Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
Published in: Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Research

Known but not called by name: recreational fishers’ ecological knowledge of freshwater plants in Hungary

Authors: Viktor Löki, Jenő Nagy, András Nagy, Dániel Babai, Zsolt Molnár, Balázs András Lukács

Published in: Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Documenting local ecological knowledge (LEK) has recently become a topic of considerable interest. LEK can contribute to various areas of ecology, including habitat management and conservation biology. It has been recently revealed that recreational fishers’ ecological knowledge (FEK) can also provide valuable information about different organisms and habitats, while recreational fishers’ ecological knowledge is understudied in many aspects and regions of the world.

Methods

We aimed to record Hungarian recreational FEK on plant species related to freshwater habitats. Our research was conducted in three regularly fished water bodies in Hungary, namely Lake Velence, Keleti Main Canal, and Lake Látóképi, where a total of 72 interviews were conducted with recreational anglers. During interviews, 24 plant species occurring at freshwater habitats with common or sporadic distribution were shown to anglers as single species or in congeneric pairs. Miscellaneous plant-related knowledge of anglers was also collected.

Results

Anglers identified a total of 16 plant species. They used 45 botanical or folk names. An angler knew the name of 4.6 plants on average and recognized 7.4 other species without naming it. According to our detailed analysis, anglers were able to name or at least recognize those plant species which are somehow related to fishing activities, are salient, and/or common. Moreover, anglers at Lake Velence recognized less plant species; however, they also had less years of fishing experience compared to anglers of the other two locations.

Conclusion

We found that recreational FEK exists even in the case of freshwater plants which are not the main focus of anglers. It is highly presumable that recreational fishers would be able to provide reliable ecologically related data for scientific research establishing future citizen science projects of nature conservation.
Literature
1.
2.
Gadgil M, Olsson P, Berkes F, Folke C. Exploring the role of local ecological knowledge in ecosystem management: three case studies. In: Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C, editors. Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press; 2003. p. 189–209.
3.
Olsson P, Folke C. Local ecological knowledge and institutional dynamics for ecosystem management: a study of Lake Racken watershed. Sweden Ecosystems. 2001;4(2):85–104.CrossRef
4.
Anadón JD, et al. Evaluation of local ecological knowledge as a method for collecting extensive data on animal abundance. Conserv Biol. 2009;23(3):617–25.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Dudgeon D, et al. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol Rev. 2006;81(2):163–82.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Wetlands and Water Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC; 2005. p. 69.
7.
Dodds WK, Perkin JS, Gerken JE. Human impact on freshwater ecosystem services: a global perspective. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47(16):9061–8.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Neis B. Fishers’ ecological knowledge and stock assessment in Newfoundland. Newfoundland Lab Stud. 1992;8(2):155–78.
9.
10.
Silvano RA, Begossi A. Local knowledge on a cosmopolitan fish: ethnoecology of Pomatomus saltatrix (Pomatomidae) in Brazil and Australia. Fish Res. 2005;71(1):43–59.CrossRef
11.
Truchet DM, Noceti MB, Villagrán DM, et al. Fishers’ ecological knowledge about marine pollution: What can FEK contribute to ecological and conservation studies of a Southwestern Atlantic Estuary? J Ethnobiol. 2019;39(4):584–606.CrossRef
12.
Bevilacqua AnaHelena V, et al. More than anecdotes: fishers’ ecological knowledge can fill gaps for ecosystem modeling. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(5):e0155655.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
Gray TN, Phommachak A, Vannachomchan K, Guegan F. Using local ecological knowledge to monitor threatened Mekong megafauna in Lao PDR. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(8):e0183247.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
14.
Baird IG. Conducting rapid biology-based assessments using local ecological knowledge. Nat Hist Bull Siam Soc. 2006;54(2):167–75.
15.
Baird IG. Local ecological knowledge and small-scale freshwater fisheries management in the Mekong River in southern Laos. In: Haggan N, Neis B, Baird IG, editors. Fishers’ knowledge in fisheries science and management. Paris: UNESCO; 2007. p. 247–66.
16.
Mamun AA. Understanding the value of local ecological knowledge and practices for habitat restoration in human-altered floodplain systems: a case from Bangladesh. Environ Manage. 2010;45(5):922–38.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Szałkiewicz E, Sucholas A, Grygoruk M. Feeding the future with the past: incorporating local ecological knowledge in river restoration. Resources. 2020;9(4):47.CrossRef
18.
Johannes RE, Freeman MM, Hamilton RJ. Ignore fishers’ knowledge and miss the boat. Fish Fish. 2000;1(3):257–71.CrossRef
19.
Mamun AA. Traditional ecological knowledge and its importance for conservation and management of freshwater fish habitats of Bangladesh. Thesis. Natural Resources Institute University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba; 2007.
20.
Zukowski S, Curtis A, Watts RJ. Using fisher local ecological knowledge to improve management: the Murray crayfish in Australia. Fish Res. 2011;110(1):120–7.CrossRef
21.
Silvano RA, Begossi A. From ethnobiology to ecotoxicology: fishers’ knowledge on trophic levels as indicator of bioaccumulation in tropical marine and freshwater fishes. Ecosystems. 2016;19(7):1310–24.CrossRef
22.
Arlinghaus R, Cooke SJ. Recreational fisheries: socioeconomic importance, conservation issues and management challenges. In: Barney D, Jon H, William MA, editors. Recreational hunting, conservation and rural livelihoods: science and practice. Blackwell; 2009. p. 39–58.CrossRef
23.
Hind EJ. A review of the past, the present, and the future of fishers’ knowledge research: a challenge to established fisheries science. ICES J Mar Sci. 2015;72(2):341–58.CrossRef
24.
Ecsedi I, Sőregi J. Népies halászat a Közép-Tiszán és a tiszántúli kisvizeken. [Folk fishing in the Middle Tisza and the small waters beyond the Tisza.] A Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve; 1933. p. 125–293.
25.
Khin A. A régi Csallóköz mint halászóhely. [The old Csallóköz as a fishing place]. In: Balassa I edited. A Magyar Mezőgazdasági Múzeum Közleményei; 1970. 5, p. 257–266.
26.
Dankó I. A Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve [Calendar of Herman Ottó Museum]. Bodrogközi halászszótár. 1972;11:449–504.
27.
Sbragaglia V, Cerri J, Bolognini L, Dragićević B, Dulćić J, Grati F, Azzurro E. Local ecological knowledge of recreational fishers reveals different meridionalization dynamics of two Mediterranean subregions. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2020;634:147–57.CrossRef
28.
Silvano RA, Valbo-Jørgensen J. Beyond fishermen’s tales: contributions of fishers’ local ecological knowledge to fish ecology and fisheries management. Environ Dev Sustain. 2008;10(5):657–75.CrossRef
29.
Zs M. Traditional vegetation knowledge of the Hortobágy salt steppe (Hungary): a neglected source of information for vegetation science and conservation. Phytocoenologia. 2013;43:193–205.CrossRef
30.
31.
32.
33.
Sallai Z, Kiss B, Müller Z, Polyák LA. Results of fish faunistical survey of Lake Velence in 2017. Pisces Hungarici. 2017;12:5–19.
34.
Newing H. Conducting research in conservation: social science methods and practice. Routledge; 2010.CrossRef
35.
36.
Fisher RA. The use of multiple measurements in taxonomic problems. Ann Eugenic. 1936;7(2):179–88.CrossRef
37.
Dunn OJ. Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics. 1964;6(3):241–52.CrossRef
38.
Hotelling H. Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components. JPN J Educ Psychol. 1933;24(6):417–41.CrossRef
39.
Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297–334.CrossRef
40.
Armor DJ. Theta reliability and factor scaling. Sociol Methodol. 1973;5:17–50.CrossRef
41.
Hartigan JA, Wong MA. Algorithm AS 136: a k-means clustering algorithm. J R Stat Soc C-App. 1979;28(1):100–8.
42.
R Development Core Team: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2019.
43.
44.
45.
Venables WN, Ripley BD. Modern applied statistics with S. 4th ed. New York: Springer; 2002.CrossRef
46.
Fox J, The R. Commander: a basic statistics graphical user interface to R. J Stat Softw. 2005;14(9):1–42.CrossRef
47.
Fox J, Bouchet-Valat M. Rcmdr: R Commander. R package version 2.7-1. 2020.
48.
Berecz T, et al. A világ természetvédelmének története 1981 és 1985 között: védett területek alapítása. [History of nature conservation in the world between 1981 and 1985]. Tájökológiai Lapok. 2015;13(2):249–63.
49.
Móra F. Népies növények a Kiskunság flórájában. [Folk plants in the flora of Kiskunság]. A fele sem tudomány. Utazás a föld alatti Magyarországon [Ed. Vajda L.]. Magvető Könyvkiadó, Bp; 1960. p. 254–61.
50.
Molnár Z. A Hortobágyi pásztorok növényosztályozása, a vadon termő növények ismertsége és néven nevezettsége [Plant classification and plant name kowledge of the Hortobágy shepherds]. Crisicum. 2012;7:153–207.
51.
Ruddle K. The transmission of traditional ecological knowledge. Traditional ecological knowledge: concepts and cases. Ottawa: Canadian Museum of Nature and IDRC; 1993. p. 17–31.
52.
Kasper-Pakosz R, Pietras M, Łuczaj Ł. Wild and native plants and mushrooms sold in the open-air markets of south-eastern Poland. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2016;12(1):1–17.CrossRef
53.
Łuczaj Ł. Primroses versus spruces: cultural differences between flora depicted in British and Polish children’s books. Ethnobot Res Appl. 2009;7:115–21.CrossRef
54.
Berlin B. Ethnobiological classification: Principles of categorization of plants and animals in traditional societies. Princeton University Press; 1992. p. 335.
55.
Molnár Z, et al. Preserving once widespread now vanishing knowledge on traditional pig grazing in forests and marshes for the future. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2021;6:66.
56.
de Oliveira Campos LZ, Albuquerque UP, Peroni N, Araujo EL. Do socioeconomic characteristics explain the knowledge and use of native food plants in semiarid environments in Northeastern Brazil? J Arid Environ. 2015;115:53–61.CrossRef
57.
Sobral A, La Torre MDLÁ, Alves RRN, Albuquerque UP. Conservation efforts based on local ecological knowledge: The role of social variables in identifying environmental indicators. Ecol Ind. 2017;81:171–81.CrossRef
58.
Ainsworth C, Pitcher H. Using local ecological knowledge in ecosystem models. Fisheries assessment and management in data-limited situations. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA, 2005; 289–304.
59.
Davis A, Wagner JR. Who knows? On the importance of identifying “experts” when researching local ecological knowledge. Hum Ecol. 2003;31(3):463–89.CrossRef
60.
Biró É, et al. Lack of knowledge or loss of knowledge? Traditional ecological knowledge of population dynamics of threatened plant species in East-Central Europe. J Nat Conserv. 2014;22(4):318–25.CrossRef
61.
Schlacher TA, Lloyd S, Wiegand A. Use of local ecological knowledge in the management of algal blooms. Environ Conserv. 2010;37(2):210–21.CrossRef
62.
McKinley DC, Miller-Rushing AJ, Ballard HL, et al. Citizen science can improve conservation science, natural resource management, and environmental protection. Biol Cons. 2017;208:15–28.CrossRef
63.
Moller H, Berkes F, Lyver POB, Kislalioglu M. Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge: monitoring populations for co-management. Ecol Soc. 2004;9(3):2.CrossRef
64.
Mackinson S, Nøttestad L. Points of view: combining local and scientific knowledge. Rev Fish Biol Fisher. 1998;8(4):481–90.CrossRef
65.
Anbleyth-Evans J, Lacy SN. Feedback between fisher local ecological knowledge and scientific epistemologies in England: building bridges for biodiversity conservation. Maritime Stud. 2019;18(2):189–203.CrossRef
66.
Gantuya B, Biró M, Molnár Á, Avar Á, Sharifian BA, Babai D, Molnár Z. How Mongolian herders perceive ecological change in a ‘stable’ landscape. Ecol Soc. 2021;26(2):21.CrossRef
67.
Goulder R. Angling and species richness of aquatic macrophytes in ponds. Freshw Forum. 2001;15:71–6.
68.
Lewin WC, Arlinghaus R, Mehner T. Documented and potential biological impacts of recreational fishing: insights for management and conservation. Rev Fish Sci. 2006;14(4):305–67.CrossRef
69.
Maurstad A. Fishing in murky waters—ethics and politics of research on fisher knowledge. Mar Policy. 2002;26(3):159–66.CrossRef
70.
Dedual M, et al. Communication between scientists, fishery managers and recreational fishers: lessons learned from a comparative analysis of international case studies. Fish Manag Ecol. 2013;20(2–3):234–46.CrossRef
71.
Granek EF, Madin EM, Brown MA, Figueira W, Cameron DS, Hogan Z, et al. Engaging recreational fishers in management and conservation: global case studies. Conserv Biol. 2008;22(5):1125–34.PubMedCrossRef
72.
Giglio VJ, Suhett AC, Zapelini CS, Ramiro AS, Quimbayo JP. Assessing captures of recreational spearfishing in Abrolhos reefs, Brazil, through social media. Reg Stud Mar Sci. 2020;34:100995.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
Metadata
Title
Known but not called by name: recreational fishers’ ecological knowledge of freshwater plants in Hungary
Authors
Viktor Löki
Jenő Nagy
András Nagy
Dániel Babai
Zsolt Molnár
Balázs András Lukács
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1746-4269
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-021-00489-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 1/2021 Go to the issue

Research

Breaking the paradigms of residual categories and neglectable importance of non-used resources: the “vital” traditional knowledge of non-edible mushrooms and their substantive cultural significance

Research

Herbal plants traded at the Kaili medicinal market, Guizhou, China

Research

Assessment of biodiversity goods for the sustainable development of the chagra in an indigenous community of the Colombian Amazon: local values of crops

Research

Ethnozoology among the Berbers: pre-Islamic practices survive in the Rif (northwestern Africa)

Research

How does urbanization affect perceptions and traditional knowledge of medicinal plants?

Research

What interferes with conducting free lists? A comparative ethnobotanical experiment