key: cord-0315717-9f1e82tr authors: Giraud, Nicolas J.; Kool, Anneleen; Karlsen, Pål; Annes, Alexis; Teixidor-Toneu, Irene title: From trend to threat? Assessing the sustainability of wild edible plant foraging by linking local perception to ecological inference date: 2021-09-27 journal: bioRxiv DOI: 10.1101/2021.09.27.461499 sha: 467936cd87ed5ffdd2b73f0928ec5bfe5d1d06d4 doc_id: 315717 cord_uid: 9f1e82tr Wild edible plants as culturally-appropriate sources of nutrition and for food security are now well-recognised. In Europe, the use of wild edible plants is shifting from a subsistence activity to an emerging trend in high-end gastronomy. The environmental impacts of this shift are poorly known. Foraging is increasingly popular for personal consumption and commercially, not least in the Nordic countries where popularity is fuelled by the New Nordic Food movement. Here, we evaluate if this trend entails biodiversity conservation risks in Norway. In collaboration with the Norwegian Association for Mycology and Foraging, we conducted 18 face-to-face interviews with key stakeholders and we published an online questionnaire filled by 219 recreational and professional foragers. We enquired on what species are harvested, by whom and how, where do foragers learn and what are their perspectives on the sustainability of foraging. We combined these data with an assessment of foraging impact based on foraging pressure, ecological traits and conservation assessments. Our results show that 272 different wild edible plants are foraged and that this is mostly sustainable. However, some risks arise from the harvest of threatened plants, the potential spread of invasive species, and the overharvesting of extremely popular or ‘fashionable’ species. Foraging fosters a strong connection with the natural environment and the majority of foragers report to forage as part of a sustainable lifestyle. We suggest that careful encouragement to forage and the participatory development of local guidelines for sustainable foraging in Norway can enhance people-nature relationships while safeguarding foraged plant populations. to our sense of community"). In the final section, respondents were asked to provide 161 non-personal, socio-demographic data such as the foragers' type (professional and/or 162 recreational), membership of an association such as NSNF, respondents' subjective 163 experiences (e.g. perception of foraging impact) and self-assessed knowledge (i.e. 164 perceived 'cultural expertise'). The questionnaire was available in English and Norwegian for one month between June 166 and July 2020 on Nettskjema, the University of Oslo tool for creating and handling assumed to be native (Table S2) . Informants interviewed face-to-face (n=18) were adamant that foraging is not a major 367 threat to biodiversity, yet they also mentioned that some conservation issues may arise The sustainability assessment shows that some important WEPs may be vulnerable to 395 foraging activity. We did not observe any differences between recreational foragers and 396 professionals regarding the conservation risks of the species they forage, and the 397 pressure they could put on vulnerable species. No conservation risks were observed for 398 the vast majority of foraged species (216 in G and 46 in G*; >95%), but conservation risks exist for ten plants (O, R, and R*) of which seven are native and three are alien 400 (Tables 2, 3) . Four native species were scored red (R). These are rarely harvested (Table 401 3) but the fact that they were mentioned in the questionnaire justifies attention as they (Table S2 ). Foraging roots (e.g., Arctium lappa, which was introduced before 1800 and Rhodiola rosea L.), bark (e.g., Picea abies (L.) H. 425 Karst. and Pinus sylvestris L.) and sap (e.g., Betula pendula Roth.) can be highly 426 detrimental to individual plants and plant communities (G*; Table S2 ). These foraging shows the potential for foraging becoming more sustainable when people forage more, 474 not less. Vernacular taxonomies do not completely match botanical ones (Berlin 1973 (Berlin , 1992 . 476 Here we observe that some WEPs are not identified at species level by non-botanists 477 and they refer to genera that include red-listed species. This issue can be addressed 478 through training programmes for foragers given by associations such as the NSNF. The majority of WEPs reported in this study were harvested as berries, leaves, and The species is near threatened, yet likely introduced before 1800, and roots should not be foraged Jacq. VU R Leaves (1), seeds The species is threatened, yet likely introduced before 1800, and should not be Mavsar 643 R (2020) Non-wood forest products in Europe -A quantitative overview. For Policy 644 Econ Wild food plant use in 21st century Europe: The disappearance of old traditions 647 and the search for new cuisines involving wild edibles Nutritional ethnobotany in Europe: From emergency foods 650 to healthy folk cuisines and contemporary foraging trends The ethnobiology of contemporary British 653 foragers: Foods they teach, their Sources of inspiration and impact Ramsløksankere raserer naturreservater Gathering "Wild" food in the city: 657 Rethinking the role of foraging in urban ecosystem planning and management Guidelines for 660 the New Nordic Diet Integrating ethnobiological 666 knowledge into biodiversity conservation in the Eastern Himalayas The ethnobotany of Europe, past and 669 present Urban foraging and the relational 672 ecologies of belonging Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture AnthroTools: An R package for cross-cultural 677 ethnographic data analysis Conservation of biodiversity in a world of use From famine 684 foods to delicatessen: Interpreting trends in the use of wild edible plants through 685 cultural ecosystem services Species 2000 & ITIS 689 Catalogue of Life RStudio Team (2021) RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio Urban foraging: Land management policy, 695 perspectives, and potential Wild food in Europe: A synthesis of 698 knowledge and data of terrestrial wild food as an ecosystem service Understanding the contribution 701 of wild edible plants to rural social-ecological resilience in semi-arid Kenya The Routledge handbook of sustainable 704 food and gastronomy Building a safety buffer for 706 European food security: The role of small-scale food production and local ecological 707 and gastronomic knowledge in Light of COVID-19 Glocal food and transnational identities: The case of the Mediterranean 710 diet Statsforvaltaren i Troms og Finnmark (2019) Regler for multeplukking i nord Eighteenth century) to "Plants and Tradition Norwegian knowledge about wild plants Which plants 721 matter? A comparison of academic and community assessments of plant value and 722 conservation status in the Moroccan High Atlas Edible and tended wild plants, traditional ecological knowledge and 726 agroecology Globalization and loss of plant knowledge: 734 Challenging the paradigm Famine food of vegetal 736 origin consumed in the Netherlands during World War II Urban foraging: Its role in conservation and green space 739 management in London