Cited by 89Linguistic and Cultural StudiesEthnobotanical and Medicinal Plants StudiesFood and Agricultural Sciences

Linking biodiversity, food and nutrition: The importance of plant identification and nomenclature

Nesbitt, Mark, McBurney, Rory P.H., Broin, Melanie, Beentje, Henk J.·2010·Journal of Food Composition and Analysis

Abstract

The use of biodiversity for food and nutrition requires accurate, reliable and accessible food composition data. It is essential for users of such data to be certain of the reliability of identification and naming of food plants, which is particularly problematic for lesser-known wild or locally cultivated plants. The aims of this paper are to assess the reliability and quality of botanical information in papers citing quantitative food composition data of wild and locally cultivated species and to make recommendations for minimum standards in publishing botanical information with food composition data. We developed a framework for evaluating sample plant identification and nomenclature, and surveyed 50 papers referring to 502 species sampled (‘sample plants’), each associated with one or more nutritional data. We also tested whether or not a botanist was involved in the identification of ‘difficult to identify’ species. Of 502 sample plants, only 36 followed best practice for plant identification, and 37 followed best practice for plant nomenclature. Overall, 27% of sample plants were listed with names that are not in current use, or are incorrectly spelt, or both. Only 159 sample plants would have been found from a database search of citations and abstracts. Considering the need for food composition data from wild and locally cultivated food species, and the cost of analysis, researchers must identify, name and publish species correctly. Drawing on the fields of ethnobotany and ethnopharmacology, comprehensive recommendations are given for best practice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jfca.2009.03.001

Cites

83 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

7 of the 90 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nesbitt, M., McBurney, R. P. H., Broin, M., & Beentje, H. J.
Affiliations
  • Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (GB)
  • University of Kent (GB)
Corresponding author
Nesbitt, Mark
Venue
Journal of Food Composition and Analysis
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-09
Volume
23
Issue
6
Pages
486-498
ISSN
0889-1575 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2111841022
Cited by
89
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Food Composition and Analysis (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Linguistic and Cultural Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Ethnobotanical and Medicinal Plants Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food and Agricultural Sciences
Keywords
plant identification, botanical nomenclature, food composition data, wild edible plants, ethnobotany, ethnopharmacology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review