Use and Management of Medicinal Plants by Local People of Harari People National Regional State, Eastern Ethiopia

Abstract

The Ethiopian people used traditional medicine predominantly as primarily health care system. Therefore, an ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants was carried out from February to August, 2022 in Peoples of Harari Regional State, Eastern Ethiopia. The main objective of this study was to investigate and document indigenous knowledge of people on the use and management of medicinal plants in the study area. The study involved traditional healers, knowledgeable elders and local communities that have the practice of handling medicinal plants. Eighty informants were involved in data acquisition and used semi-structured interviews, guided field walks and focus group discussions. Preference ranking, informant consensus factor, direct matrix ranking and descriptive statistical method were employed to analyze the data. A total of 57 medicinal plants species were recorded to treat livestock and human ailments and these medicinal plants belong to 52 genera, 35 families. From the total medicinal plants species, 42 species were recorded for the treatment of human health problems, 7 species for livestock and 8 species for the treatment of both human and livestock. The highest habit of medicinal plants were tree accounted for 27 (47.36%). The most frequently plant parts used were leaf accounted for 23 (40.3%). Oral administration was the dominant route of administration which accounted for 17 (32.5%). Crushing and pounding accounted for 40 (70.2%) were the highest methods of preparation. The main threat for medicinal plants in the area arises from agricultural expansion, firewood, charcoal production, and others. Therefore, beyond awareness creation for sustainable use of medicinal plants, wise land use planning and encouragement for their cultivation to enhance their availability and complement ex-and in-situ conservation need due attention in the study area.The abstract part of the manuscript is not full. The discuss and the conclusion were not included. The background of the study which is also another part of the abstract explained poorly, needs revision.