CHAPTER 10
QUANTITATIVE ETHNOBOTANY: ITS IMPORTANCE IN BIOPROSPECTING AND CONSERVATION OF PHYTORESOURCES
CONTENTS
10.2 Methods and Techniques used in Collection of Ethnobotanical Data and its Quantitative Analysis
10.3 Phytoresources and Quantitative Ethnobotany
10.4 Progress In Quantitative Ethnobotanical Research And Its Future Prospects
ABSTRACT
Quantitative Ethnobotany or quantification in Ethnobotany encompasses the statistical analysis of folk knowledge about utilization of local phytoresources. Appropriate quantitative tools are used in ethnobotany to analyze the collected data for more objectivity in ethnobotanical research. There is a growing interest among the ethnobotanists worldwide in improving the traditional type of compilation of their ethnobotanical works by employing suitable quantitative indices in data collection, analysis and interpretation of results. Over the last few decades, ethnobotanists have been using more than one hundred quantitative indices for determination of consensus among the informants, use value, cultural significance, conservation priorities of the plant resources, etc. This approach in ethnobotany has also been tested as effective tool in selection of ethnobotanical claims as good candidate for bioprospecting and new drug discovery. For this reason, scientists rely mostly upon the ethnobotanical information or lead for development of various natural products like pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals, cosmetics, etc. Taking the leads from ethnobotany as well as traditional herbal medicine, many novel natural products including drugs have been designed worldwide by the coordinated efforts of ethnobotanists, phytochemists, pharmacologists and clinical persons.
Suitable ethnobotanical tools are also being employed successfully for management and conservation of plant resources at local as well as regional level. In the field of Ethnoecology, scientists have devised the unique quantitative technique like Local Conservation Priority Index (LCPI) or Conservation Priority Index (CPI) by using some quantitative indices from ethnobotany and ecology for assessing the conservation priorities of plant species used in local folk communities. It has now been considered as an effective tool in the field of ethnoecology for successful management and conservation of local phytoresources. In this article, the application and importance of six quantitative indices commonly used in ethnobotanical research worldwide for bioprospecting and conservation of phytoresources, have been discussed with special emphasis on Indian ethnobotany. Finally, the progress and future prospects of this branch of Ethnobotany has been briefed here in this review.
10.1 INTRODUCTION
Man lives in close vicinity of the nature and human beings are constantly being nurtured by its different types of components including plants. Since the dawn of civilization, plants have been playing pivotal role for the growth and development of the human society by providing the food, shelter and health care. In ancient time, people developed the practices of various usages of plant wealth for their subsistence, existence and survival, and also for reducing the hardship of their struggling life. Those traditional practices of plant usages had been established into specific systems of knowledge through trial and error method over a period of time. Traditional knowledge regarding various kinds of plant usages are the basis of Ethnobotany. Ethnobotany is now understood by the scientists as a scientific discipline which explores the relationship between people in a culture and plants in an environment. The term ‘Ethnobotany’ was first coined by Harshberger in 1895 (Harshberger, 1896). It can be defined as the total natural and traditional relationship and interactions between men, domesticated animals and their surrounding plant wealth (Jain, 1987). Ethnobotany has now been established as a multi-disciplinary subject and it deals with the studies among traditional people for recording their unique traditional knowledge about plant wealth and for search of new resources of herbal drugs, edible plants and other aspects of plants (Mudgal and Jain, 1983). During last few decades, scientific studies in the field of ethnobotany have been ensued on various lines covering ethnobotany of specific tribes, of certain regions, of particular plant groups or diseases and on many other miscellaneous subor interdisciplinary approaches throughout the World including India (Schultes, 1979; Etkin, 1988; Heinrich et al., 1992; Moerman, 1996; Jain and Patole, 2001; Jain, 2004, Ignacimuthu et al., 2006; Albuquerque et al., 2007; Savithramma et al., 2007; Tabuti, 2008; Kim and Song, 2013; Saqib et al., 2014).
Ethnobotany is a multidisciplinary subject and research activity today in this academic field requires a variety of skills in different interrelated subjects, especially in Botany, Anthropology and Linguistic. Botanical training is essential for the identification and preservation of plant specimens; anthropological training helps to understand the cultural concepts around the perception of plants; linguistic training equally helps to transcribe the local terms and to understand the syntax, and semantics. Since the beginning of ethnobotanical research, it was noticed that the ethnobotanical works mostly embodied the documentation of the plant knowledge without or rarely with a little bit statistical analysis. Such documentation works in ethnobotany were largely subjective type and data compilations there in all the works were very traditional one without employing the suitable statistical indices for more objectivity in research. But from the beginning of the 20th century, the field of ethnobotany saw the transformation from the raw compilation of data to a greater methodological and conceptual reorientation. This is in fact the beginning of academic ethnobotany. In the recent past, to add more objectivity in the field of ethnobotanical research, scientists have been employing different statistical indices during data analysis. And thus, the ‘Quantitative Ethnobotany’ was identified globally as a distinct approach in the field of ethnobotanical research. The term Quantitative Ethnobotany was first introduced by Balee in 1986 and it was then popularized among the ethnobotanists by Prance and his associates (1987) throughout the world. Use of the quantitative techniques for analysis of the collected data has become increasingly popular among the ethnobiologists day-by-day. ‘Quantitative Ethnobotany’ involves in measuring the importance of plants and vegetation to the people in a culture or community, in a comparative manner. Richness and reliability of traditional plant knowledge can successfully be assessed by appropriate quantitative ethnobotanical tools. Quantitative Ethnobotany can be defined as an approach where different quantitative techniques are employed to analyze and interpret the recorded data for getting more precise objectivity in ethnobotanical research. It has been defined as “application of quantitative techniques to the direct analysis of contemporary plant use data” (Phillips and Gentry, 1993). Other workers perceived it as quantification in ethnobotany which includes aspects related to the analysis of people’s knowledge about the uses of plant species. It embodies the use of quantitative indices or techniques and/or the application of statistical analysis (Medeiros et al., 2011).
Quantitative approaches aim to describe the variables quantitatively and analyze the data statistically. It provides more objectivity to the ethnobotanical research that helps in comparative analysis of ethnobotanical data for identification of more important plant species used by the people in a particular culture or community. It also add new dimension to the conservation strategies of phytoresources by providing differential pattern of utilization of plant species, forest resources or vegetation in a region. Ethnobotany highlights the exact pattern of utilization of resources which gives clear indication towards management planning of local phytoresources and thus plays a very important role in conservation prioritization of plant species in a region which are identified as rare and most acceptable species in a culture. Ethnobotanical research and its quantitative approaches are now considered as the most efficient tool for management, sustainable utilization and conservation of phytoresources in a particular area (Figure 10.1).
Scientists all over the world are engaged in exploring new life-saving drugs and biomolecules, taking the lead from traditional herbal knowledge. Quantitative techniques perfectly determine the most important as well as most reliable medicinal species used in a community, and they rightly guide scientists to select the good candidates among the list of statistically analyzed plant species for bioprospecting. In the present chapter, an attempt has been made to discuss the role of quantitative ethnobotany in bioprospecting and conservation of plant resources.
FIGURE 10.1 Diagrammatic outline for selection of important species for both bioprospection and conservation through quantitative analysis
10.2 METHODS AND TECHNIQUES USED IN COLLECTION OF ETHNOBOTANICAL DATA AND ITS QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
The methods and techniques commonly employed in ethnobotanical research have been discussed in briefly in this chapter. Informants are the instrumental here for collection of data as the basic information about traditional knowledge are collected from them. Many techniques are available to conduct the interviews, ranging from individual approaches to research conducted with groups of people. Interviews are one of the most basic procedures used to collect the data in ethnobiological studies. According to the objectivity of the study, suitable statistical tools are selected and accordingly the procedures of interview are employed to obtain the purposeful data from a specific study. The “interviews” generally employed in ethnobotanical research for data collections are structured, unstructured, semi-structured, and informal.
In structured interviews, previously planned questions are asked to each informant independently which help in codification or categorization of the answers and thus allows rapid production of materials for analysis in an advantageous way. In unstructured interviews, the informant is requested to speak about some topic of researcher’s interest without any preplanned questions. In case of semi-structured interviews, although the questions are partially framed by the investigator before conducting actual field research, they are largely flexible and allow more attention to be paid to issues that might arise during the interview. If it is not possible to interview the same informant twice, semi-structured interviews are the best tool to use. The “open” side of this technique allows the interviewees to answer the questions according to their own conceptions. This type of interview is similar to an unstructured interview but differs in that it is totally beyond the investigator’s control. Various participatory methods like participatory rural appraisal (PRA) and rapid rural appraisal (RRA) are also employed for data collection by the researchers in ethnobiological and ethnoecological research (Lulekal et al., 2008; Woodward et al., 2012). Some of the ecological methods have successfully been applied in ethnobotanical research for measurements of species diversity and richness (Begossi, 1996; Hanazaki et al., 2000; Begossi et al., 2002; Peroni and Hanazaki, 2002).
Since the 1990s, a number of quantitative techniques have been proposed for ethnobotanical data analysis, and till date many authors have adopted them in their research program. Phillips (1996) has reviewed the techniques used in ethnobotanical research considering the degree of subjectivity of the study and discussed the quantitative techniques under three major types: (i) informant consensus, (ii) subjective allocation, and (iii) aggregation of uses. In the recent past, Hoffman and Gallaher (2007) have analyzed the important indices of ethnobotanical research and used the term Relative Cultural Importance which includes different techniques like use value, fidelity level, importance value, cultural significance, total use value, etc. Recently Medeiros et al. (2011) have reviewed 87 quantitative techniques and explained them under three major groups as cited by Phillips (1996).
In a recent study, Mathur and Sundaramoorthy (2013) have mentioned 120 different indices and categorized them into several groups like consensus methods, use value methods, ethno-medicine methods, relative importance methods, equitability methods, methods related to food, and ecological methods for analyzing the ethnobotanical data. One has to fully understand the assumptions that are made when adopting a specific quantitative technique to analyze the data. A researcher will adopt suitable indices according to his/her goal of the study and data interpretation.
Some important quantitative indices have been described below which are widely used in ethnobotanical research, especially in bioprospecting of ethnomedicinal plants and conservation of local phytoresources.
10.2.1 FACTOR OF INFORMANT CONSENSUS (FIC)
Over the last ten years the most widely used tool in quantitative analysis of ethnobotanical data, is the factor of informant consensus (Fic). The current formula of this index has been proposed by Heinrich et al. (1998) based on a definition first introduced by Trotter and Logan in 1986. To use Fic, first it is necessary to classify different health disorders and illnesses into broad disease categories. The main objective of this tool is to identify the important species used in particular disease categories (grouping of similar health disorders and illnesses into a broad group) where there is consensus on the use of plant species among the informants. The level of homogeneity between information provided by different informants is calculated using this index. It is calculated as Fic = Nur Nt/(Nur 1), where, Nur is the number of use reports from informants for a particular plant-usage category and Nt is the number of taxa or species used for that usage category for all informants. Here value ranges between 0 and 1, where ‘1’ indicates the highest level of informant consent. For instance, if few taxa are used by the informants, then a high degree of consensus among the informants is reached.
Interpretation of the Fic results may provide clue for drug development by selecting plant species with high Fic value. It also highlights the usepressure for particular species used in the locality and thus also helps to assess its threat status.
10.2.2 FIDELITY LEVEL (FL)
It can be defined as the ratio between the number of informants who independently reported the use of a species for a major purpose and total number of informants who mentioned the plant for any use. It is the percentage of informants claiming the use of a species for a main purpose. The formula of Fidelity level is Fl = Np/N χ 100, where, Np is the number of informants that reported a particular use of a plant species, and N is the number of informants that reported the plant for any use (Friedman et al., 1986). This index is also employed to identify the main use among different uses of a species.
10.2.3 USE VALUE
To compare the relative importance of each species, the use value is calculated (adapted from the proposal of Rossato et al., 1999) using the following formula: UV = Σϋ/n, where, UV is the use-value of a species; U is the number of citations of that species; and n is the total number of informants cited that species. The use-value of a species is based only on the importance attributed by each informant
10.2.4 CULTURAL IMPORTANT INDEX
Importance of a species in the culture of a particular geographic area can be calculated with the help of different indices like Relative Frequency of Citation (RFC) (Shah et al., 2015), Relative Importance Index (RI) (Albuquerque et al., 2007a, b), Cultural Agreement Index (CAI) (Bruschi et al., 2011), Cultural Importance Index (CI) (Pardo-de-Santayana et al., 2007), etc.
10.2.5 IMPORTANCE VALUE INDEX (IVI)
In order to establish conservation priorities of a species based on indicators from pharmaceutical products, a complex and effective tool like Importance Value Index (IVI) is used by the researchers (Dhar et al., 2000; Melo et al., 2009). It is expressed by the formula: IVI = RI + SI, where RI = relative importance of a species; SI = sensitivity index. Now, SI = [(SR χ NR)/(SR X NR)] χ 100, where SR = sensitivity rank, considers attributes related to the manner in which a species is harvested and the degree of anthropogenic pressure to which it is subjected; NR = naturalness rank, concerns the origin of the species from where it is procured for use as raw materials in industry). Here, value of this index varies from 1 to 3.
10.2.6 CONSERVATION PRIORITY INDEX (CPI) OR LOCAL CONSERVATION PRIORITY INDEX (LCPI)
CPI is a unique tool specially devised by the ethnobotanists and ecologists taking selective indices from ethnobotany as well as ecology for assessment of conservation priorities of the plant species (Martinez et al., 2006; Lucena et al., 2013). The LCPI is a bit simplified and modified index used in ethnobotanical research (Oliveira et al., 2007) to identify the occurrence status of the local flora. The LCPI is determined by the formula: LCPI = CR + DA + RD, where, CR is Citation Richness (numbers of use-categories for each species); DA refers to the Degree of Attention (frequency of occurrence of the species in the locality) and RD is meant for Relative Density of the species. Scoring used to calculate the LCPI is given in Table 10.1.
TABLE 10.1 Scores to Calculate LCPI
10.3 PHYTORESOURCES AND QUANTITATIVE ETHNOBOTANY
10.3.1 BIOPROSPECTING OF PHYTORESOURCES AND QUANTITATIVE ETHNOBOTANY
The identification and evaluation of biological material found in nature to obtain new products is known as bioprospecting (Artuso, 2002). There is a worldwide resurgence of interest in ethnobotanical as well as ethnomedicinal studies now to meet the growing needs of agro-industries, herbal drug industries, conservation and development of plant genetic resources. Scientists in the world have now been concentrated upon ethnomedicinal plants for its scientific validation through various scientific studies including bioprospecting. Bioprospecting is the process for searching of new gens or compounds from unknown sources. It can be classified into three major areas of studies like chemoprospecting, gene prospecting and bionic prospecting which include discovery and development of new drugs, production of pharmaceuticals, agro-chemicals, cosmetics, food additives, improved crop varieties, proteins, enzymes, GMOs, GM foods, etc. Bioprospecting is done through (a) taxonomy guided lead, (b) phytochemistry guided lead, and (c) ethno guided lead. The ethno guided lead gives more positive result than other two in the field of drug development. For this reason, ethnomedicines are getting more importance in the scientific world for development of various pharmaceuticals. A schematic presentation of the steps involved in developing phytomedicines, starting from the ethnoguided lead is given below (Figure 10.2). It is estimated that approximately 25% of the world’s pharmaceutical products find a significant degree of origin in indigenous communities. Ethnobotanical approach to bioprospecting has led to the development of at least 88 modern pharmaceuticals, among them tubocurarine, a muscle relaxant, and quinine, an antimalarial compound, are very familiar (Baker et al., 1995; Cox, 1994; Farnsworth, 1994). The ethnobotanical approach can be considered as the practice of using traditional healers’ knowledge to select important organisms for testing against a broad range of diseases (Cox, 1994; Slish et al., 1999). Taking the leads from traditional medicine as well as ethnomedicine many new drugs have been designed worldwide by the coordinated efforts of ethnobotanists, phytochemists, pharmacologists and clinical persons.
Once indigenous people share information or genetic material with the modern world, they effectively lose control over those resources, regardless of whether or not they are compensated. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) offers a multilateral facade for addressing conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. It also says that states have sovereign rights over their natural resources, and that terms and conditions for access to these materials are within the domain of national legislation. The Convention also recognizes the “knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities” and specifically “encourage[s] the equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations and practices” [Article 8(j) of CBD].
FIGURE 10.2 Steps involved in drug development from ethnomedicinal lead
Medicinal folklore over the years has proved to be an invaluable guide for screening and development of drugs. Many important modern drugs like digitoxin, reserpine, tubocurarine, ephedrine, ergometrine, atropine, vinblastine and aspirin have been discovered following the leads from folk uses. In India, the best example of bioprospecting done with the help of ethnobotanical lead is the KANI model or Pushpangadan model which is the pioneer in the field of ‘Access and Benefit sharing’ and the 1st application of Article 8(j) of CBD in the world. Dr. Pushpangadan and his team of The Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute (TBGRI), Thiruvananthapuram have validated the Kani tribe’s claim on the anti-fatigue property of Arogyapacha (Trichopus zeylanicus) and standardized a herbal formulation ‘Jeevani’ by the end of 1994 (Pushpangadan, 1994). TBGRI transferred the manufacturing license to a major Ayurvedic drug company in India. The Aryavaidya Pharmacy Ltd., Coimbatore licensed Jeevani as a tonic to bolster the immune system and provide energy for a fee of Rs. 10 lakh (approximately U.S. $25,000). The TGBRI has agreed to share 50% of the license fee and the 2% royalty on profits with the Kani tribe.
The cardiac glycosides digoxin and digitoxin from Digitalis purpurea and prostratin, a drug candidate for the treatment of HIV from Homalanthus nutans discovered using the ethnobotanical approach. Most of the CNS-active natural products (Hypericum perforatum; Piper methysticum, Salvia divinorum, etc.) have been developed with the help of traditional knowledge. Taking the leads from ancient literature like Susruta Samhita, Charak Samhita, etc. many important drugs have been developed in India such as a hypocholesteraelemic drug GUGULIP from Commiphora wightii, a memory enhancer MEMORY PLUS from Bacopa monnieri, a hepatoprotective drug PICROLIV from Picrorrhiza kurrooa and so on (Mehrotra and Mehrotra, 2005).
Several studies have been focused on selecting prospective plants through the ethnodirected approaches. Active fraction named “Kolaviron” has been patented for commercial exploitation of the fruits of the plant Garcinia kola which are traditionally chewed by the African tribes for liver protection (Iwu, 1993; Iwu and Igboko, 1986). The polypeptide “Thaumatin” have been derived from the aril of the seed of red fruit Thaumatococcus danielli which is 5000 times sweeter than sucrose on molar basis. From the collaborative work of Nigeria and UK based companies a low-calorie high-intensity sweetener has been developed from the plant (Van der Wel and Loeve, 1972). Cassia podocarpa is identified as an alternative of C. angustifolia (Senna), a purgative drug and found less toxic than Senna. Leaves of this plant have been formulated into tablets and recommended as substitute for Senna in Nigeria and Ghana, Africa (Elujoba and Iweibo, 1988). A Ghanabase company produces its tea bags on a commercial scale. Michellamines A & B, these two new alkaloids extracted from the plant Ancistrocladus korupensis, which have wide range of antiviral activity including anti-HIV. Michellamine B is being developed for use in AIDS treatment. It was characterized by collaborative effort of Cameroon scientists and NCI, USA (Boyd et al., 1994). There are plenty of examples in the field of bioprospecting where ethno-directed leads taken a prominent role in discovery and development of novel natural products of medicinal and nutritional importance.
A minimum percentage of bioresources has come under bioprospecting so far. There is immense scope of bioprospecting with a vast bioresources throughout the world. For this reason, scientists throughout the world are actively engaged in exploring the medicinal potential of plant resources through ethnobotanical research aiming for development of new life saving drug. In this context it has been observed that ‘quantitative ethnobotany’ can help the scientists to choose right candidate (plant species) for its bioprospection very precisely.
10.3.2 CONSERVATION OF PHYTORESOURCES AND QUANTITATIVE ETHNOBOTANY
It is a management and sustainable use practice of bioresources. Natural resources are being conserved and managed through in-situ and ex-situ modes of conservation. Traditional knowledge is directly related with the utilization and conservation of bioresources. So detection of threats and adoption of appropriate conservation measures is the best way for management of the bioresources and conservation of related traditional knowledge. Many International and national bodies (WWF, IUCN, CITES, etc.) and NGOs have been working worldwide for the conservation of natural resources and its sustainable utilization. Indigenous people also have their own heritage of conservation practice known as ethno-conservation.
Ethnobiologists are now focusing their research on the conservation of local flora and fauna by estimating their status in a specified area because local flora is greatly influenced by the over-utilization and other anthropogenic activities of the local inhabitants. In this context suitable quantitative indices have been developed combining both ecological as well as ethnobotanical knowledge to understand different utilization pattern and occurrence status of the local plants. Works are being carried out sporadically in different parts of the world employing such quantitative tools to determine the prioritized species which need immediate conservation measure. Researchers who are working in this field of ethnobotany should execute their work in a collaborative way which will help to understand the status of the over-utilized plants in a particular locality and to design conservation measures for those much exploited plant species. A few examples of ethnobotanical research cited below where two unique quantitative methods have been employed for better understanding of conservation status of the local flora.
10.3.2.1 Local Level Conservation of Phytoresources Employing LCPI and CPI
Among 166 native and exotic plants, 11 plant taxa have been identified as prioritized species for conservation employing the quantitative tool of LCPI (Local Conservation Priority Index) from the “Caatinga vegetation” in semi-arid region of northeastern Brazil. The prioritized species identified for their conservation from the “Caatinga vegetation” are Capparis jacobinae Moric. ex Eichler, Cedrela odorata L., Schinopsis brasiliensis Engler, Croton rhamnifolius Willd., Myrciaria cauliflora (Mart.) O. Berg, Eugenia uvalha Cambess, Ziziphus joazeiro Mart., Comiphora leptophloeos (Mart.) J. B. Gillett, Clusia sp., Manihot dichotoma Ule, and Lippia sp. (Albuquerque et al., 2009).
Later on, Lucena et al. (2013) have identified three plant taxa with the help of CPI, from the “Caatinga vegetation” as species with greater CPI scores which are scarcely found in the region, mainly because of their over extraction. The prioritized species are Ziziphus joazeiro Mart., Schinopsis brasiliensis Engl. andMyracrodruon urundeuva Allemao.
In Paravachasca Valley, Co’rdoba, Argentina, a number of shrubs including a pteridophyte have been identified as most prioritized species employing the CPI method. The prioritized species are namely Minthostachys mollis, Julocroton argenteus, Baccharis crispa, Trixis divaricata subsp. discolor, Aloysia gratissima, Lippia turbinata and Baccahris articulata and for two herbs, Hedeoma multiflora and Passiflora caerulea, one lichen Usnea spp. and one pteridophyte Equisetum giganteum (Martinez et al., 2006).
10.4 PROGRESS IN QUANTITATIVE ETHNOBOTANICAL RESEARCH AND ITS FUTURE PROSPECTS
Ethnobotanical study was initiated by the European scientist long ago and flourishes gradually with the interest of a lot of field botanist, taxonomist, herbarium curator, botanist and many more. The modern approach to the science of ethnobotany and ethnomedicine evolved in United States of America and the foremost center for the botanical aspects is the Botanical Museum of Harvard University in Massachusetts, here the ethnobotanists like Richard Evans Schultes, Richard Gorden Wasson, Siri von Reis Altschul, Timothy Plowman and E. Wade Davis contributed a lot in various fields of ethnobotany. From the end of nineteenth century to the middle of the twentieth century, ethnobotanists were concerned with recording the uses and common names of the plants in a locality and emphasized a utilitarian approach. During the period from 1950s to 1980s, ethnobotany research was concerned with the cognitive and classificatory approaches which dealt with how the people of a region classify and order the plants of their environment. After the 1980s, the focus of ethnobotanical research turned to its socio-ecological aspects, which incorporated ecological tools, techniques and statistical measurements (Clemént, 1998; Oliveira et al., 2010). A lot of books have been published by the eminent scientists describing various quantitative techniques of traditional knowledge (Martin, 1995; Cotton, 1996; Alexiades, 1996; Albuquerque et al., 2014). Methodological tools have been developed to respond to questions about the interrelation between people and plants, both qualitative and quantitative. The criteria for quantitative inferences by ethnobotanists are varied and are presented in a considerable number of published documents (Friedman et al., 1986; Troter and Logan, 1986; Phillips and Gentry, 1993; Heinrich et al., 1998; Bennett and Prance, 2000; Byg and Balslev, 2001; Gomez-Beloz, 2002; Albuquerque et al., 2007; Castañeda and Stepp, 2007). In ethnobotanical research, comparatively lesser number of investigations have been carried out to determine the distribution status of local biological diversity using suitable quantitative tools like CPI and LCPI. More scientists have to come forward from every little part of the world to identify the locally rare, endangered and threatened but culturally important plant species to endure the local tradition associated with them.
Starting from Janaki-Ammal (1955-56), till date Indian ethnobotanists remain uninterested about the quantitative ethnobotanical study and they are engaged mostly in documenting the ethnobotanical knowledge without analysis of the data employing suitable quantitative indices (Jain and Borthakur, 1980; Jain, 1981, 1987, 1991, 1997, 2001; Singh and Pandey, 1998; Rao and Pullaiah, 2007; Maheshwari, 2000; Katewa et al., 2001; Trivedi and Sharma, 2004; Patil and Patil, 2006; Sajem and Gosai, 2006; Rahaman and Pradhan, 2011). Since last five years, this scenario of quantitative ethnobotany in India is gradually being changed and several research articles have been published from different parts of the country analyzing the data with the help of suitable quantitative tools (Ragupathy et al., 2008; Mutheeswaran et al., 2011; Kumar et al., 2012; Bhat et al., 2014; Mandal and Rahaman, 2014; Mootoosamy and Fawzi, 2014; Tarafdar et al., 2014; Shil et al., 2014; Rahaman and Karmakar, 2015; Shah et al., 2015; Francis et al., 2015). Quantitative indices like use value (UV), informant consensus factor (Fic), fidelity level (FL) and relative frequency of citation (RFC) were used by the Indian ethnobotanists for analyzing their ethnobotanical data. In a recent study, Mootoosamy and Fawzi (2014) have used eleven quantitative indices, namely informant consensus factor (FIC), fidelity level (FL), use value (UV), relative frequency of citation (RFC), relative importance (RI), cultural importance index (CII), index of agreement on remedies (IAR), cultural agreement index (CAI), quality use value (QUV), quality use agreement value (QUAV) and ethnobotanicity index (EI) for quantitative analysis of their findings. Statistical analysis such as Pearson correlation and Chi-squared test were also performed to determine any association among the variables taken.
There are about 68 million people belonging to 227 ethnic groups and 573 tribal communities derived from six racial stocks in India (Pushpgandhan, 1994). Nearly 1,75,000 traditional preparations derived from 7500 medicinal species are in use among different ethnic communities of India (AICRPE, Technical Report, 1992-1998). We have a giant volume of data on ethnobotany. In India, there is a vast scope of finding out various promising bioresources through ethnobotanical research employing quantitative indices to measure the authenticity of traditional knowledge and to determine the distribution status of local flora. The quantitative approach in Indian ethnobotanical research will change the dimension of its kind of research which further help in bioprospecting and conservation of its phytoresources. In India, no work has been executed till date on ethnoecology employing the suitable statistical tools like LCPI and CPI to study the conservation status of the ethnobotanical phytoresources. But many phytosociological studies have been carried out in different forest types of India without employing any ethnobotanical quantitative approach (Kala, 2000, 2005; Laloo et al., 2006; Sahu et al., 2007; Joshi, 2012; Pilania et al., 2015; Pradhan and Rahaman, 2015). Researchers, scientists and ethnobiologists engaged in this field of research should adopt quantitative approaches for data analysis to add more objectivity in research and for proper scientific interpretation of the research findings.
10.5 CONCLUSION
Like any scientific research, quantitative approaches make the ethnobotanical research more focused by adding more objectivity to the concern study and it also help to analyze the research findings in a more scientific way. Researchers should be very choosy about the tool selection according to the goal of the study otherwise it will be meaningless.
Ethno-guided bioprospecting of the phytoresources is highly acknowledged by the scientific world as it provides more success rate in discovery of novel drugs. Here in selection of good candidate for bioprospecting, quantitative indices show very positive direction to the scientists. Quantitative ethnobotany has now been recognized globally as an effective tool in the area of bioprospecting research for development of novel natural products which include pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals and cosmetics. Quantitative ethnobotany is also equally important in identifying the prioritized species for conservation where various consensus and relative importance indices are employed. Then it will be easy to frame the conservation strategy for the prioritized threatened species in a particular region. To set the ethnobotanical research on a solid foundation, scientists from all allied fields should come forward, collaborate themselves and enrich this branch of Ethnobotany by experimenting with more new statistical indices.
KEYWORDS
- Future prospects
- Global perspective
- Indian scenario
- Local conservation priority index
- Quantitative ethnobotany
REFERENCES
1. Albuquerque, U. P., Monteiro, J. M., Ramos, M. A., & Amorim, E. L. C. (2007). Medicinal and magic plants from a public market in north-eastern Brazil. J. Ethnopharmacol. , 110 , 76–91.
2. Albuquerque, U. P., Medeiros, P. M., Almeida, A. L. S., Monteiro, J. M., Lins Neto, E. M. F., Melo, J. G., & Santos, J. P. (2007). Medicinal plants of the Caatinga (semi-arid) vegetation of NE Brazil: a quantitative approach. J. Ethnopharmacol. , 114 , 325–354.
3. Albuquerque, U. P., Araujo, T. A. S., Ramos, M. A., Nascimento, V. T., Lucena, R. F. P., Monteiro, J. M., Alencar, N., & Araújo, E. L. (2009). How ethnobotany can aid biodiversity conservation reflections on investigations in the semi-arid region of NE Brazil. Biodiversity Conservation , 18 , 127–150.
4. Albuquerque, U. P., Cunha, L. V. F. C., Lucena, R. F. P., & Alves, R. R. N. (eds.) (2014). Methods and Techniques in Ethnobiology and Ethnoecology. Humana Press (Springer), New York.
5. Alexiades, M. N. (ed.) (1996). Selected Guidelines for Ethnobotanical Research: a field manual (Advances in Economic Botany. Vol. 10).The New York Botanical Garden, New York.
6. Artuso, A. (2002). Bioprospecting, benefit sharing, and biotechnological capacity building. World Dev , 30 (8), 1355–1368.
7. Baker, J. T., Borris, R. P., Carté, B., Cordell, G. A., Soejarto, D. D., Cragg, G. M., Gupta, M. P., Iwu, M. M., Madulid, D. R., & Tyler, V. E. (1995). Natural product drug discovery and development: New perspectives on international collaboration. J. Nat. Prod. , 58 (9), 1325–1357.
8. Balee, W. (1986). Análise preliminary de inventário florestal e a ethnobotânica ka’apor (Marânhao). Boletín de Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi. Botânica , 2 ( 2 ),141-167.
9. Begossi, A. (1996). Use of ecological methods in ethnobotany: diversity indices. Economic Botany , 50 (3), 280–289.
10. Begossi, A., Hanazaki, N., & Tamashiro, J. Y. (2002). Medicinal plants in the Atlantic forest (Brazil) knowledge, use, and conservation. Human Ecology , 30 (3), 281–299.
11. Bennett, B. C. & Prance, G. T. (2000). Introduced plants in the indigenous pharmacopoeia of northern South America. Economic Botany , 54 , 90–102.
12. Bhat, P., Hegde, G. R., Hegde, G., & Mulgund, G. S. (2014). Ethnomedicinal plants to cure skin diseases an account of the traditional knowledge in the coastal parts of Central Western Ghats, Karnataka. India. J. Ethnopharmacol. , 151 (1), 493–502. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2013.10.062.
13. Boyd, M. R., Hallock, Y. F., Cardellina, J. H., II, Manfredi, K. P., Blunt, J. W., McMahon, J. B., Buckheit, R. W., Jr, Bringmann, G., Schaffer, M., Cragg, G. M., Thomas, D. W., & Jato, J. G. (1994). Anti-HIV michellamines from Ancistrocladus korupensis. J. Medicinal Chem. , 37 , 1740–1745.
14. Bruschi, P., Morganti, M., Mancini, M., & Signorini, M. A. (2011). Traditional healers and laypeople: A qualitative and quantitative approach to local knowledge on medicinal plants in Muda (Mozambique). J. Ethnopharmacol. , 138 , 543–563.
15. Byg, A. & Balslev, H. (2001). Diversity and use of palms in Zahamena, eastern Madagascar. Biodiversity and Conservation , 10 , 951–970.
16. Castañeda, H. & Stepp, J. R. (2007). Ethnoecological importance value (EIV) methodology: assessing the cultural importance of ecosystems as sources of useful plants for the Guaymi people of Costa Rica. Ethnobotany Research and Applications , 5 , 249–257.
17. Clement, D. (1998). The historical foundations of ethnobiology (1860-1899). J. Ethnobiology , 18 , 161–187.
18. Cotton, C. (1996). Ethnobotany: Principles and Applications. Chichester: Wiley & Sons.
19. Cox, P. A. (1994). The ethnobotanical approach to drug discovery: Strengths and limitations. In D. J.Chadwick & J.Marsh (Eds.), Ethnobotany and the search for new drugs (pp. 25–41). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
20. Dhar, U., Rawal, R. S., & Upreti, J. (2000). Setting priorities for conservation of medicinal plants a case study in the Indian Himalaya. Biological Conservation , 95 , 57–65.
21. Elujoba, A. A. & Iweibo, G. O. (1988). Cassiapodocarpa as substitute for official senna. Planta Medica , 4 , 372.
22. Etkin, N. (1988). Ethnopharmacology, biobehavioral approaches in the anthropological study of indigenous medicines. Annual Review of Anthropology , 17 , 23–42.
23. Farnsworth, N. R. (1994). Ethnopharmacology and drug development. In D. J.Chadwick & J.Marsh (Eds.), Ethnobotany and the search for new drugs (pp. 42–59). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
24. Francis, X. T., Kannan, M., & Auxilia, A. (2015). Observation on the traditional phytotherapy among the Malayali tribes in Eastern Ghats of Tamil Nadu, South India. J. Ethnopharmacol. , 165 , 198–214. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2015.02.045.
25. Friedman, J., Yaniv, Z., Dafni, A., & Palewitch, D. (1986). A preliminary classification of the healing potential of medicinal plants, based on a rational analysis of an ethnopharmacological field survey among Bedouins in the Negev desert. Israel. J. Ethnopharmacol , 16 , 275–287.
26. Gomez-Beloz, A. (2002). Plant knowledge of the Winikina Warao: the case for questionnaires in ethnobotany. Economic Botany , 56 , 231–241.
27. Hanazaki, N., Tamashiro, J. Y., Leitao-Filho, H. F., & Begossi, A. (2000). Diversity of plant uses in two Caiçara communities from the Atlantic forest coast. Brazil. Biodiversity Conservation , 9 (5), 597–615.
28. Harshberger, J. W. (1896). The purpose of ethnobotany. Botanical Gazette , 21 , 146–158.
29. Heinrich, M., Rimpler, H., & Barrera, A. N. (1992). Indigenous phytotherapy of gastrointestinal disorders in a Mixe lowland community. J. Ethnopharmacol. , 36 , 63–80.
30. Heinrich, M., Ankli, A., Frei, B., Weimann, C., & Sticher, O. (1998). Medicinal plants in Mexico: healers’ consensus and cultural importance. Social Science and Medicine , 47 (11), 1859–1871.
31. Hoffman, B. & Gallaher, G. (2007). Importance indices in ethnobotany. Ethnobotany Research and Applications , 5 , 201–218.
32. Ignacimuthu, S., Ayyanar, M., & Sankarasivaraman, K. (2006). Ethnobotanical investigations among tribes in Madurai district of Tamil Nadu. India. J. Ethnobiology andEthnomedicine , 2 , 25. doi:10.1186/1746-4269-2-25.
33. Iwu, M. M. (1993). Handbook of African medicinal plants. Inc Florida: CRC Press.
34. Iwu, M. M. & Igboko, A. O. (1986). The flavonoids of Garcinia kola. J. Nat. Prod. , 45 , 650–651.
35. Jain, A. K. & Patole, S. N. (2001). Less known medicinal values of plants among some tribal and rural communities of Pachmarhi forest (M.P). Ethnobotany , 13 , 96–100.
36. Jain, S. K. (1981). Glimpses of Indian Ethnobotany. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH.
37. Jain, S. K. (1987). A Mannual of Ethnobotany. Jodhpur, India: Scientific Publishers.
38. Jain, S. K. (1991). Dictionary of Indian Folk Medicine and Ethnobotany. New Delhi: Deep publications.
39. Jain, S. K. (1997). Contribution to Indian Ethnobotany (3rd ed.). Jodhpur: Scientific publishers.
40. Jain, S. K. (2001). Ethnobotany in modern India, Phytomorphology (pp. 39–54). Goldeen Jublee issue: Trends in Plant Science.
41. Jain, S. K. (2004). Credibility of traditional knowledge-The criterion of multilocational and multiethnic use. Indian J. Trad. Knowl. , 3 (2), 137–153.
42. Jain, S. K. & Borthakur, S. K. (1980). Ethnobotany of the Mikirs of India. Economic Botany , 34 (3), 264–272.
43. Joshi, H. G. (2012). Vegetation structure, floristic composition and soil nutrient status in three sites of Tropical dry deciduous forest of West Bengal, India. Indian J. Fundamental and Applied. Life Sciences , 2 (2), 355–364.
44. Kala, C. P. (2000). Status and Conservation of Rare and Endangered Medicinal plants in the Indian trans-Himalaya. Conservation Biology , 93 , 371–379.
45. Kala, C. P. (2005). Indigenous Uses, Population Density, and Conservation of Threatened Medicinal Plants in Protected Areas of the Indian Himalayas. Conservation Biology , 19 , 368–378.
46. Katewa, S. S., Guria, B. D., & Jain, A. (2001). Ethnomedicinal and obnoxious grasses of Rajasthan. India. J. Ethnopharmacol. , 76 (3), 293–297.
47. Kim, H. & Song, M. J. (2013). Ethnomedicinal practices for treating liver disorders of local communities in the southern regions of Korea. Evidence Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine , 2013 , 869176. doi:10.1155/2013/869176.
48. Kumar, A., Pandey, V. C., & Tewari, D. D. (2012). Documentation and determination of consensus about phytotherapeutic veterinary practices among the Tharu tribal community of Uttar Pradesh, India. Tropical Animal Health and Production , 44 , 863–872.
49. Laloo, R. C., Kharlukhi, L., Jeeva, S., & Mishra, B. P. (2006). Status of medicinal plants in the disturbed and undisturbed sacred forest of Meghalaya. Current Science , 90 (2), 225–232.
50. Lucena, R. F. P., Lucena, C. M., Araújo, E. L., Alves, Â. G. C., & Albuquerque, U. P. (2013). Conservation priorities of useful plants from different techniques of collection and analysis of ethnobotanical data. Annals of the Brazilian Acad. Sci. , 85 (1), 169–186.
51. Lulekal, E., Kelbessa, E., Bekele, T., & Yineger, H. (2008). An ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants in Mana Angetu district, southeastern Ethiopia. J. Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine , 4 , 10.
52. Maheshwari, J. K. (2000). Ethnobotany and Medicinal Plants of Indian Subcontinent. Jodhpur: Scientific Publishers.
53. Mandal, S. K. & Rahaman, C. H. (2014). Determination of informants’ consensus and documentation of ethnoveterinary practices from Birbhum district of West Bengal. India. Indian J. Trad. Knowl. , 13 (4), 742–751.
54. Martin, G. J. (2004). Ethnobotany. A Methods Manual (People and Plants Conservation Series): WWF, Earthscan Publications, UK.
55. Martinez, G. J., Planchuelo, A. M., Fuentes, E., & Ojeda, M. (2006). A numeric index to establish conservation priorities for medicinal plants in the Paravachasca valley, Cordoba, Argentina. Biodiversity Conservation , 15 , 2457–2475.
56. Mathur, M. & Sundaramoorthy, S. (2013). Census of approaches used in quantitative ethnobotany. Studies on Ethno-Medicine , 7 (1), 31–58.
57. Medeiros, M. F. T., Silva, P. S., & Albuquerque, U. P. (2011). Quantification in ethnobotanical research: an overview of indices used from 1995 to 2009. Sientibussérie Ciencias Biológicas , 11 (2), 211–230.
58. Mehrotra, S. & Mehrotra, B. N. (2005). Role of traditional and folklore herbals in development of new drugs. Ethnobotany , 17 , 104–111.
59. Melo, J. G., Amorim, E. L. C., & Albuquerque, U. P. (2009). Native medicinal plants commercialized in Brazil priorities for conservation. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment , 156 , 567–580.
60. Moerman, D. E. (1996). An analysis of the food plants and drug plants of native North America. J. Ethnopharmacol. , 52 , 1–22.
61. Mootoosamy, A. & Fawzi, M. M. (2014). Ethnomedicinal application of native remedies used against diabetes and related complications in Mauritius. J. Ethnopharmacol. , 151 (1), 413–444. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2013.10.069.
62. Mudgal, V. & Jain, S. K. (1983). Ethnobotany in India. Culcutta: Botanical Survey of India.
63. Mutheeswaran, S., Pandikumar, P., Chellappandian, M., & Ignacimuthu, S. (2011). Documentation and quantitative analysis of the local knowledge on medicinal plants among traditional Siddha healers in Virudhunagar district of Tamil Nadu. India. J. Ethnopharmacol. , 137 , 523–533.
64. Oliveira, R. L. C., Lins Neto, E. M. F., Araújo, E. L., & Albuquerque, U. P. (2007). Conservation priorities and population structure of woody medicinal plants in an area of caatinga vegetation (Pernambuco state, NE Brazil). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment , 132 , 189–206.
65. Pardo-de-Santayana, M., Tardío, J., Blanco, E., Carvalho, A. M., Lastra, J. J., Miguel, E. S., & Morales, R. (2007). Traditional knowledge of wild edible plants used in the northwest of the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal): a comparative study. J. Ethnobiology andEthnomedicine , 3 , 27. doi:10.1186/1746-4269-3-27.
66. Patil, M. V. & Patil, D. A. (2006). Ethnobotany of Nasik district. Maharastra: Daya Publishing house, Delhi.
67. Peroni, N. & Hanazaki, N. (2002). Current and lost diversity of cultivated varieties, especially cassava, under swidden cultivation systems in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment , 92 , 171–183.
68. Phillips, O. (1996). Some quantitative methods for analyzing ethnobotanical knowledge. In:Alexiades, M. (ed.), Selected Guidelines for Ethnobotanical Research: a field manual (Advances in Economic Botany. Vol. 10). The New York Botanical Garden, New York, pp. 171-197.
69. Phillips, O. & Gentry, A. H. (1993). The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru: I. Statistical hypothesis tests with a new quantitative technique. Economic Botany , 47 , 15–32.
70. Pilania, P. K., Gujar, R. V., Joshi, P. M., Shrivastav, S. C., & Panchal, N. S. (2015). Phytosociological and Ethnobotanical Study of Trees in a Tropical Dry Deciduous Forest in Panchmahal District of Gujarat. Western India. The Indian Forester , 141 (4), 422–427.
71. Pradhan, B. & Rahaman, C. H. (2015). Phytosociological study of plant species in three tropical dry deciduous forests of Birbhum District, West Bengal. India. J. Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences , 7 (2), 22–31.
72. Prance, G. T., Balée, W., Boom, B. M., & Carneiro, R. L. (1987). Quantitative ethnobotany and the case for conservation in Amazônia. Conservation Biology , 1 , 296–310.
73. Pushpangandan, P. (1994). Ethnobiology in India (A status report). Ministry of Enviroment and Forest, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
74. Ragupathy, S., Newmaster, S. G., Murugesan, M., Balasubramaniam, V., & Huda, M. (2008). Consensus of the ‘Malasars’ traditional aboriginal knowledge of medicinal plants in the Velliangiri holy hills. India. J. Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine , 4 , 8. doi:10.1186/1746-4269-4-8.
75. Rahaman, C. H. & Pradhan, B. (2011). A study on the ethnomedicinal uses of plants by the tribal people of Birbhum district. West Bengal. J. Econ. Taxon. Bot. , 35 (3), 529–534.
76. Rahaman, C. H. & Karmakar, S. (2015). Ethnomedicine of Santal tribe living around Susunia hill of Bankura district, West Bengal, India: The quantitative approach. J. Applied and Pharmaceutical Science , 5 (2), 127–136.
77. Rao, D. M. & Pullaiah, T. (2007). Ethnobotanical studies on some rare and endemic floristic elements of Eastern Ghats-hill ranges of south-east Asia, India. Ethnobotanical Leaflets , 11 , 52–70.
78. Rossato, S. C., Leitao Filho, H., & Begossi, A. (1999). Ethnobotany of caiçaras of the Atlantic Forest coast (Brazil). Economic Botany , 53 , 387–395.
79. Sahu, S. C., Dhal, N. K., Sudhakar Reddy, C., Pattanaik, C., & Brahmam, M. (2007). Phytosociological study of tropical dry deciduous forest of Boudh district, Orissa. India. Res. J. Forestry , 1 , 66–72.
80. Sajem, A. L. & Gosai, K. (2006). Traditional use of medicinal plants by the Jaintia tribes in North Cachar Hills district of Assam, northeast India. J. Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine , 2 , 33. doi:10.1186/1746-4269-2-33.
81. Saqib, Z., Mahmood, A., Malik, N. R., Mahmood, A., Syed, H. J., & Ahmad, T. (2014). Indigenous knowledge of medicinal plants in Kotli Sattian, Rawalpindi district. Pakistan. J. Ethnopharmacol. , 151 , 820–828.
82. Savithramma, N., Sulochana, C. H., & Rao, K. N. (2007). Ethnobotanical survey of plants used to treat asthma in Andhra Pradesh. India. J. Ethnopharmacol. , 113 , 54–61.
83. Schultes, R. E. (1979). Medicinal and toxic uses of Swartzia in the northwest Amazon. J. Ethnopharmacol. , 1 , 79–87.
84. Shah, A., Bharati, K. A., Ahmad, J., & Sharma, M. P. (2015). New ethnomedicinal claims from Gujjar and Bakerwals tribes of Rajouri and Poonch districts of Jammu and Kashmir. India. J. Ethnopharmacol. , 166 , 119–28. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2015.01.056.
85. Shil, S., Dutta Choudhury, M., & Das, S. (2014). Indigenous knowledge of medicinal plants used by the Reang tribe of Tripura state of India. J. Ethnopharmacol. , 152 (1), 135–141.
86. Singh, V. & Pandey, R. P. (1998). Ethnobotany of Rajasthan. India: Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur, India.
87. Slish, D. F., Ueda, H., Arvigo, R., & Balick, M. (1999). Ethnobotany in the search for vasoactive herbal medicines. J. Ethnopharmacol. , 66 , 159–165.
88. Tabuti, J. R. S. (2008). Herbal medicines used in the treatment of malaria in Budiopecounty. Uganda. J. Ethnopharmacol. , 116 , 33–42.
89. Tarafdar, R. G., Nath, S., Das Talukdar, A., & Dutta Choudhury, M. (2014). Antidiabetic plants used among the ethnic communities of Unakoti district of Tripura. India. J. Ethnopharmacol. , 160 , 219–226. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2014.11.019.
90. Trivedi, P. C. & Sharma, N. K. (2004). Ethnomedicinal Plants. Jaipur, India: Pointer Publishers.
91. Troter, R. & Logan, M. (1986). Informant consensus: a new approach for identifying potentially effective medicinal plants. In N. L.Etkin (Ed.), Indigenous medicine and diet: biobehavioral approaches (pp. 91–112). New York, NY: Redgrave Bedford Hills.
92. Van der Wel, H. & Loeve, K. (1972). Isolation and characterization of thaumatin I and II, the sweet-tasting proteins from Thaumatococcus daniellii Benth. European J. Biochem. , 31 , 221–225.
93. Woodward, E., Jackson, S., Finn, M., & McTaggart, P. M. (2012). Utilising indigenous seasonal knowledge to understand aquatic resource use and inform water resource management in northern Australia. Ecological Management and Restoration , 13 (1), 58–64.