2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.jep.2012.10.065
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Traditional plant use in the National Park of Cilento and Vallo di Diano, Campania, Southern, Italy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
46
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 70 publications
(47 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
1
46
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition to the wild species (177), we considered of interest also cultivated (30) and purchased (5) plants. As previously reported (Cornara et al, 2014;Di Novella et al, 2013;Hayta et al, 2013;Mattalia et al, 2013;Menendez-Baceta et al, 2014;Tuttolomondo et al, 2014;Vitalini et al, 2009Vitalini et al, , 2013, the most common families was Asteraceae, with 23 species, followed by Rosaceae (16), Lamiaceae (14), Fabaceae (10) and Apiaceae (7). Concerning mushrooms, the dominant families were Russulaceae (6) and Boletaceae (4).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 64%
“…In addition to the wild species (177), we considered of interest also cultivated (30) and purchased (5) plants. As previously reported (Cornara et al, 2014;Di Novella et al, 2013;Hayta et al, 2013;Mattalia et al, 2013;Menendez-Baceta et al, 2014;Tuttolomondo et al, 2014;Vitalini et al, 2009Vitalini et al, , 2013, the most common families was Asteraceae, with 23 species, followed by Rosaceae (16), Lamiaceae (14), Fabaceae (10) and Apiaceae (7). Concerning mushrooms, the dominant families were Russulaceae (6) and Boletaceae (4).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 64%
“…We compared the data gathered during the field study with the following sources: the entire Italian ethnobotanical database (last updated in 2004) [36], the south-Italian ethnobotanical surveys that have been published in international journals and have (also) considered wild plants traditionally used in local cuisines [21][22][23][24][25][26][37][38][39][40][41], national ethnobotanical literature sources and popular references in which sound ethnobotanical observations were reported [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54], as well as wild food plant-centered ethnobotanical studies conducted in Southern Europe and published in international journals [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][27][28][29][30].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The search terms were selected from keyword indices of major ethnomedicinal/botanical journals ( Journal of Ethnopharmacology , Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine ), matched with the Scopus search fields ‘abstract', ‘title', ‘keywords', and ‘text' (ethno* OR tradition* OR folk) AND (veterinar* OR animal OR livestock OR farm* OR sheep OR goat OR cattle OR cow OR pig OR calv* OR poultry) AND (plant OR herb* OR phyto*), and with each country of the EU, including candidate and affiliated countries (Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Kosovo, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Montenegro, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom). From this first search 8,822 titles were extracted, which were reduced to a final set of 75 publications [20,21,22,23,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%