What does the list of Brazilian sociobiodiversity species of food value show us?

Abstract

It is necessary understanding the species selected and classified based on sociobiodiversity with food value listed in Interministerial Ordinance n. 284/2018. The aim of the study is to investigate changes in the previously published ordinance and to analyze the current list of sociobiodiversity species based on aspects such as number of species, origin, distribution, species endangerment and plant parts used for consumption. Information available in the list of species published through Interministerial Ordinances n. 163/2016 and n. 284/2018, in technical documents, bibliographies and in the Virtual Herbarium of Flora e Funga do Brasil, were used as the starting point for the present research. It was possible observing that the current list has excluded six species and added 25 species in comparison to the previous one. Thus, the current list comprises 101 species. Although most of the listed species are native to Brazil, seven of them are exotic: one is cultivated for dietary purposes and six are naturalized. Diversity is well represented in Brazilian phytogeographic domains, mainly in Cerrado, Atlantic Rainforest and Amazon Rainforest biomes; however, five species fall into one of the endangered categories. Twelve plant parts used for consumption were reported to be used for dietary purposes, with emphasis of fruit.

Key words
edible plants; fruit trees; conventional food plants; public policies

Resumo

Constatou-se a necessidade de conhecer as espécies que foram selecionadas e classificadas da sociobiodiversidade com valor alimentício listadas na Portaria Interministerial n° 284/2018. Objetivou-se com esse estudo detectar as alterações em relação à portaria anteriormente publicada, bem como analisar a atual lista de espécies da sociobiodiversidade quanto ao número de espécies, origem, distribuição, ao risco de extinção e às partes da planta usadas. Para isso teve-se como ponto de partida as informações que constam na lista das espécies publicada pelas Portarias Interministerial n° 163/2016 e n° 284/2018 e consulta a documentos técnicos, bibliografias e ao Herbário Virtual da Flora e Funga do Brasil. Em relação à lista anterior, ocorreu a exclusão de seis espécies e um acréscimo de 25 espécies. A atual lista contém 101 espécies. Embora a maioria das espécies listadas são nativas, há também sete exóticas: uma cultivada e seis naturalizadas. A diversidade está bem representada nos domínios fitogeográficos brasileiros, principalmente no Cerrado, na Mata Atlântica e na Floresta Amazônica, entretanto cinco espécies se enquadraram em alguma das categorias de ameaçadas de extinção. Verificou-se que doze partes da planta utilizadas para consumo foram citadas para fins alimentícios, contudo houve um predomínio sobre os frutos.

Palavras-chave
plantas comestíveis; frutíferas; plantas alimentícias não convencionas; políticas públicas

Introduction

Brazil presents many traditional peoples and communities, such as farmers, caboclos, caiçaras, peasants, extractivists, indigenous, quilombolas and backwoods; this diversity of historical and cultural groups is called sociodiversity (Silva 2008). The relationship between biological diversity resources and the territory, knowledge and cultural practices of this sociodiversity is known as sociobiodiversity (Pinto et al. 2019).

Several studies available in the literature have investigated the relationship between communities (either local or traditional) and biological diversity, with emphasis on plant species used as food. Almeida & Bandeira (2010) have investigated the local value of plants used by quilombola communities in Bahia state. They identified 14 plant species of dietary importance, but they also observed decreased intake and trading of wild fruits such as murici and umbu, due to the improved financial conditions of some families.

The survey conducted by Oliveira Júnior et al. (2018) in properties owned by family farmers in Iguapé County, São Paulo state, has cataloged 181 species of various uses of which 31 plant species with food value and with potential to form new productive sociobiodiversity chains. Pinto et al. (2019) have conducted a study in the indigenous territory of Tremembé, Ceará state, and found 36 sociobiodiversity native fruit species, which also had medicinal, artisanal and ritualistic value.

Some programs and public policies were implemented in the country to support and enhance sociobiodiversity. Among them, one finds the National Plan for the Promotion of Sociobiodiversity Product Chains (PNPSB), whose main aim is to promote and strengthen sociobiodiversity product chains (Brasil 2009a). Other measures also comprise the inclusion of sociobiodiversity products in the Food Acquisition Program (PAA), National School Feeding Program (PNAE) and Minimum Price Guarantee Policy for Sociobiodiversity Products (PGPM-Bio).

PAA allows the federal government to purchase food produced by family farmers, agrarian reform settlers, extractivist workers, indigenous people, artisanal fishermen, quilombola people, as well as by other traditional peoples and communities, without bidding (Brasil 2012). PNAE enables the government to transfer supplementary financial amounts for school meals to states and municipalities (Brasil 2006); 30% of the amount transferred by the Program is used to purchase food produced by family farmers (Brasil 2009b). PGPM-Bio provides subsidy to producers who sell some fresh fruits or extractive products for values lower than the minimum price determined by the Federal Government. The extractive products included in the 2021 harvest were açaí, andiroba, babassu, baru, Brazil nut, buriti, cocoa, juçara, macaúba, mangaba, murumuru, pequi, piassava, pine nuts, pirarucu, rubber tree and umbu (Brasil 2021).

These public policies overall aim at protecting the environment, generating income and preserving the cultural identity of traditional peoples and communities (Sampaio Neto et al. 2020). Studies have shown that these policies helped strengthening Brazilian sociobiodiversity production chains, such as that of native oilseed species (Sampaio Neto et al. 2020) and pequi (Caryocar brasiliense Cambess) (Silva et al. 2020).

The Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition Project (B4FN 2020) aims to integrate biodiversity conservation and sustainable use to improve food and nutrition in Brazil (A4NH 2015). In this context, the Interministerial Ordinance n. 163 from May 11, 2016 (Brasil 2016) was instituted which lists the Brazilian native plant species with food value that are considered to be of sociobiodiversity nature and aims to encourage the marketing of in natura or derivative products, within the scope of operations carried out by the Food Acquisition Program (PAA).

According to this Interministerial Ordinance, sociobiodiversity products are biodiversity-derived goods and services aimed at the implementation of production chains by traditional peoples and communities. These chains generate income for these populations and enable their practices, knowledge and rights to be acknowledged.

The aforementioned Ordinance was revoked two years later and Interministerial Ordinance n. 284 was instituted on May 30, 2018 (Brasil 2018). Species listed in the Annex to the Ordinance can be used as food sources and stand out among other sociobiodiversity species, since they are part of programs mentioned above.

The following questions were asked in the amendment of the Interministerial Ordinance: which were the species suppressed from and which were the ones included in the current list? In addition, other questions were used as guiding factors to analyze the current Interministerial Ordinance, namely: what is the number of species mentioned in the list? Are all the listed species native to Brazil? How are species distributed in phytogeographic domains? Are any of these species inserted in the endangered list? What plant parts are used for dietary purposes?

Given the food and cultural importance of plant diversity and the knowledge spread to encourage the intake of plant parts and the commercialization of plant products, it is necessary understanding the species selected and classified as belonging to the sociobiodiversity category with food value, and listed in Interministerial Ordinance n. 284/2018.

Thus, the aims of the current study were to identify changes in the previously published ordinance and to analyze the two lists of sociobiodiversity species based on aspects such as diversity, origin, distribution, species endangerment and plant parts used for consumption.

Materials and Methods

The starting point in the current study lied on comparing the two lists of Brazilian sociobiodiversity species with food value, namely: Interministerial Ordinance n. 163, from May 11, 2016 (Brasil 2016), which was revoked, and Interministerial Ordinance n. 284, from May 30, 2018, which remains in place (Brasil 2018). The aforementioned comparison aimed at identifying changes between the two Ordinances. Thus, the following aspects were analyzed: number of species, origin, distribution in phytogeographic domains, endangerment and plant parts used for consumption.

The analysis of these aspects was carried out by consulting technical documents and specialized bibliographies in the Google Scholar database (<http://scholar.google.com>). In addition, the Virtual Herbarium of Flora e Funga do Brasil (<http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br>) was consulted in order to check species’ origin (native, naturalized or cultivated), their incidence in Brazilian phytogeographic domains and their endangerment status. Endangered species were in compliance with the official national list of endangered plant species (MMA 2014).

Collected data were organized in tables prepared in Microsoft Office Excel for frequency analysis and data presentation purposes.

Results and Discussion

Comparison between the two Interministerial Ordinances

Six species mentioned in the previous list (2016) were excluded from the second one, namely: Anacardium corymbosum Barb.Rodr., Opuntia dillenii (Ker Gawl.) Haw., O. ficus-indica (L.) Mill., Passiflora actinia Hook, P. nitida Kunth and P. quadrangularis L.

It was not possible checking the reason why these species were excluded from the list; thus, the current study addresses some features that may be associated with their exclusion. It is known that these species were initially chosen by researchers from the “Plants for the Future” Project, based on criteria such as social, cultural, nutritional and economic potential values (B4FN 2020). The reason for launching an updated list in 2018 lied on the expansion in the use of some species (Oliveira et al. 2020).

Anacardium corymbosum is one of the species known by the popular name caju-do-cerrado, whose incidence is only confirmed in Mato Grosso state (Silva-Luz et al. 2020). Its collection record is available in the database of Virtual Herbarium speciesLink (CRIA 2020) for Acre, Brasília and Goiás states. The species has nutritional and medicinal uses, in addition to be classified as having economic and potential value for the Midwestern Region (Vieira et al. 2018). Thus, its exclusion from the list may due to its small and restricted population.

The two Cactaceae species removed from the list are naturalized plants known as arumbeva or palm: Opuntia dillenii naturally grows in Northeastern Brazil and is used as forage; whereas Opuntia ficus-indica grows in Northeastern, Southeastern and Southern Brazil, despite standing out as forage and medicinal plant, in addition to be used for dietary, mystical-religious, hygiene, cosmetic and dye purposes (Silva 2015; Zappi & Taylor 2020a, b).

Three species belonging to family Passiforaceae were native vines known as passion fruit; they were also excluded from the list. Passiflora actinia fruits are only used at local level; however, they have economic potential due to their abundance in Southeastern and Southern Brazil (Kinupp et al. 2011). Passiflora nitida is native to the Amazon region and its fruits are sold in 80% of street markets in Manaus City (Rabelo 2012). Passiflora quadrangularis fruit is the only one among Passiflora species whose mesocarp tastes like melon and can be easily damaged during processing (Martin & Nakasone 1970).

Despite the exclusion of six species from the 2018 list, 25 new species (23.2% increase) were added to it, with emphasis on Campomanesia phaea (O.Berg) Landrum (cambuci) and Myrciaria floribunda (H.West ex Willd.) O.Berg (cambuí).

Interestingly, species such as Manihot esculenta (cassava), Paullinia cupana (guarana), Theobroma cacao (cocoa) - which are nationally known and used as Brazilian regional food - and Ananas comosus (L.) Merril (pineapple) - which is widely accepted by Brazilian consumers and grown in five different continents (Crestani et al. 2010) - were only included in the list in Interministerial Ordinance n. 284/2018. This fact has evidenced deficient species selection criteria, which can hinder the valorization, as well as the nutritional and economic potential of native species to be used at local or regional scale.

Furthermore, other species could be included in the aforementioned list since several ethnobotanical studies have mentioned and featured species of paramount importance for traditional peoples and communities living in the country, such as Oliveira et al. (2018), Souza et al. (2018), Utumy & Leão (2018) and Pinto et al. (2019).

What is the number of species in the lists?

The Brazilian sociobiodiversity list, which was established by Interministerial Ordinance n. 163, 2016, comprises 82 species, 48 genera and 25 botanical. The predominant families were Myrtaceae (16 species), Arecaceae (16) and Anacardiaceae (seven), with 47.6% of the total number of species.

The Brazilian sociobiodiversity list, which was established by Interministerial Ordinance n. 284, 2018, comprises 101 species, 59 genera and 34 botanical families. The Gymnosperms group only comprises family Araucariaceae; the Angiosperms group comprises 33 families, with emphasis on Myrtaceae (20 species), Arecaceae (17) and Anacardiaceae (six); altogether, they account for 42.6% of the total number of species (Fig. 1). Angiosperms is the only group of plants capable of producing fruits; it corresponded to approximately 0.2% of the diversity observed in this group in Brazil (BFG 2015).

Figure 1
Botanical families comprising the largest number of species in the sociobiodiversity species list.

Myrtaceae is one of the ten largest Angiosperm families in Brazil (BFG 2015). In addition, it stands out for the variety of species with edible fruits, such as araçás (Franzon et al. 2009). However, many species belonging to family Myrtaceae are not yet cultivated and fruit trading is restricted to the local market. Therefore, the domestication and dissemination of species, such as Psidium guajava L. (Pereira & Nachtigal 2002), are necessary.

Family Arecaceae consists of palm trees observed in almost all plant formations in the country. This family has also prevailed (32 species) in the inventory of food plants grown in Mato Grosso do Sul state, where the use of palm hearts and fruits to produce oils, flours and drinks stood out (Bortolotto et al. 2018).

Several cashew and cajuí species belong to genus Anacardium, family Anacardiaceae, and they produce edible fruits and pseudofruits. Many varieties of these species remain poorly known and consumed at national level, except for the population living in Midwestern Brazil. However, their aspect, aroma and nutritional quality favor their economic potential (Agostini-Costa et al. 2010).

It is worth highlighting Fabaceae, which is the botanical family accounting for the largest total number of species in Brazil (2,756 spp.) (BFG 2015). It also comprises significant number of edible and native species globally (625 spp.) (Ulian et al. 2020), which stand out among biodiverse food plants due to their nutritional quality, and energy and protein potential (Jacob et al. 2020). However, only four species belonging to this family are mentioned in the list (Fig. 1). It is not clear whether the reason for such an omission lies on their current disuse, as observed by Tomchinsky & Ming (2019) for several native species, or on the non-inclusion of some species in the lists in Interministerial Ordinance n. 284/2018.

The promotion of sociobiodiversity species is linked to two different aspects, namely: the scientific knowledge about the Brazilian flora and associated knowledge of traditional peoples and communities.

Scientific knowledge about plants has significantly improved, mainly due to research programs and projects (such as Lista de Espécies da Flora Brasileira and Flora do Brasil 2020). However, scientific and governmental actions, altogether, play essential role in fulfilling the objectives and goals set by the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC) (BFG 2018).

Although the understanding of traditional knowledge about native species has expanded, the use of this information by companies and researchers, without proper acknowledgement and profit sharing, has been the target of severe criticism. Moreover, established laws, such as the Biodiversity Law (Law n. 13123/2015) regulated by Decree n. 8772/2016, were not enough to safeguard the rights of traditional peoples and communities or to protect genetic heritage and associated traditional knowledge (Moreira & Conde 2017; Magni et al. 2020).

Are all the species in the list native to Brazil?

Although the list mentions that all species are native to Brazil, consultation carried out in the database of Flora e Funga do Brasil (continuously updated) has shown that seven species mentioned in it are not considered native to the country.

Plant species can be native or exotic; exotic species can be found in the environment because they are cultivated and/or because they were naturalized. Species naturalization takes place when plant populations are introduced and consolidated in non-native environments, although they do not expand their occupation zone due to their dispersion mechanism and to the ecological role played by them (Espínola & Júlio 2007; Moro et al. 2012). However, they can also be invasive species capable of affecting ecological processes and of damaging the local economy (Espínola & Júlio 2007); these plants are exotic invaders.

Of the six species contained only in the previous list (2016), two are naturalized - Opuntia dillenii and Opuntia ficus-indica - which were mentioned (Topic 1). Six non-native species in the list in Interministerial Ordinance n. 163, 2016 were naturalized, namely: Acmella oleracea (L.) R.K.Jansen, Arachis hypogaea L., Physalis angulata L., Portulaca oleracea L., Psidium guajava L. and Theobroma cacao L.

There was evident illicit appropriation of Amazon indigenous peoples and traditional communities’ knowledge about the medicinal, culinary and shamanic uses of species Acmella oleracea (jambu) (Miranda 2018). Species Arachis hypogaea (peanut) is native to Bolivia; it is a cultivated species with great international economic value because it can be consumed in different ways (Fávero & Veiga 2008).

Species Physalis angulata (gooseberry) is native to Tropical America and it is used to treat 26 different disease types in several countries (Rengifo-Salgado & Vargas-Arana 2013). Although Portulaca oleracea (duckweed) is classified as naturalized species (Santos & Hassemer 2020), Madeira et al. (2018) have described it as native species widely distributed in Brazil, whose leaves and stems are often used for medicinal, forage and ornamental purposes, as well as in areas experiencing salinization issues.

Psidium guajava (common guava) is an invasive exotic species that is naturally distributed between Southern Mexico and Northern South America. It is capable of killing other plants due to allelopathy at the initial ecological succession stage, as well as of invading open environments, such as agricultural or degraded areas (Instituto Hórus 2020). Species Theobroma cacao (cocoa) was likely naturalized in the Amazon region in the pre-Colombian period (Colli-Silva & Pirani 2021); cocoa trees grown in this region are different from the cultivated ones, since they involve the way of life of traditional communities, have high fat content and show intense aroma and flavor (ICMBio 2018).

Sicana odorifera (sikana) was the only species classified as cultivated (Lima 2020). However, Madeira (2018) has described it as native vine species often observed in Midwestern and Southern Brazil, although it is currently rare in states where it was often collected before.

It is well-known that native plants are fundamental resources for the livelihood of several local communities. In addition, they likely have greater versatility and larger number of use categories than exotic plants. According to Albuquerque et al. (2009), native Caatinga plants presented up to eleven use categories, whereas exotic plants were concentrated in three categories (food, ornamental and medicinal use). It is worth highlighting that native plants’ consumption enables implementing sustainable diets, since it improves local economy and food diversification processes, integrates the cultural heritage of local populations and favors food sovereignty (Jacob et al. 2020).

How are the species listed in Interministerial Ordinance n. 284/2018 distributed in the Brazilian phytogeographic domains?

The species in both lists are found in all Brazilian phytogeographic domains, most of them are widely distributed in the Cerrado, Atlantic Rainforest and Amazon Rainforest biomes. The current study has found proportional similarity in the total number of Angiosperm species registered for each domain in Brazil (Tab. 1).

Table 1
– Comparison between the total number of Angiosperm species in Brazil and the number of sociobiodiversity species with food value in different Brazilian phytogeographic domains.

Phytogeographic domains	Number of Angiosperm species (BFG 2018 )	Number of sociobiodiversity species with nutritional value
		Brasil (2016)	Brasil (2018)
Atlantic Rainforest	15,179	65	50
Cerrado	12,113	67	56
Amazon Rainforest	11,846	60	46
Caatinga	4,702	37	33
Pampa	1,816	11	12
Pantanal	1,299	12	10

Moreover, most of the investigated plants often grow in more than one phytogeographic domain. Five species grow in all domains, namely: Anacardium occidentale L. (cashew tree), Arachis hypogaea L. (peanut), Melothria pendula L. (creeping cucumber), Passiflora quadrangularis L. (passion) and Talinum paniculatum (Jacq.) Gaertn. (fameflower).

However, there are also species with restricted geographic distribution, which were mentioned in only two states - Licaria puchury-major (puxuri) [AM, PA] and Matisia cordata (sapota) [AC, AM] - and in three states - Butia capitata (Mart.) Becc. (jelly palm) [BA, GO, MG], Butia catarinenses Noblick & Lorenzi (butiá) [PR, RS, SC], Butia eriospatha (Mart. ex Drude) Becc. (butiá) [PR, RS, SC], Campomanesia phaea (O.Berg) Landrum (cambuci) [MG, RJ, SP], Paullinia cupana Kunth (guarana) [AC, AM, PA], Solanum sessiliflorum Dunal (cubiu) [AM, AP, PA] and Xanthosoma riedelianum (Schott) Schott (mangarito) [MG, RJ, SP].

It is noteworthy that geographically concentrated species are more likely to be endangered than the widely distributed ones (Pimm et al. 2014). More than 80% of Neotropical Angiosperm species present small distribution range. Approximately 100 restricted endemic species are extinct on a yearly basis due to loss of forest areas (Morawetz & Raedig 2007).

The concern increases because they are plants of commercial interest, since fruit exploitation at large amounts affects individuals’ height and 21, as well as population size and community composition (Brites & Morsello 2016). Species management and domestication, as well as synthetic substitutes’ production, are some alternatives to this deadlock (Homma 2010).

Are there any species in the endangered list?

Five species fell into one of the endangered categories, although this number could be higher, since 78.1% of listed species in Ordinances n. 284/2018 were not yet assessed for this purpose. The situation is similar to what happens in Brazil, where approximately 36,400 native plant species; however, only 15.5% of them were assessed for endangerment and half of this rate fall into one of the endangered species categories (Martins et al. 2018). There are no threatened species among those evaluated by researchers in the list of Ordinance n. 163/2016.

Species Araucaria angustifolia (common name: Paraná pine) belongs to the Gymnosperms group. It grows in the Atlantic Rainforest and was classified as endangered species (EN), based on its population reduction by approximately 80% due to logging. Nowadays, the construction of hydroelectric power plants poses an additional threat to this species (CNCFlora 2020a).

Its seed (called pinhão, in Portuguese) is highly consumed by wild animals and humans. Besides, it plays relevant role in the economy, for integrating a productive trading chain; in the social sphere, for contributing to family income; and in communities’ culture, due to its association with the origin of cities and with June Festivals (Santos et al. 2002; Balbinot et al. 2008). Its low price is likely associated with its abundance in collection regions (Santos et al. 2002).

It is essential conducting population dynamics studies to help regulating seed collection to avoid affecting the natural regeneration of the species and its extinction (Paludo et al. 2011). The Environmental Institute of Paraná state has taken measures to control the exploitation of this species, such as allowing pine nut collection and trading from April 1 onwards, forbidding the sale of green seeds and suggesting that only fallen strobiles should be collected (IAP 2015).

Four species were categorized as vulnerable (VU) were found in different phytogeographic domains, namely: Bertholletia excelsa Bonpl. (Amazon), Butia capitata (Mart.) Becc. (Cerrado), B. eriospatha (Mart. ex Drude) Becc. (Atlantic Rainforest) and Euterpe edulis Mart. (Cerrado and Atlantic Rainforest). It may have happened due to great extractive pressure to obtain seeds, as in the case of Bertholletia excelsa (Brazil nut), and to the destruction of their habitats for agricultural purposes (CNCFlora 2020b). However, Schwartz et al. (2008) carried out population inventory of this species in Nova Ipixuna County, Pará state, and observed that its high population density enables sustainable chestnut exploration based on appropriate management techniques.

Species Butia capitata (jelly palm) is endemic to the Cerrado region. It was categorized as vulnerable due to intense extraction and deforestation activity in its habitats, which makes it hard to recruit and establish new individuals (CNCFlora 2020c). Butia eriospatha (butiá) naturally grows in High Altitude Rupestrian Fields, although only in Southern Brazil, where their habitats are replaced by agricultural areas (CNCFlora 2020d).

Although Euterpe edulis (palmito-juçara) is widely distributed in the Atlantic Rainforest and Cerrado biomes, its vulnerability results from its slow growth, from the death of many individuals due to palm heart removal - which even causes its local extinction - and from the degradation of the remaining Atlantic Rainforest (CNCFlora 2020e). Oliveira Junior et al. (2010) have conducted a survey with E. edulis populations in Iguape County (São Paulo state) and concluded that traditional populations are able to carry out the sustainable management of palm hearts, although it is necessary adopting an efficient management plan and restocking the area.

Thus, it is clear that changes in land use and direct species exploitation associated with illegal trade of wood, plants of high interest, as well as with wood collection for firewood and charcoal production, are the main factors leading these species to extinction; moreover, they represent the global scenario (Lughadha et al. 2020).

Although the aforementioned species fall into one of the extinction-risk categories, Ordinances n. 284/2018 and n. 163/2016 have authorized the use of non-timber forest products deriving from species classified in the endangered and vulnerable categories by MMA Ordinance n. 443/2014, as long as planned measures and amendment certificates are adopted.

What are the plant parts used?

Twelve plant parts were mentioned to be used for dietary purposes; however, fruits prevailed in 78.2% of the total number of species (Fig. 2) in Ordinance n. 284/2018. Of the species listed only in Ordinance n. 163/2016, there is use the fruit in five species and the use of chestnut and pseudofruit in Anacardium corymbosum.

Figure 2
Parts of sociobiodiversity plant species used for dietary purposes.

Five species among the ones only listed in Ordinance n. 163/2016 have their fruit consumed, whereas Anacardium corymbosum has its chestnut and pseudo-fruit consumed.

Tropaeolum pentaphyllum Lam. (crem) and Pereskia aculeata Mill. (lemonvine) were the species presenting the largest number of mentioned parts (four), whereas seven other species presented three edible parts.

If seeds are taken into consideration as part of the fruits, the percentage relative to fruits gets even higher, since seeds, rather than the entire fruit, are the only edible part of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.), guarana (Paullinia cupana Kunth) and urucum (Bixa orellana L.). Pequi seed pulp (Caryocar spp.) consumption was also mentioned, although this pulp is the mesocarp of drupe-type fruits (Gonçalves & Lorenzi 2007).

Almond was the term used for seeds with high oil content, such as chichá (Sterculia striata A.St.-Hil. & Naudin) (Chaves et al. 2004). However, non-almond species, such as tucumã (Astrocaryum aculeatum G.Mey.), may also have seeds (Barbosa et al. 2009). Chestnut refers to the edible seeds of Brazil nuts (Bertholletia excelsa Bonpl.) and cashew (Anacardium spp.) fruits. In addition, edible pseudofruits belonging to genus Anacardium are structures that did not derive from the ovary of flowers (Gonçalves & Lorenzi 2007).

Leaves recorded the second highest consumption rate. Traditional communities have significant knowledge about the diversity of edible leaves, which are added to their culture and form the basis of family diets. Some examples of this relationship were recorded in the backyards of homes in traditional rural communities in Rio de Janeiro (Machado & Boscolo 2018) and Minas Gerais states, where leaves are mostly used in preparations such as salads and stews (Tuler et al. 2019).

Two species were mentioned as having their stems consumed. Branches of herbaceous-habit species are consumed when they are young or when they have edible marrow, such as wild mango species - Jacaratia spinosa (Aubl.) A.DC. and Vasconcellea quercifolia A.St.-Hil.

Modified stems can be of the following types: tuber, which is the swollen stem containing starch; palm heart, which is the upper part of the stem of some palm trees; and rhizome, which is a stem presenting horizontal growth (Gonçalves & Lorenzi 2007).

The tuber of crem potato species Tropaeolum pentaphyllum Lam. has nutritional potential due to high carbohydrate values, incidence of vitamin C and linoleic fatty acid (Braga et al. 2018). The rhizome of mangarito species Xanthosoma riedelianum (Schott) Schott is a culinary delicacy with abundant starch content; it has market potential, as well as potential to be used for family farming due to its low production cost (Madeira et al. 2015).

Palm heart was found in six of the mentioned species - Astrocaryum aculeatum G.Mey., Bactris gasipaes Kunth, Euterpe edulis Mart., Euterpe oleracea Mart., Euterpe precatoria Mart. and Syagrus oleracea (Mart.) Becc. - which play important role in traditional communities. According to Oliveira Junior et al. (2010), palmito-juçara species E. edulis is the main food source of caiçara populations, to the detriment of hunting and fruit collection. According to Fanelli et al. (2012), E. edulis is also planted in backyards by quilombola communities in some cases.

Encouraging the consumption of wild native edible plants by promoting different ways of preparing meals can help conserving different ecosystems and improving rural communities’ knowledge about the use and management of certain species (Cruz et al. 2013). The importance of public policies aimed at providing food and nutritional security to traditional peoples and communities is associated with the use of their territories (Conti & Coelho-de-Souza 2013).

Based on the analysis applied to the lists of Brazilian-native plant species with food value and considered to be of sociobiodiversity nature, which was put in place by Interministerial Ordinance n. 163/2016 and n. 284/2018, allowed to verify that there was an exclusion of six species and an addition of 25 species. The exclusion and selection criteria adopted in different studies could be more explicit to help better understanding the socioeconomic and environmental context of the country and substantiating future governmental actions.

Species are present in all phytogeographic domain, however, the rate of species included in the aforementioned Ordinance remains significantly small in comparison to the plant diversity observed in Brazil, such as species used by traditional communities and the ones with food and economic potential disclosed in scientific publications. The acknowledgement of other plant species in public policies can give visibility and add value to products deriving from them.

As for cultivated or naturalized species, they can only threat biodiversity if they prove to be invasive in the environments they are inserted in, since not all exotic species lead to changes in the environment. Thus, it is necessary monitoring these species to avoid such issues.

Species widely distributed in all Brazilian states and phytogeographic domains can be commercially exploited, unlike species with occasional incidence that require studies focused on investigating their population dynamics, management, cultivation and/or domestication. The same process should be applied to endangered species and to the ones whose endangerment status in the country is yet to be assessed - in other words, most of them.

The variety of plant parts mentioned in the investigated list has evidenced the important role played by them as food resource, as well as the knowledge acquired and maintained over generations by traditional peoples and communities.

Ordinances are among mechanisms adopted in governmental policies and programs to value sociobiodiversity; however, they present several gaps and need to be improved. Species promotion depends on integrative actions substantiated by multidisciplinary research, as well as on traditional knowledge records, policy effectiveness and on incentives for sustainable species using.

The current study has contributed to better understand the botanical and ecological profile of prioritized species and highlighted gaps found in Ordinances n. 163/2016 and n. 284/2018. It is expected to guide the inclusion of other sociobiodiversity species in the next updates to the list of Brazilian sociobiodiversity species and in social programs, in order to strengthen production chains and integrate biodiversity to food and nutrition security.

A survey on species registered in ethnobotanical research carried out in Brazil should be conducted, with emphasis on their scientific name, on the wide disclosure of different ways of consuming them and on the nutritional, socioeconomic and environmental benefits provided by socio-biodiversity fruits.

Acknowledgements

The authors thanks Programa de Pós-graduação em Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente at Universidade Federal de Sergipe (DDMA) for supporting this reasearch..

References

• A4NH - Agriculture for Nutrition and Health. Biodiversity for food and nutrition in Brazil (2015) GIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH). Available at <https://www.ifpri.org/publication/biodiversity-food-and-nutrition-brazil>. Access on 10 June 2021.
  » https://www.ifpri.org/publication/biodiversity-food-and-nutrition-brazil
• Agostini-Costa TS, Faria JP, Naves RV & Vieira RF (2010) Cajus do cerrado. In: Vieira RF, Agostini-Costa TS, Silva DB, Sano SM & Ferreira FR (eds.) Frutas nativas da região Centro-Oeste do Brasil. Embrapa Informação Tecnológica, Brasília. Pp. 136-151.
• Albuquerque U, Araújo TA, Ramos MA, Nascimento VT, Lucena RF, Monteiro JM, Alencar N & Araújo EL (2009) How ethnobotany can aid biodiversity conservation: reflections on investigations in the semi-arid region of NE Brazil. Biodiversity and Conservation 18: 127-150.
• Almeida VS & Bandeira FPSF (2010) O significado cultural do uso de plantas da caatinga pelos quilombolas do Raso da Catarina, município de Jeremoabo, Bahia, Brasil. Rodriguésia 61: 195-209.
• B4FN - Biodiversity for food and nutrition (2020) Curso online: biodiversidade para alimentação e nutrição. Available at <http://www.b4fn.org/pt/curso-online/>. Access on 5 December 2020.
  » http://www.b4fn.org/pt/curso-online/
• Balbinot R, Garzel JCL, Weber KS & Ribeiro AB (2008) Tendências de consumo e preço de comercialização do pinhão (semente da Araucaria angustifolia (Bert.) O. Ktze.), no estado do Paraná. Ambiência 4: 463-472.
• Barbosa BS, Koolen HHF, Barreto AC, Silva JD, Figliuolo R & Nunomura SM (2009) Aproveitamento do óleo das amêndoas de tucumã do Amazonas na produção de biodiesel. Acta Amazonica 39: 371-376.
• BFG - The Brazil Flora Group (2015) Growing knowledge: an overview of seed plant diversity in Brazil. Rodriguésia 66: 1085-1113.
• BFG - The Brazil Flora Group (2018) Brazilian Flora 2020: innovation and collaboration to meet Target 1 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC). Rodriguésia 69: 1513-1527.
• Bortolotto IM, Damasceno-Junior GA & Pott A (2018) Lista preliminar das plantas alimentícias nativas de Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil. Iheringia 73: 101-116.
• Braga VB, Vieira MM & Barros IBI (2018) Nutritional potential of leaves and tubers of crem (Tropaeolum pentaphyllum Lam.). Revista de Nutrição 31: 423-432.
• Brasil (2006) Resolução/CD/FNDE n°33, de 24 de agosto de 2006. Altera o disposto no art. 9º da Resolução CD/FNDE nº 32, de 10 de agosto de 2006. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, seção 1, 25 agosto 2006. Pp. 23.
• Brasil (2009a) Portaria Interministerial MDA, MDS e MMA Nº 239, de 21 de julho de 2009. Estabelece orientações para a implementação do Plano Nacional de Promoção das Cadeias de Produtos da Sociobiodiversidade, e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, número 138, seção 1, 22 julho 2009. Pp. 103-104.
• Brasil (2009b) Lei n^o 11.947, de 16 de junho de 2009. Dispõe sobre o atendimento da alimentação escolar e do Programa Dinheiro Direto na Escola aos alunos da educação básica. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, seção 1, 17 junho 2009. Pp. 2.
• Brasil (2012) Decreto nº 7.775, de 4 de julho de 2012. Regulamenta o art. 19 da Lei no 10.696, de 2 de julho de 2003, que institui o Programa de Aquisição de Alimentos, e o Capítulo III da Lei no 12.512, de 14 de outubro de 2011, e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, seção 1, 5 julho 2012. Pp. 3.
• Brasil (2016) Portaria Interministerial nº 163, de 11 de maio de 2016. Institui a lista de espécies da sociobiodiversidade, para fins de comercialização in natura ou de seus produtos derivados, no âmbito das operações realizadas pelo Programa de Aquisição de Alimentos-PAA. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, ed. 94, seção 1, 18 maio 2016. Pp. 58.
• Brasil (2018) Portaria Interministerial nº 284, de 30 de maio de 2018. Institui a lista de espécies da sociobiodiversidade, para fins de comercialização in natura ou de seus produtos derivados, no âmbito das operações realizadas pelo Programa de Aquisição de Alimentos-PAA. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, ed. 131, seção 1, 10 set. 2018. Pp. 92.
• Brasil (2021) Política de garantia de preços mínimos para produtos da sociobiodiversidade. Folder. Conab, PGPM-Bio, Brasília. Available at <https://www.conab.gov.br/images/chamadas/politicas_programas/Folder-Pgpm-Bio-2021.pdf>. Access on 20 March 2021.
  » https://www.conab.gov.br/images/chamadas/politicas_programas/Folder-Pgpm-Bio-2021.pdf
• Brites AD & Morsello C (2016) Efeitos ecológicos da exploração de produtos florestais não madeireiros: uma revisão sistemática. Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente 36: 55-72.
• Chaves MH, Barbosa AS, Moita Neto JM, Aued-Pimentel S & Lago JHG (2004) Caracterização química do óleo da amêndoa de Sterculia striata St. Hil et Naud. Química Nova 27: 404-408.
• CNCFlora (2012a). Araucaria angustifolia in Lista Vermelha da flora brasileira versão 2012.2 Centro Nacional de Conservação da Flora. Available at <http://cncflora.jbrj.gov.br/portal/pt-br/profile/Araucaria angustifolia>. Access on 9 October 2020.
  » http://cncflora.jbrj.gov.br/portal/pt-br/profile/Araucaria angustifolia
• CNCFlora (2012b) Bertholletia excelsa in Lista Vermelha da flora brasileira versão 2012.2 Centro Nacional de Conservação da Flora. Available at <http://cncflora.jbrj.gov.br/portal/pt-br/profile/Bertholletia excelsa>. Access on 9 October 2020.
  » http://cncflora.jbrj.gov.br/portal/pt-br/profile/Bertholletia excelsa
• CNCFlora (2012c) Butia capitata in Lista Vermelha da flora brasileira versão 2012.2 Centro Nacional de Conservação da Flora. Available at <http://cncflora.jbrj.gov.br/portal/pt-br/profile/Butia capitata>. Access on 9 October 2020.
  » http://cncflora.jbrj.gov.br/portal/pt-br/profile/Butia capitata
• CNCFlora (2012d). Butia eriospatha in Lista Vermelha da flora brasileira versão 2012.2 Centro Nacional de Conservação da Flora. Available at <http://cncflora.jbrj.gov.br/portal/pt-br/profile/Butia eriospatha>. Access on 9 October 2020.
  » http://cncflora.jbrj.gov.br/portal/pt-br/profile/Butia eriospatha
• CNCFlora (2012e) Euterpe edulis in Lista Vermelha da flora brasileira versão 2012.2 Centro Nacional de Conservação da Flora. Available at <http://cncflora.jbrj.gov.br/portal/pt-br/profile/Euterpe edulis>. Access on 9 October 2020.
  » http://cncflora.jbrj.gov.br/portal/pt-br/profile/Euterpe edulis
• Colli-Silva M & Pirani JR (2021) Theobroma in Flora do Brasil 2020, continuously updated. Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro. Available at <http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/reflora/floradobrasil/FB23618>. Access on 14 January 2021.
  » http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/reflora/floradobrasil/FB23618
• Conti IL & Coelho-de-Souza G (2013) Povos e comunidades tradicionais: a produção de políticas públicas de segurança alimentar e nutricional. Revista de Antropologia (Online) 5 Especial: 780-804.
• Crestani M, Barbieri RL, Hawerroth FJ, Carvalho FIF & Oliveira AC (2010) Das Américas para o Mundo - origem, domesticação e dispersão do abacaxizeiro. Ciência Rural 40: 1473-1483.
• CRIA - Centro de Referência e Informação Ambiental (2020) speciesLink - simple search. Available at <https://specieslink.net>. Access on 9 October 2020.
  » https://specieslink.net
• Cruz M, Peroni N & Albuquerque U (2013) Knowledge, use and management of native wild edible plants from a seasonal dry forest (NE, Brazil). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 9: 1-10.
• Espínola LA & Júlio HF (2007) Espécies invasoras: conceitos, modelos e atributos. Interciencia 32: 580-585.
• Fanelli LA, Tatto NI, Gomes EPC & Oliveira Júnior CJF (2012) Incentivos e impedimentos na conservação de Euterpe edulis Mart. em comunidades quilombolas do Vale do Ribeira. Revista Brasileira de Agroecologia 7: 51-62.
• Fávero AP & Veiga RFA (2008) Amendoim: domesticação pelos indígenas. In: Barbieri RL & Stumpf ERT (eds) Origem e evolução de plantas cultivadas. Embrapa Informação Tecnológica, Brasília. Pp. 121-148.
• Franzon RC, Campos LZO, Proença CEB & Sousa-Silva JC (2009) Araçás do gênero Psidium: principais espécies, ocorrências, descrição e usos. Embrapa Cerrados, Planaltina. 48p.
• Gonçalves EG & Lorenzi H (2007) Morfologia vegetal: organografia e dicionário ilustrado de morfologia das plantas vasculares. Instituto Plantarum de Estudos da Flora, Nova Odessa. 416p.
• Homma AKO (2010) O crescimento do mercado como mecanismo de desagregação da economia extrativista. In: Silva VA, Almeida ALS & Albuquerque UP (orgs.) Etnobiologia e etnoecologia: pessoas e natureza na América Latina. Nupeea, Recife. Pp. 89-109.
• IAP - Instituto Ambiental do Paraná (2015) Portaria do IAP nº 46 de 26/03/2015. Institui os procedimentos para controle da exploração do Pinhão e define outras providências. Available at <http://www.iap.pr.gov.br/modules/faq/category.php?categoryid=1>. .
  » http://www.iap.pr.gov.br/modules/faq/category.php?categoryid=1
• ICMBio - Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (2018) Catálogo de produtos da sociobiodiversidade do Brasil: ofertados pelos povos e comunidades tradicionais em Unidades de Conservação Federais. ICMBio, MMA, Brasília. 53p.
• Instituto Hórus - Instituto Hórus de Desenvolvimento e Conservação Ambiental (2020) Base de dados de espécies exóticas invasoras do Brasil. Available at <http://bd.institutohorus.org.br/www>. Access on 9 October 2020.
  » http://bd.institutohorus.org.br/www
• Jacob MCM, Medeiros MFA & Albuquerque UP (2020) Biodiverse food plants in the semiarid region of Brazil have unknown potential: a systematic review. Plos One 15: 1-24.
• Kinupp VF, Lisbôa GN & Barros IBI (2011) Passiflora actinia - Maracujá-do-mato. In: Coradin L, Siminski A & Reis A (eds.) Espécies nativas da flora brasileira de valor econômico atual ou potencial: plantas para o futuro - Região Sul. MMA, Brasília. Pp. 189-192.
• Lima LFP (2020) Sicana in Flora do Brasil 2020, continuously updated. Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro. Available at <http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/reflora/floradobrasil/FB82152>. Access on 15 June 2021.
  » http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/reflora/floradobrasil/FB82152
• Lughadha EN, Bachman SP, Leão TCC, Forest F, Halley JM, Moat J, Acedo C, Bacon KL, Brewer RFA, Gâteblé G, Gonçalves SC, Govaerts R, Hollingsworth PM, Krisai-Greilhuber I, Lirio EJ, Moore PGP, Negrão R, Onana JM, Rajaovelona LR, Razanajatovo H, Reich PB, Richards SL, Rivers MC, Cooper A, Iganci J, Lewis GP, Smidt EC, Antonelli A, Mueller GM & Walker BE (2020) Extinction risk and threats to plants and fungi. Plants, People, Planet 2: 389-408.
• Machado CC & Boscolo OH (2018) Plantas alimentícias não convencionais em quintais da comunidade da Fazendinha, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Biociências 16: 28-36.
• Madeira NR (2018) Sicana odorifera - Croá. In: Vieira RF, Camillo J & Coradin L (eds.) Espécies nativas da flora brasileira de valor econômico atual ou potencial: plantas para o futuro: região Centro-Oeste. MMA, Brasília. Pp. 315-318.
• Madeira NR, Botrel N, Amaro GB & Melo RAC (2015) Mangarito: sabor de tradição. Horticultura brasileira 33: 1.
• Madeira NR, Botrel N & Assis JGA (2018) Portulaca oleracea - Beldroega. In: Coradin L, Camillo J & Pareyn FGC (eds.) Espécies nativas da flora brasileira de valor econômico atual ou potencial: plantas para o futuro: região Nordeste. MMA, Brasília. Pp. 262-269.
• Magni M, Pegoraro S & Custódio JRL (2020) A (in)suficiência da lei 13.123 de 2015 na proteção do patrimônio genetico e dos conhecimentos tradicionais associados à biodiversidade. Brazilian Journal of Development 6: 42886-42904.
• Martin FW & Nakasone HY (1970) The edible species of Passiflora. Economic Botany 24: 333-343.
• Martins E, Martinelli G & Loyola R (2018) Brazilian efforts towards achieving a comprehensive extinction risk assessment for its known flora. Rodriguésia 69: 1529-1537.
• Miranda JPR (2018) A apropriação indevida do jambu (Acmella oleracea) e as inconvencionalidades do marco legal da biodiversidade no processo de colonialismo biocultural. Revista de Direito Ambiental e Socioambientalismo 4: 1-18.
• MMA - Ministério do Meio Ambiente (2014) Lista nacional oficial de espécies da flora ameaçadas de extinção. Portaria n. 443, de 17 de dezembro de 2014. Diário Oficial da União, Seção 1. Pp. 110-121.
• Morawetz W & Raedig C (2007) Angiosperm biodiversity, endemism and conservation in the Neotropics. Taxon 56: 1245-1254.
• Moreira ECP & Conde LB (2017) A lei n. 13.123/2015 e o retrocesso na proteção dos conhecimentos tradicionais. Veredas do Direito 14: 175-205.
• Moro MF, Souza VC, Oliveira-Filho AT, Queiroz LP, Fraga CN, Rodal MJN, Araújo FS & Martins FR (2012) Alienígenas na sala: o que fazer com espécies exóticas em trabalhos de taxonomia, florística e fitossociologia? Acta Botanica Brasilica 26: 991-999.
• Oliveira DM, Santos LAS & Gomes LJ (2018) Uso da flora em assentamento agroextrativista do litoral de Sergipe, Brasil. Guaju 4: 163-183.
• Oliveira VMS, Campos MP, Policarpo MA, Sambuichi RHR & Satiro GS (2020) A contribuição do Plano Nacional de Agroecologia e Produção Orgânica (Planapo) na definição das listas de espécies da sociobiodiversidade. Cadernos de Agroecologia 15: 1-6.
• Oliveira Junior CJF, Neves YTR & Junqueira PS (2010) População caiçara, Mata Atlântica e situação atual do palmito-juçara (Euterpe edulis Mart.) na região do Rio Una da Aldeia (Iguape-SP), entorno da Estação Ecológica Jureia-Itatins. Revista Árvore 34: 1065-1073.
• Oliveira Júnior CJF, Voigtel SDS, Nicolau AS & Aragaki S (2018) Sociobiodiversidade e agricultura familiar em Joanópolis, SP, Brasil: potencial econômico da flora local. Hoehnea 45: 40-54.
• Paludo GF, Mantovani A & Reis MS (2011) Regeneration in a natural population of Araucaria angustifolia (Araucariaceae). Revista Árvore 35: 1107-1119.
• Pereira FM & Nachtigal JC (2002) Melhoramento da goiaba. In: Bruckner CH (ed.) Melhoramento de fruteiras tropicais. Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa. Pp. 267-289.
• Pimm SL, Jenkins CN, Abell R, Brooks TM, Gittleman JL, Joppa LN, Raven PH, Roberts CM & Sexton JO (2014) The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344: 287-297.
• Pinto ALA, Sousa FJF & Rufino MSM (2019) Conhecimento etnobotânico dos Tremembé da Barra do Mundaú sobre as frutas da sociobiodiversidade. Interações 20: 327-339.
• Rabelo A (2012) Frutos nativos da Amazônia: comercializados nas feiras de Manaus-AM. INPA, Manaus. 390p.
• Rengifo-Salgado E & Vargas-Arana G (2013) Physalis angulata L. (Bolsa Mullaca): a review of its traditional uses, chemistry and pharmacology. Boletín Latinoamericano y del Caribe de Plantas Medicinales y Aromáticas 12: 431-445.
• Sampaio Neto, OZ, Batista EAC & Meirelles AJA (2020) Potencial de oleaginosas nativas no desenvolvimento de cadeias produtivas da biodiversidade brasileira. Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente 54: 537-559.
• Santos AJ, Corso NM, Martins G & Bitencourt E (2002) Aspectos produtivos e comerciais do pinhão no estado do Paraná. Floresta 32: 163-169.
• Santos TVA & Hassemer G (2020) Portulacaceae in Flora do Brasil 2020, continuously updated. Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro. Available at <http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/reflora/floradobrasil/FB20624>. Access on 15 June 2021.
  » http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/reflora/floradobrasil/FB20624
• Schwartz G, Nascimento NA & Menezes AJEA (2008) Estrutura populacional de espécies de interesse florestal não-madeireiro no sudeste do Pará, Brasil. Revista Amazônia: Ciência & Desenvolvimento 4: 117-130.
• Silva LHP, Pinto LCL,Teixeira SAM & Drumond MA (2020) Pequi fruit (Caryocar brasiliense) in Minas Gerais: commercialization and public policy.Floresta e Ambiente 27: 1-10.
• Silva MT (2008) A importância da agrobiodiversidade na (agri)cultura camponesa. In: ICPJ (org.) A agricultura camponesa e as energias renováveis. ICPJ, Porto Alegre. Pp. 46-48.
• Silva VA (2015) Diversidade de uso das cactáceas no nordeste do Brasil: uma revisão. Gaia Scientia 9: 137-154.
• Silva-Luz CL, Pirani JR, Pell SK & Mitchell JD (2020) Anacardiaceae in Flora do Brasil 2020, continuously updated. Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro. Available at <http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/reflora/floradobrasil/FB26372>. Access on 15 June 2021.
  » http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/reflora/floradobrasil/FB26372
• Souza RG, Dan ML, Dias-Guimarães MA, Guimarães LAOP & Braga JMA (2018) Fruits of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: allying biodiversity conservation and food security. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 90: 3583-3595.
• Tomchinsky B & Ming LC (2019) As plantas comestíveis no Brasil dos séculos XVI e XVII segundo relatos de época. Rodriguésia 70: 1-16.
• Tuler AC, Peixoto AL & Silva NCB (2019) Plantas alimentícias não convencionais (PANC) na comunidade rural de São José da Figueira, Durandé, Minas Gerais, Brasil. Rodriguésia 70: 1-12.
• Ulian T, Diazgranados M, Pironon S, Padulosi S, Liu U, Davies L, Howes MR, Borrell JS, Ondo I, Pérez-Escobar AO, Sharrock S, Ryan P, Hunter D, Lee MA, Barstow C, Łuczaj Ł, Pieroni A, Cámara-Leret R, Noorani A, Mba C, Womdim RN, Muminjanov H, Antonelli A, Pritchard HW & Mattana E (2020) Unlocking plant resources to support food security and promote sustainable agriculture. Plants, People, Planet 2: 421-445.
• Utumy E & Leão MF (2018) Descrição dos frutos nativos utilizados na alimentação do povo indígena Rikbaktsa. Revista Exitus 8: 423-451.
• Vieira RF, Camillo J & Coradin L (2018) Espécies nativas da flora brasileira de valor econômico atual ou potencial: plantas para o futuro: Região Centro-Oeste. MMA, Brasília. 1160p.
• Zappi D & Taylor NP (2020a) Cactaceae in Flora do Brasil 2020, continuously updated. Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro. Available at <http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/reflora/floradobrasil/FB1613>. Access on 15 June 2021.
  » http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/reflora/floradobrasil/FB1613
• Zappi D & Taylor NP (2020b) Cactaceae in Flora do Brasil 2020, continuously updated. Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro. Available at <http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/reflora/floradobrasil/FB1614>. Access on 15 June 2021.
  » http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/reflora/floradobrasil/FB1614

Edited by

Area Editor: Dra. Cristina Baldauf

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  16 May 2022
• Date of issue
  2022

History

• Received
  11 Mar 2021
• Accepted
  21 Sept 2021