Exploring wild, underutilized, and neglected edible plants in West Java, Indonesia: Ethnobotanical assessment, use trends, and potential for improved nutrition

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3333432/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Exploring wild, underutilized, and neglected edible plants in West Java, Indonesia: Ethnobotanical assessment, use trends, and potential for improved nutrition

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3333432/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background

As one of the world’s biodiversity hotspots, Indonesia contains over 19,000 plant species, including wild, underutilized, and neglected edible plants (WUNEPs). These WUNEPs complement people’s diets and substitute for common vegetables, particularly in rural areas. However, in West Java, the biodiversity of WUNEPs is declining, which coincides with public health issues related to malnutrition. Because they often contain higher levels of micronutrients than domesticated crops, WUNEPs can be used as a healthy dietary alternative, especially given the growing prevalence of micronutrient deficiency and diet-related diseases among the Indonesian population. Despite the potential benefits of addressing these issues, limited research has been conducted on this topic. This study aims to document the diversity of WUNEPs in rural West Java, assess communities’ perceptions regarding their availability and importance, and determine factors influencing their consumption.

Methods

The ethnobotanical surveys involved interviewing 20 purposively selected key informants with sound traditional knowledge of useful WUNEPs. The nutritional compositions of these foods, obtained from literature and analysis, are discussed, as is their contribution to the recommended dietary allowances of certain nutrients for men and women. Information regarding the perceptions, attitudes, and correlates of WUNEP consumption was collected through a semi-structured questionnaire from 107 Sundanese women in three villages in the region.

Results

The study documented 53 species of WUNEPs from 27 families, including leafy vegetables, spices/condiments, fruits, roots/tubers, and flowers. The documented WUNEPs have superior nutritional value and provide essential nutrients compared to common vegetables. Most respondents agreed that consumption has declined due to reduced availability, a lack of knowledge regarding the identification and nutritional benefits of the species, time constraints, and a preference for improved varieties. The main motivations for using WUNEPs were their availability as free food, medicinal value, nostalgic value, and preferred taste. WUNEP consumption frequency among the studied Sundanese communities is not associated with age, body mass index, dietary diversity, occupation, or household expenditure.

Conclusions

WUNEPs can potentially improve diets and create a more sustainable food system. As natural resources decline, promoting biodiversity for improved nutrition and ensuring their sustainable use is important. This requires collaboration among communities, governments, and stakeholders.

Wild

underutilized

and neglected edible plants

Ethnobotany

Rural West Java

Indonesia

Biodiversity for diet and nutrition

Despite the prevailing notion that the current global food system provides sufficient calories, approximately two billion people still experience starvation or lack access to a nutritious diet [1]. This issue is further complicated by the phenomenon known as the double burden of malnutrition, which refers to the coexistence of undernutrition and overnutrition and is particularly prevalent in middle-income countries such as many Southeast Asian nations, including Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam [2]. Moreover, studies have shown that the current food systems not only lack the ability to provide a nutritious diet but they also exhibit inequitable and environmentally unsustainable practices [3, 4]. The COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbates the vulnerabilities of the already compromised food system, primarily due to logistical bottlenecks in food supply chains [5]. Indigenous and marginalized populations are especially susceptible to the adverse effects of globalization on their dietary patterns and lifestyles. They face an increasing reliance on highly processed, low-nutrient foods, resulting in the erosion of traditional landscapes, cultures, and food practices and ultimately leading to an overall detrimental nutritional transition [6, 7].

Wild edible plants have historically been an integral part of dietary practices, especially within indigenous and local communities, where these plants are a crucial component of their traditional food systems. This paper refers to these species as wild, underutilized, and neglected edible plants (WUNEPs), which include both semi-domesticated and wild species and varieties. WUNEPs are defined as beneficial plant species that are marginalized, if not entirely overlooked or disregarded, by researchers, breeders, and policymakers [8]. Compared to cultivated crops, WUNEPs often contain higher levels of micronutrients [9, 10], offering the potential to alleviate micronutrient deficiencies, especially in remote and resource-constrained areas [11, 12]. Evidence from Asia indicates that WUNEPs can supplement the daily diet and can be used as substitutes for commonly consumed vegetables [10, 13]. Increased usage of wild foods has been associated with enhanced food security within indigenous communities [14]. Moreover, they play essential roles in dietary patterns, and some offer significant health benefits with well-documented biological and pharmacological effects [13–16].

After Brazil, Indonesia is recognized as the second most biodiverse country globally due to its possession of the third-largest rainforests worldwide [17]. The country boasts a rich biodiversity, housing a staggering number of over 19,000 plant species, out of which 6,000 have been harnessed for their applications in food, medicine, and construction materials [18]. As an archipelagic country with over 17,000 islands, Indonesia exhibits significant variations in its culinary traditions and dietary practices, which can be attributed to its diverse geographical, socioeconomic, and cultural characteristics. In this diverse landscape, it has been documented that the Indonesian population has consumed at least 700 edible plant species [19]. Previous Indonesian studies have recognized the importance of WUNEPs in addressing the dietary needs of rural communities. For instance, an ethnobotanical study investigated the significance of wild edible fruits and the conservation practices implemented by rural people in East Aceh [20]. This study has documented a total of 46 species that possess both economic and nutritional value. In another study conducted in the Bengkulu region, researchers recorded 73 wild edible fruits that were found to be utilized for various purposes, including their consumption as food [21]. An ethnobotanical survey was carried out in the Mentawai Islands of West Sumatra to document the indigenous knowledge and uses of various flora in the Mentawai region [22]. The study also explored the potential role of this knowledge in the context of biodiversity conservation. In another region of West Sumatra, a comprehensive study documented 85 species of wild food plants utilized by the Minangkabau and Mandailing people. The study also found that both communities perceive these plants positively [23].

The West Java region is geographically surrounded by mountains, which contributes to its high fertility and abundant growth of various plant species [24]. Ethnobotanical surveys conducted in West Java have revealed the extensive utilization of wild plants by the Sundanese people, highlighting their significant role in nutrition, food security, and income generation [18, 24, 25]. Despite the abundance and potential benefits of WUNEPs, they have not garnered as much attention as domesticated plants, specifically vegetables. However, researchers are increasingly recognizing the significance of wild edible plants as an essential alternative source to address the needs of rural populations. Although most studies have primarily focused on medicinal species [15, 16, 26, 27], there has been limited emphasis on wild edible plants [18].

Even though West Java is one of Indonesia’s most economically developed regions, it still faces persistent issues of malnutrition and stunting among children. Additionally, there has been an increase in diet-related illnesses such as coronary heart disease, obesity, and anemia [28]. Approximately half of the Indonesian population suffers from at least one micronutrient deficiency, while one in three adults is overweight or obese [2]. In conjunction with facing public health issues rooted in malnutrition, the province of West Java also experiences declining biodiversity, including the loss of WUNEPs. The decrease in biodiversity and the exploitation of wild plants can be attributed to many factors, including land-use change, climate change, agricultural intensification, and excessive harvesting [23].

For all these reasons, there is a growing recognition of the significance of relocalization and the revival of local food in achieving more sustainable food systems and improved public health outcomes. The trend toward embracing traditional food practices and exploring underutilized resources has gained momentum worldwide [6, 23]. In this context, WUNEPs have emerged as a promising avenue to address the vulnerability of the existing global food system. This knowledge mainly resides within rural communities that uphold and maintain traditional practices. Thus, in this study, we comprehensively investigate the utilization of wild edible plants among the Sundanese communities residing in rural West Java. Our objectives were to identify the available WUNEPs, evaluate their nutritional composition, assess the local perception of their availability and importance for communities in the area, and determine the factors influencing their consumption. By doing so, we aimed to demonstrate the potential of these plants in enhancing household diet and nutrition.

Study area and ethnobotanical studies

The ethnobotany data presented in this article were based on surveys undertaken in West Java, Indonesia (Fig. 1). The study site is located in the Rancakalong district of Sumedang Regency, which is approximately 46 km northeast of Bandung city, the capital of West Java Province. The surveys took place in Sundanese rural communities, the dominant ethnic group in West Java. The ethnobotanical research conducted at this particular site was part of the first author’s broader project that aimed to examine the contributions of WUNEP biodiversity to human nutrition, health, and well-being in three villages situated in the Rancakalong district. The project was carried out from August 2020 to June 2023.

Standard ethnobotanical research methods were followed to document local knowledge regarding WUNEPs through field observations and semi-structured interviews with key informants. Using purposive sampling and the snowball technique, 20 key informants who possess sound traditional knowledge of useful WUNEPs were selected and interviewed. Therefore, it is important to note that our results may not be interpreted as representative of the whole community. The interviews were conducted in Indonesian and the traditional Sundanese language and subsequently transcribed into English by the first author, who is proficient in both languages and also a native speaker of Sundanese. We explained to the key informants our intention to gain insights into their knowledge and opinions on the commonly collected and consumed WUNEPs. Then, the free-listing technique was employed to elicit responses from the informants regarding their knowledge of plants and the certain plant parts they used. Each record consisted of details such as the local name of the plant, the specific part that was utilized, and the informant’s perspective on the availability of the species. Subsequently, the collected data were organized in accordance with the research questions.

During the survey, plant specimens were collected. Collected plants were identified by comparing their characteristics with the literature obtained from reputable sources such as the Flora Malesiana and Flora of China, which are available online at [29–31]. Unidentified species were vouchered and subsequently evaluated by the curators at the Herbarium Bandungense (FIPIA) of the Institut Teknologi Bandung, located in West Java. The scientific nomenclature was updated based on the WFO (World Flora Online) Plant List [32]. In this study, the term “WUNEPs” is extended to encompass both wild (including naturalized) and semi-domesticated (cultivated and reverted to wild status, as well as neglected cultivated plants for food) edible plants [23].

Plant nutritional composition data

The nutritional composition of WUNEPs was obtained from various references and databases, such as the Indonesian Food Composition Table (Table Komposisi Pangan Indonesia) [33], the Malaysian Food Composition Database (https://myfcd.moh.gov.my/index.html), and the USDA Food Data Central (https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/). Due to the unavailability of information, the composition of Apoballis rupestris was evaluated through laboratory analysis conducted at the Test Service Laboratory, Faculty of Agricultural Industrial Technology, Padjajaran University. The study utilized the recommended dietary allowances (RDA) for Indonesia (Angka Kecukupan Gizi/AKG) [34] to assess whether the daily intake of a specific plant part was sufficient to meet the recommended nutrient levels. The RDA used in this study was derived from the recommended values for individuals aged 30–49, taking gender differences into account. A plant part was deemed to be a significant source of a specific nutrient if a 100-g portion provided more than 15% of the RDA, and it was considered to have a high content if the same 100-g portion contributed more than 30% [35].

Communities’ perceptions and attitudes toward WUNEPs and their consumption

The information regarding the perceptions, attitudes, and factors associated with WUNEP consumption was based on a dietary survey that assessed the role of biodiversity in human nutrition. A semi-structured questionnaire was administered to a sample of 107 Sundanese women residing in three villages within the Rancakalong district. The questionnaire aimed to gather information on various aspects, including basic sociodemographic characteristics and dietary habits through a food frequency questionnaire evaluating the consumption of WUNEPs and cultivated plants and the diversity of food plants and livestock production. Furthermore, it included a quantitative, multipass 24-hour dietary recall method to collect data on the source of each food item, which allowed for the determination of the minimum dietary diversity for women (MDD-W) [36]. The survey was developed to accommodate multiple study objectives and incorporate additional modules that are not addressed in this context. Participants’ self-reported values include age, number of household members, monthly expenditure (IDR), and occupation. Cultivated plant production diversity was quantified by conducting a list-based species richness count, which included spices and herbs.

SPSS software was used for data analysis to calculate frequency measures. Spearman’s correlations were employed to explore the relationships between WUNEP consumption frequency, cultivated plant consumption and production diversity, and livestock diversity. These relationships were also examined in relation to other potential factors, such as age, number of household members, monthly expenditure, and occupation.

Diversity of WUNEPs

A total of 53 species, which were classified into 27 families, were recorded (Table 1). Around 13% of the plant specimens were from the Asteraceae family. Approximately 9% belonged to the Phyllanthaceae and Zingiberaceae, 7% to the Solanaceae, and 5% to the Apiaceae, Anacardiaceae, Cucurbitaceae, and Fabaceae families. Other families consist of three or fewer species each, accounting for less than 5% of the total. Among the different plant parts used, the fruits were most prominently consumed (42%), followed by leaves (28%), aerial parts (leaves, shoots, and stems) (7%), and flowers and rhizomes (5%). Other parts that were also consumed included grain, seeds (with or without pods for Fabaceae), kernels, beans, tubers, and their inner peels. These WUNEPs are usually gathered and consumed as leafy vegetables, spices/condiments, snacks, and fruits. Additionally, they are used to prepare medicinal infusions and decoctions for the treatment and prevention of various diseases and health conditions. Most of the time, these WUNEPs are collected from their natural habitats, where they grow spontaneously. However, there are instances where certain wild forms are occasionally brought into gardens and cultivated directly for food purposes. Examples of such plants include G. divaricata (daun dewa), S. edulis (waluh), M. esculenta (daun sampeu), B. androgyna (katuk), and S. nigrum (leunca). The purpose of cultivating these plants is to achieve a higher yield and ensure immediate availability. The nutritional composition of the documented WUNEPs is discussed in the discussion section.

Table 1

Composition in macronutrients (protein, fiber) (g/100 g), minerals (Ca, Fe, Zn) (mg/100 g), and vitamin C of the documented WUNEPs. The value represents the mean value with the range of variability in the literature in the parentheses.
Family	Species name ^{Collection no}.	Local/ Indonesian name	Edible part		Protein		Fiber		Ca		Fe		Zn		Vitamin C	Reference
Achariaceae	Pangium edule Reinw.^C1/N	Picung, kluwek	Kernel	8.7	(7.3–10.0)	9.6	( – )	41	(40–42)	2.05	(2.0–2.1)	1.4	( – )	24.5	(19.0–30.0)	[33, 62]
Apiaceae	Centella asiatica (L.) Urb.^{RM 42/C}	Antanan, pegagan	Leaves	7.6	(2.7–12.4)	2.3	(1.8–2.8)	101	(24–177)	2.15	(0.2–4.1)	10.9	( – )	0.8	( – )	[13, 95]
	Eryngium foetidum L.^C2/N	Welang, katuncar walanda	Leaves	3.7	(2.1–5.3)	5.5	(1.2–9.7)	334	(312 − 356)	32	(11–53)	4.7	(4.5–4.8)	76.0	(16.7–135.2)	[52, 66, 67, 83]
	Oenanthe javanica DC.^C3/N	Tespong	Aerial parts	2.1	(1.2–2.9)	2.0	(1.1–2.9)	152	(133–170)	3.1	(1.4–7.0)	4.8	(0.15–14.0)	12.1	(3.3–21.0)	[13, 33, 67, 90, 96]
Anacardiaceae	Anacardium occidentale L.^C4/N	Jambu mede	Young leaves	5.3	(3.7–7.0)	3.0		24	(16–33)	4.7	(0.5–8.9)	–		258	(21–494)	[25, 33, 96]
	Mangifera foetida Lour.^C5/N	Limus	Peel	1.0	( – )	50.9	( – )	26	(16–36)	0.25	(0.2–0.3)	–		–		[44, 73]
	Mangifera odorata Griff.^C6/N	Kaweni, mangga kwini	Fruits	1.1	(0.7–1.4)	4.2	( – )	15	(9–21)	0.35	(0.2–0.5)	0.1	( – )	37	(18– 56)	[20, 33]
Araceae	Apoballis rupestris (Zoll. & Moritzi ex Zoll.) S.Y.Wong & P.C.Boyce^AY1/R	Cariwuh	Rhizomes	4.7	( – )	3.0	( – )	24	( – )	1.03	( – )	0.3	( – )	22	( – )
Asteraceae	Acmella ciliata (Kunth) Cass.^RM1/S	Jotang	Aerial parts	3.7	(1.9–5.5)	8.9	(3.5–14.3)	404	(162–645)	52	(4–100)	10.6	(1.2–20.0)	20	( – )	[33, 65]
	Cosmos caudatus Kunth^RM2/S	Randamidang	Leaves	4.0	(3.7–4.2)	5.8	( – )	328	( – )	2.2	(1.8–2.7)	0.4	(0.26–0.60)	118	(109–127)	[25, 33]
	Crassocephalum crepidioides S.Moore^{RH 81/S}	Sintrong	Leaves	22.6	(18.1–27.1)	10.9	(8.2–13.7)	204	(10.5–398)	6.0	(0.2–11.9)	5.8	(0–11.7)	41	(9–73)	[33, 40, 41]
	Gynura divaricata DC.^{RM 05/M}	Dewa	Leaves	18.4	(17.7–19.2)	37.9	(16.5–59.2)	1350	( – )	13.6	( – )	–		11	( – )	[51, 52]
	Erigeron sumatrensis Retz.^RM3/S	Jalantir, monyenyen	Leaves	17.5	( – )	12.7	( – )	12	( – )	1.7	( – )	–		0.6	( – )	[54, 142]
	Bidens pilosa L.^RM4/S	Hareuga	Aerial parts	3.3	(2.3–4.2)	2.6	(1.3–3.9)	225	(110–340)	8.3	(2.3– 14.2)	1.2	( – )	40	( – )	[86, 87]
	Emilia sonchifolia (L.) DC.^RM6/S	Jonge, jonghe	Leaves	2.1	( – )	29.7	(2.0–57.5)	750	(253–1246)	28.4	(9.5–47.0)	0.6	(0–1.2)	12.7	(0–25.4)	[33, 52, 53]
Athyriaceae	Diplazium esculentum (Retz.) Sw.^RM7/S	Pakis, paku	Leaves	4.0	(3.4–4.5)	3.2	(2.0–4.3)	75	(13–136)	1.8	(1.3–2.3)	0.5	(0.3–0.7)	6.5	(3.0–10.0)	[33]
Cannaceae	Canna indica L.^RM8/S	Ganyol, ganyong	Rhizomes	0.8	(0.6–1.0)	0.8	( – )	18	(15–21)	10.5	(1.0–20.0)	–		9.5	(9.0–10.0)	[33, 85]
Convolvulaceae	Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.^RM9/S	Hui	Young leaves	16.9	(2.8–31.1)	9.5	(4.8–14.3)	279	(80–745)	11.2	(0.6–21.7)	1.9	(0.5–3.2)	6.0	(4.0–8.0)	[33, 82]
Cucurbitaceae	Benincasa hispida Cogn.^RM10/S	Baligo, buah kundur	Fruits	0.5	(0.3–0.7)	1.1	(0.5–1.7)	14	(5–23)	0.3	(0.2–0.5)	0.2	( – )	35.2	(1.35–69.0)	[107, 108]
	Lagenaria siceraria (Molina) Standl.^RM11/S	Anolekak, kukuk, labu air	Fruits	0.6	(0.6–0.62)	0.6	(0.5–0.6)	19	(12–25)	4.1	(0.2–7.9)	0.7	( – )	49	(10–88)	[33, 103, 104]
	Sicyos edulis Jacq. ^RM12/S	Waluh	Fruits	0.8	( – )	1.7	( – )	17	( – )	0.3	( – )	0.7	( – )	7.7	( – )	[59]
			Leaves and stems	3.8	(2.7–4.9)	11.4	(1.1–21.7)	63	( – )	3.3	(2.0–4.6)	1.3	( – )	19.0	(6.2–31.7)	[143]
Euphorbiaceae	Manihot esculenta Crantz^C7/N	Sampeu, singkong	Inner peel/ cortex	0.02	( – )	12.4	( – )	–		–		–		–		[57, 58]
			Leaves	17.1	(6.2–28.0)	11.9	(2.4–21.4)	206	(142–352)	2.4	(1.3–3.9)	3.4	(1.3–5.4)	159	(103–211)	[33, 57]
			Tuber	1.0	( – )	0.9	( – )	63	(48–77)	1.1	( – )	0.4	( – )	31	( – )	[33, 144]
Fabaceae	Archidendron jiringa (Jack) I.C.Nielsen^AY2/R	Jengkol	Bean/ seed	5.4	( – )	1.5	( – )	4	( – )	0.7	( – )	0.6	( – )	31	( – )	[33]
	Clitoria ternatea L.^RM13/S	Telang	Flowerss	0.3	( – )	2.1	( – )	3	(2–310)	–		–		–		[145, 146]
	Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) de Wit^RM14/S	Lamtoro	Seed and pods	18.4	(5.7–31.1)	13.6	(10.8–16.4)	490	(180–800)	1.9	(1.2–2.7)	3.6	(1.4–5.8)	15.0	( – )	[33, 55, 56]
Hydrocharitaceae	Limnocharis flava (L.) Buchenau^C8/N	Eceng, genjer	Aerial parts	1.4	(1.0–1.7)	2.2	(1.8–2.5)	71	(62–80)	2.1	(0.50–3.82)	0.6	(0.3–0.9)	52	(50–54)	[33, 90]
Malvaceae	Durio zibethinus L.^RM15/S	Kadu, durian	Fruits	2.4	(1.5–3.2)	2.7	(0.9–4.4)	36	(7–64)	1.3	(0.7–1.9)	0.3	(0.15–0.5)	63	(20–107)	[33, 99–102]
Melastomataceae	Melastoma malabathricum L.^RM16/S	Harendong	Fruits	5.3	(5.1–5.5)	8.6	( – )	152	(2.5–302)	4.3	(0.5–8.0)	–		–		[68, 69]
Meliaceae	Sandoricum koetjape Merr.^{RM 17/S}	Kacapi	Fruits	2.3	(0.4–4.1)	13.9	(1.0–26.8)	57	(4–110)	1.7	(1.2–2.1)	–		14	( – )	[20, 47, 48]
Menispermaceae	Cyclea barbata Miers^{RM 18/S}	Cincau	Leaves	4.2	( – )	9.8	( – )	237	( – )	–		–		–		[64]
Moraceae	Artocarpus altilis (Parkinson) Fosberg ^AY3/R	Sukun, kelewih^*	Fruits	2.7	(0.1–5.2)	0.9	(0.2–1.5)	36	(18–54)	26.2	(0.3–52.0)	0.3	(0.1–0.5)	12.4	(3.7–21.0)	[33, 84]
	Ficus carica L.^RM19/S	Buah tin	Fruits	2.0	(0.8–3.3)	6.4	(2.9–9.8)	99	(35–162)	1.2	(0.37–2.03)	0.4	(0.15–0.55)	1.6	(1.2–2.0)	[79]
Moringaceae	Moringa oleifera Lam.^RM20/S	Kelor	Leaves	16.3	(5.1–27.5)	10.2	(1.2–19.3)	1097	(185–2009)	15.6	(3.0–28.3)	0.6	( – )	64	(22–106)	[33, 63]
Muntingiaceae	Muntingia calabura L.^RM21/S	Kersen	Fruits	4.3	(0.3–8.3)	5.3	(4.6–5.9)	124	( – )	1.2	( – )	–		41.9	(3.3–80.5)	[147–149]
Myrtaceae	Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels^RM22/S	Duwet	Fruits	1.0	(0.5–1.4)	0.6	(0.2–0.9)	31	(0–62)	1.1	(0.1– 2.0)	1.2	(0.3–2.1)	30.9	(5.7–56.0)	[20, 33, 109]
Oxalidaceae	Averrhoa bilimbi L.^RM23/S	Calincing	Fruits	6.1	(0.6–11.5)	8.0	(0.6–15.3)	9	(6–12)	1.8	(0.4–3.2)	0.04	( – )	99.2	(15.5–183.0)	[70–72]
Phyllanthaceae	Antidesma bunius (L.) Spreng.^RM24/S	Huni	Fruits	0.9	(0.6–1.2)	0.6	( – )	394	(0–788)	3.8	(0.001–7.6)	2.9	( – )	38.2	(7.3–69.0)	[105, 106]
	Baccaurea racemosa (Reinw.) Müll.Arg ^RM25/S	Bencoy	Fruits	1.7	( – )	0		13	( – )	0.8	( – )	–		–		[33]
	Breynia androgyna (L.) Chakrab. & N.P.Balakr.^{RM 26/M}	Katuk	Leaves	3.2	(0–6.4)	0.8	(0–1.5)	229	(84– 373)	7.1	(1.06 − 13.76)	2.7	(0.5–10.0)	168	(22–314)	[33, 88–90]
	Phyllanthus acidus (L.) Skeels ^{RM 44/C}	Cereme, ceremai	Fruits	0.7	( – )	0.55	(0.5–0.6)	7	(5–9)	0.4	(0.36–0.40)	0.15	( – )	8.0	( – )	[144, 150, 151]
	Phyllanthus emblica L.^RM26/S	Ki malaka, malaka,	Fruits	2.3	(0.7–4.0)	12.5	(3.0–22.0)	95	(0–189)	2.2	(0.2–4.3)	1.0	(0.06–2.0)	457	(193–720)	[49, 50]
Piperaceae	Piper retrofractum Vahl^{RH 91/S}	Cabe jawa	Fruits	11.4	( – )	28.8	( – )	415	( – )	5.1	( – )	0.9	( – )	–		[46]
Poaceae	Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench^RM27/S	Gandrung, cantel merah	Grains	7.6	(4.3–11.0)	1.8	( – )	14	(0–28)	2.2	(0.03–4.4)	0.9	(0.5–1.4)	0		[33, 152, 153]
Salicaceae	Flacourtia rukam Zoll. & Moritzi^RM28/S	Rukem	Fruits	1.5	(0.8–2.1)	5.3	(2.8–7.7)	55	(3–108)	1.2	( – )	0.9	( – )	137	(20–254)	[20, 33, 97, 98]
Solanaceae	Physalis angulata L.^RM29/S	Cecenet	Fruits	7.3	(3.7–11.0)	7.7	(4.4–11.0)	12	(0–24)	3.1	(0.2–6.0)	0.02	( – )	46	(46–47)	[74–77]
	Solanum americanum Mill.^RM30/S	Leunca^**	Fruits	1.5	(1.1–1.9)	2.0	( – )	873	(7–1740)	20.3	(1.0–39.5)	0.3	( – )	17	( – )	[33, 52, 154]
	Solanum nigrum L.^RM31/S	Leunca^***	Fruits	10.8	(3.9–17.7)	1.4	( – )	22	(11–33)	0.6	( – )	trace	( – )	5.4	( – )	[155, 156]
	Solanum torvum Sw.^AY4/R	Takokak	Fruits	1.2	(0.03–2.4)	5.0	(3.8–6.1)	194	(59–329)	6.2	(1.85–10.60)	3.4	(1.0–5.8)	7.9	(4.0–11.8)	[91–93]
Urticaceae	Pilea melastomoides (Poir.) Wedd.^C9/N	Poh pohan	Leaves	10.6	(2.5–18.7)	2.0	(1.5–2.6)	744	( – )	3.4	(0.92–5.9)	0.2	( – )	25	(5–45)	[25, 33, 90, 157]
Zingiberaceae	Alpinia galanga (L.) Willd.^C10/N	Laja, lengkoas	Rhizomes	1.7	(1.0–2.4)	7.6	(1.1–14.0)	44	(37–50)	3.9	(2.0–5.9)	1.7	(0.3–3.1)	50	( – )	[33, 80]
			Flowers	1.4	( – )	3.6	( – )	41	( – )	–		–		–		[60]
	Amomum dealbatum Roxb.^RM32/S	Rangasa, hanggasa	Fruits	3.1	( – )	6.5	( – )	–		–		–		–		[78]
	Etlingera elatior (Jack) R.M.Sm.^RM33/S	Honje	Flowers	8.3	(0.4–16.2)	10.4	(1.0–19.8)	591	(32–1150)	2.5	(1.0–4.0)	9.2	(0.1–18.0)	13.6	(0–27.2)	[33, 60, 61]
	Etlingera punicea (Roxb.) R.M.Sm. ^RM34/S	Rongod	Fruits	9.6	( – )	30.8	( – )	–		–		–		–		[45]
^Sukun (sterile / domesticated type), kelewih (wild/ fertile), ^* small berries, ^***normal-size berries.

Local perception of the availability of WUNEPs

Most of the respondents agreed that consumption has declined, primarily due to reduced availability (48%), a lack of knowledge regarding the identification and nutritional benefits of the species (30%), time constraints and convenience (13%), and a preference for improved varieties (9%).

We compared the reasons for consuming WUNEP with those of commonly cultivated vegetables, referred to as “vegetables” hereafter (Fig. 2). In this context, respondents grew or self-cultivated vegetables within their immediate vicinity, such as in their home yards, farms, or allotment gardens. Three common motivations for consuming both WUNEP and vegetables were daily food needs (33% for WUNEP, 39% for vegetables) and medicinal value (26% for WUNEP, 9% for vegetables). In addition, respondents also consumed WUNEPs for their nostalgic value (23%) and good taste (18%), while vegetables were consumed because they were perceived to be nutritious (35%) and convenient (17%). Respondents further elaborated that the potential to reduce food expenses motivates them to use freely accessible sources such as WUNEPs and self-grown vegetables to meet their daily food needs. While this economically motivated factor was perceived as necessary for both edible plants, the importance of having medicinal values and personal factors or subjective reasons (such as taste preference and nostalgia) was more emphasized for WUNEP. However, nutritional benefits are only recognized for vegetables, and none of the respondents perceived WUNEP as convenient, indicating a lack of knowledge regarding its nutritional value and potential constraints related to access.

Correlates of WUNEP consumption

The correlation between WUNEP consumption frequency and other variables is summarized in Table 2. The results indicate a positive correlation between WUNEP and age, consumption frequency, diversity of cultivated vegetables, production diversity of cultivated vegetables, livestock number, and diversity. Conversely, there is a negative correlation between WUNEP consumption and the number of family members. However, the correlations with these variables appear weak. The consumption diversity of cultivated plants presents stronger correlations with WUNEP consumption. We identified no correlations between WUNEP and body mass index (BMI), occupation, monthly expenditure, or dietary diversity indicators.

Table 2

Correlates of WUNEP consumption.
Variable
Age	0.23	^*
BMI
Number of family members	-0.24	^*
Source of income
Monthly expenditure
MDD-W
Consumption frequency of cultivated vegetables	0.22	^*
Consumption diversity of cultivated vegetables	0.40	^**
Production diversity of cultivated vegetables	0.27	^**
Number of live stocks	0.30	^**
Livestock diversity	0.28	^**
Correlations are reported using Spearman’s Rho (R), according to a variable distribution. The source of income category is a dummy variable, with the farmer set at 1 and the nonfarmer at 0. MDDW: Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women. ^* and ^** indicate significance at 0.05 and 0.01.

Diversity and nutritional value of documented WUNEPs

In the context of a culturally diverse country with over 300 distinct ethnic groups, Indonesian cuisine significantly varies among different ethnic groups and regions. Wild food plants in West Java, particularly leafy vegetables, play a crucial role in the Sundanese diet. The Sundanese people are well known for their habit of consuming fresh greens, known as lalab (Sundanese) or lalap/lalapan (Indonesian) [15], in their daily meals, similar to Western salads. Most lalap dishes are traditionally consumed raw and typically served with sambal, a spicy paste condiment made from a mixture of chili and other secondary ingredients such as shrimp paste, shallots, palm sugar, and lime juice. It is comparable to salad dressing or salsa, adding flavor and enhancing the overall taste of the dish. While initially associated with food culture in the West Java region, lalap is now essential in Indonesian cuisine and includes all types of vegetables [24]. However, in the specific context of Sundanese communities, lalap encompasses both wild/non-cultivated and semi-domesticated edible plants. Numerous studies underscore the high nutritional value of wild edible plants [9, 35, 37–39], as evidenced by different documented groups of WUNEPs (Table 1). The nutritional composition of the selected WUNEPs is examined, along with their potential contribution to the RDA of certain nutrients. Table 3 demonstrates that some of the documented WUNEPs serve as significant sources of certain nutrients (RDA > 15%) or contain high levels (RDA > 30%).

Table 3

Percentage of contribution to Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA) for adults (30 through 49 y) of proteins, fiber, mineral elements (Ca, Fe, Zn), and vitamin C of the edible parts (100 g portions) of the documented WUNEPs.

Plant species	Edible part	Protein			Fiber			Ca	Fe			Zn			Vit. C
RDA (men/women)¹		65	/	60	36	/	30	1000	9	/	18	11	/	8	90	/	75
RDA (men/women)¹		g/day			g/day			mg/day	mg/day			mg/day			mg/day
P. edule	Kernel/seeds	13.3	/	14.4	26.7	/	32.0	4.1	22.8	/	11.4	12.7	/	17.5	27.2	/	32.7
C. asiatica	Leaves	11.6	/	12.6	6.4	/	7.7	10.1	23.9	/	11.9	99.1	/	136.3	0.8	/	1.0
E. foetidum	Leaves	5.6	/	6.1	15.2	/	18.2	33.4	358.3	/	179.2	42.4	/	58.3	84.4	/	101.3
O. javanica	Aerial parts	3.2	/	3.4	5.5	/	6.6	15.2	34.1	/	17.1	–			13.5	/	16.2
A. occidentale	Young leaves	8.2	/	8.9	8.3	/	10.0	2.4	52.4	/	26.2	–			286.2	/	343.5
M. foetida	Peel	1.6	/	1.7	141.5	/	169.8	–	–			–			–
M. odorata	Fruits	1.6	/	1.8	11.7	/	14.0	1.5	3.9	/	1.9	0.9	/	1.3	41.1	/	49.3
A. rupestris	Rhizomes	7.2	/	7.8	8.3	/	10.0	2.4	11.4	/	5.7	2.9	/	4.0	24.4	/	29.3
A. ciliata	Aerial parts	5.7	/	6.2	24.7	/	29.7	40.4	577.8	/	288.9	96.4	/	132.5	22.2	/	26.7
C. caudatus	Leaves	6.1	/	6.6	16.1	/	19.3	32.8	24.8	/	12.4	3.9	/	5.4	130.9	/	157.0
C. crepidioides	Leaves	34.8	/	37.7	30.4	/	36.5	20.4	67.2	/	33.6	53.0	/	72.9	45.8	/	55.0
G. divaricata	Leaves	28.4	/	30.7	105.2	/	126.2	135.0	151.0	/	75.5	–			12.2	/	14.7
E. sumatrensis	Leaves	26.8	/	29.1	35.2	/	42.2	1.2	18.7	/	9.3	–			0.6	/	0.8
B. pilosa	Aerial parts	5.0	/	5.4	7.2	/	8.7	22.5	91.7	/	45.8	10.7	/	14.8	44.4	/	53.3
E. sonchifolia	Leaves	3.2	/	3.5	82.6	/	99.1	75.0	315.4	/	157.7	5.4	/	7.4	14.1	/	16.9
D. esculentum	Leaves	6.1	/	6.6	8.8	/	10.5	7.5	20.0	/	10.0	4.5	/	6.3	7.2	/	8.7
C. indica	Rhizomes	1.2	/	1.3	2.2	/	2.7	1.8	116.7	/	58.3		/		10.6	/	12.7
I. batatas	Young leaves	26.1	/	28.2	26.5	/	31.8	27.9	124.3	/	62.1	17.0	/	23.3	6.7	/	8.0
B. hispida	Fruits	0.8	/	0.8	3.1	/	3.7	1.4	3.8	/	1.9	1.8	/	2.5	39.1	/	46.9
L. siceraria	Fruits	0.9	/	1.0	1.5	/	1.8	1.9	45.0	/	22.5	6.4	/	8.8	54.3	/	65.2
S. edulis	Fruits	1.3	/	1.4	4.7	/	5.7	1.7	3.8	/	1.9	6.7	/	9.3	8.6	/	10.3
	Leaves and stems	5.8	/	6.3	31.7	/	38.0	6.3	36.8	/	18.4	11.7	/	16.1	21.1	/	25.3
M. esculenta	Inner peel/ cortex	–			34.5	/	41.4	–	–			–			–
	Leaves	26.3	/	28.5	33.1	/	39.7	20.6	26.7	/	13.3	30.5	/	41.9	176.9	/	212.3
	Tuber	1.5	/	1.7	2.5	/	3.0	6.3	12.2	/	6.1	3.6	/	5.0	34.4	/	41.3
A. jiringa	Bean/ seed	8.3	/	9.0	4.2	/	5.0	0.4	7.8	/	3.9	5.5	/	7.5	34.4	/	41.3
C. ternatea	Flowerss	0.5	/	0.5	5.8	/	7.0	0.3	–			–			–
L. leucocephala	Seed and pods	28.3	/	30.7	37.8	/	45.4	49.0	21.5	/	10.8	32.9	/	45.2	16.7	/	20.0
L. flava	Aerial parts	2.1	/	2.3	6.0	/	7.2	7.1	23.7	/	11.9	5.4	/	7.4	57.8	/	69.3
D. zibethinus	Fruits	3.6	/	3.9	7.4	/	8.8	3.6	14.4	/	7.2	2.8	/	3.9	70.4	/	84.5
M. malabathricum	Fruits	8.1	/	8.8	23.8	/	28.5	15.2	47.4	/	23.7	–			–
S. koetjape	Fruits	3.5	/	3.8	38.6	/	46.4	5.7	18.3	/	9.2	–			15.6	/	18.7
C. barbata	Leaves	6.5	/	7.0	27.2	/	32.7	23.7	–			–			–
A. altilis	Fruits	4.1	/	4.4	2.4	/	2.8	3.6	290.6	/	145.3	2.8	/	3.9	13.7	/	16.5
F. carica	Fruits	3.1	/	3.4	17.6	/	21.2	9.9	13.3	/	6.7	3.2	/	4.4	1.8	/	2.1
M. oleifera	Leaves	25.1	/	27.2	28.4	/	34.1	109.7	173.8	/	86.9	5.5	/	7.5	71.1	/	85.3
M. calabura	Fruits	6.6	/	7.2	14.6	/	17.6	12.4	13.1	/	6.6	–			46.6	/	55.9
S. cumini	Fruits	1.5	/	1.6	1.6	/	1.9	3.1	11.7	/	5.9	10.9	/	14.9	34.3	/	41.1
A. bilimbi	Fruits	9.3	/	10.1	22.1	/	26.5	0.9	–			0.4	/	0.5	110.3	/	132.3
A. bunius	Fruits	1.4	/	1.5	1.7	/	2.0	39.4	42.1	/	21.1	26.4	/	36.3	42.4	/	50.9
B. racemosa	Fruits	2.6	/	2.8	–			1.3	8.9	/	4.4	–			–
B. androgyna	Leaves	4.9	/	5.3	2.1	/	2.5	22.9	78.9	/	39.5	–			186.8	/	224.2
P. acidus	Fruits	1.1	/	1.2	1.5	/	1.8	0.7	4.2	/	2.1	1.4	/	1.9	8.9	/	10.7
P. emblica	Fruits	3.6	/	3.9	34.7	/	41.7	9.5	24.6	/	12.3	9.3	/	12.9	507.2	/	608.7
P. retrofractum	Fruits	17.5	/	19.0	80.0	/	96.0	41.5	56.9	/	28.4	8.5	/	11.6	–
S. bicolor	Grains	11.7	/	12.7	5.0	/	6.0	1.4	24.6	/	12.3	8.6	/	11.8	–
F. rukam	Fruits	2.2	/	2.4	14.6	/	17.5	5.5	13.3	/	6.7	8.2	/	11.3	152.2	/	182.7
P. angulata	Fruits	11.2	/	12.2	21.4	/	25.6	1.2	34.5	/	17.2	0.2	/	0.3	51.6	/	62.0
S. americanum	Fruits	2.3	/	2.5	5.6	/	6.7	87.3	225.0	/	112.5	2.7	/	3.8	18.9	/	22.7
S. nigrum	Fruits	16.6	/	17.9	3.9	/	4.7	2.2	6.2	/	3.1	–			6.0	/	7.2
S. torvum	Fruits	1.9	/	2.0	13.8	/	16.5	19.4	69.2	/	34.6	31.0	/	42.6	8.8	/	10.5
P. melastomoides	Leaves	16.3	/	17.7	5.7	/	6.8	74.4	37.9	/	18.9	1.8	/	2.5	27.9	/	33.4
A. galanga	Rhizomes	2.6	/	2.9	21.0	/	25.2	4.4	43.6	/	21.8	15.5	/	21.3	55.6	/	66.7
	Flowers	2.2	/	2.4	9.9	/	11.9	4.1	–			–			–
A. dealbatum	Fruits	4.8	/	5.2	17.9	/	21.5	–	–			–			–
E. elatior	Flowers	12.8	/	13.9	28.8	/	34.6	59.1	27.8	/	13.9	84.0	/	115.6	15.1	/	18.1
E. punicea	Fruits	14.7	/	15.9	85.6	/	102.7	–	–			–			–

¹[34]

Proximate composition analysis

The protein content of the documented WUNEPs varied from 0.02 to 22.6 g/100 g (Table 1). C. crepidioides leaves represented a high protein source at 22.6 g/100 g [33, 40, 41], contributing to 34.8/37.7% of the RDA for men/women, respectively (Table 3). A 100-g portion of G. divaricata leaves, and L. leucocephala seeds and pods were found to provide more than 15% of the RDA for women (65 mg/day) and 30% for men (60 mg/day) (Table 3) [34]. Additionally, E. sumatrensis, M. esculenta, I. batatas, M. oleifera, P. melastomoides leaves, and E. punicea fruits, as well as S. nigrum berries, were also notable sources of protein, exceeding 15% of the RDA for adults (Table 3). These findings highlight the diverse range of plant-based protein sources that can significantly contribute to meeting protein requirements, serving as an alternative to soybean, which is the most commonly consumed plant-based protein source in Indonesia [42]. Fiber has been shown to have a positive impact on reducing the risk of various health conditions, including coronary heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and gastrointestinal issues [43]. The RDA for fiber intake is 36 g/day for men and 30 g/day for women [34]. Among the documented WUNEPs, 13 have been identified as excellent sources of fiber (RDA > 30%), ranging from 10.9 to 50.9 g/100 g (Table 1). These include the fruits of M. foetida [44], E. punicea [45], P. retrofractum [46], S. koetjape [20, 47, 48], and P. emblica [49], [50], the leaves of G. divaricata [51], [52], E. sonchifolia [33, 52, 53], E. sumatrensis [54], and C. crepidioides [40], the seeds and pods of L. leucocephala [55, 56], the inner peels and leaves of M. esculenta [57, 58], and the aerial parts of S. edulis [59]. In comparison, the commonly consumed sawi hijau/leaf mustard (Brassica juncea) contains 2.5 g/100 g of fiber, providing 6.9 and 8.3% of the RDA for men and women, respectively [33, 34]. Additionally, other plants, such as E. elatior flowers [33, 60, 61], P. edule seeds [62], [33], M. oleifera [33], [63], C. barbata [64], I. batatas leaves, A. ciliata [33, 65], C. caudatus [25, 33], E. foetidum [66, 67], M. malabathricum [68], [69], A. bilimbi [70–73] P. angulata [74–77], A. dealbatum [78], F. carica fruits [79], and A. galanga rhizomes [33, 80] serve as notable sources of fiber. Consuming a 100-g portion of these plant parts can contribute to 15.2–29.7% of the recommended daily fiber intake for adults, thus making them valuable additions to a fiber-rich diet (Table 3). Nevertheless, achieving the recommended daily intake of certain plant parts that are commonly used as spices or herbal medicine, such as P. retrofractum, E. elatior, and A. galanga, can be challenging.

Mineral and vitamin content

As shown in Table 1, information on mineral content in the documented WUNEPs is limited. However, the data indicate that the majority of WUNEPs serve as excellent mineral resources. Calcium (Ca), the most abundant element in the human body, not only promotes bone health but also reduces the risk of osteoporosis and helps prevent cardiovascular diseases [81]. The leaves of G. divaricata (daun dewa) and M. oleifera (kelor/moringa) exhibit high contents of Ca, providing over 100% of the RDA per 100 g of the edible portion (Table 3). In Sundanese communities, in addition to their usage as lalap, a decoction of daun dewa is used to treat hypertension and bladder-related problems, while topical application of pounded kelor roots is used to cure toothache [15]. Other interesting sources of Ca contributed 15–87% of the 1000 mg/day RDA for Ca, which is also commonly consumed as lalap, including S. americanum (leunca, small berries), leaves of P. melastomoides (poh pohan), E. foetidum (welang), I. batatas (hui/sweet potato), B. androgyna (katuk), C. crepidioides (sintrong), and O. javanica (tespong) (Table 3). These contributions are comparatively higher than those of commonly marketed vegetables in Indonesia, such as kangkung/water spinach (Ipomoea aquatica) (6.7% RDA) or selada/lettuce (Lactuca sativa) (2.2% RDA) [33, 34]. Furthermore, the studied area in West Java is a major sweet potato (hui Cilembu cultivar) cultivation area in which the leaves are regarded as postharvest waste. Considering that sweet potato leaves contain 279 mg/100 g of Ca [33, 82], they can provide 28% of the RDA for Ca. Therefore, it is recommended to include sweet potato leaves in the villager’s diet to help alleviate Ca deficiency, particularly among women in the area (unpublished result). Approximately half of the documented WUNEPs in this study were identified as iron (Fe) sources (Table 1). The edible parts of several plants have been found to contain high levels of Fe. These include A. ciliata [33, 65], E. foetidum [52, 83], E. sonchifolia [33, 52, 53], A. altilis [33, 84], S. americanum [33, 52], M. oleifera [33, 63], G. divaricata [52], I. batatas [33, 82], C. indica [33, 85], B. Pilosa [86, 87], B. androgyna [33, 88–90], S. torvum [91–93], and C. crepidioides [33, 40, 41]. A 100-g portion of their edible parts provides more than 30% of the RDA for men/women (9/18 mg/day) (Table 2). As indicated in Table 1, other plants can serve as noteworthy sources of Fe, exhibiting concentrations ranging from 1.46–5.12 mg/100 g. It is important to note that a deficiency in Fe can lead to the development of anemia [94]. According to our recent dietary survey conducted in a village in West Java, where we documented the WUNEPs, it was found that the average daily Fe intake of 107 women is 16.8 mg/day (unpublished result). This value falls below the RDA of 18 mg/day for women aged 19–49 [34], suggesting a prevalence of Fe deficiency among women in the studied area. However, in order to reach the recommended intake, it would require the consumption of 50–100 g (fresh weight) of Fe-rich plants. Therefore, the consumption of Fe-rich species should be prioritized as a dietary choice for Indonesian women and children who are experiencing anemia due to Fe deficiency. Regarding the element Zn, the edible parts of C. asiatica [13, 95], A. ciliata leaves [65], [33], and E. elatior [33, 60, 61] exhibited the highest average content. We have observed that the primary sources of Zn in the documented WUNEPs are leaves or aerial parts that are commonly consumed boiled or raw as lalap or cooked as a dish by Sundanese communities in the study area. These include C. crepidioides [33, 40, 41], E. foetidum [52, 83], L. leucocephala [33, 55], S. torvum (takokak) [91], [92, 93], M. esculenta (daun singkong) [33], and I. batatas (daun ubi) [33, 82]. With an average Zn content ranging from 1.9–5.8 mg/100 g (Table 1), a 100-g portion of these vegetables can contribute more than 30% of the RDA of Zn for adults (Table 2) [34]. This surpasses the amount of Zn provided by widely marketed broccoli (0.5 mg/100 g) and its corresponding contribution to the RDA for men/women (4.5/6.3%).

Numerous documented WUNEPs are found to be a rich source of vitamin C compared to some commonly consumed fruits and vegetables (Table 1). For example, the average vitamin C content in P. emblica [49, 50] and A. occidentale (Kongkachuichai et al., 2015; MoH RI, 2018) is five and three times greater, respectively, than that of papaya [33]. Moreover, it has been found that the rukam fruit (F. rukam) [20, 33, 97, 98] contains three times the amount of vitamin C as the average orange (C. sinensis) [33]. The edible parts of these WUNEPs offer more than 100% of the RDA for vitamin C (90/75 mg/day for men/women) [34]. Other plants, such as B. androgyna [33, 89], M. esculenta (leaves and tuber) [33], C. caudatus [25, 33], A. bilimbi [70–72], E. foetidum [66, 67, 83], D. zibethinus [99–102], L. flava [33], A. galanga [33], L. siceraria [33, 103, 104], P. angulata [74, 75], C. crepidioides [40], B. pilosa [86], A. bunius [105, 106], M. odorata [33], B. hispida [107, 108], A. jiringa [33], and S. cumini [33, 109], have also been reported to possess a high content of vitamin C, with average values between 30.9 and 168 mg/100 g. Consuming a 100-g portion of these edible parts is sufficient to provide more than 30% of the RDA of vitamin C for adults (Table 3). Although there have been numerous documented WUNEPs that are regarded as vitamin C sources and are eaten raw as snack fruit or lalap, a few of them, such as B. androgyna and M. esculenta leaves, are usually cooked. Thus, it is crucial to acknowledge that the processing of food significantly affects this particular vitamin [110]. It has been reported that the process of boiling M. esculenta leaves for five minutes leads to a notable reduction in the concentration of vitamin C [111].

What are the factors contributing to the decline in the use of WUNEPs?

Numerous factors are changing the way people use wild food plants worldwide, with socio-cultural influences emerging as the primary causes of their declining consumption. In Eastern Bhutan, a decrease in market demand contributed to a decline in the intake of wild edible fruits [112], while income-driven diversification affected the consumption of wild food plants in Zimbabwe [113]. However, our observation at our study site highlights a perceived reduction in availability as one of the primary ecological factors causing the decline in consumption of WUNEPs. This finding is consistent with the results of a study conducted in other regions in West Java, Indonesia [18], West Sumatra, Indonesia [23], and Gujarat, India [114]. Despite global downward trends [11, 115], the utilization of wild plants, particularly leafy greens, appears to be more pervasive in Asia [116]. Our findings further identified changes in land use as major contributors to the reduced WUNEP availability in the study area. In line with this, FAO [117] also recognizes land-use change as one of the most widespread threats to the utilization of wild food plants, along with habitat alteration, pollution, and deforestation.

In addition to reduced availability, another reason for limited consumption of WUNEPs was a lack of knowledge about identifying species and understanding their nutritional benefits. Limited information regarding the nutrient composition of wild foods is a well-known obstacle to their valorization [9, 118], which highlights the need for further research, investment, and integration into mainstream practices. The time involved in collecting WUNEPs was also restricted in their consumption, and this is likely associated with lifestyle changes that prioritize convenience [2]. Inconvenience related to accessing wild food due to their remote locations was also observed in other countries [118–120]. Lastly, we found that a shift in food preferences toward a greater variety has resulted in the neglect of wild or native species by the Sundanese community in the study area. This trend is also observed in other regions [112, 121]. However, while we discovered shifts in dietary patterns, they do not seem to be the main factors contributing to the decrease in WUNEP consumption. This is because traditional culture continues to play a prominent role, as evidenced by the ongoing consumption of lalap in their diet. Accordingly, previous Indonesian studies revealed that Sundanese communities residing in the Eastern Priangan areas and indigenous communities of Mentawai still highly value and prefer their traditional foods, thus sustaining the use of WUNEPs [22, 24].

What motivates people to continue consuming WUNEPs?

Given the current global decline in WUNEP use, research has predominantly focused on clarifying the reasons underpinning their decrease, while the motivations driving their continued consumption have garnered less attention. Recognizing these motivations can lead to more effective strategies for facilitating the necessary changes. In industrialized regions, motivations for the use of WUNEPs lean toward recreation and innovative food trends [35, 122], whereas traditional and indigenous communities value them for their critical role in diet, economy, and culture [123]. In the studied area, the main motivations for using WUNEPs were their availability as free food (Fig. 2), which is also applicable to certain vegetables. While most of the WUNEPs were naturally grown, it is also common for the Sundanese community in the study area to cultivate useful plants, including herbs and spices, in their surroundings. These plants are often grown in home yards, on allotment land, or in farm fields alongside their cash crops. This practice is widely reported in rural areas of Indonesia. Medicinal value was also perceived as an essential aspect of WUNEPs. This is understandable, as the use of herbal medicine is widespread in Indonesia [16] and remains a significant aspect of healthcare for rural communities in the West Java area, regardless of the availability of healthcare services [15]. The taste of WUNEPs as the main reason for their consumption has also been observed in other countries [119, 120, 124]. Similar to the Sundanese communities, the Karen and Lawa communities in Thailand perceive the taste, availability, and multifunctionality of the species as the main factors in determining the importance of wild vegetables [13]. Other reasons were related to individual affective (feeling or emotional) relationships with WUNEPs, linking consumption with nostalgia. Behavior studies have demonstrated that food consumption is closely tied to memory [125]. Some respondents in our study described how eating humut (coconut heart) or boiled cariwuh (A. rupertis) brought back vivid memories of their childhood or traditional ceremonies. These plants are used to prepare the ceremonial dish called pahinum, which is served during the celebration of a newborn’s 40th day.

Correlates of WUNEP consumption

WUNEP use is a common practice among our study population; it is consumed not only in small amounts as spices, condiments, or snacks but also in significant quantities, frequently as lalap and as the main component of a dish. According to our data, WUNEP consumption frequency among the studied Sundanese communities is not associated with age, BMI status, dietary diversity quality, occupation, or household expenditure. This highlights the compelling aspect of relative democratization [38]. This is particularly noteworthy considering the notable nutritional value of WUNEPs, which is often overlooked [8, 126]. Such a situation often leads to these plants being unjustly labeled as “famine foods” and limits their recognition as coping strategies for the most impoverished segment of the population [38]. While our study did not find such a derogatory view toward WUNEPs, it may not fully represent the situation due to limitations in our study design’s ability to capture the economic diversity among respondents.

While the direct/indirect pathways to promoting WUNEP consumption have yet to be examined, our findings indicate that individuals who consume WUNEPs more frequently are also those who engage in backyard vegetable gardening, have a higher frequency of food consumption, and enjoy a greater diversity of food. This aligns with previous research on traditional food practices among indigenous communities in Ecuador [38]. In the context of the studied Sundanese communities, villagers use WUNEPs as fodder for livestock, including sheep, goats, and cattle. Some macro- and micronutrient-rich WUNEPs, such as sintrong, poh pohan, jotang (A. ciliata), jalantir (E. sumatrensis), welang, and antanan, are among the staple fodders. Therefore, it is likely that an increased and diverse livestock inventory is linked to a higher frequency of WUNEP consumption.

Implications for an integrated approach to the sustainable use of WUNEPs

The nutritional significance of the documented WUNEPs is apparent, as many of them provide essential nutrients and have a higher nutritional value compared to common vegetables [35, 37, 127]. Therefore, promoting the inclusion of these plants in diets could improve the nutritional status of not only indigenous and rural populations [13, 128, 129] but also the rest of the population [5]. This is particularly relevant given that malnutrition is a public health concern linked to the sustainable development goals (SDGs) of many developing nations [1], including Indonesia [2]. Nonetheless, such nutrient-rich biodiversity is often undervalued and excluded from policy and decision-making processes related to food systems, food security, and nutrition [130]. This is partly due to limited scientific evidence [11], a lack of awareness regarding their untapped potential, and the presence of market and non-market barriers [5]. This results in lost opportunities and, ultimately, the implementation of more expensive or less sustainable interventions. Despite the growing recognition of the health and environmental benefits of consuming diverse, nutrient-rich foods and improving diets as significant health and economic objectives [131, 132], there is still a need for further action to ensure optimum impact at both the national and local levels.

As a foundation for providing scientific evidence and raising awareness of the potential of WUNEPs, the existing information, including data from PROSEA [133], national food composition tables/Tabel Komposisi Pangan Indonesia [33], and available ethnobiological studies, can be leveraged. A cross-sectoral policy platform should be established nationally, bringing together decision-makers (government agencies), research and extension services, and academia. This platform would broadly identify policies and strategies for the use of WUNEP and nutrient-rich biodiversity. Key entry points can include government strategies aimed at promoting biodiversity production and consumption, such as the Indonesia Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (IBSAP) [19], the roadmap for local food diversification [134], Pola Pangan Harapan (Desirable Diet Pattern) [135], and Isi Piringku (On My Plate) [136]. Moreover, the government can support academic and NGO projects that promote agrobiodiversity and traditional foods. For instance, the Food, Agrobiodiversity, and Diet (FAD) project in West Sumatra has raised awareness of wild food plants, leading to improved nutrition for local communities [23].

Considering the gradual disappearance of WUNEPs from nature, promoting their biodiversity for improved nutrition must be accompanied by promoting their sustainable use. While we did not find overharvesting to be the primary reason for the decreasing trend of WUNEP use in the study area, it is noteworthy that overharvesting, or using entire plants or roots, should be avoided in order to preserve these valuable resources [137]. In their study, Borelli et al. [5] proposed an integrated approach to developing plans and strategies for the utilization and conservation of wild food plants. This approach involves engaging and guiding various stakeholders and actors to take action in order to ensure the sustainable use and preservation of wild food plants for future generations. In contrast, Pratama et al. (2019) argue that the lack of knowledge and use of WUNEPs may also contribute to the decline of these species, particularly when combined with land use change and other pressures on biodiversity. This balanced act of sustainable utilization has, therefore, become a mandate for the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC) 2011–2020 under the Conventions on Biological Diversity (CBD) (https://www.cbd.int/gspc/).

At the community level, however, we argue that the sustainable use and conservation of these WUNEPs should be integrated into the social-ecological system in which the species are observed. In addition to further valorizing and promoting individual WUNEPs, households, and local communities use WUNEPs in relation to their presence in their local ecologies. Maintaining the integrity of this local ecosystem is equally important. This has been partially addressed by the West Java Government through programs like Buruan Sae [138], which promote the use of backyard gardens as a source of local food. However, WUNEPs were not explicitly recognized.

In this regard, the government could support and incentivize local initiatives focused on agrobiodiversity or agroecological production. In Indonesia, particularly in West Java, there has been a notable rise in alternative and local food initiatives [139]. These initiatives have experienced significant growth, transforming into collaborative networks and movements that have the potential to impact the governance of the agricultural sector at both local and national levels. A noteworthy example is the Komunitas 1000 (1000 Gardens Community), a hub comprising over 300 sustainable gardening groups in Bandung, West Java. Its primary goals include promoting access to healthy food through sustainable farming, empowering urban farmers, and establishing a value chain for healthy and sustainable produce [139]. Such a community-led local food movement can offer an opportunity for Indonesian policymakers to facilitate the development of market networks from downstream to upstream while also raising awareness about the biodiversity of WUNEPs among the general public. Taking WUNEPs into consideration in policy-making is particularly timely, especially considering that Indonesia is currently embarking on efforts to transform its food system into a more sustainable one [140]. By incorporating the conservation and utilization of WUNEPs, Indonesia can make progress toward its sustainability goals and ensure a healthier and more resilient future for its food system.

One of the limitations of this study is the self-reported dietary record data used to determine dietary intake, which may be subject to individual interpretation bias. The identified dietary patterns may not represent the participants’ usual patterns, as they were based on a one-day weighted household dietary record. Moreover, given the survey’s cross-sectional design, the possibility of seasonal variation was also not considered. However, the assessment method can provide accurate averages [141]. Moreover, follow-up focus group discussions and intensive interviews to triangulate the findings are currently being conducted. Another limitation of this study is the lack of laypeople’s perspective on documenting the WUNEPs because this study attempted to highlight all available WUNEPs in the studied area. Although the survey was limited to only three villages in a rural site, we believe that the results sufficiently represent rural Sundanese communities’ practice regarding WUNEPs in West Java but may not be necessarily generalizable to other populations in Indonesia.

Finally, replicating this research based on a case study in other regions is advisable to elucidate more comprehensive information on WUNEPs’ contribution to improved nutrition.

We documented 53 species of WUNEP in the study area, and their nutritional importance suggests that they have the potential to contribute to improving diet and nutrition. Despite the continued use and positive perception of WUNEPs, the consumption of these plants has declined over time. This decline may be attributed to decreased availability, which has necessitated the implementation of conservation measures and the promotion of domestication. We argue that adopting an integrated approach to conservation through sustainable use could improve nutrition and health outcomes while simultaneously preserving biodiversity and traditional knowledge. Local communities’ positive perception of WUNEPs can be leveraged to successfully promote their use. This should be supported by efforts to raise awareness and bridge the knowledge gap regarding their benefits. Additionally, more research investment is needed to investigate the nutritional values of some species that are currently poorly understood. Finally, there is a requirement for communities, governments, and related stakeholders to come together to undertake creative actions to optimize the use of WUNEPs. In order to address the vulnerabilities and inefficiencies of the current food system, it is necessary to embrace alternative approaches, such as WUNEPs, that promote sustainability, resilience, and equitable access to nutritious food for all. By diversifying food production and consumption, conserving biodiversity, and prioritizing nutritional well-being, we can create a more resilient and sustainable global food system that enhances human health and safeguards our environment for future generations.

WUNEPs: Wild, underutilized, and neglected edible plants; WFO: World Flora Online; RDA: Recommended Dietary Allowances; COVID-19: Coronavirus Disease 2019; USDA: United States Department of Agriculture; AKG: Angka Kecukupan Gizi (RDA in Indonesia); IDR; Indonesian Rupiah (currency); BMI: Body Mass Index; MDD-W: Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women; SDGs: Sustainable Development Goals; IBSAP: Indonesia Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan; FAD: Food, Agrobiodiversity, and Diet; GSPC: Global Strategy for Plant Conservation: CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The research was conducted in compliance with the Code of Ethics of the International Society of Ethnobiology Code of Ethics guidelines (ISE 2008). Oral consent was acquired before conducting interviews. No ethical committee permits were required.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Availability of data and materials

A structured, organized version of the data and the voucher numbers of the voucher specimens will be available from the first author upon reasonable request.

Competing interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Funding

The fieldwork for this study was financially supported by first author’s internal fund from Tokyo College, The University of Tokyo.

Authors contributions

YR conceptualized and designed the project. YR conducted the study, analyzed the field data. DR and ASDI identified the plants specimens. YR wrote the first draft of the manuscript, AD reviewed and contributed to subsequent drafts. All the authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

We thank Mr. Mujiburohman for his assistance in collecting plant specimens. We are very grateful to the residents of Rancakalong disctrict for kind participation in this study.

FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, WHO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020. Transform. Food Syst. Afford. Heal. Diets. Rome: FAO; 2020.
Sakai Y, Rahayu YYS, Araki T. Nutritional Value of Canteen Menus and Dietary Habits and Intakes of University Students in Indonesia. Nutrients. 2022;14:1911.
Béné C, Oosterveer P, Lamotte L, Brouwer ID, de Haan S, Prager SD, et al. When food systems meet sustainability – Current narratives and implications for actions. World Dev. 2019;113:116–30.
Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S, et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet. 2019;393:447–92.
Borelli T, Hunter D, Powell B, Ulian T, Mattana E, Termote C, et al. Born to eat wild: An integrated conservation approach to secure wild food plants for food security and nutrition. Plants. 2020;9:1–37.
Kuhnlein H V. Food system sustainability for health and well-being of Indigenous Peoples. Public Health Nutr. 2015;18:2415–24.
Popkin BM, Adair LS, Ng SW. Global nutrition transition and the pandemic of obesity in developing countries. Nutr Rev. 2012;70:3–21.
Padulosi S, Thompson J, Rudebjer P. Fighting poverty, hunger and malnutrition with neglected and underutilized species (NUS): needs, challenges and the way forward. Rome: Bioversity International; 2013.
Hunter D, Borelli T, Beltrame DMO, Oliveira CNS, Coradin L, Wasike VW, et al. The potential of neglected and underutilized species for improving diets and nutrition. Planta. 2019;250:709–29.
Ogle BM, Johansson M, Tuyet HT, Johannesson L. Evaluation of the significance of dietary folate from wild vegetables in Vietnam. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2001;10:216–21.
Powell B, Thilsted SH, Ickowitz A, Termote C, Sunderland T, Herforth A. Improving diets with wild and cultivated biodiversity from across the landscape. Food Secur. 2015;7:535–54.
Flyman M V., Afolayan AJ. The suitability of wild vegetables for alleviating human dietary deficiencies. South African J Bot. 2006;72:492–7.
Punchay K, Inta A, Tiansawat P, Balslev H, Wangpakapattanawong P. Nutrient and mineral compositions of wild leafy vegetables of the karen and lawa communities in thailand. Foods. 2020;9:1–15.
Smith E, Ahmed S, Dupuis V, Running Crane M, Eggers M, Pierre M, et al. Contribution of Wild Foods to Diet, Food Security, and Cultural Values Amidst Climate Change. J Agric Food Syst Community Dev. 2019;9:1–24.
Rahayu YYS, Araki T, Rosleine D. Factors affecting the use of herbal medicines in the universal health coverage system in Indonesia. J Ethnopharmacol. 2020;260:e112974.
Rahayu YYS, Araki T, Rosleine D, Purwaningtyas RM. General Practitioners’ Attitudes toward Traditional Indonesian Herbal Medicine and Integrative Care in the Universal Health Coverage System. Glob J Health Sci. 2022;14:82.
Nash MH. The 201 most (& least) biodiverse countries in 2022. https://theswiftest.com/biodiversity-index/. Accessed. 2023 Jul 25.
Pratama MF, Dwiartama A, Rosleine D, Abdulharis R. Documentation of Underutilized Fruit Trees ( UFTs ) across indigenous communities in West Java , Indonesia. Biodiversitas. 2019;20:2603–11.
Bappenas. Indonesian Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2015-2020. Bappenas; 2016.
Suwardi AB, Samudra U, Navia ZI, Samudra U, Harmawan T, Samudra U, et al. Importance and local conservation of wild edible fruit plants in the East Aceh Region , Indonesia. Int J Conserv Sci. 2022;13:221–32.
Suwardi AB, Syamsuardi S, Mukhtar E, Nurainas N. The diversity and traditional knowledge of wild edible fruits in Bengkulu, Indonesia. Ethnobot Res Appl. 2023;25:1–17.
Lee SM, Nichols JD, Lloyd D, Sagari S, Sagulu F, Siregar IZ, et al. The indigenous uses of plants from Siberut, Mentawai, Indonesia. Ethnobot Res Appl. 2021;22:1–33.
Pawera L, Khomsan A, Zuhud EAM, Hunter D, Ickowitz A, Polesny Z. Wild Food Plants and Trends in Their Use: From Knowledge and Perceptions to Drivers of Change in West Sumatra, Indonesia. Foods. 2020;9:e1240.
Hernawati D, Putra RR, Meylani V. Indigenous vegetables consumed as lalapan by Sundanese ethnic group in West Java, Indonesia: Potential, traditions, local knowledge, and it’s future. South African J Bot. 2022;151:133–45.
Andarwulan N, Kurniasih D, Apriady RA, Rahmat H, Roto A V., Bolling BW. Polyphenols, carotenoids, and ascorbic acid in underutilized medicinal vegetables. J Funct Foods. 2012;4:339–47.
Roosita K, Kusharto CM, Sekiyama M, Fachrurozi Y, Ohtsuka R. Medicinal plants used by the villagers of a Sundanese community in West Java, Indonesia. J Ethnopharmacol. 2008;115:72–81.
Zumsteg IS, Weckerle CS. Bakera, a herbal steam bath for postnatal care in Minahasa (Indonesia): Documentation of the plants used and assessment of the method. J Ethnopharmacol. 2007;111:641–50.
Dinkes Jabar. Profil Kesehatan Indonesia Jawa Barat tahun 2019. Bandung: Dinkes Jabar; 2019.
DAR. Digital Academic Repository of Naturalis Biodiversity Center. 2020; https://www.repository.naturalis.nl/. Accessed. 2023 Feb 4.
BHL. Biodiversity Heritage Library. 2020; https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/. Accessed. 2023 Mar 24.
eFlora. Flora of China. 2020; http://www.efloras. Accessed. 2023 Mar 15.
WFO. WFO Plant List. https://wfoplantlist.org/. Accessed. 2023 Feb 1.
Dirjen Kemenkes. Tabel Komposisi Pangan Indonesia (Indonesian Food Composition Table). Jakarta: Kemenkes RI; 2018.
Menkes RI. Permenkes RI No. 28/2019. Jakarta: Kemenkes RI; 2019.
Pinela J, Carvalho AM, Ferreira ICFR. Wild edible plants: Nutritional and toxicological characteristics, retrieval strategies and importance for today’s society. Food Chem Toxicol. 2017;110:165–88.
FAO and FHI 360. Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women: A Guide for Measurement. Rome: FAO; 2016.
Borelli T, Güzelsoy NA, Hunter D, Tan A, Karabak S, Uçurum HÖ, et al. Assessment of the Nutritional Value of Selected Wild Food Plants in Türkiye and Their Promotion for Improved Nutrition. Sustainability. 2022;14:e11015.
Deaconu A, Mercille G, Batal M. Promoting traditional foods for human and environmental health : lessons from agroecology and Indigenous communities in Ecuador. BMC Nutr. 2021;7:1–14.
Mishra A, Swamy SL, Thakur TK, Bhat R, Bijalwan A, Kumar A. Use of wild edible plants: Can they meet the dietary and nutritional needs of indigenous communities in Central India. Foods. 2021;10:e1453.
Ismail M, N NX, Yee CF. Nutritional profile and antioxidative properties of selected tropical wild vegetables. 2012;19:1487–96.
Olalekan J, Komolafe EA, Imokhuede B. Nutritional and phytochemical compositions of fireweed (Crassocephalum crepidioides). J Agric Technol. 2013;9:439–49.
Siswanto et al. Buku Studi diet total: Survei Konsumsi Makanan Individu Indonesia 2014. 1st ed. Trihono, Atmarita, Jahari AB, Kartono D, editors. Jakarta: Balitbangkes RI; 2014.
Ljubicic M, Saric MM, Rumbak I, Baric IC, Komes D, Satalic Z, et al. Knowledge about dietary fibre and its health benefits: A cross-sectional survey of 2536 residents from across Croatia. Med Hypotheses. 2017;105:25–31.
Lasano NF, Hamid AH, Karim R, Dek MSP, Shukri R, Ramli NS. Nutritional composition, anti-diabetic properties and identification of active compounds using UHPLC-ESI-Orbitrap-MS/MS in Mangifera odorata L. peel and seed kernel. Molecules. 2019;24:1–20.
Farida WR, Dahruddin H. The selection of forest plants as feed resources and nesting site of dwarf cuscus (Strigocuscus celebensis) and nutrient analysis in Wawonii Island, South-East Sulawesi. J Biol Indones. 2008;5:201–10.
Jadid N, Arraniry B, Hidayati D, Purwani K, Wikanta W, Hartanti S, et al. Proximate composition, nutritional values and phytochemical screening of Piper retrofractum vahl. fruits. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed. 2018;7:37–43.
Wongsariya K, Kanchanadumkerng P. Proximate composition of the edible part of purple passion fruit and santol and in vitro prebiotic activity of crude polysaccharide extracts. Food Res. 2021;5:406–12.
Bayogan ER V, Paull R. Sandoricum koetjape (santol). In: Janick J, Paull RE, editors. Encycl Fruits Nuts. Cambridge: CABI; 2008.
Semwal P, Painuli S, Jamloki A, Rauf A, Rahman MM, Olatunde A, et al. Himalayan wild fruits as a strong source of nutraceuticals, therapeutics, food and nutrition security. Food Rev. Int. https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lfri20. Accessed. 2023 Sep 6.
Barthakur NN, Arnold NP. Chemical analysis of the emblic (Phyllanthus emblica L.) and its potential as a food source. Sci Hortic (Amsterdam). 1991;47:99–105.
Jaiboon V, Boonyanupahap J, Suwansri S, Ratanatraiwong P, Hansawasdi C. Alpha amylase inhibition and roasting time of local vegetables and herbs prepared for diabetes risk reduction chili paste. Asian J Food Agro-Industry. 2010;3:1–12.
Xu Y, Liang D, Wang GT, Wen J, Wang RJ. Nutritional and functional properties of wild food-medicine plants from the coastal region of South China. J Evidence-Based Integr Med. 2020;25:1–13.
Morshed MM, Rana MS, Emran T Bin, Sohel MD, Kawsar MH. Nutritional analysis and mineral content determination of Emilia sonchifolia DC. Bangladesh Pharm J. 2021;24:54–60.
Nduche MU, Edeoga HO, Omosun G, Nwankwo D. Evaluation of the chemical composition of five Nigerian medicinal plants. IOSR J Pharm Biol Sci. 2015;10:27–31.
Zapata-Campos CC, García-Martínez JE, Salinas-Chavira J, Ascacio-Valdés JA, Medina-Morales MA, Mellado M. Chemical composition and nutritional value of leaves and pods of Leucaena leucocephala, Prosopis laevigata and Acacia farnesiana in a xerophilous shrubland. Emirates J Food Agric. 2020;32:723–30.
Hernández-Santos B, Quijano-Jerónimo O, Rodríguez-Miranda J. Physical, chemical, tecno-functional, and thermal properties of Leucaena leucocephala seed. Food Sci Technol. 2022;42:1–9.
Gani SSA, Idris S, Shamsudin R, Nor Z, Mokhtar MN. Physicochemical composition of different parts of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) plant. Food Res. 2019;4:78–84.
Sarah I, Rosnah S, Mohd Noriznan M, Mohd Zuhair MN, Siti Salwa A. Comparative proximate composition and cyanide contents of each parts of local cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz). Konvensyen Kebangs Kejuruter Pertan Dan Makanan 2019. 2019. p. 118–22.
Lim TK. Sechium edule. Edible Med non-medicinal plants. Dordorecht: Springer; 2012. p. 384–91.
Rachkeeree A, Kantadoung K, Suksathan R, Puangpradab R, Page PA, Sommano SR. Nutritional compositions and phytochemical properties of the edible flowers from selected Zingiberaceae found in Thailand. Front Nutr. 2018;5:1–10.
Lim TK. Etlingera elatior. Edible Med non-medicinal plants. Dordorecht: Springer; 2014. p. 834–43.
Hoe VB. The nutritional value of indigenous fruits and vegetables in Sarawak. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 1999;8:24–31.
Lim TK. Moringa oleifera. Edible Med non-medicinal plants. Dordorecht: Springer; 2012. p. 453–85.
Arkarapanthu A, Chavasit V, Sungpuag P, Phuphathanaphong L. Gel extracted from Khruea-ma-noi (Cyclea barbata Miers) leaves: Chemical composition and gelation properties. J Sci Food Agric. 2005;85:1741–9.
Konsam SC, Devi KT, Salam JS, Singh PK. Biochemical constituents and nutritive evaluation of some less known wild edible plants from Senapati district, Manipur, India. Not Sci Biol. 2016;8:370–2.
Rodrigues TLM, Silva MEP, Gurgel ESC, Oliveira MS, Lucas FCA. Eryngium foetidum L. (Apiaceae): A literature review of traditional uses, chemical composition, and pharmacological activities. Evidence-based Complement Altern Med. 2022;2022:e2896895.
Narzary H, Swargiary A, Basumatary S. Proximate and vitamin C analysis of wild edible plants consumed by Bodos of Assam, India. J Mol Pathophysiol. 2015;4:128–33.
Nayak J, Chand Basak U. Analysis of some nutritional properties in eight wild edible fruits of Odisha, India. Int J Curr Sci. 2015;14:55–62.
Zannah F, Kamaliah, Pramudiyanti, Ayatusaadah, Hidayati N. Exploration of the Potential of Local Plants of Melastoma malabatchricum Fruit for Food Fortification. J Trop Life Sci. 2022;12:333–8.
Yan SW, Ramasamy R, Banu N, Alitheen M, Yan SW, Ramasamy R, et al. A comparative assessment of nutritional composition, total phenolic, total flavonoid, antioxidant capacity, and antioxidant vitamins of two types of Malaysian underutilized fruits (Averrhoa bilimbi and Averrhoa carambola). Int J Food Prop. 2013;16:1231–44.
Kumar KA, Gousia S, Anupama M, Latha JNL. A review on phytochemical constituents and biological assays of Averrhoa bilimbi. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci Res. 2013;3:136–9.
Ferreira JN, Pinheiro-Sant’Ana HM, Lucia CM Della, Teixeira RDBL, Cardoso L de M. Chemical composition, vitamins, and minerals of family farming biribiri (Averrhoa bilimbi L .) in the Middle Doce River region, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Food Technol. 2022;52:1–9.
MFCD. Mangifera foetida. 2021; https://myfcd.moh.gov.my/. Accessed. 2021 May 19.
Iwansyah AC, Surahman DN, Hidayat DD, Luthfiyanti R, Indriati A, Ardiansyah CE. Comparative evaluation of proximate composition and vitamin C of Physalis angulata Linn and Physalis peruviana Linn in West Java, Indonesia. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2020;462:e012012.
Azeez SO, Faluyi JO. Proximate analysis, Vitamin C, anti-nutrients and mineral composition of four Nigerian species of Physalis and Solanum nigrum. Acta Hortic. 2019;1238:81–91.
Aliero AA, Usman H. Leaves of ground cherry (Physalis angulata L.) may be suitable in alleviating micronutrient deficiency. Food Sci Technol. 2016;4:89–94.
Lim TK. Physalis angulata. Edible Med non-medicinal plants. Dordorecht: Springer; 2013. p. 283–99.
Muliasari H, Ananto AD, Ihsan M. Analisis kandungan nutrisi buah rengga (Amomum dealbatum Roxb). Agrotek. 2019;6:71–6.
Lim TK. Ficus carica. Edible Med non-medicinal plants. Dordrecht: Springer; 2012. p. 362–76.
Arfa NAM, Ghannam HA-E. Utilization of rhizome (Alpinia galanga L.) in improvement of some quality attributes of some processed meat. Food Nutr Sci. 2022;13:761–79.
Gupta UC, Gupta SC. Sources and deficiency diseases of mineral nutrients in human health and nutrition: A review. Pedosphere. 2014;24:13–38.
Sun H, Mu T, Xi L, Zhang M, Chen J. Sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.) leaves as nutritional and functional foods. Food Chem. 2014;156:380–9.
Singh S, Singh DR, Salim KM, Srivastava A, Singh LB. Estimation of proximate composition, micronutrients and phytochemical compounds in traditional vegetables from Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Int J ofFood Sci Nutr. 2011;62:765–73.
Turi CE, Liu Y, Ragone D, Murch SJ. Breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis and hybrids): A traditional crop with the potential to prevent hunger and mitigate diabetes in Oceania. Trends Food Sci. Technol. Elsevier Ltd; 2015. p. 264–72.
Lim TK. Canna indica. Edible Med non-medicinal plants. Dordorecht: Springer; 2016. p. 69–81.
Ogle BM, Grivetti LE. Legacy of the chameleon: Edible wild plants in the kingdom of Swaziland, Southern Africa. A cultural, ecological, nutritional study. Part IV-nutritional analysis and conclusions. Ecol Food Nutr. 1985;17:41–64.
Oduntan AO, Fasoyiro SB, Akinfasoye JA, Adeboyejo FO, Akintoye HA. Antioxidant and proximate properties of underutilized vegetables in western Nigeria. Acta Hortic. 2018;1225:255–60.
Petrus AJA. Sauropus androgynus (L.) Merrill-A potentially nutritive functional leafy-vegetable. Asian J Chem. 2013;25:9425–33.
Zhang B, Cheng J, Zhang C, Bai Y, Liu W, Li W, et al. Sauropus androgynus L. Merr.-A phytochemical, pharmacological and toxicological review. J Ethnopharmacol. 2020;257:e112778.
Rahmawati D, Hashidoko Y, Djajakirana G, Haraguchi A, Watanabe T, Kuramochi K, et al. Concentration of some trace elements in two wild edible ferns, Diplazium esculentum and Stenochlaena palutris, inhabiting tropical peatlands under different environments in central Kalimantan. Eurasian J For Res. 2017;20:11–20.
Nyadanu D, Lowor ST. Promoting competitiveness of neglected and underutilized crop species: comparative analysis of nutritional composition of indigenous and exotic leafy and fruit vegetables in Ghana. Genet Resour Crop Evol. 2015;62:131–40.
Nadeeshani H, Samarasinghe G, Wimalasiri S, Silva R, Hunter D, Madhujith T. Comparative analysis of the nutritional profiles of selected Solanum species grown in Sri Lanka. J Food Compos Anal. 2021;99:e103847.
Lim TK. Solanum torvum. Edible Med non-medicinal plants. Dordorecht: Springer; 2013. p. 429–40.
Quintaes KD, Diez-Garcia RW. The importance of minerals in the human diet. In: Guardia M de la, Garrigues S, editors. Handb Miner Elem Food. Oxford; 2015. p. 1–21.
Ajayi OA, Olumide MD, Tayo GO, Akintunde AO. Evaluation of chemical and elemental constituents of Centella asiatica leaf meal. African J Agric Res. 2020;16:661–6.
Kongkachuichai R, Charoensiri R, Yakoh K, Kringkasemsee A. Nutrients value and antioxidant content of indigenous vegetables from Southern Thailand. Food Chem. 2015;173:838–46.
Lim TK. Flacourtia rukam. Edible Med non-medicinal plants. Dordorecht: Springer; 2013. p. 776–9.
Vazhacharickal PJ, Mathew JJ, Sajeshkumar NK, Sebastin M. A study on the vitamin C contents of various neglected and underutilized fruits from western Ghat region in Kerala. Int J Food, Agric Vet Sci. 2015;5:94–105.
Ho L, Bhat R. Exploring the potential nutraceutical values of durian (Durio zibethinus L .) – An exotic tropical fruit. Food Chem. 2015;168:80–9.
Aziz NAA, Jalil AMM. Bioactive compounds, nutritional value, and potential health benefits of indigenous durian (Durio zibethinus Murr.): A review. Foods. 2019;8:e96.
Brown MJ. Durio - A Bibliographic Review. New Delhi: IPGRI; 1997.
Isabelle M, Lee BL, Thiam M, Koh W, Huang D, Nam C. Antioxidant activity and profiles of common fruits in Singapore. Food Chem. 2010;123:77–84.
Babarinde GO, Abioye VF, Omobitan O, Raji K. Comparative study of proximate, chemical and physicochemical properties of less explored tropical leafy vegetables. J Northeast Agric Univ (English Ed. 2018;25:16–23.
Lim TK. Lagenaria siceraria. Edible Med non-medicinal plants. Dordorecht: Springer; 2012. p. 298–313.
Islary A, Sarmah J, Basumatary S. Nutritional value, phytochemicals and antioxidant properties of two wild edible fruits (Eugenia operculata Roxb. and Antidesma bunius L.) from Assam, North-East India. Med J Nutrition Metab. 2017;10:29–40.
Lim TK. Antidesma bunius. Edible Med non-medicinal plants. Dordorecht: Springer; 2012. p. 220–4.
Lim TK. Benincasa hispida cv- gr. Fuzzy Gourd. Edible Med non-medicinal plants. Dordorecht: Springer; 2012. p. 1–1088.
Aqilah N, Zaini M, Anwar F, Abdul A, Saari N. Kundur [Benincasa hispida (Thunb .) Cogn .]: A potential source for valuable nutrients and functional foods. Food Res Int. 2011;44:2368–76.
Sehwag S, Das M. Nutritive, therapeutic and processing aspects of Jamun, Syzygium cuminii (L.)Skeels-An overview. Indian J Nat Prod Resour. 2014;5:295–307.
Berry Ottaway P. Stability of vitamins during food processing and storage. In: Skibsted L.H., J. R, M.L. A, editors. Chem Deterior Phys Instab Food Beverages. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited; 2010. p. 539–60.
Listiana E, Rosmala Mustapa, Kohongia A, Parisa S, Nusi DP. The Effect of Processing on the Degradation of Vitamin C in Cassava Leaf Vegetables (in Indonesian). Pros Semin Nas Mini Ris Mhs. 2022. p. 31–5.
Yangdon P, Araki T, Rahayu YYS, Norbu K. Ethnobotanical study of wild edible fruits in eastern Bhutan. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2022;18:e27.
Delang CO. The role of wild food plants in poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation in tropical countries. Prog Dev Stud. 2006;6:275–86.
Chauhan SH, Yadav S, Takahashi T, Łuczaj Ł, D’Cruz L, Okada K. Consumption patterns of wild edibles by the Vasavas: A case study from Gujarat, India. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2018;14:1–20.
Bharucha Z, Pretty J. The roles and values of wild foods in agricultural systems. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2010;365:2913–26.
Łuczaj Ł. Changes in the utilization of wild green vegetables in Poland since the 19th century: A comparison of four ethnobotanical surveys. J Ethnopharmacol. 2010;128:395–404.
FAO. The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. Belanger J, Pilling D, editors. Rome: FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Assessments; 2019.
Grivetti LE, Ogle BM. Value of traditional foods in meeting macro- and micronutrient needs: the wild plant connection. Nutr Res Rev. 2000;13:31–46.
Sõukand R. Perceived reasons for changes in the use of wild food plants in Saaremaa, Estonia. Appetite. 2016;107:231–41.
Thakur D, Sharma A, Uniyal SK. Why they eat, what they eat: patterns of wild edible plants consumption in a tribal area of western Himalaya. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2017;13:1–12.
Aryal KP, Poudel S, Chaudhary RP, Chettri N, Chaudhary P, Ning W, et al. Diversity and use of wild and non-cultivated edible plants in the western Himalaya. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2018;14:1–18.
Schunko C, Grasser S, Vogl CR. Explaining the resurgent popularity of the wild: Motivations for wild plant gathering in the biosphere reserve Grosses Walsertal, Austria. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2015;11:e55.
Kuhnlein H V, Erasmus B, Spigelski D. Indigenous peoples’ food systems: the many dimensions of culture, diversity and environment for nutrition and health. Food Agric. Organ. United Nationstions. Rome; 2009.
Somnasang P, Moreno-Black G. Knowing, gathering and eating: knowledge and attribute about wild food in an Asian village in North-eastern Thailand. J Ethnobiol. 2000;20:197–216.
Reid CA, Green JD, Buchmaier S, McSween DK, Wildschut T, Sedikides C. Food-evoked nostalgia. Cogn Emot. 2023;37:34–48.
McBurney RPH, Griffin C, Paul AA, Greenberg DC. The nutritional composition of African wild food plants: From compilation to utilization. J Food Compos Anal. 2004;17:277–89.
Burlingame B. Wild nutrition. J Food Compos Anal. 2000;13:99–100.
Boedecker J, Termote C, Assogbadjo AE, Van Damme P, Lachat C. Dietary contribution of wild edible plants to women’s diets in the buffer zone around the Lama forest, Benin – an underutilized potential. Food Secur. 2014;6:833–49.
Ogle BM, Hung PH, Tuyet HT. Significance of wild vegetables in micronutrient intakes of women in Vietnam: An analysis of food variety. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2001;10:21–30.
Power EM. Conceptualizing food security for Aboriginal people in Canada. Can J Public Heal. 2008;95–7.
Vermeulen SJ, Park T, Khoury CK, Béné C. Changing diets and the transformation of the global food system. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2020;1478:3–17.
IPES-Food. From Uniformity to Diversity: A Paradigm Shift from Industrial Agriculture to Diversified Agroecological Systems. Brussels: International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems; 2016.
PROSEA. Plant Resources of South-East Asia.https://prosea.prota4u.org/. Accessed 17 May 2023.
Badan Ketahanan Pangan. Road Map Diversifikasi Pangan Lokal Sumber Karbohidrat Non Beras (2020-2024). Jakarta: Kementan RI; 2020.
Bapanas. Peraturan Badan Pangan Nasional RI No. 11/2023. Bapanas 2022.
Firmasyah F. Isi piringku. https://kesmas.kemkes.go.id/konten/133/0/062511-isi-piringku. Accessed. 2023 Sep 4.
FairWild Foundation. FairWild guidance manual for establishing species and area management plans for low risk plant species. FairWild Resour. Assess. Weinfelden: FairWild Foundation; 2014.
Purnomo D, Sitepu GL, Nugraha YR, Permana Rosiyan MB. Social metabolism in Buruan SAE: individual rift perspective on urban farming model for food independence in Bandung, Indonesia. Sustainability. 2023;15:e10273.
Dwiartama A, Tresnadi C, Furqon A, Pratama MF. From initiative to movement: The growth and evolution of local food networks in Bandung, Indonesia. Asian J Soc Sci Stud. 2017;2:91.
Antaranews. Indonesia outlines its efforts to support food system transformation. https://voinews.id/. Accessed. 2023 Aug 10.
Murakami K, Livingstone MBE, Sasaki S. Thirteen-year trends in dietary patterns among Japanese adults in the national health and nutrition survey 2003-2015: Continuous westernization of the Japanese diet. Nutrients. 2018;10:e8.
Nugraha T, Mulkiya K, Kodir RA. Antioxidant activity test on different fraction and determination of flavonoid level from Jalantir leaves (Erigeron sumatrensis Retz.) from West Java Indonesia (In Indonesian). Pros Farm. 2016. p. 755–62.
Vieira EF, Pinho O, Ferreira I, Delerue-Matos C. Chayote (Sechium edule): A review of nutritional composition, bioactivities and potential applications. Food Chem. 2019;275:557–68.
Leterme P, Buldgen A, Estrada F, Londoño AM. Mineral content of tropical fruits and unconventional foods of the Andes and the rain forest of Colombia. Food Chem. 2006;95:644–52.
Joy Turnos LN. Blue Ternate (Clitoria Ternatea L.): Nutritive Analysis of Flowers and Seeds. Asian J Fundam Appl Sci. 2021;2:103–12.
Muhammad Ezzudin R, Rabeta MS. A potential of telang tree (Clitoria ternatea) in human health. Food Res. 2018;2:415–20.
Lim TK. Muntingia calabura. Edible Med non-medicinal plants. Dordorecht: Springer; 2012. p. 486–92.
Mastuki SN, Ismail SMMFN, Saad N. Muntingia calabura: Chemical composition, bioactive component and traditional uses. In: Mariod AA, editor. Wild fruits Compos Nutr value Prod. Ghibaish: Springer; 2019.
Pereira GA, Ferreira Tomé PH, Arruda HS, Fragiorge EJ, Ribeiro PR. Caracterização físico-química e atividade antioxidante do fruto calabura (Muntingia calabura L.). Brazilian J Food Res. 2016;7:67–79.
Lim TK. Phyllanthus acidus. Edible Med non-medicinal plants. Dordrecht: Springer; 2012. p. 252–7.
Brooks R, Goldson-barnaby A, Bailey D. Nutritional and medicinal properties of phyllanthus. Int J Fruit Sci. 2020;20:1706–10.
Hassan AB, Osman GAM, Rushdi MAH, Eltayeb MM, Diab EE. Effect of gamma irradiation on the nutritional quality of maize cultivars (Zea mays) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) grains amro. Pakistan J Nutr. 2009;8:167–71.
Mohammed ZS, Mabudi AH, Murtala Y, Jibrin S, Sulaiman S, Salihu J. Nutritional analysis of three commonly consumed varieties of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) in Bauchi State, Nigeria. J Appl Sci Environ Manag. 2019;23:1329–34.
Jansen PCM, Westphal E, Siemonsma JS, Piluek K. Plant Resources of South-East Asia No 8.Vegetables. Wageningen: Pudoc; 1993. p. 412.
Lim TK. Solanum nigrum. Edible Med non-medicinal plants. Dordorecht: Springer; 2013. p. 395–417.
Jithendran L, Kalpana C. Nutritional potential of Solanum nigrum linn berries grown in home garden. Int J Food Nutr Sci. 2021;10:16.
Seal T, Chaudhuri K, Jagadish A, Bose C, Botanic I, Bengal W. Nutritional analysis of some selected wild edible plants consumed by the tribal people of Meghalaya state in India. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2016;1:39–43.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Exploring wild, underutilized, and neglected edible plants in West Java, Indonesia: Ethnobotanical assessment, use trends, and potential for improved nutrition

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Materials and Methods

3. Results

4. Discussion

5. Conclusion and Recommendation

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1