Ethnobotany of dioecious species: Traditional knowledge on dioecious plants in India

Abstract

Ethnopharmacological relevance: More than 15,000 angiosperm species are dioecious, i.e., having distinct male and female individual plants. The allocation of resources between male and female plants is different, and also variation in secondary metabolites and sex-biased herbivory is reported among dioecious plants. However, little is known about the ethnobotany of dioecious species and whether preferences exist for a specific gender, e.g., in food, medicine or timber. Aim of the study: The aim of this study was: 1) to study whether Indian folk healers have preference for plant genders, and to document their knowledge and use of dioecious species; 2) to understand the concept of plant gender in Indian systems of medicine and folk medicine, and whether Ayurvedic literature includes any references to gender preference. Materials and methods: Lists of dioecious plants used in Indian systems of medicine and folk medicine were compiled. Ethnobotanical data was collected on perceptions and awareness of dioecious plants, and preferences of use for specific genders of dioecious species using semi-structured interviews with folk healers in Tamil Nadu, India. In addition, twenty Ayurvedic doctors were interviewed to gain insight into the concept of plant gender in Ayurveda. Results: Indian systems of medicine contain 5–7% dioecious species, and this estimate is congruent with the number of dioecious species in flowering plants in general. Informants recognized the phenomenon of dioecy in 31 out of 40 species, and reported gender preferences for 13 species with respect to uses as timber, food and medicine. Among informants different plant traits such as plant size, fruit size, and visibility of fruits determines the perception of a plant being a male or female. Ayurvedic classical literature provides no straightforward evidence on gender preferences in preparation of medicines or treatment of illness, however it contains details about reproductive morphology and sexual differentiation of plants. Conclusions: A knowledge gap exists in ethnobotanical and ethnopharmacological literature on traditional knowledge of dioecious plants. From this explorative study it is evident that people have traditional knowledge on plant gender and preferential usages towards one gender. Based on this, we propose that researchers conducting ethnobotanical and ethnopharmacological studies should consider documenting traditional knowledge on sexual systems of plants, and test the existence of gender specific usages in their conceptual framework and hypothesis testing. Incorporating such concepts could provide new dimensions of scientific knowledge with potential implications to conservation biology, chemical ecology, ethnoecology and drug discovery.