Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
Department of Nature Engineering, Faculty of Natural Resources and Earth Sciences, Shahrekord University
2
M.Sc. Graduate in Rangeland Science and Engineering, Faculty of Natural Resources and Earth Sciences, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord, Iran
3
Department of Nature Engineering, Faculty of Natural Resources and Earth Sciences, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord, Iran
4
M.Sc. in Rangeland Science and Engineering, Faculty of Natural Resources and Earth Sciences, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord, Iran
5
Researcher, Ghent University, Belgium.
10.22034/BSRIIT.2025.15371.101
Abstract
Understanding the uses of various plant parts from the perspective of ethnic groups reflects indigenous knowledge, lived experience, and diverse livelihood strategies in interaction with plant resources.. The present study aimed to conduct a comparative analysis of this understanding among three ethnic groups—Lur, Turk, and Arab—in the Sabzkooh region of Chaharmahal va Bakhtiari Province. This mountainous area spans 54,200 hectares and, due to its high biodiversity and coexistence of different ethnicities, offers considerable potential for ethnobotanical studies and sustainable natural resource management. The research method was designed as descriptive, analytical, and field-based. Data were collected through structured questionnaires using a five-point Likert scale, with participation from 85 local users. The statistical population included native users (Lur ethnicity) and non-native users (Turk and Arab ethnicities), selected via census sampling. The validity of the instrument was confirmed by natural resource experts, and its reliability was verified using Cronbach’s alpha test. Data were analyzed using SPSS software and the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test. Results showed that leaves had the highest level of recognition among plant parts, while components such as resin, sap, and other by-products had the lowest.. The Lur group, due to permanent residence, livelihood dependence, and traditional utilization, focused more on edible, fodder, and handicraft uses. The Turk group, with educated users familiar with academic sciences, offered more scientific perspectives on processing, formal education, and marketing of plants. The Arab group, due to seasonal and non-native exploitation, had more limited participation in the recognition and use of rangeland plants.
Keywords
