Advertisement

Extreme levels of mycophilia documented in Mazovia, a region of Poland

  • Marcin Andrzej KotowskiEmail author
  • Marcin Pietras
  • Łukasz Łuczaj
Open Access
Research

Abstract

Background

The paper presents documentation of the traditional use of wild edible mushrooms in Mazovia (33,900 km2), a region of Poland.

Methods

A total of 695 semi-structured interviews were carried out among local informants in 38 localities proportionally distributed throughout the study area (one locality approximately every 30 km), asking which mushrooms they collected and how. The species utilized were identified using visual props, morphological identification of voucher specimens, and DNA barcoding.

Results

Altogether, 92 taxa identified to the species or genus level were recorded, among them 76 species used as food, 21 taxa known as toxic, and 11 taxa used for non-culinary purposes. Out of 76 identified edible fungi species, 47% (36 species) were identified using ITS DNA barcode method. Eleven of them were identified exclusively by molecular analysis. The mean number of edible taxa mentioned per interview was 9.5. Two species new to the mycobiota of Poland, Hydnum ellipsosporum and Paxillus cuprinus, were found. Frequent interaction with mushroom collectors enabled the transcription of local folk taxonomy into proper taxonomic classification and the definition of changes in local preferences concerning wild fungi collection.

Conclusions

The list of species utilized is the longest regional list of edible mushrooms ever recorded during ethnomycological field research, putting the inhabitants of the studied region at the top of the mycophilia spectrum.

Keywords

Ethnomycology Edible mushrooms Fungi Mycophilia Mycophilic Mycophilous 

Introduction

Human societies vary greatly in their frequency of utilizing fungi as food. Those which traditionally have positive attitudes towards mushroom collection and consumption are considered mycophillic, in contrast to mycophobic places where mushrooms are avoided [1]. Moreover, some mycophillic communities consider selected species of wild fungi as more valuable sources of food than wild edible plants [2, 3].

Mycophilic areas include large parts of southern and eastern Europe, Turkey, parts of Africa, Mexico, and most of Asia [4]. Traditional knowledge of fungi collection is still not well documented in many parts of the world, including major centers of mycophilia. Moreover, few studies are based on thorough ethnomycological field research. Most are focused on small communities and are sometimes based on unspecified or heterogeneous methodologies [4, 5]. Only a few studies characterize territories with large surface areas (e.g., [6, 7, 8, 9]), and none of the abovementioned studies have attempted to conduct research that was evenly distributed over the whole studied area. Some studies were conducted only in markets or with previously selected respondents, such as mushroom vendors or people connected to mushroom commerce (e.g., [6]), which can significantly distort the overall view of community knowledge about wild growing fungi.

Prime examples of mycophilic societies are the northern Slavic nations. Valentina Wasson, one of the creators of this term, was Russian herself [1]. Actually, all northern Slavic countries (Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia) and nations, respectively, display a high degree of mycophilia. In spite of this, modern ethnomycological studies documented by voucher specimens are very scarce from this area, restricted to an open air market study in south-eastern Poland [10] and a field study of Ukrainians in Romania [3]. However, the great traditions of Polish mycophilia have not gone unnoticed by ethnographers. Jerzy Wojciech Szulczewski from Poznań is the author of the first study of fungi sold in city markets in the world [11]. The use of fungi was also documented by Józef Gajek’s Polish Ethnographic Atlas team in 1964–1969 during a systematic study from 330 localities throughout Poland. This was later supplemented by further interviews. Little of this data has been published, apart from distribution maps of the use of selected species from the genera Lactarius and Russula [12]. Some archival data on the use of edible mushrooms are also available [13, 14].

Although mushrooms are eagerly collected across the whole area of Poland, our preliminary observations from one locality in this region [15] showed that the central-eastern part of Poland, within the historical region of Mazovia, displays the largest number of fungi taxa collected. Thus, we designed a study which aimed to document the use of wild edible fungi in a large area, covering the whole region, based on a large number of interviews.

Ethnomycological studies pose many problems in identification of the species listed by informants. Fruiting bodies occur only seasonally, and identification to species level is sometimes difficult even for taxonomists. DNA barcoding facilitates ethnomycological research in many ways. For example, it enables a more exact identification often only from fragments of dried mushrooms collected by the interviewees and enables proper identification of voucher specimens collected during village walks and validation of the initial identification conducted by the researcher. Unfortunately, it is still not widely used in ethnomycology as a tool to eliminate possible errors related to species identification [11, 16, 17].

The main objective of this research is to create the complete ethnomycological documentation of an entire European region with evenly distributed intensity of fieldwork throughout the entire research area. It is connected with further objectives such as:
  • Finding rare and protected fungi species used among people living in the Mazovia region;

  • Creating a list of locally collected fungi species list with a description of their uses;

  • Creating a list of species regarded as inedible or poisonous;

  • Assigning proper taxonomic nomenclature to local fungi names;

  • Determining folk views on the connections between particular taxa;

  • Determining the cultural salience of particular fungi taxa; and

  • Detecting changes in preferences concerning wild fungi collection.

Methods

Study area

Mazovia is one of the ten major Polish historical regions within the area of present-day Poland. Throughout a major part of Polish medieval history, Mazovia was an independent principality. It consists of lands which have been united over the centuries by shared history, culture, and politics, regardless of the current administrative borders [18]. In the case of the present research, the borders of the region were based on the map created for the Historical Atlas of Poland Mazovia in the second half of XVI century written by Pałucki [19]. The sixteenth century borders are accepted as the best determinants of this region’s shape and are presently used as reference points during the research conducted within its area [20, 21] (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1

Study area

The region lies mainly within the current borders of the Mazovian Voivodeship; however, its lands extend to part of the Podlasie Voivodeship in the north-east and the Łódź Voivodeship in the south-west. It spreads over the Mazovian Lowland in the valleys of the Vistula, Narew, and Bug rivers. The whole area of this region covers about 33,900 km2, and it is inhabited by 5.03 million people, making up 13.1% of the total population of the country [22]. The climate of Mazovia is cold temperate and has a transitional character between oceanic and continental, with high annual temperature amplitudes [23]. The average temperature in summer (VI–VIII) is about 18 °C and in winter (XII–II) − 1 °C. Average annual rainfall varies from 550 to 600 mm [24]. Forest vegetation covers 23.3% of the studied area [25]. The majority of these forests (64%) are coniferous, composed mainly of Pinus sylvestris (Scots pine). The other most abundant species in deciduous and mixed forests are Quercus robur (Pedunculate oak) and Betula pendula (silver birch).

It is currently difficult to find any shared cultural characteristics for people living in this historical region, but it is still inhabited by a few ethnographic groups which can be distinguished by their local cultures and traditions. These are the Kurpie, Łowiczanie, Mazurzy, and Podlasianie [20]. The capital city of Warszawa (Warsaw) is located in the center of Mazovia. In spite of the large urban sprawl around Warsaw, forests are present even in the city’s agglomeration and mushroom picking is very popular.

The research was carried out in 38 villages or small market towns which were dispersed evenly in a 30-km grid throughout the whole Mazovian region (Fig. 1). These were Burakowskie, Całowanie, Chyżyny, Cieciory, Dąbrowa, Faustynowo, Flesze, Gostkowo, Kluki, Klusek, Kocierzew, Konopki (Grajewo County), Konopki (Łomża County), Korytów, Kozietuły, Kręgi, Leksyn, Łątczyn, Łękawica, Mamino, Mchowo, Mistrzewice, Nowy Gołymin, Piaski, Przedświt, Psucin, Pszczonów, Radzymin, Regnów, Sojczyn, Stare Babice, Szczaki, Szydłowo, Świerże, Węgrzynowice, Wyrzyki, Zdunek, and Żurawka (currently the district of Sulejówek). This network of settlements forms part of the larger network of the Ethnographic Atlas of Poland, where data was also collected on mushroom gathering in 1964–1969 [26]. At that time, the ethnographer chose “large moderately backward” settlements. We selected the same settlements in order to make a return study and assess the changes in mushroom gathering.

Field research methods

The field research took place in the months of abundance of traditionally collected wild edible fungi (IV–XI), between 2014 to 2018. Data were collected through individual semi-structured interviews with local informants, which is the classic method in ethnobiology [27]. In order to define the cultural salience of particular fungal taxa, information about macrofungi gathered or recognized as edible was collected by using the freelisting method [28, 29]. During interviews, respondents were asked separately about wild macrofungi known as edible, inedible, and used for non-consumption purposes. All freelists were made orally and written down. During interviews, the informants were also asked which species known as edible were collected currently, and which only in the past. Altogether, 695 interviews were carried out. Informants were selected during village walks or using the “snowball” sampling technique [30]. We aimed at interviewing 20 informants per locality and could not find the attempted 20 in 10 localities. These are Cieciory (10 interviews), Dąbrowa (17), Flesze (10), Konopki (Grajewo county) (10), Konopki (Łomża county) (16), Leksyn (18), Nowy Gołymin (10), Piaski (18), Wyrzyki (18), and Zdunek (8). This is connected with demographic changes which have taken place over the last five decades in some of the settlements. Since Gajek’s research, some sites that were included in the village grid have been visibly depopulated, while others have become parts of broader urbanized areas (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2

Differences in population density in selected localities. Source: Google Earth Pro

Among the 695 respondents, women accounted for 52% (362) and men for 48% (333). The age of informants ranged from 17 to 95. The mean age was 63 (SD = 13.7) and median 64.

The majority of folk taxa listed during interviews were identified with the support of mushroom identification guides or pictures. Some of these interviews were conducted during (or soon after) mushroom collection, which enabled us to recognize taxa on the spot and to acquire voucher specimens, whose identification was later verified with DNA barcoding [31, 32]. There was at least one landscape walk or joined collection trip in each village. The majority of voucher specimens were collected fresh during field interviews, and some were acquired in dried form from respondents. The fresh specimens were dried soon after collection following the guidelines of accepted methods for DNA barcoding of fungi [33]. Fungal DNA was extracted from a small part of each fruit body using a Plant and Fungi DNA Purification Kit (Eurx), following the standard protocol. The PCR cocktail consisted of 4 ml DNA extract, 0.5 ml each of the primers (ITS5 and ITS4 in 10 nmol concentration) and 5 ml Type-it Microsatellite PCR Kit (Qiagen). PCR was carried out using the following thermocycling conditions: an initial 15 min at 95 °C, followed by 35 cycles at 95 °C for 30 s, 55 °C for 30 s, 72 °C for 1 min, and a final cycle of 10 min at 72 °C. PCR products were estimated by running a 5-ml DNA amplicon on 1.5% agarose gel for 30 min. The PCR products were sequenced using ITS4 primers at the Laboratory of Molecular Biology of Adam Mickiewicz University (Poznań). The obtained sequences were verified visually on chromatograms using BIOEDIT. Nuclear ITS sequences obtained in this study are deposited in GenBank [34], with the accession numbers listed in Table 4. Fungi names follow Index Fungorum [35]. The results were evaluated statistically using Statistica version 12.5.

Data analysis

In order to measure the cultural importance of particular fungi taxa, we used Smith’s Salience Index [36]. Salience was derived using a salience index (Smith’s S) defined as S = ((L − Rj + 1)/L)/N, where L is the length of each list, Rj is the rank of item j in the list, and N is the number of lists in the sample (Tables 1, 2, and 3). The significance of differences in local knowledge about wild edible fungi between men and women was determined using the T test for independent samples (Fig. 3). The relation between age and local knowledge about edible fungi was analyzed by distance-weighted least squares regression (Fig. 4). Statistica version 12.5 programme was used to perform most of the statistical analyses, apart from Salience index, which was calculated from the basic data spreadsheet in Excel.
Table 1

Scientific and local names of fungi used for culinary purposes in Mazovia with their salience and frequency

Scientific names of folk taxa

 

Smith’s S

Frequency n = 695

Local names

Agaricus sp., mainly:

Agaricus campestris s.l. L.

including:

0.2922

228

mainly: pieczarka; also: dzika pieczarka, pieczarka łąkowa, pieczarka polna

Agaricus arvensis Schaeff.

0.0036

3

pieczarka leśna

Amanita fulva s.l. Fr

0.0327

27

czubajka, czubek, panienka, wyskoczek, żydówka

Amanita muscaria (L.) Lam.

0.0073

6

muchomor, muchomor czerwony

Armillaria mellea s.l. (Vahl) P. Kumm.

including:

Armillaria borealis Marxm. & Korhonen,

Armillariia gallica Marxm. & Romagn.

0.3219

255

mainly: opieńka; also: opieniek, opieńka żółta, podpieniek, podpieńka, podpinka

Armillaria gallica Marxm. & Romagn.

0.0012

1

opieńka płowa

Boletus edulis s.l. Bull. (and, much more rarely, Gyroporus castaneus (Bull.) Quél.)

0.9157

649

mainly: prawdziwek, borowik; also: borowik szlachetny, grzyb prawy, prawdziwy, prawdziwy grzyb, prawiak, prawus, prawuszek, prawy

 These species are sometimes differentiated:

  Boletus reticulatus Schaeff.

0.022

18

prawdziwek, prawdziwek biały, prawdziwek dębowy, prawdziwek jasny, prawdziwy dębowy

  Gyroporus castaneus (Bull.) Quél.

0.0014

1

Prawdziwek piaskowiec

Boletus subtomentosus s.l. L. also:

Boletus ferrugineus Schaeff.

Xerocomellus cisalpinus (Simonini, H. Ladurner & Peintner) Klofac

Xerocomellus pruinatus (Fr. & Hök) Šutara

0.1600

125

podgrzybnica, podgrzybniczka, zając, zajączek, zajęczak

Calocybe/Lepista/Tricholoma sp.

including:

0.4890

361

cyz, gąski, pecłonka, prośnianka

Tricholoma equestre (L.) P. Kumm.

0.3230

251

mainly: gąska zielona, prośnianka zielona; also: gąska zielonka, gąska żółta, pecłonka zielona, prośnianka zielonkawa, prośnianka żółta, zielonka

Tricholoma portentosum (Fr.) Quel.

0.2967

231

mainly: gąska siwa, prośnianka siwa; also: gąska ciemna, gąska szara, pecłonka szara, podzielonka, prośnianka seledynowa, prośnianka szara, siwka

Calocybe gambosa (Fr.) Donk

0.0039

3

gąska biała

Lepista nuda (Bull.) Cooke

0.0024

2

gąska fioletowa, gąsówka naga

Calvatia gigantea (Batsch) Lloyd

0.0073

5

bździucha, purchawa, purchawiec

Lycoperdon sp. including:

Lycoperdon lividum Pers.

0.0012

1

purchawa, pafbol

Cantharellus cibarius s.l. Fr.

0.7387

539

mainly: kurka, gąska; also: drzewiak, gąska, kurek, kurka, lisiczka

Coprinus comatus (O.F. Müll.) Pers.

0.0014

1

kania

Cortinarius caperatus (Pers.) Fr.

0.0714

61

kołpak, niemka, płachcianka, turek

Cortinarius mucosus (Bull.) J. Kickx

0.0012

1

tłuszczka

Craterellus cornucopioides (L.) Pers.

0.0156

13

cholewa, cholewka, czarna kurka, fioletowa trąba

Gyromitra esculenta (Pers.) Fr.

0.0643

48

babie uszy, piestrzenica

Gyroporus cyanescens (Bull.) Quél.

0.0721

58

mainly: siniak, modrzak; also: modrak, modrzewiak, piasecznik, piaskowiec

Hydnum repandum s.l. L. including:

Hydnum ellipsosporum Ostrow & Beenken

0.0046

4

kolczak, sarenka

Hygrophorus hypothejus (Fr.) Fr.

0.033

25

cienka łydka, listopadka, listopadówka, przylaszczka, tłuszczka

Imleria badia (Fr.) Fr.

0.7959

572

mainly: podgrzybek; also: czarny łepek, podgrzyb, podgrzybek brązowy, podgrzybka, podgrzybnica, podprawdziwek, półgrzybek, półprawdziwek, siniak

Laccaria amethystina (Huds.) Cooke

0.0013

1

tatarka

Lactarius deliciosus s.l. (L.) Pers.

0.3115

242

rydz

Lactarius deterrimus Gröger

0.0026

2

rydz żółty

Lactarius piperatus (L.) Pers.

0.0046

4

bil, bily, mleczak

Lactarius vellereus (Fr.) Fr.

0.0069

6

chrząszcz, gruzd, kobyłka

Lactarius volemus (Fr.) Fr.

0.0149

13

dójka, krowa, krówka, krówski rydz

Leccinum sp.

including:

0.347

252

kowale, kozaki, kozery, kozyrki, koźlaki, koźlary, koźlarze

Leccinum aurantiacum s.l. (Bull.) Gray

0.5368

397

mainly: osak; also: czerwona główka, czerwoniak, czerwoniak bordowy, czerwonogłowiec, czerwonołepek, czerwony, czerwony łepek, kowalik, kozak czerwony, kozer czerwony, koźlak czerwony, koźlar czerwony, koźlarz czerwony, krawiec, Lesiak, olszak, olszyn, osiniak, pamfil, pociech, pociecha, stołyngwa, zapałka

 From L. aurantiacum, the following species are sometimes differentiated:

  Leccinum quercinum (Pilát) E.E. Green & Watling

0.0081

6

dębniak

  Leccinum versipelle (Fr. & Hök) Snell

0.004

3

czerwoniak, czerwoniak jasny

  Leccinum vulpinum Watling

0.0038

3

koźlarz brązowy, osak brązowy, osak ciemnobrązowy

 Brown-capped species, mainly

  Leccinum scabrum s.l. (Bull.) Gray, also

  L. pseudoscabrum (Kallenb.) Mikšik and

  L. variicolor Watling

0.502

365

mainly: kozak szary; also: baba, brzeźniak, brzozowiak, kowal siwy, kozaczek, kozak, kozak brązowy, kozak siny, kozak siwy, kozer, kozerek siwy, kozioł, koziołek, koźlak, koźlak biały, koźlak brązodwy, koźlak jasny, koźlak siwy, koźlak szary, koźlak szary, koźlar brązowy, koźlar siwy, koźlar szary, koźlarek, koźlarz, koźlarz ciemny, koźlarz siwy, koźlarz szary, podbrzeźniak, siwek

 Sometimes differentiated:

  L. pseudoscabrum (Kallenb.) Mikšik

0.0163

14

koziołek czarny, koźlak ciemno-szary, koźlak czarny, koźlar ciemny, koźlar czarny

Macrolepiota procera s.l. (Scop.) Singer (most often), occasionally also: Chlorophyllum sp. including:

Chlorophyllum brunneum (Farl. & Burt) Vellinga

Chlorophyllum olivieri (Barla) Vellinga

Chlorophyllum rhacodes (Vittad.) Vellinga

0.4195

323

mainly: kania; also: baran, czubajka, czubak, drapka, gapa, kania polna, sowa

  Chlorophyllum rhacodes (Vittad.) Vellinga (sometimes distinguished from Macrolepiota)

0.0036

3

kania czerwieniejąca, kania leśna

Marasmius oreades (Bolton) Fr.

0.1068

79

mainly: przydróżka, psiak, twardzioszek, tańcowniczka; also: gromadka, murawka, podróżniak, podróżniczek, podróżnik, przydrożniak, przydróżniczek, psi grzyb, rzędówka, tanecznik, tanieczniczka, tańcownica, tańcownik, tątka, toneczniczka, tonka, twardzioszek przydrożny, wysrandek, wysranek, wysrojdek, wywieruszka, zawieruszka

Morchella sp. mainly

Morchella esculenta (L.) Pers. and

Morchella conica s.l Pers.

0.0316

27

smardz, smarż

Neoboletus luridiformis (Rostk.) G. Wu & Zhu L. Yang

0.0013

1

pójdziec

Paxillus involutus s.l. (Batsch) Fr. including:

Paxillus cuprinus Jargeat, Gryta, J.-P. Chaumeton & Vizzini

0.3149

264

olchówka, olszówka

Pleurotus ostreatus s.l. (Jacq.) P. Kumm.

including:

Pleurotus cornucopiae (Paulet) Rolland

0.0148

12

boczniak

Ramaria sp.

0.0138

12

koralówka, kozia broda, kozia bródka

Russula sp.

0.1639

134

betka, gołąbek, serojeżka, serowiatka, surojadka, surojeżka, surowiatka, syrowiatka

 Grayish species (mainly Russula aeruginea s.l Lindbl. ex Fr.) and green ones (R. virescens (Schaeff.) Fr.)

0.1378

113

mainly: gołąbek, betka siwa, betka zielona; also: gołąbek biały, gołąbek siwy, gołąbek szary, gołąbek zielony, serowiatka siwa, siwek, surojadka szara, surojadka zielona, surowiatka biała, surowiatka siwa

 Sometimes differentiated:

  Russula virescens (Schaeff.) Fr.

0.0219

18

betka zielona, gołąbek, gołąbek zielony

 Reddish species including:

  Russula integra (L.) Fr.

  Russula nitida (Pers.) Fr.

  Russula alutacea (Fr.) Fr.

0.0605

48

mainly: betka, surowiadka, gołąbek czerwony; also: betka czerwona, betka różowa, cukrówka, gołąbek bordowy, maślanka czerwona, serowiatka różowa, surojadka, surojadka czerwona, surowiatka czerwona, surowiatka różowa, syrowiatka

  Russula nigricans Fr.

0.0135

12

świnka

 Yellow-capped species, including:

  Russula ochroleuca Fr.

  Russula claroflava Grove

0.0246

21

betka pomarańczowa, betka żółta, gołąbek żółty, maślanka żółta, maślanka, serowiatka żółta, surowiatka żółta

Sarcodon squamosus s.l. (Schaeff.) Quél.

0.0997

82

mainly: sarna, krowia morda; also: bycze serce, krowia gęba, sarenka, wola morda, woli morda, wołowy język

Scleroderma citrinum Pers.

0.0083

7

bycze jajka, tęgoskór, trufla

Sparassis crispa (Wulf.) Fr.

0.0083

7

jarosz, kozia broda

Suillus luteus (L.) Roussel (mainly) and other Suillus spp.

including:

0.702

521

maślak, maśluk, pampek, pępek, ślimak

Suillus bovinus (L.) Roussel

0.0712

58

mainly: sitarz, sitak; also: maślak sitarz, podgrzybek sitarz, sitarek, sitawka, sitek, sitka, sitowiak

Suillus granulatus (L.) Roussel

0.0037

3

maślak jasny, maślak wczesny

Suillus grevillei (Klotzsch) Singer

0.0162

14

maślak modrzewiowy, maśluk modrzewiowy, modrzewiak

Suillus variegatus (Sw.) Richon & Roze

0.0811

68

mainly: bagniak, jakubek, also: błotniak, błotniczek, lesiak, miodówka, miodziak, podgrzybek żółty, twardak, twardziak

Tricholomopsis rutilans (Schaeff.) Singer

0.0025

2

rycerzyk, tłuściocha

Tuber sp. P. Micheli ex F.H. Wigg.

0.0049

3

trufla

Tylopilus felleus (Bull.) P. Karst.

0.0012

1

szatan

Table 2

Scientific and local names of toxic and inedible fungi known in Mazovia with their salience and frequency

Scientific names of folk taxa

 

Smith’s S

Frequency, n = 695

Local names

Other very small Agaricales regarded as toxic or worthless

0.0423

31

mainly: psiak; also: blaszak, blaszkowaty, psi, psia betka, psi grzyb, psio betka, psiuch

Agaricus xanthodermus Genev.

0.0013

1

trująca pieczarka

Amanita sp.

including:

0.4804

336

muchary, muchomory

 Species with spotted cups, mainly Amanita muscaria (L.) Lam.

0.3048

219

mainly: muchomor, muchomor czerwony; also: muchomor muchar, muchar czerwony, muchomor, muchomor kropkowaty, muchomor pospolity, muchomor pstry

 The following species is sometimes differentiated:

  Amanita pantherina (DC.) Krombh.

0.0025

2

muchomor plamisty

 Species with not-spotted caps, mainly Amanita phalloides s.l. Vaill. ex Fr.

0.2767

200

mainly: muchomor sromotnikowy, sromotnik; also: muchar siwy, muchar sromotnik, muchomor biały, muchomor czubiasty, muchomor siwy, muchomor sromotnik, muchomor sromotny, muchomor sromotny, muchomor szary, muchomor zielonkawy, muchomor zielony, sromotniak

 The following species are sometimes differentiated:

   

  Amanita citrina Pers.

0.0122

9

muchomor cytrynowy, muchomor żółty

  Amanita virosa s.l. Bertill.

0.0122

16

muchar białawy, muchomor biały

Armillaria sp. (Fr.) Staude

0.0042

3

opieńka

Calvatia, Bovista, or Lycoperdon sp.

0.0094

7

bycze jaja

Chlorophyllum rhacodes s.l. (Vittad.) Vellinga

0.0096

7

kania, trująca kania

Coprinopsis sp. P. Karst

0.0014

1

czernidłak

Galerina marginata (Batsch) Kühner

0.0013

1

hełmówka jadowita

Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca (Wulfen) Maire

0.0109

8

fałszywa gąska, fałszywa kurka, pieprznik jadowity, trująca kurka

Lactarius sp.

including:

0.0052

4

mleczaki

Lactarius aurantiacus (Pers.) Gray

0.0012

1

mleczaj gorzki

Lactarius piperatus (L.) Pers.

0.0013

1

bil

Lactarius torminosus (Schaeff.) Gray

0.0053

4

trująca krowia morda, trujący rydz, wełnianka

Paxillus involutus s.l. (Batsch) Fr.

0.0452

33

mainly: olszówka; also: krowiak, świńska olszówka

Tapinella atrotomentosa (Batsch) Šutara

0.0081

6

krzywogęba, krowia gęba, świnia, włochata olszówka

Bracket fungi (Polyporales spp.) in general

0.004

3

huby

Ramaria sp.

0.0013

1

kozia bródka

Rubroboletus satanas (Lenz) Kuan Zhao & Zhu L. Yang

0.0071

5

borowik szatan, szatanista, borowik szatański

Russula sp.

including:

0.0109

8

betki, surowiatki

Russula emetica (Schaeff.) Pers.

0.0137

10

betka czerwona, trujący gołąbek, surowiatka, gołąbek czerwony, surowiatka trująca, czerwona siwka

Russula fellea (Fr.) Fr.

0.0027

2

betka żółta

Tylopilus felleus (Bull.) P. Karst.

0.3666

264

mainly: szatan, goryczak; also: goryczak, gorzkal, gorzkelec, gorzki, gorzkowiec, gorzkówka, goszkielec, goszniak, gosztelec, piołun gorzkowiec, podgorzelec, prawdziwek szatan, prawdziwek trujak, szatan, szatan podgrzybek, świnia, zając

Table 3

Scientific and local names of other useful fungi known in Mazovia with their salience and frequency

Scientific names of folk taxa

 

Smith’s S

Frequency, n = 695

Use

Local names

Amanita muscaria (L.) Lam.

0.0934

66

fly trap, psychoactive

Table 2

Boletus edulis Bull.

0.0015

1

dye

Table 1

Claviceps purpurea (Fr.) Tul.

0.0015

1

abortifacient

sporysz

Gyromitra esculenta (Pers.) Fr.

0.0028

3

medicine

Table 1

Polyporales sp.

  

decoration, medicine

Table 2

Piptoporus betulinus (Bull.) B.K. Cui, M.L. Han & Y.C. Dai

0.0161

11

medicine, decoration

biała huba, huba brzozowa

Inonotus obliquus (Ach. ex Pers.) Pilát

0.0015

1

medicine

czarna huba, huba brzozowa

Psilocybe sp. (Fr.) P. Kumm.

0.0085

8

psychoactive

grzybek, grzybek halucynek, halucynek, łysiczka

Rubroboletus satanas (Lenz) Kuan Zhao & Zhu L. Yang

0.0015

1

fly trap

Table 2

Scleroderma citrinum Pers.

0.0015

1

fly trap

Table 1

Suillus luteus (L.) Roussel

0.0015

1

axle grease

Table 1

Tapinella atromentosa (Batsch) Šutara

0.0015

1

fly trap

Table 2

Fig. 3

Difference between men and women in relation to knowledge about wild edible fungi. M men, W women

Fig. 4

Relationship between wild edible fungi knowledge and the age of the informants

In order to compare our results with those obtained between 1964 and 1969 by Józef Gajek’s team, we analyzed 48 questionnaires gathered by the team in selected Mazovian villages (there were 38 localities but in some places the research was repeated). During the analysis, we excluded questionnaires with data collected without using the freelisting method and also questionnaires with visible identification errors. Questionnaires with data acquired without using the freelisting method were characterized by the order of listed species, which coincided with the order of species listed in the mushroom guide written by Henryk Orłoś in 1963 [37]. It is known that this guide was used as a support for species identification during Gajek’s research. Determination of obvious identification errors was possible due to the very long local fungi name list created during present research in the same villages. In a few cases, popular local names were assigned to the guide’s illustrations depicting rare or locally absent species with characteristics similar to those of commonly collected and abundant species.

Results and discussion

General information

During field research, we recorded the use of 65 fungi folk taxa which were listed as edible. In these folk taxa, we identified 76 scientific taxa on the genus or species (Table 1). We identified 21 taxa of species considered as inedible or poisonous to the genus or species level and 3 folk taxa on levels higher than family (Table 2). We also recorded the uses of 11 fungi species or genera for other purposes than food (i.e., medicinal and hallucinogenic, Table 3). Bearing in mind that recorded folk taxa correspond to different taxonomic ranks such as genera or orders, these folk classifications can actually apply to dozens of other different scientific species, which are rare (and rarely used) but similar and related to popularly recognized taxa. Considering that in a few cases the same taxon was present on more than one list (i.e., edible, toxic, other), there were altogether 92 different fungi taxa identified to the genus or species level, recorded as used or known, now or in the past, by people living in Mazovia.

The mean number of recorded edible fungal taxa is 9.5 and the median is 9, minimum 1 and maximum 28 per interview. We detected a very small, but significant difference between men and women in relation to knowledge about wild edible fungi (Fig. 3; p = 0.0145).

According to the results, men display more diversified knowledge considering wild edible fungi than women. Men reported on average 9.9 ± 4.8 fungi taxa while women 9.1 ± 4.4. There was no significant correlation between age of respondents and number of listed edible species; however, the graph of weighted least squares regression suggests that informants aged between 60 and 70 have on average the largest knowledge of wild edible fungi (Fig. 4).

However, after removing results for ages over 70, when the cognitive capacity of informants drops, we acquired a significant correlation between these two factors (Fig. 5).
Fig. 5

Relationship between wild edible fungi knowledge and the age of the informants ranged between 17 and 70 years

The mean number of listed inedible or poisonous fungi taxa is 1.7 (median = 2, minimum = 0, maximum = 6), and the mean number of fungi taxa with other useful properties is 0.15 (median = 0, min = 0, max = 3).

Taking into account the mean number of species listed, the largest number of fungi taxa are collected in Żurawka, Mińsk county (mean = 14.7); Faustynowo, Ciechanów county (mean = 12.75); and Węgrzynowice, Tomaszów county (mean = 12.26). When all the lists from one settlement were added together, the longest lists of edible fungi taxa were acquired for Pszczonów = 41, Żurawka = 37, Szczaki = 36, and Korytów and Węgrzynowice = 33. All these villages are situated close to each other in the central and south-western parts of the Mazovia region.

Mushrooms are frequently used in a variety of boiled and fried dishes. Many taxa are also preserved (dried, pickled, or frozen after brief boiling). The range of mushroom dishes and their processing techniques is so diverse that it is worthy of discussion in a separate paper.

Diachronic differences

In the data from the 1960s, 31 fungi folk taxa were identified as listed by Mazovian informants during Gajek’s research. In comparison, current field research based only on interviews conducted in the same localities enabled the identification of 65 wild edible fungi folk species used by Mazovian communities (after the DNA barcoding, the number of identified taxa increased to 76). Only two species present on Gajek’s list were not recorded during our research (Fig. 6). These are Sarcodon imbricatus and Xerocomellus chrysenteron. Both of them were listed in Pszczonów village. In the case of Sarcodon imbricatus, it is possible that it was confused during identification with Sarcodon squamosus, which was identified in the same village during the present research and was not present in the guide used for species identification during Gajek’s research [37]. It is still possible that this species occurs and is used there. Xerocomellus chrysenteron, on the other hand, is very abundant in Mazovian forests. Further DNA barcode analysis shows that Xerocomellus species are perceived by Mazovian residents as different variants of Boletus subtomentosus and are known under one collective taxa “zajączek” (Table 4). This probably also applies to Xerocomellus chrysenteron. However, because this species was not identified by the respondents during field research or by DNA barcode analysis of collected voucher specimens, it is not included in the present list of fungi taxa known as edible in the region.
Fig. 6

The relationships between the taxa recorded in Gajek’s questionnaire from 1964 to 1969 (dotted line) and present research from 2014 to 2018 (solid line)

Table 4

The list of voucher specimens and the results of DNA barcoding

Voucher no.

Molecular identification

Accession number

Similarity

Reference sequences

Specimen’s local name

WA0000071001

Russula nitida (Pers.) Fr.

MK028864

99.85

KU205349

Betka czerwona

WA0000071002

Xerocomellus cisalpinus (Simonini, H. Ladurner & Peintner) Klofac

MK028865

99.86

UDB002180

Zajączek

WA0000071003

Xerocomellus cisalpinus (Simonini, H. Ladurner & Peintner) Klofac

MK028866

100

UDB002180

Zajączek

WA0000071004

Cantharellus cibarius Fr.

MK028867

99.31

LC085408

Kurka

WA0000071005

Amanita fulva Fr.

MK028868

100

UDB002417

Panienka

WA0000071006

Tricholoma equestre (L.) P. Kumm.

MK028869

100

UDB011389

Gąska zielona

WA0000071007

Russula aeruginea Lindbl. ex Fr.

MK028870

99.84

UDB000341

Gołąbek

WA0000071008

Russula aeruginea Lindbl. ex Fr.

MK028871

100

UDB000341

Gołąbek

WA0000071009

Russula aeruginea Lindbl. ex Fr.

MK028872

100

UDB000341

Ggołąbek siwy

WA0000071010

Leccinum versipelle (Fr. & Hök) Snell

MK028873

99.76

UDB019772

Koźlak

WA0000071011

Leccinum scabrum (Bull.) Gray

a.f.

Kozak

WA0000071012

Armillaria gallica Marxm. & Romagn.

MK028874

99.75

KT822312

Opieńka

WA0000071013

Boletus edulis Bull.

MK028875

99.70

DQ131623

Prawdziwek

WA0000071014

Boletus reticulatus Schaeff.

MK028876

99.70

KY595992

Prawdziwek

WA0000071015

Chlorophyllum brunneum (Farl. & Burt) Vellinga

MK028877

99.85

AY083208

Kania

WA0000071016

Xerocommelus cisalpinus (Simonini, H. Ladurner & Peintner) Klofac

MK028878

99.85

UDB002180

Zajączek

WA0000071017

Suillus bovinus (L.) Roussel

MK028879

100

KF482482

Maślak

WA0000071018

Suillus luteus (L.) Roussel

MK028880

100

KX230614

Pępek

WA0000071019

Craterellus cornucopoides (L.) Pers.

MK028881

100

KT693262

Cholewa

WA0000071020

Russula aeruginea Lindbl. ex Fr.

MK028882

100

UDB000341

Gołąbek

WA0000071021

Russula claroflava Grove

a.f.

Gołąbek żółty

WA0000071022

Xerocomellus cisalpinus (Simonini, H. Ladurner & Peintner) Klofac

MK028883

99.51

UDB002180

Zajączek

WA0000071023

Agaricus arvensis Schaeff.

MK028884

99.51

JF797194

Pieczarka

WA0000071024

Chlorophyllum olivieri (Barla) Vellinga

MK028885

99.85

UDB031330

Kania czerwieniejąca

WA0000071025

Macrolepiota procera (Scop.) Singer

MK028886

100

UDB015607

Kania

WA0000071026

Suillus grevillei (Klotzsch) Singer

MK028887

100

KM085409

Maślak modrzewiowy

WA0000071027

Gyroporus castaneus (Bull.) Quél.

MK028888

100

UDB023475

Prawdziwek

WA0000071028

Paxillus cuprinusJargeat, Gryta, J.-P. Chaumeton & Vizzini

MK028889

100

KF261422

Olszówka

WA0000071029

Xerocomellus cisalpinus (Simonini, H. Ladurner & Peintner) Klofac

MK028890

99.71

UDB002180

Zajączek

WA0000071030

Hydnum ellipsosporumOstrow & Beenken

MK028891

100

HM189766

Kolczak

WA0000071031

Russula nigricans Fr.

MK028892

100

UDB000011

Świnka

WA0000071032

Gyroporus cyanescens (Bull.) Quél.

MK028893

100

UDB015653

Piaskowiec

WA0000071033

Imleria badia (Fr.) Fr.

MK028894

100

KX756408

Siniak

WA0000071034

Cantharellus cibarius Fr.

MK028895

99.27

KT693262

Kurka

WA0000071035

Calocybe gambosa (Fr.) Donk

MK028896

99.70

UDB000593

Gąska biała

WA0000071036

Calvatia gigantea (Batsch) Lloyd

MK028897

100

AJ617492

Purchawa

WA0000071037

Suillus luteus (L.) Roussel

MK028898

100

KX230614

Maślak

WA0000071038

Leccinum pseudoscabrum (Kallenb.) Mikšik

a.f.

Koźlak

WA0000071039

Leccinum scabrum (Bull.) Gray

a.f.

Kozak

WA0000071040

Agaricus arvensis Schaeff.

MK028899

99.57

EF460362

Pieczarka

WA0000071041

Imleria badia (Fr.) Fr.

MK028900

100

KX756408

Podgrzybek

WA0000071042

Imleria badia (Fr.) Fr.

MK028901

99.65

KX756408

Podgrzybek

WA0000071043

Lycoperdon lividum Pers.

MK028902

100

DQ112600

Purchawka, pafbol

WA0000071044

Coprinus comatus (O.F. Müll.) Pers.

a.f.

Kania

WA0000071045

Leccinum pseudoscabrum (Kallenb.) Mikšik

a.f.

Koźlarz ciemny

WA0000071046

Agaricus arvensis Schaeff.

MK028903

98.72

EF460362

Pieczarka

WA0000071047

Boletus reticulatus Schaeff.

MK028904

99.46

DQ131610

Prawdziwek

WA0000071048

Boletus reticulatus Schaeff.

MK028905

99.46

DQ131610

Prawdziwek dębowy

WA0000071049

Boletus edulis Bull.

MK028906

99.72

KP031595

Borowik

WA0000071050

Boletus edulis Bull.

MK028907

99.58

KP031595

Borowik

WA0000071051

Leccinum aurantiacum (Bull.) Gray

MK028908

98.94

UDB019627

Osak

WA0000071052

Cortinarius caperatus (Pers.) Fr.

MK028909

99.69

DQ367911

Turek

WA0000071053

Suillus luteus (L.) Roussel

MK028910

100

KX230614

Maślak

WA0000071054

Boletus edulis Bull.

a.f.

Prawdziwek

WA0000071055

Boletus edulis Bull.

MK028911

99.71

KX756408

Borowik

WA0000071056

Imleria badia (Fr.) Fr.

MK028912

99.81

KX756408

Podgrzybek

WA0000071057

Boletus ferrugineus Schaeff.

MK028913

99.84

UDB001674

Zając

WA0000071058

Leccinum aurantiacum (Bull.) Gray

MK028914

98.94

UDB011697

Osiniak

WA0000071059

Sarcodon squamosus (Schaeff.) Quél.

MK028915

100

UDB001707

Sarna

WA0000071060

Boletus edulis Bull.

MK028916

99.72

KP031595

Prawdziwek

WA0000071061

Suillus luteus (L.) Roussel

MK028917

100

KX230614

Maślak

WA0000071062

Armillaria borealis Marxm. & Korhonen

MK028918

99.75

UDB015538

Opieńka

WA0000071063

Leccinum variicolorWatling

MK028919

99.75

AF454572

Koźlak

WA0000071064

Marasmius oreades(Bolton) Fr.

MK028920

99.57

UDB017590

Tańcowniczka

WA0000071065

Suillus luteus (L.) Roussel

MK028921

100

KX230614

Maślak

WA0000071066

Boletus edulis Bull.

MK028922

100

KP031595

Prawdziwek

WA0000071067

Imleria badia (Fr.) Fr.

MK028923

99.82

KX756408

Podgrzybek

WA0000071068

Imleria badia (Fr.) Fr.

MK028924

99.82

KX756408

Podgrzybek

WA0000071069

Boletus edulis Bull.

MK028925

100

KP031595

Prawdziwek

WA0000071070

Suillus bovinus (L.) Roussel

MK028926

99.85

KF482482

Maślak

WA0000071071

Cantharellus cibarius Fr.

MK028927

99.31

LC085408

Kurka

WA0000071072

Morchella esculenta (L.) Pers.

MK028928

99.43

MF228808

Smardz

WA0000071073

Boletus edulis Bull.

MK028929

100

KP031595

Prawdziwek

WA0000071074

Imleria badia (Fr.) Fr.

MK028930

99.82

KX756408

Podgrzybek

WA0000071075

Imleria badia (Fr.) Fr.

MK028931

100

KX756408

Podgrzybek

WA0000071076

Imleria badia (Fr.) Fr.

MK028932

100

KX756408

Podgrzybek

WA0000071077

Imleria badia (Fr.) Fr.

MK028933

100

KX756401

Podgrzybek

WA0000071078

Imleria badia (Fr.) Fr.

MK028934

99.82

KX756408

Podgrzybek

WA0000071079

Imleria badia (Fr.) Fr.

MK028935

100

KX756401

Podgrzybek

WA0000071080

Imleria badia (Fr.) Fr.

a.f.

Podgrzybek

WA0000071081

Boletus edulis Bull.

MK028936

100

KP031595

Prawdziwek

WA0000071082

Boletus edulis Bull.

MK028937

100

KP031595

Prawdziwek

WA0000071083

Imleria badia (Fr.) Fr.

MK028938

100

KT334754

Podgrzybek

WA0000071084

Imleria badia (Fr.) Fr.

a.f.

Podgrzybek

WA0000071085

Suillus luteus (L.) Roussel

MK028939

100

KX230614

Maślak

WA0000071086

Imleria badia (Fr.) Fr.

MK028940

100

KX756408

Podgrzybek

WA0000071087

Sarcodon squamosus (Schaeff.) Quél.

MK028941

99.34

UDB001707

Krowia gęba

WA0000071088

Suillus bovinus (L.) Roussel

MK028942

100

KF482482

Sitak

WA0000071089

Suillus luteus (L.) Roussel

MK028943

100

UDB002180

Maślak

WA0000071090

Sarcodon squamosus (Schaeff.) Quél.

a.f.

Sarna

WA0000071091

Xerocomellus cisalpinus (Simonini, H. Ladurner & Peintner) Klofac

MK028944

100

KX230614

Zajączek

WA0000071092

Suillus luteus(L.) Roussel

MK028945

100

KX230614

Maślak

WA0000071093

Imleria badia (Fr.) Fr.

MK028946

100

KX756408

Podgrzybek

WA0000071094

Boletus edulis Bull.

MK028947

100

KP031595

Prawdziwek

WA0000071095

Xerocomellus cisalpinus (Simonini, H. Ladurner & Peintner) Klofac

a.f.

Zajączek

WA0000071096

Xerocomellus cisalpinus (Simonini, H. Ladurner & Peintner) Klofac

MK028948

100

UDB002180

Zajączek

WA0000071097

Xerocomellus cisalpinus (Simonini, H. Ladurner & Peintner) Klofac

MK028949

99.70

UDB002181

Zajączek

WA0000071098

Imleria badia (Fr.) Fr.

a.f.

Podgrzybek

WA0000071099

Imleria badia (Fr.) Fr.

MK028950

100

KX756408

Podgrzybek

WA0000071100

Xerocomellus pruinatus (Fr. & Hök) Šutara

MK028951

100

UDB000008

Zajączek

WA0000071101

Imleria badia (Fr.) Fr.

a.f.

Podgrzybek

a.f. molecular analysis failed

From our interviews and field observations, we hypothesize that most of the taxa not recorded in the 1960s were overlooked rather than being new uses. The local inhabitants are very conservative and cautious about fungi use and field guides tend to be used to confirm the identification of already-collected species. They usually do not start collecting new species based on the field guide. Of course, some new uses cannot be excluded. One of the respondents learned to use puffballs while receiving visitors from the UK and applied the English name, “puffball” on an everyday basis! Another example is Pleurotus ostreatus, which has not been traditionally consumed in Poland and was not present in the guide written by Orłoś [37]. Its collection from the wild became popular in the last few decades because of its broad commercial use and its presence in many modern culinary recipes.

Changes in preferences concerning wild fungi collection

Among taxa listed as edible by Mazovian inhabitants, a few species are currently considered as poisonous in Poland. These are Paxillus involutus, Amanita muscaria, Gyromitra esculenta, and Scleroderma citrinum [38, 39]. It is worth noticing that P. involutus is regarded as an edible mushroom by 38% of respondents. The reason behind this is that P. involutus was traditionally used as food in Mazovia until the 1980s, when the first reports about Paxillus poisoning syndrome were published in Poland [15]. The data on which taxa are used as food currently and which were used only in the past enable the depiction of changes in preferences concerning wild fungi collection. By comparing this data, we can see that the majority of the respondents stopped collecting P. involutus after warnings about their toxicity. However, 9% of them still claim that P. involutus consumption is perfectly safe (Fig. 7).
Fig. 7

Fungi taxa collected currently (blue) and only in the past (red)

Gyromitra esculenta and Scleroderma citrinum are usually consumed after specific preparation. Gyromitra esculenta is allowed for commercial use in Finland where it is considered a delicacy. However, it is sold only with attached instructions for its preparation [40]. Young and dried Scleroderma is used only as food flavoring, and according to some reports, it is safe to consume in very small portions [41]. It is usually used as a substitute for Tuber species; however, it is generally perceived as mildly toxic and unsafe for consumption [39, 42]. According to collected reports, A. muscaria was only used as food in the region in the past, during periods of war and famine, after long boiling and discarding of the water. This enabled the removal of toxins from its fruiting body. This method of preparation was also recorded in Italy [43, 44]. The memory of the use of Amanita muscaria was recorded in the villages of Klusek, Kozietuły, Leksyn, Psucin, and Stare Babice. While analyzing data concerning differences between taxa collected currently and in the past, we can also notice the large decline in the collection of species from Russulaceae family. This can be correlated with their absence on the list of fungi species allowed for commercial use in Poland [45], although they used to be widely collected (e.g., [14]).

Cultural significance

According to Smith’s Salience Index, the most culturally significant edible fungi taxa are Boletus edulis sensu lato (0.9157), Imleria badia (0.7959), Cantharellus cibarius sensu lato (0.7387), Suillus luteus sensu lato (0.7020), and Leccinum aurantiacum sensu lato (0.5368). The most salient inedible or poisonous taxa are Amanita sp. (0.4804), Tylopilus felleus (0.3666), Amanita muscaria (0.3048), and Amanita phalloides sensu lato (0.2767). Fungi taxa with other than culinary uses are characterized by low salience values. The most salient among them are Amanita muscaria (0.0950), Polyporales sp. (0.0187), Piptoporus betulinus (0.0158), Psilocybe sp. (0.0084), and Gyromitra esculenta (0.0027).

Folk taxonomy

The large number of interviews and frequent interaction with mushroom collectors enabled the transcription of local folk taxonomy into proper taxonomic classification. The acquired information enabled us not only to assign folk taxa to scientific taxonomic nomenclature, but also to describe folk views on connections between particular taxa.

The majority of folk fungi classifications in the study area taxa were based on units defined as folk genera [46] (or generic species [47]). Sometimes, these folk genera were universally divided into two or more folk species using folk binominals (e.g., in the case of Leccinum). Usually one, the most frequent, of the scientific species was taken as the model (“core”) of the folk genus representing its “essence” (compare [47]) and a few more closely related species from the same section were classified in the same folk genus. However, there were also instances when informants were able to distinguish other species with different local names from the core taxon based on model species. These species were divided in two groups—in a broad sense (sensu lato) and in a strict sense (sensu stricto). One such example is “prawdziwek” (porcini), identified as Boletus edulis sensu lato, within which some respondents were able to distinguish “prawdziwek dębowy” (oak porcini)—Boletus reticulatus, and “prawdziwek piaskowy” (sand porcini)—Gyroporus castaneus, though most respondents would not distinguish them. There were also cases when informants were able to distinguish a group consisting of separate taxa whose fruiting bodies had a similar appearance. This occurred with the taxa named “kozaki,” which corresponds to the Leccinum genus. Within this taxon, on the basis of different coloring, two model species, Leccinum aurantiacum sensu lato and Leccinum scabrum sensu lato were distinguished. Within the collective taxon Leccinum aurantiacum sensu lato, some of the respondents distinguished L. quercinum, L. versipelle, and L. vulpinum. Furthermore, within the group of L. scabrum sensu lato, 14 respondents were able to distinguish L. pseudoscabrum. All these species were differentiated on the basis of such characteristics as color, symbiotic relations, flesh characteristics (discoloration and density), and habitat. A similar model of classification applies to other genera such as Russula.

Classification of fungal species on the basis of the shape of fruiting bodies does not always coincide with one individual scientific genus. This happens in the case of folk taxa, known across most of the Mazovia region under the name “gąski” (literally “geese”). Because of the similarity in the shapes of their fruiting bodies, this folk taxon consists of three genera—Calocybe, Lepista, and Tricholoma. Within this taxon, Mazovian inhabitants identify species such as Calocybe gambosa, Lepista nuda, Tricholoma equestre, and Tricholoma portentosum. This was observed in the villages of Korytów, Klusek, Szczaki, and Węgrzynowice.

In the case of species from the genus Suillus, the majority of collected species are associated with the model species Suillus luteus. In folk taxonomy, Suillus variegatus is not perceived as a species associated with other Suillus species, and has different names, due to its distinctive form.

Among inedible and poisonous fungi (Table 2), a different group, which cannot be fully assigned to existing scientific taxa, is the mushrooms known as “psiaki” (literally “dog mushrooms”). This folk taxon contains all species with small fruiting bodies belonging to the Agaricales order. Another higher taxon distinguished in folk taxonomy is “huby,” (bracket fungi) which can be assigned to the order Polyporales (Tables 2 and 3). Rubroboletus satanas was described as poisonous by five respondents despite its absence in the local mycobiota. In this case, literature was the main source of their knowledge, as this species gained notoriety across the country as the most poisonous Boletaceae that can be found in Polish forests.

On the basis of collected data about the folk methods of fungi classification, we can determine the main factors responsible for folk fungi taxa differentiation. These are:
  1. 1.

    Order/family/genus—shape of fruiting bodies;

     
  2. 2.

    Species (in a broad sense)/section—shape, color, utilitarian properties; and

     
  3. 3.

    Species (in a strict sense)—shape, color, utilitarian properties, symbiotic relations, habitat, time of occurrence, taste, smell, flesh characteristics, milk presence, and characteristics.

     

Differentiation of local fungi names

Data acquired during folk taxonomy analysis enabled us to collect 526 folk names of wild growing fungi. There is visible discrepancy in number of local names assigned to particular fungi taxa. For example, 397 respondents, who have traditional knowledge about Leccinum aurantiacum sensu lato collection, listed 25 different local names of this fungus while 242 respondents who listed Lactarius deliciosus sensu lato know this taxon only under one name—“rydz”.

DNA barcoding

Edible fungi samples collected during field research were used to further DNA barcode analysis. Out of 101 samples, 88 were successfully identified using molecular analysis (Table 4). Sixty-four samples came from voucher specimens collected fresh during field research, and 24 were acquired from already dried specimens preserved by the respondents. As many as 11 of analyzed samples were not identified during previous field research; thus, the number of fungi taxa identified during present research increased to 92. Among species identified using DNA barcoding are two (Hydnum elipsosporum and Paxillus cuprinus) that are new to the mycobiota of Poland [48, 49, 50]. Identification of these species among other edible fungi collected by people living in the Mazovia region is also the first direct confirmation of their use for consumption.

Comparison of the results with available data

The majority of regional ethnomycological studies have focused only on fungi species used for consumption. Examples include works from Mexico, such as the study conducted in two municipalities of the Sierra Tarahumara, with 22 recognized edible folk taxa [51]; in Tsotsil town in the Highland of Chiapas with 25 edible taxa [52]; or in Amelaco, Quéretaro, where the authors were able to list 33 taxa [53]. The number of species sold in local markets in Mexico is much higher. For example, in the Ozumba market, 60 different species of fungi are sold throughout the year [54]. The same number of species was reported as sold in the markets in the city of Poznań (Poland) in the 1930s [11]. Other recent works come from the western Black Sea region of Turkey (33 edible species) [7] and Africa, such as studies from Cameroon with 22 edible fungi taxa [55], or the research conducted by Tibuhwa in rural areas of Tanzania where 75 different wild fungi species were recorded as sold as food in local markets [6]. In the case of the present research, by using both species identification in the field and DNA barcode identification, we were able to compile a total list of 76 different fungi species used as food by people living in the Mazovia region. This is the longest list of edible fungi species recorded during field ethnomycological research (one species more than the list from Tanzania). Furthermore, the complete list of 92 fungi taxa (including inedible and poisonous and taxa with other than culinary purposes) listed both during field research and molecular identification is simultaneously the longest list recorded during ethnomycological studies based on field research.

Although mushroom collecting in Poland is common and culturally salient, in other areas of Poland, only shorter lists composed of 20–30 species are known [14, 56]. Obviously, the extent of our study was relatively large, facilitating the obtaining of a longer list, but cultural factors also may play a role. Unfortunately, we do not have detailed comparative data from other Northern Slavic countries. From our preliminary unpublished observations and popular literature on fungi use, we can hypothesize that all these countries (Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia) form something which we call the “Northern Slavic Mycophilic Belt.”

Characteristic species documented during the research

Among fungi recorded as used for consumption purposes in the Mazovia region are a few species whose collection is restricted only to particular locations. For example, Scleroderma citrinum is used as a spice for food only in villages situated in central and south-eastern Mazovia, e.g., Burakowskie, Całowanie, Łękawica, Stare Babice, and Żurawka. The collection of Calvatia gigantea, which was, by the way, protected in Poland until 2014, is popular in Flesze village, which is the northernmost studied location. The fruiting body of this fungus is usually cut into thick slices and pan-fried coated in grated breadcrumbs and egg. Calocybe gambosa is gathered in the south-western Mazovian villages of Korytów and Węgrzynowice. This species is prepared for consumption in the same way as species from the genus Tricholoma. It is used as an ingredient in soups and sauces and as a side-dish after pickling in vinegar. Residents of the south-western villages Korytów and Pszczonów often collect Craterellus cornucopioides, which is usually sautéed with scrambled eggs and used as a sauce ingredient. It is also considered a great filling for pierogi dumplings. We can also notice an interesting distribution of localities concerning the frequent collection of Hygrophorus hypothejus. The use of this species is very popular in two villages situated near the south-western border of the Mazovia region (Pszczonów, Węgrzynowice) and two villages located in the north-eastern part of Mazovia (Cieciory, Wyrzyki). This species is usually consumed as a snack after pickling in vinegar, but it can also be used as an ingredient in everyday dishes. The village of Węgrzynowice is the only location with a record of Lactarius piperatus consumption, which was used as a food only after boiling and discarding the water. Lactarius vellereus is most popular in the village of Psucin where its fruiting bodies, after a long soaking in water, are salt-fermented in a large metal vessel (called sagan). Futhermore, the village of Dąbrowa is the only one in which inhabitants distinguish Leccinum quercinum species from other orange-capped Leccinum species, and it is considered as a delicacy on a par with Boletus edulis.

It is worth mentioning that men are significantly more knowledgeable about wild edible fungi species than women (Fig. 3). This opposes the general view on wild fungi pickers based on 80 ethnomycological studies with gendered data [57]. A similarly greater mushroom knowledge among men was previously recorded in Poland [56] and was also observed in China [58].

Conclusion

Evenly dispersed research localities and a large number of individual interviews enabled the documentation of an as yet unrecorded scope of local knowledge of 92 wild fungi taxa. This is the longest list of wild fungi ever recorded during ethnomycological research. The list includes 76 species used for consumption purposes, which is also the longest list of taxa used as food in any region on Earth. Among the taxa considered edible or conditionally edible, we can find species that are currently considered poisonous in Poland (Amanita muscaria, Gyromitra esculenta, Paxillus involutus, and Scleroderma citrinum) [38], partly protected (Morchella conica s.l., Morchella esculenta) [59], rare (Boletus ferrugineus, Gyroporus castaneus, Gyroporus cyanescens, Chlorophullum olivierii, Leccinum variicolor, Leccinum vulpinum, Russula alutacea, Sparassis crispa, Xerocomellus cisalpinus, Xerocomellus pruinatus) [60, 61], and even absent in available checklists of macrofungi found in Poland (Hydnum ellipsosporum, Paxillus cuprinus) [48, 61]. These results confirm the highly mycophillic character of Mazovian food culture and encourage research in adjacent areas of Poland, Belarus, and Ukraine.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Our special thanks go to all the study participants who wanted to share their knowledge.

Funding

The research was financed by funds from the National Science Centre (NCN) within the research project Preludium 2015/17/N/NZ9/00963.

Availability of data and materials

Voucher specimens for species were deposited in the herbarium of Warsaw University (WAW).

Authors’ contributions

ŁŁ and MK contributed to the concept of the study. MK contributed to the field work, data analysis, and first draft of the paper. MP contributed to the DNA barcoding. All the authors contributed to the final draft. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The methods of obtaining data during fieldwork followed guidelines set by International Society of Ethnobiology Code of Ethics [62] and the American Anthropological Association Code of Ethics [63] and adhere to the local traditions for such research. Prior oral informed consent was obtained from all study participants. No ethical committee permits were required. No permits were required to collect voucher specimens.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.
    Wasson VP, Wasson RG. Mushrooms: Russia and history. New York: Pantheon Books; 1957.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schunko C, Vogl CR. Organic farmers use of wild food plants and fungi in a hilly area in Styria (Austria). J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2010;6:17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Łuczaj Ł, Stawarczyk K, Kosiek T, Pietras M, Kujawa A. Wild food plants and fungi used by Ukrainians in the western part of the Maramureş region in Romania. Acta Soc Bot Pol. 2015;84:339–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boa E. Wild edible fungi: a global overview of their use and importance to people. Non-wood forest products 17. Rome: FAO; 2004.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peintner U, Schwarz S, Mešić A, Moreau PA, Moreno G, Saviuc P. Mycophilic or mycophobic? Legislation and guidelines on wild mushroom commerce reveal different consumption behaviour in European countries. PLoS One. 2013;8:e63926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tibuhwa DD. Wild mushroom-an underutilized healthy food resource and income generator: experience from Tanzania rural areas. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2013;9:49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yilmaz H, Zencirci N. Ethnomycology of macrofungi in the Western Black Sea region of Turkey: identification to marketing. Econ Bot. 2016;70:270–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Teke NA, et al. Ethnomycological study in the Kilum-Ijim mountain forest, Northwest Region, Cameroon. Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine. 2018;14.1:25.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Okigbo RN, Nwatu CM. Ethnostudy and usage of edible and medicinal mushrooms in some parts of Anambra state, Nigeria. Nat Res. 2015;6:79.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kasper-Pakosz R, Pietras M, Łuczaj Ł. Wild and native plants and mushrooms sold in the open-air markets of south-eastern Poland. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2016;12:45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Szulczewski JW. Grzyby sprzedawane na targach Poznania. Rocznik Nauk Rolniczych i Leśnych. 1933;29:1–12.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kłodnicki Z, Drożdż A. Dzikie rośliny jadalne – materiały, mapy i opracowania tekstowe Pracowni Polskiego Atlasu Etnograficznego. In: Łuczaj Ł, editor. Dzikie rośliny jadalne – zapomniany potencjał przyrody. Bolestraszyce: Arboretum i Zakład Fizjografii w Bolestraszycach; 2008. p. 109–24.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rosa-Gruszecka A, Hilszczańska D, Gil W, Kosel B. Truffle renaissance in Poland–history, present and prospects. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2017;13:36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Łuczaj Ł, Köhler P. Mushrooms in Józef Rostafiński’s (1850-1928) questionnaire from 1883. Etnobiologia Polska. 2014;4:5–54.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kotowski M. Differences between European regulations on wild mushroom commerce and actual trends in wild mushroom picking. Slovensky Narodopis (Slovak Ethnology). 2016;64(2):169–78.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kang J, Kang Y, Ji X, Guo Q, Jacques G, Pietras M, et al. Wild food plants and fungi used in the mycophilous Tibetan community of Zhagana (Tewo County, Gansu, China). J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2016;12:21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dentinger BT, Suz LM. What’s for dinner? Undescribed species in commercial porcini from China. Peer J. 2014;2:e570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Davies N. Boże igrzysko: historia Polski. Otwarte: Warszawa; 2012.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pałucki W. Mazowsze w drugiej połowie XVI wieku. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe; 1973.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Braun K. Oblicze etnograficzne współczesnego województwa mazowieckiego. Rocznik Mazowiecki. 1999;11:39–55.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Horodyska-Gadkowska H, Doroszewski W, Strzyżewska-Zaremba A, Kowalska A. Atlas gwar mazowieckich. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich; 1971.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Główny Urząd Statystyczny. Bank Danych Lokalnych. 2017 [cited 2018 Aug 18]. Available from: https://bdl.stat.gov.pl/BDL/dane/podgrup/temat
  23. 23.
    Kondracki J. Geografia regionalna polski. Warszawa: Wydawn. Naukowe PWN; 2000.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Instytut Meteorologii i Gospodarki Wodnej, Lorenc H. Atlas klimatu Polski. Warszawa: Instytut Meteorologii i Gospodarki Wodnej; 2005.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    European Environment Agency. Corine land cover 2012 seamless vector data. 2017 [cited 2018 Aug 18]. Available from: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/clc-2012-vector
  26. 26.
    Łuczaj Ł. The Engineer of Ethnobotanical Cartography: Polish ethnographer Józef Gajek (1907–1987) and his contribution to our science. In: Svanberg I, Łuczaj Ł., editors. Pioneers in European Ethnobiology. Uppsala: University of Uppsala. 2014; p. 273-282.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Martin G. Ethnobotany: a methods manual. New York: Routledge; 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Anderson EN, Pearsall D, Hunn E, Turner N, editors. Ethnobiology. New York: Wiley; 2012.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Quinlan MB. The freelisting method. In: Handbook of research methods in health social sciences. Singapore: Springer; 2017. p. 1–16.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Albuquerque UP, et al. Methods and techniques used to collect ethnobiological data. In: Methods and techniques in ethnobiology and ethnoecology. New York: Humana Press; 2014. p. 15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sschoch CL, et al. Nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region as a universal DNA barcode marker for fungi. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012;109(16):6241–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schidnel DE, Miller SE. DNA barcoding a useful tool for taxonomists. Nature. 2005;435(7038):17–8.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Eberhardt U. Methods for DNA barcoding of fungi. In: DNA barcodes. Totowa: Humana Press; 2012. p. 183–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    GenBank. 2018. [cited 2018 Aug 17]; Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
  35. 35.
    Index Fungorum. 2018. [cited 2018 Sept 4]; Available from: http://www.indexfungorum.org/.
  36. 36.
    Smith JJ. Using ANTHOPAC 3.5 and a spreadsheet to compute a free-list salience index. CAM. 1993;5(3):1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Orłoś H, Nehring M. Atlas grzybów jadalnych i trujących. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Rolnicze i Leśne; 1963.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Guminska B, Wojewoda W. Grzyby i ich oznaczanie [mushrooms and their identification]. Warszawa: PWRiL; 1985.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Atlas Grzybów Polski. 2018. [cited 2018 Aug 23]; Available from: https://www.grzyby.pl
  40. 40.
    Finnish Food Safety Authority Evira, False morel fungi – poisonous when raw. 2010. [cited 2018 Aug 23]; Availabe from: https://www.ruokavirasto.fi/globalassets/tietoa-meista/julkaisut/esitteet/elintarvikkeet/false_morel_fungi.pdf.
  41. 41.
    Gminder A. Atlas grzybów-jak bezbłędnie oznaczać 340 gatunków grzybów Europy Środkowej. Warszawa: Weltbild; 2008.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jeffries P. Scleroderma. In: Ectomycorrhizal fungi key genera in profile. Berlin: Springer; 1999. p. 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Festi F. Funghi allucinogeni. Aspetti psicofisiologici e storici. Calliano: Manfrini Editori; 1985.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Michelot D, Melendez-howell LM. Amanita muscaria: chemistry, biology, toxicology, and ethnomycology. Mycological Research. 2003;107:131–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rozporządzenie Ministra Zdrowia z dnia 12 czerwca 2018 r. zmieniające rozporządzenie w sprawie grzybów dopuszczonych do obrotu lub produkcji przetworów grzybowych, środków spożywczych zawierających grzyby oraz uprawnień klasyfikatora grzybów i grzyboznawcy (Dz.U. 2018 poz. 1281). 2018. [cited 2018 Aug 23]; Available from: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20180001281
  46. 46.
    Berlin B, Breedlove DE, Raven PH. General principles of classification and nomenclature in folk biology. Am Anthropol. 1973;75:214–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Medin D. Generic species and basic levels: essence and appearance in folk biology. J Ethnobiol. 1997;17:17–43.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wojewoda W. Checklist of Polish larger Basidiomycetes. Kraków: W. Szafer Institut of Botany; 2003.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ostrow H, Beenken L. Hydnum ellipsosporum spec. nov. (Basidiomycetes, Cantharellales) – ein Doppelgänger von Hydnum rufescens Fr. Zeitschrift fuer Mykologie. 2004;70:137–56.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Jargeat P, et al. The Paxillus involutus (Boletales, Paxillaceae) complex in Europe: genetic diversity and morphological description of the new species Paxillus cuprinus, typification of P. involutus s.s., and synthesis of species boundaries. Fungal Biol. 2014;118:12–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Quiñónez-Martínez M, et al. Knowledge and use of edible mushrooms in two municipalities of the Sierra Tarahumara, Chihuahua, Mexico. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2014;10:67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ruan-Soto F. Sociodemographic differences in the cultural significance of edible and toxic mushrooms among Tsotsil towns in the Highlands of Chiapas, Mexico. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2018;14:32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Robles-garcía D, et al. Ethnomycological knowledge in three communities in Amealco, Quéretaro, México. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2018;14:7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Pérez-Moreno J, et al. Wild mushroom markets in central Mexico and a case study at Ozumba. Econ Bot. 2008;62:425–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Yongabi K, et al. Ethnomycological studies on wild mushrooms in Cameroon, Central Africa. Micologia Aplicada Int. 2004;16:34–6.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Łuczaj Ł, Nieroda Z. Collecting and learning to identify edible fungi in southeastern Poland: age and gender differences. Ecol Food Nutr. 2011;50(4):319–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Garibay-Orijel R, et al. Women care about local knowledge, experiences from ethnomycology. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2012;8:25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kang Y, Łuczaj Ł, Kang J, Zhang S. Wild food plants and wild edible fungi in two valleys of the Qinling Mountains (Shaanxi, central China). J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2013;9:26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Rozporządzenie Ministra Środowiska z dnia 9 października 2014 r. w sprawie ochrony gatunkowej grzybów (Dz.U. 2014 poz. 1408). 2018. [cited 31 Aug 2018]; Available from: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20140001408
  60. 60.
    Mirek Z. Red list of plants and fungi in Poland: czerwona lista roślin i grzybów Polski: W. Krakow, Poland; Szafer Institute of Botany, Polish Academy of Sciences; 2006.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kujawa A, et al. Rejestr gatunków grzybów chronionych i zagrożonych. In: Snowarski M. Atlas grzybów Polski. 2018. [cited 31 Aug 2018]; Available from: http://www.grzyby.pl/rejestr-grzybow-chronionych-i-zagrozonych.htm
  62. 62.
    International Society of Ethnobiology Code of Ethics (with 2008 additions). 2013 [cited 2018 Aug 17]; Available from: http://ethnobiology.net/code-of-ethics/
  63. 63.
    American Anthropological Association Code of Ethics. 2009 [cited 2018 Aug 17]; Available from: http://s3.amazonaws.com/rdcms-aaa/files/production/public/FileDownloads/pdfs/issues/policy-advocacy/upload/AAA-Ethics-Code-2009.pdf

Copyright information

© The Author(s). 2019

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Botany, Faculty of BiotechnologyUniversity of RzeszówRzeszówPoland
  2. 2.Institute of DendrologyPolish Academy of SciencesKórnikPoland

Personalised recommendations