Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33297401›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2020

Traditional Usage of Wild Fauna among the Local Inhabitants of Ladakh, Trans-Himalayan Region.

Shiekh Marifatul Haq, Eduardo Soares Calixto, Umer Yaqoob, Riyaz Ahmed, Ahmed Hossam Mahmoud, Rainer W Bussmann, Osama B Mohammed, Khalid Ahmad, Arshad Mehmood Abbasi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2020. 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. One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. An Overview ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

9 authors.

Shiekh Marifatul HaqDepartment of Botany, University of Kashmir Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir 190006, India.ORCID 0000-0002-8709-8658
Eduardo Soares CalixtoInstitute of Biology, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo 05508-060, Brazil.
Umer YaqoobDepartment of Botany, University of Kashmir Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir 190006, India.ORCID 0000-0002-1033-3728
Riyaz AhmedWildlife Crime Control Division, Wildlife Trust of India, Noida 201301, India.ORCID 0000-0003-3617-2464
Ahmed Hossam MahmoudDepartment Zoology, College of Science, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2455, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia.
Rainer W BussmannDepartment of Ethnobotany, Institute of Botany, Ilia State University, Tbilisi 0105, Georgia.ORCID 0000-0001-5457-2555
Osama B MohammedDepartment Zoology, College of Science, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2455, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-3524-5273
Khalid AhmadDepartment of Environmental Sciences, COMSATS University Islamabad, Abbottabad Campus 22060, Pakistan.
Arshad Mehmood AbbasiDepartment of Environmental Sciences, COMSATS University Islamabad, Abbottabad Campus 22060, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0001-9978-3866

Funding

Researcher Supporting Project, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia RSP-2019/94
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Zootherapy is accepted all around the globe not only in ancient cultures but different animal derived medicines are also part of the practice in the modern health care systems. The present study assessed the traditional ethnozoological usage of wild animals by local inhabitants in Ladakh region, India, and the reference data for scientific approaches for protection of faunal diversity in trans-Himalayas. The ethnozoological documentation of the animals in Ladakh was carried out through semistructured and close-ended questionnaire surveys and interviews. Multivariate ecological community analysis was used to elucidate the relationship between ethnozoological usage and animal species. Our results showed three animal usage clusters with 32% similarity. Moreover, the similarity in animal usage between digging tools, trophy, handle of tools, decoration, and matting, showed less than 32% of similarity. The highest priority of local people was for food followed by decoration and medicinal usage. The most frequently used animal parts were meat followed by fur and horn. Medicinal uses of 48% of the reported species, i.e.,

Indexed as

animal partsbiodiversity hotspotethnozoological usagefauna conservation

Identifiers

PMID33297401
PMCPMC7762308

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.