4.5 Article

Edible mushrooms of the Northwestern Himalaya, India: a study of indigenous knowledge, distribution and diversity

期刊

MYCOSPHERE
卷 5, 期 3, 页码 440-461

出版社

MYCOSPHERE PRESS
DOI: 10.5943/mycosphere/5/3/7

关键词

Ascomycetes; Basidiomycetes; Himachal Pradesh; Uttarakhand

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the present study, the diversity, edibility, indigenous knowledge and distribution of wild edible mushrooms in the Northwestern Himalaya are discussed. The information provided herein was derived from a study carried out in the states of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh during the period of 2000-2013. A total of 23 species of mushrooms considered as edible or used for trade were recorded. Twenty-one of these are basidiomycetes and two are ascomycetes. Certain species of Amanita, Agaricus, Astraeus, Hericium, Macrolepiota, Morchella, Pleurotus and Termitomyces are very commonly collected and consumed by the local people, whereas species of Auricularia, Cantharellus, Sparassis, Lactarius, Ramaria and Russula are less commonly collected and consumed. Cordyceps sinensis and several species of Morchella are collected specifically for trade purposes in the spring season in high elevation areas of the Himalaya. Among the edible wild mushrooms collected are a number of species involved in ectomycorrhizal symbiotic relationships with banj (oak), other broadleaf trees and several types of conifers. The results of the present study can be used to promote the domestication of those wild edible mushrooms not yet cultivated in India. These results also indicate the need to avoid over exploitation of these mushrooms and a reason to establish a 'state germplasm bank' to allow studies of tissue culture. The latter could serve as the basis of further scientific study into various ways of enhancing the livelihood of particular areas of northern India through increased mushroom domestication as well as assessing the possible bioactivity of mushrooms against certain human diseases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据