Journals / Turkish Journal of Botany / 2019 / Cilt: 43 - Sayı: 6

Folk medicine in Düzce Province (Turkey)

Pages
769–784
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Inaddition to this gradual loss of knowledge, modern information pollution and contamination via the popular media highlight the urgentneed to record this precious knowledge before it is lost.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The present study was conducted to collect, record, and document local knowledge of medicinal practices in Düzce, anorthwestern Anatolian province.
📊
Key Findings & Data:As a result of extensive field studies, 122 taxa weredetermined as folk medicines; 76 of were wild and 46 were cultivated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Inaddition to this gradual loss of knowledge, modern information pollution and contamination via the popular media highlight the urgentneed to record this precious knowledge before it is lost.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The present study was conducted to collect, record, and document local knowledge of medicinal practices in Düzce, anorthwestern Anatolian province. To the best of our knowledge, no comprehensive ethnobotanical study has been reported fromthis province. Information was acquired through semistructured interviews and personal conversations using a questionnaire andnumerous guided field trips with local knowledgeable people. For quantitative analyses and comparisons, recorded data such asinformant consensus factor (FIC) and use value (UV) were calculated, respectively. As a result of extensive field studies, 122 taxa weredetermined as folk medicines; 76 of were wild and 46 were cultivated. The identified medicinal plants were mainly from the familyRosaceae, followed by Compositae, Apiaceae, Lamiaceae, and Solanaceae, respectively. Among the preparations used, liquid forms suchas infusions (30.2%) or decoctions (16.4%) represented the most favored ways to administer medicinal plants. Dermatological disordershad the highest FIC score with a value of 0.75 followed by skeletomuscular (FIC = 0.7466), gastrointestinal (FIC = 0.6666), immunological(FIC = 0.6615), and respiratory (FIC = 0.6292) system disorders, among others. The most prominent medicinal plants were Urtica dioica(UV = 0.4352), Plantago major (UV = 0.3056), Rubus ulmifolius (UV = 0.2279), and Sambucus ebulus (UV = 0.2279). According tothe present study, the number of people who recognize and use the wild plants of Düzce, and those of the rest of Anatolia, is steadilydecreasing. The ethnobotanical knowledge cannot be passed to the next generation in its entirety if it is not properly recorded. Inaddition to this gradual loss of knowledge, modern information pollution and contamination via the popular media highlight the urgentneed to record this precious knowledge before it is lost.

🔖

Cite This Article

DEMİRCİ, F., AKAYDIN, G., ÖZKAN, A. M. G., YEŞİLADA, E., GÜNBATAN, T., GÜRBÜZ, İ., SALİHOĞLU, E. (2022). Folk medicine in Düzce Province (Turkey). Turkish Journal of Botany, Cilt: 43 - Sayı: 6, 769–784. https://ajindex.com/articles/600896

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Akaydın G, Şimşek I, Arıtuluk ZC, Yeşilada E (2013). An ethnobotanical survey in selected towns of the Mediterranean subregion (Turkey). Turkish Journal of Biology 37: 230-247. doi: 10.3906/biy-1010-139
  2. Amini Rad M, Sajedi S, Domina G (2017). First data on the taxonomic diversity of the Portulaca oleracea aggregate (Portulacaceae) in Iran. Turkish Journal of Botany 41: 535-541. doi: 10.3906/bot1611-43 Arı S, Temel M, Mustafa Kargıoğlu M, Konuk M (2015). Ethnobotanical survey of plants used in AfyonkarahisarTurkey. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 11: 84. doi: 10.1186/s13002-015-0067-6.
  3. Bulut G, Haznedaroğlu MZ, Doğan A, Koyu H, Tuzlacı E (2017a). An ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants in Acipayam (Denizli-Turkey). Journal of Herbal Medicine 10: 64-81.
  4. Bulut G, Korkmaz A, Tuzlacı E (2017b). The ethnobotanical notes from Nizip (Gaziantep-Turkey). Istanbul Journal of Pharmacy 47 (2): 57-62.
  5. Bulut Z, Yılmaz H (2010). The current situation of threatened endemic flora in Turkey: Kemaliye (Erzincan) case. Pakistan Journal of Botany 42 (2): 711-719.
  6. Costa-Neto EM (2005). Animal-based medicines: biological prospection and the sustainable use of zootherapeutic resources. Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences 77 (1): 33-43.
  7. Dalar A, Mukemre M, Ünal M, Özgökçe F (2018). Traditional medicinal plants of Ağrı Province, Turkey. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 226: 56-72. Davis PH (1965–1985). Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands. Vols. 1–9. 1st ed. Edinburgh, UK: University Press.
  8. Davis PH, Mill RR, Tan K (1988). Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands. Vol. 10 (Supplement). 1st ed. Edinburgh, UK: University Press.
  9. Demircan A, Keleş A, Bildik F, Aygencel G, Doğan NÖ et al. (2009). Mad honey sex: therapeutic misadventures from an ancient biological weapon. Annals of Emergency Medicine 54: 824- 829. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.06.010 Doğru Koca A, Yıldırımlı Ş (2009). Flora of Akçakoca District (Düzce-Turkey). In: 4th Balkan Botanical Congress; Sofia, Bulgaria. pp. 144-155.
  10. Doğru Koca A, Yıldırımlı Ş (2010). Ethnobotanical properties of Akçakoca District in Düzce (Turkey). Hacettepe Journal of Biology and Chemistry 38: 63-69.
  11. Güler B, Manav E, Uğurlu E (2015). Medicinal plants used by traditional healers in Bozüyük (Bilecik–Turkey). Journal of Ethnopharmacology 173: 39-47.
  12. Günbatan T, Gürbüz İ, Gençler Özkan AM (2016). The current status of ethnopharmacobotanical knowledge in Çamlıdere (Ankara, Turkey). Turkish Journal of Botany 40: 241-249.