| Literature DB >> 24886156 |
Margarita Paloma Cruz, Patrícia Muniz Medeiros, Iván Sarmiento-Combariza, Nivaldo Peroni, Ulysses Paulino Albuquerque1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is little information available on the factors influencing people's selection of wild plants for consumption. Studies suggest a suitable method of understanding the selection of edible plants is to assess people's perceptions of these resources. The use and knowledge of wild resources is disappearing, as is the opportunity to use them. This study analyzes people's perceptions of native wild edible plants in a rural Caatinga (seasonal dry forest) community in Northeast Brazil and the relationships between the use of these resources and socioeconomic factors.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24886156 PMCID: PMC4038053 DOI: 10.1186/1746-4269-10-45
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ethnobiol Ethnomed ISSN: 1746-4269 Impact factor: 2.733
Variables studied to analyze the relationships between perceptions, the use of native wild edible plants, and socioeconomic factors in a local community in NE Brazil
| Number of citations for each perceptions category | Use | Number of edible items currently used |
| | | Number of edible items used in the past |
| | Socioeconomic factors | Age |
| | | Gender |
| | | Past occupation |
| | | Current occupation |
| | | Monthly family income |
| Monthly individual income | ||
Native wild edible species targeted in the present study in NE Brazil
| Batinga | Myrtaceae | Fruit | |
| Cana de macaco | Marantaceae | Stalk | |
| Coco catolé | Arecaceae | Fruit | |
| Facheiro | Cactaceae | Fruit and cladode | |
| Imbu | Anacardiaceae | Fruit and tuber | |
| Incó | Brassicaceae | Fruit | |
| Jatobá | Fabaceae | Fruit | |
| Mandacaru | Cactaceae | Fruit | |
| Manofê | Apocynaceae | Rhizome | |
| Pirim | Myrtaceae | Fruit | |
| Trapiá | Brassicaceae | Fruit | |
| Ubaia | Myrtaceae | Fruit |
Statistical analyses used to evaluate hypotheses on the use of edible plants in a local community in NE Brazil
| The most-consumed plants will be those that are perceived as tasting better. | Number of citations of current use of plant x vs. Number of citations of pleasant flavor of plant x | Pearson or Spearman correlation analysis |
| The most-consumed plants will be those that people perceive to be the most commercialized ones. | Number of citations of current use of plant x vs. Number of people who cited plant x as being marketable | Pearson or Spearman correlation analysis |
| Less-consumed plants will be those that are negatively perceived by the community. | Number of citations of current use of plant x vs. Number of citations of negative perception of plant x | Pearson or Spearman correlation analysis |
| Less-consumed plants will be those that are perceived as less abundant. | Number of citations of current use of plant x vs. Number of citations of low abundance of plant x | Pearson or Spearman correlation analysis |
| Less-consumed plants will be those that are perceived as less available. | Number of citations of current use of plant x vs. Number of citations of low availability of plant x | Pearson or Spearman correlation analysis |
| People with lower incomes will have more perceptions that encourage the use of wild edible plants. | Monthly family income | Simple linear regression analysis |
| Monthly individual income vs. Number of positive perceptions | ||
| People who perform agricultural activities in the community will have more perceptions that encourage the use of wild edible plants. | Current occupation | Contingency tables |
| Past occupation vs. Ratio of positive/negative perceptions | ||
| People with higher incomes will have more perceptions that limit the use of wild edible plants. | Monthly family income | Simple linear regression analysis |
| Monthly individual income vs. Number of negative perceptions |
Categories included in the data analysis on the use of edible plants in a local community in NE Brazil
| Plants that are easy to find because they grow near the community. | 28/612 (4.58%) | Participants mentioned difficulty in finding the plant in question, indicating that the species was not present near the community. | 95/724 (13.12%) | |
| People stressed the importance of a plant for the survival of other individuals in the ecosystem, for the conservation of the environment, for their beauty, or because they are considered safe and therefore have “ | 23/612 (3.76%) | Interviewees stated that the use of a given plant and/or particular food item could threaten the plant’s conservation in the region. | 1/724 (0.14%) | |
| Plants that are currently, or potentially could be, commercialized. | 5/612 (0.82%) | Plants that cannot be commercialized or sold. | 4/724 (0.55%) | |
| Opinions expressed by participants who stressed the importance of a plant in preparing traditional food and/or because the foods are highly valued. Shared knowledge is considered culture in this study. | 16/612 (2.61%) | Plants that are stigmatized, e.g., as food for poor people, food for children, or food that appearance is unpleasant. Shared knowledge is considered culture in this study. | 54/724 (7.46%) | |
| Includes opinions about plants used in times of scarcity. | 4/612 (0.65%) | - | 0/724 (0%) | |
| - | 0/612 (0%) | Participants mentioned some difficulty in collecting the plant because of thorns, associations with poisonous animals, difficult access to the edible part, or other factors that make consumption and processing difficult (e.g., abundance of seeds and difficulty in preparing). | 103/724 (14.23%) | |
| Participants refer to plants with properties that satiate hunger or thirst. | 24/612 (3.92%) | Participants refer to plants that cannot satiate hunger or thirst; plants that can be consumed but that cannot satiate. | 12/724 (1.66%) | |
| Pleasant flavor, pleasant smell, thin skin, appropriate size, appropriate amount of water, appropriate amount of pulp. | 317/612 (51.8%) | Unpleasant flavor, unpleasant smell, thick skin, small size, among others. | 199/724 (27.49%) | |
| Flavor 295/612 (48.2%) | Flavor 104/724 (14.4%) | |||
| Smell 10/612 (1.63%) | Size 55/724 (7.6%) | |||
| Size 9/612 (1.47%) | Smell 22/724 (3%) | |||
| Amount of pulp 3/612 (0.49%) | Amount of pulp 11/724 (1.5%) | |||
| Core size 7/724 (1%) | ||||
| Participants reported the use of plants due to their healing properties or their ability to promote wellness. | 4/612 (0.65%) | Indicate the avoidance of plants due to their damaging properties or because they produce unpleasant side effects (e.g., belly ache). | 22/724 (3.04%) | |
| - | 0/612 (0%) | Participants indicated that not all plants produce equally good edible parts, mainly when referring to their flavor. | 48/724 (6.63%) | |
| Answers mentioning a positive aspect of the plant’s characteristics (sugar, fat content, pulp consistency), thus allowing its consumption by older people. | 2/612 (0.33%) | Respondents mentioned that the plant could not be consumed by some people due to characteristics that preclude its consumption by older people (very hard edible parts, for which people need to have teeth to consume them). | 11/724 (1.152%) | |
| Opinions expressed by people who stressed the characteristics of some plants that have edible parts that are not very seasonal, which means that it is almost always easy to find the edible organs. | 3/612 (0.49%) | Answers that were mentioned as limiting the consumption of some plants because many of them produce edible organs only during a specific and/or short time of the year (usually refers to fruits because the other edible organs are often not seasonal). | 59/724 (8.15%) | |
| Plants whose edible organs have pleasant textures that encourage their consumption. | 3/612 (0.49%) | Responses mentioned as limiting factor the unpleasant texture. | 39/724 (5.39%) | |
| - | 0/612 (0%) | Participants stated that they did not know that the plant in question was used as food. | 44/724 (6.08%) | |
| Includes plants that the participants described as having other services besides their use as food. | 148/612 (24.18%) | Participants stated that the plant in question did not have other uses than being edible were considered negative. | 9/724 ( 1.24%) | |
| Answers that mentioned the capacity of the alimentary organ to resist plagues or adverse environmental conditions and remain in a good state/condition for a long time. | 1/612 (0.16%) | Includes answers that mentioned that the edible organ of the plant is easily spoiled, which limits its consumption. | 18/724 (2.49%) | |
| Answers indicating that the plant in question has many different preparation methods. | 34/612 (5.56%) | Answers indicating that the plant in question can be prepared in only a few ways. | 4/724 (0.55%) | |
| - | 0/612 (0%) | Answers given by a small number of people that could not fit into the other created categories, such as the fact that the plant could bring bad luck or that it could inhibit the growth of other plants around it. | 2/724 (0.28%) | |