Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30782184›Full record

ArticleJournal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine2019

Floristic composition and utilization of ethnomedicinal plant species in home gardens of the Eastern Himalaya.

Nazir A Pala, Biplov C Sarkar, Gopal Shukla, Nakul Chettri, Shovik Deb, Jahangeer A Bhat, Sumit Chakravarty

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Health science reports · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
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

7 authors.

Nazir A PalaDepartment of Forestry, Uttar Banga Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Pundibari, WB, India.
Biplov C SarkarDepartment of Forestry, Uttar Banga Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Pundibari, WB, India.
Gopal ShuklaDepartment of Forestry, Uttar Banga Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Pundibari, WB, India.
Nakul ChettriInternational Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), GPO Box 3226, Kathmandu, Nepal. nakul.chettri@icimod.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3338-8879
Shovik DebDepartment of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, Uttar Banga Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Pundibari, WB, India.
Jahangeer A BhatSchool of Agricultural Sciences and Forestry, College of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Fiji National University, Koronivia, PO Box 1544, Nausori, Fiji Islands.
Sumit ChakravartyDepartment of Forestry, Uttar Banga Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Pundibari, WB, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHome gardens are popular micro land-use system and are socioeconomically linked with people for their livelihood. In the foothill region of Eastern Himalaya, very less documentations are available on species richness of the home gardens, particularly on the ethnomedicinal plants. We assumed that the home garden owners of the study site are domesticating ethnomedicinal plants which are not easily accessible to them in the wild due to distant forest. This study was planned to explore and document the diversity and population status of ethnomedicinal plants in the home gardens along with its ethnomedicinal use.

methodsThe present study was conducted in the home gardens of Cooch Behar district of West Bengal from May 2017 to May 2018. A multidisciplinary approach like collection of plant specimen, interview with structured questionnaire for documenting the utilization pattern, and quadrat methods for population study was applied. We selected 150 study sites randomly in the village cluster. The owners of the gardens were the respondents for the household survey. The study documented diversity, population size, and medicinal uses of ethnomedicinal plant species identified by the garden owners growing or being grown in their gardens.

resultsA total of 260 plant species were reported, of which, 53 were utilized for different ethnomedicinal applications. These 53 species were represented by 35 families and 45 genera. Most of these ethnomedicinal species were woody perennials (37.73%). Cocus nucifera dominated the list with highest number of use followed by Hibiscus rosa-sinensis. The use value of the species varied from 0.006 to 0.53, while the fidelity value (%) ranged from 2.29 to 93.75%. The leaves of the plants were mostly used for ethnomedicinal applications (19 species) followed by fruits (12 species) and bark (9 species), and the least was the root (7 species). We documented 20 different ailments/diseases cured by using these plants. In some cases, more than one species are used to cure a disease or ailment. As many as 10 species were used to cure only stomach-related problems. Some more diseases like cough and cold and jaundice were treated using six and four species, respectively.

conclusionThis documented list of 260 plant species including 53 ethnomedicinal ones from the home gardens of the study area indicates that these gardens are key in maintaining diversity and source of healthcare system in agricultural dominant landscape. Documenting such ecological status and traditional applications becomes a prerequisite for developing conservation and management strategies of home gardens to be included in the mainstream conservation processes.

Indexed as

GardensMedicine, TraditionalAdultFemaleHumansIndiaMaleMiddle AgedPhytotherapyPlants, MedicinalSurveys and QuestionnairesCultureDiseaseDominantFamiliesHealthcareIndigenous

Identifiers

PMID30782184
PMCPMC6380006

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.