scholarly journals A comparison of the wild food plant use knowledge of ethnic minorities in Naban River Watershed National Nature Reserve, Yunnan, SW China

2012 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdolbaset Ghorbani ◽  
Gerhard Langenberger ◽  
Joachim Sauerborn
2016 ◽  
Vol 85 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Katija Dolina ◽  
Marija Jug-Dujaković ◽  
Łukasz Łuczaj ◽  
Ivana Vitasović-Kosić

The aim of this study was to document the use of wild foods in two locations in the coastal part of Croatia – on the island of Krk and in the Poljica area, near Split. We chose these places as they have historical data on plant use (1900 and 1903 respectively). We carried out 67 interviews in Poljica and 55 interviews in Krk to estimate the current use and knowledge of wild foods. Altogether, 80 species of wild food and herbal tea species of plants were recorded in Poljica and 76 in Krk. On average, 13.2 species were listed by per interview in Poljica, including 7.1 species of wild vegetables, and in Krk 14.6 species, including 7.9 species of wild vegetables. Out of the list of plant names recorded in the past, in Krk, we identified 82% of the taxa and in Poljica 86%.


2014 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 175-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katija Dolina ◽  
Łukasz Łuczaj

<p>Croatia’s versatile plant use traditions are still not sufficiently documented. The aim of this study was to record local traditions of wild food plant use on the Dubrovnik coast. We interviewed 40 inhabitants of 23 villages, mainly knowledgeable informants. On average 19 species were listed, which in total produced an inventory of 95 food plant species (including species whose leaves or inflorescences are used as recreational teas).</p><p>The most commonly collected are: <em>Sonchus oleraceus</em> and <em>S. asper</em>, <em>Asparagus acutifolius</em>, <em>Dioscorea communis</em>, <em>Cichorium intybus</em>, <em>Crepis zacintha</em>, <em>Allium ampeloprasum</em>, <em>Picris echioides</em> and <em>Foeniculum vulgare</em> (all of them used as vegetables), the fruits of <em>Rubus ulmifolius</em> (mainly eaten raw), the fruits of roses (<em>Rosa sempervirens</em> and <em>R. canina</em>) and the leaves of <em>Salvia officinalis</em> (both roses and salvia are used for making recreational teas). A particular feature of the local gastronomy is the collection of young <em>Ruscus aculeatus</em> shoots.</p>


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rainer W Bussmann ◽  
Narel Y Paniagua Zambrana ◽  
Inayat Ur Rahman ◽  
Zaal Kikvidze ◽  
Shalva Sikharulidze ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: The Republic of Georgia is part of the Caucasus biodiversity hotspot, and human agricultural plant use dates bat at least 6000 years. Over the last years lots of ethnobotanical research on the area has been published. In this paper we analyze the use of food plants in the 80% of Georgia not occupied by Russian forces. We hypothesized that, (1) given the long tradition of plant use, and the isolation under Soviet rule, plant use both based on home gardens and wild harvesting would be more pronounced in Georgia than in the wider region, (2) food plant use knowledge would be widely and equally spread in most of Georgia, (3) there would still be incidence of knowledge loss despite wide plant use, especially in climatically favored agricultural regions in Western and Eastern Georgia.Methods: From 2013 to 2019 we interviewed over 380 participants in all regions of Georgia not occupied by Russian forces and recorded over 19800 mentions of food plants. All interviews were carried out in the participants’ homes and gardens by native speakers of Georgian and its dialects (Imeretian, Rachian, Lechkhumian, Tush, Khevsurian, Psavian, Kakhetian), other Kartvelian languages (Megrelian, Svan) and minority languages (Ossetian, Ude, Azeri, Armenian, Greek). Results: The regional division was based primarily on historic provinces of Georgia, which often coincides with the current administrative borders. The total number of taxa, mostly identified to species, was 474. Taxonomically, the difference between two food plant groups - garden versus wild - was strongly pronounced even at family level. The richness of plant families was 66 versus 97 families in garden versus wild plants, respectively, and the difference was highly significant. Other diversity indices also unequivocally pointed to considerably more diverse family composition of wild versus garden plants as the differences between all the tested diversity indices appeared to be highly significant.Conclusions: Relationships among the regions in the case of wild food plants show a different and clearer pattern. In particular, adjacent regions cluster together (Kvemo Zemo Racha, and Zemo Imereti; Samegrelo, Guria, Adjara, Lechkhumi and Kvemo and Zemo Svaneti; Meskheti, Javakheti, Kvemo Kartli; Mtianeti, Kakheti, Khevsureti, Tusheti. Like in the case of the garden food plants, species diversity of wild food plants mentioned varied strongly. Climate severity and traditions of the use of wild food plants might play role in this variation. Overall food plant knowledge is widely spread all across Georgia, and broadly maintained


2012 ◽  
Vol 81 (4) ◽  
pp. 359-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Łukasz Łuczaj ◽  
Andrea Pieroni ◽  
Javier Tardío ◽  
Manuel Pardo-de-Santayana ◽  
Renata Sõukand ◽  
...  

The aim of this review is to present an overview of changes in the contemporary use of wild food plants in Europe, mainly using the examples of our home countries: Poland, Italy, Spain, Estonia and Sweden. We set the scene referring to the nutrition of 19th century peasants, involving many famine and emergency foods. Later we discuss such issues as children's wild snacks, the association between the decline of plant knowledge and the disappearance of plant use, the effects of over-exploitation, the decrease of the availability of plants due to ecosystem changes, land access rights for foragers and intoxication dangers. We also describe the 20th and 21st century vogues in wild plant use, particularly their shift into the domain of haute-cuisine.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document