Skip to main content

An ethnobotanical analysis of parasitic plants (Parijibi) in the Nepal Himalaya



Indigenous biocultural knowledge is a vital part of Nepalese environmental management strategies; however, much of it may soon be lost given Nepal’s rapidly changing socio-ecological climate. This is particularly true for knowledge surrounding parasitic and mycoheterotrophic plant species, which are well represented throughout the Central-Eastern Himalayas but lack a collated record. Our study addresses this disparity by analyzing parasitic and mycoheterotrophic plant species diversity in Nepal as well as the ethnobotanical knowledge that surrounds them.


Botanical texts, online databases, and herbarium records were reviewed to create an authoritative compendium of parasitic and mycoheterotrophic plant species native or naturalized to the Nepal Central-Eastern Himalaya. Semi-structured interviews were then conducted with 141 informants to better understand the biocultural context of these species, emphasizing ethnobotanical uses, in 12 districts of Central-Eastern Nepal.


Nepal is a hotspot of botanical diversity, housing 15 families and 29 genera of plants that exhibit parasitic or mycoheterotrophic habit. Over 150 of the known 4500 parasitic plant species (~3 %) and 28 of the 160 mycoheterotrophic species (~18 %) are native or naturalized to Nepal; 13 of our surveyed parasitic species are endemic. Of all species documented, approximately 17 % of parasitic and 7 % of mycoheterotrophic plants have ethnobotanical uses as medicine (41 %), fodder (23 %), food (17 %), ritual objects (11 %), or material (8 %).


Parasitic and mycoheterotrophic plant species exhibit high diversity in the Nepal Central-Eastern Himalaya and are the fodder for biocultural relationships that may help inform future environmental management projects in the region.


Indigenous biocultural knowledge (IBK) is pillar of environmental management strategies in Nepal, and has been adopted into policies that attempt to ensure that indigenous communities live in and benefit from ‘nature’ in a sustainable manner. For over two decades, IBK-conscious legislation such as the Forest Act [1], Forest Regulation Act [2], and National Biodiversity Strategy [3] as well as international contracts with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna [4], Ramsar Convention [5], and United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity [6] have cultivated cooperative relationships between Indigenous and local groups and management officials. Today, over 35 % of the 27.8 million-person population participates in Nepal’s vibrant community forestry program [7, 8], with over 70 % of the total population directly dependent on wild-forest crops for primary livelihood, food, and medicine [9]. IBK-conscious polices have bolstered existing socio-ecological relationships in Nepal, conserved natural resources, and preserved the country’s cultural heritage.

However, in spite of recent successes, Nepal’s current policies face impending challenges from ‘modernizing’ forces and accelerated rates of environmental change [10]. For instance, population growth, human migration, and agricultural development have had pernicious ramifications in many sacred and protected zones, including Chitwan National Park [1113]. At higher altitudes, overharvest of medicinal plants, driven primarily by market demands in India and China [14], has disrupted historical ecosystem dynamics and transformed traditional livelihoods [15, 16]. Beyond these acute sources of environmental degradation, trends in migrant labor and education have further stunted rates of IBK transmission, reducing the practicality of existing policies [17]. Therefore, future conservation strategies must, in part, preserve IBK that may provide human and ecological communities with greater adaptive capacity to cope with current and future environmental change.

IBK in the form of Traditional Botanical Knowledge (TBK) may provide the most viable option for ameliorating current rates of biocultural attrition in Nepal. TBK incorporates perceptions of natural environments, including elements such as soil, climate, vegetation type, stages of ecological succession, and land use [15], and has been celebrated for its ability to support local economies through alternative livelihoods [16]. Nepal ranks as the 9th most floristically diverse country in Asia. Despite occupying 0.1 % of earth’s land cover, it houses over 8000 plant species of which one quarter are believed endemic [10, 18]. Approximately 50 % of these plants are considered ‘useful’ [19] or ‘ethnobotanical’ in nature [20] and 25–50 % are expected to have medicinal properties [19, 21, 22]. Agroforestry and sustainable harvesting practices of medicinal or useful plant species, including many culinary species such as cardamom, may provide the economic incentive [23, 24] necessary to ensure the future health of Nepalese ecosystems [25].

Although there has been a recent surge in TBK research, certain species remain significantly understudied in Nepal. In particular, the guild of plants known as parasites and mycoheterotrophs, collectively denoted by the term parijibi in Nepali language, lacks a literature record. Parasites and mycoheterotrophs (PMP) are unique among plants because they depend upon a host plant for some or all of their nutrients during a period of their lifecycle. Globally, there are 20 parasitic plant families and eight mycoheterotrophic plant families, many of which do not photosynthesize, and, therefore, have atypical life histories. Moreover, all PMPs have extreme habitat specifications that are inherently bound to forest community dynamics as well as their host-species ranges. Together, these requirements have had marked affects on PMP population densities, abundances, and potential ranges. PMP are well represented in Nepal; however, little is known about their exact diversity or the biocultural knowledge that surrounds them.

To address this disparity, our study aims to create the first compendium of PMP taxa in Nepal, including their growth habit, geographic distribution, altitudinal range, host plants, flowering and fruiting times. We then seek to create a comprehensive biocultural record of PMPs, emphasizing TBK and ethnobotanical uses, to preserve the biocultural heritage of these species in the Central-Eastern Himalayas. Based on fieldwork conducted from September 2013 through May 2014 and an exhaustive literature review, we developed a critical interpretation of PMP use and management.


Study area

Nepal occupies a 147,181-km2 zone in the Central-Eastern Himalayan range (latitude: 26°22′ to 30°27′ N; longitude: 80°40′ to 88°12′ E) between China and India. It is administratively divided into five development regions, 14 zones, 75 districts, 191 municipalities, and 3276 village development committees (VDC). At the level of VDC, most communities are further subdivided along ethnic or caste lines, stratifying IBK/TBK well beyond the level of administrative boundaries.

Ecologically, the country is classified into three vegetative and seven physiogeographic zones based on altitudinal variations from the lowlands (59 m) to the high Himalayas (8848 m). However for the purposes of policy, the Master Forestry Plan for Nepal considers only five physiogeographic zones based on altitude: Terai (60–330 m), Siwalks (120–2000 m), Middle Mountain (2000–3000 m), High Mountains (3000–4000 m) and High Himal (above 4000 m). Our fieldwork was primarily conducted in the Terai and Middle Mountains of Central and Eastern Nepal. Our review spans the entire country (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

Map of the Nepal Central Himalaya. Blue: Districts surveyed during our botanical and ethnobotanical fieldwork. Green: Districts where previous reports detailed the ethnobotanical uses of parasitic plants

Ethnobotanical survey

Before initiating our ethnobotanical investigation, we collected all available data on the status of PMP in Nepal. First, we reviewed authoritative botanical texts [2530] to glean details on plant distributions, altitudinal ranges, parasitic habit, hosts, flowering times, and fruiting times. We then cross-referenced these data against online botanical databases [3133], and compared these data against herbaria records at Nepal’s National Herbarium and Plant Laboratories (KATH) [34] in Godawari, Lalitpur, Tribhuvan National University’s Central Department of Botany’s Herbarium (TUCH) [35] located in Kirtipur, Kathmandu, and Tribhuvan University Post-Graduate Campus’ botanical collections in Biratnagar, Morang (TUCH; 34). Once this process was complete, we generated range maps and species profiles for each PMP using ArcGIS version 9.3 to guide our ethnobotanical survey [36] (Additional files 1, 2 and 3). A linear regression analysis was then performed to understand how altitudinal gradients correlate with PMP diversity in Nepal.

Once botanical data were collated, we conducted field expeditions to evaluate the presence and perceptions of PMP in 12 districts based on high levels of reported biological and cultural diversity: Bara, Chitwan, Ilam, Jhapa, Kathmandu, Kaski, Lalitpur, Makwanpur, Morang, Nuwakot, Parbat, and Rautahat Districts (Table 1). Some larger VDCs visited during this time include: Akumba (Bara), Biratnagar (Morang), Birtamode (Jhapa), Chitre (Kaski), Daman (Makwanpur), Mhanegang (Nuwakot), and Sikles (Kaski). At each site, we surveyed ecosystems with the help of local guides in order to evaluate the presence of PMPs at each site. When permitted, we collected samples for use during interviews. Informants were later presented with freshly pressed or gathered plant material; in some cases, dried specimens or high-resolution, color photographs were used due to harvesting regulations (e.g. Fig. 2).

Table 1 Parasitic plant families represented in Nepal. See Additional file 1 for species-level profiles and Additional file 3 for species range maps
Fig. 2

Photographic record of some parasitic and mycoheterotrophic plants documented during our study. Panels ac: Mycoheterotrophic plants native to Nepal, including Montropa uniflora and two orchid species found in Chitwan National Park known by the Tharu term chikhtaa. Panels df: Growth habit of prumai, or species in the Balanphoraceae (Panel d: Fruiting body of Rhopalocnemis phalloides: Panels e and f: Female and male inflorescence of Balanophora polyandra, respectively). Panels gi: Growth habit of Cuscuta chinensis, Viscum album, and Cuscuta reflexa. Panels jl: Different parasitic plant fruit consumed by our informants, including Cuscuta and two mistletoe species (Loranthaceae)

At each study site, we interviewed both specialist and non-specialist plant user groups using a Rapid Rural Appraisal method [37]. Specialist groups reviewed and consulted during this time include traditional doctors or healers known variously as amchis, bonpos, dhamis, jhankris, and khabres as well as management officials, such as plant quarantine officers and junior technical agricultural assistants. Non-specialist groups consisted of people, including farmers, trade workers, and students, for whom plants are not an important component of their professional life, but who may use them for other purposes or personal use [16]. We spoke with all who readily accepted to be interviewed; however, we took care to involve no more than one informant from the same household during a single interview session.

Using an informal, semi-structured questionnaire (Additional file 4), we evaluated biocultural knowledge in terms of the informant’s ability to identify PMPs and describe their ethnobotanical uses. They were then asked if they recognized the plant, if there was a local name for the plant, if it had any uses, and if they personally used it [16]. We also asked general questions related to population abundance, including population distributions, localities, habitat types, and characteristics of different populations. More specific questions focused on knowledge of the biology and ecology of PMPs, including their life histories. Before each interview, prior informed consent was obtained with the help of district-level and village-level community leaders, government officials, and local guides to collect and disseminate their IBK (Cornell University IRB: 1311004259).

In total, we interviewed 141people (Male: 89, Female: 52; Average Age: 51 years) from both specialist and non-specialist groups (Table 1). Informants varied in ethnic identity, including Brahmin/Chhetri (14 %), Dalit (10 %), Gurung (27 %), Madeshi/Tharu (17 %), Rai (8 %), and Tamang (24 %). Approximately 62 % of those interviewed had no formal education, and approximately 72 % engaged in agricultural or pastoral livelihoods. All informants had lived in their respective village for their entire lives with the exception of five Gurung men in Kaski District who served for an average of 20 years each in the Indian Army or British Army’s Gurkha regiment. Use accumulation curves were used to determine the number of interviews conducted for each PMP per site was sufficient [37].

When permitted, herbaria specimens were also collected and voucher records mounted following standard procedures [16]. Most specimens were identified to the species level and were deposited at TUCH in Kirtipur, Kathmandu. In addition, we took photographs and recorded species information, geographical coordinates, altitude, and habitat type and characteristics on herbaria records as well as in Additional files 1, 2 and 3. Finally, R. P. Chaudhary of Tribhuvan University’s RECAST Division, as well as P. K. Jha and K. K. Shrestha of Tribhuvan University’s Central Department were consulted regarding species identification and study methods.

We then conducted an exhaustive literature review on the ethnobotanical uses and biocultural knowledge surrounding parasitic and mycoheterotrphic species to supplement our field research [19, 26, 29, 3886]. Our review targeted data on common names, plant uses, and plant preparations. Our internet surveys were conducted using the study country’s name (Nepal), plant species’ name, and the following keyword combinations: ethnobiology, ethnobotany, ethnoecology, ethnopharmacology, ethnobiological, ethnobotanical, ethnoecological, ethnopharmacological, and ethnoveterinary. We also visited the Tribhuvan University and Cornell-Nepal Study Program libraries (Kirtipur, Kathmandu) to collect all available information from unpublished Master’s thesis. We are aware that our collection criteria, although exhaustive, did not include all unpublished studies and/or all local journals or articles not published in English, Nepali, or Tibetan languages.

Results and discussion

Parasitic and mycoheterotrophic plant diversity

Nepal is a hotspot for PMP diversity. Botanical records revealed that 150 of the Earth’s 4500 parasitic plant species (3 %; Table 2) and 28 of the approximately 160 mycoheterotrophic species (18 %; Table 3) are native to Nepal (Additional files 1 and 2). Many of the records parasitic species are also considered Nepal endemic, including: Euphrasia nepalensis, Pedicularis annapurnensis, Pedicularis anserantha, Pedicularis brevicaposa, Pedicularis chamissonoides, Pedicularis cornigera, Pedicularis mugensis, Pedicularis odontolma, Pedicularis oxyrhyncha, Pedicularis pseudoregeliana, Pedicularis tamurensis, Pedicularis terrenoflora, Pedicularis yalungensis. Altitude and number of PMPs are strongly correlated (R2 = 0.81), with higher altitudes exhibiting greater PMP species richness (Fig. 3). This correlation is primarily driven by parasitic Pedicularis spp. found at high altitudes.

Table 2 Fully mycoheterotrophic plant families represented in Nepal. See Additional file 2 for species-level profiles and Additional file 3 for species range maps
Table 3 Details on informants surveyed by our study according to profession, age, and sex/gender in each district surveyed in our study
Fig. 3

Total number of parasitic and mycoheterotrophic plant species found along Nepal’s altitudinal gradient. Parasitic and mycoheterotrophic species diversity is highly correlated with altitude (R2 = 0.8094), with greater species richness found in high-altitude zones (background image: [88])

Our ethnobotanical survey documented the uses of 15 species and varieties of Mistletoe (Loranthaceae: Dendropthoe falcata, D. pentandra, Helixanthera ligustrina, H. parasitica, Loranthus odoratus, Macrosolen cochinchinensis, Scurrula elata, S. parasitica, S. pulverenta, Taxillus umbellifer, T. vestitus; Viscaceae: Viscum album, V. articulatum var. articulatum, V. articulatum var. liquidambariclum), four species in the Orobanchaceae (Aeginetia indica, Orobanche aegyptiaca, Striga angustifolia, S. gesnerioides), three species in the Convolvulaceae (Cuscuta chinensis, C. europaea var. indica, C. reflexa var. reflexa), two species in the Balanophoraceae (Balanophora polyandra, Rhopalocnemis phalloides), two species in the Orchidaceae (Fig. 2), and one species in the Ericaceae (Monotropa uniflora). We created 42 herbarium records for 21 species of PMP, which were deposited at TUCH (Additional file 5). Our survey is the first to record the following plants per district: Balanophora polyandra (Kaski), Cuscuta chinensis (Jhapa), C. reflexa (Bara, Jhapa, Rautahat); Dendropthoe falcata (Morang); D. falcata (Rautahat); Helixanthera parasitica (Makwanpur); Macrosolen cochinchinensis (Jhapa); Rhopalocnemis phalloides (Kaski).

Ethnobotanical uses of parasitic and mycoheterotrophic plants (Parijibi)

Ethnobotanical information for 23 parasitic plant species distributed among four families and 13 genera were documented during our fieldwork (Table 4). Approximately 82 % of informants surveyed were familiar with all PMP species native or naturalized to their local environment, and their uses generalized into five categories: medicine (41 %), fodder (23 %), food (17 %), ritual objects (11 %), or material (8 %). The largest proportion of ethnobotanicals emerged from the Loranthaceae and Convolvulaceae. Our literature review revealed previous ethnobotanical records for 10 parasitic and two mycoheterotrophic plant species not covered by our survey, with the majority of species in the Orobanchaceae (Pedicularis spp.). Pedicularis spp. were primarily utilized by Tibetan groups living in high-altitude regions of the Central Himalayas, which corresponds with our species diversity data (Fig. 3). Based on studies in the 29 total districts surveyed, approximately 17 % of all parasitic plants and 7 % of all mycoheterotrophic plants native to Nepal have ethnobotanical uses. Our survey provides the first ethnobotanical data on Balanophora polyandra, Cuscuta chinensis, and Rhopalocnemis phalloides in Nepal.

Table 4 Ethnobotanical uses of parasitic and mycoheterotrophic plants in the Nepal Central Himalaya

As medicine, all species were harvested from wild populations and used immediately as fresh material. The entire plant was typically ground to prepare or activate the medicinal potential of each PMP. However, in some cases, dried plant material was also pulverized into a powder (e.g. Santalum album). PMP medicinal formulations generally involved single species, and were orally administered as soup (jhol) or juice with treated water (saphaa paani) or oil (tel). A notable exception came from PMPs used to treat fracture and serious hepatic diseases. In these cases, plant paste was directly applied to the site of injury or infection along with other situation-dependent supplements (refer to ‘Notes’ in Table 4). Measurements were not made using a standardized method. Often, highly toxic plants, particularly species in the Balanophoraceae used as vermicide, were dosed based on weight or bodily constitution. Other PMPs were prescribed according to patient preference or tolerability, as many PMP-based herbal medicines are bitter in taste.

Interviews between age groups revealed that the ethnobotanical knowledge surrounding many medicinal PMPs is threatened. All specialist users surveyed in this study were male, and only men in surveyed regions had the opportunity to study under traditional healers. However, this tradition is beginning to change in some Tibetan communities, where women are increasingly encouraged to study under male amchis. Overall, the age structure and system of knowledge transmission in many village communities does not promote the promulgation of indigenous knowledge systems in younger generations. All informants under the age of 30 sought the help of allopathic health posts well before traditional medical practitioners, and they only visited traditional healers under extraordinary circumstances. This being said, each our informants under the age of 30 had visited traditional healers as children and were aware of the treatment potential of medicinal plants (jaributi). Based on our findings, traditional knowledge is a system evolving within Nepal’s rapidly changing socio-ecological climate, and faces many threats as the state continues to modernize.

Ethnoecological perceptions of parasitic and mycoheterotrophic plants

Growth habit was most critical factor considered when surveyed groups classified PMPs. For example, Gurung-identifying specialist users collectively classified species in the Balanophoraceae as prumai, meaning ‘mushroom-like plants that emerge from the earth’ (Fig. 2, Panels d-f). Prumai is not exclusive to PMPs, and it confers a medicinal connotation (jaributi) for other organisms such as fungi, but not Yarsagumba (Ophiocordyceps sinensis.). To elaborate, prumai grow near or parasitize trees in sacred landscapes, such as holy forests or sacred groves, and have thus become associated with spirits and regional cosmologies. Only specialist users, particularly Gurung kabres, made this distinction. Based on our fieldwork, we conclude that this is primarily due to the fact that prumai uses are considered arcane. As a result, IBK surrounding these plants remains isolated within specialist circles that do not consistently transmit this knowledge to younger generations. Other more common names, such as the Nepali term Ek Li ber, or ‘the one that stands alone’ in old-growth forests, further confirms the importance of growth habit for the identification and use of species in the Balanophoraceae.

Moreover, growth habit is the only factor considered when classifying or distinguishing between Cuscuta species. Cuscuta are collectively referred to as Aakash beli or Pahilo Lahara, which translate as ‘sky net’ or ‘yellow climber,’ respectively. Because it lacks leaves and exhibits a vine-like growth habit, this genus does not fit into local ethonotaxonomic schemes. It stands alone as its own plant category simply because it has seeds, and is perceived more generally as a rootless, plant-like mass that forms on the top of shrubs and trees (e.g. Fig. 2, Panel i). As medicine, its vein-like tendrils are complemented by its color and bitter taste to cue its medicinal use for hepatic diseases. Just as hepatic diseases consume the body, turning it yellow and often associated with bitter bile, Cuscuta growth habit, as complemented by color and taste, have in many ways become symbolic in medicine for treating similar syndromes.

Finally, parasitic habit is the primary feature used to identify many mistletoe species. Mistletoes are collectively termed Ainjeru, meaning ‘scourge’ or plant that debilitates. Although generally isolated to female informants, a variety of cultural beliefs surround this plant and are associated with this name. For instance, several women indicated that burning mistletoe branches leads to goiter, wart-like symptoms, eye problems, and family debt. If brought into one’s house, mistletoes could also lead to hauntings. All symptoms appear to be correlated with the perceived biology of the plant, or the bulbous masses and wart-like protrusions that Ainjeru inflicts upon its host. An exception to this rule exists for Phulchoki-area Tamangs, who believe mistletoe-infected wood confers good luck during gambling [62]. Women were the primary user groups for mistletoes, as they were responsible for collecting fodder plants for buffalo and cows.

Plant utility is a secondary identifier for mistletoe species in the Viscaceae, especially Viscum album and V. articulatum, and such knowledge remains isolated to male user groups. Harchor, a Nepali term meaning ‘bone binder’ or a substance that facilitates the repair of bones, denotes these plants’ common use for treating fracture. When describing Harchor’s medicinal use, male informants consistently referenced the plants growth habit along with its potency. Because they create bulbous masses on tree branches, making a thinner branch thicker, they have been appropriated into medicine for treating fracture. Together with the joint-like nature of V. articulatum leaves, growth habit appears to be the primary feature signaling Viscaceae use. Beyond growth habit, leaf shape, preferred host plant, and flower are used to further distinguish mistletoe species based on alternative utilities.

In the Terai, Orobanche and Striga species were generally known as variations of the Nepali word jhar, meaning ‘grass’ or ‘grass-like weedy plant’. This lack of differentiation mirrors these plants’ limited IBK, including the species we surveyed: Orobanche aegyptiaca (Fig. 4), Striga gesneroides, and S. asiatica. Orobanche spp. in some areas of the central Terai are known as Thokara or Thoka, meaning swollen rhizome. This again describes these plants’ parasitic organ know as haustoria, and, inherently, its growth habit. In other regions, Orobanche spp. are referred to as Bandaar Phul, or monkey flower, due to its projectile fruit and dispersion method.

Fig. 4

Orobanche aegyptiaca, or bandaarphul (monkey flower), parasitizing Brassica oleracea in the Western Terai

Parasitic plants and agricultural development

Based on fieldwork with Plant Quarantine Officers, species in the Orobanchaceae pose a potential threat to agricultural production in Nepal’s Terai region. In particular, Orobanche and Striga spp. were widely recognized as invasive weeds infecting many crop systems, including cabbage, maize, millet, potato, and sugarcane plots (Fig. 4). Qualitatively, their populations were reported to have increased in recent decades, with more frequent and widespread ranges today than in previous decades. Our informants primarily cited that increased host densities (i.e. spread of agriculture) facilitated this spread. Similar reports were received in Kaski’s Community Forest systems regarding mistletoe species (Loranthaceae). For conservation purposes, future studies should focus on parasite infestation and the expansion of agricultural development in Nepal, including changes in forest habitat, fallow lands, and wetland ecosystems. Exacerbated by climate change, PMP are likely to have range-shifts into higher altitude fields, threatening native biodiversity and the integrity of historical ecosystems.

Increased PMP population sizes and densities are reported throughout Nepal. Both community foresters and forest users groups noted marked increases in Loranthaceae populations on Alnus nepalensis, Prunus cornuta, Pyrularia edulis, Symplocos ramosissima, Berberis spp., and Quercus spp. This appears due to the fact that older trees are less frequently felled, and these trees are most likely to become parasitized [87, 88]. Community forestry programs have thus ironically preserved Nepalese forests, however has in turn facilitated increased parasitism. An exception to PMP population increases were seen in declined Cuscuta populations, as well as its use as medicine, due to habitat loss and over-exploitation of Cuscuta host plants for fodder or fuel.


Ethnobotanical analyses provide insight into how indigenous groups manage and perceive natural resources based on traditional relationships to the environment. They can provide crucial details on the population ecology and economic importance of many species, and are thus crucial when developing environmental management programs in regions such as the central Himalaya. Our study revealed that many Nepalese people possessed a great deal of IBK on PMPs, in spite of the fact that many PMPs are not longer used a medicine. Our study also depicts the heterogeneity of IBK in Nepal as stratified within and among ethnic groups and age cohorts. Both species diversity and the traditional knowledge that surrounds them are important factors to consider when designing future conservation projects.


  1. 1.

    Government of Nepal. Forest (First Amendment) Act, 2055. Ministry of forests and soil conservation. 1999. Accessed 14 March 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Government of Nepal. Forest Regulation, 2051. Ministry of forests and soil conservation. 1995. Accessed 14 March 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Government of Nepal. National biodiversity strategy and action plan 2014–2020. Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation. 2014. Accessed 5 August 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Text of the convention. 1983. Accessed 24 June 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Ramsar Convention Secretariat. The Ramsar convention manual. 6th ed. 2013. Accessed 24 June 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    United Nation. Convention on biological diversity. 1992. Accessed 23 September 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Nightingale AA. Forest community or community forestry?: Beliefs, meanings, and nature in north-western Nepal. In: Guneratne A, editor. Culture and the environment in the Himalaya. London: Routledge; 2010. p. 79–99.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Thoms C. Community control of resources and the challenge of improving local livelihoods: a critical examination of community forestry in Nepal. Geoforum. 2008;39:1452–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Kunwar RM, Nepal BK, Kshhetri HB, Rai SK, Bussmann RW. Ethnomedicine in Himalaya: a case study from Dolpa, Humla. Jumla and Mustang districts of Nepal. J Ethnobio Ethnomed. 2006;2:27. doi:10.1186/1746-4269-2-27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Kunwar RM, Mahat L, Acharya RP, Bussmann RW. Medicinal plants, traditional medicine, markets and management in far-west Nepal. J Ethnobio Ethnomed. 2013;9:24. doi:10.1186/1746-4269-9-24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Stapp JR, Lillieholm RJ, Upadhaya S, Johnson T. Evaluating the impacts of forest management policies and community-level institutions in the buffer zone of Chitwan National Park, Nepal. J Sustain Forest. 2015. doi:10.1080/10549811.2015.1025080.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. Assessing five years of CEPF investment in the eastern Himalayas regions. 2011. July2011.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Paudel NS, Khatri DB, Khanal DR, Karki R. The context of REDD+ in Nepal: Drivers, agents and institutions. Center for International Forestry Research. 2013. files/OccPapers/OP-81.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Cameron M. Healing landscapes: sacred and rational nature in Nepal’s ayurvedic medicine. In: Guneratne A, editor. Culture and the environment in the Himalaya. London: Routledge; 2010. p. 40–60.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Lama YC, Ghimire SK, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y. Medicinal plants of Dolpo: Amchi’s knowledge and conservation. WWF Nepal Program. Kathmandu: Format Printing Press; 2001. Accessed 24 June 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Ghimire SK, McKey D, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y. Heterogeneity in ethnoecological knowledge and management of medicinal plants in the Himalayas of Nepal: implications for conservation. Ecol Soc. 2004;9:6. Accessed 2 June 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Gewali MB. Aspects of traditional medicine in Nepal. Institute of Natural Medicine, University of Toyama. 2008. Accessed 24 September 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Bhattarai KR, Maren IE, Chaudhary RP. Medicinal plant knowledge of the Panchase region in the middle hills of the Nepalese Himalaya. Banko Janakari. 2011;21(2):31–9.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Uprety Y, Asselin H, Boon EK, Yadav S, Shrestha KK. Indigenous uses and bioefficacy of medicinal plants in the Rasuwa District, Central Nepal. J Ethnobio Ethnomed. 2010;6:3. doi:10.1186/1746-4269-6-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Kunwar RM, Bussmann RW. Ethnobotany in the Nepal Himalaya. J Ethnobio Ethnomed. 2008;4:24. doi:10.1186/1746-4269-4-24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Bhattarai S, Chaudhary RP, Quave CL, Taylor RSL. The use of medicinal plants in the trans-Himalayan arid zone of Mustang district, Nepal. J Ethnobio Ethnomed. 2010;6:14. doi:10.1186/1746-4269-6-14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Rokaya MB, Munzbergova Z, Timsina B. Ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants from the Humla district of western Nepal. J Ethnopharmacol. 2010;30(3):485–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Government of Nepal. Kathmandu declaration on agroforestry. Ministry of Agricultural Development and Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation. 2015. Accessed 24 June 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Karki M. The organic production of medicinal and aromatic plants: a strategy for improved value-addition and marketing of products from the Himalayas. In: Thomas YA, Karki M, Gurung K, Parajuli D, editors. Proceedings of wise practices and experimental learning in conservation and management of Himalayan medicinal plants. Nepal: Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation; 2005. p. 56–69.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Chaudhary RP. Biodiversity in Nepal: status and conservation. Bangkok: Tec Press Books; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Manandhar NP. Plants and people of Nepal. Hong Kong: Timber Press; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Polunin O, Stainton A. Flowers of the Himalayas. USA: Oxford University Press; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Press JR, Shrestha KK, Sutton SA. Annotated checklist of the flowering plants of Nepal. London: The Natural History Museum of London; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Shrestha K. Dictionary of Nepalese plant names. Kathmandu: Mandala Book Point; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Rajbhandari KR, Joshi R. Crop weeds of Nepal. Kathmandu: Natural History Society of Nepal; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Annotated checklist of the flowering plants of Nepal. Accessed 20 December 2013.

  32. 32.

    The Plant List. Version 1.1. Accessed 20 December 2013.

  33. 33. Missouri Botanical Garden. Accessed 26 June 2015.

  34. 34.

    Government of Nepal. National herbarium and plant laboratories (KATH). Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation. Godawari, Lalitpur, Nepal.

  35. 35.

    Tribhuvan University. Tribhuvan University Central Herbarium (TUCH). Central Department of Botany. Kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal.

  36. 36.

    Environmental Systems Research Institute. ArcGIS Desktop v. 9.3. Redlands, CA. 2011.

  37. 37.

    Cunningham AB. Applied ethnobotany: people, wild plant use and conservation. USA: Earthscan Publications; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Acharya E, Pokhrel B. Ethno-medicinal plants used by Bantar of Bhaudaha, Morang, Nepal. Our Nature. 2006;4:96–103.

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Adhikay P, Roshan KC, Kayastha D, Thapa D, Shrestha R, Shrestha TM, et al. Phytochemical screening and anti-microbial properties of medicinal plants of Dhunkharka community, Kavrepalanchowk. Nepal. Intl J Pharm Biol Arch. 2011;2(6):1663–7.

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Bhattarai S, Chaudhary RP, Taylor RSL. Ethno-medicinal plants used by the people of Nawalparasi District, Central Nepal. Our Nature. 2009;7:82–99.

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Bhattarai NK. Folk herbal medicines of Dolakha district, Nepal. Fitoterapia. 1993;5:387–95.

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Coburn B. Some native medicinal plants of the western Gurung. Kailash. 1984;11(1–2):55–87.

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Dhami N. Ethnomedicinal uses of plants in western Terai of Nepal: a case study of Dekhatbhuli of Kanchapur District. In: Jha PK, editor. Medicinal plants in Nepal: an anthology of contemporary research. 2008. p. 164–76.

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Hasan MK, Gatto P, Jha PK. Traditional uses of wild medicinal plants and their management practices in Nepal: a study in Makawanpur District. Int J Med Arom Plants. 2013;3(1):102–12.

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Joshi AR, Edington JM. The use of medicinal plants by two village communities in the Central Development Region on Nepal. Econ Bot. 1990;44(1):71–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Joshi AR, Joshi K. Ethnomedicinal plants used against skin diseases in some villages of Kali Gandaki, Bagmati, and TadiLiku watersheds of Nepal. Ethnobot Leafl. 2007;11:235–46.

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Joshi K, Joshi R, Joshi AR. Indigenous knowledge and uses of medicinal plants in Macchegaun, Nepal. Indian J Tradit Know. 2011;10(2):281–6.

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Kunwar RM, Duwadee NPS. Ethnobotanical notes on flora of Khaptad National Park (KNP), far-western Nepal. Him J Sci. 2003;1(1):25–30.

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Kunwar RM, Uprety Y, Burlakoti C, Chaudhary CL, Bussmann RW. Indigenous use and ethnopharmacology of medicinal plants in far-west Nepal. Ethnobot Res Appl. 2009;7:5–28.

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Magar ST. A report of the indigenous knowledge of medicinal plants in the Magar community: a case study of Salija VDC, Parbat. In: Unpublished master’s thesis. Tribhuvan University: Kirtipur Kathmandu, Nepal. 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Limbu DK, Rai BK. Ethnomedicinal practices among the Limbu Community in Limbuwan, eastern Nepal. Global J Human Soc Sci. 2013; 13(2). Accessed 15 June 2015.

  52. 52.

    Parajuli RR. Ethnobotany of Arghakhanchi District, Nepal: plants used in dermatological and cosmetic disorders. Nep J Sci Tech. 2013;1(2):57–66.

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Rai SK. Medicinal plants used by Meche people of Jhapa District, Eastern Nepal. Our Nature. 2004;2:37–42.

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Shrestha PM, Dhillon SS. Medicinal plant diversity and use in the highlands of Dolakha district, Nepal. J Ethnopharmacol. 2003;86:81–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Singh AG, Hamal JP. Traditional phytotherapy of some medicinal plants used by Tharu and Magar communities of western Nepal, against dermatological disorders. Sci World. 2013;11(11):81–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Singh AG, Panthi MP, Tewari DD. Ethnomedical plants used by the Tharu and Magar communities of Rupandehi District, Western Nepal. Curr Bot. 2011;2(2):30–3.

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Singh AO, Kumar A, Terai DD. An ethnobotanical survey of medicinal plants used in Terai forests of Western Nepal. J Ethnobio Ethnomed. 2012; 8(19).doi:10.1186/1746-4269-8-19

  58. 58.

    Tamang G. An ethnobiological study of the Tamang People. Our Nature. 2003;1:37–41.

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Thapa LB. Indigenous knowledge on common medicinal plants among Raji community of Surkhet District, Mid-Western Nepal. Nep J Biosci. 2012;2:88–92.

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Bhattarai GP. Diversity and indigenous uses of flowering plant resources in the Churiya forests of Parsa Wildlife Reserve and adjoining area. Central Department of Botany, Tribhuvan University, Nepal. M.Sc. Thesis; 2002

  61. 61.

    Bhattarai NK. Folk herbal medicines of Makawanpur district, Nepal. Econ Bot. 1991;29(4):284–95.

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Kunwar RM, Adhikari N, Devkota MP. Indigenous use of mistletoes in tropical and temperate region of Nepal. Banko Janakari. 2015;15(2):38–42.

    Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Mandandhar NP. A contribution to the ethnobotany of Mushar tribes of Dhanusa district, Nepal. J Nat Hist Mus. 1986;10(1–4):53–64.

    Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Pandey B. Ethnobotany in human welfare: a case study for Bhujung, Lamjung, Nepal. Department of Biological and Environmental Science, Kathmandu University, Nepal. M. Sc. Thesis; 2001

  65. 65.

    Panthi MP, Chaudhary RP. Angiosperm flora of Arghakhanchi district and adjoining areas, West Nepal. J Nat Hist Mus. 2002;21(1–4):7–32.

    Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Sah JP, Singh RL, Bhatta N. Floristic diversity and use of plants in Ghodaghodi lake area, Nepal. J Nat Hist Mus. 2002;21(1–4):243–66.

    Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Sapkota PP. Ecological study and traditional uses of medicinal plants in malika forest Baglung, west Nepal. Central Department of Botany, Tribhuvan University, Nepal. M. Sc. Thesis; 2002

  68. 68.

    Shrestha KK, Kunwar RM. Plants. In Olver S. editor. Babai river valley: fish and biodiversity survey, Royal Bardiya National Park, Nepal. ZSL conservation report no. 3: London: the Zoological Society of London; 2003. p. 119.

  69. 69.

    Siwakoti M, Siwakoti S, Varma SR. Ethnobotanical notes on wild edible plants used by Satars of Nepal. TU J. 1997;20(1):57–64.

    Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Acharya KP, Rokaya MB. Medicinal orchids of Nepal: are they well protected? Our Nature. 2010;8:82–91.

    Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Kunwar RM, Adhikari N. Ethnomedicine of Dolpa District, Nepal: The plants, their uses. Lyonia. 2005;8(1):43–9.

    Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Subedi A, Kunwar B, Choi Y, Dai Y, van Andel T, Chaudhary RP, et al. Collection and trade of wild-harvest orchids in Nepal. J Ethnobio Ethnomed. 2013;9:64–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Vaidya B, Shrestha M, Joshee N. Report on Nepalese orchid species with medicinal properties. In: Wantanabe T, Takano A, Bista MS, Saiju HK, editors. The Himalayan plants, can they save us? Proceedings of Nepal-Japan joint symposium on conservation and utilization of Himalayan medicinal resources. Japan: Society for the conservation and Development of Himalayan Medicinal Reosurce (SCDHMR); 2000. p. 146–52.

    Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Devkota MP, Acharya N. Status of angiospermic tree parasites of Kathmandu Valley. WWF Nepal Program. 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Nepal M. Ethnobotany of Rai and Sherpa community in the Makalu Barun conservation area, eastern Nepal. Central Department of Botany, Tribhuvan University, Nepal.M.Sc. Thesis; 1999

  76. 76.

    Gurung K. Indigenous knowledge on the plant resources used by the people of Tinjure area, Terhathum district, Nepal. Botanica Orientalis. 2003;2:165–70.

    Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Manandhar NP. Medicinal plants-lore of Tamang tribe of Kavrepalanchok district, Nepal. Econ Bot. 1991;45:58–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Devkota MP. Mistletoes of Khimti forest, Ramechaap district, Nepal. Banko Janakari. 1997;7(2):52–3.

    Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Kunwar RM, Burlakoti C, Chowdhary CL, Bussmann RW. Medicinal plants in far western Nepal: their uses and pharmacological validity. Med Aromat Plant Sci Biotechnol. 2010;4(1):28–42.

    Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Manandhar NP. Ethnobotanical note on folk-lore Remedies of Baglung District, Nepal. Contrib Nepal Stud J. 1993;20(2):183–96.

    Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Toba S. Plant names in Khaling: a study in ethnobotany and village economy. Kailash. 1995. p. 145–69.

    Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Tibetan Medicinal Plants. 1994. New Delhi, INDIA. The Services Press Tibetan Medical Publications

  83. 83.

    Shakya PR, Shrestha I, Paudel S, Sakya S. Study on non timber forest products in Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA), Nepal. 2002. Accessed 10 October 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Mentsikhang L-K. Himalayan doctors and healing herbs: the Amchi tradition and medicinal plants of Mustang. Kathmandu, Nepal: Mera Publications; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Manandhar NP. Medicinal plants used by the Chepang tribes of Makawanpur district Nepal. Fitoterapia. 1989;60(1):61–8.

    Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Thapa N. Ethnobotany and biodiversity conservation: a sustainable livelihood among the Tamangs. Kathmandu: Sunkoshi Chhapakhana; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Devkota MP, Kunwar RM. Diversity, distribution and host range of mistletoes in Godawari-Phulchoki Area, Kathmandu, Nepal. J Jpn Bot. 2006;81:255–61.

    Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Devkota MP, Joshi GP, Parajuli P. Diversity, distribution and host range of mistletoe in protected and unprotected areas of Central Nepal Himalayas. Banko Janakari. 2007;20(2):14–20.

    Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Sapkota PP. Religious culture and medicinal plants: an anthropological study. Dhaulagiri J Socio Anth. 2013;7:197–224.

    Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Balami NP. Ethnomedicinal uses of plants among the Newar community of Pharping Village of Kathmandu District, Nepal. Tribhuvan Univ J. 2012. Accessed 12 April 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Acharya R, Acharya KP. Ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants used by Tharu community of Parroha VDC, Rupandehi District, Nepal. Sci World. 2009;7(7):80–4. doi:10.3126/sw.v7i7.3832.

    Google Scholar 

Download references


We are grateful for the assistance and advice of the Cornell-Nepal Study Program, including Banu Oja, David Holmberg, and Dambar Chemjong, as well as our advisors at Tribhuvan University’s Central Department of Botany. At Tribhuvan University, we would like to extend particular thanks to R.P. Chaudhary, P.K. Jha, and K.K. Shrestha for their advice during study design and implementation. We would also like to thank Garima Adhikari, Bandana Awasthi, Tanka Gurung, Santosh Lamichane, Santosh Magar, Hum Kala Rana, Bhogendra Shah, Manoj Suji, and Bikram Wagle who provided assistance translating and collecting specimen for identification. Finally, this manuscript would not have been crafted without the mentorship of Martha Weiss at Georgetown University.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Santosh Kumar Rana.

Additional information

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

ARO and SKR participated in study design and implementation. ARO conceived the study and drafted the manuscript. SKR facilitated and translated interviews and prepared map files. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Additional files

Additional file 1:

Parasitic plant species found in Nepal. Nepal specific data, including host species are presented. (PDF 128 kb)

Additional file 2:

Mycoheterotrophic plant species found in Nepal. Nepal specific data, including host species are presented. (PDF 52 kb)

Additional file 3:

Plant distribution maps of parasitic and mycoheterotropic plant species found in Nepal. (PDF 106616 kb)

Additional file 4:

Semi-structured questionnaire for an ethnobotanical analysis of parasitic plants in the Nepal Himalaya. (PDF 154 kb)

Additional file 5:

Voucher records of collected parasitic plant species from Central and Eastern Nepal. (PDF 54 kb)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

O’Neill, A.R., Rana, S.K. An ethnobotanical analysis of parasitic plants (Parijibi) in the Nepal Himalaya. J Ethnobiology Ethnomedicine 12, 14 (2016).

Download citation


  • Nepal
  • Himalaya
  • Ethnobotany
  • Parasitic plants