Economic Botany

, Volume 66, Issue 4, pp 398–412 | Cite as

Regeneration Ecology of the Useful Flora of the Putu Range Rainforest, Liberia

  • Cicely A. MarshallEmail author
  • William D. Hawthorne


Regeneration Ecology of the Useful Flora of the Putu Range Rainforest, Liberia. We test the hypothesis that useful plants in general, and medicines in particular, are more likely to be pioneer and herbaceous species than any other guild or habit, using data from six communities in southeastern Liberia. Of 624 surveyed species from seven locally defined vegetation classes, 228 species (36 %) were found to be useful in the categories of food, medicine, materials, and social use. Five habits account for 98 % of surveyed species: Trees, treelets (including two palm species), lianes (including root climbers), shrubs, and herbs. Four guilds account for 93 % of the surveyed species: Swamp, shade–bearer, pioneer, and non–pioneer light demander (NPLD) species. A significantly higher proportion of pioneers is found to be useful overall (55 %) and useful medicinally (69 %) than for any other guild. However, the shade–bearing guild provides the greatest number of useful species (92 species) and the greatest number of medicinal species (55 species). Fifteen species were shortlisted by the communities for their particular importance, of which only one is a pioneer species. A similar proportion of species of each habit (about one–third of species) was found to be useful overall. In the case of medicinal use in particular, a significantly larger proportion of herbs (63 %) is medicinal than for any other habit. Our study from West Africa supports the findings of others working in the neotropics that disturbed and secondary vegetation classes are important sources of useful plants, particularly medicines. However, the greatest number of useful species are shade–bearing, which are most abundant in primary forest. Familiarity with and accessibility of old–growth forests to the communities of our study site due to Liberia’s recent history is likely responsible for their usefulness.

Key Words

Liberia Upper Guinea forest plant biodiversity useful plants non–timber forest product (NTFP) disturbance pioneer 


Perturbation et écologie de la flore utile de la forêt tropicale de Putu Range, Libéria. Nous soumettons l'hypothèse que les plantes utiles en général, et médicinales en particulier, sont davantage susceptibles d'être des pionnières et des herbacées que n'importe quelle autre guilde ou que n'importe quel autre type végétal, en utilisant les données de 6 communautés locales dans le sud–est du Libéria. Sur 624 espèces recensées à partir de 7 formations végétales définies localement, 228 espèces (36 %) ont été identifiées comme utiles dans plusieurs catégories telles que l'alimentation, la médecine, les matériaux et l'utilisation sociale en général. Cinq types végétaux comptent pour 98 % des espèces recensées: les arbres, les petits arbres (dont deux espèces de palmiers), les lianes (incluant les plantes grimpantes), les arbustes et les herbacées. Quatre guildes comptent pour 93 % des espèces recensées: plantes des marais, plantes d'ombre, pionnières et non–pionnières chercheuses de lumières (espèces NPLD). Une proportion significativement élevée de pionnières est jugée globalement utile (55 %) et utile sur le plan médicinal (69 %), et cela plus que pour toute autre guilde. Cependant, les espèces d'ombre fournissent le plus grand nombre d'espèces utiles (92 espèces) et le plus grand nombre d'espèces médicinales (55 espèces). 15 espèces ont été sélectionnées par les populations locales pour leur importance particulière, dont une seule est une espèce pionnière. Une proportion semblable d'espèces de chaque type végétal (environ un tiers des espèces) a été trouvé pour être globalement utile. Dans le cas d'une utilisation médicinale, une plus grande proportion des espèces herbacées (63 %) est un remède, ceci étant bien plus élevé que pour tout autre type de végétation. Notre étude d'Afrique de l'Ouest appuie les conclusions d'autres travaux de la région néotropicale selon lesquels les formations végétales perturbées et secondaires sont des sources importantes de plantes utiles, en particulier de remèdes. Cependant, les espèces d'ombre représentent la majorité des plantes utiles. La connaissance et l'accessibilité des forêts anciennes pour les communautés de notre site d'étude en raison de l'histoire récente du Libéria contribue très probablement à leur utilité.


Acknowledgements and Disclaimer

This work was commissioned by Putu Iron Ore Mining Inc. prior to potential mining in the Putu Range, Liberia. We are grateful for the capable assistance and hard work of Reeves Dweh and Robert Slebo (PIOM) during the survey period; and to the other RBS team members Patrick Ekpe, James Kpadehyea, Wing–Yunn Crawley, and Daniel Dorbor. Thanks are due to Gabriel Lefevre for translating the abstract and title into French. We are grateful to the Putu residents who took time out of their daily routines to talk to us about plant use in the area.

Literature Cited

  1. Adnan, M. and D. Hölscher. 2011. Medicinal plants in old–growth, degraded and re–growth forests of NW Pakistan. Forest Ecology and Management 261:2105–2114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chazdon, R. L. and F. G. Coe. 1999. Ethnobotany of woody species in second–growth, old–growth, and selectively logged forests of northeastern Costa Rica. Conservation Biology 13(6):1312–1322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coe, F. G. and G. J. Anderson. 1996. Ethnobotany of the Garífuna of Eastern Nicaragua. Economic Botany 50:71–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coley, P. D. and T. A. Kursar, 1996. Anti–herbivore defenses of young tropical leaves: Physiological constraints and ecological trade–offs. In: Tropical forest plant ecophysiology, eds., S. S. Mulkey, R. L. Chazdon, and A. P. Smith, 305–336. New York: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Frei, B., O. Sticher, and M. Heinrich. 2000. Zapotec and Mixe use of tropical habitats for securing medicinal plants in Mexico. Economic Botany 54:73–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gavin, M. C. 2009. Conservation implications of rainforest use patterns: Mature forests provide more resources but secondary forests supply more medicine. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 1275–1282.Google Scholar
  7. Gay, J. H. 1995. Intelligence in action: A study of agriculture in rural Liberia. Maseru, Lesotho, 23 April 1995. 177 pp. PL–SHC.Google Scholar
  8. Grenand, P. 1992. The use and cultural significance of the secondary forest among the Wayãpi Indians. In: Sustainable harvest and marketing of rain forest products, eds., M. Plotkin and L. Famolare, 27–40. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
  9. Harley, G. W. 1941. Native African medicine: With special reference to its practice in the Mano Tribe of Liberia. London: F. Cass.Google Scholar
  10. Hawthorne, W. D. 1995. Ecological profiles of Ghanaian forest trees. Tropical Forestry Paper 29. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford Forestry Institute.Google Scholar
  11. ———. 1996. Holes and the sums of parts in Ghanaian forest: Regeneration, scale and sustainable use. In: Studies in Guinea–Congo rain forest, eds., M. D. Swaine, I. J. Alexander, and R. Watling, 75–176. Edinburgh: Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Section B, Biological Sciences, Vol. 104.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 2011. A manual for rapid botanic survey (RBS) and measurement of vegetation bioquality. (27 September 2012).
  13. ——— and C. C. H. Jongkind. 2006. Woody plants of western Africa forests. A guide to the forest trees, shrubs and lianes from Senegal to Ghana. Kew, United Kingdom: Royal Botanic Gardens.Google Scholar
  14. Hill, M. O. and H. G. Gauch, Jr. 1980. Detrended correspondence analysis: An improved ordination technique. Vegetatio 42: 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jackson, F. L. C., R. T. Jackson, B. O. DeLumen, S. F. Sio, L. Dinkins, and A. F. H Muhammad. 1992. Cassava (Manihot esculenta) in Liberia: History, geography, traditional processing, and cyanogenic glycoside levels. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 28:227–242.Google Scholar
  16. Kohn, E. O. 1992. Short communication: Some observations on the use of medicinal plants from primary and secondary growth by the Runa of eastern lowland Ecuador. Journal of Ethnobiology 12:141–152.Google Scholar
  17. Kruk, M. E., P. C. Rockers, S. T. Varpilah, and R. Macauley. 2011. Which doctor?: Determinants of utilization of formal and informal health care in postconflict Liberia. Medical Care 49(6):585–591.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lanier, F., A. Mukpo, and F. Wilhemlsen. 2012. Smell no taste: the social impact of foreign direct investment in Liberia. New York: Center for International Conflict Resolution, Columbia University, School of International and Public Affairs. http://www.cicr––content/uploads/2012/01/Smell–No–Taste.pdf (27 September 2012).
  19. Levin, D. A. 1976. Alkaloid–bearing plants: An ecogeographic perspective. The American Naturalist 110:261–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liberia Institute of Statistics and Geo–Information Services (LISGIS). 2008. Monrovia, Liberia.Google Scholar
  21. Manvell, A. 2011. The socio–economic setting of communities adjacent to Sapo National Park. (27 September 2012).
  22. Martínez-Romero, M. M., A. E. Castro-Ramírez, P. Macario, and J. C. Fernández. 2004. Use and availability of craft vines in the influence zone of the biosphere reserve sian ka’an, Quintana Roo, Mexico. Economic Botany 58:83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Myers, N., R. A. Mittermeier, C. G. Mittermeier, G. A. B. da Fonseca, and J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Phillips, O. and A. Gentry. 1993. The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru: I. Statistical hypotheses tests with a new quantitative technique. Economic Botany 47(1):15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Poorter, L., F. Bongers, F. N. Kouame, and W. D. Hawthorne, eds. 2004. Biodiversity of West African forests: An ecological atlas of woody plant species. Oxford, United Kingdom: CABI Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. Putnam, A. R. 1985. Weed allelopathy. In: Weed Physiology, Vol. I: Reproduction and ecophysiology, S. O. Duke, ed., 131–155. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  27. Sayer, J. A., C. S. Harcourt, and N. M. Collins, eds. 1992. The conservation atlas of tropical forests: Africa. The World Conservation Union. London: MacMillan Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Schröder, G. and H. D. Seibel. 1974. Ethnographic survey of southeastern Liberia: The Liberian Kran and the Sapo. Liberian Studies Monograph Series No. 3. Newark, Delaware: University of Delaware.Google Scholar
  29. Schulze, W. O. 1964. Early iron industry in the Putu range, Liberia. University of Liberia Journal 4: 29–35.Google Scholar
  30. Schwab, G. 1947. Tribes of the Liberian hinterland. Report of the Peabody Museum expedition to Liberia. Edited and with additional material by George W. Harley. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum.Google Scholar
  31. Stepp, J. R. and D. E. Moerman. 2001. The importance of weeds in ethnopharmacology. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 75:19–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vitousek, P. M., H. A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J. M. Melillo. 1997. Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277:494–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Voeks, R. A. 1996. Tropical forest healers and habitat preference. Economic Botany 50:381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. ———. 2004. Disturbance pharmacopoeias: Medicine and myth from the humid tropics. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94:868–888.Google Scholar
  35. Voorhoeve, A. G. 1965. Liberian high forest trees. Wageningen, The Netherlands: PUDOC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant SciencesUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations