4.7 Article

Ethnomedicinal and ethnopharmaco-statistical studies of Eastern Rajasthan, India

Journal

JOURNAL OF ETHNOPHARMACOLOGY
Volume 129, Issue 1, Pages 64-86

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jep.2010.02.026

Keywords

Ethnopharmaco-statistical; Informants consensus factor; Experimental Diagnosis; Instant remedy

Funding

  1. CSIR

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim of study: The study was conducted in Eastern parts of Rajasthan from March 2008 to February 2009 to identify the important species used; determine the relative importance of the species surveyed and calculate the informant consensus factor (ICF) in relation to medicinal plant use. Methodology or Material and methods: A total of 844 villagers (486 men and 358 women) were interviewed using specimen display method and a forest walk with interviewee and a semi-structured questionnaire was used to elicit the knowledge of use of medicinal plants. A total of 213 species of medicinal plants belonging to 68 families were documented. Result: The family Fabaceae had the highest number of species (28) followed by Euphorbiaceae (14). The majority of informants (46.12%) mentioned Azadirachta indica as most popular remedy for the treatment of various ailments, followed by Ocimum sanctum (25.31%) and Tridax procumbens (21.63%). The average number of medicinal plants known and used by female and male practitioners was similar (chi=9.192. d.f.=17, p = 0.941). The number of medicinal plant species reported and used by each informant was not significantly (chi=40.625, d.f.=34, p = 0.202) different among the four districts: Alwar (7.80 +/- 0.917), Bharatpur (6.88 +/- 1.076), Dholpur (7.13 +/- 0.965) and Karauli (7.97 +/- 1.068). Conclusion: From the study it is clear that ethnomedicinal information from traditional practitioners provides a corporeal guide towards development of new drugs than the approaches of random screening. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available