Unlocking the Prospective of Neglected and Underutilized Wild Plants for Human Food, Nutrition and Ethno-Medicine

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3996737/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Unlocking the Prospective of Neglected and Underutilized Wild Plants for Human Food, Nutrition and Ethno-Medicine

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3996737/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Wild edible plant species (WEPs) are vital sources of additional food and ethnomedicine in many regions of the world. Despite the fact that they can offer a range of provisioning services, they are neglected, underutilized, and poorly researched. This study therefore investigated WEPs and their provisioning ecosystem services as supplementary food, nutrition, and traditional medicine. Questionnaire household surveys, key informant interviews, and a series of field observations were used for data collection. Additionally, preference ranking was used to rank the WEPs based on the preference of the local communities for their provision of services. A direct matrix ranking was carried out to measure their provisional service diversity. There were 20 WEPs species, which were most widely used as food, nutrition, and ethnomedicine supplements. The major edible plant parts were fruits (75%), which were mostly collected by children (65%). The majority of the communities (93.95%) used them as seasonal and supplemental food, particularly in periods of food shortages such as spring, the dry season. They were particularly essential supplementary sources of food, nutrition, and ethno-medicine for food-insecure and economically marginal families. It is therefore necessary to develop national policies that support and encourage WEPs as dietary, nutritional, and ethno-medical supplements.

Ethno-medicine

provision ecosystem service

wild edible plant

supplementary food and ethno-medicine

Wild plants are those that grow naturally in self-maintaining populations in natural or semi-natural environments and can exist without direct human intervention (Gębczyński et al., 2022, Shaheen et al., 2017). Wild plant species (WEPs) are used as source of medicine, food, firewood, clothing, and household utensils. They play a central role in the livelihood of large proportion of the world’s population (Aryal et al., 2018, Sen & Samanta, 2015).

It is estimated that there are 390,900 plant species on the earth. However, humans only use about 31,000 plant species for various needs, including medicine, food, fodder, and building materials (Dasgupta, 2016). This indicates that only 7.9% of land plant species are used by humans. The rest are underutilized plants that could help people survive famines or guarantee food security (Peduruhewa et al., 2021). They might have more nutrient compositions that are suitable for healthy growth and improvements in health (Chatzopoulou et al., 2020). Ethiopia has abundant unexplored wildlife and plants. There are approximately 7,000 higher plant species, of which 8% are edible. Among them, approximately 203 species of wild and semi-wild plants have been identified (Amsalu & Asfaw, 2020).

In many developing nations, millions of people lack access to enough food for their daily needs. In addition, humans lack one or more micronutrients (Pawlak & Kołodziejczak, 2020, Beltran-Peña et al., 2020). Consequently, when there is a food shortage, rural communities typically rely on wild resources, such as WEPs, to meet their needs (Kidane & Kejela, 2021, Mishra et al., 2021). Ethno-botanists, physicians, chemists, dietitians, and anthropologists are all interested in the nutritional benefits of WEPs (Hari, 2020, Kumar et al., 2021).

WEPs and animals have a significant place in human history due to our long history of adapting to natural settings and interacting with them and society. Since the earliest hunter-gatherer periods, plants have been an important part of human societies and have undergone various stages of adaptation. Worldwide, a large population depends on a range of WEPs, mostly for food and medicine (Peduruhewa et al., 2021, Kaur & Roy, 2021). WEPs are harvested for human consumption from natural habitats outside of agricultural areas, mostly forests (Mishra et al., 2021, Borelli et al., 2020). Around the world, edible wild foods are a vital source of nutrition for rural communities. They can be cooked into vegetables or consumed raw (Peduruhewa et al., 2021).

WEPs comprise well-known food categories such as: Meaty fruits (drupes, pomes, berries); edible greens (stems, leaves, shoots); fleshy vegetables (tuber and root vegetables like bulbs, corms, tubers, and rhizomes); and grains, seeds, and nuts. The cambium and inner bark of trees, plant-based drinks, flavoring plants, and wild mushrooms are some other edible products. In addition to being plentiful and common, many of these wild foods are also very nutrient-dense, tasty, and simple to gather (Kolosova et al., 2020, Ray et al., 2020, Borghini et al., 2020).

WEPs have long been a common and indispensable source of food for families experiencing food insecurity and living in poverty in developing nations (Sulaiman et al., 2023, Singh et al., 2022). They serve as an emergency supply of food during famines, supplement staple foods, and make up for seasonal food shortages in some rural areas where they are crucial for household food security and nutrition (Duguma, 2020, Thattantavide et al., 2023). They are also crucial for many urban and rural communities, particularly the underprivileged and marginalized ones. WEPs are essential to the global food basket's support everywhere in the world (Mishra et al., 2021). Approximately one billion people worldwide consume wild foods on a daily basis, primarily derived from plants. Rich in nutrients, WEPs are particularly useful as a supplement for vitamins and micronutrients (Singh et al., 2022). Because of their higher nutritional value, they can also be used to supplement dietary requirements (Peduruhewa et al., 2021). In addition to nutritional value, the sale or exchange of their fruits, leaves, juice, and local drinks help to generate income and secure employment (Mishra et al., 2021). Although WEPs are used as food supplements or as a means of survival during times of drought and famine, most rural communities have overlooked their significance (Duguma et al., 2020, Hossain et al., 2021, Ding et al., 2021).

In recent years, WEPs have become a popular research topic for ethno-botanists, and there has been a renewed interest worldwide in recording their ethno-botanical data (Ong et al., 2016, Geng et al., 2016, Casas et al., 2023). This is because the loss of plant biodiversity and the acculturation of indigenous knowledge have undermined traditional knowledge about WEPs. As a result, detailed research is indispensable for both improving their ecosystem services and ensuring their sustainable management in Ethiopia. Particularly, recording and documenting the WEPs, ecosystem services, threats and status of biodiversity in Ethiopia have become imperative through studying unexplored areas of the country. Few studies on ethno-botanical of WEPs have been conducted in different regions of Ethiopia (Kidane & Kejela, 2021, Duguma, 2020, Addis et al., 2023, Abdella et al., 2023, Guzo et al., 2023); however, no ethno-botanical studies on the same have been conducted in the present study areas. Therefore, this study examined the genetic biodiversity, ecosystem services, threats and management of WEPs in South – Central Ethiopia.

Agriculture is the mainstay of the livelihood in Ethiopia, which is currently facing multiple challenges including drought, rainfall variability and land degradation (Abebe, 2021, Mengistu & Assefa, 2020). To abate food insecurity, rural communities depend on WEPs found in their local environment (Kidane & Kejela, 2021, Duguma, 2020). Ethiopia is home to numerous ethnic communities, each with its own unique uses for plant parts and WEPs (Duguma, 2020). Hence, understanding the indigenous knowledge, status of biodiversity, ecosystem services, and management strategies are important.

Traditional knowledge of WEPs has been eroding and lost due to modernization, industrialization, urbanization, and conversion of forest ecosystems and rangelands to other land use forms. Furthermore, for a long time, the importance of WEPs to livelihoods has been overlooked and undervalued. Even though traditional communities have highly developed indigenous knowledge, practices, and skills related to WEPs, there has not been enough research or documentation done on them. Apart from that, the contribution of WEPs to the livelihoods of marginal and rural communities in ensuring food security, income generation, increasing agricultural diversification, and poverty reduction are unacknowledged in national statistical reporting and policy-making.

Most importantly, there are trends of increasing acculturation, diminishing biodiversity, displacement of communities, mobility, introduction and use of new crop varieties, and shifts in dietary habits of rural communities, which all affect the ecosystem services and sustainable management of WEPs biodiversity and the associated knowledge. It is, therefore, important to study the biodiversity, ecosystem services, threats, and associated traditional knowledge of WEPs. These would ultimately contribute to their consideration in national food systems and policies as climate resilient system with immense potential of abridging critical food crises for local communities and serving as supplementary food and nutritional source and ethno-medicine for the poor and marginalized families.

Description of the study area

The study site is located in south-central Ethiopia, situating at 260 km south of Addis Ababa. It geographically at 70 37’53”-70 42’43’’N latitude and 37037’07’’-370 44’25’’ E longitudes (Fig. 1).

The study sites experiences different agro-climatic characteristics, with the mean annual rainfall ranging between 600 and 1200 mm. The mean annual temperature ranges between 17.6°C and 25°C. The land use system is made up of 69.8% arable land, 14.5% forest land, 8.4% grazing land, and 7.3% other land. The principal annual crops that are cultivated in rain-fed systems are barley (Hordium vulgare L.), wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), maze (Zea mays L.), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) and Teff (Eragrostis teff).

Study design

Primary data were gathered through a cross-sectional study design employing semi-structured questionnaires, focus groups, and field observations.

Reconnaissance survey

Prior to the actual data collection, a reconnaissance survey was carried out to gather general information about the study area and to find out knowledge and practice regarding WEPs. During the survey, preliminary data was obtained from governmental agricultural development agents, community leaders, and religious leaders. Discussion was held with these informed individuals about the past and present practices regarding the use, availability, accessibility, and vegetation coverage of WEPs. Guided field walks were conducted to observe the geographical feature of the study site. The reconnaissance survey and the extensive usage of WEPs were taken into consideration when choosing the study locations (Fig. 2).

Site selection, sample size and sampling techniques

In conformity, using a purposive sampling technique, three sites (Olewamo, Masmas, and Astei) were chosen in total based on the possibility of having more wild vegetation coverage (Table 1). The method outlined by Krejcie and Morgan (1970) was used to select the sample households. In the sample households, only individuals who were over 18 years old were taken into account. The reason this age group was chosen was that these individuals could be held legally accountable for their actions. A systematic random sampling procedure was used to select the necessary sample units after the relevant agriculture registrar provided an unordered list of all the households residing in the study sites.

Yamane (1967) was used to determine the household survey sample size:

n = N/1 + N (e) ²

Where; n -is sample size

N - is population size

e - the acceptable sampling error

Table 1

Total household head and sample size in the study area
Site	Total household head size	Sample household head size
Olawamo	427	80
Masmus	353	77
Astei	314	75
Total	1094	232

Purposive sampling technique was used to select key informants based on their familiarity with the plants, as well as their understanding of ecosystem services and management methods. The key informants were designated by the knowledgeable and elderly persons among the local communities. Hence, 15 key informants were chosen, five per site (Fig. 2).

Methods of ethno-botanical data collection

Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected using the techniques described by Martin (1995), Cotton (1996), and Alexiades (1996). Thus, guided field walks, semi-structured interviews with household heads, direct matrix ranking, and key informant interviews were used to gather data. The researcher conducted in-person interviews with each sample household head employing semi-structured questionnaires. The interviews were held in areas of each household head’s choice, this being their homes and some times in the field. General details such as the name of the household head, age, gender, level of education, and occupation were noted, among others. In accordance with the techniques employed by Alexiades (1996) and Cotton (1996), the sample household head was asked to list the WEPs they gather, the primary gatherers, the parts consumed, the preparation method, the primary consumers and consumption pattern, the degree of management, other uses of WEPs, existing threats, and traditional conservation practices (if any). An independent guided field walk that combined field observations, unstructured discussions, and key informant interviews with an emphasis on the availability, ecosystem services and management, and threats, took place after the household head interviews (Fig. 2).

A direct matrix ranking exercise, as outlined in Cotton (1996), was used to assess data on the diversity of multi-purposivness of the WEPs. Due to their extensive years of experience, participants in this exercise were chosen purposively. To determine the perceived threatening factors of WEPs, the same key informants who took part in the preference ranking exercises were employed in the way suggested by Martin (1995).

Identification of plants

The plants were identified by botanists in Hawassa University using proper procedures such as by comparison with existing specimens, identification by using identification keys and by recognition. Moreover, the vernacular names of plants were given by the elderly and knowledgeable persons among the local communities.

The specimens were collected following the national guidelines set for that purposes and the voucher specimens were deposited in Hawassa University (voucher ID number, 12/22).

Data Analysis

The ethno-botanical information of the identified WEPs, as well as the associated ecosystem services and threats, were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The parts utilized, growth form spectrum, and mode of consumption of the surveyed plant species were analyzed to determine the ethno-botanical significance of the WEPs in the research area.

Using the techniques suggested by Cotton (1996) and Martin (1995), a direct matrix ranking exercise was conducted to compare the ecosystem service provided by WEPs with their threats. With the help of 15 key informants, the multipurpose ecosystem services provided by the WEPs were identified (five in each kebele). These key informants were asked to provide the following use values for each species (5 = best, 4 = very good, 3 = good, 2 = less used, 1 = least used and 0 = not used). All of the WEPs' average scores were combined and ranked. Additionally, the 15 key informants participated in a priority ranking exercise focusing on perceived threatening factors of the WEPs as most = 5, more = 4, medium = 3, less = 2, least = 1; no threat = 0 (Fig. 2).

Ethno-botanical characteristics

Twenty WEP species were identified and recorded. The most commonly used WEPs were Syzygium afromontanum, Flacourtia indica, Syzygium sycomorus, Syzygium guineese, Carissa spinarium, Casimiroa edulis, and Sterculia africana (Table 2).

Table 2

Ethno-botanical characteristics of WEPs
No	Family name	Scientific name	Local name	Growth form	Habitat of the plant	Edible part(s)	Consumption &Preparation mode	Season of collection	Use of the plant
1	Sapindaceae	Syzygium guineese	Dubana	Tree	Forest, Pasture land	Fruit	Chewing	spring	Food and charcoal
2	Sapindaceae	Syzygium afromntanum	Goto	Tree	Forest, Pasture land	Fruit	Chewing	Spring	Food and charcoal
3	Apocynaceae	Carissa spinarium	Atura	Shrubs	Forest, agricultural field	Fruit	Chewing	Spring	Food and charcoal
4	Myrsinaceae	Doryalis abyssinica	Koshamo	Shrub	Forest, agricultural field	Fruit	Juice	All the time	Food and fire wood
5	Flacourtiaceae	Toddalia asiatica	Sego	Liana	Forest	Fruit	Chewing	Spring	Food and medicinal use
6	Moraceae	Ficus sycamorus	Odea	Tree	Forest, pasture land, crop field	Fruit	Chewing	Winter	Food,fire wood and medicinal use
7	Sterculiaceae	Sterculia africana	Lega	Tree	Forest, pasture land and wetland	Fruit	Juice	Spring	Food and construction
8	Fabaceae	Teclea nobilis	Ta’a	Shrubs	Forest	Fruit and leaf	Juice	Spring	Food and medicinal
9	Rosaceae	Rubus apetalus	Gora	Shrubs	Forest, pasture land	Fruit	Chewing	Spring	Food only
10	Myrsinaceae	Flacourtia indica	Hagela	Tree	Forest	Fruit	Chewing	Summer	Food and charcoal
11	-	-	Bucho’o	Shrubs	Pasture land	Root	Chewing	All the time	Food and fire wood
12	-	-	Labo’o	Shrubs	Pasture land	Root	Chewing	All the time	Food and fire wood
13	Sapotaceae	Rubus apetalus	konjororo	Shrubs	Agricultural field and wet lands	Fruit	Juice	Summer	Food and fire wood
14	-	-	Loke	Tree	Forest and pasture land	Fruit	Juice	Summer	Food and fire wood
15	-	-	Homba	Liana	Forest	Fruit	Chewing	Spring	Food & construction
16	Flacourtiaceae	Rytigynia negelecta	Gerawa	Shrubs	Forest, crop field	Fruit	juice	Spring	Food only
17	-	-	Washintrusa	Liana	Forest, Crop field and pasture land	Fruit	Juice	Summer	Food and medicinal
18	-	-	Unkuruba	Liana	Forest and crop field	Root	Chewing	All the time	Food only
19	Asclepiadaceae	Macaranga kilimandscharia	Bera	Tree	Forest	Leaf	Juice	All the time	Food and fire wood
20	Icacinaceae	Casimiroa edulis	Te’no	Tree	Forest	Fruit	Chewing	Summer	Food only

Growth form

Shrub and tree species constituted the most common growth forms (40% each) and the remaining was liana (20%) (Fig. 2).

Principal gatherers and consumers of WEPs

The youth (48%) were the primary WEP gatherers, followed by women (22%) and men (11%). The majority (42%) claimed that all members of the household consumed WEPs, followed by youth (35%), women (15%), and men (8%) (Table 3).

Table 3

The principal gatherers and consumers of WEPs
Variable	Main gatherers (%)	Main consumers (%)
Women	22	15
Men	11	8
Youth	48	35
Any household member	19	42

Edible parts

Fruits (75%) and roots (15%) were the most commonly consumed edible parts of WEPs by the local communities, while leaves (5%), fruit, and leaves (5%) were the least popular (Fig. 3).

Habitats

Natural forests were the major habitats for WEPs, followed by agricultural fields, and pasture-lands across sites. Other habitats were roadsides, river-banks, mountain slopes and wetlands (Fig. 4).

Seasons of collection and consumption mode of plant parts

The spring season (45%) was the most favorable time to collect and consume WEPs, followed by the summer (25%) and the entire year (25%) and the winter (5%). Moreover, chewing (60%) and juicing (40%) were the most popular modes of consumption of WEPs (Table 4).

Table 4

Season of collection and consumption modes of WEPs
Variable		%
Season	Spring	45
	Summer	25
	Winter	5
	All year-round	25
Consumption mode	Chewing	60
Consumption mode	Juicing	40

Serving conditions

The majority of local communities (91%) utilized WEPs as a seasonal food source. A few households used WEPs as emergency and famine relieving food, snacks and ordinary food (Fig. 5).

Ecosystem services

The Data Matrix Ranking (DMR) for seven ecosystem services of 20 WEPs, both specific and multipurpose, is shown in Table 5. The ranking rated wild food first and fuelwood second, and beehive hanging the least. In terms of multipurpose analysis, Ficus sycamorus ranked first, followed by Sterculia africana and Syzygium guineese.

Table 5

The average DMR score of 15 key informants for 20 WEPs with use values was 5 (best), 4 (very good), 3 (good), 2 (less used), 1 (least used), and 0 (no value)
No	WEPs	Broad use category
No	WEPs	Wild food	Fire wood	Construction	Medicine	Charcoal production	House fence	Beehive hanging	Total	Rank
1	Syzygium guineese	5	3	2	0	5	3	2	20	3
2	Syzygium afromontanum	4	4	2	0	4	2	1	17	6
3	Carissa spinarium	5	5	2	0	4	2	1	19	4
4	Dovyalis abyssinica	3	2	2	0	0	1	0	8	13
5	Toddalia asiatica	5	2	1	5	0	0	0	13	10
6	Ficus sycamorus	4	5	2	4	3	2	4	24	1
7	Sterculia africana	5	4	5	0	5	3	1	23	2
8	Teclea nobilis	5	1	2	5	0	1	0	14	9
9	Rubus apetalus	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	15
10	Flacourtia indica	5	5	3	0	3	0	0	16	7
11	Bucho’o (Local name)	5	0	0	0	0	0	0	5	15
12	Labo’o (local name)	5	0	0	0	0	0	0	5	15
13	Rubus apetalus	5	4	1	5	0	0	0	15	8
14	Loke (Local name)	4	3	2	0	0	0	0	9	12
15	Homba (local name)	5	2	5	0	0	0	0	12	11
16	Rytigynia negelecta	5	2	0	0	0	0	0	7	14
17	Unkuruba(local name)	5	4	0	0	0	0	0	9	12
18	Washintrusa (local name)	5	0	0	0	0	0	0	5	15
19	Macaranga kilimandscharia	4	4	3	0	0	1	0	12	11
20	Casimiroa edulis	4	5	3	0	0	4	2	18	5
Total		91	55	35	19	24	19	11
Rank		1	2	3	5	4	5	6
Ethno-medicine, mode of preparation and plant parts

Numerous ailments, including, heart disease, loss of appetite, diarrhoea, ameobiasis, and skin itching were found to be treated by the WEPs. Direct fruit consumption, juice consumption, chewing, and dropping of sap onto the affected area were the methods of preparation and application. Plant parts such as fruit, root, and leaf were most frequently utilized in ethno-medicine (Table 6).

Table 6

Ailment treated, plant parts used and mode of preparation of WEPs
No	Family name	Plant species	Local name	Part used	Disease treated	Mode of preparation
1	Flacourtiaceae	Toddalia asiatica	Sego	Fruit	Ameobiasis and heart disease	Eating fruits
2	Fabaceae	Teclea nobilis	Ta’a	Leaf	Diarrhoea and appetite loss	Juice or chewing
3	Sapotaceae	Rubus apetalus	Konjororo	Root	Any sudden disease	Chewing root
4	Moraceae	Ficus sycamores	Odea	Fruit	Skin itching	Dropping of the sap on the infected(wound) part
Chief threats to WEPs biodiversity conservation

Fuel wood collection (37%), agricultural expansion (31%), grazing (20%), and selective harvesting (12%) were the most frequently reported threats to the WEPs (Fig. 6).

Preference ranking of factors threatening WEPs

Threat factors to WEPs were ranked according to local perceptions by key informants. The most threatening factor received the highest number (5), while the least threatening factor received the lowest number (0). Accordingly, the most frequently reported threats were the gathering of fuelwood, followed by agricultural expansion, grazing, selective harvesting, drought, and wildfire (Table 7). Wildfires and droughts posed comparatively less of a threat to WEPs.

Table 7

Preference ranking of threats to WEPs biodiversity conservation
Factors	Key informants															Total	Rank
Factors	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N	O
Fuel wood collection	5	5	4	5	5	5	4	5	5	4	4	5	5	5	5	71	1
Drought	1	1	1	2	1	0	2	1	1	0	1	1	2	1	2	17	5
Selective harvesting	4	3	1	2	1	3	1	2	2	2	2	1	2	1	2	29	4
Grazing	4	4	3	4	3	3	4	4	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	50	3
Agricultural expansion	5	4	5	3	2	4	5	5	5	4	3	2	4	4	4	59	2
Wildfire	1	1	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	8	6
Threat (Most = 5, More = 4, Medium = 3, Less = 2, Least = 1; No threat = 0)

The study area is rich WEPs, containing about 20 species. The local communities engage with the natural forest and rely on its WEPs to fulfil a portion of their dietary needs. Accordingly, Ficus sycamorus, Syzygium guineense, Carissa spinarum, Casimiroa edulis, Flacourtia indica, and Syzygium afromontanum are the most commonly used WEPs. Previous studies reported a comparable number of WEPs for dietary requirements (Addis et al., 2013, Hailemariam et al., 2021, Kidane and Kejela, 2021) in different parts of Ethiopia. Variations in agro-ecological conditions, local food preferences, food security situations, customs and local traditions of these plants could all be contributing factors to these differences.

Women and the youth are the main WEP collectors, which is in agreement with findings from previous study in Ethiopia that women and children are the main gatherers of WEPs (Abdella et al., 2023 and Guzo et al., 2023). Therefore, it is important to recognize the roles that women and children play in helping to gather WEPs and in managing the WEP issue in Ethiopia (Cherenkow, 2014). This study also shows that local communities as a whole consume more WEPs than just men, women, or children do. This tradition would further demonstrate how crucial these edible plants are to household diets. The communities are primarily practicing a cereal-based food habit, so the use of wild food could have a significant impact on dietary diversification and mitigating the food crisis. It would also be beneficial to their health. Studies conducted in in India (Mishra et al., 2021), in Pakistan (Abidullah et al., 2023), in China (Ding et al., 2021), in Thailand (Punchay et al., 2020) and in Ethiopia (Abdella et al., 2023, Guzo et al., 2023) highlighted how women and children predominate in the WEP collection in the corresponding local communities.

The parts of WEPs that are consumed the least are the leaves, while the fruits and roots are the most commonly used parts. The ease of preparation and consumption pattern of fruits may be the reason why people prefer them to other plant parts. Because most fruits are tasty and nutritious, they are frequently eaten raw as snacks, for example, in between meals while gathering fuel wood or herding. This result concurs with the findings of Lim et al. (2016) that the plant parts that are most edible are the fruits and leaves in Gambella, western Ethiopia and Berihun & Molla, (2017) compared to leaves and tubers, fruits are the most edible parts of plants in north western Ethiopia, and Termote et al. (2011) greater preference for fruits and leaves among the DR Congo's indigenous populations. Perhaps fruits have the highest nutritional value of any edible part, which explains why they are preferred as the main source of wild food (Nayak and Basak, 2015). According to the findings of the nutritional analysis of the fruits of some WEPs, fruits have a significant amount of energy and nutrients that make them suitable as food supplements (Addis et al., 2013). WEPs parts are also easily harvested close by and serve as a component in local dish preparation.

Different habitats such as natural forests, pasturelands, wetlands, riverbanks, mountain slopes, agricultural fields, crop fields, and roadside areas are home to the WEPs. Most of them are found growing in agricultural fields and natural forest areas. Generally, most of them grow in the natural forests, agricultural fields and pasture lands. It follows that protecting these habitats also protects WEPs. According to earlier research, forests are the main source of WEPs, followed by disturbed bush lands, riverbanks, field margins, and roadsides (Regassa et al., 2015). Similar findings were also reported by Ashagre et al. (2016), who found that the majority of WEPs are collected from wild habitats like shrub-lands, bush-lands, and some grasslands. Mpasiwakomu et al. (2017) cited farm or cultivated land to be major habitats from where WEPs are commonly collected in Tanzania. These variations might have arisen from differences in agro-ecological condition, local traditions and land management practices.

Conversely, the identified WEPs show a variety of growth forms, including liana, shrubs, and trees. The two most common growth forms are trees and shrubs, followed by lianas. Previous studies reported comparable results (Ashagre et al., 2016) and (Alemneh, 2020) in Ethiopia that trees and herbs are respectively the dominant plant habit. The composition and diversity of WEPs may have been directly impacted by these growth form variations, which may have resulted from various agro-ecological variations throughout the study areas.

In addition to their use as food, the locals use the plants for building materials, medicine, firewood, hanging beehives, making house fences and making charcoal. The most important WEPs according to the direct matrix ranking are Syzygium afromntanum, Ficus sycamorus, Carissa spinarium, Sterculia africana, Syzygium guineese and Casimiroa edulis. The WEPs provide dietary nutrient and a medicine for the rural community. Approximately 20% of the collected WEPs have potential uses in food and medicine. For instance, Ficus sycamorus, Rubus apetalus, Toddalia asiatica, and Teclea nobilis are used as medicinal and wild food plants. The WEPs are used to treat range of human ailments, including heart disease, ameobiasis, diarrhea, emergency disease, skin itching and appetite loss. Comparable results were reported by Sujarwo et al. (2016) in Indonesia, Pandita & Dutt, 2018) in India and Duguma (2020) and Guzo et al. (2023) in Ethiopia that some WEPs served both food and medicine.

Among the major factors aggravating the reduction of the WEPs in the area were overharvesting of multipurpose WEPs species for wild food, fire-wood, construction, medicine, bee-hive making, dry house fencing and charcoal production purposes. As a result, the outcome demands immediate conservation action to protect the rapidly disappearing multipurpose WEPs plant species in the region. Similar result is reported by Oluoch et al. (2023) in Kenya, and Kidane and Kejela (2021) and Guzo et al. (2023) in Ethiopia that there over-exploitation of WEPs for uses other than their food values are among the threatening factors. Moreover, fuel-wood collection, over grazing, agricultural expansion, and selective harvesting are the major factors threatening WEPs, their ecosystem services and the associated knowledge in the study areas. This result is consistent with previous studies: Guzo et al. (2023) and Kidane & Kejela, (2021), in Ethiopia, Punchay et al. (2020) in Thailand, Fongnzossie et al. (2020) in Cameroon. Natural disasters and human activity also contribute to the erosion of traditional knowledge regarding the diversity and use of WEP. This finding is consistent with reports by Pawera et al. (2020), which found that changes in the availability and consumption of WEPs were primarily driven by changes in the natural and man-made environments in Indonesia. In agreement with this study, Guzu et al. (2023) and Kidane and Kejela (2021) reported that WEPs faced challenges due to disappearance of their natural environments from diverse anthropogenic activities in Ethiopia. These human-induced threats are accomplished deliberately or unconsciously by individuals that erode the biodiversity of WEPs.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In the current study area, twenty WEPs were reported to be used as food, nutrition and ethno-medicine supplements. In addition, the indigenous populations utilized WEPs for a variety of purposes, including the production of charcoal, beehive hanging, firewood, and construction. The main repositories of WEPs were forests and agricultural fields. The majority of WEP gatherers were women and children. The plant parts that were most frequently consumed were fruits, for the fact that they are delicious, nutritious and consumed raw. WEPs help local communities enduring critical food shortages and other emergency situations, particularly among economically marginalized families. The main threatening factors for WEPs were fuel wood collection, agricultural expansion, grazing and selective harvesting activities, which are causing loss of biodiversity and erosion of the associated traditional knowledge. This can partly attribute to the inadequate scientific evidence and knowledge about the unrealized potential of WEPs among relevant stakeholders and policymakers. Therefore, there is a need for harnessing the biodiversity of WEPs, realizing the potential benefits and fostering the continuous need for conservation strategies pertaining to their natural habitats and associated knowledge. Collectively, WEPs are an important component of food and nutrition security, and ethno-medicine among the local communities despite that they are disregarded in national food, nutrition and ethno-medicine systems. Researchers should focus on further exploring the potential benefits of WEPs, and the government should incorporate these into food, nutrition and medicine policies.

Ethical declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was obtained from Hawassa University Research Ethics and Review Committee (HU-RERC), meeting No. HU-RERC 08/22 and protocol No.: M.Sc. 20/22). Furthermore, a formal letter was written by the Department of Biology for the smooth and flexible collaboration with the research participants during the pursuits of the study. Finally, the study was conducted through an informed consent of all participants.

Data availability

All the data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Hawassa University in Ethiopia for funding this work. The communities participating in the study are also appreciated by the authors for providing all the necessary information and for volunteering their time.

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding

The research was funded by Hawassa University in Ethiopia, which the authors would like to acknowledge.

Abdella, M., Cheneke, B., & Ketama, M. (2023). Assessment of Wild Edible Plant Species in East Hararghe Zone, Oromia, Ethiopia. International Journal of Science, Technology & Society/Revista Internacional de CiÊncias, Tecnologia & Sociedade, 11(3).
Abebe, G. (2021). Opportunities and Challenges of Irrigated Crop Production in Dry Land Areas. Review.
Abidullah, S., Rauf, A., Zaman, W., Ullah, F., Ayaz, A., Batool, F., & Saqib, S. (2023). Consumption of wild food plants among tribal communities of Pak-Afghan border, near Bajaur, Pakistan. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 43(2), 254–270.
Addis, G., Asfaw, Z., & Woldu, Z. (2013). The role of wild and semi-wild edible plants to household food sovereignty in Hamar and Konso Communities, South Ethiopia. Ethnobotany Research and Applications, 11, 251–271.
Alexiades, M. (1996). Collecting ethnobotanical data. An introduction to basic concepts and techniques. In: (Alexiades, M. and Sheldon J.W.eds.). Selected Guideline for ethnobotanical research: A Field Manual, Pp.58–94. The New York. Botanic Garden, USA.
Amsalu, N., & Asfaw, Z. (2020). Review of the antioxidant properties of wild edible plants in Ethiopia. African Journal of Medical and Health Sciences, 19(6), 84–102.
Aryal, K. P., Poudel, S., Chaudhary, R. P., Chettri, N., Chaudhary, P., Ning, W., & Kotru, R. (2018). Diversity and use of wild and non-cultivated edible plants in the Western Himalaya. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 14, 1–18.
Berihun, T., & Molla, E. (2017). Study on the Diversity and Use of Wild Edible Plants in Bullen District Northwest Ethiopia. Journal of Botany.
Borelli, T., Hunter, D., Powell, B., Ulian, T., Mattana, E., Termote, C., … Engels, J. (2020). Born to eat wild: An integrated conservation approach to secure wild food plants for food security and nutrition. Plants, 9(10), 1299.
Borghini, A., Piras, N., & Serini, B. (2020). A gradient framework for wild foods. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 84, 101293.
Casas, A., Blancas Vázquez, J. J., & Vibrans, H. (2023). Perspectives of the Ethnobotanical Research in Mexico. In Ethnobotany of the Mountain Regions of Mexico (pp. 953–980). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Chatzopoulou, E., Carocho, M., Di Gioia, F., & Petropoulos, S. A. (2020). The beneficial health effects of vegetables and wild edible greens: The case of the mediterranean diet and its sustainability. Applied Sciences, 10(24), 9144.
Cotton, C. (1997). Ethnobotany, Principals and Application. John Wileyand Sons Ltd., Chichester.pp.424.
Dasgupta, S. (2016). How many plant species are there in the world? Scientists now have an answer. Available at https://news.mongabay.com/2016/05/many-plants-world-scientists-may-now
Ding, X. Y., Zhang, Y., Wang, L., Zhuang, H. F., Chen, W. Y., & Wang, Y. H. (2021). Collection calendar: the diversity and local knowledge of wild edible plants used by Chenthang Sherpa people to treat seasonal food shortages in Tibet, China. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 17(1), 1–14.
Duguma, H. T. (2020). Wild edible plant nutritional contribution and consumer perception in Ethiopia. International Journal of Food Science, 2020.
Fongnzossie, E. F., Nyangono, C. F. B., Biwole, A. B., Ebai, P. N. B., Ndifongwa, N. B., Motove, J., & Dibong, S. D. (2020). Wild edible plants and mushrooms of the Bamenda Highlands in Cameroon: ethnobotanical assessment and potentials for enhancing food security. Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 16, 1–10.
Gębczyński, P., Bernaś, E., & Słupski, J. (2022). Usage of wild-growing plants as foodstuff. Cultural Heritage—Possibilities for Land-Centered Societal Development, 269–283.
Geng, Y., Zhang, Y., Ranjitkar, S., Huai, H., & Wang, Y. (2016). Traditional knowledge and its transmission of wild edibles used by the Naxi in Baidi Village, northwest Yunnan province. Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 12, 1–21.
Guzo, S., Lulekal, E., & Nemomissa, S. (2023). Ethnobotanical study of underutilized wild edible plants and threats to their long-term existence in Midakegn District, West Shewa Zone, Central Ethiopia. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 19(1), 30.
Hailemariam, M. B., Woldu, Z., Asfaw, Z., & Lulekal, E. (2021). Ethnobotany of an indigenous tree Piliostigma thonningii (Schumach.) Milne-Redh.(Fabaceae) in the arid and semi-arid areas of South Omo Zone, southern Ethiopia. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 17(1), 1–18.
Hari, V. (2020). Phytomedicine: Healing Herbs. Notion Press.
Hossain, A., Islam, M. T., Maitra, S., Majumder, D., Garai, S., Mondal, M., … Islam, T. (2021). Neglected and Underutilized Crop Species: Are They Future Smart Crops in Fighting Poverty, Hunger and Malnutrition Under Changing Climate?. Neglected and underutilized crops-towards nutritional security and sustainability, 1–50.
Kaur, S., & Roy, A. (2021). A Review on the nutritional aspects of wild edible plants. Current Traditional Medicine, 7(4), 552–563.
Kidane, L., & Kejela, A. (2021). Food security and environment conservation through sustainable use of wild and semi-wild edible plants: a case study in Berek Natural Forest, Oromia special zone, Ethiopia. Agriculture & Food Security, 10(1), 29.
Kolosova, V., Belichenko, O., Rodionova, A., Melnikov, D., & Sõukand, R. (2020). Foraging in boreal forest: Wild food plants of the republic of Karelia, NW Russia. Foods, 9(8), 1015.
Kumar, V., Kumar, S., Kamboj, N., Payum, T., Kumar, P., & Kumari, S. (Eds.). (2021). Biological Diversity: Current Status and Conservation Policies (Vol. 1). Agro Environ Media, Publication Cell of AESA, Agriculture and Environmental Science Academy.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and psychological measurement, 30(3), 607–610.
Lim, T. K., Feyyisa, D. H., & Jiru, D. B. (2016). Management and utilization of wild nutraceutical plants. Ethiopian Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 7(1), 83–97..
Martin, G.J. (1995). Ethnobotany: A method Manual. Chapman and Hall, London. 263p.
Mengistu, F., & Assefa, E. (2020). Towards sustaining watershed management practices in Ethiopia: A synthesis of local perception, community participation, adoption and livelihoods. Environmental Science & Policy, 112, 414–430..
Mishra, A., Swamy, S. L., Thakur, T. K., Bhat, R., Bijalwan, A., & Kumar, A. (2021). Use of wild edible plants: Can they meet the dietary and nutritional needs of indigenous communities in Central India. Foods, 10(7), 1453.
Nayak, J., & Basak, U. C. (2015). Analysis of some nutritional properties in eight wild edible fruits of Odisha, India. Int. J. Curr. Sci, 14, 55–62..
Oluoch, W. A., Whitney, C., Termote, C., Borgemeister, C., & Schmitt, C. B. (2023). Indigenous communities’ perceptions reveal threats and management options of wild edible plants in semiarid lands of northwestern Kenya. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 19(1), 13.
Ong, H. G., Chung, J. M., Jeong, H. R., Kim, Y. D., Choi, K., Shin, C. H., & Lee, Y. M. (2016). Ethnobotany of the wild edible plants gathered in Ulleung Island, South Korea. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 63, 409–427.
Pawera, L., Khomsan, A., Zuhud, E. A., Hunter, D., Ickowitz, A., & Polesny, Z. (2020). Wild food plants and trends in their use: From knowledge and perceptions to drivers of change in West Sumatra, Indonesia. Foods, 9(9), 1240.
Pawlak, K., & Kołodziejczak, M. (2020). The role of agriculture in ensuring food security in developing countries: Considerations in the context of the problem of sustainable food production. Sustainability, 12(13), 5488.
Peduruhewa, P. S., Jayathunge, K. G. L. R., & Liyanage, R. (2021). Potential of underutilized wild edible plants as the food for the future–a review. Journal of Food Security, 9(4), 136–147.
Punchay, K., Inta, A., Tiansawat, P., Balslev, H., & Wangpakapattanawong, P. (2020). Traditional knowledge of wild food plants of Thai Karen and Lawa (Thailand). Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 67, 1277–1299.
Ray, A., Ray, R., & Sreevidya, E. A. (2020). How many wild edible plants do we eat—their diversity, use, and implications for sustainable food system: an exploratory analysis in India. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4, 56.
Regassa, T., Kelbessa, E., & Asfaw, Z. (2015). Ethnobotany of wild and semi-wild edible plants of Chelia District, West-Central Ethiopia. Science, Technology and Arts Research Journal, 3(4), 122–134.
Sen, T., & Samanta, S. K. (2015). Medicinal plants, human health and biodiversity: a broad review. Biotechnological applications of biodiversity, 59–110.
Shaheen, S., Ahmad, M., Haroon, N., Shaheen, S., Ahmad, M., & Haroon, N. (2017). Edible wild plants: a solution to overcome food insecurity. Edible Wild Plants: An alternative approach to food security, 41–57.
Singh, N., Pandey, R., Chandraker, S. K., Pandey, S., Malik, S., & Patel, D. (2022). Use of wild edible plants can meet the needs of future generation. In Agro-biodiversity and Agri-ecosystem Management (pp. 341–366). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.
Sulaiman, N., Aziz, M. A., Stryamets, N., Mattalia, G., Zocchi, D. M., Ahmed, H. M., … Pieroni, A. (2023). The Importance of Becoming Tamed: Wild Food Plants as Possible Novel Crops in Selected Food-Insecure Regions. Horticulturae, 9(2), 171.
Termote, C., Van Damme, P., & Dhed’a Djailo, B. (2011). Eating from the wild: Turumbu, Mbole and Bali traditional knowledge on non-cultivated edible plants, District Tshopo, DRCongo. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 58, 585–618.
Thattantavide, A., Sreedharan, S., Sharma, N., Uthirchakkavu, I., Surendran, A., & Kumar, A. (2023). An Introduction to Wild Food Plants for Zero Hunger and Resilient Agriculture. In Wild Food Plants for Zero Hunger and Resilient Agriculture (pp. 1–41). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.
Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: an introductory analysis (2nd Ed.,). Retrieved from https://www.worldcat.org/title/statistics-an-introductory-analysis-2nd-ed/oclc/299725866

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Unlocking the Prospective of Neglected and Underutilized Wild Plants for Human Food, Nutrition and Ethno-Medicine

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. INTRODUCTION

2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

4. RESULTS

5. DISCUSSION

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1