Next Article in Journal
The Impact of Green Perception on Pro-Greenspace Behavior of Urban Residents in Megacities: Shaped by “Good Citizen” Image
Previous Article in Journal
Vibration Control of Forestry Storage Ventilation Fans Through Structural Parameter Optimization Considering Substructure Uncertainty
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

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

by
Piyaporn Saensouk
1,2,
Surapon Saensouk
1,3,*,
Thawatphong Boonma
1,3,4,
Kasan Hanchana
1,2,
Sarayut Rakarcha
5,
Charun Maknoi
6,
Khamfa Chanthavongsa
7 and
Tammanoon Jitpromma
1,3
1
Diversity of Family Zingiberaceae and Vascular Plant for Its Applications Research Unit, Mahasarakham University, Maha Sarakham 44150, Thailand
2
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Mahasarakham University, Kantarawichai District, Maha Sarakham 44150, Thailand
3
Walai Rukhavej Botanical Research Institute, Mahasarakham University, Kantarawichai District, Maha Sarakham 44150, Thailand
4
Brio Botanical Research Garden, 53 M.5 Phikul-ok, Ban Na District, Nakhon Nayok 26110, Thailand
5
Queen Sirikit Botanic Garden, The Botanical Garden Organization, Chiang Mai 50180, Thailand
6
Romklao Botanic Garden, The Botanical Garden Organization, Phitsanulok 65170, Thailand
7
Department of Biology, Faculty of Natural Science, National University of Laos, Vientiane 7322, Laos
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2025, 16(6), 1012; https://doi.org/10.3390/f16061012
Submission received: 25 April 2025 / Revised: 12 June 2025 / Accepted: 16 June 2025 / Published: 17 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Forest Ecology and Management)

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:
UV = i U V is n s
In this formula, UV represents the total use value of the species, UVis is the use value assigned to the species, and ns refers to the number of informants who were interviewed about that species.
  • Informant consensus factor (Fic)
To assess the variability in the use of medicinal plants, the Informant Consensus Factor (Fic) is calculated using the following formula [22]:
F ic = n ur n t n ur   1
In this formula, nur represents the total number of use reports within a specific use category, and nt 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]:
FL = I u I p × 100
In this formula, Ip represents the number of informants who linked the plant to a specific ailment, while Iu 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
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.
RF % =   Frequency   of   a   species Total   frequency   of   all   the   species   × 100
  • Relative Density (RD%): The density of a species relative to the total density of all species.
R D % = D e n s i t y   o f   a n   i n d i v i d u a l   s p e c i e s T o t a l   d e n s i t y   o f   a l l   t h e   s p e c i e s × 100
  • Relative Dominance (RDo%): The basal area of a species relative to the total basal area of all species.
RDo % = Basal   area   of   a   species   Basal   area   of   all   species   × 100
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′ = −∑(Pi) (ln Pi)
where
  • Pi = proportion of individuals of species relative to the total number of individuals in the community.
Pi = S/N
  • 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 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 (Fic)

The Informant Consensus Factor (Fic) 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 Fic values ranged from 0.72 to 0.81, indicating a generally high level of consensus across all categories (Table 2).
The highest Fic value was recorded for obstetrics, gynaecology, and urinary-tract disorders (Fic = 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 (Fic = 0.80) and respiratory system disorders (Fic = 0.78), which also exhibited high levels of informant agreement.
In contrast, the gastro-intestinal system had the lowest Fic 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 (pi = 0.2989), Sindora siamensis (pi = 0.1057), and Lagerstroemia balansae (pi = 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 (pi = 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 (pi = 0.1673), Microcos tomentosa (pi = 0.1507), and Lagerstroemia balansae (pi = 0.1162) were the most abundant sapling species, contributing significantly to the regeneration dynamics and future forest structure. Other species such as Sindora siamensis (pi = 0.0907) and Crotoxylum formosum subsp. pruniflorum (pi = 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 (pi = 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 (Fic), 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 Fic 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 Fic 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.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/f16061012/s1: Table S1: Fidelity Level (FL) of medicinal plant species used by the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest Community; Table S2: Density (D), Relative Density (RD), Dominance (Do), Relative Dominance (RDo), Frequency (F), Relative Frequency (RF) and Importance Value Index (IVI) of tree plant species in Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest; Table S3: Species Diversity Index of tree plant species in Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest; Table S4: Density (D), Relative Density (RD), Dominance (Do), Relative Dominance (RDo), Frequency (F), Relative Frequency (RF) and Importance Value Index (IVI) of sapling plant species in Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest; Table S5: Species Diversity Index of sapling plant species in Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.S., S.S., T.B., K.H., S.R., C.M., K.C. and T.J.; methodology, P.S., S.S., T.B., K.H., S.R., C.M., K.C. and T.J.; software, T.B. and T.J.; validation, P.S., S.S., T.B., K.H., S.R., C.M., K.C. and T.J.; formal analysis, P.S., S.S., T.B., K.H., S.R., C.M., K.C. and T.J.; investigation, P.S., S.S., T.B., K.H., S.R., C.M., K.C. and T.J.; resources, S.S., T.B., K.H. and T.J.; data curation, S.S., K.H. and T.J.; writing—original draft preparation, T.B. and T.J.; writing—review and editing, P.S., S.S., T.B., K.H., S.R., C.M., K.C. and T.J.; visualization, T.B. and T.J.; supervision, P.S. and S.S.; project administration, P.S. and S.S.; funding acquisition, S.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financially supported by Mahasarakham University.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the local community of Kantarawichai District for sharing their ethnobotanical knowledge and supporting fieldwork in the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest. We are also grateful to the Walai Rukhavej Botanical Research Institute for academic guidance, laboratory facilities, and logistical support, and to the forest rangers and local staff for their field assistance. We would especially like to thank Phakhinai Chanthob and Phatcharee Banthao for their valuable help during our field trip. This research was supported by Mahasarakham University. We also appreciate the contributions of our research assistants and colleagues to species identification, data collection, and manuscript preparation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Schaal, B. Plants and people: Our shared history and future. Plants People Planet 2018, 1, 14–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Constant, N.L.; Tshisikhawe, M.P. Hierarchies of knowledge: Ethnobotanical knowledge, practices and beliefs of the Vhavenda in South Africa for biodiversity conservation. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2018, 14, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Rahayu, Y.Y.S.; Sujarwo, W.; Irsyam, A.S.D.; Dwiartama, A.; Rosleine, D. Exploring unconventional food plants used by local communities in a Rural Area of West Java, Indonesia: Ethnobotanical assessment, use trends, and potential for improved nutrition. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2024, 20, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Phatlamphu, N.; Saensouk, S.; Saensouk, P.; Jungsongduang, A. Ethnobotany of edible plants in Muang District, Kalasin Province, Thailand. Biodiversitas 2021, 22, 5425–5431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Numpulsuksant, W.; Saensouk, S.; Sanesouk, P. Diversity and ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants in Ban Hua Kua, Kae Dam District, Thailand. Biodiversitas 2021, 22, 4349–4357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Arjona-García, C.; Blancas, J.; Beltrán-Rodríguez, L.; López Binnqüist, C.; Colín Bahena, H.; Moreno-Calles, A.I.; Sierra-Huelsz, J.A.; López-Medellín, X. How does urbanization affect perceptions and traditional knowledge of medicinal plants? J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2021, 17, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rosero-Toro, J.H.; Romero-Duque, L.P.; Santos-Fita, D.; Ruan-Soto, F. Cultural significance of the flora of a tropical dry forest in the Doche Vereda (Villavieja, Huila, Colombia). J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2018, 14, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ramirez, C.R. Ethnobotany and the loss of traditional knowledge in the 21st century. Ethnobot. Res. Appl. 2007, 5, 245–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gonfa, N.; Tulu, D.; Hundera, K.; Raga, D. Ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants, its utilization, and conservation by indigenous people of Gera District, Ethiopia. Cogent Food Agric. 2020, 6, 1852716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kumar, A.; Kumar, S.; Komal; Ramchiary, N.; Singh, P. Role of traditional ethnobotanical knowledge and indigenous communities in achieving sustainable development goals. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Boonma, T.; Saensouk, S.; Saensouk, P. Biogeography, conservation status, and traditional uses of Zingiberaceae in Saraburi Province, Thailand, with Kaempferia chaveerachiae sp. nov. Horticulturae 2024, 10, 934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Jitpromma, T.; Saensouk, S.; Saensouk, P.; Boonma, T. Diversity, traditional uses, economic values, and conservation status of Zingiberaceae in Kalasin Province, Northeastern Thailand. Horticulturae 2025, 11, 247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Saensouk, P.; Saensouk, S.; Hein, K.Z.; Appamaraka, S.; Maknoi, C.; Souladeth, P.; Koompoot, K.; Sonthongphithak, P.; Boonma, T.; Jitpromma, T. Diversity, ethnobotany, and horticultural potential of local vegetables in Chai Chumphol Temple Community Market, Maha Sarakham Province, Thailand. Horticulturae 2025, 11, 243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Banda, L.O.L.; Banda, C.V.; Banda, J.T.; Singini, T. Preserving cultural heritage: A community-centric approach to safeguarding the Khulubvi Traditional Temple, Malawi. Heliyon 2024, 10, e37610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Panyadee, P.; Meunrew, J.; Balslev, H.; Inta, A. Ethnobotany and ecosystem services in a Tidal Forest in Thailand. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Phumthum, M.; Balslev, H.; Kantasrila, R.; Kaewsangsai, S.; Inta, A. Ethnomedicinal plant knowledge of the Karen in Thailand. Plants 2020, 9, 813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Inta, A.; Kampuansai, J.; Kutanan, W.; Srikummool, M.; Pongamornkul, W.; Srisanga, P.; Panyadee, P. Women’s wellness in the mountains: An exploration of medicinal plants among Tibeto-Burman Groups in Thailand. Heliyon 2023, 9, e17722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Thothela, S.N.S.; Kola, E.; Dalu, M.T.B.; Ndhlovu, P.T. Indigenous knowledge and utilization of Strychnos spinosa Lam. in Sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review of its medicinal, nutritional, and cultural significance. Diversity 2025, 17, 228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Reid, W.; Mooney, H.; Cropper, A.; Capistrano, D.; Carpenter, S.; Chopra, K. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  20. POWO. World Checklist of Selected Plant Families (WCSP). 2024. Available online: http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/ (accessed on 1 January 2025).
  21. Phillips, O.; Gentry, A.H.; Reynel, C.; Wilkin, P.; Galvez-Durand, B.C. Quantitative ethnobotany and Amazonian conservation. Conserv. Biol. 1994, 8, 225–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Heinrich, M.; Ankli, A.; Frei, B.; Weimann, C.; Sticher, O. Medicinal plants in Mexico: Healers’ consensus and cultural importance. Soc. Sci. Med. 1998, 47, 1859–1871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Friedman, J.; Yaniv, Z.; Dafni, A.; Palewitch, D. 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. 1986, 16, 275–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Stohlgren, T.J.; Chong, G.W.; Kalkhan, M.A.; Schell, L.D. Multiscale sampling of plant diversity: Effects of minimum mapping unit size. Ecol. Appl. 1997, 7, 1064–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zobel, D.D.; Jha, P.K.; Behan, M.J.; Yadav, U.K.R. A Practical Manual for Ecology; Ratna Book Distributors: Kathmandu, Nepal, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  26. Shannon, C.E.; Weiner, W. The Mathematical Theory of Communication; University of Illinois Press: Urbana, IL, USA, 1949. [Google Scholar]
  27. Aisor, N.; Prathepha, P.; Saensouk, S. Ethnobotanical study and utilization of plants in Khok Nhong Phok Forest, Kosum Phisai District, Northeastern Thailand. Biodiversitas 2021, 22, 4336–4348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Eisah, J.S.; Nyumah, F.; Johnny, J.; Charles, J.F. Ethnobotanical studies on the use of medicinal plants among forest fringe communities around the Kasewe Forest in Moyamba District, Southern Sierra Leone. Am. J. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 1989–2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Thorn, J.P.R.; Thornton, T.F.; Helfgott, A.; Willis, K.J. Indigenous uses of wild and tended plant biodiversity maintain ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes of the Terai Plains of Nepal. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2020, 16, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Maceda-Veiga, A.; Baselga, A.; Sousa, R.; Vilà, M.; Doadrio, I.; de Sostoa, A. Fine-scale determinants of conservation value of river reaches in a hotspot of Native and Non-Native Species Diversity. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 574, 455–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Vitousek, P.; D’Antonio, C.; Loope, L.; Rejmanek, M.; Westbrooks, R. Introduced species: A significant component of human-caused global change. N. Z. J. Ecol. 1996, 21, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  32. Nogué, S.; Rull, V.; Vegas-Vilarrúbia, T. Elevational gradients in the Neotropical Table Mountains: Patterns of endemism and implications for conservation. Divers. Distrib. 2013, 19, 676–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. IUCN. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria Version 16. 2024. Available online: https://nc.iucnredlist.org/redlist/content/attachment_files/RedListGuidelines.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2025).
  34. United Nations. Convention on Biological Diversity; United Nations: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  35. Murray, B.R.; Rice, B.L.; Keith, D.A.; Myerscough, P.J.; Howell, J.; Floyd, A.G.; Mills, K.; Westoby, M. Species in the tail of rank–abundance curves. Ecology 1999, 80, 1806–1816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Haq, S.M.; Yaqoob, U.; Majeed, M.; Amjad, M.S.; Hassan, M.; Ahmad, R.; Waheed, M.; Bussmann, R.W.; Calixto, E.S.; Proćków, J.; et al. Quantitative ethnoveterinary study on plant resource utilization by indigenous communities in high-altitude regions. Front. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 944046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Khan, S.M.R.; Akhter, T.; Hussain, M. Ethno-veterinary practice for the treatment of animal diseases in Neelum Valley, Kashmir Himalaya, Pakistan. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0250114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gao, H.; Huang, W.; Zhao, C.; Xiong, Y. An ethnoveterinary study on medicinal plants used by the Bai People in Yunlong County, Northwest Yunnan, China. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2024, 20, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Xiong, Y.; Long, C. An ethnoveterinary study on medicinal plants used by the Buyi People in Southwest Guizhou, China. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2020, 16, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Kennedy, G.; Wang, Z.; Maundu, P.; Hunter, D. The role of traditional knowledge and food biodiversity to transform modern food systems. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 130, 32–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Boonma, T.; Saensouk, S.; Saensouk, P. Diversity and traditional utilization of the Zingiberaceae plants in Nakhon Nayok Province, Central Thailand. Diversity 2023, 15, 904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ramage, M.H.; Burridge, H.; Busse-Wicher, M.; Fereday, G.; Reynolds, T.; Shah, D.U.; Wu, G.; Yu, L.; Fleming, P.; Densley-Tingley, D.; et al. The wood from the trees: The use of timber in construction. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 68, 333–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Galvão, M.L.; Rodrigues, T.N.M.; Santos, I.S.; Fernandes, M.E.B. Traditional ecological knowledge of mangrove wood use on the Brazilian Amazon Coast. Ethnobiol. Conserv. 2024, 13, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Widiyono, W. Biological and economic values of Dipterocarpaceae, the main timber forest product of Indonesia. Indones. J. Appl. Environ. Stud. 2021, 2, 104–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wang, R.; Haller, P. Applications of wood ash as a construction material in civil engineering: A review. Biomass Convers. Biorefin. 2022, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lin, M.; Yang, S.; Huang, J.; Zhou, L. Insecticidal triterpenes in Meliaceae: Plant species, molecules and activities: Part I (Aphanamixis-Chukrasia). Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 13262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rundel, P.W.; Boonpragob, K.; Patterson, M. Seasonal water relations and leaf temperature in a deciduous dipterocarp forest in Northeastern Thailand. Forests 2017, 8, 368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Vos, M.A.E.; den Ouden, J.; Hoosbeek, M.; Valtera, M.; de Vries, W.; Sterck, F. The sustainability of timber and biomass harvest in perspective of forest nutrient uptake and nutrient stocks. For. Ecol. Manag. 2023, 530, 120791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Saensouk, P.; Saensouk, S.; Rakarcha, S.; Boonma, T.; Jitpromma, T.; Sonthongphithak, P.; Ragsasilp, A.; Souladeth, P. Diversity and local uses of the Convolvulaceae family in Udon Thani Province, Thailand, with notes on its potential horticultural significance. Horticulturae 2025, 11, 312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chamorro, M.; Ladio, A. Management of native and exotic plant species with edible fruits in a protected area of NW Patagonia. Ethnobiol. Conserv. 2021, 10, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Padumanonda, T.; Gritsanapan, W. Barakol contents in fresh and cooked Senna siamea leaves. Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health 2006, 37, 388–393. [Google Scholar]
  52. Heywood, V.H. Ethnopharmacology, food production, nutrition and biodiversity conservation: Towards a sustainable future for indigenous peoples. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2011, 137, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hailemariam, M.B.; Woldu, Z.; Asfaw, Z.; Lulekal, E. Ethnobotany of an indigenous tree Piliostigma thonningii (Schumach.) Milne-Redh. (Fabaceae) in the Arid and Semi-Arid Areas of South Omo Zone, Southern Ethiopia. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2021, 17, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Nyemba, W.R.; Hondo, A.; Mbohwa, C.; Madiye, L. Unlocking economic value and sustainable furniture manufacturing through recycling and reuse of sawdust. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 21, 510–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Russell, J.D.; Huff, K.; Haviarova, E. Evaluating the cascading-use of wood furniture: How value-retention processes can contribute to material efficiency and circularity. J. Ind. Ecol. 2023, 27, 856–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Chanthavong, S.; Buot, I.E. Conservation status of plant diversity at Dong Na Tard Provincial protected area, Lao people’s democratic republic. Int. J. Conserv. Sci. 2021, 12, 393–402. [Google Scholar]
  57. Usman, M.; Khan, W.R.; Yousaf, N.; Akram, S.; Murtaza, G.; Kudus, K.A.; Ditta, A.; Rosli, Z.; Rajpar, M.N.; Nazre, M. Exploring the phytochemicals and anti-cancer potential of the members of Fabaceae family: A comprehensive review. Molecules 2022, 27, 3863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Bhadane, B.S.; Patil, M.P.; Maheshwari, V.L.; Patil, R.H. Ethnopharmacology, phytochemistry, and biotechnological advances of family Apocynaceae: A review. Phytother. Res. 2018, 32, 1181–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Mounce, R.; Smith, P.; Brockington, S. Ex Situ conservation of plant diversity in the World’s Botanic Gardens. Nat. Plants 2017, 3, 795–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Suhaeri, S.; Fulazzaky, M.A.; Husaini, H.; Dirhamsyah, M.; Hasanuddin, I. Application of Scirpus grossus fiber as a sound absorber. Heliyon 2024, 10, e28961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bisht, S.S.; Mishra, K.; Pandey, K.K.; Chandra, G.; Nayak, M.M.; Shashikala, S. Chromatographic and spectrophotometric analysis of heartwood extracts of four Pterocarpus species. Wood Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 459–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sinthumule, I. Traditional ecological knowledge and its role in biodiversity conservation: A systematic review. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023, 11, 1164900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Swathi, S.; Lakshman, K. Phytopharmacological and biological exertion of Spondias pinnata: A review. Orient. J. Chem. 2022, 38, 268–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Uddin, M.Z.; Hassan, M.A. Determination of informant consensus factor of ethnomedicinal plants used in Kalenga Forest, Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. Plant Taxon. 2014, 21, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Chaachouay, N.; Benkhnigue, O.; Zidane, L. Ethnobotanical and ethnomedicinal study of medicinal and aromatic plants used against dermatological diseases by the people of Rif, Morocco. J. Herb. Med. 2022, 32, 100542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Le, H.T.; Luu, T.N.; Nguyen, H.M.T.; Nguyen, D.H.; Le, P.T.Q.; Trịnh, N.N.; Le, V.S.; Nguyen, H.D.; Van, H.T. Antibacterial, antioxidant and cytotoxic activities of different fractions of acetone extract from flowers of Dipterocarpus intricatus Dyer (Dipterocarpaceae). Plant Sci. Today 2021, 8, 273–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Bagnazari, M.; Saidi, M.; Sripathy, H.; Geetha, D. Establishment of an improved, efficient and eco-friendly micropropagation system in Salacia chinensis L., an endangered anti-diabetic medicinal plant. Agricult. Forest. 2017, 63, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Azma, W.; Anwar, J.; Waseem, A.; Mohammad, F. SIRAS (Albizia lebbeck (L.) Benth.) and its medicinal uses in unani medicine—A review. CellMed 2020, 10, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Demies, M.; Samejima, H.; Sayok, A.K.; Noweg, G.T. Tree diversity, forest structure and species composition in a logged-over mixed dipterocarp forest, Bintulu, Sarawak, Malaysia. Trans. Sci. Technol. 2019, 6, 102–110. [Google Scholar]
  70. Ismail, M.H.; Fuad, M.F.A.; Zaki, P.H.; Jemali, N.J.N. Analysis of importance value index of unlogged and logged peat swamp forest in Nenasi Forest Reserve, Peninsular Malaysia. Bonorowo Wetl. 2017, 7, 74–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Decocq, G.; Aubert, M.; Dupont, F.; Alard, D.; Saguez, R.; Wattez-Franger, A.; de Foucault, B.; Delelis-Dusollier, A.; Bardat, J. Plant diversity in a managed temperate deciduous forest: Understorey response to two silvicultural systems. J. Appl. Ecol. 2004, 41, 1065–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Wang, Z.; Xu, J.; Xu, Z.; Liu, X. Functional diversity and secondary production of macrofaunal assemblages can provide insights of biodiversity–ecosystem function relationships. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2024, 36, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Danyagri, G.; Baral, S.K.; Pelletier, G. Effects of disturbance and site factors on sapling dynamics and species diversity in Northern Hardwood Stands. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 444, 225–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Malik, Z.; Bhatt, A.B. Regeneration status of tree species and survival of their seedlings in Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuary and its adjoining areas in Western Himalaya, India. Trop. Ecol. 2016, 57, 677–690. [Google Scholar]
  75. Prestes, N.C.C.d.S.; Massi, K.G.; Silva, E.A.; Nogueira, D.S.; de Oliveira, E.A.; Freitag, R.; Marimon, B.S.; Marimon-Junior, B.H.; Keller, M.; Feldpausch, T.R. Fire effects on understory forest regeneration in Southern Amazonia. Front. For. Glob. Chang. 2020, 3, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Rocha, G.P.E.; Vieira, D.L.M.; Simon, M.F. Fast natural regeneration in abandoned pastures in Southern Amazonia. For. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 370, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. The study area, Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest, Kantarawichai District, Maha Sarakham Province, Thailand. Graphics were designed by T. Boonma using the Pixelmator Pro Program (Version 3.6.15 (Archipelago), Pixelmator Team, Vilnius, Lithuania).
Figure 1. The study area, Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest, Kantarawichai District, Maha Sarakham Province, Thailand. Graphics were designed by T. Boonma using the Pixelmator Pro Program (Version 3.6.15 (Archipelago), Pixelmator Team, Vilnius, Lithuania).
Forests 16 01012 g001
Figure 2. The bar graph illustrates the species diversity of each plant family identified in the study, ranked from the family with the highest to the lowest species diversity, as recorded in the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest, Kantarawichai District, Maha Sarakham Province, Thailand.
Figure 2. The bar graph illustrates the species diversity of each plant family identified in the study, ranked from the family with the highest to the lowest species diversity, as recorded in the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest, Kantarawichai District, Maha Sarakham Province, Thailand.
Forests 16 01012 g002
Figure 3. Photographs of some species found in the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest, Kantarawichai District, Maha Sarakham Province, Thailand: (a) Scindapsus officinalis, (b) Typhonium trilobatum, (c) Chromolaena odorata, (d) Praxelis clematidea, (e) Commelina diffusa, (f) Evolvulus nummularius, (g) Coccinia grandis, (h) Suregada multiflora, (i) Clitoria ternatea, (j) Peltophorum dasyrhachis, (k) Pithecellobium dulce, (l) Pterocarpus macrocarpus, (m) Microcos tomentosa, (n) Azadirachta indica, (o) Antidesma puncticulatum, (p) Vietnamosasa pusilla, (q) Micromelum minutum, (r) Lepisanthes rubiginosa, (s) Curcuma singularis; (t) Kaempferia marginata. Photographs (d,e,h,j,q,r) by T. Jitpromma; all other photographs by T. Boonma.
Figure 3. Photographs of some species found in the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest, Kantarawichai District, Maha Sarakham Province, Thailand: (a) Scindapsus officinalis, (b) Typhonium trilobatum, (c) Chromolaena odorata, (d) Praxelis clematidea, (e) Commelina diffusa, (f) Evolvulus nummularius, (g) Coccinia grandis, (h) Suregada multiflora, (i) Clitoria ternatea, (j) Peltophorum dasyrhachis, (k) Pithecellobium dulce, (l) Pterocarpus macrocarpus, (m) Microcos tomentosa, (n) Azadirachta indica, (o) Antidesma puncticulatum, (p) Vietnamosasa pusilla, (q) Micromelum minutum, (r) Lepisanthes rubiginosa, (s) Curcuma singularis; (t) Kaempferia marginata. Photographs (d,e,h,j,q,r) by T. Jitpromma; all other photographs by T. Boonma.
Forests 16 01012 g003
Figure 4. Species richness of animal fodder plants used by the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest community.
Figure 4. Species richness of animal fodder plants used by the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest community.
Forests 16 01012 g004
Figure 5. Species richness of construction materials plants used by the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest community.
Figure 5. Species richness of construction materials plants used by the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest community.
Forests 16 01012 g005
Figure 6. Species richness of food plants used by the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest community.
Figure 6. Species richness of food plants used by the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest community.
Forests 16 01012 g006
Figure 7. Species richness of household furnishings plants used by the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest community.
Figure 7. Species richness of household furnishings plants used by the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest community.
Forests 16 01012 g007
Figure 8. Species richness of medicinal plants used by the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest community.
Figure 8. Species richness of medicinal plants used by the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest community.
Forests 16 01012 g008
Figure 9. Species richness of ornamental plants used by the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest community.
Figure 9. Species richness of ornamental plants used by the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest community.
Forests 16 01012 g009
Figure 10. Species richness of plants used for other purposes by the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest community.
Figure 10. Species richness of plants used for other purposes by the Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest community.
Forests 16 01012 g010
Figure 11. Diversity of tree species in Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest, Kantarawichai District, Maha Sarakham Province, Thailand.
Figure 11. Diversity of tree species in Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest, Kantarawichai District, Maha Sarakham Province, Thailand.
Forests 16 01012 g011
Figure 12. Diversity of sapling species in Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest, Kantarawichai District, Maha Sarakham Province, Thailand.
Figure 12. Diversity of sapling species in Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest, Kantarawichai District, Maha Sarakham Province, Thailand.
Forests 16 01012 g012
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).
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.FamilyScientific NameVernacular NameDistributionHabitsPlant ClusteringUtilizationUsed PartsUVVoucher Specimens
1.AmaryllidaceaeHippeastrum sp.Wan Si ThitIntroducedHUnonwp0.100KTRR001
2.AnacardiaceaeBuchanania lanzan Spreng.Mamuang Hua Maeng WanNativeTTr, Sa, Unfdft0.433KTRR002
3.AnacardiaceaeBuchanania siamensis Miq.Tha Non ChaiNativeTTrmdba0.233KTRR003
4.AnacardiaceaeLannea coromandelica (Houtt.) Merr.Kok KanNativeTTr, Samdba, le, ro0.300KTRR004
5.AnacardiaceaeSpondias pinnata (L.f.) KurzMakokNativeTTr, Sa, Unfdft0.867KTRR005
6.AnnonaceaePolyalthia debilis (Pierre) Finet & Gagnep.Kon KhrokNativeSUnfdft0.167KTRR006
7.AnnonaceaePolyalthia evecta (Pierre) Finet & Gagnep.Nom NoiNativeSUnfdft0.200KTRR007
8.AnnonaceaeUvaria rufa (Dunal) BlumePhi Phuan NoiNativeCTr, Sa, Unfdft0.367KTRR008
9.AnnonaceaeUvaria siamensis (Scheff.) L.L.Zhou, Y.C.F.Su & R.M.K.SaundersLamduanNativeTUnonwp0.267KTRR009
10.AnnonaceaeXylopia vielana PierreKluai NoiNativeTTr, Safdft0.233KTRR010
11.ApocynaceaeAmphineurion marginatum (Roxb.) D.J.MiddletonKhruea Sai TanNativeCUnmdle, ro0.067KTRR011
12.ApocynaceaeCarissa spinarum L.Nam PhromNativeSUnmdhw, ro0.100KTRR012
13.ApocynaceaeStreptocaulon juventas (Lour.) Merr.Thao PrasongNativeCUnmdwp0.067KTRR013
14.ApocynaceaeUrceola polymorpha (Pierre ex Spire) D.J.Middleton & Livsh.Som LomNativeCUnfdft, le0.500KTRR014
15.ApocynaceaeWrightia religiosa (Teijsm. & Binn.) Benth. ex KurzMokNativeTTr, Saonwp0.267KTRR015
16.AraceaeAmorphophallus brevispathus Gagnep.I RokEndemicHUnfdst0.633KTRR016
17.AraceaeScindapsus officinalis (Roxb.) SchottPhlu ChangNativeCUnonwp0.067KTRR017
18.AraceaeTyphonium trilobatum (L.) SchottUt Ta PhitNativeHUnmdro, tu0.033KTRR018
19.AsteraceaeChromolaena odorata (L.) R.M.King & H.Rob.Sap SueaIntroducedHUnaf, mdle, wp0.167KTRR019
20.AsteraceaeCyanthillium cinereum (L.) H.Rob.Ya Dok KhaoNativeHUnafwp0.200KTRR020
21.AsteraceaeElephantopus scaber L.Do Mai Ru LomNativeHUnmdro0.167KTRR021
22.AsteraceaePraxelis clematidea (Hieron. ex Kuntze) R.M.King & H.Rob.Sap MuangIntroducedHUnmdro, wp0.167KTRR022
23.BignoniaceaeMillingtonia hortensis L.f.Pib KhaoNativeTTronwp0.333KTRR023
24.BurseraceaeCanarium subulatum GuillauminMakok KlueanNativeTTrfdft0.333KTRR024
25.CelastraceaeSalacia chinensis L.Kamphaeng Chet ChanNativeTTr, Samdro, st0.200KTRR025
26.CommelinaceaeCommelina benghalensis L.Phak PlapNativeHUnafwp0.167KTRR026
27.CommelinaceaeCommelina diffusa Burm.f.Plap Bai KhaepNativeHUnafwp0.167KTRR027
28.CommelinaceaeFloscopa scandens Lour.Phak Plap ChangNativeHUnmdwp0.200KTRR028
29.ConvolvulaceaeEvolvulus nummularius (L.) L.Tang RianIntroducedCrHUnonwp0.133KTRR029
30.CucurbitaceaeCoccinia grandis (L.) VoigtTamluengNativeHUnfdle0.833KTRR030
31.CyperaceaeActinoscirpus grossus (L.f.) Goetgh. & D.A.SimpsonKok SamliamNativeHUnotle0.100KTRR031
32.DioscoreaceaeDioscorea hispida Dennst.KloiNativeHUnfdtu0.433KTRR032
33.DioscoreaceaeDioscorea pierrei Prain & BurkillMan NamNativeHUnfdtu0.467KTRR033
34.DipterocarpaceaeAnthoshorea roxburghii (G.Don) P.S.Ashton & J.Heck.PhayomNativeTTr, Sact, onst, wp0.433KTRR034
35.DipterocarpaceaeDipterocarpus intricatus DyerYang KratNativeTTr, Samdba0.133KTRR035
36.DipterocarpaceaeDipterocarpus obtusifolius Teijsm. ex Miq.Yang HiangNativeTTr, Sa, Unotst0.233KTRR036
37.DipterocarpaceaePentacme siamensis (Miq.) KurzRangNativeTTr, Sactst0.200KTRR037
38.EbenaceaeDiospyros filipendula Pierre ex LecomteLam Bit DongNativeTTr, Sa, Unmdba, ro0.133KTRR038
39.EbenaceaeDiospyros mollis Griff.Ma KlueaNativeTTr, Samdft, ro0.067KTRR039
40.EbenaceaeDiospyros rhodocalyx KurzTako NaNativeTTronwp0.100KTRR040
41.EuphorbiaceaeSuregada multiflora (A.Juss.) Baill.Khan Thong PhayabatNativeTTr, Sa, Unmdba, ro0.100KTRR041
42.FabaceaeAlbizia lebbeck (L.) Benth.PhruekIntroducedTTr, Samdba, se0.200KTRR042
43.FabaceaeClitoria ternatea L.AnchanIntroducedHUnfdif0.333KTRR043
44.FabaceaeErythrophleum succirubrum Gagnep.Phan SatNativeTTr, Sa, Unmdst0.067KTRR044
45.FabaceaeLeucaena leucocephala (Lam.) de WitKrathinIntroducedTSafdft, le0.367KTRR045
46.FabaceaePeltophorum dasyrhachis (Miq.) KurzA RangNativeTTrct, hfst0.233KTRR046
47.FabaceaePithecellobium dulce (Roxb.) Benth.MakhamthetIntroducedTTr, Sa, Unfdft0.300KTRR047
48.FabaceaePterocarpus macrocarpus KurzPradu PaNativeTTr, Sahf, otba, st0.167KTRR048
49.FabaceaeSenegalia comosa (Gagnep.) Maslin, Seigler & EbingerNam HanNativeCTr, Sa, Unmdro0.033KTRR049
50.FabaceaeSenna siamea (Lam.) H.S.Irwin & BarnebyPhak KhilekNativeTTrfdle0.533KTRR050
51.FabaceaeSindora siamensis Teijsm. ex Miq.Ma Kha TaeNativeTTr, Sa, Unctst0.200KTRR051
52.FabaceaeStylosanthes humilis KunthYa Satai LoIntroducedSUnafwp0.067KTRR052
53.FabaceaeTephrosia vestita VogelDan RatchasiNativeHUnmdle0.067KTRR053
54.FabaceaeXylia xylocarpa (Roxb.) W.Theob.DaengNativeTTr, Sa, Unhfst0.167KTRR054
55.HypericaceaeCratoxylum cochinchinense (Lour.) BlumeTio KliangNativeTTr, Sa, Unfdif0.367KTRR055
56.HypericaceaeCratoxylum formosum (Jacq.) Benth. & Hook.f. ex Dyer subsp. formosumTio KhaoNativeTSa, Unfdif0.400KTRR056
57.HypericaceaeCrotoxylum formosum (Jacq.) Benth. & Hook.f. ex Dyer subsp. pruniflorum (Kurz) GogeleinTio KhonNativeTTr, Sa, Unfdif0.333KTRR057
58.IrvingiaceaeIrvingia malayana Oliv. ex A.W.Benn.Kra BokNativeTTr, Safdft0.267KTRR058
59.LamiaceaeHymenopyramis parvifolia MoldenkeKha PiaEndemicSTr, Sa, Unmdba0.033KTRR059
60.LamiaceaeMesosphaerum suaveolens (L.) KuntzeMaenglak KhaIntroducedHUnafwp0.067KTRR060
61.LamiaceaeVitex pinnata L.Tin NokNativeTUnctst0.133KTRR061
62.LoranthaceaeDendrophthoe pentandra (L.) Miq.Kafak Mamuang NativeCUnotst0.067KTRR062
63.LythraceaeLagerstroemia balansae KoehneTa Baek KriapNativeTTr, Sa, Unhf, onst, wp0.200KTRR063
64.MalvaceaeBombax anceps PierreNgaoNativeTTr, Saotft0.133KTRR064
65.MalvaceaeHelicteres angustifolia L.Po Khi TunNativeHUnmdle, ro0.100KTRR065
66.MalvaceaeMicrocos tomentosa Sm.PhlapphlaNativeSTr, Sa, Unfdft0.167KTRR066
67.MalvaceaeSida cordifolia L.Ya Khat Bai PomNativeSUnmdle, ro0.100KTRR067
68.MalvaceaeUrena rigida Wall. ex Mast.Khi OnNativeHUnafwp0.067KTRR068
69.MalvaceaeWaltheria indica L.Ya Hua Nok KhaoIntroducedSUnafwp0.067KTRR069
70.MelastomataceaeMemecylon edule Roxb.Phlong MueatNativeS/STTr, Sa, Unon, otle, st, wp0.300KTRR070
71.MeliaceaeAzadirachta indica A.Juss.SadaoNativeTTr, Safdif, le0.667KTRR071
72.MeliaceaeChukrasia tabularis A.Juss.Yom HinNativeTTrctst0.233KTRR072
73.MenispermaceaeCissampelos pareira L.Khruea Ma NoiNativeHUnfdle0.600KTRR073
74.MenispermaceaeTiliacora triandra (Colebr.) DielsYanangNativeHUnfdle0.633KTRR074
75.MenispermaceaeTinospora baenzigeri FormanChingcha ChaliEndemicHUnmdvi0.133KTRR075
76.MoraceaeFicus benjamina L.SaiNativeTSaonwp0.133KTRR076
77.MoraceaeStreblus asper Lour.KhoiNativeS/STTr, Safdft0.100KTRR077
78.OchnaceaeOchna integerrima (Lour.) Merr.Chang NaoNativeS/STTr, Samdba, ro0.133KTRR078
79.OlacaceaeOlax scandens Roxb.Namchai KhraiNativeS/CTr, Sa, Unmdba, ro0.167KTRR079
80.PhyllanthaceaeAntidesma puncticulatum Miq.Ma MaoNativeTTrfdft0.567KTRR080
81.PoaceaeImperata cylindrica (L.) Raeusch.Ya KhaIntroducedHUnotle0.133KTRR081
82.PoaceaeMicrostegium fasciculatum (L.) HenrardYa Khom KhaNativeHUnafwp0.033KTRR082
83.PoaceaeUrochloa mutica (Forssk.) T.Q.NguyenYa KhonIntroducedHUnafwp0.033KTRR083
84.PoaceaeVietnamosasa pusilla (A.Chev. & A.Camus) T.Q.NguyenPhekNativeHUnfdst0.300KTRR084
85.RhamnaceaeZiziphus cambodiana PierreNham Ta KhrongNativeSTr, Sa, Unotba0.067KTRR085
86.RhamnaceaeZiziphus mauritiana Lam.PhutsaNativeTTrfdft0.333KTRR086
87.RhamnaceaeZiziphus oenopolia (L.) Mill.Lep YiaoNativeS/CSa, Unfdft0.300KTRR087
88.RubiaceaeCanthium berberidifolium E.T.GeddesNgiang DukNativeSUnonwp0.100KTRR088
89.RubiaceaeCatunaregam tomentosa (Blume ex DC.) Tirveng.Nam ThaengNativeS/STTr, Saotft0.100KTRR089
90.RubiaceaeGardenia sootepensis Hutch.Kham Mok LuangNativeTTr, Sa, Unonwp0.133KTRR090
91.RubiaceaeHymenodictyon orixense (Roxb.) Mabb.Som KopNativeTUnonwp0.067KTRR091
92.RubiaceaeIxora cibdela CraibKhem PaNativeSUnonwp0.100KTRR092
93.RubiaceaeMitragyna diversifolia (Wall. ex G.Don) Havil.Kra Thum NaNativeTTronwp0.100KTRR093
94.RubiaceaeMorinda pubescens Sm.Yo PaNativeS/STTr, Saonwp0.067KTRR094
95.RubiaceaeMussaenda uniflora Wall. ex G.DonMali LueaiNativeHUnonwp0.167KTRR095
96.RubiaceaePavetta tomentosa Roxb. ex Sm.Khaosan PaNativeS/STTr, Sa, Unonwp0.167KTRR096
97.RutaceaeClausena excavata Burm.f.Phia FanNativeHUnmdwp0.100KTRR097
98.RutaceaeClausena wallichii Oliv.Song FaNativeSUnmdle0.067KTRR098
99.RutaceaeMicromelum minutum (G.Forst.) Wight & Arn.Samat NoiNativeSTSamdle0.167KTRR099
100.RutaceaeNaringi crenulata (Roxb.) NicolsonKrachaeNativeTTr, Sa, Unotst0.100KTRR100
101.SalicaceaeFlacourtia indica (Burm.f.) Merr.Ta Khop PaNativeSSa, Unfdft0.233KTRR101
102.SapindaceaeLepisanthes rubiginosa (Roxb.) Leenh.Ma HuatNativeSTSa, Unfdft0.400KTRR102
103.SapindaceaeZollingeria dongnaiensis PierreKhi Non DaengNativeHUnmdba, le0.133KTRR103
104.SchizaeaceaeLygodium flexuosum (L.) Sw.Kut NgotngaetNativeHUnfdle0.067KTRR104
105.Smilacaceae Smilax prolifera Roxb.Khruea Khueang SayamNativeHUnmdba0.067KTRR105
106.StemonaceaeStemona tuberosa Lour.Nhon Tai YakNativeHUnmdro0.200KTRR106
107.VitaceaeCausonis trifolia (L.) Mabb. & J.WenThao Khan KhaoNativeHUnmdle, vi0.067KTRR107
108.VitaceaeLeea thorelii Gagnep.Ka Tang Bai TiaNativeHUnmdro, st0.133KTRR108
109.ZingiberaceaeCurcuma singularis Gagnep.Kra ChiaoNativeHUnfdif0.833KTRR109
110.ZingiberaceaeKaempferia marginata Carey ex RoscoeTup MupNativeHUnfdle0.600KTRR110
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).
Table 2. Informant consensus factor (Fic) of medicinal plants used by Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest community.
Table 2. Informant consensus factor (Fic) of medicinal plants used by Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest community.
Group of AilmentsNumber of Use ReportNumber of TaxaFic
Endocrine system520.75
Gastro-intestinal system47140.72
Infections67190.73
Musculoskeletal and joint diseases620.80
Nutrition and blood1650.73
Obstetrics, gynaecology and urinary-tract disorders2250.81
Respiratory system2460.78
Skin3290.74
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Saensouk, P.; Saensouk, S.; Boonma, T.; Hanchana, K.; Rakarcha, S.; Maknoi, C.; Chanthavongsa, K.; Jitpromma, T. Ecological Analysis and Ethnobotanical Evaluation of Plants in Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest, Kantarawichai District, Thailand. Forests 2025, 16, 1012. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16061012

AMA Style

Saensouk P, Saensouk S, Boonma T, Hanchana K, Rakarcha S, Maknoi C, Chanthavongsa K, Jitpromma T. Ecological Analysis and Ethnobotanical Evaluation of Plants in Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest, Kantarawichai District, Thailand. Forests. 2025; 16(6):1012. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16061012

Chicago/Turabian Style

Saensouk, Piyaporn, Surapon Saensouk, Thawatphong Boonma, Kasan Hanchana, Sarayut Rakarcha, Charun Maknoi, Khamfa Chanthavongsa, and Tammanoon Jitpromma. 2025. "Ecological Analysis and Ethnobotanical Evaluation of Plants in Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest, Kantarawichai District, Thailand" Forests 16, no. 6: 1012. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16061012

APA Style

Saensouk, P., Saensouk, S., Boonma, T., Hanchana, K., Rakarcha, S., Maknoi, C., Chanthavongsa, K., & Jitpromma, T. (2025). Ecological Analysis and Ethnobotanical Evaluation of Plants in Khanthararat Public Benefit Forest, Kantarawichai District, Thailand. Forests, 16(6), 1012. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16061012

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop