Note, please see the new sections on

-importance/fidelity of differrent speicees

-potatoes

at the very bottom of the document

Loading and cleaning data

I’ve now hidden the code for the data cleaning just to make the document a bit shorter and clearer.

Methods

Venn Diagrams

Are a little bit rough at the moment, but you can take a look at the different methods I’ve used and maybe will like one more than another.

Differences in plants and uses based on gender, age, location/altitude

To get at this, I’ll use an NMMDS ordination, and then fit on the different environmenal vectors (eg. age) and factors (eg. gender). This will test how much a vector or factor explains the location of informants in the ordination (fit) and compare that to 999 randomized shuffles of the environmental variables to calculate signficance.

Informant Consensus

I calculate informant consensus aka IFC for a given Use Category as number of use reports - number of taxa all over number of use reports minus one:

\[Nur-Nt\over Nur-1\]

note that there’s still this issue with ICF seeming (at least at some levels of aggregation) to be strongly correlated to the log number of use reports; that is; the more people sampled, the more likely that we’ll get a stong IC (see G4, G5, and G6 towards the bottom of the document). If we think this is important (say, if we’re drawing big conclusions based on comparing groups fo uneven size), we can probably work out a way to correct for it (maybe subsample, or measure residuals).

Svaneti-Racha

Table SR1. Svaneti-Racha Informants

informant.code gender age elevation community
AQ1 Male 89 700 Oqhureshi
AA2 Male NA 850 Babili
AM3 Male NA 700 Oqhureshi
AO4 Male NA 660 Khophuri
AT5 Male NA 1050 Lahamula
BL6 Male NA 1150 Mananauri
BS7 Male NA 1550 Ebuthi
DK8 Female 87 1320 Tskhekvani
DJ9 Male NA 750 Babili
DR10 Male NA 2100 Zhibiani
EK11 Male NA 1230 Tviberi
EX12 Female NA 850 Babili
ES13 Female NA 1550 Ebuthi
GX14 Female NA 750 Oqhureshi
GM15 Male NA 750 Oqhureshi
GP16 Female NA 1660 Leli
GP17 Male NA 1660 Leli
HS18 Male NA 1550 Ebuthi
IQ19 Female 58 1100 Nakuraleshi
IG20 Male 15 1100 Nakuraleshi
IM21 Female NA 1550 Ebuthi
JG22 Male NA 800 Gvimbrala
LB23 Female NA 800 Gvimbrala
LC24 Female NA 2150 Zhibiani
LG25 Male NA 1530 Labsqhaldi
LQ26 Female 85 1100 Nakuraleshi
LS27 Female NA 1550 Ebuthi
LS28 Female NA 1050 Lahamula
LT29 Female NA 800 Gvimbrala
LQ30 Male 15 1100 Nakuraleshi
LQ31 Male 15 1100 Nakuraleshi
MM32 Female NA 660 Khophuri
MQ33 Male NA 1600 Chvabiani
MQ34 Female NA 800 Gvimbrala
MN35 Male NA 2150 Zhibiani
ML36 Male NA 1150 Mananauri
MN37 Female 14 1100 Nakuraleshi
MN38 Female NA 2150 Zhibiani
ML39 Female NA 700 Oqhureshi
MJ40 Male NA 1320 Tskhekvani
MJ41 Female NA 750 Babili
ML42 Male NA 1150 Mananauri
NG43 Female NA 2050 Murqhmeli
NT44 Female NA 1850 Tzvrimi
NG45 Female 91 1600 Chvabiani
NR46 Female NA 2100 Zhibiani
NS47 Female NA 1550 Ebuthi
NE48 Female NA 1050 Lahamula
NK49 Male 18 1100 Nakuraleshi
OP50 Female NA 1550 Ebuthi
OG51 Male 84 1100 Nakuraleshi
QP52 Female NA 1550 Ebuthi
RQ53 Male 13 1100 Nakuraleshi
RS54 Male 72 1550 Ebuthi
SQ55 Male NA 750 Babili
SS56 Male 86 1100 Nakuraleshi
SQ57 Male NA 1920 Zeskho
TO58 Female NA 1920 Zeskho
TX59 Male NA 2150 Zhibiani
VP60 Male NA 1550 Ebuthi
ZK61 Male NA 1320 Tskhekvani
ZT62 Male 56 1850 Tzvrimi
ZX63 Female NA 700 Oqhureshi

Figure SR0. Proportional Euler diagrams of plants and usage shared among superdistricts

Figure SR1NEW. Venn diagrams of plants and usage shared among superdistricts

Figure SR2. Informants from the Svaneti-Racha region ordered by their distance in plants reported (A,B,C) and in uses reported (D,E,F).

Figure SR2. Informants from the Svaneti-Racha region ordered by their distance in plants reported (A,B,C) and in uses reported (D,E,F). Informants, numbered according to Table SR1, are more differentiated by plant species reported (A, informants shown but plant species hidden for visual clarity) than by use reported (D, informants and uses shown). Elevation of informant community significantly fits the ordination in plantspace (B, r\(^2\) = 0.645, p = 0.001) but not in usespace (E, r\(^2\) = 0.023, p = 0.51). Community significantly fits the ordination for both plantspace (C, r\(^2\) = 0.784, p = 0.001) and usespace (F, r\(^2\) = 0.844, p = 0.001).

Note: the variable age isn’t included because of its missing values (48/63 missing), but if we did it would be insignificant; and the variable gender (not shown) is not significant in plantspace (p = 0.805, r\(^2\) = 0.003) or usespace (p = 0.752, r\(^2\) = 0.004)

To sum up: for Svaneti-Racha, geographic differences are important in what kinds of ways people use plants; and in what plants they use. Elevation also plays an important role in what plants they use, but not in use categories.

Table SR2. Mean informant consensus across use categories among informant communities, with total number of use reports and taxa.

Community N.Use.Categories Total.Use.Reports Total.Taxa ICF.mean ICF.sd
Babili 4 399 74 0.80 0.10
Chvabiani 3 89 38 0.65 0.07
Ebuthi 4 830 64 0.93 0.01
Gvimbrala 5 384 71 0.82 0.03
Khophuri 4 116 46 0.61 0.05
Labsqhaldi 4 94 71 0.25 0.21
Lahamula 3 280 90 0.81 0.18
Leli 5 174 56 0.84 0.17
Mananauri 5 195 50 0.84 0.11
Murqhmeli 3 34 32 0.18 0.28
Nakuraleshi 4 790 85 0.90 0.02
Oqhureshi 4 588 97 0.83 0.01
Tskhekvani 4 348 85 0.76 0.04
Tviberi 4 142 85 0.24 0.20
Tzvrimi 5 228 91 0.63 0.07
Zeskho 4 90 39 0.60 0.05
Zhibiani 6 346 68 0.82 0.03

Figure SR3. Informant consensus plotted over number of use reports for each Use Category among informant communities.

Tusheti-Khevsureti

Table TK1. Tusheti-Khevsureti Informants

informant.code gender age elevation community
AI1 Male 53 1900 Omalo
AB2 Male 63 1900 Shenako
AX3 Male NA 1900 Dino
AB4 Male 59 2000 Beghelas Tchala
BM5 Male 64 2335 Bochorna
DA6 Female 45 1300 Barisakho
DT7 Female 60 1900 Juhta
DL8 Female 40 1780 Chagsopeli
DL9 Male 45 1780 Chagsopeli
DN10 Male 56 1300 Barisakho
EB11 Male 70 1900 Shenako
EM12 Female 48 1900 Jarvoseli
EA13 Female 68 1900 Omalo
EA14 Female 60 1300 Barisakho
GA15 Male 59 1300 Barisakho
GX16 Male 78 2000 Roshka
GK17 Male 35 2335 Bochorna
GT18 Male 72 1900 Dino
GL19 Male 61 1300 Barisakho
GT20 Male NA 1800 Aragvispiri
IL21 Male 63 1400 Kobulo
IA22 Male 64 1300 Barisakho
KT23 Male NA 2335 Bochorna
KG24 Male 60 2000 Beghelas Tchala
KI25 Male 57 1900 Omalo
KX26 Male NA 1900 Jarvoseli
KL27 Female 61 1780 Dartlo
LS28 Male NA 1900 Jarvoseli
LL29 Female 30 1300 Barisakho
LB30 Female NA 2100 Gogrulta
LI31 Female 74 2085 Girevi
LK32 Female 75 1900 Diklo
LM33 Female 73 2085 Kvemo Alvani
MA34 Male 64 1300 Barisakho
MT35 Male 64 2000 Roshka
MA36 Female NA 1300 Barisakho
MA37 Female 53 1300 Barisakho
MT38 Male NA 1800 Aragvispiri
NA39 Female 46 1300 Barisakho
NT40 Male NA 1800 Aragvispiri
NC41 Female 60 1780 Dartlo
NC42 Female 52 1450 Shatili
NA43 Female 35 1300 Barisakho
NA44 Male NA 1350 Ortskali
NC45 Female 65 1450 Shatili
NT46 Male 65 1450 Shatili
NA47 Female 57 1300 Barisakho
NT48 Male 63 NA Shtrolta
NL49 Male 55 1300 Barisakho
NI50 Male 64 1900 Omalo
OI51 Male 61 1650 Omalo
PA52 Male 51 1900 Omalo
PM53 Female NA 1900 Jarvoseli
PA54 Male NA 1750 Atabe
RG55 Female 74 1780 Dartlo
SA56 Male 55 2000 Roshka
SK57 Male NA 1350 Ortskali
ST58 Male NA 1300 Barisakho
SK59 Female NA NA Laliskuri
SB60 Male 76 2100 Gogrulta
SB61 Male NA NA Laliskuri
TC62 Female 54 1300 Barisakho
TZ63 Female 80 1450 Shatili
TS64 Male 63 1800 Ardoti
TA65 Female 51 2000 Roshka
TT66 Female 64 2000 Roshka
TT67 Male 75 1900 Omalo
VO68 Male 41 2335 Bochorna
VB69 Female NA 1900 Omalo
ZA70 Male 56 2000 Tchesho

Figure TK0. Proportional Euler diagrams of plants and usage shared among superdistricts

Figure TK1NEW. Venn diagrams of plants and usage shared among superdistricts

Figure TK2. Informants from the Tusheti-Khevsureti region ordered by their distance in plants reported (A,B,C) and in uses reported (D,E,F).

Figure TK2. Informants from the Tusheti-Khevsureti region ordered by their distance in plants reported (A,B,C) and in uses reported (D,E,F). Informants, numbered according to Table TK1, in plant-space (A, informants shown but plant species hidden for visual clarity) and use-space (D, informants and uses shown). Elevation of informant community significantly fits the ordination in plantspace (B, r\(^2\) = 0.376, p = 0.001) and in usespace (E, r\(^2\) = 0.185, p = 0.012). Community significantly fits the ordination for both plantspace (C, r\(^2\) = 0.687, p = 0.001) and usespace (F, r\(^2\) = 0.488, p = 0.029).

Note: The variable age (not shown) is not significant in plantspace (p = 0.068, r\(^2\) = 0.107) or usespace (p = 0.123, r\(^2\) = 0.083) ; and the variable gender (not shown) is not significant in plantspace (p = 0.489, r\(^2\) = 0.015) or usespace (p = 0.546, r\(^2\) = 0.011)

To sum up: For Tusheti-Khevsureti, geographic differences and elevation structure both what kinds of ways people use plants and what plants they use. Age may play a factor in plant selection (see signfiance and r\(^2\) value) but is not significant.

Table TK2. Mean informant consensus across use categories among informant communities, with total number of use reports and taxa.

Community N.Use.Categories Total.Use.Reports Total.Taxa ICF.mean ICF.sd
Aragvispiri 3 149 48 0.73 0.07
Ardoti 3 67 60 0.06 0.08
Atabe 1 40 39 0.03 NA
Barisakho 7 1203 216 0.58 0.28
Beghelas Tchala 6 172 76 0.72 0.22
Bochorna 2 311 69 0.79 0.01
Chagsopeli 4 145 64 0.74 0.19
Dartlo 5 195 103 0.57 0.30
Diklo 6 79 73 0.02 0.04
Dino 5 91 41 0.71 0.17
Girevi 2 23 18 0.29 0.15
Gogrulta 5 173 75 0.66 0.09
Jarvoseli 6 168 67 0.80 0.19
Juhta 3 55 53 0.04 NA
Kobulo 3 47 45 0.26 0.34
Kvemo Alvani 6 76 65 0.23 0.16
Laliskuri 4 69 45 0.37 0.06
Omalo 8 717 217 0.74 0.18
Ortskali 2 86 43 0.26 0.37
Roshka 7 325 100 0.69 0.17
Shatili 6 271 108 0.63 0.17
Shenako 6 186 118 0.65 0.37
Shtrolta 1 43 32 0.26 NA
Tchesho 6 60 53 0.03 0.07

Figure TK3. Informant consensus plotted over number of use reports for each Use Category among informant communities.

Samtschke-Kavakeli

Table SK1

informant.code gender age elevation community
AM1 Male 70 2200 Tabatskuri (Armenian)
AT2 Female 53 2200 Tabatskuri (Armenian)
AN3 Female 60 2200 Tabatskuri (Armenian)
AN4 Female 60 2200 Tabatskuri (Armenian)
AN5 Male 75 2200 Tabatskuri (Armenian)
AN6 Male 70 2200 Tabatskuri (Armenian)
AN7 Male 70 2200 Tabatskuri (Armenian)
AO8 Male 55 1650 Bakuriani
AM9 Male 54 2200 Tabatskuri (Armenian)
AG10 Female 78 2200 Tabatskuri (Armenian)
BP11 Female 58 1650 Bakuriani
CK12 Female 61 1650 Bakuriani
DM13 Female 61 1650 Bakuriani
IP14 Female 72 1650 Bakuriani
KM15 Female 53 2200 Tabatskuri (Armenian)
KX16 Female 56 1650 Bakuriani
KA17 Female 93 2200 Tabatskuri (Armenian)
KK18 Male 65 1650 Bakuriani
LC19 Female 51 1650 Bakuriani
LG20 Female 42 1650 Bakuriani
MG21 Male 65 1150 Mzetamze
MG22 Female 57 1150 Mzetamze
OX23 Female 22 1650 Bakuriani
RT24 Female 61 2200 Tabatskuri (Armenian)
RG25 Male 65 2200 Tabatskuri (Armenian)
SM26 Female 65 2200 Tabatskuri (Armenian)
SG27 Female 75 1150 Mzetamze
SA28 Male 56 2200 Moliti (Armenian)
SO29 Female 55 1650 Bakuriani
SO30 Male 75 1650 Bakuriani
SG31 Male 75 1150 Mzetamze
VG32 Male 55 1050 Tsaghveri
ZG33 Female 58 1150 Mzetamze
xC34 Female 39 1650 Bakuriani

Figure SK0. Proportional Euler diagrams of plants and usage shared among superdistricts

Figure SK1NEW. Venn diagrams of plants and usage shared among superdistricts

Figure SK2

Figure SK2. Informants from the Samtschke-Kavakeli region ordered by their distance in plants reported (A,B,C) and in uses reported (D,E,F). Informants, numbered according to Table SK1, in plant-space (A, informants shown but plant species hidden for visual clarity) and use-space (D, informants and uses shown). Elevation of informant community significantly fits the ordination in plantspace (B, r\(^2\) = 0.717, p = 0.001) and in usespace (E, r\(^2\) = 0.663, p = 0.001). Community significantly fits the ordination for both plantspace (C, r\(^2\) = 0.629, p = 0.001) and usespace (F, r\(^2\) = 0.511, p = 0.001).

Note: The variable age (not shown) is significant in plantspace (p = 0.038, r\(^2\) = 0.189) but not usespace (p = 0.389, r\(^2\) = 0.059) ; and the variable gender (not shown) is not significant in plantspace (p = 0.441, r\(^2\) = 0.024) or usespace (p = 0.228, r\(^2\) = 0.044)

To sum up: For Samtschke-Kavakeli, geographic differences and elevation structure both what kinds of ways people use plants and what plants they use. Age is (barely) significant in plant selection (but not plant use).

Table SK2. Mean informant consensus across use categories among informant communities, with total number of use reports and taxa.

Community N.Use.Categories Total.Use.Reports Total.Taxa ICF.mean ICF.sd
Bakuriani 6 1274 228 0.79 0.08
Moliti (Armenian) 3 58 56 0.08 0.14
Mzetamze 6 725 128 0.87 0.07
Tabatskuri (Armenian) 3 785 82 0.91 0.01
Tsaghveri 4 91 76 0.07 0.12

Figure SK3. Informant consensus plotted over number of use reports for each Use Category among informant communities.

Georgia: all regions together

Table G1

informant.code gender elevation region community
AI1 Male 1900 TK Omalo
AQ2 Male 700 SR Oqhureshi
AB3 Male 1900 TK Shenako
AM4 Male 2200 SK Tabatskuri (Armenian)
AX5 Male 1900 TK Dino
AA6 Male 850 SR Babili
AM7 Male 700 SR Oqhureshi
AT8 Female 2200 SK Tabatskuri (Armenian)
AB9 Male 2000 TK Beghelas Tchala
AN10 Female 2200 SK Tabatskuri (Armenian)
AN11 Female 2200 SK Tabatskuri (Armenian)
AN12 Male 2200 SK Tabatskuri (Armenian)
AN13 Male 2200 SK Tabatskuri (Armenian)
AN14 Male 2200 SK Tabatskuri (Armenian)
AO15 Male 1650 SK Bakuriani
AM16 Male 2200 SK Tabatskuri (Armenian)
AG17 Female 2200 SK Tabatskuri (Armenian)
AO18 Male 660 SR Khophuri
AT19 Male 1050 SR Lahamula
BM20 Male 2335 TK Bochorna
BP21 Female 1650 SK Bakuriani
BL22 Male 1150 SR Mananauri
BS23 Male 1550 SR Ebuthi
CK24 Female 1650 SK Bakuriani
DA25 Female 1300 TK Barisakho
DK26 Female 1320 SR Tskhekvani
DM27 Female 1650 SK Bakuriani
DT28 Female 1900 TK Juhta
DL29 Female 1780 TK Chagsopeli
DL30 Male 1780 TK Chagsopeli
DN31 Male 1300 TK Barisakho
DJ32 Male 750 SR Babili
DR33 Male 2100 SR Zhibiani
EB34 Male 1900 TK Shenako
EM35 Female 1900 TK Jarvoseli
EK36 Male 1230 SR Tviberi
EA37 Female 1900 TK Omalo
EA38 Female 1300 TK Barisakho
EX39 Female 850 SR Babili
ES40 Female 1550 SR Ebuthi
GA41 Male 1300 TK Barisakho
GX42 Female 750 SR Oqhureshi
GM43 Male 750 SR Oqhureshi
GX44 Male 2000 TK Roshka
GK45 Male 2335 TK Bochorna
GT46 Male 1900 TK Dino
GL47 Male 1300 TK Barisakho
GT48 Male 1800 TK Aragvispiri
GP49 Female 1660 SR Leli
GP50 Male 1660 SR Leli
HS51 Male 1550 SR Ebuthi
IL52 Male 1400 TK Kobulo
IP53 Female 1650 SK Bakuriani
IQ54 Female 1100 SR Nakuraleshi
IA55 Male 1300 TK Barisakho
IG56 Male 1100 SR Nakuraleshi
IM57 Female 1550 SR Ebuthi
JG58 Male 800 SR Gvimbrala
KT59 Male 2335 TK Bochorna
KG60 Male 2000 TK Beghelas Tchala
KI61 Male 1900 TK Omalo
KM62 Female 2200 SK Tabatskuri (Armenian)
KX63 Male 1900 TK Jarvoseli
KL64 Female 1780 TK Dartlo
KX65 Female 1650 SK Bakuriani
KA66 Female 2200 SK Tabatskuri (Armenian)
KK67 Male 1650 SK Bakuriani
LB68 Female 800 SR Gvimbrala
LC69 Female 2150 SR Zhibiani
LC70 Female 1650 SK Bakuriani
LG71 Male 1530 SR Labsqhaldi
LS72 Male 1900 TK Jarvoseli
LL73 Female 1300 TK Barisakho
LG74 Female 1650 SK Bakuriani
LB75 Female 2100 TK Gogrulta
LI76 Female 2085 TK Girevi
LK77 Female 1900 TK Diklo
LM78 Female 2085 TK Kvemo Alvani
LQ79 Female 1100 SR Nakuraleshi
LS80 Female 1550 SR Ebuthi
LS81 Female 1050 SR Lahamula
LT82 Female 800 SR Gvimbrala
LQ83 Male 1100 SR Nakuraleshi
LQ84 Male 1100 SR Nakuraleshi
MM85 Female 660 SR Khophuri
MQ86 Male 1600 SR Chvabiani
MG87 Male 1150 SK Mzetamze
MQ88 Female 800 SR Gvimbrala
MN89 Male 2150 SR Zhibiani
MA90 Male 1300 TK Barisakho
ML91 Male 1150 SR Mananauri
MG92 Female 1150 SK Mzetamze
MN93 Female 1100 SR Nakuraleshi
MN94 Female 2150 SR Zhibiani
ML95 Female 700 SR Oqhureshi
MJ96 Male 1320 SR Tskhekvani
MJ97 Female 750 SR Babili
MT98 Male 2000 TK Roshka
ML99 Male 1150 SR Mananauri
MA100 Female 1300 TK Barisakho
MA101 Female 1300 TK Barisakho
MT102 Male 1800 TK Aragvispiri
NG103 Female 2050 SR Murqhmeli
NT104 Female 1850 SR Tzvrimi
NG105 Female 1600 SR Chvabiani
NA106 Female 1300 TK Barisakho
NR107 Female 2100 SR Zhibiani
NT108 Male 1800 TK Aragvispiri
NC109 Female 1780 TK Dartlo
NC110 Female 1450 TK Shatili
NS111 Female 1550 SR Ebuthi
NA112 Female 1300 TK Barisakho
NA113 Male 1350 TK Ortskali
NC114 Female 1450 TK Shatili
NT115 Male 1450 TK Shatili
NE116 Female 1050 SR Lahamula
NA117 Female 1300 TK Barisakho
NK118 Male 1100 SR Nakuraleshi
NT119 Male NA TK Shtrolta
NL120 Male 1300 TK Barisakho
NI121 Male 1900 TK Omalo
OP122 Female 1550 SR Ebuthi
OI123 Male 1650 TK Omalo
OX124 Female 1650 SK Bakuriani
OG125 Male 1100 SR Nakuraleshi
PA126 Male 1900 TK Omalo
PM127 Female 1900 TK Jarvoseli
PA128 Male 1750 TK Atabe
QP129 Female 1550 SR Ebuthi
RT130 Female 2200 SK Tabatskuri (Armenian)
RQ131 Male 1100 SR Nakuraleshi
RG132 Female 1780 TK Dartlo
RS133 Male 1550 SR Ebuthi
RG134 Male 2200 SK Tabatskuri (Armenian)
SM135 Female 2200 SK Tabatskuri (Armenian)
SQ136 Male 750 SR Babili
SS137 Male 1100 SR Nakuraleshi
SA138 Male 2000 TK Roshka
SK139 Male 1350 TK Ortskali
ST140 Male 1300 TK Barisakho
SG141 Female 1150 SK Mzetamze
SA142 Male 2200 SK Moliti (Armenian)
SK143 Female NA TK Laliskuri
SB144 Male 2100 TK Gogrulta
SQ145 Male 1920 SR Zeskho
SB146 Male NA TK Laliskuri
SO147 Female 1650 SK Bakuriani
SO148 Male 1650 SK Bakuriani
SG149 Male 1150 SK Mzetamze
TC150 Female 1300 TK Barisakho
TZ151 Female 1450 TK Shatili
TS152 Male 1800 TK Ardoti
TO153 Female 1920 SR Zeskho
TX154 Male 2150 SR Zhibiani
TA155 Female 2000 TK Roshka
TT156 Female 2000 TK Roshka
TT157 Male 1900 TK Omalo
VO158 Male 2335 TK Bochorna
VP159 Male 1550 SR Ebuthi
VG160 Male 1050 SK Tsaghveri
VB161 Female 1900 TK Omalo
ZK162 Male 1320 SR Tskhekvani
ZG163 Female 1150 SK Mzetamze
ZA164 Male 2000 TK Tchesho
ZT165 Male 1850 SR Tzvrimi
ZX166 Female 700 SR Oqhureshi
xC167 Female 1650 SK Bakuriani

Figure G0. Proportional Euler diagrams of plants and usage shared among Regions

Figure G1. Venn diagrams of plants and usage shared among regions

Figure G2

Figure G2. Informants from Georgia ordered by their distance in plants reported (A,B,C) and in uses reported (D,E,F). Informants, numbered according to Table G1, in plant-space (A, informants shown but plant species hidden for visual clarity) and use-space (D, informants and uses shown). Elevation of informant community significantly fits the ordination in plantspace (B, r\(^2\) = 0.399, p = 0.001) and in usespace (E, r\(^2\) = 0.119, p = 0.001). Region significantly fits the ordination for both plantspace (C, r\(^2\) = 0.398, p = 0.001) and usespace (F, r\(^2\) = 0.233, p = 0.001).

Note: The variable age is dropped out so that we don’t lose a big chunk of Svaneti-Racha informants (but if we included it, it comes out as non-significant); and the variable gender (not shown) is not significant in plantspace (p = 0.313, r\(^2\) = 0.007) or usespace (p = 0.994, r\(^2\) = 0)

To sum up Geography and elevation both signifcantly structure informants in plantspace and in usespace. However, regional differences are clearer in plants (C) then in uses (F), suggesting perhaps replacement? (Environment > Culture)?

Figure G3. Ordination fit of different variables by region r\(^2\) values for each region and for the whole set are givin on the y axis, and each variable on the x axis. I’ve indicated p-value with size.

Cross-region comparison of ICF

Figure G4. Informant Consensus Factor (ICF) is broadly similar across regions

Figure G5. Zooming in just on ICFs above 0.5 (which cuts off TK-Animal Food)

Note there is a trend of higher ICF with greater number of Use Reports in each region (not signficant in SK).

Figure G6. Trendlines for each region, and for all regions combined

Home Garden vs. Forest

Note: I haven’t yet gotten to thinking about how to break out home garden analysis seperately.

Venn Diagrams

Ordination fitting In terms of the significance or fit of the environmental variables, limiting to just forest or just garden plants makes little difference – age and gender remain non-significant.

However, do note that community of forest plants used by informants does seem to be much better explained by environmental variables (r\(^2\) is about twice as high) than the community of garden plants. Maybe this is because of more homogeneity in garden plants? (We could probably figure out a way to test this).

ICF Below, I look at differences by location (forest/garden). These aren’t big, although there are some differences that look consistent across regions, for instance:

Zooming in just on IFCS above 0.5 (which cuts off SK-Garden-Medicinal and TK-Forest-Animal Food)

Potatos!

Potato reports by community:

Potato reports by individual (each point is an individual report)

Most important species

TEMPORARY

Scientific.name CIinf CIcom Du Npr
Allium victorialis L. 1.625000 1.800000 0.9357870 56
Arctium lappa L. 2.000000 2.000000 0.6365142 30
Chenopodium album L. 1.034483 1.250000 0.5004024 30
Corylus avellana L. / C. pontica K. Koch. 1.428571 2.000000 0.8758221 29
Cucurbita pepo L. 1.176471 1.200000 0.4227091 40
Fagus orientalis Lipsky 1.923077 3.000000 1.4676739 25
Helichrysum arenarium (L.) Moench 1.227273 1.200000 1.3424442 27
Juglans regia L. 1.500000 1.666667 0.8158499 22
Matricaria chamomilla L. 2.000000 2.000000 0.6931472 24
Mentha pulegium L. 1.444444 1.666667 0.7777899 18
Pinus kochiana Klotzsch ex K. Koch 3.000000 4.333333 1.7322154 35
Prunus x domestica L. 1.277778 1.333333 0.6134100 33
Pyrus caucasica Fed. 1.178571 1.500000 0.8661839 33
Pyrus communis L. 1.125000 1.333333 0.5835275 37
Quercus iberica Steven ex M. Bieb. 1.153846 2.000000 1.0538437 23
Rosa sp. 1.400000 1.750000 1.0417002 33
Sambucus ebulus L. 1.250000 2.000000 1.2013670 20
Urtica dioica L. 1.137931 1.800000 1.2671159 33
Vaccinium myrtillus L. 1.176471 1.666667 0.4310711 26
Scientific.name CIinf CIcom Du Npr
Betula litwinowii Doluch. 2.275862 2.857143 2.790765 67
Pinus kochiana Klotzsch ex K. Koch 2.482759 3.384615 2.569828 75
Scientific.name CIinf CIcom Du Npr
Capsicum annuum L. 1.933333 1.900000 1.171256 65
Corylus avellana L. / C. pontica K. Koch. 2.351852 2.142857 1.570700 139
Sambucus ebulus L. 2.476190 2.444444 2.050811 69
Vaccinium arctostaphylos L. 1.701754 1.812500 1.659256 116