Ecological Analysis and Ethnobotanical Evaluation of Plants in Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest, Kantarawichai District, Thailand

Abstract

Ethnobotanical knowledge and biodiversity are critical components of sustainable natural resource management, especially in regions undergoing rapid environmental and socio-economic change. In Northeast Thailand, traditional plant knowledge is deeply intertwined with local cultural identity but faces increasing threats from urbanization, agricultural expansion, and generational shifts. This study presents a floristic and ethnobotanical survey of the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest, a community-managed remnant forest in Maha Sarakham Province, documenting 110 plant species from 42 families. The Fabaceae family was the most diverse, consistent with other tropical ecosystems. Predominantly native species (85.45%) indicate minimal disturbance, while introduced (11.82%) and endemic species (2.73%) reflect ecological complexity. Ethnobotanical data revealed 34 wild edible species, 33 medicinal plants, and 19 ornamental species used by the local community, highlighting the forest’s vital role in supporting livelihoods and cultural practices. High Use Values (UVs) for species such as Spondias pinnata and Coccinia grandis underline their dual importance in food and medicine. Informant Consensus Factor (Fic) values demonstrate strong agreement on plant use for reproductive and musculoskeletal health, reflecting well-established traditional knowledge. The findings underscore the forest’s dual significance as an ecological hotspot and a repository of cultural heritage, providing essential ecosystem services including biodiversity conservation, climate regulation, and cultural provisioning. By integrating traditional knowledge with biodiversity assessment, this study offers valuable insights for community-based conservation strategies that sustain both ecological integrity and cultural resilience in Northeast Thailand.

1. Introduction

Plants have played a vital role in human life since ancient times, serving not only as sources of food and medicine but also as integral components of cultural identity, rituals, and ecological understanding [1]. Ethnobotany, which examines the dynamic relationship between people and plants, offers valuable insights into traditional knowledge systems that have been passed down through generations [2]. This field of study is particularly important in regions like Southeast Asia, where indigenous and local communities have developed rich, plant-based knowledge systems in close interaction with their environments [3]. In Thailand, especially in the northeastern region known as Isan, such traditional knowledge is still practiced, although it is increasingly at risk due to socioeconomic and environmental changes [4].

Maha Sarakham Province, located in the heart of northeastern Thailand, is a largely rural area characterized by dry dipterocarp and mixed deciduous forests [5]. The Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest, situated in Kantarawichai District, represents a remnant of community forest that still supports a diverse range of flora. For generations, local communities have relied on this forest for a variety of plant-based resources, including edible wild plants, herbal medicines, construction materials, and spiritual practices. However, rapid urbanization, agricultural expansion, deforestation, and generational shifts in lifestyle have contributed to the gradual erosion of this traditional knowledge [6].

Despite its ecological and cultural importance, the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest remains understudied in terms of its botanical diversity and ethnobotanical significance [7]. The loss of ethnobotanical knowledge not only impacts cultural heritage but also threatens biodiversity conservation and the potential for discovering novel medicinal or economic plant uses [8]. Documenting traditional plant use in such areas is thus a priority, both for preserving cultural knowledge and for informing conservation strategies that engage local communities as stewards of their natural resources [9].

In addition to ethnobotanical documentation, ecological analysis plays a vital role in understanding forest structure and composition. Quantitative metrics such as Relative Frequency (RF%), Relative Density (RD%), and Relative Dominance (RDo%) help assess the distribution and ecological role of individual species within the forest. The Importance Value Index (IVI) integrates these metrics to indicate the overall ecological significance of species in a given habitat. Furthermore, the Shannon–Wiener diversity index (H′) is commonly used to evaluate species diversity, providing insight into the richness and evenness of plant communities. Together, these indices offer a robust framework for evaluating biodiversity, guiding conservation priorities, and monitoring ecological changes over time.

This research was undertaken with the aim of exploring and documenting the ethnobotanical knowledge and plant diversity within the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest. Specifically, the study focuses on identifying plant species found in the forest and recording their traditional uses as understood by local elders, traditional healers, and community members. The emphasis is on understanding how local people classify, use, and manage these plant resources in their daily lives, contributing to the broader field of ethnobotany and providing a localized case study that highlights the interconnectedness of biodiversity and traditional ecological knowledge [10].

The significance of this research lies in its potential applications. First, it can serve as a baseline for conservation planning by identifying species of ecological or cultural value that may require protection [11]. Second, it may support community-based forest management by reinforcing the value of traditional knowledge and empowering local stakeholders to participate in conservation efforts [12]. Third, the documentation of medicinal and edible plants may provide leads for future ethnopharmacological or agricultural research, particularly in the search for natural remedies and sustainable food sources [13].

Furthermore, the study contributes to cultural preservation by recognizing and valuing the knowledge systems of local communities, especially among older generations [14]. In many rural Thai communities, such knowledge is transmitted orally and remains largely undocumented [15,16,17]. Capturing this knowledge through systematic ethnobotanical surveys ensures that it is not lost with time and can be shared with younger generations and wider academic and policy communities [18].

This study aims to document the ethnobotanical knowledge and species richness of plants in the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest, a community-managed area of ecological and cultural significance in northeastern Thailand. Specifically, the research seeks to (1) analyze the forest’s plant community structure through ecological parameters such as species frequency, density, dominance, and diversity indices, (2) identify and classify plant species used by the local community, (3) understand the traditional knowledge and practices associated with plant use, and (4) assess the role of the forest in providing key ecosystem services. These include provisioning services (e.g., food, fodder, medicinal plants), cultural services (e.g., spiritual and heritage values), and supporting services (e.g., biodiversity conservation) [19]. By combining plant surveys with community interviews and applying ecological indices such as RF, RD, RDo, IVI, and H′, this study bridges scientific inquiry with indigenous knowledge systems, emphasizing the importance of conserving both biological and cultural diversity amid rapid environmental and social change.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The study was conducted in the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest, located in Northeast Thailand, with a total area of approximately 36.59 hectares (Figure 1). The forest characterized by the presence of species such as Dipterocarpus intricatus, Pentacme siamensis, Lannea coromandelica, Albizia lebbeck, Spondias pinnata, and various grasses and climbers represents a tropical dry deciduous forest, specifically a dry dipterocarp forest. This forest type is commonly found in lowland areas of mainland Southeast Asia, particularly in northeastern Thailand. It is dominated by deciduous trees that shed their leaves during the dry season to conserve water. The canopy is generally open, allowing sunlight to reach the forest floor, which supports a well-developed ground layer of grasses, herbs, and shrubs, such as Imperata cylindrica and Chromolaena odorata. Common tree species belong to the Dipterocarpaceae, Fabaceae, and Anacardiaceae families. The vegetation in this forest is well adapted to seasonal drought, forming a resilient ecosystem that plays a crucial role in local biodiversity and traditional land use practices.

2.2. Ethnobotanical Study

2.2.1. Ethnobotanical Data Collection

Ethnobotanical fieldwork was carried out in the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest, located in Kantarawichai District, Maha Sarakham Province, Thailand, over a 12-month period from January to December 2022. The study aimed to document traditional knowledge related to plant use among local communities living near the forest. A total of 30 participants were interviewed, including traditional healers, community elders, and other villagers recognized for their expertise in native flora. All participants were informed about the purpose of the study, and verbal consent was obtained prior to each interview. Participation was entirely voluntary.

Interviews followed an open-ended format to allow for in-depth responses. Participants, ranging in age from 25 to 70 years old, were selected to represent a broad cross-section of the village community, including elders, adults, and knowledgeable practitioners. They were asked to share information about local plant names, their uses, and the specific parts of the plants employed. Plant uses were grouped into seven primary categories: animal fodder, construction materials, food, household furnishings, medicine, ornamental, and other purposes. Respondents were initially selected through purposive sampling based on their recognized knowledge of local ethnobotany, and additional participants were identified using the snowball technique, whereby initial informants recommended others with relevant expertise. This approach ensured that the group was representative of the village inhabitants with practical experience and traditional knowledge.

Plant specimens referenced during the interviews were collected during field visits. Each specimen was photographed, labeled with its local name, and prepared for herbarium storage using standard botanical procedures. These voucher specimens were deposited at the Vascular Plant Herbarium, Mahasarakham University (VMSU). Species identification was confirmed through comparison with taxonomic references, original species descriptions, and online databases, particularly the Plants of the World Online (POWO) platform [20].

Further verification involved reviewing relevant botanical literature and accessing research databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Additionally, digital herbarium records and high-resolution images available through Kew Science and the Kew Herbarium were used to support accurate identification and classification of the collected specimens.

2.2.2. Ethnobotanical Analysis

• Use Value (UV)

The Use Value (UV) reflects the significance of a plant in a particular region [21] and is calculated using the following formula:

$$\mathrm{UV}={\displaystyle \frac{{\sum }_{\mathrm{i}}\mathrm{U}{\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{is}}}{{\mathrm{n}}_{\mathrm{s}}}}$$

(1)

In this formula, UV represents the total use value of the species, UV_is is the use value assigned to the species, and n_s refers to the number of informants who were interviewed about that species.

• Informant consensus factor (F_ic)

To assess the variability in the use of medicinal plants, the Informant Consensus Factor (F_ic) is calculated using the following formula [22]:

$${\mathrm{F}}_{\mathrm{ic}}={\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{n}}_{\mathrm{ur}}-{\mathrm{n}}_{\mathrm{t}}}{{\mathrm{n}}_{\mathrm{ur}}- 1}}$$

(2)

In this formula, n_ur represents the total number of use reports within a specific use category, and n_t refers to the number of taxa used in that category. The Fic value indicates the degree of agreement among informants regarding the medicinal use of plants, with higher values showing a stronger consensus on the use of particular plant species for specific therapeutic purposes.

• Fidelity Level (FL)

The Fidelity Level (FL) quantifies the percentage of informants who identified a specific plant species as a remedy for a particular disease in the study area. It is calculated using the following formula [23]:

$$\mathrm{FL}={\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{u}}}{{\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{p}}}}\times 100$$

(3)

In this formula, I_p represents the number of informants who linked the plant to a specific ailment, while I_u refers to the total number of informants who recognized the plant’s medicinal use for any health condition.

2.3. Vegetation Sampling

2.3.1. Diversity Data Collection

In examining the diversity and structural composition of plant communities, systematic sampling was employed as follows [24]:

• Tree Layer Survey
  Data on mature trees were collected from ten sampling plots, each measuring 40 × 40 m. Within each plot, individual trees with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 4.5 centimeters or greater—measured at 1.30 m above ground level—were recorded. For each tree, the species name, DBH, and number of individuals per species were documented.
• Sapling Layer Survey
  Within the same ten plots (40 × 40 m), data were also collected for saplings. These were defined as woody plants with a DBH of less than 4.5 centimeters, measured at 1.30 m above ground. For each sapling encountered, the species name, DBH, and total number of individuals per species were recorded.
• Ground Flora Survey
  Ground-level vegetation was assessed by walking systematically throughout each plot and recording all woody plant species with a height of less than 1.30 m. For each species, presence within the plot was documented, providing insight into seedling composition and understory woody diversity. Non-woody herbaceous species (e.g., grasses, ferns, and forbs) were not systematically recorded in this study, as the focus was on ethnobotanically relevant woody flora.

2.3.2. Diversity Analysis

• Importance Value Index (IVI)

The Importance Value Index (IVI) was calculated using the formula proposed by Zobel et al. [25], which integrates three key ecological parameters:

IVI = RF + RD + RDo

(4)

These parameters are calculated as follows:

• Relative Frequency (RF%): The frequency of a species relative to the total frequency of all species in the community.

$$\mathrm{RF}\%= {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Frequency} \mathrm{of} \mathrm{a} \mathrm{species}}{\mathrm{Total} \mathrm{frequency} \mathrm{of} \mathrm{all} \mathrm{the} \mathrm{species}}} \times 100$$

(5)

• Relative Density (RD%): The density of a species relative to the total density of all species.

$$\mathrm{R}\mathrm{D}\%={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{D}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{y} \mathrm{o}\mathrm{f} \mathrm{a}\mathrm{n} \mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{v}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l} \mathrm{s}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{T}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l} \mathrm{d}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{y} \mathrm{o}\mathrm{f} \mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{l} \mathrm{t}\mathrm{h}\mathrm{e} \mathrm{s}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}}}\times 100$$

(6)

• Relative Dominance (RDo%): The basal area of a species relative to the total basal area of all species.

$$\mathrm{RDo}\%={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Basal} \mathrm{area} \mathrm{of} \mathrm{a} \mathrm{species} }{\mathrm{Basal} \mathrm{area} \mathrm{of} \mathrm{all} \mathrm{species}}} \times 100$$

(7)

The IVI provides a comprehensive measure of a species’ ecological significance, aiding in the evaluation of species composition, community structure, and dominance within plant communities.

• Species Diversity Index

Species diversity was assessed using the Shannon–Wiener diversity index (H′), as proposed by Shannon and Wiener (1949) [26]. This index quantifies species diversity by considering both species richness (the number of species) and species evenness (the relative abundance of each species within the community). The formula used is as follows:

H′ = −∑(P_i) (ln P_i)

(8)

where

• P_i = proportion of individuals of species relative to the total number of individuals in the community.

P_i = S/N

(9)

• S = number of individuals of one species;
• N = total number of all individuals in the sample.

Higher H′ values indicate greater species diversity, while lower values suggest lower diversity and potential dominance by a few species. This index is widely used to compare plant communities across different areas, providing valuable insights into ecological stability and biodiversity conservation.

3. Results

3.1. Diversity of Flora in Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest

A total of 110 species, representing 42 families, were identified in the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest (

Table 1. Diversity of plant species found in the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest, Kantarawichai District, Maha Sarakham Province, Thailand, including their vernacular names, distribution, habits, plant clustering, utilization, used parts; use value (UV).

No.	Family	Scientific Name	Vernacular Name	Distribution	Habits	Plant Clustering	Utilization	Used Parts	UV	Voucher Specimens
1.	Amaryllidaceae	Hippeastrum sp.	Wan Si Thit	Introduced	H	Un	on	wp	0.100	KTRR001
2.	Anacardiaceae	Buchanania lanzan Spreng.	Mamuang Hua Maeng Wan	Native	T	Tr, Sa, Un	fd	ft	0.433	KTRR002
3.	Anacardiaceae	Buchanania siamensis Miq.	Tha Non Chai	Native	T	Tr	md	ba	0.233	KTRR003
4.	Anacardiaceae	Lannea coromandelica (Houtt.) Merr.	Kok Kan	Native	T	Tr, Sa	md	ba, le, ro	0.300	KTRR004
5.	Anacardiaceae	Spondias pinnata (L.f.) Kurz	Makok	Native	T	Tr, Sa, Un	fd	ft	0.867	KTRR005
6.	Annonaceae	Polyalthia debilis (Pierre) Finet & Gagnep.	Kon Khrok	Native	S	Un	fd	ft	0.167	KTRR006
7.	Annonaceae	Polyalthia evecta (Pierre) Finet & Gagnep.	Nom Noi	Native	S	Un	fd	ft	0.200	KTRR007
8.	Annonaceae	Uvaria rufa (Dunal) Blume	Phi Phuan Noi	Native	C	Tr, Sa, Un	fd	ft	0.367	KTRR008
9.	Annonaceae	Uvaria siamensis (Scheff.) L.L.Zhou, Y.C.F.Su & R.M.K.Saunders	Lamduan	Native	T	Un	on	wp	0.267	KTRR009
10.	Annonaceae	Xylopia vielana Pierre	Kluai Noi	Native	T	Tr, Sa	fd	ft	0.233	KTRR010
11.	Apocynaceae	Amphineurion marginatum (Roxb.) D.J.Middleton	Khruea Sai Tan	Native	C	Un	md	le, ro	0.067	KTRR011
12.	Apocynaceae	Carissa spinarum L.	Nam Phrom	Native	S	Un	md	hw, ro	0.100	KTRR012
13.	Apocynaceae	Streptocaulon juventas (Lour.) Merr.	Thao Prasong	Native	C	Un	md	wp	0.067	KTRR013
14.	Apocynaceae	Urceola polymorpha (Pierre ex Spire) D.J.Middleton & Livsh.	Som Lom	Native	C	Un	fd	ft, le	0.500	KTRR014
15.	Apocynaceae	Wrightia religiosa (Teijsm. & Binn.) Benth. ex Kurz	Mok	Native	T	Tr, Sa	on	wp	0.267	KTRR015
16.	Araceae	Amorphophallus brevispathus Gagnep.	I Rok	Endemic	H	Un	fd	st	0.633	KTRR016
17.	Araceae	Scindapsus officinalis (Roxb.) Schott	Phlu Chang	Native	C	Un	on	wp	0.067	KTRR017
18.	Araceae	Typhonium trilobatum (L.) Schott	Ut Ta Phit	Native	H	Un	md	ro, tu	0.033	KTRR018
19.	Asteraceae	Chromolaena odorata (L.) R.M.King & H.Rob.	Sap Suea	Introduced	H	Un	af, md	le, wp	0.167	KTRR019
20.	Asteraceae	Cyanthillium cinereum (L.) H.Rob.	Ya Dok Khao	Native	H	Un	af	wp	0.200	KTRR020
21.	Asteraceae	Elephantopus scaber L.	Do Mai Ru Lom	Native	H	Un	md	ro	0.167	KTRR021
22.	Asteraceae	Praxelis clematidea (Hieron. ex Kuntze) R.M.King & H.Rob.	Sap Muang	Introduced	H	Un	md	ro, wp	0.167	KTRR022
23.	Bignoniaceae	Millingtonia hortensis L.f.	Pib Khao	Native	T	Tr	on	wp	0.333	KTRR023
24.	Burseraceae	Canarium subulatum Guillaumin	Makok Kluean	Native	T	Tr	fd	ft	0.333	KTRR024
25.	Celastraceae	Salacia chinensis L.	Kamphaeng Chet Chan	Native	T	Tr, Sa	md	ro, st	0.200	KTRR025
26.	Commelinaceae	Commelina benghalensis L.	Phak Plap	Native	H	Un	af	wp	0.167	KTRR026
27.	Commelinaceae	Commelina diffusa Burm.f.	Plap Bai Khaep	Native	H	Un	af	wp	0.167	KTRR027
28.	Commelinaceae	Floscopa scandens Lour.	Phak Plap Chang	Native	H	Un	md	wp	0.200	KTRR028
29.	Convolvulaceae	Evolvulus nummularius (L.) L.	Tang Rian	Introduced	CrH	Un	on	wp	0.133	KTRR029
30.	Cucurbitaceae	Coccinia grandis (L.) Voigt	Tamlueng	Native	H	Un	fd	le	0.833	KTRR030
31.	Cyperaceae	Actinoscirpus grossus (L.f.) Goetgh. & D.A.Simpson	Kok Samliam	Native	H	Un	ot	le	0.100	KTRR031
32.	Dioscoreaceae	Dioscorea hispida Dennst.	Kloi	Native	H	Un	fd	tu	0.433	KTRR032
33.	Dioscoreaceae	Dioscorea pierrei Prain & Burkill	Man Nam	Native	H	Un	fd	tu	0.467	KTRR033
34.	Dipterocarpaceae	Anthoshorea roxburghii (G.Don) P.S.Ashton & J.Heck.	Phayom	Native	T	Tr, Sa	ct, on	st, wp	0.433	KTRR034
35.	Dipterocarpaceae	Dipterocarpus intricatus Dyer	Yang Krat	Native	T	Tr, Sa	md	ba	0.133	KTRR035
36.	Dipterocarpaceae	Dipterocarpus obtusifolius Teijsm. ex Miq.	Yang Hiang	Native	T	Tr, Sa, Un	ot	st	0.233	KTRR036
37.	Dipterocarpaceae	Pentacme siamensis (Miq.) Kurz	Rang	Native	T	Tr, Sa	ct	st	0.200	KTRR037
38.	Ebenaceae	Diospyros filipendula Pierre ex Lecomte	Lam Bit Dong	Native	T	Tr, Sa, Un	md	ba, ro	0.133	KTRR038
39.	Ebenaceae	Diospyros mollis Griff.	Ma Kluea	Native	T	Tr, Sa	md	ft, ro	0.067	KTRR039
40.	Ebenaceae	Diospyros rhodocalyx Kurz	Tako Na	Native	T	Tr	on	wp	0.100	KTRR040
41.	Euphorbiaceae	Suregada multiflora (A.Juss.) Baill.	Khan Thong Phayabat	Native	T	Tr, Sa, Un	md	ba, ro	0.100	KTRR041
42.	Fabaceae	Albizia lebbeck (L.) Benth.	Phruek	Introduced	T	Tr, Sa	md	ba, se	0.200	KTRR042
43.	Fabaceae	Clitoria ternatea L.	Anchan	Introduced	H	Un	fd	if	0.333	KTRR043
44.	Fabaceae	Erythrophleum succirubrum Gagnep.	Phan Sat	Native	T	Tr, Sa, Un	md	st	0.067	KTRR044
45.	Fabaceae	Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) de Wit	Krathin	Introduced	T	Sa	fd	ft, le	0.367	KTRR045
46.	Fabaceae	Peltophorum dasyrhachis (Miq.) Kurz	A Rang	Native	T	Tr	ct, hf	st	0.233	KTRR046
47.	Fabaceae	Pithecellobium dulce (Roxb.) Benth.	Makhamthet	Introduced	T	Tr, Sa, Un	fd	ft	0.300	KTRR047
48.	Fabaceae	Pterocarpus macrocarpus Kurz	Pradu Pa	Native	T	Tr, Sa	hf, ot	ba, st	0.167	KTRR048
49.	Fabaceae	Senegalia comosa (Gagnep.) Maslin, Seigler & Ebinger	Nam Han	Native	C	Tr, Sa, Un	md	ro	0.033	KTRR049
50.	Fabaceae	Senna siamea (Lam.) H.S.Irwin & Barneby	Phak Khilek	Native	T	Tr	fd	le	0.533	KTRR050
51.	Fabaceae	Sindora siamensis Teijsm. ex Miq.	Ma Kha Tae	Native	T	Tr, Sa, Un	ct	st	0.200	KTRR051
52.	Fabaceae	Stylosanthes humilis Kunth	Ya Satai Lo	Introduced	S	Un	af	wp	0.067	KTRR052
53.	Fabaceae	Tephrosia vestita Vogel	Dan Ratchasi	Native	H	Un	md	le	0.067	KTRR053
54.	Fabaceae	Xylia xylocarpa (Roxb.) W.Theob.	Daeng	Native	T	Tr, Sa, Un	hf	st	0.167	KTRR054
55.	Hypericaceae	Cratoxylum cochinchinense (Lour.) Blume	Tio Kliang	Native	T	Tr, Sa, Un	fd	if	0.367	KTRR055
56.	Hypericaceae	Cratoxylum formosum (Jacq.) Benth. & Hook.f. ex Dyer subsp. formosum	Tio Khao	Native	T	Sa, Un	fd	if	0.400	KTRR056
57.	Hypericaceae	Crotoxylum formosum (Jacq.) Benth. & Hook.f. ex Dyer subsp. pruniflorum (Kurz) Gogelein	Tio Khon	Native	T	Tr, Sa, Un	fd	if	0.333	KTRR057
58.	Irvingiaceae	Irvingia malayana Oliv. ex A.W.Benn.	Kra Bok	Native	T	Tr, Sa	fd	ft	0.267	KTRR058
59.	Lamiaceae	Hymenopyramis parvifolia Moldenke	Kha Pia	Endemic	S	Tr, Sa, Un	md	ba	0.033	KTRR059
60.	Lamiaceae	Mesosphaerum suaveolens (L.) Kuntze	Maenglak Kha	Introduced	H	Un	af	wp	0.067	KTRR060
61.	Lamiaceae	Vitex pinnata L.	Tin Nok	Native	T	Un	ct	st	0.133	KTRR061
62.	Loranthaceae	Dendrophthoe pentandra (L.) Miq.	Kafak Mamuang	Native	C	Un	ot	st	0.067	KTRR062
63.	Lythraceae	Lagerstroemia balansae Koehne	Ta Baek Kriap	Native	T	Tr, Sa, Un	hf, on	st, wp	0.200	KTRR063
64.	Malvaceae	Bombax anceps Pierre	Ngao	Native	T	Tr, Sa	ot	ft	0.133	KTRR064
65.	Malvaceae	Helicteres angustifolia L.	Po Khi Tun	Native	H	Un	md	le, ro	0.100	KTRR065
66.	Malvaceae	Microcos tomentosa Sm.	Phlapphla	Native	S	Tr, Sa, Un	fd	ft	0.167	KTRR066
67.	Malvaceae	Sida cordifolia L.	Ya Khat Bai Pom	Native	S	Un	md	le, ro	0.100	KTRR067
68.	Malvaceae	Urena rigida Wall. ex Mast.	Khi On	Native	H	Un	af	wp	0.067	KTRR068
69.	Malvaceae	Waltheria indica L.	Ya Hua Nok Khao	Introduced	S	Un	af	wp	0.067	KTRR069
70.	Melastomataceae	Memecylon edule Roxb.	Phlong Mueat	Native	S/ST	Tr, Sa, Un	on, ot	le, st, wp	0.300	KTRR070
71.	Meliaceae	Azadirachta indica A.Juss.	Sadao	Native	T	Tr, Sa	fd	if, le	0.667	KTRR071
72.	Meliaceae	Chukrasia tabularis A.Juss.	Yom Hin	Native	T	Tr	ct	st	0.233	KTRR072
73.	Menispermaceae	Cissampelos pareira L.	Khruea Ma Noi	Native	H	Un	fd	le	0.600	KTRR073
74.	Menispermaceae	Tiliacora triandra (Colebr.) Diels	Yanang	Native	H	Un	fd	le	0.633	KTRR074
75.	Menispermaceae	Tinospora baenzigeri Forman	Chingcha Chali	Endemic	H	Un	md	vi	0.133	KTRR075
76.	Moraceae	Ficus benjamina L.	Sai	Native	T	Sa	on	wp	0.133	KTRR076
77.	Moraceae	Streblus asper Lour.	Khoi	Native	S/ST	Tr, Sa	fd	ft	0.100	KTRR077
78.	Ochnaceae	Ochna integerrima (Lour.) Merr.	Chang Nao	Native	S/ST	Tr, Sa	md	ba, ro	0.133	KTRR078
79.	Olacaceae	Olax scandens Roxb.	Namchai Khrai	Native	S/C	Tr, Sa, Un	md	ba, ro	0.167	KTRR079
80.	Phyllanthaceae	Antidesma puncticulatum Miq.	Ma Mao	Native	T	Tr	fd	ft	0.567	KTRR080
81.	Poaceae	Imperata cylindrica (L.) Raeusch.	Ya Kha	Introduced	H	Un	ot	le	0.133	KTRR081
82.	Poaceae	Microstegium fasciculatum (L.) Henrard	Ya Khom Kha	Native	H	Un	af	wp	0.033	KTRR082
83.	Poaceae	Urochloa mutica (Forssk.) T.Q.Nguyen	Ya Khon	Introduced	H	Un	af	wp	0.033	KTRR083
84.	Poaceae	Vietnamosasa pusilla (A.Chev. & A.Camus) T.Q.Nguyen	Phek	Native	H	Un	fd	st	0.300	KTRR084
85.	Rhamnaceae	Ziziphus cambodiana Pierre	Nham Ta Khrong	Native	S	Tr, Sa, Un	ot	ba	0.067	KTRR085
86.	Rhamnaceae	Ziziphus mauritiana Lam.	Phutsa	Native	T	Tr	fd	ft	0.333	KTRR086
87.	Rhamnaceae	Ziziphus oenopolia (L.) Mill.	Lep Yiao	Native	S/C	Sa, Un	fd	ft	0.300	KTRR087
88.	Rubiaceae	Canthium berberidifolium E.T.Geddes	Ngiang Duk	Native	S	Un	on	wp	0.100	KTRR088
89.	Rubiaceae	Catunaregam tomentosa (Blume ex DC.) Tirveng.	Nam Thaeng	Native	S/ST	Tr, Sa	ot	ft	0.100	KTRR089
90.	Rubiaceae	Gardenia sootepensis Hutch.	Kham Mok Luang	Native	T	Tr, Sa, Un	on	wp	0.133	KTRR090
91.	Rubiaceae	Hymenodictyon orixense (Roxb.) Mabb.	Som Kop	Native	T	Un	on	wp	0.067	KTRR091
92.	Rubiaceae	Ixora cibdela Craib	Khem Pa	Native	S	Un	on	wp	0.100	KTRR092
93.	Rubiaceae	Mitragyna diversifolia (Wall. ex G.Don) Havil.	Kra Thum Na	Native	T	Tr	on	wp	0.100	KTRR093
94.	Rubiaceae	Morinda pubescens Sm.	Yo Pa	Native	S/ST	Tr, Sa	on	wp	0.067	KTRR094
95.	Rubiaceae	Mussaenda uniflora Wall. ex G.Don	Mali Lueai	Native	H	Un	on	wp	0.167	KTRR095
96.	Rubiaceae	Pavetta tomentosa Roxb. ex Sm.	Khaosan Pa	Native	S/ST	Tr, Sa, Un	on	wp	0.167	KTRR096
97.	Rutaceae	Clausena excavata Burm.f.	Phia Fan	Native	H	Un	md	wp	0.100	KTRR097
98.	Rutaceae	Clausena wallichii Oliv.	Song Fa	Native	S	Un	md	le	0.067	KTRR098
99.	Rutaceae	Micromelum minutum (G.Forst.) Wight & Arn.	Samat Noi	Native	ST	Sa	md	le	0.167	KTRR099
100.	Rutaceae	Naringi crenulata (Roxb.) Nicolson	Krachae	Native	T	Tr, Sa, Un	ot	st	0.100	KTRR100
101.	Salicaceae	Flacourtia indica (Burm.f.) Merr.	Ta Khop Pa	Native	S	Sa, Un	fd	ft	0.233	KTRR101
102.	Sapindaceae	Lepisanthes rubiginosa (Roxb.) Leenh.	Ma Huat	Native	ST	Sa, Un	fd	ft	0.400	KTRR102
103.	Sapindaceae	Zollingeria dongnaiensis Pierre	Khi Non Daeng	Native	H	Un	md	ba, le	0.133	KTRR103
104.	Schizaeaceae	Lygodium flexuosum (L.) Sw.	Kut Ngotngaet	Native	H	Un	fd	le	0.067	KTRR104
105.	Smilacaceae	Smilax prolifera Roxb.	Khruea Khueang Sayam	Native	H	Un	md	ba	0.067	KTRR105
106.	Stemonaceae	Stemona tuberosa Lour.	Nhon Tai Yak	Native	H	Un	md	ro	0.200	KTRR106
107.	Vitaceae	Causonis trifolia (L.) Mabb. & J.Wen	Thao Khan Khao	Native	H	Un	md	le, vi	0.067	KTRR107
108.	Vitaceae	Leea thorelii Gagnep.	Ka Tang Bai Tia	Native	H	Un	md	ro, st	0.133	KTRR108
109.	Zingiberaceae	Curcuma singularis Gagnep.	Kra Chiao	Native	H	Un	fd	if	0.833	KTRR109
110.	Zingiberaceae	Kaempferia marginata Carey ex Roscoe	Tup Mup	Native	H	Un	fd	le	0.600	KTRR110

Abbreviations: Habits—climber (C), creeping herb (CrH), herb (H), shrub (S), shrubby tree (ST) and tree (T). Plant clustering—tree (Tr), sapling (Sa) and undergrowth (Un). Utilization—animal fodder (af), construction (ct), food (fd), household furnishings (hf), medicinal (md), ornamental purposes (on) and other (ot). Used parts—bark (ba), fruit (ft), heart wood (hw), inflorescence (if), leave (le), root (ro), seed (se), stem (st), tuber (tu), vine (vi) and whole plant (wp).

and Figure 2). The Fabaceae family had the highest number of species, with 13 species, followed by the Rubiaceae family, which contained 9 species. The Malvaceae family had six species, while the Annonaceae and Apocynaceae families each had five species. The Anacardiaceae, Asteraceae, Dipterocarpaceae, Poaceae, and Rutaceae families each contained four species.

The Araceae, Commelinaceae, Ebenaceae, Hypericaceae, Lamiaceae, Menispermaceae, and Rhamnaceae families each represented three species. The Dioscoreaceae, Meliaceae, Moraceae, Sapindaceae, Vitaceae, and Zingiberaceae families each had two species. Additionally, one species was observed in each of the following families: Amaryllidaceae, Bignoniaceae, Burseraceae, Celastraceae, Convolvulaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Cyperaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Irvingiaceae, Loranthaceae, Lythraceae, Melastomataceae, Ochnaceae, Olacaceae, Phyllanthaceae, Salicaceae, Schizaeaceae, Smilacaceae, and Stemonaceae (Figure 2 and Figure 3 and Table 1). Regarding species distribution (Table 1), the majority of the plant species in the forest are native, accounting for 94 species, or 85.45% of the total species. Introduced species make up a smaller portion, with 13 species representing 11.82% of the total. A relatively small number of species, three species (2.73%), are endemic to the forest, contributing to the unique biodiversity of the region.

3.2. Ethnobotany: Traditional Uses of Plants by Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest Community

3.2.1. Plants Used as Animal Fodder

The Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest community utilizes a variety of herbaceous plant species as animal fodder (Table 1 and Figure 4), reflecting both ecological richness and traditional knowledge. A total of 11 species, classified under 10 genera and 6 families, were identified for this purpose. The Asteraceae family was the most frequently represented with three species, followed by Commelinaceae, Malvaceae, and Poaceae, each contributing two species, while Fabaceae and Lamiaceae were represented by one species each. Remarkably, all recorded species were used in their entirety, with 100% of them harvested as whole plants for fodder.

3.2.2. Plants Used as Construction Materials

Within the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest community, six tree species are traditionally utilized for construction purposes (Table 1 and Figure 5), spanning four families and six genera. The Dipterocarpaceae and Fabaceae families were the most represented, each contributing two species, while Lamiaceae and Meliaceae contributed one species each. Notable species include Anthoshorea roxburghii, Chukrasia tabularis, Peltophorum dasyrhachis, Pentacme siamensis, Sindora siamensis, and Vitex pinnata, all valued for their durable wood. In all cases, the stem was the exclusively used plant part, accounting for 100% of construction-related use. This selective use of stem wood highlights the significance of these species as key sources of structural timber within the community’s traditional practices.

3.2.3. Plants Used as Food

Local plant biodiversity serves as an essential source of food for the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest community, with 34 wild edible species documented across 29 genera and 21 families (Table 1 and Figure 6). The most represented families were Annonaceae and Fabaceae, each contributing four species, followed by Hypericaceae with three species. Families such as Anacardiaceae, Dioscoreaceae, Menispermaceae, Rhamnaceae, and Zingiberaceae each included two species, while several others—including Apocynaceae, Araceae, Cucurbitaceae, and Salicaceae—were represented by a single species. Regarding plant parts utilized, fruits were the most commonly consumed (48.64%), followed by leaves (24.32%), inflorescences (16.22%), and stems and tubers (each at 5.41%). This diversity underscores the forest’s vital role as a food source and reflects the community’s extensive knowledge of seasonal availability and the sustainable use of native plant resources.

The listed plant species demonstrate a rich diversity of traditional uses, broadly categorized into fruits consumed raw, vegetables consumed cooked, carbohydrate sources, dessert ingredients, and seasoning agents. A substantial number of these species are consumed raw as fruits, including Antidesma puncticulatum, Buchanania lanzan, Canarium subulatum, Flacourtia indica, Irvingia malayana, Lepisanthes rubiginosa, Microcos tomentosa, Pithecellobium dulce, Polyalthia debilis, P. evecta, Streblus asper, Uvaria rufa, Xylopia vielana, Ziziphus mauritiana, and Z.oenopolia. These fruits are likely valued for their appealing taste, nutritional benefits, and availability in local environments.

Other species are primarily used as cooked vegetables, such as Amorphophallus brevispathus, Azadirachta indica, Clitoria ternatea, Coccinia grandis, Curcuma singularis, Kaempferia marginata, Leucaena leucocephala, Lygodium flexuosum, and Vietnamosasa pusilla, underscoring their importance as nutrient-rich greens or flavorful components in traditional diets. Dioscorea pierrei serves as a key source of carbohydrates, highlighting its role as a dietary staple, while Dioscorea hispida is utilized in dessert preparation, likely due to its distinctive flavor and texture when properly processed.

In addition, some species serve dual culinary functions as both vegetables and seasoning agents. These include Cratoxylum cochinchinense, C. formosum subsp. formosum, and C. formosum subsp. pruniflorum, which are likely used to enhance both the flavor and nutritional content of meals. Meanwhile, Spondias pinnata, Tiliacora triandra, and Urceola polymorpha are specifically recognized for their roles as seasoning agents, contributing strong or unique flavors to traditional dishes. Collectively, these plants reflect the depth of ethnobotanical knowledge and the diverse culinary applications of regional flora.

The edible parts of Senna siamea are primarily its young leaves and tender shoots, which are preferred due to their relatively mild bitterness and softer texture compared to mature foliage. The preparation process involves selecting the young parts of the plant, followed by thorough washing with clean water two to three times to remove dirt and possible contaminants. To mitigate the natural bitterness, the leaves are boiled in vigorously boiling water for approximately 7 to 10 min. The boiling water is then discarded, and the leaves may be rinsed or blanched again if residual bitterness remains. After proper preparation, the leaves are commonly used in traditional Northeastern Thai (Isan) cuisine, particularly in Kaeng Phak Khilek, a local-style bitter leaf soup made with fermented fish (Pla Ra), herbs, and spices.

The leaves of Cissampelos pareira contain a significant amount of natural pectin, a polysaccharide compound that exhibits the ability to form a gel when in contact with water and left at room temperature. Upon crushing the leaves and mixing them with water, followed by filtration to remove the solid material, the resulting liquid is allowed to settle, leading to the natural formation of a gel-like consistency. This intrinsic property of the leaves can be effectively utilized in the preparation of traditional culinary dishes, such as Larb (a northeastern Thai dish), by incorporating the gel as a key ingredient to enhance texture. The use of this natural gel not only contributes to the dish’s sensory characteristics but also represents an innovative approach to utilizing local plant resources in a sustainable manner.

3.2.4. Plants Used as Household Furnishings

Within the context of household furnishings, several plant species are traditionally used, with a focus on durable woods sourced from their stems. These plants span multiple families, with the Fabaceae and Lythraceae families being the most represented (Table 1 and Figure 7). The Fabaceae family comprises three species, including Peltophorum dasyrhachis, Pterocarpus macrocarpus, and Xylia xylocarpa, all valued for their strong and resilient wood, making them ideal for furniture construction. The Lythraceae family adds one species, Lagerstroemia balansae, also prized for its sturdy wood, suitable for creating durable household furnishings. In total, four species provide materials for household furnishings. These species belong to two families: Fabaceae and Lythraceae. The stem is the exclusively used plant part, accounting for 100% of utilization (Figure 5). This highlights the importance of these plant species in providing essential materials for crafting robust and long-lasting furniture and home decor. The selective use of stems for their strength and versatility underscores their central role in traditional household furnishing practices.

3.2.5. Plants Used as Medicinal Plants

The study identified a total of 33 medicinal plant species distributed across 31 genera and 20 families (Table 1 and Figure 8), indicating a rich diversity of plant-based medicinal resources. Among these, the Fabaceae family was the most represented, contributing four species, followed by Apocynaceae, Asteraceae, and Rutaceae, each with three species. Several families, including Anacardiaceae, Ebenaceae, Malvaceae, and Vitaceae, each contained two species, while the remaining twelve families were represented by a single species each.

Analysis of the plant parts used for medicinal purposes revealed that the root was the most commonly utilized part, accounting for 32.84% of all reported uses (Figure 9). This was followed by the leaves (20.90%) and bark (19.40%), indicating a strong preference for underground and woody plant components in traditional preparations. The whole plant was used in 10.45% of cases, suggesting a holistic approach in some remedies.

Less frequently used parts included vines (5.97%), stems (4.48%), fruits (1.49%), heartwood (1.49%), seeds (1.49%), and tubers (1.49%).

3.2.6. Plants Used as Ornamental

A total of 19 plant species are traditionally cultivated or maintained for decorative purposes, showcasing the aesthetic and cultural importance of flora in enhancing living spaces and landscapes. These species span 12 botanical families and 19 genera, indicating a high level of biodiversity associated with ornamental horticulture (Table 1 and Figure 9).

The Rubiaceae family stands out with the highest representation, comprising eight species, suggesting its popularity for ornamental purposes—likely due to its attractive flowers, foliage, or growth form. Each of the remaining families—Amaryllidaceae, Annonaceae, Apocynaceae, Araceae, Bignoniaceae, Convolvulaceae, Dipterocarpaceae, Ebenaceae, Lythraceae, Melastomataceae, and Moraceae—is represented by a single species, reflecting a broad yet balanced diversity across plant lineages (Table 1 and Figure 8).

In all recorded cases, the whole plant is used, accounting for 100% of the ornamental application (Figure 8). This comprehensive use emphasizes the importance of the plant’s overall appearance—encompassing its flowers, foliage, form, and sometimes even fragrance—in contributing to its ornamental value. Such usage reflects a holistic appreciation of plant aesthetics in traditional and contemporary decorative practices, where beauty, form, and visual harmony are key elements of plant selection.

3.2.7. Plants Used for Other Purposes

In the context of other traditional purposes, a total of 10 plant species are utilized, reflecting a diverse application of flora beyond commonly categorized uses such as food, medicine, or ornamentation. These species are distributed across 10 botanical families and 10 genera, with each family contributing one species, showcasing a wide range of functional traits across different plant lineages (Table 1 and Figure 10).

The families represented include Cyperaceae, Dipterocarpaceae, Fabaceae, Loranthaceae, Malvaceae, Melastomataceae, Poaceae, Rhamnaceae, Rubiaceae, and Rutaceae. Regarding plant parts, the stem is the most frequently used component, accounting for 41.66% of all recorded uses. This is followed by the leaves at 25.00%. Both the bark and fruit are used equally, each representing 16.67% of the total usage (Figure 9).

A notable example is Actinoscirpus grossus, whose leaves are woven into mats, showcasing its value in traditional craft and household utility. Bombax anceps provides fibers from its fruit, which are used as stuffing for pillows and mattresses, reflecting its role in domestic comfort.

Catanuregam tomentosa stands out for its peel, which is used in washing clothes, body cleansing, and hair care, indicating its traditional function as a natural cleanser. Both Dendrophthoe pentandra and Dipterocarpus obtusifolius are important firewood sources, highlighting their significance in daily energy needs.

Imperata cylindrica is traditionally valued for its leaves, which serve multiple purposes including roofing material and the creation of holy water sprinklers, linking it to both practical and ritualistic roles.

Memecylon edule exhibits multifunctional use: its leaves, when mixed with chili and dried, help preserve chili and deter pests, while its stems are made into lye for soaking silk and cotton, aiding in dye extraction, especially yellow dye.

Naringi crenulata is utilized for cosmetic purposes, with its stem ground into powder and applied to beautify the skin. Meanwhile, Pterocarpus macrocarpus and Ziziphus cambodiana are significant in textile processing, with the bark of both species used for dyeing cloth, and the trunk of P. macrocarpus also used to tan leather.

3.3. Use Value (UV)

A total of 110 plant species were evaluated for their traditional use values (UVs), revealing considerable variation in their perceived importance within the local community. The Use Value (UV) ranged from 0.033 to 0.867, reflecting the frequency and diversity of each species’ application in daily life.

Among all species, Spondias pinnata exhibited the highest UV (0.867), indicating its significant role in traditional practices, likely due to its multipurpose use in food and seasoning. This was followed closely by Coccinia grandis and Curcuma singularis, both with a UV of 0.833, highlighting their high importance as edible and medicinal plants.

Other notable species with relatively high UVs include Azadirachta indica (0.667), Amorphophallus brevispathus and Tiliacora triandra (0.633), and Cissampelos pareira and Kaempferia marginata (0.600). These plants are commonly utilized for culinary, medicinal, and cosmetic purposes, underscoring their versatility and cultural significance.

A total of 20 species had UVs between 0.3 and 0.5, suggesting moderate utility in specific domains, such as fiber production, dyeing, or as secondary food sources. A significant portion of species (over 70%) had UVs below 0.2, indicating either limited use, declining traditional knowledge, or highly specialized applications.

3.4. Informant Consensus Factor (F_ic)

The Informant Consensus Factor (F_ic) was calculated to assess the level of agreement among informants on the use of medicinal plants for various ailment categories in the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest community. The F_ic values ranged from 0.72 to 0.81, indicating a generally high level of consensus across all categories (

Table 2. Informant consensus factor (F_ic) of medicinal plants used by Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest community.

Group of Ailments	Number of Use Report	Number of Taxa	Fic
Endocrine system	5	2	0.75
Gastro-intestinal system	47	14	0.72
Infections	67	19	0.73
Musculoskeletal and joint diseases	6	2	0.80
Nutrition and blood	16	5	0.73
Obstetrics, gynaecology and urinary-tract disorders	22	5	0.81
Respiratory system	24	6	0.78
Skin	32	9	0.74

).

The highest Fic value was recorded for obstetrics, gynaecology, and urinary-tract disorders (F_ic = 0.81) based on 22 use reports and five plant taxa, suggesting a strong agreement among informants regarding plant use for these conditions. This was followed by musculoskeletal and joint diseases (F_ic = 0.80) and respiratory system disorders (F_ic = 0.78), which also exhibited high levels of informant agreement.

In contrast, the gastro-intestinal system had the lowest F_ic value (0.72), despite having a relatively high number of use reports (47) and 14 taxa, indicating a more diverse range of plants being used and less agreement among informants.

The Fic values for other ailment categories, including infections (0.73), nutrition and blood-related disorders (0.73), skin diseases (0.74), and endocrine system disorders (0.75), also reflected moderate to high consensus among the community members.

3.5. Fidelity Level (FL)

The analysis of Fidelity Level (FL) among the documented plant species provides insight into the degree of consensus among informants regarding the use of specific plants for treating particular ailments. FL is a valuable quantitative measure in ethnobotanical studies, reflecting the cultural specificity and perceived efficacy of a plant species in relation to a given therapeutic use.

Several plant species in the present study demonstrated a Fidelity Level of 100%, indicating unanimous agreement among informants on their application for specific health conditions. For instance, the bark of Dipterocarpus intricatus was exclusively used to relieve joint pain, the stem of Erythrophleum succirubrum was consistently employed in the treatment of skin diseases, and the whole plant of Floscopa scandens was uniformly used as a postpartum tonic. Similarly, Hymenopyramis parvifolia bark was specifically utilized for treating kidney disease, while both Senegalia comosa and Tephrosia vestita exhibited absolute fidelity in their application for abscess treatment. These findings suggest a strong cultural consensus and point toward the therapeutic significance of these species within the community’s traditional knowledge system.

Species exhibiting high FL values (>80%) further reinforce this pattern of specialized medicinal use. The bark of Buchanania siamensis (FL = 83.33%) was predominantly used in the treatment of herpes infections, while the root of Salacia chinensis (FL = 80.00%) was associated with menstrual health. Similarly, the bark of Smilax prolifera was reported with high fidelity (FL = 80.00%) for use as a general tonic, suggesting its perceived value in supporting overall health and vitality.

In contrast, moderate FL values (50%–80.00%) were observed in a range of species with documented multipurpose use. For example, Diospyros filipendula was used to treat stomach aches (FL = 60.00%), Micromelum minutum for asthma (FL = 66.67%), and Ochna integerrima for fever management (FL = 57.14%). These values reflect a significant level of agreement among informants, while also indicating a broader range of therapeutic applications.

Plants with lower FL values (<50%) tended to be associated with a wider spectrum of uses, resulting in a dilution of consensus for any one specific ailment. Examples include Albizia lebbeck, which was cited for the treatment of both ringworm and diarrhea, and Stemona tuberosa, reported for use in treating both parasitic infections and hemorrhoids. Such patterns suggest either a broader ethnomedical application of these species or regional variability in traditional practices.

A comprehensive summary of the documented plant species, including their used parts, preparation methods, modes of uses, associated ailments, corresponding ailment groups, and calculated Fidelity Levels (FLs), is presented in Table S1.

3.6. Ecological Study: Diversity of Tree Species in Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest

The survey conducted in the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest in Kantarawichai District, Maha Sarakham Province, identified a total of 48 tree plant species, representing a broad diversity of plant families (Table 1, Tables S2 and S3 and Figure 11). The Fabaceae family was the most abundant, comprising nine species, followed by Rubiaceae with five species and Anacardiaceae and Dipterocarpaceae, each with four species. Ebenaceae contributed three species. Other families, including Annonaceae, Hypericaceae, Malvaceae, Meliaceae, and Rhamnaceae, were each represented by two species. In contrast, several families were represented by a single species, such as Apocynaceae, Bignoniaceae, Burseraceae, Celastraceae, Euphorbiaceae, Lamiaceae, Lythraceae, Melastomataceae, Moraceae, Ochnaceae, Olacaceae, Phyllanthaceae, and Rutaceae.

3.6.1. Relative Density (RD%) of Tree Species

Relative Density (RD) represents the proportion of individuals of a particular species in relation to the total number of individuals of all species. Among the 48 species recorded in Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest, Erythrophleum succirubrum exhibited the highest RD at 29.89%, followed by Sindora siamensis (10.57%), Lagerstroemia balansae (7.41%), Pentacme siamensis (6.56%), and Pterocarpus macrocarpus (5.47%). These five species collectively accounted for approximately 60% of the total relative density, indicating their numerical dominance in the forest stand. In contrast, nine species showed an RD of only 0.12%, highlighting the presence of many rare or sparsely distributed tree species (Table S2).

3.6.2. Relative Dominance (RDo%) of Tree Species

Relative Dominance (RDo) is a measure of the basal area occupied by each species, reflecting their spatial influence in the forest. The species with the highest RDo was Erythrophleum succirubrum at 21.41%, followed by Pterocarpus macrocarpus (15.36%), Sindora siamensis (11.57%), Pentacme siamensis (8.42%), and Xylia xylocarpa (4.86%). These species possess significant structural roles in the forest due to their large size and canopy cover. Numerous species contributed less than 0.50% to the total dominance (Table S2).

3.6.3. Relative Frequency (RF%) of Tree Species

Relative Frequency (RF) indicates how widely a species is distributed throughout the sampled area. The most frequent species, occurring in all sample plots, were Erythrophleum succirubrum, Lannea coromandelica, Morinda pubescens, Pentacme siamensis, Pterocarpus macrocarpus, and Sindora siamensis, each with an RF of 4.50%. Other frequently encountered species included Azadirachta indica and Mitragyna diversifolia (RF = 3.60%). On the other hand, many species such as Albizia lebbeck, Chukrasia tabularis, and Millingtonia hortensis had an RF of only 0.90%, indicating restricted distributions (Table S2).

3.6.4. Importance Value Index (IVI) of Tree Species

The Importance Value Index (IVI), a composite metric derived from Relative Density (RD), Relative Dominance (RDo), and Relative Frequency (RF), serves as a key indicator of the ecological significance of each species within a forest ecosystem. In this study, the five species with the highest IVI scores were Erythrophleum succirubrum (55.80), Sindora siamensis (26.64), Pterocarpus macrocarpus (25.33), Pentacme siamensis (19.48), and Xylia xylocarpa (13.69). These species were found to be dominant both in terms of their structural presence and numerical abundance, thereby playing crucial roles in shaping forest composition and influencing ecological processes. In contrast, species such as Memecylon edule, Millingtonia hortensis, and Wrightia religiosa, which recorded low IVI values, were identified as having relatively minor ecological roles within the forest, indicating their limited distribution or abundance in the studied area (Table S2).

3.6.5. Species Diversity Index of Tree Species

The analysis of tree species diversity in the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest revealed a high degree of ecological richness, with a total of 48 recorded species and a Shannon–Wiener Diversity Index (H′) value of 2.7264, indicating moderate to high biodiversity within the forest community (Table S3). Dominant species such as Erythrophleum succirubrum (p_i = 0.2989), Sindora siamensis (p_i = 0.1057), and Lagerstroemia balansae (p_i = 0.0741) contributed significantly to the overall diversity and structure, both in terms of abundance and ecological influence. In contrast, a number of species, including Albizia lebbeck, Millingtonia hortensis, and Wrightia religiosa, had very low relative abundances (p_i = 0.0012), reflecting a limited role in the current forest composition. These findings underscore the uneven distribution of species and the dominance of a few key taxa in shaping forest dynamics.

3.7. Ecological Study: Diversity of Sapling Species in Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest

The species composition of the forest sapling layer was dominated by members of the Fabaceae family, which accounted for the highest number of species (eight), highlighting its ecological prominence and diversity in the area. This was followed by Dipterocarpaceae and Rubiaceae, each represented by four species. Families such as Anacardiaceae and Hypericaceae contributed three species each, while several others—including Annonaceae, Ebenaceae, Irvingiaceae, Malvaceae, Moraceae, Rhamnaceae, and Rutaceae—were represented by two species each. A diverse array of additional families, including Apocynaceae, Celastraceae, Euphorbiaceae, Lamiaceae, Lythraceae, Melastomataceae, Meliaceae, Ochnaceae, Olacaceae, Salicaceae, and Sapindaceae, were each represented by a single species, reflecting the overall floristic richness and taxonomic diversity within the sapling community (Table 1, Tables S4 and S5 and Figure 12).

3.7.1. Relative Density (RD%) of Sapling Species

Among the 47 sapling species found in the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest, Erythrophleum succirubrum exhibited the highest RD at 16.73%, followed by Microcos tomentosa (15.07%) and Lagerstroemia balansae (11.62%). Other species with considerable RD values included Sindora siamensis (9.07%) and Crotoxylum formosum subsp. pruniflorum (7.79%). Most other species recorded RD values below 5%, with 21 species showing values below 0.50%, indicating a relatively low density and limited distribution across the sampling plots (Table S4).

3.7.2. Relative Dominance (RDo%) of Sapling Species

In terms of Relative Dominance (RDo), Erythrophleum succirubrum emerged as the most dominant species, with an RDo of 26.26%, highlighting its substantial biomass contribution despite being present primarily in the sapling stage. It was followed by Lagerstroemia balansae (17.84%), Sindora siamensis (8.89%), Lannea coromandelica (8.10%), and Microcos tomentosa (6.60%). Several other species, including Xylia xylocarpa, Hymenopyramis parvifolia, and Memecylon edule, also exhibited notable levels of dominance. However, the majority of species recorded very low RDo values (less than 1%), indicating either smaller individual sizes or restricted spatial distribution within the forest understory (Table S4).

3.7.3. Relative Frequency (RF%) of Sapling Species

The highest RF was recorded by five species: Diospyros filipendula, Erythrophleum succirubrum, Lannea coromandelica, Olax scandens, and Sindora siamensis, each with an RF of 4.85%. Lagerstroemia balansae, Microcos tomentosa, Salacia chinensis, and Xylopia vielana followed with RF values of 3.88%. Most other species exhibited RF values below 2%, indicating less widespread distribution among plots (Table S4).

3.7.4. Importance Value Index (IVI) of Sapling Species

Based on the Importance Value Index (IVI), Erythrophleum succirubrum was identified as the most ecologically significant sapling species, with an IVI of 47.85. It was followed by Lagerstroemia balansae (33.35), Microcos tomentosa (25.55), Sindora siamensis (22.81), and Lannea coromandelica (15.25). These species demonstrated a strong combination of high density, dominance, and frequency, underscoring their critical roles in the forest’s regeneration layer. In contrast, species such as Irvingia malayana, Naringi crenulata, and Micromelum minutum exhibited IVI values near or below 1.1, indicating a limited ecological presence within the sapling stratum (Table S4).

3.7.5. Species Diversity Index of Sapling Species

The sapling layer of the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest exhibited a slightly higher species diversity compared to the mature tree layer, with a Shannon–Wiener Diversity Index (H′) of 2.8567, reflecting a rich and structurally dynamic regeneration layer (Table S5). Notably, Erythrophleum succirubrum (p_i = 0.1673), Microcos tomentosa (p_i = 0.1507), and Lagerstroemia balansae (p_i = 0.1162) were the most abundant sapling species, contributing significantly to the regeneration dynamics and future forest structure. Other species such as Sindora siamensis (p_i = 0.0907) and Crotoxylum formosum subsp. pruniflorum (p_i = 0.0779) also played prominent roles in sapling composition. In contrast, several species including Albizia lebbeck, Azadirachta indica, and Wrightia religiosa had very low relative abundances (p_i = 0.0013–0.0026), indicating limited regeneration success or specialized habitat requirements. These results highlight a regeneration layer dominated by a few ecologically influential species while maintaining overall floristic diversity.

4. Discussion

The floristic survey conducted in the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest revealed a high degree of plant diversity, with 110 species belonging to 42 botanical families. This level of diversity reflects the ecological richness and heterogeneity of the forest, positioning it as an important biodiversity reservoir in the region. The predominance of the Fabaceae family, comprising 13 species, is consistent with previous studies in tropical and subtropical forests, where legumes often dominate due to their nitrogen-fixing capabilities and ecological adaptability [4,5,13,27].

The notable presence of families such as Rubiaceae, Malvaceae, Annonaceae, and Apocynaceae—many of which include species of ecological and ethnobotanical importance—demonstrates a complex forest structure that supports a wide range of plant growth forms, from shrubs and climbers to canopy trees [28]. This taxonomic richness not only contributes to ecosystem functionality but also supports traditional human uses, including food, medicine, and materials, as evidenced by subsequent ethnobotanical findings [29].

The occurrence of native species at 85.45% further highlights the relatively undisturbed nature of the forest. Such high proportions of native flora suggest a well-preserved habitat, minimally impacted by invasive species or extensive anthropogenic activity. These native species are likely adapted to local climatic and edaphic conditions, contributing to the long-term ecological stability of the area [30].

In contrast, introduced species (11.82%)—though fewer—indicate some degree of ecological or agricultural integration, possibly as a result of past land-use practices or intentional introductions for food or ornamental purposes. While a limited number of introduced species may not significantly threaten local biodiversity, their monitoring is essential to prevent potential invasions or displacement of endemic flora [31].

Of particular significance is the presence of three endemic species (2.73%), which, although a small proportion, are critical in terms of conservation value. Endemics are typically more vulnerable to habitat disturbance and climate change due to their restricted ranges [32]. Their survival depends heavily on localized conservation efforts, making the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest a priority area for biodiversity protection and ecological research.

To support effective conservation planning, it is essential to assess the conservation status of the native species within the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest. While their current dominance suggests a stable ecosystem, the absence of formal evaluations may obscure underlying vulnerabilities, such as declining population trends, habitat specificity, or sensitivity to environmental change. Identifying species at risk can help prioritize conservation actions, allocate resources more efficiently, and inform habitat management strategies. Moreover, such assessments are crucial for aligning local conservation efforts with national and global biodiversity goals, including those outlined by the IUCN Red List [33] and the Convention on Biological Diversity [34]. Proactive monitoring and classification of these native species will ensure the long-term preservation of the forest’s ecological integrity and its role as a refuge for regional biodiversity.

The diverse representation of plant families, including those with only one species each (e.g., Amaryllidaceae, Bignoniaceae, Euphorbiaceae), reflects the intricate balance of ecological niches within the forest. This “long tail” distribution pattern—where many families are represented by a single or few species—is a hallmark of biodiverse tropical ecosystems and underscores the importance of conserving even seemingly rare taxa, which may play keystone roles in specific microhabitats or cultural contexts [35].

The identification of 11 species used as animal fodder across six botanical families reflects the integration of local ecological knowledge and subsistence practices within the Khanthararat community. The dominance of Asteraceae, known for its fast-growing and herbaceous members, aligns with similar findings in rural areas where readily available weedy species are often favored for feeding livestock [36,37,38]. The prevalence of whole plant usage (100%) suggests a practical approach rooted in ease of harvest and the maximization of biomass, particularly for herbaceous and ground-cover species.

This ethnobotanical practice demonstrates a sustainable model of utilizing naturally occurring species within the forest ecosystem to support small-scale livestock management, reducing reliance on cultivated or commercial feed [39]. Moreover, the incorporation of both monocot and dicot species reflects a broad understanding of palatability, seasonal availability, and animal preference among local residents.

The consistent use of these species also points to an evolving body of traditional ecological knowledge, passed through generations and adapted to local environmental conditions [3]. Future studies could explore the nutritional value of these species to validate and potentially enhance local animal husbandry practices [11,12,40,41].

The use of six tree species with high-density wood for construction reflects a strong alignment between traditional resource selection and the mechanical properties of local timbers [42,43]. The prominence of Dipterocarpaceae and Fabaceae, both known for producing durable hardwoods, mirrors regional patterns in Southeast Asia, where such species have long been favored for house building, toolmaking, and structural applications [44].

The exclusive reliance on stem wood (100%) highlights the prioritization of strength and longevity in construction materials. This selective harvesting underscores a deeply rooted knowledge system that discerns specific growth forms, wood densities, and aging processes for optimized utility [45].

Species such as Chukrasia tabularis and Sindora siamensis are also known for their resistance to pests and decay [46,47], suggesting an ecological understanding of durability, particularly in tropical monsoon environments. The continued reliance on these species also implies that the forest remains a reliable reservoir of high-value timber—a status that should inform conservation and sustainable harvesting strategies [48].

The documentation of 34 wild edible species reveals the forest’s essential role as a traditional food source and a repository of nutritional diversity. The predominance of fruits (48.65%) as the most consumed plant part reflects seasonal harvesting cycles and the community’s close monitoring of phenological patterns [11,12,13,41,49].

The wide range of edible categories—including raw fruits, cooked vegetables, carbohydrate-rich tubers, and flavoring agents—indicates a holistic use of local flora in dietary practices. The inclusion of both native and introduced species, such as Ziziphus mauritiana and Leucaena leucocephala, further exemplifies the adaptive nature of local food systems that incorporate both long-standing traditions and more recent plant introductions [50].

Culinary techniques, such as boiling young Senna siamea leaves or extracting natural pectin from Cissampelos pareira, showcase the community’s deep biochemical understanding of plant properties. These methods reveal how local knowledge addresses issues of toxicity, bitterness, and texture enhancement, contributing to both food safety and gastronomic heritage [51].

In this context, the forest does not merely serve as a source of sustenance, but as a living food archive, preserving flavors, nutrition, and cultural identity [52].

The reliance on four durable wood species for household furnishings highlights the community’s emphasis on quality, resilience, and aesthetic form in crafting furniture and domestic objects. The repeated use of Fabaceae species, known for their density and fine grain (e.g., Xylia xylocarpa, Pterocarpus macrocarpus), underscores the intersection of functional durability and artisanal tradition [53].

All species utilized in this category were harvested for their stems (100%), consistent with practices found in other parts of region where heavy-duty wood is a prerequisite for furniture making [54,55]. The inclusion of Lagerstroemia balansae from Lythraceae also reflects ecological versatility in selecting species beyond the typical hardwood families [56].

This form of utilization supports not only practical household needs but also traditional woodworking knowledge that contributes to local craftsmanship, identity, and microeconomies.

The identification of 33 medicinal species across 20 families highlights the richness of traditional pharmacopoeia in the Khanthararat community. The preference for underground parts—roots (32.84%), bark (19.40%), and leaves (20.90%)—mirrors patterns seen in global ethnobotanical practices, where such tissues are often believed to contain concentrated bioactive compounds [12,13,49].

The high species diversity suggests a sophisticated system of diagnostic knowledge, dosage regulation, and remedy preparation rooted in both empirical observation and cultural belief. The prominence of families like Fabaceae and Apocynaceae is notable, as these are globally known for containing secondary metabolites such as alkaloids, tannins, and flavonoids [57,58].

This knowledge is likely transmitted through oral traditions and apprenticeship, emphasizing the urgency of documentation before such intangible heritage is lost to modernization. Future biochemical analyses could help validate local remedies and explore potential phytotherapeutic applications [11,12,41].

The use of 19 species for ornamental purposes—particularly the dominance of Rubiaceae—demonstrates a strong local aesthetic sensibility tied to floral morphology, fragrance, and plant architecture. The fact that whole plants are used exclusively (100%) underscores the importance of holistic visual impact in home gardens, community spaces, and ceremonial settings [11,12,41].

Such practices reflect not only visual preferences but also deeper symbolic values, where plants are chosen for attributes such as color, form, or even spiritual significance. The ornamental use of native species also contributes to ex situ conservation, ensuring that rare or seasonal plants are preserved in home environments [59].

This category of use supports the integration of biodiversity into daily life, merging ecological function with cultural expression.

The diverse range of 10 multifunctional species highlights the innovative and utilitarian mindset of the Khanthararat community. From household crafts (e.g., Actinoscirpus grossus mats) to textile dyeing (Pterocarpus macrocarpus bark), these practices reveal a high level of biocultural ingenuity [60,61].

The notable use of non-edible parts—such as fruit fibers, bark, and peel—illustrates how even less conspicuous plant parts are harnessed for their functional properties. For example, the cleansing properties of Catanuregam tomentosa and the pest-repellent use of Memecylon edule reflect localized biochemical knowledge often absent from written records.

In many cases, these uses are tied to seasonal cycles or cultural rituals, reinforcing the idea that traditional ecological knowledge is both practical and symbolic in nature. Conservation strategies must consider not only the ecological status of such species but also the cultural processes that sustain their use [62].

The analysis of Use Value (UV) provides an insightful measure of the relative importance and cultural salience of each plant species within the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest community. The wide range of UVs—from 0.033 to 0.867—illustrates the heterogeneity in how local flora is utilized, with a few multipurpose species holding significant ethnobotanical relevance while many others fulfill more specialized or marginal roles [5,13].

Spondias pinnata, the species with the highest UV (0.867), underscores its multifaceted utility—particularly in culinary and seasoning contexts. This aligns with ethnobotanical studies from other regions, where S. pinnata is similarly valued for its edibility, medicinal properties, and cultural familiarity [63]. Likewise, Coccinia grandis and Curcuma singularis (UV = 0.833) reflect dual-use importance as food and medicine, demonstrating how the boundaries between dietary and therapeutic categories often blur in traditional knowledge systems [11,12,41].

Species such as Azadirachta indica, Tiliacora triandra, and Cissampelos pareira further exemplify the dynamic integration of plants into daily life—used in dietary preparations, traditional medicine, and even cosmetic or hygienic applications. The lower UV values observed in over 70% of species suggest either limited contemporary use or specialized ethnobotanical functions [4]. This pattern may reflect shifts in cultural practices, knowledge erosion, or seasonal availability, warranting further socio-ecological investigation [14].

The high values of the Informant Consensus Factor (F_ic), ranging from 0.72 to 0.81, indicate a strong level of agreement among community members regarding the therapeutic use of local flora. The highest F_ic was recorded for obstetrics, gynecology, and urinary tract disorders (0.81), suggesting a shared and culturally embedded repertoire of plant-based remedies for female health and reproductive issues—an area often preserved and transmitted through intergenerational female networks.

Similarly, musculoskeletal (0.80) and respiratory (0.78) ailments showed high levels of consensus, potentially due to the visibility and frequency of these health issues, and the efficacy of local treatments. The relatively lower F_ic for the gastrointestinal system (0.72)—despite its high number of use reports (47)—suggests that while digestive ailments are common, a broader diversity of plant-based treatments is employed, possibly influenced by individual preference, availability, or localized knowledge variations.

These findings support the reliability of traditional medicinal knowledge and highlight ailment categories with particularly robust ethnomedical consensus, offering promising leads for pharmacological research [64,65].

The Fidelity Level (FL) analysis offers a nuanced view of the specificity and perceived efficacy of plant species in treating particular ailments. The identification of species with 100% FL, such as Dipterocarpus intricatus for joint pain and Floscopa scandens for postpartum tonic use, underscores a remarkable unanimity in traditional practices. Such absolute fidelity suggests deep-rooted cultural validation and possibly long-term empirical testing of these remedies within the community [66].

Species with high FL values (>80%), such as Buchanania siamensis (herpes) and Salacia chinensis (menstrual health), indicate a strong yet slightly more flexible association with specific health conditions. These plants may serve as candidates for focused phytochemical or pharmacological studies due to the high degree of cultural endorsement [67].

Conversely, plants with moderate to low FL values (<80%) often fulfill broader ethnomedical roles. For instance, Albizia lebbeck and Stemona tuberosa are used for multiple unrelated conditions, reflecting either generalist applications or regional variations in therapeutic knowledge. These findings highlight the dual role of certain plants in serving both as specialized remedies and general health supports, depending on context [68].

Importantly, the diversity in FL values across the dataset points to a rich yet stratified system of plant use where some species serve as “cultural keystone medicines” while others maintain niche or evolving roles. This underscores the importance of preserving both dominant and marginal ethnobotanical knowledge to support biocultural conservation [13].

The ecological assessment of the mature tree layer in the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest revealed a high degree of taxonomic diversity, with 48 tree species across numerous families. The dominance of Fabaceae, Rubiaceae, and Dipterocarpaceae aligns with previous studies in similar tropical deciduous and mixed dipterocarp forests of Northeast Thailand, reflecting their ecological adaptability and widespread distribution [69].

Erythrophleum succirubrum emerged as the most ecologically dominant species, consistently ranking highest in Relative Density (RD), Relative Dominance (RDo), Relative Frequency (RF), and Importance Value Index (IVI). This suggests its pivotal role in both forest composition and function, potentially due to its large biomass, broad spatial distribution, and competitive regeneration ability [70]. Its co-dominance with species such as Sindora siamensis, Pterocarpus macrocarpus, and Pentacme siamensis further emphasizes the structural stratification and dominance hierarchy typical of mature deciduous forests in this region [71]. The low dominance values of many species indicate a stratified canopy structure, a pattern commonly observed in species-rich tropical forests. Such stratification may reflect niche partitioning and differential light requirements among coexisting species, contributing to high diversity and structural complexity in the forest.

The Shannon–Wiener Diversity Index (H′ = 2.7264) indicates a moderate to high level of biodiversity, despite the numerical and spatial dominance of a few keystone species. The presence of rare and sparsely distributed taxa, such as Millingtonia hortensis and Wrightia religiosa, adds to the forest’s overall floristic richness and highlights the importance of conserving both dominant and less common species to maintain ecological resilience [72].

The sapling layer exhibited slightly higher species diversity (H′ = 2.8567) than the mature tree layer, suggesting active forest regeneration and recruitment potential. This is an encouraging indicator of ecosystem vitality, particularly in a community-managed forest context where anthropogenic pressures might otherwise hinder natural regeneration [73].

Fabaceae remained the most species-rich family among saplings, consistent with patterns observed in the tree layer, highlighting this family’s ecological plasticity and effective reproductive strategies [74]. Erythrophleum succirubrum, again, dominated all ecological metrics in the sapling stratum (RD, RDo, RF, IVI), confirming its competitive success across life stages and its likely future dominance in forest structure [75].

Other species, such as Microcos tomentosa and Lagerstroemia balansae, also demonstrated significant regeneration presence, which may reflect either favorable microhabitat conditions or resilience to environmental disturbance. In contrast, low IVI scores for species like Irvingia malayana and Micromelum minutum suggest limited recruitment, which could be due to seed predation, poor dispersal, or specific habitat dependencies [76].

The overall diversity and species turnover between the mature tree and sapling layers emphasize a dynamic forest structure with ongoing ecological succession. The moderate overlap between dominant sapling and adult species suggests a balance between canopy persistence and recruitment, which is vital for long-term forest stability.

The findings from both mature and regenerating layers demonstrate that the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest harbors a rich and stratified biodiversity, with a small number of species exerting major ecological influence. This structure suggests the presence of ecological keystone species, whose conservation is critical for maintaining forest integrity.

Moreover, the high species richness and active sapling recruitment underscore the value of community-managed forest models in sustaining biodiversity. However, the disparity between dominant and rare species also indicates a need for targeted conservation of less abundant taxa, especially those with low IVI and frequency scores, which may be vulnerable to stochastic events or habitat fragmentation.

Monitoring these patterns over time will be essential to evaluate the long-term sustainability of forest use and regeneration practices. Forest enrichment strategies, such as the assisted propagation of underrepresented species, could be integrated into community forest management plans to ensure species heterogeneity and ecosystem function are maintained.

5. Conclusions

The Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest represents a vital reservoir of both ecological and cultural biodiversity. With 110 plant species across 42 families, the forest showcases rich taxonomic diversity and structural complexity, underscored by the dominance of ecologically significant families such as Fabaceae and Dipterocarpaceae. The high proportion of native species and active sapling regeneration reflect a relatively undisturbed ecosystem with strong regenerative capacity. Equally important is the forest’s role as a living repository of traditional knowledge, where local communities engage with plant resources for food, medicine, fodder, construction, and cultural practices. The ethnobotanical insights—highlighted by high Use Values and Informant Consensus Factors—reveal a deeply rooted, dynamic knowledge system that adapts to both ecological and socio-cultural needs. Together, these findings emphasize the dual importance of conserving both biological and cultural dimensions of forest ecosystems. Future management strategies must therefore integrate ecological monitoring with the protection and revitalization of traditional ecological knowledge. This will ensure that the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest continues to thrive as a sustainable landscape, supporting biodiversity, livelihoods, and cultural identity for generations to come.