7). For each use report the preparation method of the plant is listed (tab. 6 and tab. 7). Gardeners of the subsample applied a variety of methods to prepare remedies made from medicinal plants. The most common preparation methods were herbal tea (f = 97), followed by salve (f = 41), tincture (f = 22), oil (f = 21), poultice (f = 20), infusion (f = 18) and syrup (f = 16). In the 12 remaining cases preparation methods were wine (f = 1), soup (f = 1), herb pillow (f = 1) or no preparation at all (f = 9). The most common preparation methods are herein defined as follows (tab. 5). In subsequent chapters, the preparation methods are designated with its title only (herbal tea, salve, etc.). Table 5 Gardeners’ most common preparation methods of remedies made from medicinal plants. The descriptions are based on the actual preparation methods as applied by the gardeners of the subsample in 17 homegardens. For all preparation methods more than one plant taxon can be used in conjunction. f = number of use reports in which method was documented. Preparation method Description Herbal tea f = 97

According to the Codex Alimentarius Austriacus herbal teas are teas that contain plant parts, which are used dried, fermented or roasted to prepare water infusions. Herein herbal teas are defined as infusions that are used for oral application such as drinking, gargling, rinsing or inhaling. In most cases the plant parts used are first dried and then infused in hot water for a period ranging between 3-15 min, depending on the plant. Finally, the herbal tea is strained.

Salve f = 41

Fresh flower petals/ heads (sometimes also leaves or the whole plant) of Calendula officinalis L. are heated in fat (bag balm, lard, lanolin, Vaseline or olive oil). Subsequently the preparation is placed aside for several hours or days. It is warmed again while stirring, sometimes bees wax is added which makes it more solid and creamy. Finally, warm salve is strained through a sieve and/or cloth. Fresh or dried roots (sometimes also flower head and leaf) of Symphytum officinale L. are heated in fat (olive oil or lard). Subsequently the preparation is placed aside for several hours or days. It is warmed again while stirring. Finally, warm salve is strained through a sieve and/or cloth.

Tincture f = 22

Tinctures are liquid extracts of plants prepared with ethanol. In this study tinctures are made by infusing fresh (sometimes dried) plant parts in ethanol (‘Schnaps’, ‘Korn’) for several weeks or months. Finally, the tincture is strained.

Oil f = 21

Fresh plant parts are infused in oil (in most cases olive oil) for several hours, weeks or months at a warm spot - in the sun, close to an oven or warmed on a stove. Finally, the herb infused oil is strained.

Poultice f = 20

Fresh plant parts are either (1) smashed, stamped, squeezed or rolled out with rolling pin and externally applied on skin or wrapped in a cloth/ paper towel and externally applied on skin or (2) cut, roasted in lard and wrapped in a cloth/ paper towel and externally applied on skin.

Infusion f = 18

The fresh or dried plant parts are plunged in either hot or cold water for a certain period of time. In this study infusion is done with hot water in all cases for a period ranging between 4-10 min. Finally, the infusion is strained. Herein it is referred to an infusion when applied externally such as for washing wounds or inflammations with it or when used as baths (hand bath, foot bath, added to bath water, steam bath).

Syrup f = 16

Fresh plant parts are either (1) infused in honey (and sugar) for several hours, weeks or months, (2) placed aside in a jar together with sugar or rock sugar for several hours, weeks or months or (3) fresh plant parts/ extracted juice from berries are boiled in water together with sugar. Finally, the syrup is strained.

34


5.6.2. Medicinal plants used for human treatment 5.6.2.1. Ailment categories and commonly represented plant taxa Use reports collected for human treatment can be grouped into 14 different ailment categories according to Cook (1995). Most common ailment categories in terms of number of use reports for the treatment of humans are Respiratory System Disorders (20.8 %), Inflammations (18.1 %), Injuries (15.3 %), Pain (9.3 %), Infections (9.3 %), Digestive System Disorders (7.4 %), Skin Disorders (6.5 %) and Muscular-Skeletal System Disorders (4.2 %). Other, less common ailment categories are Mental Disorders (2.3 %), Circulatory System Disorders (1.9 %), Neoplasms (0.9 %), Abnormalities, Endocrine System Disorders and Metabolic System Disorders (0.5 % each). Ailments that cannot be grouped in any of the categories described by Cook (1995) are summarized under Other (2.8 %). With more than 20 %, Respiratory System Disorders make up the largest ailment category. Yet, there are only two ailments that gardeners treated, which are cough (f = 38) and bronchitis (f = 9). Altogether 18 different plant taxa were used by gardeners to treat respiratory system disorders. The most common plant taxa used to treat respiratory system disorders are Allium cepa L. cepa Grp. (f = 9), Thymus L. sp. (f = 9) and Salvia L. sp. (f = 7). Most common ailments within the second largest category Inflammations are sore throat (f = 23), followed by inflammation of the gums, mouth and aphtha (f = 7), inflammation of the eye or eyelid (f = 2), inflammation of the joints (f = 2), inflammation of the skin (f = 1), cystitis (f = 1), onychia (f = 1) and ingrown nails (f = 1). In three cases gardeners mentioned inflammation in general (f = 3) as an ailment. Out of 12 different plant taxa, Salvia L. sp. (f = 18) is by far the most often used plant taxon for the treatment of inflammations, followed by Matricaria recutita L. (f = 5), Allium cepa L. cepa Grp. (f = 3) and Thymus L. sp. (f = 3). Within the category Injuries, wounds (f = 28) are the most common ailments that were treated by gardeners. Other ailments such as bruises (f = 4), burns (f = 3), scars (f = 2), chapped lips (f = 2), fissures (f = 2) and insect bites (f = 1) were mentioned more rarely. In total gardeners used 11 different plant taxa for the treatment of injuries. Calendula officinalis L. (f = 16) counts the highest number of use reports among plant taxa used to treat injuries. Less often gardeners used Hypericum perforatum L. (f = 4), Matricaria recutita L. (f = 3), Salvia officinalis L. (f = 3) and Urtica L. sp. (f = 2). Pain is the fourth largest ailment category and comprises the ailments joint pain (f = 7), back pain, shoulder pain and neck pain (f = 5), painful feet, painful legs and hip pain (f = 5), toothache (f = 4), earache (f = 2) and menstrual/ovulatory pain (f = 1). For the treatment of pain gardeners used in total nine different plant taxa. Herein Symphytum officinale L. (f = 8) is the most commonly used plant taxon,

35


followed by Salvia L. sp. (f = 3), Allium cepa L. cepa Grp. (f = 2), Artemisia vulgaris L. (f = 2) and Hypericum perforatum L. (f = 2). Colds (f = 17) are the most common ailments that were treated by gardeners within the category Infections. Other ailments are fever (f = 1), influenza (f = 1) and athlete’s foot (f = 1) all of which were mentioned a single time only. In total 12 different plant taxa were used by gardeners within this category. The plant taxa Mentha L. sp. (f = 4), Matricaria recutita L. (f = 3), Salvia officinalis L. (f = 3) and Thymus vulgaris L. (f = 3) were most commonly used to treat infections. Within the category Digestive System Disorders gardeners treated mostly stomach ache and stomach trouble (f = 11). Gardeners also reported to treat gastro-intestinal diseases (f = 3) and indigestion (f = 2). Gardeners mostly used Matricaria recutita L. (f = 7) to treat digestive system disorders, followed by Mentha L. sp. (f = 3) and six other plant taxa which were used rarely. Most common ailments treated within the category Skin Disorders are dry, rough or hard skin (f = 8), sunburn (f = 6) and skin problems in general (f = 2). In total three different plant taxa were used by gardeners for the treatment of skin disorders, which are Calendula officinalis L. (f = 9), Hypericum perforatum L. (f = 4) and Matricaria recutita L. (f = 1). Within the category Muscular-Skeletal System Disorders gardeners used medicinal plants to treat strains (f = 4), to prevent osteoporosis (f = 3), to treat sprains (f = 2), bone fractures (f = 1), tense muscles (f = 1) and rheumatism (f = 1). Four different plant taxa were used within this category. Symphytum officinale L. (f = 5) is the most commonly used plant taxon, other less common taxa are Calendula officinalis L. (f = 2), Lavandula angustifolia Mill. (f = 1) and Urtica dioica L. (f = 1). Six further ailment categories are represented by only a few use reports respectively. In the category Mental Disorders medicinal plants were used as either sedative (f = 4) or as sleep promoter when suffering insomnia and over fatigue (f = 2). Therefor used plant taxa are Lavandula angustifolia Mill. (f = 2), Artemisia absinthium L. (f = 1), Chenopodium bonus-henricus L. (f = 1) and Hypericum perforatum L. (f = 1). In terms of Circulatory System Disorders gardeners sought to treat heart complaints or to strengthen the heart (f = 2), used medicinal plants for a too high cholesterol level (f = 1) and for varicose veins (f = 1). For this purpose, Calendula officinalis L. (f = 1), Petroselinum crispum (Mill.) Fuss (f = 1), Primula elatior (L.) Hill (f = 1) and Veronica teucrium L. (f = 1) were used. Two use reports were collected for the category Neoplasms, where Calendula officinalis L. (f = 2) was used to prevent skin cancer (melanoma). In the category Abnormalities a single use report was collected from a gardener who used Urtica dioica L. to treat edema.

36


Another single use report was collected within the category Endocrine System Disorders where Helianthus tuberosus L. was used for the treatment of diabetes mellitus. Within the category Metabolic System Disorders a single gardener used Artemisia vulgaris L. to treat gout. A couple of use reports cannot be categorized according to Cook (1995) because in these cases plants were applied for their benefits rather than for the treatment of a specific ailment. For example, Urtica dioica L. (f = 3) was used for the effect of purifying, blood purifying, strengthening, for hot feet and as a diuretic. Urtica urens L. (f = 1) was used as (blood) purifier as well and Salvia nemorosa L. (f = 1) was used to mitigate sweating. These use reports are categorized under “Other”. 5.6.2.2. Use reports for human treatment Gardeners of the subsample mentioned a total of 216 use reports (tab. 6) for 35 different plant taxa to treat ailments occurring in humans. When looking from the perspective of plant taxa, the number of use reports differs quite a lot, ranging from a single use report up to 36 use reports per plant taxon. There is also a high variety in the number of ailments and ailment categories that were sought to be treated by the gardeners, ranging from a single ailment (and single ailment category) up to 17 ailments within nine ailment categories per plant taxon. In the following table (tab. 6) use reports for human treatment are grouped accordingly to plant taxa and ailments treated within the respective ailment category. The table gives information about the botanical taxon, English name and botanical family, ailment categories and specific ailments that are treated, what age class the plant taxa are used for, plant part(s) used, preparation method, application, mean frequency of use within the past 12 months, mean effectiveness rated by the gardeners, number of use reports, frequency of mentions by different gardeners and other remedies used to treat these ailments respectively. The highest number of use reports about human treatment was collected for Salvia L. sp. (f = 36) covering six ailment categories, wherein the majority of use reports was collected for the species Salvia officinalis L. (f = 31) and some for Salvia nemorosa L. (f = 5). The most common preparation method is herbal tea applied by either drinking, gargling, inhaling or rinsing to treat predominantly ailments of the categories Inflammations (f = 18), Respiratory System Disorders (f = 7), Infections (f = 3), Injuries (f = 3) and Pain (f = 3). In most cases herbal tea was made solely from Salvia L. sp., in some cases the plant was prepared as mixed herbal tea together with for instance Verbascum L. sp., Plantago lanceolata L., Matricaria recutita L., Sambucus nigra L., Monarda L. Cultivars, Thymus vulgaris L., Mentha x piperita L., Pulmonaria officinalis L., Malva L. sp., Calendula officinalis L. and Hibiscus L. sp. In a few cases gardeners simply chewed the fresh leaves or prepared the plant as infusion that was externally applied on skin.

37


The second most commonly used plant taxon is Calendula officinalis L. (f = 35). Among all plant taxa used, C. officinalis L. covers the broadest range of ailment categories with a sum total of nine categories, of which Injuries (f = 13) and Skin Disorders (f = 9) comprise most use reports. The most common preparation method of C. officinalis L. is salve, other methods are tincture, oil and herbal tea. For both injuries and skin disorders gardeners used marigold salve, for injuries some gardeners used oil and tincture made from the plant as well. A single gardener reported to occasionally add Matricaria recutita L. to prepare marigold salve, and Arnica montana L. to prepare marigold tincture. Matricaria recutita L. (f = 23) is a common medicinal plant that was used by gardeners to treat ailments of six different ailment categories. Most commonly gardeners prepared herbal tea to treat Digestive System Disorders (f = 7). Inflammations (f = 6) were often treated using infusions or herbal teas. Gardeners used herbal tea and infusion made from M. recutita L. to treat Infections (f = 3), Injuries (f = 3), Respiratory System Disorders (f = 3) and Skin Disorders (f = 1) as well, but to a lesser extent. In most cases gardeners used solely chamomile for the preparation of herbal tea, a few gardeners prepared it as mixed herbal tea together with Salvia officinalis L., Sambucus nigra L., Achillea millefolium L., Calendula officinalis L. and/or Foeniculum Mill. sp. Gardeners used Allium cepa L. cepa Grp. (f = 15) to treat ailments within four different categories. They reported to prepare onion poultice and onion syrup to treat Respiratory System Disorders (f = 9) as well as Inflammations (f = 3). For the treatment of Pain (earache, f = 2) and Infections (cold, f = 1) gardeners applied onion poultices as well. Fourteen use reports of Symphytum officinale L. (f = 14) were mentioned by gardeners, that cover three ailment categories. Herein Pain (f = 8) and Muscular-Skeletal System Disorders (f = 5) are the most common categories. Different preparation methods – tincture, salve, oil, poultice and herbal tea – were used to treat different kind of pain (joint pain, back pain, hip pain, etc.). Similarly, for Muscular Skeletal System Disorders gardeners used tincture, oil, salve and poultice made from S. officinale L. to prevent osteoporosis and to treat sprains, strains and bone fractures. In one case the fresh leaf was used to treat wounds and abrasions (category Injuries, f = 1). Thymus vulgaris L. (f = 13) and Thymus x citriodorus (Pers.) Scherb. (f = 2) were used by gardeners to treat foremost ailments in the category Respiratory System Disorders (f = 8), but also Infections (f = 3) and Inflammations (f = 2). Gardeners prepared both herbal teas and syrups which were usually applied by drinking, herbal teas were sometimes applied by inhaling as well. Gardeners used Thymus vulgaris L. either solely for the preparation of herbal tea or in combination with other plants (e.g. Plantago lanceolata L., Achillea millefolium L., Urtica dioica L., Origanum vulgare L., Salvia officinalis L. and Matricaria recutita L. among others).

38


Remedies made from Hypericum perforatum L. (f = 13) were used to treat ailments within four different categories. Gardeners used oil made from the plant to treat Skin Disorders (f = 4), Injuries (f = 4), Pain (f = 2) and Respiratory System Disorders (f = 1). In a single case one gardener reported to use the oil ‘for everything’ (‘für alles’) as a ‘first aid’ (‘Erste Hilfe’). Herbal tea was mentioned by one gardener to be used as a sedative when suffering over fatigue (category Mental Disorders). Use reports of Urtica dioica L. (f = 6) and Urtica urens L. (f = 3) cover ailments within 5 different ailment categories. Gardeners used herbal tea prepared from both taxa for its effects of purifying, blood purifying and as a diuretic (category Other, f = 3). Tincture made from Urtica L. sp. was used for the treatment of Injuries (f = 2) and joint pain (f = 1). Herbal tea made from U. dioica L. was also used for the treatment of edema (f = 1) and rheumatism (f = 1). The plant taxon Mentha L. sp. (Mentha x piperita L. (f = 6), Mentha suaveolens Ehrh. (f = 3) and Mentha x gracilis L. (f = 1)) was used to treat ailments covering three ailment categories: Infections (f = 4), Digestive System Disorders (f = 3) and Respiratory System Disorders (f = 3). In all cases Mentha L. sp. was prepared as herbal teas together with various other plants, such as Salvia officinalis L., Origanum vulgare L., Matricaria recutita L., Thymus vulgaris L., Achillea millefolium L., Melissa officinalis L., Sambucus nigra L. and Monarda L. Cultivars among others. Plantago lanceolata L. (f = 6) comprises six use reports within four ailment categories. Gardeners prepared syrup from Plantago lanceolata L. (in one case together with Thymus vulgaris L.) to treat ailments in the categories Inflammations (f = 2), Respiratory System Disorders (f = 2) and Infections (f = 1). For the treatment of Injuries (f = 1) a single gardener used the fresh leaf to treat wounds, abrasions and cuts. Another 21 plant taxa were used by the gardeners of the subsample (n = 17), yet less frequently with only five or less use reports per taxon and are thus not explicitly mentioned here. The complete list of all use reports that were collected from the gardeners is given in the following table (tab. 6).

39

Table 6 Use reports of medicinal plant taxa that were used for human treatment by gardeners of the subsample (n = 17) in Eastern Tyrol in the year 2018. Use reports within the same ailment category were summarized for each plant taxon. Per ailment category the number of use reports is given in f (use reports) and the number of homegardens in which these use reports were collected from is given in f (gardens). Preparation methods are based on the descriptions in tab. 5. Age classes that remedies were used for: c = child, a = adult, s = senior. Effectiveness: 1 = worst, 5 = best. Botanical taxon, English name, family

Ailment category (aliments treated)

Age Plant part(s) used Preparation classes method

Application

f (use reports)

f (gardens) Other remedies, *preferred remedy

Achillea millefolium L., common yarrow, Asteraceae

Injuries (wounds)

a, s

Flower head (fresh, dried)

Tincture

Externally on skin

15 x

4.50

f = 1

f = 1

St. John’s Wort oil, chamomile tea, sage tea, *marigold salve, *‘Lärchenpechsalbe’ with tincture

Allium cepa L. cepa Grp., Infections onion, (cold) Alliaceae

c, a, s

Bulb (fresh)

Poultice

Externally on skin

2 x

3.00

f = 1

f = 1

--

Inflammations (sore throat)

c, a, s

Bulb (fresh) Bulb (fresh)

Poultice Syrup

Externally on skin Drinking

10 x 4 x

4.00 4.00

f = 2 f = 1

f = 2 f = 1

Cider vinegar and salt poultice, thyme tea, white mallow tea, *curd poultice, *sage tea, *onion poultice, *onion syrup

Pain (earache)

c

Bulb (fresh)

Poultice

Externally on skin

8 x

3.50

f = 2

f = 2

St. John’s Wort oil, rotten apples, *onion poultice, *’Schwedenbitter’

Respiratory System Disorders (cough, bronchitis)

c, a, s

Bulb (fresh)

Poultice Syrup


5 x 4 x

4.00 4.33

f = 6 f = 3

f = 6 f = 3

Sage tea, cider vinegar and salt poultice, white mallow tea, *curd poultice, *thyme tea, *onion syrup, *onion poultice, *cough syrup with thyme, *thyme tea, *ribwort plantain tea

Althaea officinalis L., white mallow, Malvaceae


a, s

Flower head, leaf Herbal tea (dried)

Drinking

3 x

2.50

f = 1

f = 1

Spruce syrup, *onion syrup with rock sugar

Respiratory System Disorders (cough)

c, a, s

Herbal tea Flower head, flower petal, leaf (dried)

Drinking

5 x

4.17

f = 3

f = 3

Spruce syrup, *onion syrup with rock sugar, *white mallow-Icelandic moss tea, *dandelion syrup, *plantain syrup,

Armoracia rusticana P. Gaertn., B. Mey et Scherb., horseradish, Brassicaceae


s

Leaf (fresh) Root (fresh)

Externally on skin Externally on skin

2 x 4 x

4.00 4.00

f = 1 f = 1

f = 1 f = 1

Plantain syrup, *onion syrup

No prep. Poultice

Mean frequency Mean past 12 months effectiveness scale 1-5

40

Table 6 continued Botanical taxon, English name, family



f (use reports)



Application

Artemisia absinthium L., Digestive System common wormwood, Disorders Asteraceae (indigestion)

s

Leaf (dried)

Herbal tea

Drinking

3 x

4.00

f = 1

f = 1

--

Mental Disorders (insomnia, sleep promoting)

s

Leaf (dried)

Herb pillow

Sleep on pillow

1 x

4.00

f = 1

f = 1

--

Pain (toothache)

s

Leaf (fresh)

Tincture

Externally on skin (cheek)

1 x

4.00

f = 1

f = 1

--

Artemisia vulgaris L., mugwort, Asteraceae

Digestive System Disorders (indigestion)

s


Drinking

1 x

5.00

f = 1

f = 1

--

Metabolic System Disorders (gout)

s

Whole plant (fresh)

Tincture

Externally on skin

2 x

5.00

f = 1

f = 1

Comfrey salve, *mugwort tincture

Pain (painful feet)

s

Leaf (fresh) Whole plant (fresh)

No prep. Tincture


5 x 2 x

4.00 5.00

f = 1 f = 1

f = 1 f = 1

Comfrey salve, *St. John’s Wort oil, *arnica salve, *mugwort leaf, *mugwort tincture

Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata (L.) Alef., cabbage, Brassicaceae

Inflammations (inflammation of the joints)

c, a, s

Leaf (fresh)

Poultice

Externally on skin

2 x

3.25

f = 2

f = 2

Anti-inflammatory salve, *cabbage poultice

Injuries (wounds, bruises)

a

Leaf (fresh)

Poultice

Externally on skin

3 x

2.50

f = 1

f = 1

--

Respiratory System Disorders (bronchitis)

a

Leaf (fresh)

Poultice

Externally on skin (chest)

2 x

3.00

f = 1

f = 1

*Inhaling mixed herbal tea (elder, sage, chamomile), *St. John’s Wort oil, *cabbage poultice

41

Table 6 continued


f (use reports)


Botanical taxon, English name, family



Application

Calendula officinalis L., scotch marigold, Asteraceae

Circulatory System Disorders (varicose veins)

a, s

Whole plant (fresh)

Salve

Externally on skin

5 x

4.00

f = 1

f = 1

--

Digestive System Disorders (stomach trouble)

a

Flower petal (dried)

Herbal tea

Drinking

26 x

4.00

f = 1

f = 1

--

Infections (cold)

c, a, s

Whole plant (fresh)

Salve


0 x (2 years ago)

3.00

f = 1

f = 1

‘Wicksalbe’, *mixed herbal tea with sage

Inflammations (inflammation of the skin)

c, a, s

Flower head, flower petal (fresh)

Salve

Externally on skin

37 x

4.00

f = 2

f = 2

*St. John’s Wort oil

Injuries (wounds, bruises, chapped lips, fissures, insect bites, burns, scars)

c, a, s

Flower petal, flower head, leaf (fresh) Flower petal, head (fresh) Flower head (fresh)

Salve Oil Tincture

Externally on skin Externally on skin Externally on skin

24 x 4 x 10 x

4.15 4.00 3.00

f = 13 f = 1 f = 2

f = 13 f = 1 f = 2

Stinging nettle tincture, comfrey salve, arnica salve, arnica tincture, marmot fat, *marigold salve, *marigold tincture, *marigold oil, *St. John’s Wort oil

Muscular-Skeletal System Disorders (strains)

c, a, s

Flower head (fresh)

Oil Tincture


5 x 10 x

4.00 3.00

f = 1 f = 1

f = 1 f = 1

Stinging nettle tincture, *marigold oil, *marigold tincture

Neoplasms (cancer prevention - melanoma)

c, a, s

Whole plant (fresh) Flower petal (dried)

Salve Herbal tea


5 x 40 x

-- --

f = 1 f = 1

f = 1 f = 1

*Viola salve


c, a, s

Whole plant (fresh)

Salve


0 x (2 years ago)

3.00

f = 1

f = 1

‘Wicksalbe’, *mixed herbal tea with sage

c, a, s Skin Disorders (dry/hard skin, dry lips, sunburn)

Flower petal, flower head, leaf, whole plant (fresh)

Salve

Externally on skin

29 x

3.88

f = 9

f = 9

Arnica salve, arnica tincture, St. John’s Wort salve, *St. John’s Wort oil, *marigold salve

42

Table 6 continued


f (use reports)





Application

Chenopodium bonushenricus L., good King Harry, Chenopodiaceae

Mental Disorders (used as sedative)

c, a, s

Flower head, leaf Raw or (fresh, dried) herbal tea

Eating Drinking

100 x

5.00

f = 1

f = 1

--

Helianthus tuberosus L., Jerusalem Artichoke, Asteraceae

Endocrine System Disorders (diabetes mellitus)

s

Tuber (fresh)

Cooked or raw

Eating

15 x

4.00

f = 1

f = 1

Pills from pharmacy, *diet (Jerusalem Artichoke)

Flower head, leaf (fresh)

Oil

Externally on skin

9 x

4.13

f = 4

f = 4

Arnica salve, ‘Schwedenbitter’, stinging nettle tincture, *St. John’s Wort oil, *marigold salve

c, a, s Hypericum perforatum L., Injuries St. John’s Wort, (wounds, burns, scars) Hypericaceae

Mental disorders (over fatigue, used as sedative)

c, a, s

Flower head (dried)

Herbal tea

Drinking

50 x

3.50

f = 1

f = 1

--

Other (for everything, ‘first aid’)

c, a, s

Flower head (fresh)

Oil

Externally on skin

25 x

5.00

f = 1

f = 1

Aloe Vera gel, *St. John’s Wort oil

Pain (back pain, joint pain)

c, a, s


Oil

Externally on skin

18 x

4.50

f = 2

f = 2

Aloe Vera gel, ‘Schwedenbitter’, nettle tincture, *St. John’s Wort oil, *arnica salve


c

Flower head (fresh)

Oil


2 x

3.00

f = 1

f = 1

*Inhaling mixed herbal tea (elder, sage, chamomile), *St. John’s Wort oil, *cabbage poultice

Skin Disorders (sunburn, dry/hard skin)

c, a, s


Oil

Externally on skin

5 x

4.13

f = 4

f = 4

Arnica salve, ‘Schwedenbitter’, nettle tincture, cream, *St. John’s Wort oil, *marigold salve

Lavandula angustifolia Mill., English lavender, Lamiaceae

Mental Disorders (used as sedative)

c, a, s

Flower head Syrup (fresh) Flower head, leaf Herbal tea (dried)

100 x

f = 1 f = 1

f = 1 f = 1

--

100 x

4.00 4.00

5 x

3.00

f = 1

f = 1

Arnica tincture, *lavender oil

Muscular-Skeletal System Disorders (tense muscles)

c, a, s

Flower head (fresh)

Oil

Drinking Drinking Externally on skin

43

Table 6 continued


f (use reports)





Application

Levisticum officinale W.D.J. Koch, lovage, Apiaceae

Inflammations (onychia, ingrown nails)

s

Leaf (fresh)

Infusion

Hand/footbath

0 x (2 years ago)

5.00

f = 1

f = 1

--

Injuries (wounds)

s

Leaf (fresh)

Infusion

Bath, washing wounds

0 x (2 years ago)

5.00

f = 1

f = 1

--

Malva neglecta Wallr., common mallow, Malvaceae

Infections (athlete’s foot)

a, s

Flower head, leaf Infusion (fresh)

Footbath

0 x (2 years ago)

3.00

f = 1

f = 1

--

Matricaria recutita L., chamomile, Asteraceae

Digestive System Disorders (stomach ache, stomach trouble)

c, a, s

Flower head (dried)

Herbal tea

Drinking

9 x

3.86

f = 7

f = 7

Mixed herbal tea, common silverweed tea, *chamomile tea, *hot-water bottle, *lime blossom tea

Infections (cold, influenza)

c, a, s

Flower head (dried)

Herbal tea

Drinking, inhaling

3 x

3.33

f = 3

f = 3

Mixed herbal tea, lard, onion syrup, *chamomile tea, *lime blossom tea, *olive oil

c, a, s Inflammations (cystitis, inflammation of the eye, eyelid, mouth, sore throat)

Flower head (dried) Flower head (dried)

Infusion Herbal tea

Externally on skin, steam bath Rinsing, drinking, gargling

5 x 6 x

3.62 3.75

f = 4 f = 2

f = 4 f = 2

Milk poultice, ‘Schwedenbitter’, sage tea, lingonberry juice, arnica tincture, arnica salve, *chamomile tea, *chamomile steam bath/ infusion, *curd poultice

Injuries (wounds)

c, a, s

Flower head (dried)

Infusion

Externally on skin

5 x

3.83

f = 3

f = 3

Sage tea, St. John’s Wort oil, arnica tincture, arnica salve, *chamomile tea, *marigold salve, *’Lärchenpechsalbe’


c, a, s

Flower head (dried)

Herbal tea

Drinking, gargling, inhaling

6 x

3.83

f = 3

f = 3

Milk poultice, ‘Schwedenbitter’, sage tea, lard, onion syrup, *chamomile tea, *curd poultice, *thyme tea, *olive oil, *plantain syrup, *mixed herbal tea (w. chamomile)

Skin Disorders (skin problems)

c

Flower head (dried)

Infusion

Bath

3 x

4.00

f = 1

f = 1

Essential lavender oil, *marigold salve

Melissa officinalis L, lemon balm, Lamiaceae

Digestive System Disorders (stomach ache)

c, a, s

Leaf (dried)

Herbal tea

Drinking

10 x

3.50

f = 1

f = 1

*Chamomile tea

44




f (use reports)



Application

Mentha suaveolens Ehrh., Digestive System apple mint, Disorders Lamiaceae (gastro-intestinal disease)

a, s

Leaf (dried)

Herbal tea

Drinking

2 x

4.00

f = 1

f = 1

*Chamomile tea

Infections (cold)

a, s

Leaf (dried)

Herbal tea

Drinking

3 x

4.00

f = 1

f = 1

Hot water with lemon and honey, *hot elder syrup with lemon


a, s

Leaf (dried)

Herbal tea

Drinking

3 x

4.00

f = 1

f = 1


Mentha x gracilis Sole, ginger mint, Lamiaceae


c,a,s

Leaf (dried)

Herbal tea

Drinking

10 x

5.00

f = 1

f = 1

*Plantain syrup, *mixed herbal tea with ginger mint

Mentha x piperita L., peppermint, Lamiaceae

a, s Digestive System Disorders (stomach ache, gastrointestinal disease)

Leaf (dried)

Herbal tea

Drinking

6 x

3.50

f = 2

f = 2

*Chamomile tea

Infections (cold)

c, a, s

Leaf (dried)

Herbal tea

Drinking

8 x

3.67

f = 3

f = 3

Hot water with lemon and honey, *hot elder syrup with lemon, *chamomile tea, *onion poultice, *mixed herbal tea mint


a, s

Leaf (dried)

Herbal tea

Drinking

3 x

4.00

f = 1

f = 1


Monarda L. Cultivars, bee balm, Lamiaceae

Digestive System Disorders (gastro-intestinal disease)

a, s


Herbal tea

Drinking

2 x

4.00

f = 1

f = 1

*Chamomile tea

Infections (cold)

a, s


Herbal tea

Drinking

3 x

4.00

f = 1

f = 1


Respiratory System Disorders (cough, bronchitis)

c, a, s


Herbal tea

Drinking

8 x

4.67

f = 3

f = 2

Hot water with lemon and honey, *hot elder syrup with lemon, *plantain syrup, *mixed herbal tea (w. bee balm)

45

Table 6 continued

f (use reports)





Application

Petroselinum crispum (Mill.) Fuss, Parsley, Apiaceae

Circulatory System Disorders (strengthening of the heart)

a, s

Leaf (fresh)

Wine ‘Herzwein’

Drinking

6 x

3.00

f = 1

f = 1

--

Plantago lanceolata L., English plantain, Plantaginaceae

Infections (cold)

c, a, s

Leaf (fresh)

Syrup

Drinking

1 x

3.00

f = 1

f = 1

--


c, a, s

Leaf (fresh)

Syrup

Drinking

1 x

4.00

f = 2

f = 2

Horse radish poultice, *onion syrup

Injuries (wounds, abrasions, cuts)

s

Leaf (fresh)

No prep.

Externally on skin

0 x (10 years ago)

5.00

f = 1

f = 1

*Plantain leaf, *comfrey leaf


c, a, s

Leaf (fresh)

Syrup

Drinking

4 x

4.25

f = 2

f = 2

Horse radish poultice, *onion syrup

Primula elatior (L.) Hill, cowslip primrose, Primulaceae

Circulatory System Disorders (heart complaints)

a

Flower head (dried)

Herbal tea

Drinking

0 x (6 years ago)

3.00

f = 1

f = 1

--

Salvia nemorosa L., wild sage, Lamiaceae

Inflammations (sore throat, aphtha)

c, a, s

Leaf (fresh,dried) Herbal tea No prep.

Drinking, gargling Chewing

10 x 10 x

4.00 3.00

f = 1 f = 1

f = 1 f = 1

Onion poultice, *curd poultice

Other (for sweating)

s

Leaf (fresh, dried) Herbal tea

Drinking

10 x

4.00

f = 1

f = 1

--

Pain (toothache)

c, a, s

Leaf (fresh)

Chewing

10 x

3.00

f = 1

f = 1

--


c, a, s


Drinking, gargling

10 x

4.00

f = 1

f = 1

Onion poultice, *curd poultice

No prep.


46

Table 6 continued




Application

Salvia officinalis L., common sage, Lamiaceae

Digestive System Disorders (stomach trouble)

c, a, s


Drinking

Infections (cold)

c, a, s

Leaf (dried)

Herbal tea

Inflammations (sore throat, inflammation of the gums)

c, a, s

c, a, s Injuries (wounds in the mouth, wounds)

Pain (toothache)


f (use reports)


0 x (2 years ago)

3.00

f = 1

f = 1

*Common yarrow tea


2 x

3.33

f = 3

f = 3

Lard, onion syrup, ‘Wicksalbe’, marigold salve, *sage tea, *olive oil, *elder aspic, *drops from pharmacy

Leaf (fresh, dried) Herbal tea No prep. Infusion

Drinking, gargling, rinsing Chewing Externally on skin

6 x 7 x 3 x

4.04 4.00 3.50

f = 12 f = 3 f = 1

f = 9 f = 3 f = 1

Gargling salt water, thyme tea, butter and sugar, St. John’s Wort oil, milk poultice, ‘Schwedenbitter’, white mallow tea, *sage tea, *curd poultice, *elder aspic, *onion poultice, *onion syrup, *marigold salve, *’Lärchenpechsalbe’, *chamomile tea, *schnapps, *drops from pharmacy

Leaf (dried) Herbal tea Leaf (fresh, dried) Infusion

Rinsing Externally on skin

1 x 3 x

4.00 3.50

f = 2 f = 1

f = 2 f = 1

Chamomile tea, St. John’s Wort oil, *sage tea, *’Lärchenpechsalbe’, *marigold salve

c, a, s

Leaf (dried)

Rinsing, gargling

1 x

4.50

f = 2

f = 2

*Chew sage leaf, *chew clove, *sage tea


c, a, s

Leaf (dried, fresh) Herbal tea


6 x

3.91

f = 6

f = 5

Chamomile tea, milk poultice, ‘Schwedenbitter’, chew sage leaf, lard, white mallow tea, ‘Wicksalbe’, marigold salve, *thyme tea, *olive oil, *onion syrup, *mixed herbal tea with sage, *sage tea, *plantain syrup

Sambucus nigra L., common elder, Caprifoliaceae


c, a, s

Flower head (dried)

Herbal tea

Drinking

10 x

5.00

f = 1

f = 1

*Mixed herbal tea with common elder, *plantain syrup

Infections (fever)

c, a, s

Fruit (fresh)

Syrup

Drinking

4 x

4.00

f = 1

f = 1

*Common elder syrup, *vinegar poultice on feet, *boiled potato poultice

Herbal tea

47



Symphytum officinale L., Injuries (wounds, abrasions) common comfrey, Boraginaceae


Application

s

Externally on skin

Leaf (fresh)

No prep.

f (use reports)


5.00

f = 1

f = 1

*Plantain leaf, *comfrey leaf

Mean frequency Mean past 12 months effectiveness scale 1-5 0 x

(3 years ago)

c, a, s Muscular-Skeletal System Disorders (osteoporosis – preventative, sprains, strains, bone fractures)

Pain (joint pain, back pain, hip pain, painful legs, shoulders, neck)

Tanacetum parthenium (L.) Sch. Bip., feverfew, Asteraceae

Root (fresh) Root (fresh) Root (fresh) Leaf (fresh)

Tincture Oil Salve Poultice

Drinking (drops), externally on skin Externally on skin Externally on skin Externally on skin

9 x 3 x 3 x 1 x

3.75 3.50 4.00 4.00

f = 2 f = 1 f = 1 f = 1

f = 2 f = 1 f = 1 f = 1

Comfrey globules, *comfrey tincture, *comfrey salve, *comfrey poultice for acute sprains/strains

c, a, s

Root, flower head, fruit (fresh) Whole plant, root (fresh) Root (fresh) Leaf (fresh) Flower head (dried)

Tincture Salve Oil Poultice Herbal tea

Externally on skin Externally on skin Externally on skin Externally on skin Drinking

17 x 15 x 30 x 1 x 2 x

4.33 4.50 4.00 4.00 5.00

f = 3 f = 2 f = 1 f = 1 f = 1

f = 3 f = 2 f = 1 f = 1 f = 1

Comfrey globules, arnica salve, *comfrey tincture, *comfrey salve, *comfrey tea, St. John’s Wort oil, *comfrey poultice for acute joint pain

Pain (menstrual pain, ovulatory pain)

a

Leaf (fresh)

Soup

Eating

0 x (20 years ago)

4.00

f = 1

f = 1

--

Taraxacum sect. ruderalia Kirschner, dandelion, Asteraceae


c, a, s

Flower head (fresh)

Syrup

Drinking

5 x

5.00

f = 1

f = 1

*Dandelion syrup, *white mallowIcelandic moss tea

Thymus vulgaris L., common thyme, Lamiaceae

Infections (cold)

c, a, s

Whole plant Syrup (fresh) Flower head, leaf Herbal tea (dried)

Drinking Drinking

1 x 6 x

3.00 3.75

f = 1 f = 2

f = 1 f = 2

*Mixed herbal tea with thyme, *thyme syrup, *onion poultice


c, a, s

Whole plant (fresh)

Drinking Drinking

1 x 1 x

3.00 5.00

f = 1 f = 1

f = 1 f = 1

*Thyme tea, *thyme syrup, *sage tea

Syrup Flower head, leaf Herbal tea (dried)

48

Table 6 continued

f (use reports)





Application

Thymus vulgaris L., common thyme, Lamiaceae

Respiratory System Disorders

c, a, s

Flower head, leaf, Syrup whole plant (fresh)

Drinking

5 x

4.25

f = 2

f = 2

Flower head, leaf, Herbal tea whole plant (dried, fresh)

Drinking, inhaling

4 x

3.67

f = 6

f = 6

(cough, bronchitis)


Sage tea, chamomile tea, inhaling mixed herbal tea with elder, sage and chamomile, onion poultice, white mallow tea, *thyme tea, *thyme syrup, *onion syrup, *olive oil

Thymus x citriodorus (Pers.) Scherb., lemon thyme, Lamiaceae


c, a, s

Leaf (dried)

Herbal tea

Drinking

5 x

5.00

f = 1

f = 1

*Thyme tea, *sage tea


c, a, s

Leaf (dried)

Herbal tea

Drinking

5 x

5.00

f = 1

f = 1

*Thyme tea, *onion syrup, *onion poultice

Urtica dioica L., stinging nettle, Urticaceae

Abnormalities (edema)

s

Leaf (dried)

Herbal tea

Drinking

7 x

5.00

f = 1

f = 1

--

Injuries (bruises)

c, a, s

Leaf, flower head Tincture (fresh)

Externally on skin

10 x

4.00

f = 1

f = 1

*Marigold tincture, *marigold oil

Muscular-Skeletal System Disorders (rheumatism)

s

Leaf (dried)

Drinking

7 x

5.00

f = 1

f = 1

--

Other (purifying, blood purifying, diuretic, hot feet)

a, s

Leaf (fresh, dried) Herbal tea Leaf, flower head Tincture (fresh)

Drinking Foot bath with tincture

51 x 5 x

4.50 4.00

f = 2 f = 1

f = 2 f = 1

*Stinging nettle tea, *common yarrow tea --

Injuries (wounds)

a, s

Leaf (fresh)

Tincture

Externally on skin

15 x

4.50

f = 1

f = 1

St. John’s Wort oil, chamomile tea, sage tea, *’Lärchenpechsalbe’ with nettle tincture, *marigold salve

Other (purifying, blood purifying)

a, s

Leaf (fresh)

Herbal tea

Drinking

30 x

4.00

f = 1

f = 1

--

Pain (joint pain)

a, s

Leaf (fresh)

Tincture

Externally on skin

10 x

3.50

f = 1

f = 1

‘Schwedenbitter’, *St. John’s Wort oil, *arnica salve

Urtica urens L., dwarf nettle, Urticaceae

Herbal tea

49

Table 6 continued

f (use reports)





Application

Verbascum densiflorum Bertol., large-flowered mullein, Scrophulariaceae

Infections (cold)

c, a, s

Flower head (dried)

Herbal tea

Drinking

0 x (2 years ago)

3.00

f = 1

f = 1

‘Wicksalbe’, marigold salve, *mixed herbal tea with mullein and sage


c, a, s

Flower head (dried)

Herbal tea

Drinking

0 x (2 years ago)

3.00

f = 1

f = 1

‘Wicksalbe’, marigold salve, *mixed herbal tea with mullein and sage

a


Drinking

2 x

2.50

f = 1

f = 1

--

Veronica teucrium L., Circulatory System heavenly blue speedwell, Disorders Scrophulariaceae (cholesterol level too high)


50


5.6.3. Ethnoveterinary uses of medicinal plants 5.6.3.1. Ailment categories and represented plant taxa Use reports that gardeners mentioned for ethnoveterinary purposes cover ailments of six different ailment categories according to Cook (1995). In regard to the number of use reports the category Injuries (32.3 %) is the most common one. Inflammations (22.6 %) make the second largest category, followed by Digestive System Disorders (16.1 %), Muscular-Skeletal System Disorders (12.9 %), Pain (9.7 %) and Skin Disorders (6.5 %). Animals that were treated by the gardeners are mainly dairy cows and calves, and in some cases sheep, horses and kittens. Within the most common category Injuries gardeners treated mainly wounds (f = 9) occurring in animals, less commonly fissures (f = 2) and bruises (f = 1). Gardeners used six different plant taxa of which Calendula officinalis L. (f = 5) is the most common, other taxa used are Achillea millefolium L. (f = 1), Matricaria recutita L. (f = 1), Salvia officinalis L. (f = 1), Urtica dioica L. (f = 1) and Urtica urens L. (f = 1). Most common ailments treated within the second largest category Inflammations are inflammation of the udder of dairy cows (f = 4), inflammation of the skin (f = 1), inflammation of the eye (f = 1), inflammation of the joints (f = 1) and inflammations in general (f = 1). Five different plant taxa were used to treat inflammations: Calendula officinalis L. (f = 2), Matricaria recutita L. (f = 2), Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata (L.) Alef. (f = 1), Hypericum perforatum L. (f = 1) and Salvia officinalis L. (f = 1). Ailments within the category Digestive System Disorders that gardeners treated in animals are stomach trouble (f = 2), indigestion (f = 2) and diarrhea (f = 2). Gardeners used three different plant taxa to treat digestive system disorders, mainly Matricaria recutita L. (f = 3), but also Achillea millefolium L. (f = 1) and Artemisia absinthium L. (f = 1). In the fourth largest category Muscular-Skeletal System Disorders gardeners treated sprains (f = 3), strains (f = 2) and dislocations (f = 1) occurring in animals, using three different plant taxa – Calendula officinalis L. (f = 2), Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata (L.) Alef. (f = 1) and Symphytum officinale L. (f = 1). The category Pain comprises the ailments joint pain or swollen joints (f = 2), painful hooves and limping (f = 1). Gardeners used two plant taxa to treat pain, which are Symphytum officinale L. (f = 2) and Hypericum perforatum L. (f = 1). The smallest category is Skin Disorders where gardeners treated dry or rough udder of dairy cows (f = 2) and sunburns (f = 1) using merely Calendula officinalis L. (f = 2). 5.6.3.2. Ethnoveterinary use reports A total of 31 use reports for ten different plant taxa was collected from gardeners of the subsample describing ethnoveterinary uses. The number of use reports varies between a minimum of a single use report and a maximum of 11 use reports per plant taxon. The family Asteraceae was most often

51


represented with four different plant taxa used, followed by Urticaceae with two plant taxa used. Ethnoveterinary use reports are listed in the following table (tab. 7) and are grouped accordingly to plant taxa and ailments treated within the respective ailment category. Gardeners used most commonly Calendula officinalis L. (f = 11) for the treatment of ailments occurring in animals. In most cases gardeners prepared salve made from the plant that was used to treat foremost ailments within the category Injuries (f = 5) such as wounds and fissures of dairy cows. Gardeners also used the salve to treat Inflammations (f = 2) of the skin and udder of dairy cows as well as to treat Skin Disorders (f = 2) such as dry or rough udder and sunburns of dairy cows. Two use reports in the category Muscular-Skeletal System Disorders (f = 2) were collected, in one case the salve was used to treat dislocations and in another case marigold tincture was used to treat sprains and strains of dairy cows. The second most commonly used plant taxon is Matricaria recutita L. (f = 6) covering ailments within three different ailment categories. Most commonly gardeners fed calves with chamomile tea to treat Digestive System Disorders (f = 3) such as diarrhea, stomach trouble or indigestion. Gardeners also reported to prepare infusions made from chamomile to treat Inflammations (f = 2) of dairy cows’ udders and kittens’ eyes. In a single case a gardener used chamomile infusion to treat wounds of dairy cows and calves. Further eight plant taxa were used by the gardeners, however to a lesser extent. Three use reports show that gardeners prepared tincture and oil made from Symphytum officinale L. (f = 3) to treat joint pain, painful hooves and limping of dairy cows, calves and sheep. Tincture made from Symphytum officinale L. was also used for the treatment of sprains and strains occurring in dairy cows, calves and sheep. Achillea millefolium L. (f = 2) was prepared as herbal tea to treat diarrhea and as tincture to treat wounds occurring in dairy cows and calves. A single gardeners reported to use Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata (L.) Alef. (f = 2) for the treatment of sprains and inflammation of the joints that occurred in her horse. For that purpose, fresh leaves of cabbage were prepared as poultice and externally applied on the skin. Oil made from Hypericum perforatum L. (f = 2) was used to treat inflammations of the udder of dairy cows, joint pain and swollen joints of dairy cows and calves. Two use reports were collected for Salvia officinalis L. (f = 2) of which gardeners prepared infusions used to treat inflammations and wounds occurring in dairy cows and calves. Both Urtica dioica L. (f = 1) and Urtica urens L. (f = 1) were prepared as tincture for the treatment of injuries such as wounds and bruises of dairy cows and calves. A single gardener reported to prepare tincture made from Artemisia absinthium L. (f = 1) using it for the treatment of indigestion occurring in sheep.

52

Table 7 Use reports of medicinal plant taxa that were used for ethnoveterinary purposes by gardeners of the subsample (n = 17) in Eastern Tyrol in the year 2018. Use reports within the same ailment category were summarized for each plant taxon. Per ailment category the number of use reports is given in f (use reports) and the number of homegardens in which these use reports were collected from is given in f (gardens). Preparation methods are based on the descriptions in tab. 5. Effectiveness: 1 = worst, 5 = best. Botanical taxon, English name, family


Animal

Plant part(s) used

Preparation method

f (use reports)


Achillea millefolium L., common yarrow, Asteraceae

Digestive System Disorders (diarrhea)

Dairy cow, Flower head Herbal tea calf (fresh, dried)

Drinking

20 x

3.00

f = 1

f = 1

Effective microorganisms (EM), *common yarrow tea

Injuries (wounds)

Dairy cow, Flower head Tincture calf (fresh, dried)

Externally on skin

10 x

4.50

f = 1

f = 1

St. John’s Wort oil, chamomile tea, sage tea, *marigold salve, *‘Lärchenpechsalbe’ with tincture

Artemisia absinthium L., Digestive System common wormwood, Disorders Asteraceae (indigestion)

Sheep

Leaf (fresh)

Tincture

Drinking

10 x

5.00

f = 1

f = 1

--

Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata (L.) Alef., cabbage, Brassicaceae

Inflammations (inflammation of the joints)

horse

Leaf (fresh)

Poultice

Externally on skin

0 x (3 years ago)

3.00

f = 1

f = 1

--

Muscular-Skeletal System Disorders (sprains)

horse

Leaf (fresh)

Poultice

Externally on skin

0 x (3 years ago)

3.00

f = 1

f = 1

--

Calendula officinalis L., scotch marigold, Asteraceae

Inflammations (inflammation of the skin, udder)

Dairy cow

Flower head, Salve whole plant (fresh)

Externally on skin

5 x

4.50

f = 2

f = 2

Medicine from the vet, *marigold salve

Injuries (wounds, fissures)

Dairy cow

Flower head, Salve petal, whole plant (fresh)

Externally on skin

7 x

4.20

f = 5

f = 5

Bag balm, medicine from the vet, *marigold salve

Muscular-Skeletal System Disorders (sprains, strains, dislocation)

Dairy cow

Flower head (fresh) Whole plant (fresh)


10 x 0 x (13 years ago)

5.00 4.00

f = 1 f = 1

f = 1 f = 1

-- Medicine from the vet, *marigold salve

Skin Disorders (dry/rough udder, sunburn)

Dairy cow

Flower head, Salve flower petal (fresh)

Externally on skin

12 x

4.25

f = 2

f = 2

--

Tincture Salve

Application


53

Table 7 continued

Preparation

Application

f (use reports)




Animal

Plant part(s) used

Hypericum perforatum L., St. John’s Wort, Hypericaceae

Inflammations (inflammation of the udder)

Dairy cow

Flower head, Oil leaf (fresh)

Externally on skin

1 x

4.00

f = 1

f = 1

Arnica salve, ‘Schwedenbitter’, *St. John’s Wort oil

Pain (joint pain, swollen joint)

Dairy cow, Flower head, Oil calf leaf (fresh)

Externally on skin

1 x

4.00

f = 1

f = 1

Arnica salve, ‘Schwedenbitter’, *St. John’s Wort oil

Matricaria recutita L., chamomile,

Digestive System Disorders (diarrhea, stomach trouble, indigestion)

Calf

Herbal tea

Drinking

2 x

4.33

f = 3

f = 3

*Chamomile tea, *boiled linseeds

Inflammations (inflammation of the udder, eye)

Dairy cow, Flower head kitten (dried)

Infusion

Externally on skin (eye, udder)

3 x

4.25

f = 2

f = 2

Sage tea, St. John’s Wort oil, *’Lärchenpechsalbe’, *marigold salve

Injuries (wounds)

Dairy cow, Flower head calf (dried)

Infusion

Externally on skin

5 x

3.50

f = 1

f = 1

Sage tea, St. John’s Wort oil, *’Lärchenpechsalbe’, *marigold salve

Salvia officinalis L., common sage, Lamiaceae

Inflammations

Dairy cow, Leaf (fresh, calf dried)

Infusion

Externally on skin

3 x

3.50

f = 1

f = 1

Chamomile tea, St. John’s Wort oil, *’Lärchenpechsalbe’, *marigold salve

Injuries (wounds)

Dairy cow, Leaf (fresh, calf dried)

Infusion

Externally on skin

3 x

3.50

f = 1

f = 1

Chamomile tea, St. John’s Wort oil, *’Lärchenpechsalbe’, *marigold salve

Symphytum officinale L., Muscular-Skeletal common comfrey, System Disorders Boraginaceae (sprains, strains)

Dairy cow, Root (fresh) calf, sheep

Tincture

Externally on skin

5 x

4.00

f = 1

f = 1

--

Pain (joint pain, painful hooves, limping)

Dairy cow, Root (fresh) calf, sheep Root (fresh)

Tincture Oil


5 x 2 x

4.00 4.00

f = 1 f = 1

f = 1 f = 1

-- ‘Steinölsalbe’, *comfrey oil

Urtica dioica L., stinging nettle, Urticaceae

Injuries (bruises)

Dairy cow

Tincture

Externally on skin

3 x

4.00

f = 1

f = 1

--

Urtica urens L., dwarf nettle, Urticaceae

Injuries (wounds)

Dairy cow, Leaf (fresh) calf

Tincture

Externally on skin

10 x

4.50

f = 1

f = 1

St. John’s Wort oil, chamomile tea, sage tea, *’Lärchenpechsalbe’ with nettle tincture, *marigold salve

Asteraceae

Flower head (dried)

Leaf, flower head (fresh)


54


5.6.4. Non-medicinal uses and primary uses of medicinal plants In total 35 different plant taxa were used for medicinal purposes by the 17 gardeners of the subsample in the year 2018. When gardeners were asked about other uses than the medicinal one of each plant taxon, the use as foodstuff (either food, beverage or spice) was mentioned most often. In case gardeners mentioned another use than the medicinal one, they were asked for the primary use of each plant taxon. Most common primary uses of plant taxa were the use as medicinal plant, foodstuff or both (appendix 10). Out of the 35 plant taxa 11 were used by three or more gardeners for medicinal purposes. Findings about other uses and primary uses of these 11 plant taxa are presented below. The remaining plant taxa that are used for medicinal purposes by only one or two gardeners and their other/primary uses are not explicitly mentioned here, but are listed together with all other plant taxa in appendix 10. Within the 17 homegardens surveyed, Calendula officinalis L. was used by 13 gardeners for medicinal purposes making it the most commonly represented plant taxon. In 12 cases gardeners used marigold as foodstuff in mixed herbal tea as well. Two gardeners used it also as an ornamental plant in bouquets. Seven of the gardeners (53.8 %) reported a primary use of C. officinalis L. as medicinal plant. Four gardeners (30.8 %) reported primarily using marigold as foodstuff by adding its flower petals to mixed herbal tea. The remaining two gardeners (15.4 %) mentioned a primary use of marigold both as foodstuff and medicinal plant. In total 12 of the gardeners used Salvia L. sp. for medicinal purposes (Salvia officinalis L. f = 11; Salvia nemorosa L. f = 1). In ten cases the leaf of the plant was also used as foodstuff, mainly as spice or in herbal tea. Three gardeners mentioned a cultural use as well, such as ‘Kräuterbuschen’ (bouquet of herbs) or incense. Nine gardeners (75 %) used the plant primarily for its medicinal purposes. One gardener (8.3 %) mentioned foodstuff to be the major use of Salvia L. sp. For two gardeners (16.7 %) the plant was equally important as foodstuff and medicinal plant. Matricaria recutita L. was used by ten gardeners for medicinal purposes, of whom six also used it as foodstuff by adding it to mixed herbal tea. One gardener used it for cultural purposes as well (‘Kräuterbuschen’). Seven gardeners (70 %) primarily used chamomile as medicinal plant by preparing herbal tea or infusions from the flower heads. Three gardeners (30 %) mentioned the use of chamomile as foodstuff as most important, in the context of drinking mixed herbal tea as common beverage. Seven gardeners used Thymus vulgaris L. and one used Thymus x citriodorus (Pers.) Schreb. for medicinal purposes, that makes a total of eight gardeners who used the taxon Thymus L. sp. All eight gardeners used thyme as foodstuff as well, either as spice or in mixed herbal tea. Two gardeners

55


mentioned also a cultural use of thyme (‘Kräuterbuschen’). Only three gardeners (37.5 %) reported a primary use as medicinal plant. The remaining five gardeners (62.5 %) primarily used Thymus L. sp. as foodstuff. Onion, Allium cepa L. cepa Grp. was used by six gardeners for its medicinal properties, all of them used the plant’s fresh bulb as spice for cooking as well. None of the gardeners (0 %) mentioned a primary use of onions as only medicinal plant. Four gardeners (66.7 %) primarily used the plant as foodstuff, and two gardeners (33.3 %) mentioned both foodstuff and medicinal plant as the primary use. Five gardeners reported to use Urtica L. sp. (U. dioica L. and U. urens L.) as medicinal plants. Two of them mentioned the use as foodstuff (herbal tea, herb salt) as well. One gardener used Urtica L. sp. additionally as fertilizer and pesticide by preparing slurry (‘Brennnesseljauche’). Another gardener prepared tincture from Urtica L. sp. that was used for the hair. Four of the gardeners (80 %) used Urtica L. sp. primarily as a medicinal plant. Only one gardener (20 %) mentioned its use as foodstuff as most important. Hypericum perforatum L. was used by five gardeners for medicinal purposes, only one of them mentioned the use as foodstuff for mixed herbal tea. One gardener mentioned an additional cultural use of the plant that was added to the ‘Kräuterbuschen’. All five gardeners (100 %) reported to use H. perforatum L. primarily as medicinal plant. Four gardeners used Mentha L. sp. (Mentha x piperita L., Mentha suaveolens Ehrh., Mentha x gracilis Sole) for their medicinal properties. All gardeners used the plant also as foodstuff, using its leaves either in mixed herbal tea, herb salt or for syrup. One gardener mentioned an additional cultural use as incense. Out of the four, one gardener (25 %) primarily used Mentha L. sp. as medicinal plant, two gardeners (50 %) as foodstuff and one gardener (25 %) both as medicinal plant and foodstuff. Further three plant taxa were used for medicinal purposes by three different gardeners each. Out of three gardeners, one used Althaea officinalis L. also as foodstuff for mixed herbal tea. However, all three gardeners (100 %) mentioned the use of A. officinalis L. as medicinal plant as the most important. Three gardeners used the fresh leaves of Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata (L.) Alef. as medicine, all of them used it as foodstuff as well, such as in salads and as vegetable in various dishes. In all three cases (100 %) the cabbage was primarily used as food rather than as medicinal plant. Symphytum officinale L. was used by three gardeners, of whom one mentioned its use as spice for soups as well. All three gardeners (100 %) reported a primary use of Symphytum officinale L. as medicinal plant.

56


5.6.5. Gardeners’ use of common 1998 medicinal plants The 17 gardeners of the subsample were presented with a list of the eight most common plant taxa that were used for medicinal purposes by gardeners in the study from the year 1998 (tab. 8). In the year 1998 Calendula officinalis L. was the most commonly used taxon, followed by Matricaria recutita L., Salvia officinalis L., Mentha L. sp., Althaea officinalis L., Melissa officinalis L., Artemisia absinthium L. and Thymus L. sp. Any of these plant taxa were listed as being used in the year 2018 when gardeners reported to use them for medicinal purposes, no matter whether obtained from their own homegardens or from other sources (e.g. from around the house, purchased, from family or neighbors, wild harvest, etc.). Calendula officinalis L., the most common medicinal plant in the year 1998, was also frequently used in the year 2018 by 14 gardeners (82.4 %). Three gardeners (17.6 %) reported no use of C. officinalis L. as medicinal plant. Matricaria recutita L. was used by 14 different gardeners (82.4 %) as well, the remaining three gardeners (17.6 %) did not use chamomile specifically for medicinal purposes. The plant taxon Salvia L. sp. was a very popular medicinal plant in the year 2018 as well that was used by 16 gardeners in total (94.1 %), of whom 15 used Salvia officinalis L. and one used Salvia nemorosa L. A single gardener (5.9 %) reported no specific medicinal use of plant. The plant taxon Mentha L. sp. was used by only five gardeners (29.4 %) in the year 2018. The majority of 12 gardeners (70.6 %) did not use Mentha L. sp. for medicinal purposes. In the case of Althaea officinalis L. only six gardeners (35.3 %) used the plant for its medicinal effects, the remaining 11 gardeners (64.7 %) did not mention a specific medicinal use. Melissa officinalis L. is the most extreme case as it was ranked sixth under medicinal plants used in the year 1998 – however, in the year 2018 only one gardener (5.9 %) of the subsample used M. officinalis L. for medicinal purposes. The majority of 16 gardeners (94.1 %) did not report a medicinal use of the plant. Artemisia absinthium L. was used by only five gardeners (29.4 %) in the year 2018, in contrast to 12 gardeners (70.6 %) who did not use it as medicinal plant. The plant taxon Thymus L. sp. was used by 12 gardeners (70.6 %) in the year 2018, while five gardeners (29.4 %) reported no use of the plant for medicinal purposes. The findings reveal that only half of the most common medicinal plant from the year 1998 were used for medicinal purposes by 70 % or more of the gardeners of the subsample in the year 2018 (tab. 8). These taxa are Salvia L. sp., Calendula officinalis L., Matricaria recutita L. and Thymus L. sp. The other four plant taxa (Melissa officinalis L., Mentha L. sp., Artemisia absinthium L. and Althaea officinalis L.) were used by 6 – 35 % of the gardeners only (tab. 8).

57


Table 8 List of the in 1998 eight most common medicinal plant taxa in regard to frequency of use among gardeners. Giving the share of gardeners of the subsample (n = 17) who used/ did not use the plant taxa for medicinal purposes in the year 2018 in number of gardeners (f) and percent (%). MP = medicinal plant.

No.

Share of gardeners who used taxon as MP in 2018

Botanical taxon

Share of gardeners who did NOT use taxon as MP in 2018

f

%

f

%

1

Calendula officinalis L.

14

82.35

3

17.65

2

Matricaria recutita L.

14

82.35

3

17.65

3

Salvia L. sp.

16

94.12

1

5.88

4

Mentha L. sp.

5

29.41

12

70.59

5

Althaea officinalis L.

6

35.29

11

64.71

6

Melissa officinalis L.

1

5.88

16

94.12

7

Artemisia absinthium L.

5

29.41

12

70.59

8

Thymus L. sp.

12

70.59

5

29.41

5.6.6. Reasons for no longer using medicinal plants As a preparation for the interviews with the 17 gardeners of the subsample a list with all medicinal plant taxa that were used in the years 1998 and 2018 was brought. When certain plant taxa were used for medicinal purposes in the year 1998 but were no longer used in the year 2018, gardeners were asked for the reason why so. There is a total of 31 cases in which medicinal plants were used in the year 1998 but not used anymore by the gardeners in the year 2018 (tab. 9). In 11 cases gardeners reported that the plant used to be in the homegarden 20 years ago but was not present anymore in the year 2018. Some of the gardeners added, that the plant “got extinct” or “died”. In seven cases gardeners explained that the plant was no longer within the homegarden but was relocated to another site somewhere around the house and was still used for medicinal purposes. In three cases the homegarden was managed by another gardener when surveyed 20 years ago. In the remaining ten cases gardeners reported no use of the plant in question for medicinal purposes in the year 2018 and also reported to not having used the plant in the year 1998, even though its use was documented back then by the selfsame gardeners.

58


Table 9 List of plant taxa that were used for medicinal purposes in the year 1998, but were no longer used in the year 2018 by the gardeners of the subsample (n = 17). Plant taxa are grouped accordingly to the reason for not being used anymore. Under each reason plant taxa are sorted accordingly to the homegarden ID. Use of each plant taxon in the year 1998 is indicated as either used for human, animal or both. Homegarden ID

Botanical taxon

Human

Animal

Plant was no longer present in the homegarden in the year 2018 HG_0215


x

HG_0215

Mentha pulegium L.

x

HG_0633

Hyssopus officinalis L.

x

HG_0707


x

HG_0710


x

x

HG_0710

Hypericum perforatum L.

x

HG_0908

Malva moschata L.

x

HG_0908

Mentha x piperita L.

x

HG_0911


x

HG_1210


x

HG_1210

Malva neglecta Wallr.

x

Plant was relocated but still used for medicinal purposes in the year 2018 HG_0215

Achillea millefolium L.

x

x

HG_0215

Salvia officinalis L.

x

HG_0633


x

HG_0707


x

HG_0707

Sambucus nigra L.

x

HG_0805


x

HG_0805


x

Change of garden manager between the years 1998 and 2018 HG_0416

Calendula officinalis L

x

x

HG_0416


x

HG_0802

Calendula officinalis L

x

x

Gardener reported to not having used the plant in the year 1998

HG_0633

Sambucus nigra L.

x

HG_0633

Tanacetum parthenium (L.) Sch. Bip.

x

HG_0633

Veronica spicata L.

x

HG_0707

Urtica dioica L.

x

HG_1104

Borago officinalis L.

x

HG_1104


x

HG_1104


x

HG_1104

Monarda L. Cultivars

x

HG_1210

Mentha suaveolens Ehrh.

x

HG_1210


x

59


5.7. Sources of medicinal plants in the year 2018 The major precondition of medicinal plant taxa to be recorded for the purpose of this study was their presence in the homegardens. Thus the homegarden is obviously a source for the 35 different medicinal plant taxa that were used by gardeners of the subsample (n = 17). In some cases, gardeners mentioned additionally to the homegardens other sources, such as from around the house or farm, purchased, wild harvested or from family members or neighbors (appendix 11). Out of the 35 medicinal plant taxa used, 17 were obtained from the homegardens only by all gardeners (appendix 11). The plant taxa Calendula officinalis L., Helianthus tuberosus L., Malva neglecta Wallr., Monarda L. Cultivars, Primula elatior (L.) Hill., Sambucus nigra L., Taraxacum sect. ruderalia Kirschner, and Urtica urens L. were mentioned by a single gardener each to be obtained not only from the homegarden but also from around the house or farm. Two gardener mentioned to collect Plantago lanceolata L. from around the house or farm as well and three gardeners reported to collect Urtica dioica L. from around the house or farm. There are four medicinal plant taxa that gardeners reported to occasionally purchase. Two gardeners reported to purchase Allium cepa L. cepa Grp. and three gardeners reported to purchase Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata (L.) Alef. in winter when it cannot be grown in the homegarden. Matricaria recutita L. and Salvia officinalis L. were mentioned by one gardener to be purchased when necessary and not sufficiently provided by the homegarden. Wild harvests of Achillea millefolium L., Artemisia vulgaris L., and Thymus vulgaris L. were reported by one gardener each, besides being obtained from the homegarden. Two gardeners reported to obtain Matricaria recutita L. through wild harvesting as well. One gardener reported to occasionally source Calendula officinalis L. and Matricaria recutita L. from a neighbor in the case that her own homegarden does not supply sufficient plant material. In the context of questionnaire section C gardeners of the subsample were asked about the use of the in 1998 eight most common medicinal plants. In this connection the respective sources of each plant taxon were inquired. In 15 cases gardeners mentioned another source other than the homegarden (appendix 12). Some gardeners reported to obtain the plant taxa Althaea officinalis L. (f = 1), Artemisia absinthium L. (f = 2), Calendula officinalis L. (f = 1), Matricaria recutita L. (f = 3), Mentha L. sp. (f = 1), Salvia officinalis L. (f = 3) and Thymus L. sp. (f = 2) from around the house or farm. One gardener reported to obtain Thymus L. sp. through wild harvesting and another gardener reported to obtain Salvia officinalis L. from family or neighbors. None of the plants were purchased for a medicinal use.

60


6. Discussion 6.1. Diversity and composition of medicinal plants Based on the study from 20 years ago (Vogl & Vogl-Lukasser, 2003) it is one aim of this study to investigate whether or not and what kind of differences occurred in gardeners’ use of medicinal plants between the years 1998 and 2018. Even though statistical analysis did not detect a significant difference, the diversity of medicinal plant taxa used per gardener in the year 2018 tends to be higher. However, more clearly is the difference in the total number of medicinal plant taxa used by the gardeners as a collective. In the year 1998 gardeners used in total 36 different medicinal plant taxa, while in the year 2018 gardeners used a total of 52 plant taxa for medicinal purposes. This makes a difference of 16 more plant taxa being used by gardeners in the year 2018. However, it is not only a change in the diversity, but in the plant taxa composition as well. Eight plant taxa that were used back in the year 1998, were no longer used for medicinal purposes in the year 2018, while another 24 plant taxa were additionally used in the year 2018. In 17 out of the 62 homegardens the primary gardener has changed between the years 1998 and 2018, which might be an explanation for the use of medicinal plant taxa that have not been used before. Matricaria recutita L., Calendula officinalis L. and Urtica dioica L. are found to be the most commonly used medicinal plant taxa in European folk medicine to treat ailments occurring in both humans and animals (Bischoff et al., 2016; Disler et al., 2014; Kültür, 2007; Mattalia et al., 2013; Mayer et al., 2017; Menkovic et al., 2011; Pieroni, 2017; Scheuch, 2016; Schmid et al., 2012). Similar results were obtained within this study – both Matricaria recutita L. and Calendula officinalis L. are also listed among the three most common plant taxa used by the gardeners in both the years 1998 and 2018. Urtica L. sp. (U. dioica L. and U. urens L.) was the fifth most common plant taxon used by ten gardeners in the year 2018, in the year 1998 only two of the 62 gardeners used the plant for medicinal purposes. In contrast, the taxon Salvia L. sp. is ranked the second most common medicinal plant in both the years 1998 and 2018 (mainly used for human treatment), however other studies that address medicinal plant use in European folk medicine did not highlight Salvia L. sp. as a very popular medicinal plant (Kültür, 2007; Mattalia et al., 2013; Menkovic et al., 2011; Pieroni, 2017). For the treatment of ailments occurring in humans specifically, the plant taxa Achillea millefolium L., Hypericum perforatum L., Rosa canina L. and Sambucus nigra L. are reported to be popular medicinal plants used in European folk medicine as well (Kültür, 2007; Menkovic et al., 2011). Within this study results depicted Hypericum perforatum L. to be commonly used in the year 2018 (f = 8) as well, but less common in the year 1998 (f = 3). The plant taxa Achillea millefolium L., and Sambucus nigra L.

61


however were used rarely by only one or two gardeners in both the years 1998 and 2018. Neither in the year 1998 nor in the year 2018 any of the gardeners used Rosa canina L. Quite remarkable is the rather popular medicinal use of Allium cepa L. cepa Grp. (f = 8) and Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata (L.) Alef. (f = 4) by gardeners in the year 2018, but a complete absence of their use in the year 1998, as well is a high increase of gardeners using Thymus L. sp. in the year 2018 (f = 15) compared to the year 1998 (f = 3). The use in folk medicine of Allium cepa L. cepa Grp. was described in studies from Turkey and Albania as well (Kültür, 2007; Pieroni, 2017), and some Thymus L. species were mentioned in comparable research (Kültür, 2007; Mattalia et al., 2013; Menkovic et al., 2011). A medicinal use of Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata (L.) Alef. in European folk medicine seems unusual as it was not mentioned in any of these studies. Results of this thesis do not show a significant difference in the number of medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners in the year 1998 compared to the year 2018 and so far no similar studies are published that look at changes of medicinal plant use in European homegardens over time. More research addressing this specific topic would be necessary to see whether there is more than just a tendency to an increased use of medicinal plant nowadays. Based on the results of this study, further research could test the hypothesis whether nowadays there is an increased use of medicinal plants by gardeners due to growing public interest in herbal medicine within European countries (Ekor, 2014; Leonti & Verpoorte, 2017).

6.2. Most represented plant families Studies from the Western Italian Alps and Montenegro reported the families Asteraceae, Lamiaceae and Rosaceae to be most represented by medicinal plants used in folk medicine (Mattalia et al., 2013; Menkovic et al., 2011). Similar results were obtained within this study with Lamiaceae and Asteraceae being the by far most commonly represented families by medicinal plant taxa used in both the years 1998 and 2018. However, in the year 1998 no plant taxa of the family Rosaceae were used for medicinal purposes and in the year 2018 only two plant taxa were used. In the year 2018 gardeners used ten different plant taxa for ethnoveterinary purposes, that represent most commonly the Asteraceae family with four plant taxa and second most commonly the Urticaceae family with two plant taxa. Studies on European ethnoveterinary research reported Asteraceae among the most important families as well (Bischoff et al., 2016; Mayer et al., 2014). Furthermore, plants of the families Fabaceae and Lamiaceae are reported to be commonly used in European ethnoveterinary medicine (Mayer et al., 2014), however gardeners surveyed within this study used in the year 2018 only a single taxon belonging to Lamiaceae and no taxon from Fabaceae family.

62


6.3. Factors influencing medicinal plant use Several authors who studied knowledge and use of medicinal plants in Africa and Brazil found that there was a positive correlation between respondents’ age and their knowledge and use of medicinal plants (de Almeida et al., 2012; Laleye et al., 2015; Teklehaymanot, 2017; Wayland & Walker, 2014). A positive correlation between gardener age and medicinal plant use was also found for gardeners studied in the year 1998, however not for gardeners in the year 2018. As the results from the year 2018 are statistically insignificant this could be an exceptional outcome. Further research could address the hypothesis about a positive correlation between age and medicinal plant use, especially with a focus on European countries as there are no comparable studies published yet. In the study from the year 1998 no significant difference was detected between gardeners of organic and non-organic farms in regard to occurrence of medicinal plant taxa used (Vogl & Vogl-Lukasser, 2003). As assumed, in the year 2018 there was no significant difference between the two farm types either in regard to number of medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners. A major difference that was found however is a great decline from 32 farms being certified in the year 1998 down to only 14 farms being certified in the year 2018. Results from both the years 1998 and 2018 show that a rather low number of medicinal plant taxa was used by gardeners for ethnoveterinary purposes. The European Council Regulations on Organic Farming no. 834/2007 and no. 889/2008 (Bundesministerium für Arbeit, Soziales, 2015) stipulate a preferable use of phytotherapeutic and homeopathic medicines for prevention and treatment of livestock diseases (Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union, 2008), leading to the assumption that gardeners of organic farms use a greater number of medicinal plant taxa to treat their livestock than gardeners of non-organic farms. It seems to be the case that in the year 1998 gardeners of organic farms used a higher number of medicinal plant taxa compared to gardeners of non-organic farms, in the year 2018 however it shows an insignificant adverse relation. A possible explanation might be the fact that 20 farms (of 32 organic farms in total) used to be certified organic in the year 1998 but were not certified anymore in the year 2018. This might imply that even though farmers decertified their farms, they still follow certain values of organic farming such as using phytotherapy for the treatment of their livestock.

6.4. The food-medicine continuum The theory about the so called food-medicine continuum describes a dual functionality of plants that can serve both a nutritional and medicinal purpose (Leonti, 2014; Pieroni & Price, 2006; Towns & Andel, 2016). The theory is underlined by studies of several authors who found plant taxa to be used both as foodstuff and medicine (Oritz-Sánchez et al., 2015; Rigat et al., 2011; Salako et al., 2014).

63


Results of this study show that 50 % in the year 1998 and 57.7 % in the year 2018 of all medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners were mentioned by at least one gardener to be used as foodstuff as well. There are no studies published so far that address the theory about the food-medicine continuum of medicinal plants used in European countries. Further research could test whether the same plant taxa found within this study are most commonly used both as foodstuff and medicine by farmers or gardeners in other European countries and contexts as well.

6.5. Uses of medicinal plants within the subsample in the year 2018 6.5.1. Medicinal plants used for human treatment Gardeners of the subsample (n = 17) used medicinal plants most commonly to treat ailments within the categories Respiratory System Disorders (20.8 %), Inflammations (18.1 %), Injuries (15.3 %), Pain (9.3 %), Infections (9.3 %), Digestive System Disorders (7.4 %), Skin Disorders (6.5 %) and MuscularSkeletal System Disorders (4.2 %). Other studies addressing the use of medicinal plant from various countries show a different order of prevailing ailment categories. For example an ethnobotanical study on traditional uses of wild medicinal plants in Montenegro reported most frequent uses of medicinal plants to treat digestive system disorders (gastrointestinal diseases), respiratory system disorders (respiratory diseases) and skin disorders (dermatologic diseases) (Menkovic et al., 2011). A study from China on medicinal plant use in homegardens found primary medical functions of plants to treat foremost inflammations (73 species), circulatory system disorders (62), nervous system disorders (41) and detoxification (39). Also digestive system disorders (33), muscular-skeletal system disorders (26), genitourinary system disorders (26), skin conditions (23) and respiratory systems disorders (22) were treated (Yang et al., 2014). Results of a study on medicinal plant use in homegardens of Argentina depict the primary use of plants to treat digestive and respiratory ailments (Furlan et al., 2016). Among these studies no common denominator in the order of most common ailment categories can be drawn, yet digestive system disorders and respiratory system disorders are reported as commonly treated ailments in all of the studies. The studies above looked at the use of medicinal plants in various countries with different cultures, which makes it rather unsuitable to compare. More research within European countries investigating medicinal plant use and ailments treated could help to set results of this study into a comparable perspective.

64


6.5.2. Ethnoveterinary uses of medicinal plants Results of the subsample (n = 17) in the year 2018 show that the use of medicinal plants for the treatment of ailments in humans clearly prevails over an ethnoveterinary use. Among the 17 gardeners six did not use any medicinal plants for ethnoveterinary purposes. Studies from Switzerland found that medicinal plants are most commonly used for the treatment of skin disorders and sores, gastrointestinal diseases and metabolic dysfunctions in animals (Bischoff et al., 2016; Disler et al., 2014; Mayer et al., 2017). In contrast, within this study gardeners of Eastern Tyrol mainly treated ailments occurring in animals within the categories Injuries (32.3 %) and Inflammations (22.6 %). Several studies from both Austria and Switzerland found that farmers most commonly used Matricaria recutita L., Calendula officinalis L. and Urtica dioica L. for the treatment of animals (Bischoff et al., 2016; Disler et al., 2014; Mayer et al., 2017; Scheuch, 2016; Schmid et al., 2012). Similar results were obtained within this study as Calendula officinalis L. and Matricaria recutita L. count the highest number of use reports that were collected from gardeners, however only a single use report was mentioned for Urtica dioica L. and Urtica urens L. each.

6.5.3. Non-medicinal uses and primary uses of medicinal plants Interviews with the gardeners of the subsample (n = 17) revealed certain plant taxa to be primarily used as foodstuff, such as Allium cepa L. cepa Grp. and Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata (L.) Alef (appendix 10). On the other hand, for some plant taxa gardeners reported the medicinal use to be most important, for example Althaea officinalis L., Hypericum perforatum L., Plantago lanceolata L. and Symphytum officinale L. In the case of the three most commonly used plant taxa Calendula officinalis L., Matricaria recutita L., Salvia officinalis L. most gardeners reported a primary medicinal use, while some gardeners mentioned a primary use as foodstuff or even the use as both. With the food-medicine continuum in mind, further research could address primary uses of medicinal plants to see whether same patterns exist in different contexts or geographical areas.

6.5.4. Reasons for no longer using medicinal plants The most common reason mentioned by gardeners of the subsample (n = 17) for no longer using medicinal plants was that the plants were simply not present in the homegarden anymore (11 cases). The wording that some gardeners chose, saying the plant “got extinct” or “died” (“ist ausgestorben”) implies that gardeners did not prevent the plants from getting extinct. Thus, it might state that the medicinal use of the plant was not of great importance to the gardeners otherwise they would have maintained the plant or replaced it with a new individual.

65


Second most commonly gardeners reported no use of the inquired plants for medicinal purposes in the year 2018 and to not having used them in the year 1998 either (10 cases). These statements however are in contrast with what was documented in the study from 1998, where a medicinal use of these plants was reported by the selfsame gardeners. It is not clear where the cause of these inconsistencies lays, a possible explanation could be that gardeners simply did not remember that they used the plants 20 years ago.

6.6. Sources of medicinal plants In the study from the year 1998 gardeners reported that they did not depend on their own herbal remedies anymore because of well-established and more affordable medical supply at that time (Vogl & Vogl-Lukasser, 2003). This led to the assumption that in the year 2018 gardeners use less medicinal plants from their homegardens and rather purchase plant material from external sources such as pharmacies, online, drugstores or other stores. Results of this study do not approve a significant difference in the number of medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners in the year 2018 compared to the year 1998. In opposition to the assumption, results show a tendency towards a higher number of medicinal plant taxa used and grown in homegardens by gardeners in the year 2018. Within questionnaire section B of the subsample (n = 17) only medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners that were grown in the homegardens and respective their sources were inquired. This obviously neglects all other plant taxa that gardeners might obtain from other sources than the homegarden and use for medicinal purposes as well. Therefore, it is not suitable to draw a conclusion from the results obtained on a potential shift in gardeners’ sources of medicinal plants. Nevertheless, what the results are able to state is that gardeners quite often obtain medicinal plants from around the house or farm in addition to from the homegarden. Wild harvests, purchase and sourcing plants from family and neighbors were less common. In only seven cases gardeners purchased plants in addition or as a substitution to the homegarden. In the context of questionnaire section C of the subsample, sources of the in 1998 most commonly used medicinal plant taxa were inquired. In this context none of the gardeners reported to purchase any of the plants. In order to figure out whether gardeners use less medicinal plants from their homegardens and purchase more medicinal plants, the research design would need to include all medicinal plants used by gardeners and their respective sources. With this study being limited to medicinal plants that are present in the homegardens it is not possible to answer this question.

66


7. Conclusion and outlook Homegardens – so called ‘hotspots of agrobiodiversity’ – are multifunctional land-use systems that harbor a high biodiversity of annual, biennial and perennial cultivated and wild plant species providing gardeners with various goods (Eyzaguirre & Linares, 2004; Galluzzi et al., 2010; Vogl & Vogl-Lukasser, 2003). Findings of this study demonstrate that homegardens are important repositories for medicinal plants and ethnomedicinal knowledge held by gardeners. The research done by Vogl & Vogl-Lukasser (2003) in the year 1998 created the privileged opportunity for this master thesis to compare the use of medicinal plants in a sample of 62 homegardens at two points in time. Even though the study did not point out a significant difference in the diversity of medicinal plant taxa used per gardener between the years 1998 and 2018, it still shows an overall increase in the richness of medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners as a collective in the year 2018 compared to 20 years ago. Neither gardeners’ age nor type of farm management are factors that could explain differences between individual gardeners in regard to diversity of medicinal plant taxa used. Oftentimes medicinal plant taxa were used by gardeners as foodstuff as well, which underlines the theory of the food-medicine continuum and the important role homegardens play as source of both food and medicine. Gardeners prepare homemade remedies made from medicinal plants mainly in forms of herbal tea, salve, tincture, oil, poultice, infusion and syrup in order to cure various ailments of family members or their livestock. The major benefit of homegardens is an easy and immediate access to medicinal plants and thus the ability of gardeners to quickly react to acute ailments occurring within the family or in animals. Gardeners used herbal remedies to treat all age classes – from children to adults and seniors. The use of medicinal plants to treat humans clearly prevailed over an ethnoveterinary use. More efforts in research on European homegardens would help to better understand the role that homegardens play in the use of medicinal plants. As results of this study and several other studies showed, homegardens can act as reservoirs of ethnomedicinal knowledge being expressed by gardeners in their uses of medicinal plants, which however is little explored. This study and similar ethnobotanical research on the use of medicinal plants can be instrumental to make ethnomedicinal knowledge visible and therefore to ensure knowledge transmission to future generations as well as across different countries and cultures.

67


8. Summary In European countries public interest in herbal medicine has increased within the past decade (Ekor, 2014; Leonti & Verpoorte, 2017) and its use for the treatment of diseases is increasingly preferred (Disch et al., 2017). Accessibility to medicinal plants can be provided through self-cultivation in homegardens (Eyzaguirre & Linares, 2004; Galluzzi et al., 2010). Homegardens are “small, manually operated horticultural cultivation spaces adjacent to the farmers’ households, in which annual, biennial and perennial cultivated plants are grown” (Vogl-Lukasser & Vogl, 2018). They often comprise a variety of plant species that are used to fulfill various family needs such as food and medical care (Eyzaguirre & Linares, 2004; Galluzzi et al., 2010; B. Vogl-Lukasser & Vogl, 2004). Homegardens are a worldwide phenomenon that exist in both tropical and temperate regions (Niñez, 1984). However, past and current research predominantly focuses on homegardens in tropical regions of South and Central America, Africa and South Asia (Kumar & Nair, 2004; Mellisse et al., 2018; Montagnini, 2006; Rao & Rajeswara Rao, 2006). Aim of this study is to compare the diversity and composition of medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners in 62 homegardens of Eastern Tyrol in the year 2018 with data obtained in the year 1998 (Vogl & VoglLukasser, 2003). Furthermore, factors that might affect gardeners’ use of medicinal plants are inquired into. The study also aims to reveal which medicinal plant taxa are mainly used for their single medicinal purpose and which are used both as medicine and food. Moreover, data obtained from a subsample of 17 homegardens should provide detailed information about gardeners’ use of medicinal plants. In spring and summer 2018 occurrence and abundance of cultivated plant taxa were surveyed in 62 homegardens of 14 organic and 48 non-organic farms in 11 communities of Eastern Tyrol. Interviews about person, household and plant use were carried out with the gardeners. In 17 homegardens additional interviews were carried out inquiring in-depth the use of medicinal plants. Results of the Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test (Z = -1.883, p = 0.060) indicate that the number of medicinal plant taxa used per gardener in the year 1998 (n = 62) did not significantly differ from the number of medicinal plant taxa used per gardener in the year 2018 (n = 62). In the year 1998 gardeners used in total 36 different plant taxa and in the year 2018 gardeners used in total 52 different plant taxa. There are eight plant taxa which gardeners used for medicinal purposes back in the year 1998 but not anymore in the year 2018 and 24 plant taxa which gardeners used in the year 2018 but did not use them back in the year 1998. In both the years 1998 and 2018 Calendula officinalis L., Salvia L. sp. and Matricaria recutita L. were the most commonly used medicinal plant taxa and the families Lamiaceae and Asteraceae were most often represented.

68


Results of the Pearson correlation show a positive correlation between gardener age and number of medicinal plant taxa used in the year 1998 (n = 62, r = 0.274, p = 0.031*). By contrast, in the year 2018 according to Pearson correlation there is no significant correlation between gardener age and number of medicinal plant taxa used, yet results show a negative relation (n = 62, r = -0.081, p = 0.532). In the year 1998 more than half (51.6 %) of the farms were certified organic, in the year 2018 however only 22.6 % of the farms were certified organic. Results of the Independent Samples T Test (p1998 = 0.110; p2018 = 0.851) and the Mann-Whitney Test (p1998 = 0.097; p2018 = 0.700) indicate that there was neither in the year 1998 nor in the year 2018 a significant difference between the number of medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners of homegardens on organic compared to non-organic farms. Out of the 36 medicinal plant taxa used by the gardeners (n = 62) in the year 1998 an additional use as foodstuff was reported for 18 (50 %) of the plant taxa by one or more of the gardeners. In the year 2018 gardeners (n = 62) used a total of 52 plant taxa for medicinal purposes whereof 30 (57.7 %) plant taxa were used by one or more gardeners as foodstuff as well. In both years, Salvia L. sp. was the most common plant taxon used both as foodstuff and medicinal plant. In the year 2018 a total of 247 use reports for 35 different plant taxa was collected from gardeners of the subsample (n = 17) for the treatment of ailments occurring in both humans and animals. The most common preparation methods were herbal tea (f = 97), followed by salve (f = 41), tincture (f = 22), oil (f = 21), poultice (f = 20), infusion (f = 18) and syrup (f = 16). The most common ailment categories in terms of number of use reports for the treatment of humans are Respiratory System Disorders (20.8 %), Inflammations (18.1 %) and Injuries (15.3 %). In animals gardeners most commonly treated Injuries (32.3 %), Inflammations (22.6 %) and Digestive System Disorders (16.1 %). Even though statistical analysis did not detect a significant difference, the diversity of medicinal plant taxa used per gardener in the year 2018 tends to be higher than in the year 1998. Quite remarkable is the rather popular medicinal use of Allium cepa L. cepa Grp. (f = 8) and Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata (L.) Alef. (f = 4) by gardeners in the year 2018, but a complete absence of their use in the year 1998, as well is a high increase of gardeners using Thymus L. sp. in the year 2018 (f = 15) compared to the year 1998 (f = 3). More efforts in research on European homegardens would help to better understand the role that homegardens play in the use of medicinal plants. As results of this study and several other studies showed homegardens can act as reservoirs of ethnomedicinal knowledge, which however is little explored. This study and similar ethnobotanical research on the use of medicinal plants can be instrumental to make ethnomedicinal knowledge visible and therefore to ensure knowledge transmission to future generations as well as across different countries and cultures. 69


9. References Adler, W., Oswald, K., & Fischer, R. (1994). Exkursionsflora von Österreich. Ulmer Eugen Verlag. Agelet, A., Bonet, M. A., & Vallès, J. (2000). Homegardens and their Role as Main Source of Medicinal Plants in Mountain Regions of Catalonia (Iberian Peninsula). The New York Botanical Garden Press, 54, 295–309. Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union. (2007). VERORDNUNG (EG) Nr. 834/2007 DES RATES vom 28. Juni 2007 über die ökologische/biologische Produktion und die Kennzeichnung von ökologischen/biologischen Erzeugnissen und zur Aufhebung der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 2092/91. Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union. (2008). VERORDNUNG (EG) Nr. 889/2008 DER KOMMISSION vom 5. September 2008 mit Durchführungsvorschriften zur Verordnung (EG) Nr. 834/2007 des Rates über die ökologische/ biologische Produktion und die Kennzeichnung von ökologischen/biologischen Erzeugnissen hinsic. Ayantunde, A. A., Briejer, M., Hiernaux, P., Udo, H. M. J., & Tabo, R. (2008). Botanical Knowledge and its Differentiation by Age, Gender and Ethnicity in Southwestern Niger. Human Ecology, 36, 881–889. Beltrán-Rodríguez, L., Ortiz-Sánchez, A., Mariano, N. A., Maldonado-Almanza, B., & Reyes-Garcia, V. (2014). Factors affecting ethnobotanical knowledge in a mestizo community of the Sierra de Huautla Biosphere Reserve, Mexico. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 10, 1–18. Bernard, H. R. (2006). Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Rowman & Littlefield. Bischoff, T., Vogl, C. R., Ivemeyer, S., Klarer, F., Meier, B., Hamburger, M., & Walkenhorst, M. (2016). Plant and natural product based homemade remedies manufactured and used by farmers of six central Swiss cantons to treat livestock. Livestock Science, 189, 110–125. Bodeker, C., Bodeker, G., Ong, C. K., Grundy, C. K., Burford, G., & Shein, K. (2005). WHO Global Atlas of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Bundesministerium für Arbeit, Soziales, G. und K. (2015). Biologische Produktion. Retrieved April 22, 2018, from https://www.verbrauchergesundheit.gv.at/lebensmittel/bio/bio_produkte.html Calapai, G. (2008). European Legislation on Herbal Medicines. Drug Safety, 31(5), 428–431. Chen, S., Yu, H., Luo, H., Wu, Q., Li, C., & Steinmetz, A. (2016). Conservation and sustainable use of medicinal plants: problems , progress , and prospects. Chinese Medicine, 11, 1–10. Cook, F. E. M. (1995). Economic Botany Data Collection Standard. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. de Almeida, C. de F. C. B. R., Ramos, M. A., Silva, R. R. V., de Melo, J. G., Medeiros, M. F. T., de Sousa Araujo, T. A., … de Alburquerque, U. P. (2012). Intracultural Variation in the Knowledge of Medicinal Plants in an Urban-Rural Community in the Atlantic Forest from Northeastern Brazil. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 1–15. Disch, L., Drewe, J., & Fricker, G. (2017). Dissolution Testing of Herbal Medicines: Challenges and Regulatory Standards in Europe, the United States, Canada, and Asia. Dissolution Technologies, 6–12. Disler, M., Ivemeyer, S., Hamburger, M., Vogl, C. R., Tesic, A., Klarer, F., … Walkenhorst, M. (2014). Ethnoveterinary herbal remedies used by farmers in four north-eastern Swiss cantons (St. Gallen, Thurgau, Appenzell Innerrhoden and Appenzell Ausserrhoden). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 10, 1–22. dm drogerie markt. (2018). Gesundheit Shop. Retrieved April 20, 2018, from https://www.meindm.at/gesundheit/shop/ EIONET. (2017). GEMET: General Multilingual Environmental Thesaurus. Retrieved March 27, 2018, from http://www.eionet.europa.eu/gemet/en/concept/13122 Ekor, M. (2014). The growing use of herbal medicines: issues relating to adverse reactions and challenges in monitoring safety. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 4, 1–10. 70


EMA. (2006). Guideline on good agricultural and collection practice (GACP) for starting materials of herbal origin. Retrieved April 10, 2018, from http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003362 .pdf EMA. (2011). Guideline on quality of herbal medicinal products/ traditional herbal medicinal products. Retrieved April 10, 2018, from http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2011/09/WC500113209 .pdf Erhardt, W., Erhardt, A., Götz, E., Bödeker, N., & Seybold, S. (2014). Zander - Handwörterbuch der Pflanzennamen (19. Auflag). Ulmer Eugen Verlag. Eyzaguirre, P., & Linares, O. (2004). Home gardens and agrobiodiversity. Smithsonian Books. Fellows, L. E. (1991). Pharmaceuticals from traditional medicinal plants and others: future prospects. In New Drugs from Natural Sources. London. Furlan, V., Kujawska, M., Hilgert, N. I., & Pochettino, M. L. (2016). To what extent are medicinal plants shared between country home gardens and urban ones? A case study from Misiones, Argentina. Pharmaceutical Biology, 54, 1628–1640. Galhena, D. H., Freed, R., & Maredia, K. M. (2013). Home gardens: a promising approach to enhance household food security and wellbeing. Agriculture and Food Security, 2, 1–13. Galluzzi, G., Eyzaguirre, P., & Negri, V. (2010). Home gardens: neglected hotspots of agro-biodiversity and cultural diversity. Biodiversity and Convervation, 19, 3635–3654. Gökçebağ, M., & Özden, Ö. (2017). Home Garden Herbs and Medicinal Plants of Lefke, Cyprus. Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, 51, 441–444. Hamilton, A. C. (2004). Medicinal plants, conservation and livelihoods. Biodiversity and Convervation, 13, 1477– 1517. Holl, A. (2005). Narrating diversity: Plants, personal knowledge and life stories in German home gardens. In Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity (pp. 221–248). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. International Society of Ethnobiology. (2006). International Society of Ethnobiology Code of Ethics (with 2008 additions). Retrieved June 8, 2018, from http://www.ethnobiology.net/what-we-do/core-programs/iseethics-program/code-of-ethics/ IPK Gatersleben. (2018). Mansfeld’s World Database of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops. Retrieved April 12, 2018, from http://mansfeld.ipk-gatersleben.de/apex/f?p=185:3 Jäger, E., Schubert, R., & Werner, K. (1991). Werner Rothmaler - Exkursionsflora: Atlas der Gefäßpflanzen (Band 3). Volk und Wissen Verlag GmbH Berlin. Kültür, S. (2007). Medicinal plants used in Kırklareli Province (Turkey). Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 111, 341–364. Kumar, B. M., & Nair, P. K. R. (2004). The enigma of tropical homegardens. Agroforestry Systems, 61, 135–152. Laleye, F. O. A., Mensah, S., Assogbadjo, A. E., & Ahissou, H. (2015). Diversity, Knowledge, and Use of Plants in Traditional Treatment of Diabetes in the Republic of Benin. Ethnobotany Research & Applications, 14, 231–257. Landon-Lane, C. (2004). Livelihood Grow in Gardens: Diversifying Rural Incomes Through Home Gardens. Retrieved March 27, 2018, from http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y5112e/y5112e00.htm#Contents Leonti, M. (2012). The co-evolutionary perspective of the food-medicine continuum and wild gathered and cultivated vegetables. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 59, 1295–1302. Leonti, M. (2014). Herbal teas and the continuum of the food-medicine complex: Field methods, contextualisation and cultural consensus. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 151, 1028–1030.

71


Leonti, M., Cabras, S., Weckerle, C. S., Solinas, M. N., & Casu, L. (2010). The causal dependence of present plant knowledge on herbals - Contemporary medicinal plant use in Campania (Italy) compared to Matthioli (1568). Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 130, 379–391. Leonti, M., & Verpoorte, R. (2017). Traditional Mediterranean and European herbal medicines. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 199, 161–167. Lohrberg, F., Lička, L., Scazzosi, L., & Timpe, A. (2016). Urban Agriculture Europe. Jovis. Mattalia, G., Quave, C. L., & Pieroni, A. (2013). Traditional uses of wild food and medicinal plants among Brigasc, Kyé, and Provencal communities on the Western Italian Alps. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 60, 587–603. Mayer, M., Vogl, C. R., Amorena, M., Hamburger, M., & Walkenhorst, M. (2014). Treatment of Organic Livestock with Medicinal Plants: A Systematic Review of European Ethnoveterinary. Forschende Komplementärmedizin, 21, 375–386. Mayer, M., Zbinden, M., Vogl, C. R., Ivemeyer, S., Meier, B., Amorena, M., … Walkenhorst, M. (2017). Swiss ethnoveterinary knowledge on medicinal plants – a within-country comparison of Italian speaking regions with north-western German speaking regions. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 13, 1–23. Mellisse, T. B., Descheemaeker, K., Giller, K. E., Abebe, T., & van de Ven, G. W. J. (2018). Are traditional home gardens in southern Ethiopia heading for extinction? Implications for productivity, plant species richness and food security. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 252, 1–13. Menkovic, N., Savikin, K., Tasic, S., Zdunic, G., Stesevic, D., Milosavljevic, S., & Vincek, D. (2011). Ethnobotanical study on traditional uses of wild medicinal plants in Prokletije Mountains ( Montenegro ). Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 133, 97–107. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage. Montagnini, F. (2006). Homegardens of Mesoamerica: biodiversity, food security, and nutrient management. In B. M. Kumar & P. K. R. Nair (Eds.), Tropical homegardens (pp. 61–84). Springer. Newing, H. (2011). Conducting Research in Conservation: A Social Science Perspective. Routledge. Niñez, V. K. (1984). Household gardens: theoretical considerations on an old survival strategy (Vol. 1). International Potato Center. Oritz-Sánchez, A., Monroy-Ortiz, C., Romero-Manzanares, A., Luna-Cavazos, M., & Castillo-Espana, P. (2015). Multipurpose functions of home gardens for family subsistence. Botanical Sciences, 93, 791–806. Padalia, K., Bargali, K., & Bargali, S. S. (2015). How does traditional home-garden support ethnomedicinal values in Kumaun Himalayan Bhabhar Belt, India? African Journal of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicines, 12, 100–112. Phillipson, J. D. (2001). Phytochemistry and medicinal plants. Phytochemistry, 56, 237–243. Pieroni, A. (2017). Traditional uses of wild food plants, medicinal plants, and domestic remedies in Albanian, Aromanian and Macedonian villages in South-Eastern Albania. Journal of Herbal Medicine, 9, 81–90. Pieroni, A., & Price, L. L. (2006). Eating and healing: traditional food as medicine. Food Products Press. Quinlan, M. B., & Quinlan, R. J. (2007). Modernization and Medicinal Plant Knowledge in a Caribbean Horticultural Village. American Anthropological Association, 21, 169–192. Raj, A. J., Biswakarma, S., Pala, N. A., Shukla, G., Vineeta, Kumar, M., … Bussmann, R. W. (2018). Indigenous uses of ethnomedicinal plants among forest-dependent communities of Northern Bengal, India. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 14, 1–28. Rao, M. R., & Rajeswara Rao, B. R. (2006). Medicinal plants in tropical homegardens. In B. M. Kumar & P. K. R. Nair (Eds.), Tropical Homegardens: A Time-tested Example of Sustainable Agroforestry. Springer. Reyes-García, V., Sara, V., Aceituno-Mata, L., Calvet-Mir, L., Garnatje, T., Jesch, A., … Pardo-De-Santayana, M. (2010). Gendered Homegardens: A Study in Three Mountain Areas of the Iberian Peninsula. Economic Botany, 64(July), 235–247.

72


Rigat, M., Garnatje, T., & Vallès, J. (2011). Plant biodiversity in Pyrenean homegardens (Catalonia, Iberian peninsula): current state of a mountain agroecosystem. Acta Botanica Gallica, 158, 525–551. Salako, V. K., Fandohan, B., Kassa, B., Assogbadjo, A. E., Idohou, A. F. R., Gbedomon, R. C., … Kakai, R. G. (2014). Home gardens: an assessment of their biodiversity and potential contribution to conservation of threatened species and crop wild relatives in Benin. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 61, 313–330. Samuelsson, G. (2004). Drugs of Natural Origin: a Textbook of Pharmacognosy (5th ed.). Stockholm: Swedish Pharmaceutical Press. Scheuch, M. (2016). Local Knowledge of organic farmers concerning homemade remedies for livestock in the district of Melk (Lower Austria). University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna. Schmid, K., Ivemeyer, S., Vogl, C., Klarer, F., Meier, B., Hamburger, M., & Walkenhorst, M. (2012). Traditional Use of Herbal Remedies in Livestock by Farmers in 3 Swiss Cantons (Aargau, Zurich, Schaffhausen). Forschende Komplementärmedizin, 19, 125–136. Spohn, M., Spohn, R., & Golte-Bechtle, M. (2005). Was blüht denn da? Die Enzyklopädie. Kosmos Verlag. Teklehaymanot, T. (2017). An ethnobotanical survey of medicinal and edible plants of Yalo Woreda in Afar regional state, An ethnobotanical survey of medicinal and edible plants of Yalo Woreda in Afar regional state, Ethiopia. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 13, 1–25. Towns, A. M., & Andel, T. Van. (2016). Wild plants, pregnancy, and the food-medicine continuum in the southern regions of Ghana and Benin. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 179, 375–382. Vogl-Lukasser, B. N., Vogl, C. R., & Bolhár-Nordenkampf, H. (2002). Homegarden Composition on Small Peasant Farms in the Alpine Regions of Osttirol (Austria) and Their Role in Sustainable Rural Development. In J. R. Stepp, F. S. Wyndham, & R. K. Zarger (Eds.), Ethnobiology and Biocultural Diversity. Athens, Georgia, USA: University of Georgia Press. Vogl-Lukasser, B., & Vogl, C. R. (2004). Homegardens of Small Farmers in the Alpine Region of Osttirol (Austria): An example for Bridges Built and Building Bridges. Eth, 2, 111–137. Vogl-Lukasser, B., & Vogl, C. R. (2018). The changing face of farmers’ home gardens: a diachronic analysis from Sillian (Eastern Tyrol, Austria ). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 14, 1–20. Vogl-Lukasser, B., Vogl, C. R., Gütler, M., & Heckler, S. (2010). Plant Species with Spontaneous Reproduction in Homegardens in Eastern Tyrol (Austria): Perception and management by women farmers. Ethnobotany Research & Applications, 8, 1–15. Vogl, C. R., & Vogl-Lukasser, B. (2003). Tradition, Dynamics and Sustainability of Plant Species Composition and Management in Homegardens on Organic and Non-Organic Small Scale Farms in Alpine Eastern Tyrol , Austria. Biological Agriculture & Horticulture, 21, 349–366. Vogl, C. R., Vogl-Lukasser, B., & Walkenhorst, M. (2016). Local knowledge held by farmers in Eastern Tyrol (Austria) about the use of plants to maintain and improve animal health and welfare. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 12, 1–17. Wayland, C., & Walker, L. S. (2014). Length of residence, age and patterns of medicinal plant knowledge and use among women in the urban Amazon. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 10, 1–11. Yang, L., Ahmed, S., Stepp, J. R., Mi, K., Zhao, Y., Ma, J., … Xue, D. (2014). Comparative homegarden medical ethnobotany of Naxi healers and farmers in Northwestern Yunnan, China. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 10, 1–8. Zentralanstalt für Meteorologie und Geodynamik. (2002). Klimadaten von Österreich 1971 - 2000. Retrieved April 3, 2018, from https://www.zamg.ac.at/fix/klima/oe7100/klima2000/klimadaten_oesterreich_1971_frame1.htm

73


10. List of figures Figure 1 Map of Austria1 (top right) showing the Austrian federal states. Ethnobotanical surveys were conducted in 62 homegardens located within the federal state Eastern Tyrol ........... 14 Figure 2 Box-Whisker Plots comparing 62 homegardens of Eastern Tyrol surveyed in the years 1998 (n = 62) and 2018 (n = 62) in regard to number of medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners. .................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 3 Medicinal plant taxa that were most commonly used by gardeners of homegardens in the years 1998 (n = 62) and 2018 (n = 62) ......................................................................... 24 Figure 4 Most represented families in terms of number of medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners in the years 1998 (n = 62) and 2018 (n = 62) ................................................................... 28 Figure 5 Scatter plot depicting the relation between gardener age and number of medicinal plant taxa used in both the years 1998 (n = 62) and 2018 (n = 62) ...................................... 29 Figure 6 Box-Whisker Plots comparing number of medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners of homegardens on non-organic and organic farms in both the years 1998 and 2018 ... 30 Figure 7 Box-Whisker Plots comparing number of medicinal plant taxa used for ethnoveterinary purposes by gardeners of homegardens on non-organic and organic farms in both the years 1998 and 2018 .................................................................................................... 31 Figure 8 Plant taxa used both as medicinal plants and foodstuff by gardeners in the years 1998 (n =62) and 2018 (n = 62) ................................................................................................. 33

74


11. List of tables Table 1 Definitions of the term homegarden over time (years 1984 – 2018) ......................................... 3 Table 2 Definitions of medicinal plants, herbal medicines, herbal medicinal products, herbal preparations and herbal substances ............................................................................. 5 Table 3 Plant taxa that are used in folk medicine in several European countries (Turkey, Italy, Montenegro and Albania) .............................................................................................. 7 Table 4 List of medicinal plant taxa that were used in the year 1998 only and in the year 2018 only . 26 Table 5 Gardeners’ most common preparation methods of remedies made from medicinal plants .. 34 Table 6 Use reports of medicinal plant taxa that were used for human treatment by gardeners of the subsample (n = 17) in Eastern Tyrol in the year 2018 .................................................. 40 Table 7 Use reports of medicinal plant taxa that were used for ethnoveterinary purposes by gardeners of the subsample (n = 17) in Eastern Tyrol in the year 2018. ..................... 53 Table 8 List of the in 1998 eight most common medicinal plant taxa in regard to frequency of use among gardeners ......................................................................................................... 58 Table 9 List of plant taxa that were used for medicinal purposes in the year 1998, but were no longer used in the year 2018 by the gardeners of the subsample (n = 17) ............................ 59

75


12. List of appendices Appendix 1 List of 62 homegardens surveyed, giving number of medicinal plant taxa used by each gardener in the years 1998 and 2018 respectively ...................................................... 77 Appendix 2 List of all medicinal plant taxa that were used by the gardeners in the years 1998 (n = 62) and 2018 (n = 62) ......................................................................................................... 78 Appendix 3 Medicinal plant taxa that were most commonly used by gardeners of the 62 homegardens in the year 1998 .................................................................................... 80 Appendix 4 Medicinal plant taxa that were most commonly used by gardeners of the 62 homegardens in the year 2018 .................................................................................... 80 Appendix 5 List of the 36 medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners in the year 1998 (n = 62) representing 12 families .............................................................................................. 81 Appendix 6 List of the 52 medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners in the year 2018 (n = 62) representing 19 families .............................................................................................. 82 Appendix 7 Plant families represented by medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners in the years 1998 (n = 62) and 2018 (n = 62) ................................................................................................ 83 Appendix 8 Plant taxa used by gardeners (n = 62) in the year 1998 both as medicinal plants and foodstuff ...................................................................................................................... 84 Appendix 9 Plant taxa used by gardeners (n = 62) in the year 2018 both as medicinal plants and foodstuff ...................................................................................................................... 85 Appendix 10 Primary uses of medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners of the subsample (n = 17) ....... 86 Appendix 11 Sources of the 35 medicinal plant taxa that were grown and used by gardeners of the subsample (n = 17) ....................................................................................................... 88 Appendix 12 Sources of the in 1998 eight most common medicinal plants that were used by gardeners of the subsample in the year 2018 (n = 17) as inquired in questionnaire section C ...................................................................................................................... 90

76


13. Appendix Appendix 1 List of 62 homegardens surveyed, giving number of medicinal plant taxa used by each gardener in the years 1998 and 2018 respectively, current age of the primary gardeners and whether the homegarden was on an organic farm (1) or not (0). Homegarden ID HG_0101 HG_0202 HG_0203 HG_0212 HG_0213 HG_0214 HG_0215 HG_0220 HG_0221 HG_0301 HG_0305 HG_0308 HG_0402 HG_0403 HG_0405 HG_0414 HG_0415 HG_0416 HG_0417 HG_0503 HG_0508 HG_0510 HG_0515 HG_0516 HG_0517 HG_0602 HG_0604 HG_0605 HG_0613 HG_0614 HG_0615 HG_0630 HG_0633 HG_0635 HG_0701 HG_0702 HG_0703 HG_0704 HG_0707 HG_0710 HG_0711 HG_0713 HG_0714 HG_0802 HG_0805 HG_0806 HG_0808 HG_0906 HG_0908 HG_0909 HG_0911 HG_0912 HG_0915 HG_1104 HG_1105 HG_1110 HG_1201 HG_1206 HG_1208 HG_1210 HG_1214 HG_1217

No. of medicinal plant taxa used 1998 2018 0 0 6 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 6 5 1 1 4 0 3 3 6 2 1 1 1 4 1 0 1 5 2 2 2 1 4 5 1 8 2 3 2 5 0 0 0 0 7 6 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 8 2 3 2 2 7 11 2 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 9 5 7 8 1 1 3 2 4 0 3 5 2 3 2 4 0 2 1 3 4 9 0 0 1 5 0 1 1 2 6 6 2 1 1 0 2 3 0 1 7 1 7 8 3 10 0 0

Current age of gardener 1998 2018 31 52 68 56 62 50 39 59 65 52 64 83 68 37 58 48 65 54 55 68 65 42 41 61 50 69 55 40 42 69 66 45 52 72 68 39 38 57 66 58 67 87 35 55 34 54 75 60 42 62 65 61 50 70 57 77 45 55 40 35 46 30 38 58 56 76 50 70 53 73 60 26 49 68 59 79 50 70 56 75 62 82 63 83 40 60 50 46 57 77 31 51 41 61 30 50 42 62 63 83 43 63 37 57 68 35 55 75 58 77 36 56 41 61 77 45 46 66 50 44 53 49 47 67

77

Part of organic farm 1998 2018 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0


Appendix 2 List of all medicinal plant taxa that were used by the gardeners in the years 1998 (n = 62) and 2018 (n = 62). Plant taxa listed alphabetically. For each plant taxon total number of gardeners who used them is given for both the years 1998 and 2018. In the year 1998 gardeners used in total 36 different medicinal plant taxa. In the year 2018 gardeners used in total 52 different medicinal plant taxa. Additionally, for each plant taxon number of gardeners who used them for the treatment of humans and animals is listed for the years 1998 and 2018 respectively. Botanical taxa

Family


Asteraceae

Agrimonia eupatoria L. Allium cepa L. cepa Grp.

f (gardeners 1998)

f (human use 1998)

f (animal use 1998)

f (gardeners 2018)

f (human use 2018)

f (animal use 2018)

1

1

1

1

1

1

Rosaceae

0

0

0

1

1

0

Liliaceae

0

0

0

8

8

0


Malvaceae

8

8

2

7

7

1


Brassicaceae

0

0

0

1

1

0

Arnica montana L.

Asteraceae

0

0

0

1

1

0


Asteraceae

1

1

0

0

0

0


Asteraceae

4

2

2

4

4

1

Artemisia vulgaris L.

Asteraceae

1

1

0

2

2

0

Bellis perennis L.

Asteraceae

0

0

0

1

1

0

Beta vulgaris L. ssp. vulgaris var. vulgaris

Chenopodiaceae

1

1

0

1

1

0


Boraginaceae

1

1

0

1

1

0


Brassicaceae

0

0

0

4

3

1


Asteraceae

23

22

15

23

22

9


Brassicaceae

0

0

0

1

1

0

Centaurea cyanus L.

Asteraceae

0

0

0

1

1

0


Papaveraceae

0

0

0

1

1

0

Chenopodium bonus-henricus L.

Chenopodiaceae

1

1

0

1

1

0

Cistus L. Cultivars

Cistaceae

0

0

0

1

1

0

Helianthus tuberosus L.

Asteraceae

1

1

0

1

1

0


Hypericaceae

3

3

1

8

8

2


Lamiaceae

2

2

0

2

2

0

Inula helenium L.

Asteraceae

0

0

0

1

1

0

Lamium album L.

Lamiaceae

0

0

0

1

1

0

Lavandula angustifolia Mill.

Lamiaceae

1

1

0

2

2

0


Apiaceae

0

0

0

1

1

0


Solanaceae

0

0

0

1

1

0

Malva moschata L.

Malvaceae

1

1

0

0

0

0


Malvaceae

1

1

0

4

4

0


Malvaceae

1

1

0

0

0

0


Asteraceae

26

26

9

19

19

8


Lamiaceae

4

4

0

1

1

0

Mentha pulegium L.

Lamiaceae

1

0

1

0

0

0


Lamiaceae

2

2

0

1

1

0

Mentha x gracilis Sole

Lamiaceae

3

3

0

1

1

0


Lamiaceae

5

5

0

7

7

0


Lamiaceae

3

3

0

3

3

0


Lamiaceae

1

1

0

0

0

0

78


Appendix 2 continued

Botanical taxa

Family

f (gardens 1998)

f (human use 1998)

f (animal use 1998)

f (gardens 2018)

f (human use 2018)

f (animal use 2018)


Apiaceae

0

0

0

2

2

0


Plantaginaceae

0

0

0

2

2

0

Primula elatior (L.) Hill

Primulaceae

1

1

0

1

1

0

Ribes nigrum L.

Grossulariaceae

0

0

0

1

1

0

Ribes rubrum L.

Grossulariaceae

1

1

0

0

0

0


Lamiaceae

0

0

0

1

1

0

Rubus idaeus L.

Rosaceae

0

0

0

1

1

0

Salvia nemorosa L.

Lamiaceae

0

0

0

1

1

0


Lamiaceae

24

24

0

20

20

1

Sambucus nigra L.

Caprifoliaceae

2

2

0

2

2

0

Symphytum officinale L.

Boraginaceae

1

1

1

3

3

2


Asteraceae

1

1

0

1

1

0


Asteraceae

0

0

0

2

2

0


Lamiaceae

0

0

0

1

1

0

Thymus vulgaris L.

Lamiaceae

2

2

0

12

12

0

Thymus x citriodorus (Pers.) Schreb.

Lamiaceae

1

1

0

2

2

0

Urtica dioica L.

Urticaceae

2

2

0

7

7

1

Urtica urens L.

Urticaceae

0

0

0

3

3

1


Valerianaceae

3

3

0

0

0

0

Verbascum densiflorum Bertol.

Scrophulariaceae

1

1

0

1

1

0

Veronica spicata L.

Scrophulariaceae

1

1

0

0

0

0


Scrophulariaceae

0

0

0

1

1

0

36

35

8

52

52

11

Plant taxa total

79


Appendix 3 Medicinal plant taxa that were most commonly used by gardeners of the 62 homegardens in the year 1998. Plant taxa listed accordingly to the highest number of gardeners who used them. Number of gardeners who used them for the treatment of humans and animals is listed respectively. Botanical taxa

Family

f (gardeners 1998)

f (human use 1998)

f (animal use 1998)


Asteraceae

26

26

9


Lamiaceae

24

24

0


Asteraceae

23

22

15

Mentha L. sp.

Lamiaceae

11

11

1


Malvaceae

8

8

2


Asteraceae

4

2

2


Lamiaceae

4

4

0


Hypericaceae

3

3

1


Lamiaceae

3

3

0

Thymus L. sp.

Lamiaceae

3

3

0


Valerianaceae

3

3

0

Appendix 4 Medicinal plant taxa that were most commonly used by gardeners of the 62 homegardens in the year 2018. Plant taxa listed accordingly to the highest number of gardeners who used them. Number of gardeners who used them for the treatment of humans and animals is listed respectively.

Botanical taxa

Family

f (gardeners 2018)

f (human use 2018)

f (animal use 2018)


Asteraceae

23

22

9

Salvia L. sp.

Lamiaceae

21

21

1


Asteraceae

19

19

8

Thymus L. sp.

Lamiaceae

15

15

0

Urtica L. sp.

Urticaceae

10

10

2

Mentha L. sp.

Lamiaceae

9

9

0


Liliaceae

8

8

0


Hypericaceae

8

8

2


Malvaceae

7

7

1


Asteraceae

4

4

1

Brassica oleracea L. var. Brassicaceae capitata (L.) Alef.

4

3

1


Malvaceae

4

4

0


Lamiaceae

3

3

0


Boraginaceae

3

3

2

80


Appendix 5 List of the 36 medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners in the year 1998 (n = 62) representing 12 families. Sorted accordingly to families holding the highest number of plant taxa. For each plant taxon total number of gardeners who used it as well as number of gardeners who used it for the treatment of humans and animals is given. Family

Botanical taxa

f (gardeners 1998)

f (human use 1998)

f (animal use 1998)

Lamiaceae


2

2

0

Lamiaceae


1

1

0

Lamiaceae


4

4

0

Lamiaceae

Mentha pulegium L.

1

0

1

Lamiaceae


2

2

0

Lamiaceae


3

3

0

Lamiaceae


5

5

0

Lamiaceae


3

3

0

Lamiaceae


1

1

0

Lamiaceae


24

24

0

Lamiaceae

Thymus vulgaris L.

2

2

0

Lamiaceae


1

1

0

Asteraceae


1

1

1

Asteraceae


1

1

0

Asteraceae


4

2

2

Asteraceae


1

1

0

Asteraceae


23

22

15

Asteraceae


1

1

0

Asteraceae


26

26

9

Asteraceae


1

1

0

Malvaceae


8

8

2

Malvaceae

Malva moschata L.

1

1

0

Malvaceae


1

1

0

Malvaceae


1

1

0

Boraginaceae


1

1

0

Boraginaceae


1

1

1

Chenopodiaceae


1

1

0

Chenopodiaceae


1

1

0

Scrophulariaceae


1

1

0

Scrophulariaceae

Veronica spicata L.

1

1

0

Caprifoliaceae

Sambucus nigra L.

2

2

0

Grossulariaceae

Ribes rubrum L.

1

1

0

Hypericaceae


3

3

1

Primulaceae


1

1

0

Urticaceae

Urtica dioica L.

2

2

0

Valerianaceae


3

3

0

36

35

8

12

12

5

Plant taxa total Families total

81


Appendix 6 List of the 52 medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners in the year 2018 (n = 62) representing 19 families. Sorted accordingly to families holding the highest number of plant taxa. For each plant taxon total number of gardeners who used it as well as number of gardeners who used it for the treatment of humans and animals is given. Family

Botanical taxa

f (gardeners 2018)

f (human use 2018)

f (animal use 2018)

Lamiaceae


2

2

0

Lamiaceae

Lamium album L.

1

1

0

Lamiaceae


2

2

0

Lamiaceae


1

1

0

Lamiaceae


1

1

0

Lamiaceae


1

1

0

Lamiaceae


7

7

0

Lamiaceae


3

3

0

Lamiaceae


1

1

0

Lamiaceae

Salvia nemorosa L.

1

1

0

Lamiaceae


20

20

1

Lamiaceae


1

1

0

Lamiaceae

Thymus vulgaris L.

12

12

0

Lamiaceae


2

2

0

Asteraceae


1

1

1

Asteraceae

Arnica montana L.

1

1

0

Asteraceae


4

4

1

Asteraceae


2

2

0

Asteraceae

Bellis perennis L.

1

1

0

Asteraceae


23

22

9

Asteraceae

Centaurea cyanus L.

1

1

0

Asteraceae


1

1

0

Asteraceae

Inula helenium L.

1

1

0

Asteraceae


19

19

8

Asteraceae


1

1

0

Asteraceae


2

2

0

Brassicaceae


1

1

0

Brassicaceae


4

3

1

Brassicaceae


1

1

0

Apiaceae


1

1

0

Apiaceae


2

2

0

Boraginaceae


1

1

0

Boraginaceae


3

3

2

Chenopodiaceae


1

1

0

Chenopodiaceae


1

1

0

Malvaceae


7

7

1

Malvaceae


4

4

0

Rosaceae

Agrimonia eupatoria L.

1

1

0

Rosaceae

Rubus idaeus L.

1

1

0

Scrophulariaceae


1

1

0

Scrophulariaceae


1

1

0

Urticaceae

Urtica dioica L.

7

7

1

Urticaceae

Urtica urens L.

3

3

1

82



f (gardeners 2018)

f (human use 2018)

f (animal use 2018)

Family

Botanical taxa

Caprifoliaceae

Sambucus nigra L.

2

2

0

Cistaceae

Cistus L. Cultivars

1

1

0

Grossulariaceae

Ribes nigrum L.

1

1

0

Hypericaceae


8

8

2

Liliaceae


8

8

0

Papaveraceae


1

1

0

Plantaginaceae


2

2

0

Primulaceae


1

1

0

Solanaceae


1

1

0

Plant taxa total

52

52

11

Families total

19

19

7

Appendix 7 Plant families represented by medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners in the years 1998 (n = 62) and 2018 (n = 62). Sorted accordingly to highest number of plant taxa per family in the year 2018. Families that are represented in the year 2018 only are highlighted in grey. Family

f (plant taxa 1998)

f (plant taxa 2018)

Lamiaceae

12

14

Asteraceae

8

12

Brassicaceae

0

3

Malvaceae

4

2

Boraginaceae

2

2

Chenopodiaceae

2

2

Scrophulariaceae

2

2

Urticaceae

1

2

Apiaceae

0

2

Rosaceae

0

2

Caprifoliaceae

1

1

Grossulariaceae

1

1

Hypericaceae

1

1

Primulaceae

1

1

Cistaceae

0

1

Liliaceae

0

1

Papaveraceae

0

1

Plantaginaceae

0

1

Solanaceae

0

1

Valerianaceae

1

0

Plant taxa total

36

52

Families total

12

19

83


Appendix 8 Plant taxa used by gardeners (n = 62) in the year 1998 both as medicinal plants and foodstuff. Sorted accordingly to the highest number of gardeners who used the taxa for both purposes under f (gardeners use as MP + FS). Additionally, the total number of gardeners who used the plant taxa for medicinal purposes is given as a reference under f (gardeners). MP = medicinal plant, FS = foodstuff. Botanical taxon

f (gardeners)

f (gardeners use Comment foodstuff as MP + FS)


24


26

5 Beverage


23

5 Beverage

Mentha L. sp

11

3 Beverage, spice

Thymus L. sp.

3

3 Spice, beverage


4

2 Beverage


2

2 Spice

Sambucus nigra L.

2

2 Fruit, beverage


3

1 Beverage


3

1 Beverage


3

1 Beverage

Urtica dioica L.

2

1 Vegetable


1

1 Spice


1

1 Salad


1

1 Vegetable


1

1 Beverage


1

1 Spice, beverage

1

1 Fruit

Ribes rubrum L.

84

10 Spice, beverage


Appendix 9 Plant taxa used by gardeners (n = 62) in the year 2018 both as medicinal plants and foodstuff. Sorted accordingly to the highest number of gardeners who used the taxa for both purposes under f (gardeners use as MP + FS). Additionally, the total number of gardeners who used the plant taxa for medicinal purposes is given as a reference under f (gardeners). MP = medicinal plant, FS = foodstuff. Botanical taxon

f (gardeners)

f (gardeners use Comment foodstuff as MP + FS)

Salvia L. sp.

21

15 Spice, beverage

Thymus L. sp.

15

13 Spice, beverage


23

10 Beverage, spice, food

Mentha L. sp.

9

8 Beverage, spice


8

8 Spice


19

5 Beverage (herbal tea)

Urtica L. sp.

10

4 Beverage, spice


4

4 Food (salad)


7



3

3 Beverage (herbal tea, syrup)


4

2 Beverage, food


2

2 Spice, food


2

2 Spice

Sambucus nigra L.

2

2 Beverage, food


2

2 Spice, beverage, food


8



2

1 Spice


2

1 Beverage


1

1 Beverage


1

1 Spice


1

1 Beverage, food


1

1 Spice


1

1 Food


1

1 Spice


1

1 Food


1


Ribes nigrum L.

1

1 Beverage, food


1

1 Spice

Rubus idaeus L.

1

1 Beverage, food


1

1 Spice

85


Appendix 10 Primary uses of medicinal plant taxa used by gardeners of the subsample (n = 17). In total 35 different plant taxa were used by the 17 gardeners. Gardeners who used the same plant taxa are differentiated by the homegarden ID. Other uses of plant taxa than the use as medicinal plant are listed under other uses with an additional comment. The primary uses of each plant taxon as reported by the gardeners are depicted, as well as the respective plant part(s) used. Abbreviations of uses: MP = medicinal plant, FS = foodstuff, CU = cultural, OR = ornamental, PC = pest control, FE = fertilizer, CO = cosmetics. Homegarden ID Botanical taxon

Other uses

Comment

Primary use

Plant part(s) used

HG_0417 HG_0215 HG_0405 HG_0416 HG_0802 HG_0908 HG_0911 HG_0908 HG_1210 HG_1214 HG_0633

Achillea millefolium L. Allium cepa L. cepa Grp. Allium cepa L. cepa Grp. Allium cepa L. cepa Grp. Allium cepa L. cepa Grp. Allium cepa L. cepa Grp. Allium cepa L. cepa Grp. Althaea officinalis L. Althaea officinalis L. Althaea officinalis L. Armoracia rusticana P.Gaertn., B.Mey. et Scherb.

-- FS FS FS FS FS FS FS -- -- FS

-- Spice Spice Spice Spice Spice Spice Mixed herbal tea -- -- Food

MP FS MP, FS MP, FS FS FS FS MP MP MP FS

Flower head Bulb Bulb Bulb Bulb Bulb Bulb Leaf, flower head Flower petal Leaf Root

HG_0633 HG_0633 HG_0215 HG_0707 HG_0911 HG_0215 HG_0405 HG_0614 HG_0633 HG_0707 HG_0710 HG_0805 HG_0908 HG_0911 HG_1104 HG_1201 HG_1210 HG_1214 HG_1210 HG_0633 HG_0416 HG_0417 HG_0614 HG_0707 HG_1214 HG_1201 HG_1210 HG_0911 HG_0908 HG_0215 HG_0417 HG_0614 HG_0707 HG_0710 HG_0802 HG_0806 HG_0908 HG_1210 HG_1214

Artemisia absinthium L. Artemisia vulgaris L. Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata (L.) Alef. Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata (L.) Alef. Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata (L.) Alef. Calendula officinalis L Calendula officinalis L Calendula officinalis L Calendula officinalis L Calendula officinalis L Calendula officinalis L Calendula officinalis L Calendula officinalis L Calendula officinalis L Calendula officinalis L Calendula officinalis L Calendula officinalis L Calendula officinalis L Chenopodium bonus-henricus L. Helianthus tuberosus L. Hypericum perforatum L. Hypericum perforatum L. Hypericum perforatum L. Hypericum perforatum L. Hypericum perforatum L. Lavandula angustifolia Mill. Lavandula angustifolia Mill. Levisticum officinale W.D.J. Koch Malva neglecta Wallr. Matricaria recutita L. Matricaria recutita L. Matricaria recutita L. Matricaria recutita L. Matricaria recutita L. Matricaria recutita L. Matricaria recutita L. Matricaria recutita L. Matricaria recutita L. Matricaria recutita L.

-- FS FS FS FS FS FS FS, OR FS FS FS -- FS FS FS, OR FS FS FS -- FS CU -- -- FS -- FS PC FS -- -- FS FS FS FS FS, CU FS -- -- --

-- Spice Food Food Food Herb salt Mixed herbal tea Herb salt, bouquet Mixed herbal tea Mixed herbal tea Mixed herbal tea -- Mixed herbal tea Mixed herbal tea Mixed herbal tea, bouquet Mixed herbal tea Mixed herbal tea Mixed herbal tea -- Food ‘Kräuterbuschen’ -- -- Mixed herbal tea -- Syrup Moth defence Spice -- -- Mixed herbal tea Mixed herbal tea, herb salt Mixed herbal tea Mixed herbal tea Mixed herbal tea, ‘Kräuterbuschen’ Mixed herbal tea -- -- --

MP MP, FS FS FS FS MP MP MP FS FS MP, FS MP MP FS FS MP, FS MP MP MP FS MP MP MP MP MP FS PC FS MP MP MP FS FS MP FS MP MP MP MP

Leaf Leaf, flower head Leaf Leaf Leaf Flower petal Flower head Flower petal Flower petal Flower petal Flower head, leaf Flower head, leaf Flower petal Flower petal Flower petal Flower head Flower head, petal Flower petal Flower head, leaf Tuber Flower head Flower head, leaf Flower head Flower head Flower head Flower head Flower head, leaf Leaf Leaf, flower head Flower head Flower head Flower head Flower head Flower head Flower head Flower head Flower head Flower head Flower head

86


Homegarden ID Botanical taxon

Other uses

Comment

Primary use

Plant part(s) used

HG_0614 HG_0710 HG_1214 HG_0614 HG_0710 HG_0805 HG_0710 HG_1214 HG_0908 HG_0614 HG_0633 HG_0710

Melissa officinalis L. Mentha suaveolens Ehrh. Mentha x gracilis Sole Mentha x piperita L. Mentha x piperita L. Mentha x piperita L. Monarda L. Cultivars Monarda L. Cultivars Petroselinum crispum (Mill.) Fuss Plantago lanceolata L. Plantago lanceolata L. Primula elatior (L.) Hill.

FS, CU FS FS FS, CU FS FS FS FS FS -- -- FS

Mixed herbal tea, syrup, incense Mixed herbal tea Syrup Herb salt, incense Mixed herbal tea, spice, herb salt Syrup Mixed herbal tea, syrup Mixed herbal tea, syrup Herb salt -- -- Mixed herbal tea

FS FS MP FS, CU FS MP, FS FS FS FS MP MP FS

Leaf Leaf Leaf Leaf, whole plant Leaf Leaf Flower petal Flower petal Leaf Leaf Leaf Flower head

HG_0405 HG_0416 HG_0417 HG_0614

Salvia nemorosa L. Salvia officinalis L. Salvia officinalis L. Salvia officinalis L.

FS FS, CU FS FS, CU

MP MP MP, FS FS

Leaf Leaf Leaf Leaf

HG_0707 HG_0710 HG_0802 HG_0806 HG_0908 HG_1104 HG_1201 HG_1214 HG_1214 HG_0416 HG_0633 HG_1210 HG_1104 HG_1210 HG_0417 HG_0614 HG_0633 HG_0707 HG_0802 HG_0805 HG_0908 HG_0416

Salvia officinalis L. Salvia officinalis L. Salvia officinalis L. Salvia officinalis L. Salvia officinalis L. Salvia officinalis L. Salvia officinalis L. Salvia officinalis L. Sambucus nigra L. Symphytum officinale L. Symphytum officinale L. Symphytum officinale L. Tanacetum parthenium (L.) Sch. Bip. Taraxacum sect. ruderalia Kirschner Thymus vulgaris L. Thymus vulgaris L. Thymus vulgaris L. Thymus vulgaris L. Thymus vulgaris L. Thymus vulgaris L. Thymus vulgaris L. Thymus x citriodorus (Pers.) Schreb.

FS FS CU FS FS FS FS -- FS CU FS -- OR FS FS FS FS FS FS, CU FS FS FS, CU

MP, FS MP MP MP MP MP MP MP MP, FS MP MP MP MP FS FS FS MP MP FS MP FS FS

Leaf Leaf Leaf Leaf Leaf, flower head Leaf Leaf Leaf Flower head, fruit Leaf, root Root Flower head, leaf, root Leaf Flower head, leaf Leaf Whole plant Flower head Leaf Flower head, leaf Flower head, leaf Flower head, leaf Flower head, leaf

HG_0405 HG_0614

Urtica dioica L. Urtica dioica L.

FS FS

MP FS

Flower head, leaf Leaf, seed

HG_0805 HG_1210 HG_0417 HG_1104 HG_0417

Urtica dioica L. Urtica dioica L. Urtica urens L. Verbascum densiflorum Bertol. Veronica teucrium L.

FE, PC CO -- CU FS

Spice Herb salt, spice, ‘Kräuterbuschen’ Herb salt, spice Mixed herbal tea, herb salt, ‘Kräuterbuschen’, incense Herbal tea, spice Spice ‘Kräuterbuschen’ Mixed herbal tea Herb salt Spice Herb salt -- Syrup ‘Kräuterbuschen’ Spice -- Ornamental in garden Syrup, mixed herbal tea, salad Spice Mixed herbal tea, herb salt Spice Herbal tea, spice Spice, ‘Kräuterbuschen’ Herb salt, spice Herb salt Added to drinking water, herb salt, ‘Kräuterbuschen’ Herbal tea Seeds in yoghurt, mixed herbal tea, herb salt Slurry as fertilizer and pesticide Tincture for the hair -- ‘Kräuterbuschen’ Mixed herbal tea

MP, FE MP, CO MP MP MP

Leaf, whole plant Leaf, root Leaf Flower head Leaf, flower head


87


Appendix 11 Sources of the 35 medicinal plant taxa that were grown and used by gardeners of the subsample (n = 17). Homegarden is a source in all cases, as only medicinal plants grown in the homegardens were inquired with questionnaire section B. In some cases, gardeners obtained certain medicinal plants additionally from other sources, such as from around the house or farm, purchased, through wild harvests or from family or neighbors. Homegarden ID Botanical taxon

Homegarden

Around house/farm

Purchased

Wild harvest

Family/ neighbor

HG_0417


1

0

0

1

0

HG_0215


1

0

1

0

0

HG_0911


1

0

1

0

0

HG_0405


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0416


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0802


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0908


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0908


1

0

0

0

0

HG_1210


1

0

0

0

0

HG_1214


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0633


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0633


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0633


1

0

0

1

0

HG_0215


1

0

1

0

0

HG_0707


1

0

1

0

0

HG_0911


1

0

1

0

0

HG_0215


1

1

0

0

0

HG_0908


1

0

0

0

1

HG_0405


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0614


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0633


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0707


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0710


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0805


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0911


1

0

0

0

0

HG_1104


1

0

0

0

0

HG_1201


1

0

0

0

0

HG_1210


1

0

0

0

0

HG_1214


1

0

0

0

0

HG_1210


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0633


1

1

0

0

0

HG_0416


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0417


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0614


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0707


1

0

0

0

0

HG_1214


1

0

0

0

0

HG_1201


1

0

0

0

0

HG_1210


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0911


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0908


1

1

0

0

0

HG_0710


1

0

1

1

0

HG_1210


1

0

0

1

0

HG_0908


1

0

0

0

1

HG_0215


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0417


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0614


1

0

0

0

0

88


Appendix 11 continued Homegarden ID Botanical taxon

Homegarden

Around house/ farm

Purchased

Wild harvest

Family/ neighbor

HG_0707


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0802


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0806


1

0

0

0

0

HG_1214


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0614


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0710


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0614


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0710


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0805


1

0

0

0

0

HG_1214


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0710


1

1

0

0

0

HG_1214


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0908


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0614


1

1

0

0

0

HG_0633


1

1

0

0

0

HG_0710


1

1

0

0

0

HG_0405

Salvia nemorosa L.

1

0

0

0

0

HG_0710


1

0

1

0

0

HG_0416


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0417


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0614


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0707


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0802


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0806


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0908


1

0

0

0

0

HG_1104


1

0

0

0

0

HG_1201


1

0

0

0

0

HG_1214


1

0

0

0

0

HG_1214

Sambucus nigra L.

1

1

0

0

0

HG_0416


1

1

0

0

0

HG_0633


1

0

0

0

0

HG_1210


1

0

0

0

0

HG_1104


1

0

0

0

0

HG_1210


1

1

0

0

0

HG_0633

Thymus vulgaris L.

1

0

0

1

0

HG_0417

Thymus vulgaris L.

1

0

0

0

0

HG_0614

Thymus vulgaris L.

1

0

0

0

0

HG_0707

Thymus vulgaris L.

1

0

0

0

0

HG_0802

Thymus vulgaris L.

1

0

0

0

0

HG_0805

Thymus vulgaris L.

1

0

0

0

0

HG_0908

Thymus vulgaris L.

1

0

0

0

0

HG_0416


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0405

Urtica dioica L.

1

1

0

0

0

HG_0614

Urtica dioica L.

1

1

0

0

0

HG_0805

Urtica dioica L.

1

1

0

0

0

HG_1210

Urtica dioica L.

1

0

0

0

0

HG_0417

Urtica urens L.

1

1

0

0

0

HG_1104


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0417


1

0

0

0

0

89


Appendix 12 Sources of the in 1998 eight most common medicinal plants that were used by gardeners of the subsample in the year 2018 (n = 17) as inquired in questionnaire section C. In case the plants were present in the homegardens in the year 2018 they were recorded within questionnaire section B. In six cases plants were used for medicinal purposes some years ago when they were still present in the homegarden. Homegarden ID

Botanical taxon

Used to be in homegarden

Around house/farm

Purchased

Wild harvest

Family/ neighbor

HG_0710 HG_0805


1

0

0

0

0


0

1

0

0

0

HG_1104


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0707


0

1

0

0

0

HG_0805


1

0

0

0

0

HG_1104


1

0

0

0

0

HG_1210


0

1

0

0

0

HG_0417


0

1

0

0

0

HG_0405


0

1

0

0

0

HG_0633


0

1

0

0

0

HG_0805


0

1

0

0

0

HG_1104


1

0

0

0

0

HG_0633

Mentha L. sp.

0

1

0

0

0

HG_0215


0

1

0

0

0

HG_0633


0

1

0

0

0

HG_0805


0

1

0

0

0

HG_1210


0

0

0

0

1

HG_0215

Thymus L. sp.

0

1

0

0

0

HG_0710

Thymus L. sp.

1

0

0

0

0

HG_1104

Thymus L. sp.

0

0

0

1

0

HG_1214

Thymus L. sp.

0

1

0

0

0

90