4.0 Article

Wild Edible Plants Used by the People of Manang District, Central Nepal

期刊

ECOLOGY OF FOOD AND NUTRITION
卷 48, 期 1, 页码 1-20

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/03670240802034996

关键词

ethnobotany; wild food plants; sustainable utilization; Nepal

资金

  1. NUFU/Norway
  2. Volkswagen foundation/Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plant diversity plays an important role in maintaining the world's foods demands. Even today in Manang, a remote, mountainous district within the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal, local people gather substantial amounts of wild plants to meet their daily nutritional needs, with several species also used for trade. There has been little documented regarding the use of these wild foods, which play a part in both daily nutrition, and survival during times of famine. Moreover, planning for development, land use, economic growth and biodiversity conservation has not taken them into account. Information about edible wild plant use was gathered by interviewing knowledgeable villagers over a period of five years (2002-2006). In total, 41 plant species were used as sources of fruits, juice, vegetables, and achar (local relish or pickle). Several wild food plants that need intensive processing before consumption were documented, including the calcium oxalate containing Arisaema species. The traditional knowledge of use of wild food plants is decreasing in many parts of the world with the introduction of modern packed food items and Manang is not the exception. The results of this research will help to play a catalytic role to encourage dialogue among the people of Manang, and national and international scientific communities regarding long term bioprospecting research, and shape the creation of a rural livelihood strategy. Analysis of the nutritive and health values of some of these edible plant species may encourage the scientific community to build partnerships with local community to work towards long term sustainable utilization and conservation.

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

4.0
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