4.7 Article

Quantitative Ethnobotanical Study of Indigenous Knowledge on Medicinal Plants Used by the Tribal Communities of Gokand Valley, District Buner, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

期刊

PLANTS-BASEL
卷 9, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/plants9081001

关键词

quantitative study; ethnobotanical; indigenous; conservation; Gokand; Pakistan

资金

  1. Korea Institute for Advanced Study (KIAS) [02455]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The current study on the traditional use of medicinal plants was carried out from February 2018 to March 2020, in Gokand Valley, District Buner, Pakistan. The goal was to collect, interpret, and evaluate data on the application of medicinal plants. Along with comprehensive notes on individual plants species, we calculated Use Value (UV), Relative Frequency of Citation (RFC), Use Report (UR), Fidelity Level (FL), Informant Consensus Factor (FCI), as well as Family Importance Value (FIV). During the current study, a total of 109 species belonging to 64 families were reported to be used in the treatment of various ailments. It included three families (four species) of Pteridophytes, 58 families (99 species) of angiosperm, one family (three species) of Gymnosperms, and two families (three species) of fungi. The article highlights the significance of domestic consumption of plant resources to treat human ailments. The UV varied from 0.2 (Acorus calamusL.) to 0.89 (Acacia modestaWall.). The RFC ranged from 0.059 (Acorus calamusL. andConvolvulus arvensisL.) to 0.285 (Acacia modestaWall.). The species with 100% FL wereAcacia modestaWall. and the fungusMorchella esculentaFr., while the FCI was documented from 0 to 0.45 for gastro-intestinal disorders. The conservation ranks of the medicinal plant species revealed that 28 plant species were vulnerable, followed by rare (25 spp.), infrequent (17 spp.), dominant (16 spp.), and 10 species endangered. The traditional use of plants needs conservation strategies and further investigation for better utilization of natural resources.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据