| Literature DB >> 18474107 |
Mohammed S Ali-Shtayeh1, Rana M Jamous, Jehan H Al-Shafie', Wafa' A Elgharabah, Fatemah A Kherfan, Kifayeh H Qarariah, Isra' S Khdair, Israa M Soos, Aseel A Musleh, Buthainah A Isa, Hanan M Herzallah, Rasha B Khlaif, Samiah M Aiash, Ghadah M Swaiti, Muna A Abuzahra, Maha M Haj-Ali, Nehaya A Saifi, Hebah K Azem, Hanadi A Nasrallah.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A comparative food ethnobotanical study was carried out in fifteen local communities distributed in five districts in the Palestinian Authority, PA (northern West Bank), six of which were located in Nablus, two in Jenin, two in Salfit, three in Qalqilia, and two in Tulkarm. These are among the areas in the PA whose rural inhabitants primarily subsisted on agriculture and therefore still preserve the traditional knowledge on wild edible plants.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18474107 PMCID: PMC2396604 DOI: 10.1186/1746-4269-4-13
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ethnobiol Ethnomed ISSN: 1746-4269 Impact factor: 2.733
Number of informants, localities visited and geographical features of each area.
| Community/village code | Community/village name | Region/district | Ecological and economic characteristics of the community area | Number of informants |
| N1 | Nablus | Nablus | Mountainous Mediterranean: small scale agriculture, minor industrial activities, tourism nearby. | 20 |
| N2 | Til | Nablus | Mountainous/rural area: agriculture (olive trees, fig orchards), cattle farms. | 20 |
| N3 | Hiwara | Nablus | Rural: agriculture (olive trees), minor industrial activities. | 10 |
| N4 | Yitma | Nablus | Rural: agriculture (olive trees) | 10 |
| N5 | Qabalan | Nablus | Rural: agriculture (olive trees) | 10 |
| N6 | Sabastia | Nablus | Rural area: small-scale agriculture, olive trees, tourism. | 10 |
| Sub-total | 80 | |||
| J1 | Qabatia | Jenin | Rural, internal plane: intensive protected agriculture, olive trees. | 10 |
| J2 | Fandaqomia | Jenin | Rural area: agriculture (olive trees, stone fruit trees). | 10 |
| Subtotal | 20 | |||
| Q1 | Azzoun | Qalqilia | Rural area: olive trees. | 10 |
| Q2 | Kafrthulth | Qalqilia | Rural area: olive trees. | 20 |
| Q3 | Nabilias | Qalqilia | Rural, semi coastal area: agriculture (olive trees, citrus orchards, intensive agriculture) | 10 |
| Subtotal | 40 | |||
| S1 | Salfit | Salfit | Mountainous area: agriculture (olive trees). | 10 |
| S2 | Rafat | Salfit | Rural area: agriculture (olive trees). | 10 |
| Subtotal | 20 | |||
| T1 | Beitleed | Tulkarm | Rural area: agriculture (olive trees). | 20 |
| T2 | Baqasharqia | Tulkarm | Rural semi-coastal area: agriculture (olive trees, citrus orchards, intensive agriculture). | 10 |
| Subtotal | 30 | |||
| Total | 190 |
Figure 1Study areas in the Northern West Bank [31].
Number of species cited in the study areas by three informants or above, their genera, and families (total numbers of taxa recorded).
| No. of Families | 21 (25) | 22 (23) | 24 (30) | 24 (27) | 16 | 26 (35) |
| No. of Genera | 60 (68) | 50 (53) | 59 (69) | 44 (48) | 35 | 68 (89) |
| No. of Species | 68 (77) | 51 (54) | 63 (73) | 47 (50) | 36 | 76 (100) |
Figure 2Plant parts used.
Comparison of the five plants most often quoted (scientific name (number of citations)) in each of eight Mediterranean countries.
| Area | First plant | Second plant | Third plant | Fourth plant | Fifth plant |
| Palestine* | |||||
| Albania♣ | |||||
| Greece♣ | |||||
| Cyprus♣ | |||||
| Egypt♣ | |||||
| Italy♣ | |||||
| Morocco♣ | |||||
| Spain♣ |
* Present study, ♣ Hadjichambis et al. 2007.
Figure 3Cultural importance index (CI) of the 20 most relevant species in the study are in descending order by mean value (mCI).
Number and percentage of wild edible plants and of use report (UR) among food-categories at the survey sites.
| Number of species (Nsp) | ||||||||||||
| Food category | N* | Q | J | T | S | Total | ||||||
| Vegetables | 44 | 65% | 44 | 69% | 32 | 62% | 21 | 58% | 30 | 64% | 53 | 69.74% |
| Herbal tea | 21 | 31% | 13 | 20% | 10 | 19% | 12 | 33% | 12 | 26% | 27 | 35.53% |
| Seasoning | 15 | 22% | 11 | 17% | 10 | 19% | 9 | 25% | 13 | 28% | 20 | 26.32% |
| Fruits | 13 | 19% | 12 | 19% | 10 | 19% | 6 | 17% | 7 | 15% | 16 | 21.05% |
| Food decoration | 4 | 6% | 2 | 3% | 5 | 10% | 2 | 6% | 1 | 2% | 8 | 10.53% |
| Food preservation | 2 | 3% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 2 | 2.63% |
| Total | 68 | 146% | 64 | 128% | 52 | 129% | 36 | 139% | 47 | 134% | 76 | 165.79% |
| Number of use reports (NUR) | ||||||||||||
| Food category | N | Q | J | T | S | Total | ||||||
| Vegetables | 561 | 53% | 501 | 65% | 171 | 66% | 148 | 54% | 165 | 48% | 1588 | 55.4% |
| Herbal tea | 249 | 23% | 78 | 10% | 21 | 8% | 65 | 24% | 53 | 15% | 476 | 16.6% |
| Seasoning | 125 | 12% | 72 | 9% | 31 | 12% | 39 | 14% | 83 | 24% | 394 | 13.7% |
| Fruits | 114 | 11% | 117 | 15% | 27 | 10% | 19 | 7% | 40 | 12% | 321 | 11.2% |
| Food decoration | 9 | 1% | 2 | 0% | 8 | 3% | 4 | 1% | 4 | 1% | 81 | 2.8% |
| Food preservation | 9 | 1% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 9 | 0.3% |
| Total | 1067 | 100% | 770 | 100% | 258 | 100% | 275 | 100% | 345 | 100% | 2869 | 100% |
*N, Nablus; Q, Qalqilia; J, Jenin; T, Tulkarm; S, Salfit.
Figure 4Most quoted wild food botanical families in the study areas.
Cultural importance of some of the most important families in each of the surveyed areas, in descending order of the mean estimated for the whole North West Bank (mCIf).
| Family | N* | Q | J | T | S | mCIf |
| 2.375 | 3.7 | 2.65 | 2.77 | |||
| Lamiaceae (Labiatae) | 3.39 | 4.78 | 3.35 | 3.56 | 4.55 | 3.21 |
| Asteraceae (Compositae) | 2.03 | 2.46 | 1.90 | 0.87 | 1.85 | 1.82 |
| Fabaceae (Leguminosae, Papilionaceae) | 1.17 | 2.53 | 1.25 | 1.03 | 1.40 | 1.48 |
| Apiaceae (Umbelliferae) | 1.03 | 1.60 | 0.80 | 0.90 | 1.55 | 1.18 |
| Malvaceae | 0.63 | 0.88 | 0.70 | 0.60 | 0.60 | 0.68 |
| Polygonaceae | 0.61 | 0.95 | 1.10 | 0.27 | 0.30 | 0.65 |
| Araceae | 0.23 | 1.00 | 0.45 | 0.53 | 0.85 | 0.61 |
| Rosaceae | 0.78 | 0.80 | 0.70 | 0.20 | 0.45 | 0.59 |
| Primulaceae | 0.30 | 0.85 | 0.35 | 0.60 | 0.80 | 0.58 |
| Brassicaceae (Cruciferae) | .89 | 0.30 | 0.75 | 0.30 | 0.20 | 0.49 |
| Anacardiaceae | 0.40 | 0.83 | 0.45 | 0.20 | 0.55 | 0.49 |
| Portulacaceae | 0.28 | 0.33 | 0.35 | 0.15 | 0.20 | 0.26 |
| Urticaceae | 0.20 | 0.53 | 0.15 | 0.07 | 0.30 | 0.25 |
| Liliaceae | 0.68 | 0.13 | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.15 | 0.22 |
| Lauraceae | 0.26 | 0.33 | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.17 |
| Fagaceae | 0.43 | 0.20 | 0.03 | 0.10 | 0.15 | |
| Iridaceae | 0.21 | 0.18 | 0.05 | 0.15 | 0.12 | |
| Myrtaceae | 0.15 | 0.08 | 0.35 | 0.12 | ||
| Rutaceae | 0.038 | 0.15 | 0.05 | 0.05 | ||
| Rhamnaceae | 0.01 | 0.33 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.09 |
| Boraginaceae | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.08 | |
| Oxalidaceae | 0.30 | 0.05 | 0.07 | |||
| Caryophyllaceae | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.20 | 0.06 | ||
| Solanaceae | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.15 | 0.04 | ||
| Capparidaceae | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.04 | |||
| Geraniaceae | 0.03 | 0.10 | 0.03 |
*N, Nablus; Q, Qalqilia; J, Jenin; T, Tulkarm; S, Salfit.
Figure 5Regression of the cultural importance of the families (mCIf) on the number of species in the family. Discontinuous line marks the 95% confidence interval.
Results of the ranking of factors considered as threats to wild edible plants.
| Factors | Respondents | Total | Rank | ||||||||||||||
| *N1 | N2 | N3 | N4 | N5 | N6 | J1 | J2 | S1 | S2 | T1 | T2 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | |||
| Agricultural land expansion | 9 | 17 | 7 | 3 | 10 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 3 | 16 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 10 | 120 | 1 |
| Over- grazing | 9 | 11 | 9 | 6 | 10 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 1 | 5 | 14 | 7 | 10 | 9 | 1 | 106 | 2 |
| Over-harvesting | 4 | 4 | 0 | 5 | 10 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 53 | 3 |
| Uncontrolled Fire setting | 10 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 43 | 4 |
| Fuel wood collection | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 5 |
* N = Nablus; J = Jenin; S = Salfit; T = Tulkarm; Q = Qalqilia. The values in the Table are the number of informants who mentioned the factor at the different sites from each community.