↓ Skip to main content

Quantitative study of medicinal plants used by the communities residing in Koh-e-Safaid Range, northern Pakistani-Afghan borders

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Quantitative study of medicinal plants used by the communities residing in Koh-e-Safaid Range, northern Pakistani-Afghan borders
Published in
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13002-018-0229-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wahid Hussain, Lal Badshah, Manzoor Ullah, Maroof Ali, Asghar Ali, Farrukh Hussain

Abstract

The residents of remote areas mostly depend on folk knowledge of medicinal plants to cure different ailments. The present study was carried out to document and analyze traditional use regarding the medicinal plants among communities residing in Koh-e-Safaid Range northern Pakistani-Afghan border. A purposive sampling method was used for the selection of informants, and information regarding the ethnomedicinal use of plants was collected through semi-structured interviews. The collected data was analyzed through quantitative indices viz. relative frequency citation, use value, and family use value. The conservation status of medicinal plants was enumerated with the help of International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List Categories and Criteria (2001). Plant samples were deposited at the Herbarium of Botany Department, University of Peshawar for future reference. One hundred eight informants including 72 male and 36 female were interviewed. The informants provided information about 92 plants species used in the treatment of 53 ailments. The informant reported maximum number of species used for the treatment of diabetes (16 species), followed by carminatives (12 species), laxatives (11 species), antiseptics (11 species), for cough (10 species), to treat hepatitis (9 species), for curing diarrhea (7 species), and to cure ulcers (7 species), etc. Decoction (37 species, i.e., 40%) was the common method of recipe preparation. Most familiar medicinal plants were Withania coagulans, Caralluma tuberculata, and Artemisia absinthium with relative frequency (0.96), (0.90), and (0.86), respectively. The relative importance of Withania coagulans was highest (1.63) followed by Artemisia absinthium (1.34), Caralluma tuberculata (1.20), Cassia fistula (1.10), Thymus linearis (1.06), etc. This study allows identification of novel uses of plants. Abies pindrow, Artemisia scoparia, Nannorrhops ritchiana, Salvia reflexa, and Vincetoxicum cardiostephanum have not been reported previously for their medicinal importance. The study also highlights many medicinal plants used to treat chronic metabolic conditions in patients with diabetes. The folk knowledge of medicinal plants species of Koh-e-Safaid Range was unexplored. We, for the first time, conducted this quantitative study in the area to document medicinal plants uses, to preserve traditional knowledge, and also to motivate the local residents against the vanishing wealth of traditional knowledge of medicinal flora. The vast use of medicinal plants reported shows the significance of traditional herbal preparations among tribal people of the area for their health care. Knowledge about the medicinal use of plants is rapidly disappearing in the area as a new generation is unwilling to take interest in medicinal plant use, and the knowledgeable persons keep their knowledge a secret. Thus, the indigenous use of plants needs conservational strategies and further investigation for better utilization of natural resources.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 145 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 16%
Researcher 13 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 26 18%
Unknown 52 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 11%
Environmental Science 10 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 4%
Other 27 19%
Unknown 58 40%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 May 2018.
All research outputs
#8,094,703
of 12,908,018 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#416
of 570 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,573
of 269,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,908,018 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 570 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,771 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.