Non-Conventional Food Plants (Plantas Alimentícias Não Convencionais (PANC)) of the Petrópolis–Teresópolis Crossing, Serra dos Órgãos National Park, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
by
and
Thiago da Cruz Alves
1, 
Valdely Ferreira Kinupp
2,
Bruno Araujo Furtado de Mendonça
3,* and
Tiago Böer Breier
3 1
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Práticas de Desenvolvimento Sustentável—PPGPDS, Instituto de Florestas, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Seropédica 23890-000, Brazil
2
Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia do Amazonas, Campus Manaus Zona Leste—IFAM-CMZL, Manaus 69083-000, Brazil
3
Departamento de Silvicultura, Instituto de Florestas, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Seropédica 23890-000, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Wild 2024, 1(1), 17-29; https://doi.org/10.3390/wild1010002
Submission received: 2 July 2024
/
Revised: 26 July 2024
/
Accepted: 12 August 2024
/
Published: 28 August 2024
Abstract
:Simple Summary
A floristic survey of Non-Conventional Food Plants (Plantas Alimentícias Não Convencionais (PANC)), or wild food plants, in Serra dos Órgãos National Park, Brazil, was conducted for the registering and mapping of wild food plants with food potential. We collected, identified, and registered 90 food and potential food species, with these species belonging to 54 genera and being distributed in 34 families. The diversity of the PANC found demonstrates the potential for future domestication to produce food from native flora; also, the results could be used in educational activities and pedagogical tourism, highlighting the gastronomic dimension of the plant diversity present in protected areas.
Abstract
We conducted a floristic survey of Non-Conventional Food Plants (Plantas Alimentícias Não Convencionais (PANC)) on the trail of Travessia Petrópolis–Teresópolis in Serra dos Órgãos National Park, in the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Wild food plants with food potential were collected along a sinuous transect of 27 km in length and 3 m in width. The collected material was identified in virtual herbariums by specialists, and later, a literature review on the food use of the identified plants was carried out. Thus, 90 food and potential food species were identified, belonging to 54 genera and distributed in 34 families present along the trail, including the Asteraceae (10), Begoniaceae (9), Passifloraceae (8), Piperaceae (7), and Cactaceae (6) families, which showed the greatest species richness. We conclude that the diversity of the PANC found in a protected area demonstrates enormous potential for future domestication to produce food from the native flora of Brazil. Another potential use is in educational activities and pedagogical tourism, highlighting the gastronomic dimension of plant diversity present in protected areas.
1. Introduction
Brazil is the country with the greatest diversity of plants on the planet [1], and the endemism level among seed plants in Brazil is also notable, being the only continental country where the endemic flora exceeds 50% [2]. However, little of this diversity is effectively known or used in our daily diet [3]. The vast majority of the Brazilian population are exposed to pesticides used in the production of commodities, directly and indirectly, via residues in food and water [4]. Most food species are grown in monoculture systems with dependence on chemical inputs, and this form of agriculture causes several environmental problems, such as the destruction of natural habitats and biodiversity losses worldwide [5], as well as social problems [6]. In addition, it also has consequences for the population’s health, with increasingly high obesity rates [7,8] and nutritional deficiencies connected to the intrinsic relationship with the ultra-processed food industry [8,9].
The consumption of Non-Conventional Food Plants (PANC, a Brazilian acronym), or wild food plants, is currently quite popular in Brazil. PANC are plants that have one or more edible parts, whether spontaneous or cultivated or native or exotic, and that are not included in our conventional daily diets [10,11]. The term PANC has been widely used in Brazil because it is euphonic (PANC in Portuguese sounds exactly like “Punk”, providing a curious double meaning) and promotes the popularization of using these plants among the Brazilian population.
One of the policies adopted by the Brazilian government in order to value, recognize, and preserve the country’s natural resources was to implement and regulate protected areas. Protected areas are important instruments for the in situ conservation of biodiversity throughout the world, meaning that they are fundamental areas for maintaining the integrity of species, populations, and ecosystems, including the traditional systems and means of survival for human populations [12]. However, considering that a protected area is not a closed circuit and that it interacts with surrounding ecosystems, forming part of a macrosystem, the buffer zones around protected areas also play an important role in the preservation of the biodiversity within a park’s boundaries [13].
Serra dos Órgãos National Park (PARNASO) was the third national park created in Brazil in 1939, and it is located in the state of Rio de Janeiro. The park’s management plan includes the objectives of the buffer zones: “disciplining productive activities, avoiding predatory practices and encouraging the use of sustainable techniques, associating economic development and conservation of natural resources” [14]. Thus, it is evident that in addition to the attention to the delimited protected area, it is also essential to act in the buffer areas through programs and policies which encourage the sustainable use of natural resources and that also respect local traditions and customs. However, it is necessary to first know the extent of the biodiversity existing in the protected area and to plan programs and policies which aim to replicate such biodiversity around the protected area [15,16].
Thus, this study aimed to collect and identify PANC from the Petrópolis–Teresópolis trail within Serra dos Órgãos National Park, recording species with food potential and thus contributing to phytodiversity knowledge and the potential future use of native flora.
2. Materials and Methods
The study was carried out in April 2019 in Serra dos Órgãos National Park (PARNASO), located between 22°23′ and 22°35′ South and 42°10′ and 42°58′ West (Figure 1), spanning the municipalities of Teresópolis, Magé, Guapimirim, and Petrópolis in the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
This study was carried out along the Petrópolis–Teresópolis Travessia trail, which is considered by mountaineers as the most famous crossing in Brazil (Figure 2), with the first record of someone completing the route coming from the 1930s [17]. The 27 km trail starts at 1153.67 m in Teresópolis, reaches its peak at 2263 m at Pedra da Luva, and ends at 1050 m in the Bonfim region in Petrópolis. There is a great altimetric variation along the trail, with a predominance of forest vegetation in the high slopes, while at the mountaintop, grassland is the main form of vegetation.
Figure 1.
Location and delimitation of Serra dos Órgãos National Park (PARNASO) and Petrópolis–Teresópolis trail, along with its topographic profile (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil). Note that the altitude data was obtained from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) [18] and limits from IBGE [19].
Non-Conventional Food Plants (PANC) were collected along a 27 km long and 3 m wide winding transect of the Petrópolis–Teresópolis crossing trail. Species of all habits were sampled during the collection: trees, shrubs, sub-shrubs, lianas, and terrestrial and epiphytic herbs. Plants along the trail with food potential were identified based on the scientific literature [10], the knowledge and experience of specialists on families and/or botanical genera, and ethnobotanical aspects. The list of PANC along the trail may be underestimated simply because there are plants that we do not yet know are edible, or this knowledge has been lost. The used parts of the plants and the categories of the species used were defined based on other works [10,20]. The usage categories of the species are not exclusive, meaning that a species can belong to more than one usage category; for example, a species can be consumed in the form of a vegetable (VEG) or as a pseudocereal (CER). The collected material was pressed and herborized. A Garmin 60CS navigation GPS with the UTM and Datum WGS84 projection system was used to prepare species location maps, which were then elaborated using the ArcGIS 10 program.
The collected material was herborized, and the exsiccates were deposited in the RBR Herbarium of the Department of Botany of the Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro. The species were subsequently identified in a JABOT virtual herbarium [21] by specialized botanists and through consultations with specialized bibliographies on PANC in a search for citations about each edible plant. The scientific names were revised in consultation with Flora do Brasil 2020 [22].
3. Results
A total of 90 PANC species were identified, representing 3.1% of the total species present in the Flora List of the PARNASO [14]. The 90 species were identified as belonging to 34 botanical families and 54 genera (Table 1, Figure 3). Of this total, two families of Pteridophytes were registered, represented by the Pecluma pectinatiformis (Lindm.) M.G.Price and Pteridium esculentum (G. Forst.) Cockayne species (Figure 4). The rest of the families and species (88) were angiosperms (Figure 5). The families with the highest species richness were Asteraceae (10 spp. of different genera), Begoniaceae (9 spp. of Begonia), Passifloraceae (8 spp. of wild passion fruit), Piperaceae (7 spp. of Piper), and Cactaceae (6 spp., including epiphytic species).
The eastern stretch of the trail begins in a town called Barragem in the municipality of Teresópolis, and it ends at the Quatro shelter in the Pedra do Sino mountain. This section presents a vast richness of food species, of which 56 PANC species are registered. These data were acquired using a research methodology in which repeated plants were not collected. Another factor is the great altimetric variation within this section, with almost 1000 m of unevenness (Figure 1) and forest vegetation predominating across almost the entire route. The mountaintop grassland vegetation predominates only in the final stretch, close to the Quatro shelter (2200 m) (Figure 3). The stretch between the Quatro shelter and the Açu shelter is mainly characterized by high-altitude grassland vegetation outcrops of rock and remains between altitudes of 1800 and 2260 m (Figure 1 and Figure 3). This vegetation naturally has less PANC diversity when compared to the surrounding forests. A total of 10 food species were identified in this section. Then, 24 species were identified between the Açu shelter and the Petrópolis entrance. This stretch, like the first one, has an elevation difference of about 1000 m and a more forested section. Some food species found in this stretch were not counted as they had already been collected from previous stretches. The sum of the different categories exceeded the total number of species, totaling 101 categories. The usage category with the largest number of species was vegetable (VEG), with 57 species, followed by fruit (FRU), with 32 species. Four species were categorized as a pseudocereal (CER), three as a drink (DR), and two as a condiment (CON). The oil (OIL), flavoring (FLA), and sweetener (SW) categories presented one species each (Table 1).
The indications of the parts of the plants used also are not exclusive, meaning that one species can have more than one part used; thus, the sum of the different categories of parts in use exceeded the total number of species, totaling 122 parts used. The most common part used among the registered plants were the leaves (LV), with 43 records, followed by fruits (FRU), with 40 records; flowers (FLO), with 15 records; seeds (SEED), with 10 records; shoots (S) and cladodes (CLA), with 6 records each; and tuberous roots (ROOT), with 2 records (Table 1).
Considering the characteristics of the PANC species in Table 1, 25 terrestrial herbs (H), 22 lianas (LIA), 15 shrubs (S), 12 sub-shrubs (SUB), 10 trees (T), and 6 epiphytes (EPI) were recorded. The vast majority of the identified plants grow in a shaded environment, thus signaling the possibility of the future cultivation of these species in agroforestry systems.
4. Discussion
Some authors consider that an average of 6 to 21% of the total plant species of any plant formation are edible [23]. The transect area selected in the present study represents only 0.04% of the total PARNASO area (20,020.75 ha), suggesting that the number of food species present in the park may reach higher rates than found. However, this average increases significantly in environments altered by humans, varying from 17% to 33% [23,24]. Considering that human beings are vectors for introducing species by accidentally carrying small seeds from one place to another, and since the trails are some of the most anthropized places in the park, the possibility of a greater number of PANC along the trails and near the shelters is evident in contrast to well-preserved environments.
The PANC life forms recorded in this study reflect the diversity of the environments and vegetation physiognomies along the trail. The most recorded life forms were terrestrial herbs (28%), which vegetate along forest trails and in high-altitude fields, followed by lianas (24%), shrubs (17%), sub-shrubs (13%), trees (11%), and epiphytes (7%). The trail section between the Quatro shelter and the Açu shelter (Figure 1) is mainly characterized by mountaintop grassland vegetation and outcropping rocks (Figure 2), and it represents approximately 23% of all PANCs sampled. This highland vegetation naturally has less floristic diversity when compared to the surrounding forests. However, high-altitude grasslands have a high degree of endemism [25].
Studies carried out in other regions have highlighted the woody and arboreal element as important for PANC-producing species, as was the case in a study carried out in the Congo Basin in Cameroon in collaboration with the Baka people, which found 91 PANC [26]. When classifying the plants by life form, most were trees (46%), followed by vines (27%), herbs (20%), and shrubs (7%). Furthermore, 65 food plants were identified in a systematic review conducted in the semi-arid region of Brazil. Of this total, 15 species were ranked according to their chemical composition and ethnobotanical data. Considering the life forms of the five main species, they found vine (one sp.), palm tree (one sp.), and trees (three spp.) [27].
Currently, little is known about the great productive potential of wild PANC. This is being revealed in studies, such as one carried out in Spain, in which 15 PANC species were evaluated for their spontaneous productivity. The authors suggested that species with low production rates should be cultivated in organic systems, and species with high production rates should be collected in the wild, with the management of natural populations [28]. In a bibliographic review of PANC used in the Czech Republic, 175 species of vascular plants were found among native and naturalized plants used since the 16th century. The parts of the plant used, the usage category, and the consumption mode were provided for each listed species. Rosaceae, Asteraceae, and Ericaceae were the most represented botanical families [29]; these families were also represented by the species in the present study.
Regarding the used parts of the plants in the present study, the most commonly registered parts were the leaves, followed by the fruits, flowers, seeds, shoots, cladodes, and tuberous roots (Table 1). This large number of parts used reflects the possibilities with respect to forms of consumption; therefore, we suggest exploring the development of gastronomy programs and recipes to enhance the consumption of PANC, for example, by producing publications on the topic that could popularize the use of plants [10,30,31]. Other studies have highlighted the cultural and regional importance of consuming fruits, seeds, and leaves [26,27,32,33,34,35].
PANC consumption is one of the pillars of sustainable diets, providing an adequate and abundant supply of nutrient-rich, safe, and affordable foods produced without depleting or contaminating the vital natural resources of water, air, and soil. There is ample evidence of their potential use and safety, which supports formulating food and agricultural policies, as well as sustainable diet guidelines, based on local plants [27,36,37]. We highlight the importance of correctly identifying PANC before consumption and also knowing which parts are edible and how to prepare and consume them, avoiding misidentification. Another consideration is that future exploratory research and studies must evaluate calories or other eating aspects, as well as the viability of the reproduction and potential cultivation of such species.
5. Conclusions
Published works in Brazil that address the gastronomic aspects of the phytodiversity present in protected areas are not known. In this sense, this is a pioneering study, although its reach is small in view of the size of the Brazilian territory. A considerable number of Non-Conventional Food Plants (PANC) were found in a relatively small area of Serra dos Órgãos National Park, showing the great potential of Brazilian flora that have not yet been explored for food consumption. However, some of these species are threatened with extinction, and these plants, although edible, must be protected. Encouraging the propagation of unconventional food plants beyond the borders of protected areas and stimulating their production on an agroecological basis could be an important conservation strategy, as well as an economic one. Therefore, there is a need to develop research and experiments on agroecological crops with these plants. Non-Conventional Food Plants have enormous potential to be explored for their use in educational activities and educational tourism, highlighting the gastronomic dimensions of the plant biodiversity present in protected areas and strategic projects in the park’s buffer areas.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/wild1010002/s1, KMZ with the collected points locations of each PANC.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, T.d.C.A., V.F.K. and T.B.B.; methodology, T.d.C.A., V.F.K., T.B.B. and B.A.F.d.M.; validation, T.d.C.A., V.F.K., B.A.F.d.M. and T.B.B.; formal analysis, T.d.C.A., B.A.F.d.M. and T.B.B.; investigation, T.d.C.A., V.F.K. and T.B.B.; resources, V.F.K. and T.B.B.; data curation, T.d.C.A. and T.B.B.; writing—original draft preparation, T.d.C.A., B.A.F.d.M. and T.B.B.; writing—review and editing, B.A.F.d.M. and T.B.B.; visualization, B.A.F.d.M. and T.B.B.; supervision, V.F.K., B.A.F.d.M. and T.B.B.; and project administration, T.d.C.A. and T.B.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
The collected points locations of each PANC were included as the Supplementary Materials.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES)—Código de Financiamento 001, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Práticas de Desenvolvimento Sustentável (PPGPDS) of the Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro (UFRRJ), and the Parque Nacional da Serra dos Órgãos (PARNASO).
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Forzza, R.C.; Baumgratz, J.F.A.; Bicudo, C.E.M.; Canhos, D.A.L.; Carvalho, A.A., Jr.; Coelho, M.A.N.; Costa, A.F.; Costa, D.P.; Hopkins, M.G.; Leitman, P.M.; et al. New Brazilian floristic list highlights conservation challenges. BioScience 2012, 62, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zappi, D.C.; Filardi, F.L.R.; Leitman, P.; Souza, V.C.; Walter, B.M.T.; Pirani, J.R.; Morim, M.P.; Queiroz, L.P.; Cavalcanti, T.B.; Mansano, V.F.; et al. Growing knowledge: An overview of Seed Plant diversity in Brazil. Rodriguésia 2015, 66, 1085–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Souza, A.M.; Pereira, R.A.; Yokoo, E.M.; Levy, R.B.; Sichieri, R. Alimentos mais consumidos no Brasil: Inquérito Nacional de Alimentação 2008–2009. Rev. Saúde Pública 2013, 47, 190–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lopes-Ferreira, M.; Maleski, A.L.A.; Balan-Lima, L.; Bernardo, J.T.G.; Hipolito, L.M.; Seni-Silva, A.C.; Batista-Filho, J.; Falcao, M.A.P.; Lima, C. Impact of Pesticides on Human Health in the Last Six Years in Brazil. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Scherr, S.J.; Mcneely, J.A. Farming with Nature: The Science and Practice of Ecoagriculture; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Porto, M.F.; Soares, W.L. Modelo de desenvolvimento, agrotóxicos e saúde: Um panorama da realidade agrícola brasileira e propostas para uma agenda de pesquisa inovadora. Rev. Bras. Saúde Ocup. 2012, 37, 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Health Organization. WHO Estimates of the Global Burden of Foodborne Diseases; Technical report; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Elizabeth, L.; Machado, P.; Zinöcker, M.; Baker, P.; Lawrence, M. Ultra-Processed Foods and Health Outcomes: A Narrative Review. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ribeiro, H.; Jaime, P.C.; Ventura, D. Alimentação e sustentabilidade. Estud. Avançados 2017, 89, 185–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kinupp, V.F.; Barros, I.B.I.D. Teores de proteína e minerais de espécies nativas, potenciais hortaliças e frutas. Food SciTechnol. 2008, 28, 846–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kinupp, V.F.; Lorenzi, H. Plantas Alimentícias Não-Convencionais (PANC) no Brasil: Guia de Identificação, Aspectos Nutricionais e Receitas Ilustradas; Plantarum: Nova Odessa, Brazil, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Ervin, J. Protected areas assessments in perspective. BioScience 2003, 53, 819–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beiroz, H. Zonas de amortecimento de Unidades de Conservação em ambientes urbanos sob a ótica territorial: Reflexões, demandas e desafios. Desenvolv. Meio Ambiente 2015, 35, 275–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Plano de Manejo do Parque Nacional da Serra dos Órgãos; Instituto Chico Mendes de Biodiversidade: Brasília, Brazil, 2007. Available online: https://www.gov.br/icmbio/pt-br/assuntos/biodiversidade/unidade-de-conservacao/unidades-de-biomas/mata-atlantica/lista-de-ucs/parna-da-serra-dos-orgaos/arquivos/Encarte_1___PM_PARNASO.pdf (accessed on 21 July 2024).
- Medeiros, R.; Young, C.E.F.; Pavese, H.B.; Araújo, F.F.S. Contribuição das Unidades de Conservação Brasileiras Para a Economia Nacional; UNEP-WCMC: Brasília, Brazil, 2011; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bruna-Stein-Ciasca/publication/348603178_Contribuicao_das_Unidades_de_Conservacao_para_a_Economia_Nacional/links/6006fe60299bf14088a8b79e/Contribuicao-das-Unidades-de-Conservacao-para-a-Economia-Nacional.pdf (accessed on 21 July 2024).
- Frank, A.S.K.; Schäffler, L. Identifying Key Knowledge Gaps to Better Protect Biodiversity and Simultaneously Secure Livelihoods in a Priority Conservation Area. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lucena, W.M. História do Montanhismo no Rio de Janeiro: Dos Primórdios aos Anos 1940; Montanhar: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Farr, T.G.; Rosen, P.A.; Caro, E.; Crippen, R.; Duren, R.; Hensley, S.; Kobrick, M.; Paller, M.; Rodriguez, E.; Roth, L.; et al. The shuttle radar topography mission. Rev. Geophys. 2007, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics). Base Cartográfica Contínua do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Escala 1:25.000; IBGE: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Kinupp, V.F. Plantas Alimentícias Não-Convencionais da Região Metropolitana de Porto Alegre. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2007. Available online: https://lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/handle/10183/12870/000635324.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 21 July 2024).
- Estevao, L.A.; Fraga, C.N.; Almeida, T.M.H.; Gonzales, M.; Lima, R.O.; Rocha, M.S.; Bellon, E.; Ribeiro, R.S.; Oliveira, F.A.; Clemente, L.S.; et al. Jabot—Sistema de Gerenciamento de Coleções Botânicas: A experiência de uma década de desenvolvimento e avanços. Rodriguésia 2017, 68, 391–410. [Google Scholar]
- Flora do Brasil. Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro. Database: Floradobrasil. 2020. Available online: http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br (accessed on 10 February 2021).
- Rapoport, E.H.; Ladio, A.; Raffaele, E.; Ghermandi, L.; Sanz, E.H. Malezas comestibles—Hay yuyos y yuyos. Cienc. Hoy 1998, 9, 30–43. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Luciana-Ghermandi/publication/301326913_Malezas_comestibles_Hay_yuyos_y_yuyos/links/57e03af308aece48e9e1f1a7/Malezas-comestibles-Hay-yuyos-y-yuyos.pdf (accessed on 21 July 2024).
- Díaz-betancourt, M.; Ghermandi, L.; Ladio, A.; López-Moreno, I.R.; Raffaele, E.; Rapoport, E.H. Weeds as a source for human consumption: A comparison between tropical and temperate Latin America. Rev. Biol. Trop. 1999, 47, 329–338. Available online: http://www.scielo.sa.cr/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-77441999000300004&lng=en&nrm=iso (accessed on 21 July 2024). [CrossRef]
- Safford, H.D. Brazilian páramos IV: Phytogeography of the campos de altitude. J. Biogeogr. 2007, 34, 1701–1722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallois, S.; Heger, T.; Henry, A.G.; van Andel, T. The importance of choosing appropriate methods for assessing wild food plant knowledge and use: A case study among the Baka in Cameroon. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0247108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacob, M.C.M.; Araújo de Medeiros, M.F.; Albuquerque, U.P. Biodiverse food plants in the semiarid region of Brazil have unknown potential: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0230936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molina, M.; Tardio, J.; Aceituno-Mata, L.; Morales, R.; Reyes-Garcia, V.; Pardo-de-Santayana, M. Weeds and food diversity: Natural yield assessment and future alternatives for traditionally consumed wild vegetables. J. Ethnobiol. 2014, 34, 44–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simkova, K.; Polesny, Z. Ethnobotanical review of wild edible plants used in the Czech Republic. J. Appl. Bot. Food Qual. 2015, 88, 49–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunes, H. PANC Gourmet: Ensaios Culinários; Plantarum: Nova Odessa, Brazil, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Jacob, M.C.M.; Cintra, M.; Almeida, A. Culinária Selvagem: Saberes e Receitas de Plantas Alimentícias não Convencionais; Edurfn: Natal, Brazil, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- LaRochelle, S.; Berkes, F. Traditional ecological knowledge and practice for edible wild plants: Biodiversity use by Rarámuri, in the Sierra Tarahumara, Mexico. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2003, 10, 361–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- da Silva Souza, L.V.; Marques, J.; Campos, L.Z.O.; Lins Neto, E.M.F. Socioeconomic factors infuencing knowledge and consumption of food plants by a human group in a mountainous environment in the semiarid region of Bahia, Northeast Brazil. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2022, 18, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Motti, R. Wild Plants Used as Herbs and Spices in Italy: An Ethnobotanical Review. Plants 2021, 10, 563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Panyadee, P.; Wangpakapattanawong, P.; Inta, A.; Balslev, H. Very High Food Plant Diversity among Ethnic Groups in Northern Thailand. Diversity 2023, 15, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stark, P.B.; Miller, D.; Carlson, T.J.; de Vasquez, K.R. Open-source food: Nutrition, toxicology, and availability of wild edible greens in the East Bay. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0202450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pawera, L.; Khomsan, A.; Zuhud, E.A.M.; Hunter, D.; Ickowitz, A.; Polesny, Z. Wild Food Plants and Trends in Their Use: From Knowledge and Perceptions to Drivers of Change in West Sumatra, Indonesia. Foods 2020, 9, 1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 2.
Altitudinal vegetation of Serra dos Órgãos National Park (PARNASO), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Figure 2.
Altitudinal vegetation of Serra dos Órgãos National Park (PARNASO), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Figure 3.
Location of the collection points on the Petrópolis–Teresópolis trail and a Vivid image from Oct 2019 highlighting the distribution of forests, mountaintop grassland, and outcrops of rocks. Limits obtained from IBGE [19].
Figure 3.
Location of the collection points on the Petrópolis–Teresópolis trail and a Vivid image from Oct 2019 highlighting the distribution of forests, mountaintop grassland, and outcrops of rocks. Limits obtained from IBGE [19].
Figure 4.
The ferns species: (A) Peclumapectinatiformis (Lindm.) M.G.Price and (B) Pteridium esculentum (G. Forst.) Cockayne. Serra dos Órgãos National Park (PARNASO), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Figure 4.
The ferns species: (A) Peclumapectinatiformis (Lindm.) M.G.Price and (B) Pteridium esculentum (G. Forst.) Cockayne. Serra dos Órgãos National Park (PARNASO), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Figure 5.
Examples of angiosperm species: (A) Melothria cucumis Vell., (B) Myrciaria tenella (DC.) O.Berg, (C) Rubus rosifolius Sm., (D) Begonia angularis Raddi, and (E) Mendoncia puberula Mart. Serra dos Órgãos National Park (PARNASO), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Figure 5.
Examples of angiosperm species: (A) Melothria cucumis Vell., (B) Myrciaria tenella (DC.) O.Berg, (C) Rubus rosifolius Sm., (D) Begonia angularis Raddi, and (E) Mendoncia puberula Mart. Serra dos Órgãos National Park (PARNASO), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Table 1.
List of food species identified on the Petrópolis–Teresópolis crossing trail.
| Family | Scientific Name | Herbarium No. (RBR) | Popular Name in Brazil | Uses | Parts Used | Habits | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Acanthaceae | Mendoncia puberula Mart. | 46398 | mijo-de-gatopintado | FRU | FRU | LIA |
| 2 | Amaranthaceae | Celosia grandifolia Moq. | 46449 | bredo-domato * | VEG CER | LV SEED | SUB |
| 3 | Chamissoa altissima (Jacq.) Kunth | 46447 | erva-das-pombas | VEG CER | LV SEED | LIA | |
| 4 | Apiaceae | Eryngium fluminense Urb. | 46452 | gravatá | VEG | LV FLO | H |
| 5 | Asteraceae | Achyrocline alata (Kunth) DC. | 46450 | macela | VEGDR | LV FLO | H |
| 6 | Bidens squarrosa Kunth | 46367 | picão-amarelo, picão-da-praia | VEG | LV | LIA | |
| 7 | Bidens pilosa L. | 46416 | picão-preto | VEG | LV | H | |
| 8 | Conyza bonariensis (L.) Cronquist | 46381 | buva, rabo-de-foguete | VEG | LV | SUB | |
| 9 | Erechtites valerianifolius (Wolf) DC. | 46417 | capiçoba | VEG | LV | H | |
| 10 | Galinsoga quadriradiata Ruiz & Pav. | 46391 | guasca, picão-branco | VEG | LV | H | |
| 11 | Hypochaeris sp. | 46375 | almeirão-do-mato * | VEG | LV | H | |
| 12 | Soliva anthemifolia (Juss.) Sweet | 46394 | cuspe-de-tropeiro, roseta | VEG | LV | H | |
| 13 | Tilesia baccata (L.) Pruski | 46424 | olho-de-camarão | FRU | FRU SEED | S | |
| 14 | Vernonanthura polyanthes (Sprengel) Vega & Dematteis | 46432 | assa-peixe | VEG | LV | S | |
| 15 | Balsaminaceae | Impatiens walleriana Hook.f. | 46378 | beijinho, maria-vergonha | VEG CER | FLO SEED | H |
| 16 | Basellaceae | Anredera tucumanensis (Lillo & Hauman) Sperling | 46395 | bertalha | VEG | LV | LIA |
| 17 | Begoniaceae | Begonia angularis Raddi | 46441 | begônia | VEG | LV | SUB |
| 18 | Begonia angulata Vell. | 46431 | begônia | VEG | LV | SUB | |
| 19 | Begonia edmundoi Brade | 46444 | begônia | VEG | LV | SUB | |
| 20 | Begonia huegelii (Klotzsch) A.DC. | 46377 | begônia | VEG | LV | SUB | |
| 21 | Begonia incisoserrata (Klotzsch) A.DC. | 46366 | begônia, couve-da-montanha * | VEG | LV | SUB | |
| 22 | Begonia luxurians Scheidw. | 46439 | begônia | VEG | LV | SUB | |
| 23 | Begonia pulchella Raddi | 46403 | begônia | VEG | LV | SUB | |
| 24 | Begonia semidigitata Brade | 46412 | begônia, couve-da-montanha * | VEG | LV | SUB | |
| 25 | Begonia solananthera A.DC. | 46413 | begônia | VEG | LV | LIA | |
| 26 | Berberidaceae | Berberis laurina Billb. | 46389 | espinho-de-são-joão | FRU | FRU | S |
| 27 | Bignoniaceae | Handroanthus chrysotrichus (Mart. ex DC.) Mattos | 46386 | ipê-amarelo | FRU | FLO | T |
| 28 | Cactaceae | Rhipsalis juengeri Barthlott & N.P.Taylor | 46368 | cacto-macarrão, cacto-caviar | VEG | CLA FRU | EPI |
| 29 | Rhipsalis olivifera N.P.Taylor & Zappi | 46414 | cacto-caviar | VEG FRU | CLA FRU | EPI | |
| 30 | Rhipsalis pachyptera Pfeiff. | 46451 | cacto-caviar | VEG | CLA FRU | EPI | |
| 31 | Rhipsalis pulchra Loefgr. | 46371 | cacto-macarrão; cacto-caviar | VEG | CLA FRU | EPI | |
| 32 | Schlumbergera rosea (Lagerh.) Calvente & Zappi | 46374 | flor-de-maio-serrana | VEG | CLA FLO FRU | EPI | |
| 33 | Schlumbergera truncata (Haw.) Moran | 46365 | flor-de-maio | VEG | CLA FLO FRU | EPI | |
| 34 | Cannabaceae | Celtis iguanaea (Jacq.) Sarg. | 46380 | grão-de-galo, esporão-de-galo | FRU | FRU | LIA |
| 35 | Clusiaceae | Garcinia gardneriana (Planch. & Triana) Zappi | 46425 | bacupari | FRU | FRU | T |
| 36 | Commelinaceae | Dichorisandra thyrsiflora J.C.Mikan | 46415 | gengibre-azul | VEG | ROOT FLO | H |
| 37 | Tradescantia fluminensis Vell. | 46393 | Trapoeraba | VEG | LV FLO | H | |
| 38 | Tripogandra diuretica (Mart.) Handlos | 46400 | trapoeraba | VEG | LV FLO | H | |
| 39 | Cucurbitaceae | Melothria cucumis Vell. | 46442 | pepinho-do-mato, pepino-silvestre | VEG | FRU | LIA |
| 40 | Dennstaedtiaceae | Pteridium esculentum (G. Forst.) Cockayne | 46392 | samambaia | VEG | SH | S |
| 41 | Dioscoriaceae | Dioscorea therezopolensis Uline ex R.Knuth | 46396 | cará-do-mato | VEG | ROOT | LIA |
| 42 | Ericaceae | Gaylussacia brasiliensis (Spreng.) Meisn. | 46448 | camarinha-da-serra, mirtilo-brasileiro | FRU | FRU | S |
| 43 | Euphorbiaceae | Plukenetia serrata (Vell.) L.J.Gillespie | 46383 | sacha-inchi-serrana * | OIL | SEED | LIA |
| 44 | Fabaceae | Erythrina falcata Benth. | 46430 | mulungu, corticeira-da-serra | VEG | FLO | T |
| 45 | Inga marginata Willd. | 46405 | ingá | FRU | FRU SEED | T | |
| 46 | Inga sessilis (Vell.) Mart. | 46421 | ingá | FRU | FRU SEED | T | |
| 47 | Inga sp. | 46370 | ingá | FRU | FRU SEED | T | |
| 48 | Lamiaceae | Hedeoma crenatum Irving | 46401 | poejo-da-montanha * | FLADR CON | LV | H |
| 49 | Malvaceae | Ceiba speciosa (A.St.-Hil.) Ravenna | 46423 | paineira | VEG | LV FLO FRU SEED | T |
| 50 | Sida acrantha Link | 46404 | guanxuma, vassoura | VEG | LV FLO | S | |
| 51 | Melastomataceae | Leandra carassana (DC.) Cogn. | 46418 | pixirica | FRU | FRU | S |
| 52 | Leandra quinquedentata (DC.) Cogn. | 46372 | pixirica | FRU | FRU | S | |
| 53 | Leandra strigilliflora (Naudin) Cogn. | 46437 | pixirica | FRU | FRU | S | |
| 54 | Moraceae | Sorocea bonplandii (Baill.) W.C.Burger et al. | 46445 | falsa-espinheira-santa, cincho | FRU | FRU | T |
| 55 | Myrtaceae | Campomanesia xanthocarpa (Mart.) O.Berg | 46427 | guabiroba | FRU | FRU | T |
| 56 | Myrciaria tenella (DC.) O.Berg | 46390 | jabuticaba-montana | FRU | FRU | S | |
| 57 | Onagraceae | Fuchsia regia (Vell.) Munz | 46408 | brinco-de-princesa | VEG FRU | FRU FLO | S |
| 58 | Passifloraceae | Passiflora alata Curtis | 46384 | maracujá-doce | FRU | FRU | LIA |
| 59 | Passiflora amethystina J.C.Mikan | 46419 | maracujá-da-serra | FRU | FRU | LIA | |
| 60 | Passiflora campanulata Mast. | 46443 | maracujá | FRU | FRU | LIA | |
| 61 | Passiflora deidamioides Harms | 46433 | maracujá | FRU | FRU | LIA | |
| 62 | Passiflora imbeana Sacco | 46446 | maracujá | FRU | FRU | LIA | |
| 63 | Passiflora miersii Mast. | 46410 | maracujá | FRU | FRU | LIA | |
| 64 | Passiflora porophylla Vell. | 46402 | maracujá | FRU | FRU | LIA | |
| 65 | Passiflora suberosa L. | 46435 | maracujá-rabo-de-baleia | FRU | FRU | LIA | |
| 66 | Piperaceae | Peperomia arifolia Miq. | 46385 | erva-de-jabuti-da-pedra * | VEG | LV | H |
| 67 | Peperomia augescens Miq. | 46436 | erva-de-jabuti-da-pedra * | VEG | LV | H | |
| 68 | Peperomia corcovadensis Gardner | 46382 | erva-de-jabuti-da-pedra * | VEG | LV | H | |
| 69 | Peperomia galioides Kunth | 46428 | erva-de-jabuti-da-pedra | VEG | LV | H | |
| 70 | Peperomia megapotamica Dahlst. | 46399 | erva-de-jabuti-da-pedra * | VEG | LV | H | |
| 71 | Peperomia rhombea Ruiz & Pav. | 46440 | erva-de-jabuti-da-pedra * | VEG | LV | H | |
| 72 | Peperomia subretusa Yunck. | 46397 | erva-de-jabuti-da-pedra * | VEG | LV | H | |
| 73 | Plantaginaceae | Plantago australis Lam. | 46429 | tanchagem | VEG DR CER | LV SEED | H |
| 74 | Polypodiaceae | Pecluma pectinatiformis (Lindm.) M.G.Price | 46376 | samambaia-doce | SW | LV | H |
| 75 | Rosaceae | Potentilla indica (Andrews) Th.Wolf | 46409 | morango-de-altitude * | VEG | LV FLO FRU | H |
| 76 | Rubus brasiliensis Mart. | 46438 | amora-silvestre | FRU | FRU | SUB | |
| 77 | Rubus erythroclados Mart. exHook.f. | 46411 | amora-verde | FRU | FRU | S | |
| 78 | Rubus rosifolius Sm. | 46406 | moranguinho-do-mato | FRU | FRU FLO LV | H | |
| 79 | Smilacaceae | Smilax campestres Griseb. | - | salsaparrilha, japecanga | VEG FRU | SH FRU | LIA |
| 80 | Smilax elastica Griseb. | - | salsaparrilha, japecanga | VEG | SH | LIA | |
| 81 | Smilax muscosa Toledo | - | salsaparrilha, japecanga | VEG | SH | LIA | |
| 82 | Smilax stenophylla A.DC. | - | salsaparrilha, japecanga | VEG | SH | LIA | |
| 83 | Smilax subsessiliflora Duhamel | - | salsaparrilha, japecanga | VEG | SH | LIA | |
| 84 | Solanaceae | Solanum americanum Mill. | 46422 | erva-moura, maria-pretinha | VEG | LV FRU | H |
| 85 | Solanum corymbiflorum (Sendtn.) Bohs | 46426 | tomate-verde-de-árvore | FRU | FRU | S | |
| 86 | Solanum didymum Dunal | 46434 | - | FRU | FRU | S | |
| 87 | Urticaceae | Boehmeria caudata Sw. | 46379 | urtiga-mansa, assa-peixe, lixa-da-folha, folha-de-santana | VEG | LV | S |
| 88 | Phenax sonneratii (Poir.) Wedd. | 46387 | urtiga-do-brejo | VEG | LV | SUB | |
| 89 | Pilea hyalina Fenzl | 46453 | urtiga-de-vidro, urtiga-d’água * | VEG | LV | H | |
| 90 | Winteraceae | Drimys brasiliensis Miers | 46407 | casca-d’anta, cataia | CON | LV | T |
Uses: FLA—flavoring, DR—drink, CON—condiment, SW—sweetener, VEG—vegetable, FRU—fruit, CER—cereal or pseudocereal, and OIL—oil. Parts used: LV—leaves, FRU—fruits, FLO—flowers, SEED—seeds, ROOT—tuberous roots, CLA—cladodes, and SH—shoots. Habits: S—shrub, T—tree, SUB—sub-shrub, H—herb, EPI—epiphyte, and LIA—liana. Based on the book Plantas Alimentícias Não-Convencionais (PANC) no Brasil [10] and the knowledge and experience of specialists about families and/or botanical genera, and etnobotanical aspects were also considered. * popular names proposed in the present study.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
da Cruz Alves, T.; Kinupp, V.F.; de Mendonça, B.A.F.; Breier, T.B. Non-Conventional Food Plants (Plantas Alimentícias Não Convencionais (PANC)) of the Petrópolis–Teresópolis Crossing, Serra dos Órgãos National Park, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Wild 2024, 1, 17-29. https://doi.org/10.3390/wild1010002
AMA Style
da Cruz Alves T, Kinupp VF, de Mendonça BAF, Breier TB. Non-Conventional Food Plants (Plantas Alimentícias Não Convencionais (PANC)) of the Petrópolis–Teresópolis Crossing, Serra dos Órgãos National Park, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Wild. 2024; 1(1):17-29. https://doi.org/10.3390/wild1010002
Chicago/Turabian Styleda Cruz Alves, Thiago, Valdely Ferreira Kinupp, Bruno Araujo Furtado de Mendonça, and Tiago Böer Breier. 2024. "Non-Conventional Food Plants (Plantas Alimentícias Não Convencionais (PANC)) of the Petrópolis–Teresópolis Crossing, Serra dos Órgãos National Park, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil" Wild 1, no. 1: 17-29. https://doi.org/10.3390/wild1010002
APA Styleda Cruz Alves, T., Kinupp, V. F., de Mendonça, B. A. F., & Breier, T. B. (2024). Non-Conventional Food Plants (Plantas Alimentícias Não Convencionais (PANC)) of the Petrópolis–Teresópolis Crossing, Serra dos Órgãos National Park, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Wild, 1(1), 17-29. https://doi.org/10.3390/wild1010002
