| Literature DB >> 32131860 |
Rediet Sitotaw1, Ermias Lulekal2, Dawit Abate3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Menge District has long been inhabited by people who have a long tradition of using wild mushrooms mainly as food, source of income, and medicine. Extensive utilization of wild edible mushrooms (WEM) coupled with an ever-increasing population growth, deforestation, and agricultural land expansion threatens fungal diversity and WEM in the area. Hence, this study is aimed at documenting and analyzing the ethnomycological knowledge of the people in order to preserve the dwindling WEM wealth and associated indigenous knowledge.Entities:
Keywords: Conservation; Ethnomycology; Indigenous knowledge; Informants; Wild edible mushrooms
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32131860 PMCID: PMC7055057 DOI: 10.1186/s13002-020-00361-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ethnobiol Ethnomed ISSN: 1746-4269 Impact factor: 2.733
Fig. 1Map of Ethiopia showing the study area
List of mushrooms well recognized by peoples in the community, Local names and culinary status and habitat
| No | Species/species | Family | Voucher No. | Vernacular name | Usea category | Pb | Habitat and substrate | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | M | IC | |||||||
| 1 | Lyophyllaceae | HMAS273467 | Gultse | + | − | − | 2 | Farm land, on soil | |
| 2 | Lyophyllaceae | HMAS273459 | Tsergunu | + | − | + | 2 | Forest, termite nests | |
| 3 | Lyophyllaceae | HMAS273460 | Zoma/Zip alweta | + | − | + | 1 | Farm land, termite nests | |
| 4 | Lyophyllaceae | HMAS273463 | Afifi | + | − | + | 1 | Farm land, termite nests | |
| 5 | Lyophyllaceae | HMAS273464 | Abenega | + | − | + | 2 | Grazing land, termite nests | |
| 6 | Lyophyllaceae | HMAS273465 | Gultse | + | − | + | 2 | Grazing land, termite nests | |
| 7 | Lyophyllaceae | HMAS273461 | Aburalu | + | + | − | 1 | Grazing land, termite nests | |
| 8 | Lyophyllaceae | HMAS273462 | Akukufi | + | + | + | 1 | Farm land, termite nests | |
| 9 | Lyophyllaceae | HMAS273467 | Angushung | + | − | − | 2 | Farm land, termite nests | |
| 10 | Psathyrellaceae | Egnegnero | + | − | − | 3 | Forest,on soil | ||
| 11 | Polyporaceae | HMAS272461 | Achechereb | + | + | − | 3 | Forest, on log | |
| 12 | Auriculariaceae | HMAS272463 | Huntsul | + | − | − | 2 | Forest, on living tree | |
| 13 | Ganodermataceae | HMAS272464 | - | − | + | − | − | Farm land, on dead wood | |
| 14 | Agaricaceae | HMAS272465 | Egnegnero | + | − | − | 3 | Farm land, on dead wood | |
| 15 | Agaricaceae | HMAS272466 | Tsrgunu amigu/ Tsrgunu ashilu | ± | − | 3 | Forest, on leaf litter | ||
| 16 | Agaricaceae | HMAS272467 | ± | − | − | 3 | Forest, on leaf litter | ||
| 17 | (G. Mey.) Massee | Agaricaceae | HMAS272468 | ||||||
| 18 | Agaricaceae | HMAS272469 | Signil tsoro /Gel tsoro | − | − | − | 4 | Forest, on leaf litter | |
| 19 | Agaricaceae | HMAS272470 | − | − | − | 4 | Forest, on leaf litter | ||
| 20 | Agaricaceae | HMAS272471 | − | − | − | 4 | Forest, on living tree | ||
culinary, medicinal, income
palatability (1 = delicious, 2 = good, 3 = just edible, 4 = poisonous)
Statistical test of significance on average number of WEM reported by different informant groups in Menge District
| Parameteres | Informant groups | Average ± SD | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Female | 113 | 8.13 ± 2.4 | 7.8 | 0.006 |
| Male | 127 | 7.17 ± 2.9 | |||
| Age | 15–29 (young member) | 54 | 6.31 ± 2.4 | 10.568 | 0.00004* |
| 30–50 (middle age) | 101 | 7.61 ± 2.7 | |||
| > 50 (senior members) | 85 | 8.36 ± 2.5 | |||
| Literacy level | Illiterate | 168 | 7.86 ± 2.4 | 1.512 | 0.212 |
| Primary | 40 | 7.15 ± 3.2 | |||
| Secondary | 26 | 6.92 ± 3.1 | |||
| Tertiary | 6 | 7.17 ± 3.6 | |||
| Informant category (experience) | Knowledgeable/key | 49 | 10.59 ± 2.3 | 18.5 | 0.0000* |
| General informants | 191 | 6.86 ± 2.2 | |||
| Family income | Low income (< 999) | 178 | 7.72 ± 2.8 | 0.89 | 0.412 |
| Middle income (1000–2000) | 52 | 7.5 ± 2.45 | |||
| High income (> 2000) | 10 | 6.6 ± 2.54 |
* Significant difference (P < 0.05); t(0.05) (two-tailed), df = 238, N number of respondents
Fig. 2Folk division of domain mushrooms into three smaller groups (Arutana language)
Results of simple preference ranking for nine WEM for food
| Mushroom species | Informants labeled | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Rank | ||||||||||||||||
| 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 62 | 6th | |
| 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 9 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 82 | 4th | |
| 9 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 6 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 117 | 1st | |
| 8 | 9 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 107 | 2nd | |
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 4 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 74 | 5th | |
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 9 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 4 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 93 | 3rd | |
| 3 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 51 | 7th | |
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 23 | 9th | |
| 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 24 | 8th | |
Scores in the table indicate ranks given to WEM based on preference as food. Highest number (9) given for the mushroom which informants thought highly preferred as food, (1) is for the least preferred species
Statistical test of significance on percentage of informant groups that involve in WEM collection
| Parameters | Informant groups | Involvement in WEM collection? | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||
| Sex | Female | 107 (94.7%) | 6 (5.3%) | 0.000** |
| Male | 88 (69.3%) | 39 (30.7%) | ||
| Age | Young (15–30) | 33 (61.1%) | 21 (38.9%) | 0.000** |
| Senior (> 30) | 172 (92.5%) | 14 (7.5%) | ||
| Literacy level | Illiterate | 156 (92.9%) | 12 (7.1%) | 0.000** |
| Literate | 49 (68.1%) | 23 (31.9%) | ||
| Informant category | Key | 46 (93%) | 3 (6.1%) | 0.060 |
| General | 159 (83.2%) | 32 (16.8%) | ||
| Family income | Low (< 999) | 152 (85.4%) | 26 (14.6%) | 0.907 |
| Middle (1000–2000) | 44 (84.6%) | 8 (15.4%) | ||
| High (> 2000) | 9 (90%) | 1 (10%) | ||
| Distance from forest | < 3 km | 110 (86.6%) | 17 (13.4%) | 0.577 |
| > 3 km | 95 (84.1%) | 18 (15.9%) | ||
* Significant difference (P < 0.05); ** t(0.05) (two-tailed)
Statistical test of significance, on how often the different informant groups involve in WEM collection
| Parameters | Informant groups | How often do you collect WEM? | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Never | Sometimes | Always | |||
| Gender | Female | 6 (5.1%) | 32 (28.3%) | 75 (66.4%) | 0.003* |
| Male | 24 (18.9%) | 40 (31.5%) | 63 (49.6%) | ||
| Age | Young (15–30) | 18 (33.3%) | 14 (25.9%) | 22 (40.7%) | 0.000** |
| Senior (> 30) | 12 (6.5%) | 58 (31.2%) | 116 (62.4%) | ||
| Literacy level | Illiterate | 10 (6.0%) | 50 (29.8%) | 108 (64.3%) | 0.000** |
| Literate | 20 (27.8%) | 22 (30.6%) | 30 (41.7%) | ||
| Informant category | Key | 2 (4.1%) | 8 (16.3%) | 39 (79.6%) | 0.002* |
| General | 28 (14.7%) | 64 (33.5%) | 99 (51.8%) | ||
| Family income | Low (< 999) | 22 (12.4%) | 52 (29.2%) | 104 (58.4%) | 0.960 |
| Middle (1000–2000) | 7 (13.5%) | 16 (30.8%) | 29 (55.8%) | ||
| High (> 2000) | 1 (10%) | 4 (40%) | 5 (50%) | ||
| Distance from forest | < 3 km | 14 (11%) | 46 (36.2%) | 67 (52.8%) | 0.082 |
| > 3 km | 16 (14.2%) | 26 (23%) | 71 (62.8%) | ||
* Significant difference (P < 0.05); ** t(0.05) (two-tailed)
Respondent’s perception about the phenology of different mushrooms type
Fig. 3Main habitats with high mushroom distribution recognized by respondents