**2.3 Plant collection and identification**

Field survey was conducted during March 2020 to February 2021. The wild edible plants specimens were collected in triplicate during different season throughout year. The specimens were properly dried, pressed and pasted on herbarium sheets. By using flora of Pakistan (https://http://www.efloras.org) the specimens were identified. APG IV (2016) system was adopted for taxonomical verification of families while the correct botanical nomenclature was given by using The Plant List (2013). The identified specimens were further confirmed at Pakistan Agriculture and *Ethnomedicinal Appraisal of Traditionally Used Wild Edible Plants of District Bagh, Azad… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104492*

Research Council (PARC), Islamabad. The finally idenetified speciemen were submitted finally in herbarium of Botany Department of Women University.

#### **2.4 Quantitative ethnobotanical indices**

The collected ethno medicinal data of wild edible plants was quantitatively analyzed by using following indices:

#### *2.4.1 Relative frequency of citation (RFC)*

The local significance of particular plant species as cited by the informants was determined by using relative Frequency of Citation. It was figured out after Vijayakumar et al. [22] by given formula:

$$\text{RFC} = \text{FC/N} \tag{1}$$

whereas, FC is informant who reported specific wild edible plant species and N is total informants. Its value range between 0 and 1.0 when no informant cited use of species as useful and 1 when all the infsormant cited the species as useful.

#### *2.4.2 Use value index*

The relative importance of particular specie in region is reflected by use value (UV) and determined by following Vijayakumar et al. [22] by given formula:

$$\text{UV} = \frac{\sum U i}{N} \tag{2}$$

Where, UV are use reports cited by each informant for given wild edible plant species and N are total informants.

#### *2.4.3 Relative importance*

It was figured out after Khan et al. [23] by given formula:

$$\text{RI} = (\text{Rel PH} + \text{Rel BS}) \times \text{100}/2 \tag{3}$$

$$\text{Rel PH} = \frac{\text{PH of a given plant}}{\text{maximum PH of all reported species}} \tag{4}$$

Where PH is the pharmacological attribute of the selected plant, Rel PH = relative pharmacological attributes of a given plant.

$$\text{Rel BS} = \frac{\text{BS of a given plant}}{\text{maximum BS of all reported species}}\tag{5}$$

Where BS is body systems healed by given species and Rel BS is relative body systems healed by that species.

#### *2.4.4 Informant consensus factor (ICF)*

The consensus among the informants about usage of wild edible plants for treating different disease categories will check by using ICF. It was determined after Heinrich et al. [24] using given formula:

$$\text{ICF} = \frac{\text{Nur} - \text{Nt}}{(\text{Nur} - \text{1})} \tag{6}$$

Where, Nur is use reports in given diseases category, Nt are species numbers used for curing various diseases of that category.

#### *2.4.5 Fidelity level (FL)*

It reflect weigtage of particular plant species by informants to heal given ailment and was figured out after Alexiades and Sheldon [25] using given formula

$$\text{FL\%} = \text{Np/N} \times \text{100.} \tag{7}$$

Where Np are informants citing use of specific wild plant species for a particular ailment and N are the total informants mentioning uses for a particular wild plant species for all disease category.
