↓ Skip to main content

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

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
206 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
189 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
Indigenous uses of ethnomedicinal plants among forest-dependent communities of Northern Bengal, India
Published in
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13002-018-0208-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

Traditional 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. The 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. A 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. The 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 189 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 10%
Student > Bachelor 19 10%
Researcher 18 10%
Student > Master 18 10%
Other 8 4%
Other 28 15%
Unknown 79 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 15%
Environmental Science 14 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 6%
Social Sciences 10 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 4%
Other 30 16%
Unknown 88 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 21 February 2018.
All research outputs
#12,871,062
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#407
of 737 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,637
of 440,586 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#10
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 737 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 440,586 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.