Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29233181›Full record

ArticleJournal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine2017

Why they eat, what they eat: patterns of wild edible plants consumption in a tribal area of Western Himalaya.

Deepika Thakur, Alpy Sharma, Sanjay Kr Uniyal

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 2017. 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
11.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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, 123 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Ethnobotanical review of traditional use of wild food plants in Japan.Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Nutritional characterization and chemical composition ofJournal of food science and technology · 2021
    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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Deepika ThakurHigh Altitude Biology Division, CSIR-Institute of Himalayan Bioresource Technology, Palampur, HP, 176061, India.
Alpy SharmaHigh Altitude Biology Division, CSIR-Institute of Himalayan Bioresource Technology, Palampur, HP, 176061, India.
Sanjay Kr UniyalHigh Altitude Biology Division, CSIR-Institute of Himalayan Bioresource Technology, Palampur, HP, 176061, India. suniyal@ihbt.res.in.
Institute of Himalayan Bioresource Technology · IN

Funding

Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change GAP 0199
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFrom time immemorial, wild plants have been used for edible purposes. They still continue to be a major source of nutrition for tribal people. However, unfortunately, their use is now declining. This has implications in food security, narrowing genetic base, and future leads. The present study was, therefore, carried out in Chhota Bhangal region of Western Himalaya to analyze uses of wild edible plants (WEP) and the motivations behind their use or abandonment.

methodsField surveys were conducted to the study area from January 2016 to March 2017. Household surveys, group discussions, free listing, and structured questionnaires were used to elicit information on WEP. WEP use was categorized into six categories (vegetables, fruits, chutney, flavoring food, raw food, and local brew). Trends of use (continuing, decreasing, increasing, and not used) and motivations (environmental, economic, sociocultural, agriculture and land use practices, and human-wildlife conflict) behind their use were analyzed.

resultsFifty plant species were used by the local people for edible purposes under six WEP categories. Mean and median of WEP used per respondent was 22.3 and 21, respectively. Highest number of these were used as vegetable (mean 8.9) while lowest were used as brew (mean 0.4). Out of the 50 WEP used, 20 were prioritized for motivation analyses. Though plant use is still maintained in the area, changes are evident. Almost 50% of the respondents revealed that they still continue the use of WEP while 36% reported trends of declining use as compared to 5-10 years back. Close to 10% respondents have stopped consuming WEP now and ~ 3% reported an increase in the use of WEP. Among the WEP categories, use of chutney showed an increasing trend. Sociocultural motivations were found to play a prime role, both, in limiting and promoting WEP use. Taste and aroma were the major sociocultural reasons behind using WEP while modernization and changing lifestyle were the main reasons behind declining use of WEP.

conclusionsThe study concludes that though use of WEP is still maintained in the area, changes in consumption trends are evident. Sociocultural motivations guided use of WEP in the area.

Indexed as

DietEthnobotanyPlants, EdibleHumansMotivationNepalPopulation GroupsEdibleHimalayaModernizationPlantsSociocultural

Identifiers

PMID29233181
PMCPMC5727875
OpenAlexW2775432957

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.