| Literature DB >> 35729583 |
Mathewos Agize1,2, Zemede Asfaw3, Sileshi Nemomissa3, Tizazu Gebre4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The study aimed at documenting the indigenous and local knowledge and use of traditional medicinal plants for treating human and livestock ailments in Dawuro Zone of Ethiopia.Entities:
Keywords: Dawuro; Ethnobotany; Medicinal plants; Traditional herbal medicine knowledge
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35729583 PMCID: PMC9210772 DOI: 10.1186/s13002-022-00546-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ethnobiol Ethnomed ISSN: 1746-4269 Impact factor: 3.404
Fig. 1Map of Ethiopia showing the location of the study area with the total and the sampled districts
Most frequently used plants for diarrhea based on highest FL (%) (total informants = 384)
| Scientific name | UR | NDT | NC | OU | IC | SRD | FL | R |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 290 | 17 | 7 | 6 | 75.52 | 290 | 100 | 1 | |
| 332 | 13 | 8 | 20 | 86.46 | 332 | 99.39 | 2 | |
| 216 | 10 | 8 | 10 | 56.25 | 210 | 97.22 | 3 | |
| 123 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 32.03 | 115 | 93.49 | 4 | |
| 322 | 11 | 8 | 7 | 83.85 | 300 | 93.16 | 5 | |
| 212 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 55.21 | 190 | 89.62 | 6 | |
| 126 | 7 | 6 | 3 | 32.81 | 110 | 87.3 | 7 | |
| 144 | 6 | 5 | 8 | 37.5 | 100 | 69.44 | 8 | |
| 78 | 13 | 7 | 2 | 20.31 | 50 | 64.1 | 9 | |
| 210 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 54.69 | 40 | 19.04 | 10 |
Where FL = fidelity level, IC = informants consensus, NC = number of clusters, NDT = number of diseases treated, OU = other uses, R = rank, SN = serial number, SRD = specific report of diarrhea, UR = use report
Results of a simple preference ranking for ten medicinal plants against liver problem
| Medicinal plants reported | The 12 key informants (A to L) | Total score | Rank | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | |||
| 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 60 | 1 | |
| 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 59 | 2 | |
| 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 57 | 3 | |
| 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 56 | 4 | |
| 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 54 | 5 | |
| 5 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 51 | 6 | |
| 4 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 48 | 7 | |
| 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 47 | 8 | |
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 46 | 9 | |
| 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 45 | 10 | |
| Total | 44 | 42 | 43 | 43 | 42 | 45 | 43 | 42 | 44 | 44 | 45 | 46 | ||
5 = the foremost preferred, but 1 is the least preferred; A to L key informants
Fig. 2Distribution of age of traditional healers and source of traditional medicinal plants
Fig. 3Distribution of age of traditional healers and number of traditional medicinal plants used (NMP)
Report of some selected TMPs with high use value in the study area
| Scientific name | UR | DT | DC | OU | IC % | UV | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 346 | 13 | 7 | 2 | 90.1 | 0.9 | 1 | |
| 332 | 13 | 8 | 20 | 86.46 | 0.87 | 2 | |
| 322 | 11 | 8 | 7 | 83.85 | 0.84 | 3 | |
| 290 | 17 | 7 | 6 | 75.52 | 0.76 | 4 | |
| 216 | 10 | 8 | 10 | 56.25 | 0.56 | 5 | |
| 300 | 10 | 7 | 3 | 78.13 | 0.78 | 6 | |
| 220 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 57.29 | 0.57 | 7 | |
| 210 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 54.69 | 0.55 | 8 | |
| 212 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 55.21 | 0.55 | 8 | |
| 198 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 51.56 | 0.52 | 9 | |
| 190 | 9 | 4 | 2 | 49.48 | 0.5 | 10 |
Where UR = use reports, DT = no. of ailments treated, DC = no. of disease clusters, OU = other uses, IC = informant consensus, UV = use value
Selected TMPs with high relative importance (RI) in the study area
| Scientific name | UR | UV | DT | DC | OU | IC % | RI | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 332 | 0.87 | 13 | 8 | 20 | 86.46 | 2 | 1 | |
| 216 | 0.56 | 10 | 8 | 10 | 56.25 | 1.61 | 2 | |
| 19 | 0.05 | 16 | 8 | 3 | 4.95 | 1.58 | 3 | |
| 290 | 0.76 | 17 | 7 | 6 | 75.52 | 1.57 | 4 | |
| 322 | 0.84 | 11 | 8 | 7 | 83.85 | 1.55 | 5 | |
| 31 | 0.08 | 12 | 8 | 4 | 8.07 | 1.48 | 6 | |
| 11 | 0.03 | 11 | 6 | 13 | 2.86 | 1.48 | 7 | |
| 21 | 0.06 | 8 | 6 | 15 | 5.47 | 1.45 | 8 | |
| 8 | 0.02 | 12 | 8 | 2 | 2.08 | 1.42 | 9 | |
| 79 | 0.21 | 9 | 7 | 7 | 20.57 | 1.36 | 10 | |
| 6 | 0.02 | 8 | 6 | 12 | 1.56 | 1.36 | 11 |
Where UR = use report, UV = use value, DT = no. of diseases treated, DC = disease cluster, OU = other uses rather than medicinal value, IC = informant consensus
Use diversity value of medicinal plants in the study area
| Scientific name | UR | DT | UCl | OU | n | (N) | p c | p c2 | ln p c | p c ln p c | UDR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 144 | 19 | 2 | 13 | 32 | 2306 | 0.0139 | 0.000193 | − 4.277 | − 0.059 | 1 | |
| 11 | 11 | 6 | 13 | 24 | 2306 | 0.0104 | 0.000108 | − 4.565 | − 0.048 | 2 | |
| 290 | 17 | 7 | 6 | 23 | 2306 | 0.0100 | 9.95E−05 | − 4.608 | − 0.046 | 3 | |
| 21 | 8 | 6 | 15 | 23 | 2306 | 0.0100 | 9.95E−05 | − 4.608 | − 0.046 | 4 | |
| 5 | 4 | 3 | 18 | 22 | 2306 | 0.0095 | 9.1E−05 | − 4.652 | − 0.044 | 5 | |
| 10 | 12 | 5 | 10 | 22 | 2306 | 0.0095 | 9.1E−05 | − 4.652 | − 0.044 | 6 | |
| 6 | 3 | 2 | 18 | 21 | 2306 | 0.0091 | 8.29E−05 | − 4.698 | − 0.043 | 7 | |
| 6 | 8 | 6 | 12 | 20 | 2306 | 0.0087 | 7.52E−05 | − 4.748 | − 0.041 | 8 | |
| 216 | 10 | 8 | 10 | 20 | 2306 | 0.0087 | 7.52E−05 | − 4.748 | − 0.041 | 9 | |
| 4 | 4 | 2 | 16 | 20 | 2306 | 0.0087 | 7.52E−05 | − 4.748 | − 0.041 | 10 |
UR = use reports; DT = number of diseases treated; UCl = number of disease clusters; OU = other uses; n = total number of uses; N = Σn or (UC); pc = n/N; In = natural logarithm; UV = use value; UDR = use diversity rank
Cultural value in the study area
| Scientific name | UR | TR | UCL | DT | OU | n | UT | Uce | Ic | IUc | CV | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 332 | 384 | 8 | 13 | 20 | 33 | 166 | 0.2 | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.1486 | 1 | |
| 290 | 384 | 7 | 17 | 6 | 23 | 166 | 0.14 | 0.76 | 0.76 | 0.079 | 2 | |
| 322 | 384 | 8 | 11 | 7 | 18 | 166 | 0.11 | 0.84 | 0.84 | 0.0763 | 3 | |
| 346 | 384 | 7 | 13 | 2 | 15 | 166 | 0.09 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.0734 | 4 | |
| 300 | 384 | 7 | 10 | 3 | 13 | 166 | 0.08 | 0.78 | 0.78 | 0.0478 | 5 | |
| 216 | 384 | 8 | 10 | 10 | 20 | 166 | 0.12 | 0.56 | 0.56 | 0.0381 | 6 | |
| 144 | 384 | 2 | 19 | 13 | 32 | 166 | 0.19 | 0.38 | 0.38 | 0.0271 | 7 | |
| 220 | 384 | 4 | 8 | 3 | 11 | 166 | 0.07 | 0.57 | 0.57 | 0.0218 | 8 | |
| 212 | 384 | 5 | 7 | 2 | 9 | 166 | 0.05 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.0165 | 9 | |
| 190 | 384 | 4 | 9 | 2 | 11 | 166 | 0.07 | 0.49 | 0.49 | 0.0162 | 10 |
Where UR = use reports; DT = no. of diseases treated; UCl = no. of use clusters; OU = other uses; n = general use cited (UC); UT = use total; CVe = cultural value; Uce = the total number of uses reported for species e divided by the total number of potential uses; Ic = the number of participants who listed species e as useful divided by the total number of people participating in free listing; IUc = the number of participants who mentioned each use of species e divided by the total number of participants
Results of ten informants for ten multipurpose medicinal plants species
| Medicinal plant | Use categories | T | OU | MU | R | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AF | AT | CH | CL | CN | FH | FU | FW | Id | L | Md | SD | |||||
| 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 40 | 13 | 19 | 8 | |
| 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 57 | 13 | 3 | 1 | |
| 3 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 39 | 13 | 4 | 9 | |
| 2 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 54 | 20 | 13 | 2 | |
| 2 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 34 | 10 | 12 | 10 | |
| 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 42 | 12 | 8 | 6 | |
| 0 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 42 | 18 | 4 | 6 | |
| 3 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 50 | 15 | 8 | 3 | |
| 4 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 45 | 16 | 4 | 5 | |
| 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 49 | 11 | 2 | 4 | |
| Total | 26 | 48 | 26 | 41 | 49 | 10 | 46 | 50 | 28 | 44 | 49 | 36 | 46 | |||
5 = best, 4 = very good, 3 = good, 2 = less used, 1 = least used and ,0 = no value) (where AF = animal feed, agricultural tool, CH = charcoal, CN = construction material, FH = food, FU = furniture, FW = firewood, MU = general medicinal uses, OU = general other uses, I = indicator plant, L = live fence, Md = medicinal, R = rank, SD = shade, T = total
Fig. 4Effect of distance of traditional healers from health centers (DHC) on service charge
Presence and number of common TMP species in different locations and cultures shared with Dawuro communities as counted from some articles published during 2007–2022
| No. | Publications | YP | LS | SR | DS | CS | CS % | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Wondimu et al. | 2007 [ | Mid-eastern | 83 | 56 | 27 | 32.5 | 12 |
| 2 | Flatie1 et al. | 2009 [ | Mid-western | 40 | 31 | 9 | 22.5 | 13 |
| 3 | Mesfin et al. | 2014 [ | Southeastern | 56 | 22 | 34 | 60.7 | 2 |
| 4 | Bilal et al. | 2017 [ | Eastern | 45 | 22 | 23 | 51 | 4 |
| 5 | Dirgo | 2019 [ | Southern | 102 | 51 | 51 | 50 | 6 |
| 6 | Tefera and Kim | 2019 [ | Southern | 105 | 51 | 54 | 51 | 4 |
| 7 | Teka et al. | 2020 [ | Central | 244 | 153 | 91 | 37.3 | 10 |
| 8 | Kasaa et al. | 2020 [ | Southwestern | 266 | 159 | 107 | 40.2 | 9 |
| 9 | Osman | 2020 [ | Northern | 91 | 41 | 50 | 55 | 3 |
| 10 | Tahir et al. | 2021 [ | Northern | 127 | 81 | 46 | 36 | 11 |
| 11 | Gebre and Chinthapalli | 2021 [ | Southern | 53 | 18 | 35 | 66 | 1 |
| 12 | Alemneh | 2021 [ | Northwestern | 112 | 62 | 50 | 44.6 | 8 |
| 13 | Megersa and Tamrat | 2022 [ | Northwestern | 75 | 41 | 34 | 45.3 | 7 |
Where CS = common species; DS = no. of different species; LS = location of study in Ethiopia; SR = no. of species reported; YP = year of publication
Top ten common TMPs frequently used for traditional healing system in different parts of the country, Ethiopia
| Scientific name | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | Remark |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ME | MW | SE | E | S | S | C | SW | N | S | NW | NW | N | Total | |
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11 | |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 13 | |
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | |
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | |
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 10 | |
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 12 | |
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11 | |
| 7 | 2 | 8 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 107 |
The location where the studies were done C = central; E = east; M = mid; N = north; S = south; W = west