Table 2

Number and percentage of wild food species and of use reports (UR) among food- categories at the survey sites
Number of species (Nsp)
Food-Category
 SAN
 CAU
 PIL
 PIC
 CPO
 MON
 Total
Vegetables
 5
 17%
 2
 10%
 7
 21%
 14
 25%
 16
 28%
 16
 31%
 31
 32%
Fruits
 10
 33%
 7
 33%
 13
 38%
 28
 51%
 22
 39%
 9
 18%
 32
 33%
Seasonings
 3
 10%
 3
 14%
 2
 6%
 3
 5%
 4
 7%
 14
 27%
 14
 14%
Herbal teas
 4
 13%
 3
 14%
 6
 18%
 6
 11%
 8
 14%
 13
 25%
 16
 16%
Liqueurs
 7
 23%
 4
 19%
 6
 18%
 12
 22%
 8
 14%
 11
 22%
 22
 23%
Flowers
 1
 3%
 1
 5%
 2
 6%
 2
 4%
 5
 9%
 2
 4%
 8
 8%
Subterranean organs
 2
 7%
 1
 5%
 2
 6%
 4
 7%
 4
 7%
 1
 2%
 5
 5%
Total
 30a
 107%
 21a
 100%
 34a
 112%
 55a
 125%
 57a
 118%
 51a
 129%
 97a
 132%















Number of use reports (NUR)
Food-Category
 SAN
 CAU
 PIL
 PIC
 CPO
 MON
 Total
Vegetables
 24
 20%
 6
 5%
 46
 21%
 44
 8%
 103
 22%
 205
 24%
 428
 18%
Fruits
 43
 36%
 51
 45%
 84
 39%
 313
 55%
 221
 47%
 167
 20%
 861
 37%
Seasonings
 11
 9%
 17
 15%
 17
 8%
 40
 7%
 37
 8%
 270
 32%
 392
 17%
Herbal teas
 11
 9%
 15
 13%
 33
 15%
 96
 17%
 40
 8%
 108
 13%
 303
 13%
Liqueurs
 23
 19%
 19
 17%
 27
 12%
 60
 11%
 32
 7%
 89
 10%
 250
 11%
Flowers
 5
 4%
 2
 2%
 5
 2%
 6
 1%
 23
 5%
 10
 1%
 51
 2%
Subterranean organs
 4
 3%
 4
 4%
 6
 3%
 11
 2%
 17
 4%
 5
 1%
 47
 2%
Total
 121
 100%
 114
 100%
 218
 100%
 570
 100%
 473
 100%
 854
 100%
 2332
 100%

SAN: Sanabria, Spain; CAU: Caurel, Spain; PIL: Piloña, Spain; PIC: Picos de Europa, Spain; CPO: Campoo, Spain; MON: Montesinho, Portugal.

a A species may be listed in several categories, so these figures may be not the sum of the column. The higher the difference in total percentage over 100%, the more species used in several food categories.

Pardo-de-Santayana et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2007 3:27   doi:10.1186/1746-4269-3-27