Review Article

Plant Diversity and Ethnoveterinary Practices of Ethiopia: A Systematic Review

Table 1

Summary statistics of the documents used in the systematic review.

Measured variablesCriterion LPS n (%)Total 
N (%)
IntegratedPastoral 
(n=10)(n=16)

No of reviews(N=48) and article typePublished10(100)14(87.5)28(93.3)
Unpublished0(0)2(12.5)2(6.66)

Diversity of plant family(N=133)Identified species373555645
one species39(45.1)29(32.22)68(37.36)
> one species53(44.9)61(67.78)114(62.64)

Number of participant 
(n=19)
GenderMale634(73.21)585(75.57)1219(66.94)
Female232(26.79)370(17.83)602(33.06)

RepresentativenessAge< 40 years old202(36.27)76(19)246(27.21)
> 40 years old355(63.73)324(81)658(72.79)
Literacy level/Education 
(n=9)
Illiterate183(55.30)110(37.07)293(42.19)
read and write19(8.49)34(26.33)53(17.41)
primary School304(30.08)149(32.93)453(31.51)
Secondary School10(4.44)6(2.88)16(3.66)
College and Above2(1.74)02(0.87)

Coverage of agricultural zonesMore than three9(90)09(34.62)
Two1(10)7(43.75)8(30.77)
One09(56.25)9(34.62)

Studies reliabilityUsed same language as informants5(35.7)8(50)13(43.3)

MeasurabilitySpecifying livestock No.1(7.14)2(12.5)3(10)

Risk of toxicity01(6.25)1(3.8)

Stressing on endemic plant species02(12.5)2(7.7)

Stating the constraints22(12.5)4(15.4)

Information on veterinary coverage000

References used for analyzing the EVM contribution in Integrated and pastoral LPS[1221][9, 2236]

Note that numbers written under square brackets are references/documents used for the analysis of the systematic review.