Fig 1.
Schema of conceptual framework of the study.
Table 1.
Wild edible plants documented from the study sites and reported by focus groups of n = 8–10 expert elder participants from four areas- Samrang, Pemathang, Phuntshothang and Martshala in south eastern Bhutan.
Plants are arranged alphabetically by local name.
Table 2.
Summary data on the consumption, plant type and harvest season of wild edible plants reported in Samdrup Choeling, Bhutan.
Fig 2.
Local perceptions around the collection of wild edible plants (WEPs) reported by n = 76 informants in the Samdrup Choeling sub-district in Bhutan.
In a two-stage process, a focus group identified four important aspects of WEP collection (A—purpose of harvest; B—motivation to harvest; C—reason for consumption; D—strategies for conservation). Informants then ranked each characteristic within the attribute. Data distribution by median, spread and skewedness of the four data sets is illustrated. Characteristics are abbreviated as: Fam_cons = family consumption, Insuff_food = insufficient food from cultivated sources, Medicinal = medicinal uses, Preserve = preserve for future use, Sale = for sale, Timeeffic = time efficient, Cons diff = consume in different ways, Easi_Avai = Easily Available, Health_B = health benefits, Cul_Fores = cultivate in forest, Dec_harv = decrease harvesting, Domesticate = cultivate in farm, Imple_law = Implement regulations and stop harv = stop harvesting.
Fig 3.
The five purposes of harvesting wild edible plants.
Fig 4.
Motivating attributes to collect wild edible plants.
Fig 5.
Reasons for consuming WEPs.
Fig 6.
Strategies to conserve WEPs.
Table 3.
Summary of Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test for several dependent samples.
Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test showing consensus on local prioritization of purposes for harvesting wild edible plants (with family consumption highest, see Fig 3); reasons for consuming (with health benefits highest, see Fig 5); and strategies for conservation (with cultivation/domestication in farm / in forest highest, see Fig 6); but not for motivating attributes of collection (no significant difference, see Fig 4).