Wild Mushrooms from Tanzania: Characterization and their Importance to the Rural Communities

Abstract

Tanzania has a rich diversity of wild mushrooms, both edible and inedible which are used as food and medicinal resources. Despite of their nutritional and medicinal importance, few studies have been done on their characterization. This study was carried out to characterize some wild mushrooms collected from Iringa and Njombe regions in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania in January, 2014. A semi-structured questionnaire was used to collect information on edibility, local (vernacular) names, indigenous knowledge and its importance to the rural communities. Indigenous characterization was done in the field, based on the key features (colour, shape and association with other plants), and photographs were taken. Conventional characterization was done using different key references, manuals, monographs and databases. Only five wild mushrooms were reported to be edible on the basis of indigenous information. Local names were found to be very important distinguishing factor between edible and poisonous mushrooms. On the other hand, conventional characterization revealed 7 edible species (Russulaceae-4 and Cantharelaceae-3), 11 inedible species (Boletaceae-4, Polyporaceae-3, Russulaceae-2, Suillaceae-1 and Agaricaceae-1), 2 deadly poisonous (both Amanitaceae) and 4 of unknown edibility (Russulaceae-2, Suillaceae-1 and Boletaceae-1). Most of the species of wild mushrooms were found to share the same ecological habitat. Only edible wild mushrooms were reported to be of importance as opposed to inedible species. Mushroom characterization proved to be a crucial distinctive criterion for distinguishing between edible and inedible species. Taxonomic studies have been shown to be important for accurate classification of wild mushrooms, thus preventing the waste of some edible species and human deaths from the consumption of poisonous ones.

Full text

Submitted 10 June 2015, Accepted 17 September 2015, Published online 20 October 2015
Corresponding Author: Athanasia O. Matemu – e-mail – athanasia.matemu@nm-aist.ac.tz 307
Wild Mushrooms from Tanzania: Characterization and their
Importance to the Rural Communities
Chelela BL
1
, Chacha M
1
and Matemu A
2*
1
Department of Biodiversity and Ecosystems Management, School of Life Sciences and Bioengineering, Nelson Mandela
African Institution of Science and Technology, P. O. Box 447, Arusha, Tanzania. Email: lucab@nm-aist.ac.tz
2
Department of Food and Nutritional Sciences, School of Life Sciences and Bioengineering, Nelson Mandela African
Institution of Science and Technology, P. O. Box 447, Arusha, Tanzania. Email: athanasia.matemu@nm-aist.ac.tz
Chelela BL, Chacha M and Matemu A 2015 – Wild mushrooms from Tanzania: Characterization and
importance to the rural communities. Current Research in Environmental & Applied Mycology 5(4),
307–321, Doi 10.5943/cream/5/4/2
Abstract
Tanzania has a rich diversity of wild mushrooms, both edible and inedible which are used as
food and medicinal resources. Despite of their nutritional and medicinal importance, few studies have
been done on their characterization. This study was carried out to characterize some wild mushrooms
collected from Iringa and Njombe regions in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania in January, 2014. A
semi-structured questionnaire was used to collect information on edibility, local (vernacular) names,
indigenous knowledge and its importance to the rural communities. Indigenous characterization was
done in the field, based on the key features (colour, shape and association with other plants), and
photographs were taken. Conventional characterization was done using different key references,
manuals, monographs and databases. Only five wild mushrooms were reported to be edible on the
basis of indigenous information. Local names were found to be very important distinguishing factor
between edible and poisonous mushrooms. On the other hand, conventional characterization revealed 7
edible species (Russulaceae-4 and Cantharelaceae-3), 11 inedible species (Boletaceae-4, Polyporaceae-
3, Russulaceae-2, Suillaceae-1 and Agaricaceae-1), 2 deadly poisonous (both Amanitaceae) and 4 of
unknown edibility (Russulaceae-2, Suillaceae-1 and Boletaceae-1). Most of the species of wild
mushrooms were found to share the same ecological habitat. Only edible wild mushrooms were
reported to be of importance as opposed to inedible species. Mushroom characterization proved to be a
crucial distinctive criterion for distinguishing between edible and inedible species. Taxonomic studies
have been shown to be important for accurate classification of wild mushrooms, thus preventing the
waste of some edible species and human deaths from the consumption of poisonous ones.
Key words – Benna – conventional – characterization – Hehe – indigenous – Tanzania – wild
mushrooms
Introduction
Tanzania contains a plentiful supply of unidentified wild mushroom species that are considered
to be inedible without scientific proof. The shortage of taxonomic studies on wild mushroom species
limits their further exploitation. Wild mushrooms include edible mycorrhizal, symbiotic, and
poisonous mushrooms collected only from the wild (Feeney et al. 2014). Mushrooms are known as an
important resource providing food and nutritional security, ingredients for folk medicine and extra
Current Research in Environmental & Applied Mycology 5 (4): 307–321(2015) ISSN 2229-2225
www.creamjournal.org Article CREAM
Copyright © 2015 Online Edition
Doi 10.5943/cream/5/4/2

308
income to the rural communities (Chelela et al. 2014d, Tibuhwa 2012). Recently, there has been
increasing interest in mushrooms utilization worldwide, because of their taste, health promoting
nutrients and medicinal properties (Kim et al. 2008, Rana 2005, Wong & Chye 2009, Chang & Miles
1992, Ramírez-Anguiano et al. 2007). The estimated number of mushroom species on earth is about
140,000, but only 14,000 (10%) are known (Hawksworth 2004). In Tanzania, over 60 edible
mushroom species have been identified (Bloesch & Mbago 2008, Härkönen et al. 2003), mostly
collected from the wild during the rainy season.
Identification of wild mushrooms requires a basic knowledge of the structure of the fungi and
of the way in which they live (Feeney et al. 2014). For many generations, indigenous characterization
has been used to distinguish informally between edible and poisonous mushroom species. Most of the
local communities in Tanzania rely on indigenous characterization, which is the most common cause
of mushrooms’ misidentification. It is particularly disconcerting to find such an unreliable method
employed in the midst of highly advanced technologies. Indigenous characterization is commonly used
for mushrooms that are easy to identify. Whilst certain mushrooms are easy to identify, however many
are not, since there is a number of similar features which cannot be easily characterized. Therefore, to
avoid any unpleasant experiences, especially when identifying mushroom for the purpose of
determining edibility, experts should always be consulted.
Taxonomic studies appear in the secondary school curriculum of students in developed
countries, but this is not the case in developing countries (Härkönen et al. 1995). Very few taxonomic
studies have been conducted in Tanzania, with informal methods commonly used. Therefore, proper
classification will overcome ambiguities which cannot be resolved by indigenous characterization.
According to Tibuhwa et al. (2010), identity characters of the mushrooms can be seen with the naked
eye, hand lenses, microscopes and more recently by molecular techniques.
Studies on edible mushrooms in Miombo woodland have been also reported in other regions
(Buyck 2012, Buyck et al. 2012, Harkonen et al. 1993, Härkönen et al. 1994, Härkönen et al. 1995,
Härkönen et al. 1994, Härkönen et al. 2003, Tibuhwa & Buyck 2008, Tibuhwa 2012a, Tibuhwa et al.
2012). However, studies on the characterization of wild mushrooms in the Southern Highlands of
Tanzania are very limited. The importance of folk and taxonomic characterization of wild mushrooms,
in addition to their contribution to the rural communities were evaluated.
Materials & Methods
Study area
The study was conducted in Nyombo, Ikuna and Matiganjola villages (Njombe region) and
Kikombo, Matanana and Nyololo villages (Iringa region) in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania. The
study area is located at 9° 20’ 0’’ S and 34° 46’ 0’’ E (Njombe) and 7° 46' 0'' S and 35° 42' 0'' E
(Iringa) with annual average rainfall of 1160 and 661 mm respectively. Availability and higher
consumption of wild mushrooms among the communities in the regions were amongst the selection
criteria. The study area consists of mixed forest where the Miombo woodland with Brachystegia and
Uapaca spp. are dominant, whereas wild mushrooms are plentiful during the rainy seasons.
Questionnaire survey
A survey using semi-structured questionnaires as well as a focused group discussion was used
to collect information on indigenous (folk) taxonomy, local names and edibility of wild mushrooms. A
total of 120 respondents from six villages (n=20; per village), mostly mushroom hunters, collectors,
retailers and consumers were involved.
Wild mushroom collection
Wild mushrooms were collected in the Iringa and Njombe regions in January, 2014. According
to Verbeken and Buyck (2002), several Miombo woodland species have a restricted fruiting period and
occur during only part of the season. Photographs of mushrooms were taken in situ; they were
morphologically characterized before picking and their substrate recorded (Tibuhwa 2011a, Tibuhwa

309
2011b, Tibuhwa & Kivaisi 2010). The fruiting bodies were preserved in ethanol for further
characterization.
Characterization of wild mushrooms
Field observation and indigenous characterization of the wild mushrooms was done based on
morphological (macro) features. Macro fungi were characterized using coloured field guide books,
monographs and published work (Härkönen et al. 1995, Tibuhwa, 2012, Tibuhwa & Kivaisi 2010,
Tibuhwa 2011a; Tibuhwa, 2011b) as well as databases. Conventional characterization was based on
the features such as cap colour, size, and shape, the outer surface of the fruiting body, cap surface
texture, gills/tubes and latex, edibility, ecological and host substrate specificity. The macro-fungi
nomenclature was according to Kirk & Ansell (1992) and CABI bioscience databases (CABI, 2015).
Scientific names were also recognized by the ‘Index fungorum’.
Data analysis
Collected information from the survey data were descriptively evaluated and summarized in
tabular form, as shown in Table 1.
Results
Indigenous characterization
Indigenous (folk) characterization of wild mushrooms collected in the Njombe and Iringa
regions has revealed 5 edible and 17 inedible species (Table 1). Simple morphological forms such as
colour, shape, and association with other plants were the key features for indigenous characterization.
Local names were also found to be an important element when distinguishing edible from poisonous
species. Local names of the edible species were Wisimba (L. edulis), Wifimi/Unyakuwemba (L.
densifolius), Unyambete/Unyamikwe (R. roseovelata), Wagingili (R. cellulata) and Wipatwe (C.
tomentosus). On the other hand, not all of the inedible species were found to bear a local name as they
were considered valueless by the communities since they were not known to be consumed (Table 1).
This study justifies the importance of indigenous characterization as a preliminary method for the
identification of wild mushrooms, based on their edibility in the rural communities. Likewise,
conventional characterization is of paramount as the indigenous method cannot efficiently, for
instance, differentiate closely similar species of which one may be poisonous.
Conventional characterization
Conventional characterization of the wild mushrooms was performed by observing different
features including cap colour, cap surface texture, gills/tubes and latex, ecological classification, host
substrate specificity and edibility (Table 1). Other field characters, such as spore print, odour and taste,
cup edge curliness, fruiting body fleshiness, and developmental stages and forms were also noted.
Through conventional characterization, 7 species of wild mushrooms were found to be edible (Fig. 1),
11 inedible (Fig. 2), 2 deadly poisonous (Fig. 3), and 4 of unknown edibility (Fig. 4). Conversely,
species of Afrocantharellus symoensii and Cantharellus densifolius which were previously categorized
as inedible (by the indigenous method) were reported to be edible (Table 1). Other edible species of L.
edulis, L. densifolius, C. tomentosus, R. roseovelata and R. cellulata were the same as previously
characterized by the indigenous method. These species were mainly from Russulaceae and
Cantharelaceae families. Furthermore, 2 species of Amanita muscaria and Amanita phalloides were
also further characterized as deadly poisonous; they had been previously reported to be inedible (by
the indigenous method) which proves beyond doubt that they are unfit for human consumption (Fig.
3). Moreover, 4 other species of unknown edibility which were also indigenously considered as
inedible, belong to the Russulaceae-2, Boletaceae-1 and Suillaceae-1 families (Fig. 4). Inedible wild
mushrooms were found in the Boletaceae-4, Polyporaceae-3, Russulaceae-2, Agaricaceae-1 and
Suillaceae-1 families. Additionally, the taxonomy of most of the wild mushrooms was recorded.

310
Fig. 1 – Edible wild mushrooms in Cantharellaceae-3, and Russulaceae-4 families. (a) A-B:
Cantharellus tomentosus; C-D: Cantharellus densifolius; E-F: Afrocantharellus symoensii; G-H:
Russula cellulata; (b) I-J: Lactarius densifolius; K-L: Lactarius edulis and M-N: Russula roseovelata.

311

312

313
Fig. 2 – Inedible wild mushrooms in Boletaceae-4, Suillaceae-1, Agaricaceae-1, Poplyporaceae-3 and
Russulaceae-2 families. (a) A-B: Boletus spp-1.; C-D: Boletus spp-3.; E-F: Boletus spectabilissimus;
G-H: Boletus spp-4; (b) I-J: Suilluis tomentosus; K-L: Chlorophyllum molybdites; M-N: Microporus
xanthopanus; (c) O-P: Pycnoporus sanguineus; Q-R: Trametes menziesii; S-T: Lactarius denigricans
and U-V: Russula kivuensis.
Most of the wild mushrooms species were found to share the same ecological, host or substrate
and gills/tubes and latex characteristics, with some exceptions in cap surface texture, colour, shape and
size (Table 1). Specifically, most of the wild mushroom species in the families of Russulaceae,
Cantharelaceae, Polyporaceae, Boletaceae and Amanitaceae were shared the same habitat and
ecological characteristics. This is due to the characteristics of the area (Southern Highlands) and nature
of the habitat (Miombo woodland with Brachystegia and Uapaca spp.), where a particular species of
mushroom grows.

314
Generally, some of the wild mushroom species indigenously characterized as either edible,
inedible or with unknown edibility were from one family of Russulaceae indicating that conventional
conventional characterization is necessary to avoid misidentification which may lead to fatalities.
General description and identification marks of the wild mushroom species collected from the Njombe
and Iringa regions are as described in Table 1 and Fig. 1- 4.
It was found that local names were very important in indigenous characterization since the
edibility of mushrooms could be easily established on the basis of their local names (Table 1).
Similarly, vernacular names of locally edible fungi were also reported in other studies (Chelela et al.
2014d, van Dijik et al. 2003, Härkönen et al. 1995, Tibuhwa 2012a). Vernacular names, however, play
no role in scientific classification (Harkonen 2002).
Knowing the scientific name of a fungus provides a good indication of its edibility (Boa 2004).
Russulaceae and Cantharelaceae were the main families of edible wild mushrooms reported in this
study. According to Tibuhwa, (2013), Russulaceae and Cantharelaceae, among other families, were
commonly consumed and sold in the local markets in different places in Tanzania. Likewise, some
edible Cantharellus species have also been reported from the tropical African Savannah woodlands
(Buyck 2012, Tibuhwa et al. 2012). In our previous study, Cantharellus, Lactarius, Termitomyces,
Amanita, Russula, Afrocantharellus and Macrolepiota were the genera of wild edible mushrooms
reported to be consumed by the Hehe and Benna communities (Chelela et al. 2014d). Likewise, edible
species of Cantharellus, Russula, Auricularia and Termitomycetes were reported in Kenya (Feeney et
al. 2014) and Sudan (Abdalla et al. 2014). Furthermore, the most commonly used species were those of
the genera Cantharellus, Lactarius, Russula, Termitomyces and Amanita (Härkönen et al. 1994,
Tibuhwa 2013). Generally, the ectomycorrhizal fungi in tropical Africa are represented by
Cantharellaceae, Russulaceae, Boletales and Amanitaceae (Tibuhwa & Buyck 2008, Verbeken &
Buyck 2002). It is evident that most of the Lactarius spp., Russula and most of the ectomycorrhizal
groups have been collected either in open (Miombo, Uapaca) woodland or in dense forest types but
rarely in both (Verbeken & Buyck 2002). Besides, the Southern Highlands habitat is characterized by
Miombo woodland with Brachystegia and Uapaca spp. Furthermore, the variety of edible species was
reported to be larger in Miombo woodlands as compared to mountainous areas (Härkönen et al. 1994).
Herein, 7 species were indigenously identified as edible and the rest were inedible species of wild
mushrooms (Table 1).
Wild edible mushrooms are accepted and valued as a source of food by most of the rural
mushroom hunting communities in Tanzania (Chelela et al. 2014d, van Dijik et al. 2003, Tibuhwa
2013, Tibuhwa 2012a). Some studies have also concentrated on wild mushrooms as source of food in
Tanzania (Harkonen 2002, Yongabi et al. 2004, Tibuhwa 2012). According to Harkonen (2002) and
van Dijik et al. (2003) some communities in Tanzania and Cameroon consider mushrooms to be
similar to meat. Wild mushrooms can also offer seasonal self-employment to mushroom hunters,
collectors and retailers during peak seasons (Chelela et al. 2014d).
Conversely, the 11 inedible wild mushroom species were mainly from the Russulaceae,
Boletaceae, Polyporaceae, Agaricaceae, and Suillaceae families as shown in Fig. 2. Regardless of their
lack of value to the rural communities, preliminary studies have shown that some of the inedible wild
species can be a potential source of bioactive compounds with medicinal properties (Chelela et al.
2014a, Chelela et al. 2014b, Chelela et al. 2014c). Generally, studies on the medicinal properties of
wild inedible mushrooms in Tanzania are very scarce, regardless of their therapeutic potential and
other biological properties. Available information indicates that no documentation of inedible wild
mushrooms from the Southern Highlands of Tanzania has been done. Therefore, this study is the first
to document the presence of inedible wild mushroom species from the Southern Highlands of
Tanzania. Inedible species can further expand the medicinal applications of mushrooms to the human
population, making them valuable supplement to the few edible species already studied.

315
Table 1 Indigenous and conventional characterization of wild mushrooms from the Southern Highlands of Tanzania
Sn
Wild Mushrooms
(scientific name)
Family name
Vernacular
/local names
(Benna/
Hehe)
Cap
colour
Ecological
classification
Host or
substrate
Cap
surface
texture
Folk
taxonomy
(Edibility)
Taxonomic
classification
(Edibility)
Gills/tubes
and latex
1
Lactarius spp-1
Russulaceae
Ngavemba
Yellow
Miombo
woodlands
Mycorrhizal
Smooth
Inedible
Not known*
Gills with
white latex
when injured
2
Lactarius
gymnocarpoides
Russulaceae
Ngavemba
Orange
Miombo
woodlands
Mycorrhizal
Rough
Inedible
Not known*
Gills with
white latex
when injured
3
Lactarius
densifolius
Russulaceae
Wifimi/Unyaku
wemba
Pale brown
Miombo
woodlands
Mycorrhizal
Smooth
Inedible♯
Edible*
Gills with
white latex
when injured
3
Lactarius edulis
Russulaceae
Wisimba
Whitish
brown
Miombo
woodlands
Mycorrhizal
Rough with
cracks
Edible
Edible
Gills
4
Lactarius
denigricans
Russulaceae
Not known
White
Miombo
woodlands
Mycorrhizal
Smooth
Inedible
Inedible
Gills
5
Russula kivuensis
Russulaceae
Manyaluhano
Red and
white
striations
Miombo
woodlands
Mycorrhizal
Smooth
Inedible
Inedible
Gills
6
Russula
roseovelata
Russulaceae
Unyambete/
Unyamikwe
White
brown
Miombo
woodlands
Mycorrhizal
Rough with
brown spots
Inedible
Edible after
Parboiling*
Gills
7
Russula cellulata
Russulaceae
Wagingili
Pale brown
Miombo
woodlands
Mycorrhizal
Smooth
Edible
Edible*
Gills
8
Cantharellus
tomentosus
Cantharelaceae
Wipatwe
Pale
yellow/
brown
Miombo
woodlands
Mycorrhizal
smooth
Inedible♯
Edible*
Gills
9
Cantharellus
densifolius
Cantharelaceae
Not known
Yellow
Miombo
woodlands
Mycorrhizal
smooth
Inedible♯
Edible*
Gills
10
Afrocantharellus
symoensii
Cantharelaceae
Not known
Yellow
Miombo
woodlands
Mycorrhizal
smooth
Inedible♯
Edible*
Gills
11
Trametes menziesii
Polyporaceae
Wammabiki
Cream
with
greenish
zones brown
Miombo
woodlands
Rotten dead
wood
Rough
Inedible
Inedible
Tubes
12
Pycnoporus
sanguineus
Polyporaceae
Wammabiki
Bright
orange-red
Miombo
woodlands
Dead wood
Smooth
Inedible
Inedible
Tubes

316
Sn
Wild Mushrooms
(scientific name)
Family name
Vernacular
/local names
(Benna/
Hehe)
Cap
colour
Ecological
classification
Host or
substrate
Cap
surface
texture
Folk
taxonomy
(Edibility)
Taxonomic
classification
(Edibility)
Gills/tubes
and latex
13
Microporus
xanthopanus
Polyporaceae
Wammabikhi
Brown
Miombo
woodlands
Tree stumps
Rough
Inedible
Inedible
Tubes
14
Amanita muscaria
Amanitaceae
Mapaina
Red with
white
flakes
In pines
plantations
In pines
mycorrhizal
Smooth red
with white
spots
Inedible§
Deadly
poisonous
Gills
15
Amanita phalloides
Amanitaceae
Malingoti
Pale
yellow to
olive-green
In
Eucalyptus
plantations
In
Eucalyptus
mycorrhizal
Smooth and
slippery
Inedible§
Deadly
poisonous
Gills
16
Chlorophyllum
molybdites
Agaricaceae
Not known
White
Miombo
woodlands
Mycorrhizal
Rough with
white
powdery
spots
Inedible
Inedible
Gills
17
Suillus tomentosus
Suillaceae
Mamtima
Pale brown
Miombo
woodlands
Mycorrhizal
Rough
Inedible
Inedible
Tubes
18
19
Suillus spp-1
Suillaceae
Mamtima kijivu
Purple
Miombo
woodlands
Mycorrhizal
Smooth
Inedible
Not known*
Tubes
20
Boletus
spectabilissimus
Boletaceae
Ngamtima
mwekundu
Reddish
yellow
Miombo
woodlands
Mycorrhizal
Rough
Inedible
Inedible
Tubes
21
Boletus spp-1
Boletaceae
Mamtima
Reddish
brown
Miombo
woodlands
Mycorrhizal
Smooth
Inedible
Inedible
Gills
22
Boletus spp-2
Boletaceae
Not known
Brown
Miombo
woodlands
Mycorrhizal
Smooth
Inedible
Not known*
Tubes
23
Boletus spp-3
Boletaceae
Mamtima kijivu
Purple
Miombo
woodlands
Mycorrhizal
Smooth
Inedible
Inedible
Tubes
24
Boletus spp-4
Boletaceae
Ngamtima
Reddish
yellow
Miombo
woodlands
Mycorrhizal
Rough
Inedible
Inedible
Tubes
A questionnaire survey was used to collect preliminary information on wild mushrooms’ edibility in the Njombe and Iringa regions which was further
confirmed by conventional characterization. (*): Edible or of unknown edibility (Conventional); (♯): Inedible (folk); Edible (Conventional); (§): Inedible
(folk); deadly poisonous (Conventional)

317
Fig. 3 – Deadly poisonous wild mushrooms in Amanitaceae family. A-B: Amanita muscaria; C-D:
Amanita phalloides.
Amanita muscaria ‘Mapaina’ and Amanita phalloides ‘Malingoti’ were characterized as deadly
poisonous wild mushrooms through conventional characterization (Fig. 3 & Table 1). These poisonous
species are from the Amanitaceae family. The commonly reported poisonous species in this group
includes Amanita phalloides and other Amanita spp. (Konno 1997). Since there is no relationship
between the edibility or toxicity of mushrooms and their appearance, colour, or any other characteristic
whatsoever, poisonous mushrooms have bright, beautiful, or peculiar colours (Konno 1997). Only
conventional taxonomy can easily distinguish deadly poisonous species from edible ones. Through
indigenous taxonomy, the species were characterized as inedible without further information on their
toxicity (Table 1). Other edible Amanita species of A. loosi, A. mafingensis, A. tanzanica, and A.
masasiensis have also been reported in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania (Tibuhwa 2013, Chelela et
al. 2014d).
On the other hand, 4 wild mushrooms of unknown edibility were also reported Table 1 & Fig.
4) prompting further studies to establish their edibility.

318
Fig. 4 – Mushroom species of unknown edibility in Russulaceae-2, Boletaceae-1 and Suillaceae-1,
families. A-B: Lactarius spp-1; C-D: Lactarius gymnocarpoides; E-F: Boletus spp-2 and G-H: Suilluis
spp-1.
Wild mushroom hunting and collection has been shown to contribute to food and nutritional
security, alternative employment, forest conservation, and thus boosting the rural economy (Tibuhwa
2013) as well as improving livelihoods in rural communities in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania
(Chelela et al. 2014d).
In summary, since wild mushrooms are naturally abundant resource in most places in Tanzania,
proper characterization is necessary to further improve its utilization in the rural communities. Steps
should be taken to build capacity of folk taxonomists including documentation of edible, inedible and
poisonous species found in their areas. Conventional characterization has proven to be more reliable in
distinguishing species of wild mushrooms with sufficient precision to avoid the accidental
misidentification which may occur through the use of indigenous methods. Moreover, the rich
biodiversity of wild mushrooms in Tanzania is only sparsely recorded. This is a potential source of
increased food and nutritional security for the rural communities but only if appropriate
characterization methods are utilized. Their wide geographical distribution, combined with the
possibility of identifying new species, further justifies the importance of taxonomic characterization
and documentation of edible and inedible wild mushroom species in Tanzania.

319
Conclusion
In the present study, 7 edible, 11 inedible, and 2 deadly poisonous mushroom species were
reported as well as 4 of unknown edibility. Conventional characterization further contributed to the
indigenous knowledge through identifying more edible species. Misidentification of wild mushrooms
may result in under exploitation of species with useful potential, in addition to fatalities resulting from
consumption of poisonous species. Besides, inedible mushroom species should further be considered
as a potential source of bioactive or medicinal compounds. Therefore, knowledge about the accurate
characterization of wild mushroom species is necessary. More scientific studies are needed to establish
the edibility of the wild mushroom species of unknown edibility in order to ensure the safety of
consumers. Further exploitation of highly underutilized wild mushroom species as potential resources
for food, bioactive compounds, and medicinal properties is of importance. Also, studies on
characterization of wild mushrooms depending on seasonality and location are highly recommended.
Acknowledgements
The financial support from the Commission for Science and Technology (COSTECH) through
the Nelson Mandela Africa Institute of Science and Technology is highly acknowledged. The authors
are also grateful to the Department of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology-UDSM, for taxonomic
characterization of wild mushrooms. The authors are grateful to the Benna and Hehe communities in
the Southern Highlands of Tanzania for their contribution to this study. The authors would like to
thank Prof. Tarimo Mokiti for his comments also, Dr. Carolyn Lyle and Dr. Anasia Maleko for
revising the manuscript.
References
Abdalla RRM, Ahmed AI, Abdalla AI, Abdelmaboud OAA, Khiery NTMA, Elriah NDA, Saeed MSA.
2014 – Wild edible and medicinal mushroom species of Sudan. In Manjit OP, Upadhyay S,
Sharma RC, Ahlawat VP, Satish MK, Kamal S, Arora B, Gupta, eds. 8th International
Conference on Mushroom Biology and Mushroom Products, 19 - 22 November, 2014. New
Delhi, India. Yugantar Prakashan Pvt. Ltd., WH-23 Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-I, New
Delhi, 6.
Bloesch U, Mbago, F. 2008 – The potential of wild edible mushrooms in the miombo woodlands of the
Selous-Niassa Wildlife corridor for the livelihood improvement of the local population. The
United Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Wildlife Division.
Mushroom Study in Co-operation with ADAP, (April),1–36.
Boa E. 2004 – Wild edible fungi: A global overview of their use and importance to people. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nation, 25 – 70.
Buyck B. 2012 – One Neo- and Four Epitypifications for Cantharellus Species from Tropical African
savannah woodlands One neo- and four epitypifications for Cantharellus species from tropical
African savannah woodlands. Cryptogamie, Mycologie 33, 11–17.
Buyck B, Randrianjohany É, Eyssartier G. 2012 – Observations on Some Enigmatic Cantharellus
(Cantharellales , Basidiomycota ) with Lilac-Violaceous Tints from Africa and Madagascar.
Cryptogamie, Mycologie 33, 167–179.
CABI, 2015 – Dictionary of the Fungi. CABI Database. Available at:
http://www.speciesfungorum.org/names/fundic.asp [Accessed June 10, 2015].
Chang S, Miles P. 1992 – Mushroom biology — A new discipline. Mycologist 6, 64–65.
Chelela BL, Chacha M, Matemu A. 2014a – Antibacterial and antifungal activities of selected wild
mushrooms from Southern Highlands of Tanzania. American Journal of Research
Communication 2, 58–68.
Chelela BL, Chacha M, Matemu A. 2014b – Cytotoxicity activity of some wild mushroom species
from Southern Highlands of Tanzania. American Journal of Research Communication 2, 192–
201.

320
Chelela BL, Chacha M, Matemu A. 2014c – Larvicidal potential of wild mushroom extracts against
Culex quinquefasciatus Say , Aedes aegypti and Anopheles gambiae Giles S . S. American
Journal of Research Communication 2, 105–114.
Chelela BL, Chacha M, Matemu A. 2014d – Wild edible mushroom value chain for improved
livelihoods in Southern Highlands of Tanzania. American Journal of Research Communication,
2(8),1–14.
Van Dijik H, Onguene NA, Kuyper TW. 2003 – Knowledge and Utilization of Edible Mushrooms by
Local Populations of the Rain Forest of South Cameroon. Ambio 32, 19–23.
Tibuhwa D, Buyck B, Kivaisi A, Tibell L, 2008 – Cantharellus fistulosus sp. nov. from Tanzania.
Cryptogamie, Mycologie 9, 129–135.
Feeney MJ, Dwyer J, Hasler-Lewis CM, Milner JA, Noakes M, Rowe S, Wach M, Beelamn RB,
Caldwell J, Cantona MT, Castlebury LA, Chang ST, Cheskin LJ, Clemens R, Drescher G,
Fulgon VL 3
rd
, Haytowiz DB, Hubbard VS, Law D, Myrdal Miller A, Minor B, Percival SS,
Riscuta G, Schneeman B, Thornsbury S, Toner CD, Woteki CE, Wu D. 2014 – Mushrooms and
Health Summit Proceedings. The Journal of Nutrition 144, 1128S–1136S.
Haerkoenen M, Saarimaki T, Mwasumbi L. 1993 – Tanzanian mushrooms and their uses. II: An edible
species of Coprinus section Lanatuli. Karstenia 33, 51–59.
Harkonen M, 2002 – Mushroom Collecting in Tanzania and Hunan (Southern China): Inherited
Wisdom and Folklore of Two Different Cultures. In Watling R, Frankland JC, Ainsworth, AM,
ed. Tropical Mycology: Macromycetes. CABI Publishing, pp. 149–165.
Härkönen M, Mwasumbi L, Niemelä T. 2003 – Tanzanian Mushrooms: Edible, Harmful and Other
Fungi, Botanical Museum, Finnish Museum of Natural History.
Härkönen M, Saarimäki T, Mwasumbi L. 1994 – Edible and poisonous mushrooms of Tanzania.
African Journal of Mycology and Biotechnology 2, 99–123.
Härkönen M, Saarimäki T, Mwasumbi, L. 1995 – Edible mushrooms of Tanzania. Yliopistopaino.
Hawksworth DL. 2004 – Fungal diversity and its implications for genetic resource collections. In
Studies in Mycology 50, 9–18.
Kim MY, Seguin P, Ahn JK, Kim JJ, Chun SC, Kim EH, Seo SH, Kang EY, Kim SL, Park YJ, Ro
HM, Chung IM. 2008 – Phenolic compound concentration and antioxidant activities of edible
and medicinal mushrooms from Korea. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 56, 7265–
7270.
Kirk P, Ansell A. 1992 – Authors of fungal names: A list of authors of scientific names of fungi, with
recommended standard forms of their names, including abbreviations. Index of Fungi
Supplement. CAB International, Ferry Lane, UK.
Konno K. 1997 – Poisonous mushrooms. Food Reviews International 13, 471–487.
Yongabi K, Agho M, Martinez Carrera D. 2004 – Ethnomycological Studies on Wild Mushrooms in
Cameroon, Central Africa. Micología Aplicada International 16, 34–36.
Ramírez-Anguiano AC, Santoyo S, Reglero G, Soler-Rivas C. 2007. Radical scavenging activities,
endogenous oxidative enzymes and total phenols in edible mushrooms commonly consumed in
Europe. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 87, 2272–2278.
Tibuhwa DD, Savić S, Tibell L, Kivaisi AK. 2012 – Afrocantharellus gen. stat. nov. is part of a rich
diversity of African Cantharellaceae. IMA Fungus 3, 25–38.
Tibuhwa DD. 2012a – Folk taxonomy and use of mushrooms in communities around Ngorongoro and
Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 8, 36–44.
Tibuhwa DD. 2011a – Morphology and taxonomy of Sarcoscypha ololosokwaniensis sp . nov .: A new
Ascomycota species from Serengeti National Park-Tanzania. Journal of Yeast and Fungal
Research 2, 1–6.
Tibuhwa DD. 2011b – Substrate specificity and phenology of macrofungi community at the University
of Dar es Salaam main campus, Tanzania. Journal of Applied Biosciences 46, 3173–3184.
Tibuhwa DD. 2013 – Wild mushroom-an underutilized healthy food resource and income generator:
experience from Tanzania rural areas. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 9, 49.

321
Tibuhwa DD, Kivaisi AK. 2010 – Utility of the Macro-Micromorphological Characteristics Used in
Classifying the Species of. Tanzania Journal of Science 36, 31–45.
Verbeken A, Buyck B. 2002 – Diversity and Ecology of Tropical Ectomycorrhizal Fungi in Africa. In
A. M. Watling, Roy, Frankland, J.C., and Ainsworth, ed. Tropical Mycology: Macromycetes.
Wallingford, Oxon, GBR: CABI Publishing, pp. 11–24.
Wong JY, Chye FY. 2009 – Antioxidant properties of selected tropical wild edible mushrooms.
Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 22, 269–277.