Diversity of use and local knowledge of wild edible plant resources in Nepal

Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine

Hugo Asselin²  Uttam B Shrestha³  Narendra N Tiwari⁴  Sangeeta Rajbhandary³  Krishna K Shrestha³  Ram C Poudel¹  Yadav Uprety¹ 

[1] Ethnobotanical Society of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal;Canada Research Chair in Aboriginal Forestry, Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, 445 boulevard de l'Université, Rouyn-Noranda, Québec, J9X 5E4, Canada;Central Department of Botany, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal;Ayurved Campus, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal

关键词: Genetic resources;    Food security;    Biodiversity;    Wild edible plants;    Traditional knowledge;   

Others  :  862946
DOI  :  10.1186/1746-4269-8-16

 received in 2012-03-01, accepted in 2012-04-11,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Wild edible plants (WEP) provide staple and supplement foods, as well as cash income to local communities, thus favouring food security. However, WEP are largely ignored in land use planning and implementation, economic development, and biodiversity conservation. Moreover, WEP-related traditional knowledge is rapidly eroding. Therefore, we designed this study to fulfill a part of the knowledge gap by providing data on diversity, traditional knowledge, economic potential, and conservation value of WEP from Nepal.

Methods

The information was collected through focus group discussions and key informant interviews. Percentage of general utility of the plants among the study communities was evaluated using the Chi-square (χ²) test of homogeneity. High priority species were identified after consultation with the local stakeholders followed by scoring based on defined criteria. Pairwise ranking was used to assess ethnoecological knowledge to identify the threats to WEP.

Results

We documented 81 species belonging to Angiosperms (74), Pteridophytes (5), and Fungi (2). Most of the species were used as fruits (44 species) followed by vegetables (36). Almost half of the species (47%) were also used for purposes other than food. From the species with market value (37% of the total), 10 were identified as high priority species. Pairwise ranking revealed that WEP are threatened mostly by habitat destruction, land-use change and over-harvesting. Some of these plants are crop wild relatives and could thus be used for crop improvement. Interestingly, our study also revealed that young people who spend most of the time in the forest as herdsmen are particularly knowledgeable of wild fruit plants.

Conclusion

We provide empirical evidence from a relatively large area of Nepal about diversity and status of WEP, as well as methodological insights about the proper knowledge holders to consult. Regarding the unique and important knowledge they have on WEP, young people should be included when recruiting participants to ethnobotanical studies or to any type of consultation about WEP. The habit of using wild edible plants is still alive and is a traditional culinary practice that demonstrates rich traditional knowledge of local people. WEP were found to be important for livelihood as well as showing great potential for crop improvement. Priority species should be promoted for income generation activities through sustainable collection and trade. Communities should engage in minimizing the threats to these valuable resources.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Uprety et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

【 图 表 】

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Ehrlich PR, Ehrlich AH: The value of biodiversity. AMBIO 1992, 21:219-226.
• [2]Coe FG, Anderson GJ: Ethnobotany of the Garifuna of eastern Nicaragua. Eco Bot 1996, 50:71-107.
• [3]Kaimowitz D, Douglas S: Conserving what and for whom? Why conservation should help meet basic human needs in the tropics. Biotrop 2007, 39:567-574.
• [4]Schippmann U, Cunningham AB, Leaman DJ: Impact of cultivation and gathering of medicinal plants on biodiversity: Global trends and issues. In Biodiversity and the Ecosystem Approach in Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. FAO, Rome; 2002.
• [5]Gemedo-Dalle TB, Maass L, Isselstein J: Plant biodiversity and ethnobotany of Borana pastoralists in southern Oromla, Ethiopia. Eco Bot 2005, 59:43-65.
• [6]Shrestha PM, Dhillion SS: Diversity and traditional knowledge concerning wild food species in a locally managed forest in Nepal. Agroforest Syst 2006, 66:55-63.
• [7]Teklehaymanot T, Giday M: Ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants of Kara and Kwego semi-pastoralist people in Lower Omo River Valley, Debub Omo Zone, SNNPR Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 2010, 6:23. BioMed Central Full Text
• [8]Ogle BM, Grivetti LE: Legacy of the chameleon edible wild plants in the Kingdom of Swaziland, South Africa. A cultural, ecological, nutritional study. Parts II-IV, species availability and dietary use, analysis by ecological zone. Ecol Food Nutr 1985, 17:1-30.
• [9]Ali-Shtayeh MS, Jamous RM, Al-Shafie JH, Elgharabah WA, Kherfan FA, Qarariah KH, Khdair IS, Soos IM, Musleh AA, Isa BA, Herzallah HM, Khlaif RB, Aiash SM, Swaiti GM, Abuzahra MA, Haj-Ali MM, Saifi NA, Azem HK, Nasrallah HA: Traditional knowledge of wild edible plants used in Palestine (Northern West Bank): a comparative study. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 2008, 4:13. BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]Balemie K, Kebebew F: Ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants in Derashe and Kucha Districts. South Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 2006, 2:53.
• [11]Misra S, Maikhuri RK, Kala CP, Rao KS, Saxena KG: Wild leafy vegetables: a study of their subsistence dietetic support to the inhabitants of Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve. India. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 2008, 4:15. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]N’danikou S, Achigan-Dako EG, Wong JLG: Eliciting local values of wild edible plants in Southern Bénin to identify priority species for conservation. Eco Bot 2011, 65(4):381-395.
• [13]Jha PK, Shrestha KK, Upadhyay MP, Stimart DP, Spooner DM: Plant genetic resources of Nepal: a guide for plant breeders of agricultural, horticultural and forestry crops. Euphytica 1996, 87:189-210.
• [14]Termote C, Van Damme P, Djailo BD: Eating from the wild: Turumbu, Mbole and Bali traditional knowledge on non-cultivated edible plants, District Tshopo, DRCongo. GenetResour Crop Evol 2011, 58:585-618.
• [15]Shrestha KK, Rajbhandary S, Tiwari NN, Poudel RC, Uprety Y: Ethnobotany in Nepal: Review and perspectives. WWF Nepal Program, Kathmandu; 2004.
• [16]Banerji ML: Some edible and medicinal plants from east Nepal. J Bomb Nat Hist Soc 1955, 53:153-155.
• [17]Singh SC: Some wild plants of food value in Nepal. TU J 1968, 4(1):50-56.
• [18]Malla SB, Rajbhandari SB, Shrestha TB, Adhikari PM, Adhikari SR (Eds): Wild edible plants of Nepal. Department of Medicinal Plants Nepal, Bulletin no. 9. Government of Nepal Ministry of Forest and Soil conservation, Kathmandu; 1982.
• [19]Shrestha K: Wild leafy and fruity vegetables consumed by the local inhabitants of Dharan. J Nat Hist Mus 1983, 7(2):35-42.
• [20]Manandhar NP: Some additional note on wild food plants of Nepal. J Nat Hist Mus 1991, 12(1–4):19-32.
• [21]Manandhar NP: Ethnobotanical notes on unexploited wild food plants of Nepal. Ethnobot 1995, 7(1/2):95-101.
• [22]Siwakoti M, Siwakoti S, Varma SR: Ethnobotanical notes on wild edible plants used by Satars of Nepal. TU J 1997, 20(1):57-64.
• [23]Maden K, Dhakal MR: General survey of edible wild fruits from Koshi Zone, eastern Nepal. TU J 1998, 21(1):77-84.
• [24]Shrestha I, Shrestha K: Some wild edible plants of Langtang National Park, Rasuwa District, Central Nepal. Bulletin of Pure and Applied Science 2004, 23B(1):35-45.
• [25]Bhattarai S, Chaudhary RP, Taylor RSL: Wild edible plants used by the people of Manang District, Central Nepal. Ecol Food Nutr 2009, 48(1):1-20.
• [26]Acharya KP, Acharya R: Eating from the wild: indigenous knowledge on wild edible plants in Parroha VDC of Rupandehi district, Central Nepal. Inter J Soc For 2010, 3(1):28-48.
• [27]Haddad L, Oshaug A: How does the human rights perspective help to shape the food and nutrition policy research agenda? Food Pol 1999, 23:329-345.
• [28]LRMP (Land Resources Mapping Project): Land systems, land utilization and agriculture forestry reports. Land Resources Mapping Project, Kenting Earth Sciences Ltd, Ottawa; 1986.
• [29]Olson DM, Dinerstein E: The Global 200: priority ecoregions for global conservation. Ann Mo Bot Gard 2002, 89(2):199-224.
• [30]Martin GJ: Ethnobotany: A methods manual. Chapman and Hall, London; 1995.
• [31]Collins S, Martins X, Mitchell AT, Arnason T: Quantitative ethnobotany of two East Timorese cultures. Eco Bot 2006, 60(4):347-361.
• [32]Huntington HP: Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methods and applications. Ecol Appl 2000, 10(5):1270-1274.
• [33]Biernacki P, Waldorf D: Snowball sampling: problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociol Method Res 1981, 10(2):141-163.
• [34]Uprety Y, Asselin H, Boon EK, Yadav S, Shrestha KK: Indigenous use and bio-efficacy of medicinal plants in the Rasuwa district, Central Nepal. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 2010, 6:3. BioMed Central Full Text
• [35]Jick TD: Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Admin Sci Quart 1979, 24(4):602-611.
• [36]Cunningham AB: Applied ethnobotany: People, wild plant use and conservation. Earthscan Publishing Limited, London and Sterling VA; 2001.
• [37]Hara H, Williams LHJ: An enumeration of the flowering plants of Nepal (Vol. ii). British Natural History Museum, London; 1979.
• [38]Hara H, Charter AH, Williams LJH: An enumeration of the flowering plants of Nepal (Vol. iii). British Natural History Museum, London; 1982.
• [39]Polunin O, Stainton A: Flowers of the Himalaya. Oxford University Press, New Delhi; 1984.
• [40]Press JR, Shrestha KK, Sutton DA: Annotated checklist of flowering plants of Nepal. British Natural History Museum, London; 2000.
• [41]Chaudhary RP: Biodiversity in Nepal: Status and conservation. Tecpress Books, Thailand; 1998.
• [42]Uprety Y, Poudel RC, Asselin H, Boon EK, Shrestha KK: Stakeholder perspectives on use, trade, and conservation of medicinal plants in the Rasuwa District of Central Nepal. J Mount Sci 2011, 8(1):75-86.
• [43]Uprety Y: Ethnobotanical study on Bankariya ethnic group in Makwanpur District, Central Nepal. University Grants Commission, Kathmandu; 2005.
• [44]Rokaya MB, Münzbergová Z, Timsina B: Ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants from the Humla district of western Nepal. J Ethnopharmacol 2010, 130(3):485-504.
• [45]Ghimire SK, Gimenez O, Pradel R, McKey D, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y: Demographic variation and population viability in a threatened Himalayan medicinal and aromatic herb Nardostachys grandiflora: matrix modelling of harvesting effects in two contrasting habitats. J Appl Ecol 2008, 45:41-51.
• [46]Moore PD: Trials in bad taste. Nature 1994, 370:410-411.
• [47]Setalaphruk C, Price LL: Children’s traditional ecological knowledge of wild food resources: a case study in a rural village in Northeast Thailand. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 2007, 3:33. BioMed Central Full Text
• [48]Łuczaj Ł: Archival data on wild food plants used in Poland in 1948. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 2008, 4:4. BioMed Central Full Text
• [49]Łuczaj Ł, Nieroda Z: Collecting and learning to identify edible fungi in Southeastern Poland: age and gender differences. Ecol Food Nutr 2011, 50:319-336.
• [50]Phillips O, Gentry AH: The useful plants of Tamboapata, Peru: II additional hypothesis testing in quantitative ethnobotany. Eco Bot 1993, 47:33-43.
• [51]Kunwar RM, Uprety Y, Burlakoti C, Chowdhary CL, Bussmann RW: Indigenous use and ethnopharmacology of medicinal plants in Far-west Nepal. Ethnobot Res Appl 2009, 7:5-28.
• [52]Uprety Y: Poudel RC: Medicinal plants of Nepal: An analysis of use, trade and conservation in the Rasuwa District. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, Germany; 2010.
• [53]Pardo-de-Santayana M, Tardío J, Blanco E, Carvalho AN, Lastra JJ, Miguel ES, Morales R: Traditional knowledge of wild edible plants used in the northwest of the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal): a comparative study. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 2007, 3:27. BioMed Central Full Text
• [54]Hardin G: The tragedy of the commons. Science 1968, 162:1243-1248.
• [55]Shrestha UB, Shrestha BB, Shrestha S: Biodiversity conservation in community forests of Nepal: rhetoric and reality. Inter J Biodiv Cons 2010, 2(5):98-104.
• [56]Uprety Y, Poudel RC, Asselin H, Boon E: Plant biodiversity and ethnobotany inside the projected impact area of the Upper Seti Hydropower Project, Western Nepal. Environ Dev Sustain 2011, 13(3):463-492.
• [57]Rana JC, Pradheep K, Chaurasia OP, Sood S, Sharma RM, Singh A, Negi R: Genetic resources of wild edible plants and their uses among tribal communities of cold arid region of India. Genet Resour Crop Evol 2012, 59:135-149.
• [58]MoFSC (Ministry of Forest, Soil Conservation): Nepal biodiversity strategy. Government of Nepal. MoFSC, Kathmandu; 2002.
• [59]Molnar A, Liddle M, Bracer C, Khare A, White A, Bull J: Community-based forest enterprises in tropical forest countries: status and potential. ITTO, RRI and Forest Trends; 2007.
• [60]FAO: Non wood forest products for rural income and sustainable forestry. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome; 1995.
• [61]Carvalho AR: Popular use, chemical composition and trade of Cerrado’s medicinal plants (Goias, Brazil). Environ Dev Sustain 2004, 6:307-316.
• [62]Hamilton A: Medicinal plants, conservation and livelihoods. Biodiv Cons 2004, 13:1477-1517.
• [63]Negi VS, Maikhuri RK, Rawat LS: Non-timber forest products (NTFPs): a viable option for biodiversity conservation and livelihood enhancement in central Himalaya. Biodiv Conserv 2011, 20:545-559.
• [64]Lintu L: Marketing non-wood forest products in developing countries. Unasylva 1995, 46:37-41.
• [65]Maxted N, Kell S: Establishment of a network for the in situ conservation of crop wild relatives: status and needs. Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2008.
• [66]Hajjar R, Hodgkin T: The use of wild relatives in crop improvement: a survey of developments over the last 20 years. Euphytica 2007, 156:1-13.
• [67]Pandey A, Tomer AK, Bhandari DC, Pareek SK: Towards collection of wild relatives of crop plants in India. Genet Resour Crop Evol 2007, 55:187-202.
• [68]CWRSG (Crop Wild Relative Specialist Group): Crop wild relative. IUCN-Crop Wild Relative Specialist Group, ; 2008.
• [69]Kell S, Maxted N: Catalogue reveals stark statistics about crop wild relative conservation in Europe. In Crop Wild Realtive, IUCN-Crop Wild Relative Specialist Group Newletter, IUCN; 2008.
• [70]Meilleur BA, Hodgkin T: In situconservation of crop wild relatives: status and trends. Biodiv Conserv 2004, 13:663-684.