4.3 Article

Ethnomedicinal survey of medicinal plants of Chinglai valley, Buner district, Pakistan

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 64-74

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.eujim.2017.06.007

关键词

Ethnomedicinal; Chinglai; Buner; Indigenous; Traditional knowledge

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Indigenous communities of the Chinglai valley, Buner district in Northwest Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan, mainly depend on ethnomedicinal plants, and the study was conducted with the aim to document therapeutic plants and formulae used by the local people for the treatment of different human infirmities. Methods: Ethnobotanical data was obtained by conducting many field trips, questionnaires, open-end and semistructured interviews, inquiries, and group gathering from 2010 to 2012. The ethnobotanical data were quantitatively studied using the index informant consensus factor (ICF). Results: During the survey, 80 species of medicinal plants belonging to 46 botanical families were reported to be used in traditional medicines. Lamiaceae with 6 species is the dominant family, followed by Asteraceae and Solanaceae. With regard to growth form, the main source of herbal medicines was herbs (64%). For remedy preparation, leaf (47%) was the most frequently utilized part. Moreover, 23% of the herbal medicines were prepared in the form of decoctions and administered orally (73%). According to the result, the highest ICF value was recorded for mouth disorders (0.90). Conclusion: The different plant species used by the local people in large numbers for medicinal purposes indicated that Chinglai valley is wealthy in medicinal flora and allied traditional knowledge. This shows that the indigenous people still rely on therapeutic plants for their healthcare needs, and therapeutic plants are the chief source for plants-based medicines for the inhabitants of the study area. This work can be used as base for future ethnomedicinal and/or ethnopharmacological studies.

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

4.3
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