Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29373997›Full record

ArticleJournal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine2018

Indigenous uses of ethnomedicinal plants among forest-dependent communities of Northern Bengal, India.

Antony Joseph Raj, Saroj Biswakarma, Nazir A Pala, Gopal Shukla, Vineeta, Munesh Kumar, Sumit Chakravarty, Rainer W Bussmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Tribal Health: A Public Health Exigency and Road Map to Future.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Antony Joseph RajMekelle University, Mekelle, Tigray, Ethiopia. drajr.aaidu@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9910-1666
Saroj BiswakarmaDepartment of Forestry, Uttar Banga Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Cooch Behar, West Bengal, India.
Nazir A PalaDepartment of Forestry, Uttar Banga Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Cooch Behar, West Bengal, India.
Gopal ShuklaDepartment of Forestry, Uttar Banga Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Cooch Behar, West Bengal, India.
VineetaDepartment of Forestry, Uttar Banga Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Cooch Behar, West Bengal, India.
Munesh KumarDepartment of Forestry and Natural Resources, HNB Garhwal University, Srinagar Garhwal, Uttarakhand, India.
Sumit ChakravartyDepartment of Forestry, Uttar Banga Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Cooch Behar, West Bengal, India.
Rainer W BussmannSaving Knowledge, Casilla, 13092, La Paz, Bolivia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTraditional knowledge on ethnomedicinal plant is slowly eroding. The exploration, identification and documentation on utilization of ethnobotanic resources are essential for restoration and preservation of ethnomedicinal knowledge about the plants and conservation of these species for greater interest of human society.

methodsThe study was conducted at fringe areas of Chilapatta Reserve Forest in the foothills of the eastern sub-Himalayan mountain belts of West Bengal, India, from December 2014 to May 2016. Purposive sampling method was used for selection of area. From this area which is inhabited by aboriginal community of Indo-Mongoloid origin, 400 respondents including traditional medicinal practitioners were selected randomly for personal interview schedule through open-ended questionnaire. The questionnaire covered aspects like plant species used as ethnomedicines, plant parts used, procedure for dosage and therapy.

resultsA total number of 140 ethnomedicinal species was documented, in which the tree species (55) dominated the lists followed by herbs (39) and shrubs (30). Among these total planted species used for ethnomedicinal purposes, 52 species were planted, 62 species growing wild or collected from the forest for use and 26 species were both wild and planted. The present study documented 61 more planted species as compared to 17 planted species documented in an ethnomedicinal study a decade ago. The documented species were used to treat 58 human diseases/ailments including nine species used to eight diseases/ailments of domestic animals. Stomach-related problems were treated by maximum number of plants (40 species) followed by cuts and wounds with 27 plant species and least with one species each for 17 diseases or ailments. Maximum number of 12 diseases/ailments was cured by Melia azedarach followed by Centella asiatica and Rauvolfia serpentina which were used to cure 11 diseases/ailments each.

conclusionsThe list of 140 plant species indicates that the Chilapatta Reserve Forest and its fringe areas are rich in biodiversity of ethnobotanical plant species. Rauvolfia serpentina were the most valuable species in terms of its maximal use with higher use value. The documentation of 78 species maintained in the home gardens indicates the community consciousness on the conservation values of these ethnobotanical species. The communities should be encouraged with improved cultivation techniques of commercially viable ethnobotanical species through capacity building, timely policy intervention along with strong market linkage. This will ensure income generation and livelihood improvement and ultimate conservation of these species.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesForestsMedicine, TraditionalPlants, MedicinalEthnobotanyIndiaDiseaseIndigenousLiverPolicyTradition

Identifiers

PMID29373997
PMCPMC5787290

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.