Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26860327›Full record

ArticleJournal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine2016

A survey of wild plant species for food use in Sicily (Italy) - results of a 3-year study in four Regional Parks.

Mario Licata, Teresa Tuttolomondo, Claudio Leto, Giuseppe Virga, Giuseppe Bonsangue, Ignazio Cammalleri, Maria Cristina Gennaro, Salvatore La Bella

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. EncapsulatingMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Mario LicataDepartment of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Viale delle Scienze 13, 90128, Palermo, Italy. mario.licata@unipa.it.
Teresa TuttolomondoDepartment of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Viale delle Scienze 13, 90128, Palermo, Italy. teresa.tuttolomondo@unipa.it.
Claudio LetoDepartment of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Viale delle Scienze 13, 90128, Palermo, Italy. claudio.leto@unipa.it.
Giuseppe VirgaDepartment of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Viale delle Scienze 13, 90128, Palermo, Italy. giuseppe.virga25@unipa.it.
Giuseppe BonsangueDepartment of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Viale delle Scienze 13, 90128, Palermo, Italy. g.bonsangue@unipa.it.
Ignazio CammalleriDepartment of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Viale delle Scienze 13, 90128, Palermo, Italy. ignazio.cammalleri@unipa.it.
Maria Cristina GennaroDepartment of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Viale delle Scienze 13, 90128, Palermo, Italy. m.cristina_gennaro@live.it.
Salvatore La BellaDepartment of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Viale delle Scienze 13, 90128, Palermo, Italy. salvatore.labella@unipa.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis paper illustrates the results of a study carried out in four Regional Parks of Sicily (Italy), concerning traditional knowledge on food use of wild plant species. The main aims of the paper were: (i) to verify which wild plant species are used for food purpose in the local culture based on information provided by elderly inhabitants (ii) to verify the presence of wild plant species which have not been cited for food use in previous studies in the Mediterranean area (iii) to determine how many of the most frequently cited wild plant species are cultivated by the local population in the four Sicilian Parks.

methodsSemi-structured interviews were carried out in the local communities of the four Regional Parks between 2007 and 2010. A total of 802 people over the age of 60 were interviewed. Cultural Importance Index was used to evaluate the level of importance given to any wild plant species as a food in the local culture. The level of appreciation of the wild plant species and the possible effects of wild plants on human health were also investigated.

resultsLocal communities currently use a total number of 119 wild species for food purposes. Asteraceae and Brassicaceae were the most represented botanical families. In each of the four Sicilian Parks, Cichorium intybus L. and Foeniculum vulgare Mill. obtained the highest Cultural Importance Index values. Sixty-four species were indicated as also having medicinal properties. Leaves and other aerial plant parts were the parts most-used for the preparation of traditional recipes.

conclusionsThe research shows that the level of traditional knowledge on the food uses of wild plant species in the study area is poor. The food uses of plants which are most likely to survive over time are those at the interface of food and medicine. Further agronomic studies are needed for a number of species with a view to introducing them as a crop into non-intensive agricultural systems.

Indexed as

EthnobotanyHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePlants, EdiblePlants, MedicinalSurveys and QuestionnairesAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMedicine, TraditionalMiddle AgedPhytotherapyPlant PreparationsRetrospective StudiesPlant Preparations

Identifiers

PMID26860327
PMCPMC4748641

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.