Ethnobotanical assessment of wild edible plants and indigenous knowledge in Tegedie District, Ethiopia.

Ethnobotanical assessment of wild edible plants and indigenous knowledge in Tegedie District, Ethiopia - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Search Log in Primary site navigation Search Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice J Ethnobiol Ethnomed . 2026 Apr 22;22:59. doi: 10.1186/s13002-026-00901-9 Ethnobotanical assessment of wild edible plants and indigenous knowledge in Tegedie District, Ethiopia Alemnesh Goshe 1 , Getinet Masresha 1 , Muluye Asnakew 2 , Ashebir Awoke 2, ✉ Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 Department of Biology, University of Gondar, P.O. Box 196, Gondar, Ethiopia 2 Department of Biology, Mizan-Tepi University, P.O. Box 121, Tepi, Ethiopia ✉ Corresponding author. Received 2026 Mar 18; Accepted 2026 Apr 13; Collection date 2026. © The Author(s) 2026 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ . PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13234993  PMID: 42021322 Abstract Background Wild edible plants (WEPs) play a crucial role in rural livelihoods, food security, and cultural heritage in Ethiopia. Despite their importance, comprehensive documentation of WEP diversity, utilization, and associated indigenous knowledge in Tegedie District remains limited. This study aimed to identify WEP species, evaluate their uses, assess knowledge distribution among community members, and identify threats to their sustainability. Methods Ethnobotanical data were collected from 144 purposively selected informants across eight sites using semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, and guided field observations. Quantitative indices, including the Relative Frequency of Citation (RFC) and Jaccard Similarity Index (JSI), were employed to assess species importance, cultural significance, and similarity with other Ethiopian districts. Preference ranking and direct matrix ranking were used to evaluate species preference, multifunctionality, and perceived threats. Data analysis was conducted using R software, and species identifications were cross-checked against the IUCN Red List. Results A total of 52 WEP species were documented, comprising trees, shrubs, herbs, and climbers. Fruit-bearing trees and shrubs were the most frequently cited, highly preferred, and culturally significant. The top-ranked WEPs included Cordia africana Lam., Syzygium guineense (Willd.) DC., Diospyros mespiliformis Hochst. ex A.DC., and Tamarindus indica L. Knowledge of WEPs was significantly higher among men, older individuals, illiterate participants, and key informants ( P < 0.005), reflecting the cumulative and experiential nature of indigenous knowledge. Major threats to WEPs included agricultural expansion, overgrazing, firewood collection, charcoal production, and habitat degradation. WEPs were primarily harvested from forests, grazing lands, and uncultivated areas, with knowledge transferred orally and through hands-on participation in harvesting. Conclusion WEPs in Tegedie District are vital for dietary diversity, food security, and cultural practices, but they face significant anthropogenic and environmental pressures. Conservation strategies, including habitat protection, sustainable harvesting, ex situ cultivation, and systematic documentation of indigenous knowledge, are urgently needed. Promoting intergenerational knowledge transfer is essential to ensure the continued availability and sustainable use of these valuable plant resources. Keywords: Wild edible plants, Ethnobotany, Indigenous knowledge, Food security, Conservation Background Wild edible plants (WEPs) have long been recognized as essential components of traditional food systems and rural livelihoods across many parts of the world. These plants serve as important sources of food, and income for millions of people, particularly in developing countries where communities rely heavily on natural ecosystems for subsistence. Globally, WEPs constitute an important part of non-timber forest products and contribute significantly to food security and livelihood diversification. It is estimated that thousands of plant species are used as food worldwide, many of which are collected from wild habitats and utilized by indigenous and rural communities [ 1 , 2 ]. WEPs contribute substantially to dietary diversity and nutritional security. Many WEPs are rich in essential nutrients such as vitamins, minerals, proteins, fibers, and antioxidants, which play crucial roles in maintaining human health. In many traditional societies, different parts of these plants including fruits, leaves, seeds, flowers, roots, and tubers are consumed either fresh or processed into various food products. These plants often serve as supplementary foods during periods of seasonal scarcity, drought, or crop failure. Consequently, WEPs enhance the resilience of local food systems and help communities cope with food shortages [ 3 , 4 ]. Ethiopia is widely recognized as one of the most biologically and culturally diverse countries in Africa. The country hosts a remarkable diversity of plant species due to its varied habitats, climate, and agro-ecological zones. Ethiopia is estimated to contain more than 7,000 species of higher plants, many of which are used for food, medicine, construction materials, and other livelihood purposes. Ethnobotanical investigations have revealed that a large number of wild plant species are used as edible resources by local communities throughout the country. Recent studies indicate that more than 650 wild edible plant species belonging to numerous genera and families have been documented in Ethiopia, reflecting the rich indigenous knowledge associated with plant utilization [ 5 – 8 ]. In rural Ethiopian communities, WEPs are commonly gathered from forests, agricultural fields, riverbanks, and grazing lands. These plants are frequently consumed as fruits, leafy vegetables, condiments, beverages, and snacks. In addition to their nutritional value, many WEPs possess medicinal properties and are used in traditional healthcare systems. Therefore, these plants play multiple roles in supporting rural livelihoods by providing food supplements, medicinal remedies, fodder for livestock, and raw materials for household use [ 9 , 10 ]. Traditional knowledge related to WEPs is generally transmitted orally from one generation to another through cultural traditions, subsistence activities, and continuous interaction with the natural environment. Indigenous communities possess extensive knowledge about the identification, harvesting, preparation, preservation, and utilization of these plants. Such knowledge is typically accumulated through long-term observation and experience within local ecosystems. However, ethnobotanical knowledge is often unevenly distributed among community members, with older individuals and key informants typically possessing greater knowledge compared to younger generations [ 4 , 11 ]. Despite their ecological and socio-economic importance, WEPs and the associated indigenous knowledge systems are increasingly threatened by various environmental and socio-economic factors. Rapid population growth, agricultural expansion, deforestation, overgrazing, and land-use changes have resulted in the degradation of natural habitats where many wild plant species occur. Moreover, modernization, urbanization, and changes in lifestyle have reduced the dependence of younger generations on traditional plant resources, leading to the gradual erosion of indigenous ethnobotanical knowledge [ 1 , 12 – 14 ]. Recent ethnobotanical studies conducted in different regions of Ethiopia have emphasized the need for systematic documentation and conservation of WEPs and the associated indigenous knowledge. Research findings have demonstrated that numerous WEP species contribute significantly to household food security, dietary diversity, and cultural identity. In addition, some WEPs have high potential for domestication and commercialization, which could contribute to improving rural livelihoods and promoting sustainable agricultural systems [ 2 , 3 ]. WEPs represent an indispensable component of rural livelihoods in Ethiopia, where they function not only as supplementary foods but also as vital resources during periods of food scarcity [ 8 , 15 ]. Beyond their nutritional contribution, these plants are deeply embedded in indigenous knowledge systems and serve as important cultural and nutraceutical assets. In many Ethiopian agroecological settings characterized by seasonal shortages and limited market accessibility, WEPs play a significant role in enhancing dietary diversity, improving micronutrient intake, and strengthening household food security [ 2 , 4 ]. Typically, these species are locally adapted and harvested from diverse landscapes, including forests, woodlands, farmlands, and riparian habitats, with patterns of use shaped by ecological conditions, ethnic traditions, and socio-economic circumstances [ 2 , 8 ]. Recent ethnobotanical investigations conducted across Ethiopia highlight the remarkable taxonomic richness of WEPs and their multiple functions in local food systems [ 16 , 17 ]. Comparative studies from northwestern Ethiopia, Benishangul-Gumuz, and southwestern regions have documented between 50 and 60 species, revealing both shared and locally specific patterns of plant use shaped by ecological variability and cultural practices [ 4 , 8 , 18 – 20 ]. These cross-regional differences suggest that WEP utilization is not only environmentally determined but also culturally mediated. The knowledge and practices associated with WEPs are highly heterogeneous rather than uniform. Variations in ethnolinguistic background, gender roles, age, and livelihood strategies strongly influence plant recognition, harvesting strategies, preparation techniques, and cultural preferences. Evidence suggests that distinct ethnic groups may utilize different plant parts or incorporate specific species into unique cultural traditions, reflecting deeply rooted traditional ecological knowledge [ 2 ]. Such diversity illustrates that WEPs contribute not only to nutritional well-being but also to cultural identity, social resilience, and intergenerational knowledge transmission. Despite their importance, WEPs in Ethiopia remain underutilized and are often perceived primarily as famine foods rather than integral components of everyday diets [ 30 , 31 ]. At the same time, environmental pressures such as climate change, deforestation, and land-use change are accelerating the decline of WEP availability, while socio-cultural transformations are contributing to knowledge erosion [ 4 , 8 , 10 , 35 , 36 ]. These challenges highlight the urgent need for systematic, comparative, and hypothesis-driven ethnobotanical research. Against this backdrop, the present study was designed not only to document WEPs but also to test specific hypotheses and generate comparative insights into ethnobotanical knowledge and plant use patterns. The study addresses the following research objectives (ROs): (i) to document and analyze the diversity, use patterns, and cultural significance of WEPs in Tegedie District, including vernacular names, edible parts, preparation methods, and seasonal availability; (ii) to assess the distribution of indigenous knowledge across socio-demographic groups (gender, age, education, and livelihood), and determine whether knowledge variation follows predictable socio-cultural patterns; (iii) to compare WEP diversity and utilization patterns in Tegedie District with those reported from other regions of Ethiopia, in order to identify novel or previously undocumented uses, shared ethnobotanical practices, and culturally specific adaptations; (iv) to identify major threats to WEP resources and analyze their implications for food security, food sovereignty, and biodiversity conservation. Based on existing ethnobotanical literature and preliminary observations, the study tests the following hypotheses: (i) H1: The diversity and utilization of WEPs in Tegedie District differ significantly from those reported in other Ethiopian regions due to ecological and cultural variability; (ii) H2: Indigenous knowledge of WEPs is unevenly distributed within the community, with significantly higher knowledge levels among elders, key informants, and less formally educated individuals; (iii) H3: Socio-cultural factors (gender roles, livelihood strategies, and cultural practices) significantly influence plant selection, preparation methods, and patterns of use; (iv) H4: Increasing anthropogenic pressures (e.g., agricultural expansion and deforestation) are negatively associated with both WEP availability and the transmission of indigenous knowledge. Materials and methodology Description of the Study Area The study was conducted in Tegedie District, located in the Central Gondar Zone of the Amhara National Regional State in northwestern Ethiopia (Fig. 1 ). Tegedie District is one of the administrative districts of the Central Gondar Zone and was established in 2001. The district comprises 22 kebeles (the smallest administrative units in Ethiopia). The total land area of the district is approximately 2,652.63 km². The administrative center of the district is Kirakir town, which is situated about 113 km north of Gondar town and approximately 841 km north of Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia [ 38 , 39 ]. Fig. 1. Open in a new tab Map of the study site Geographically, Tegedie District is bordered by the Tigray Region to the north, West Armachiho District to the northwest, Tach Armachiho District to the south, and Wegera District to the east. The district is located approximately between 12°30′–13°15′ N latitude and 36°00′–37°00′ E longitude. The altitude of the district ranges from about 900 to 1,900 m above sea level. This variation in elevation creates diverse ecological zones, which in turn influence vegetation distribution, agricultural practices, and land-use patterns within the district [ 38 , 39 ]. The topography of Tegedie District is characterized by rugged mountainous highlands, undulating landscapes, and lowland plains. Elevation differences across the district create varying slope gradients ranging from steep to moderate inclines. Such topographic variation affects local climatic conditions, soil formation processes, and water drainage patterns. Consequently, the physical landscape plays a significant role in determining the types of vegetation and agricultural activities practiced by local communities [ 38 , 39 ]. The soils of the district are predominantly clay-rich and include chromic and pellic vertisols as well as chromic luvisols. These soils are generally fertile and suitable for various land-use activities such as crop production, grazing, and mixed forest systems. However, the combination of steep slopes and certain soil types makes some areas vulnerable to soil erosion, particularly where vegetation cover has been reduced due to human activities [ 38 , 39 ]. Based on climatic conditions, Tegedie District is categorized into three major agro-ecological zones: Dega (highland) covering about 27% of the district, Weyna Dega (midland) covering approximately 31%, and Kola (lowland) covering around 42%. The average annual rainfall in the district ranges from about 100 to 1,224 mm, while the mean annual temperature varies between 19.7 °C and 28.9 °C. These climatic variations create diverse environmental conditions that support different types of agricultural production systems [ 38 , 39 ]. The Dega highland areas are characterized by relatively cooler temperatures and higher rainfall, making them suitable for the cultivation of temperate crops such as barley, wheat, and potatoes. In contrast, the Kola lowland areas experience higher temperatures and relatively lower rainfall, which favor drought-tolerant crops such as sorghum, millet, and oilseeds, as well as livestock production. The Weyna Dega mid-altitude zone serves as a transitional agro-ecological area where mixed farming systems are commonly practiced, allowing farmers to cultivate both highland and lowland crops [ 38 , 39 ]. These climatic and ecological conditions influence not only agricultural activities but also settlement patterns, vegetation cover, and water resource availability within the district. Areas receiving higher rainfall generally support denser vegetation and better water retention, whereas the drier lowland areas face challenges related to soil erosion and water scarcity. Seasonal variations in rainfall and temperature also affect livelihood strategies and seasonal labor migration, as communities adjust their agricultural activities in response to climatic conditions [ 38 , 39 ]. Tegedie District is relatively sparsely populated. According to the projected population estimate based on the national population census [ 39 ], the district has a total population of approximately 88,884, of which 38,660 are males and 50,224 are females. The majority of the population practices Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity, while a smaller proportion follows Islam. The dominant ethnic group in the district is Amhara, and the primary language spoken is Amharic, followed by Tigrigna [ 38 , 39 ]. The socio-economic structure of Tegedie District is largely based on a mixed crop–livestock farming system. Farmers cultivate major staple crops such as teff, maize, and sorghum, which are important both for household consumption and for market supply. Livestock rearing is also an integral component of the local livelihood system, with cattle, sheep, and goats being the most commonly raised animals. Livestock provide multiple benefits including draught power for plowing agricultural fields, sources of meat and milk, manure for maintaining soil fertility, and income generation. This integrated crop–livestock production system plays a vital role in ensuring household food security and sustaining rural livelihoods in the district [ 38 , 39 ]. The natural vegetation of Tegedie District is predominantly characterized by Vachellia –Commiphora woodland vegetation. This vegetation type typically occurs at elevations between 900 and 1,900 m above sea level and is composed mainly of drought-resistant trees and shrubs that are adapted to semi-arid environmental conditions and sandy soils. Dominant species include various Acacia species and other drought-tolerant plants such as Vachellia prasinata (Hunde) Kyal. & Boatwr. (endemic), Vachellia bussei (Harms ex Y.Sjöstedt) Kyal. & Boatwr., Commiphora alaticaulis J.B.Gillett & Vollesen, Commiphora boranensis Vollesen, and Commiphora obovata Chiov. Other plant families commonly found in the district include Fabaceae, Burseraceae, Balanitaceae, and Combretaceae. In addition, endemic succulent species such as Euphorbia awashensis M.G.Gilbert, Euphorbia omariana M.G.Gilbert, and Euphorbia burgeri M.G.Gilbert are also important components of the local vegetation [ 38 , 39 ]. Although these woodlands are ecologically rich and diverse, they are increasingly threatened by human activities and environmental pressures. Agricultural expansion, overgrazing, and recurrent fires have contributed to vegetation degradation and fragmentation in many parts of the district. Despite their adaptation to limited soil moisture and harsh environmental conditions, the sustainability of these woodland ecosystems is currently under threat. Therefore, conservation and sustainable management efforts are essential to maintain the ecological integrity of these vegetation types and the ecosystem services they provide to local communities [ 38 , 39 ]. Reconnaissance survey, site, and informant selection A reconnaissance survey was conducted from 12 to 24 January 2025 to obtain baseline information and identify suitable study sites within Tegedie District. Preliminary data on vegetation types, frequently used WEPs, seasonal grazing and harvesting areas, and kebeles with strong dependence on natural resources were collected from the Tegedie District Office of Agriculture. This initial information was supplemented through discussions with local elders, kebele administrators, forest guards, and other knowledgeable community members. These consultations provided valuable insights into local ecological conditions, resource-use patterns, and community dynamics, supporting the identification of representative study sites and key informants with relevant ethnobotanical knowledge. Tegedie District was purposively selected for the study due to its high reliance on WEPs, relatively intact natural vegetation, and the absence of organized conservation or documentation initiatives targeting these resources. Using criteria such as vegetation cover, accessibility, and the presence of knowledgeable residents, eight representative kebeles (the smallest administrative units in Ethiopia) were chosen for detailed study (Table 1 ). Table 1. Sampled study sites: altitude, coordinates, agro-ecology, number of households, and sociodemographic characteristics of informants Name of study sites Altitude GPS Coordinates Gender Ethnicity Age categories Language Occupation AE NH Latitude ( N , S) Longitude (E, W) M F 20–30 31–50 51–78 Dawuchena 976 m 13°10’16.50"N 37°16’49.17"E 9 9 Am 5 6 7 Amc Far, Mer, HW, Stu, Tch Lowland 4509 Ergoye 1081 m 13°18’27.39"N 36°52’50.54"E 10 8 Am 5 6 7 Amc Far, Mer, HW, Stu, Tch Lowland 4144 Gebrael 2530 m 13°18’03.08"N 37°24’04.26"E 9 9 Am 5 6 7 Amc Far, Mer, HW, Stu, Tch Highland 4301 Sarna 1900 m 13°21’40.02"N 37°15’59.82"E 10 8 Am 5 6 7 Amc Far, Mer, HW, Stu, Tch Midland 5844 Seferaseka 1083 m 13°07’28.11"N 37°24’53.76"E 9 9 Am 5 6 7 Amc Far, Mer, HW, Stu, Tch Lowland 7163 Sorqa 857 m 13°21’06.26"N 37°01’09.82"E 10 8 Am 5 6 7 Amc Far, Mer, HW, Stu, Tch Lowland 3947 Zana 1022 m 13°19’58.52"N 37°07’55.24"E 9 9 Am 5 6 7 Amc Far, Mer, HW, Stu, Tch Lowland 3049 Zegba 1928 m 13°21’06.21"N 37°28’51.12"E 10 8 Am 5 6 7 Amc Far, Mer, HW, Stu, Tch Midland 4321 Total 76 68 40 48 56 45,277 Open in a new tab Am=Amhara, Amc=Amharic, M=Male, F=Female, NH= Number of households, Far=Farmer, Mer=Merchant, HW=House wife, Stu=Student, Tch=Teacher, AE= Agroecology A total of 144 informants participated in the study, comprising 76 males and 68 females. Eighteen respondents were selected from each kebele. Informant selection employed a combination of purposive and random sampling approaches. This strategy ensured that participants reflected local availability and community recommendations rather than pre-established quotas, allowing for a representative sample of knowledge holders. Among the participants, 96 were general informants identified through random sampling. These individuals were primarily long-term residents familiar with local plant resources and seasonal food practices. The remaining 48 participants were key informants, purposively selected based on recommendations from elders, local authorities, agricultural experts, and development practitioners. Key informants included experienced plant collectors, elders recognized for their traditional knowledge, women responsible for household food preparation, market vendors involved in selling wild edible products, and hunters who rely on wild plants during extended periods in the field. The inclusion of these diverse livelihood groups ensured broad representation of both everyday users and individuals with specialized ethnobotanical expertise. Demographic information was recorded to reflect the social structure observed during fieldwork rather than imposing predetermined categories. Informants were naturally clustered into three age groups: young adults (16–30 years; 27.8%), middle-aged adults (31–50 years; 33.3%), and elders (51–80 years; 38.9%). The relatively high proportion of elders emphasizes their critical role as custodians of traditional ecological knowledge. Gender distribution also reflected local divisions of labor associated with plant gathering, processing, and household food preparation. Educational background and livelihood activities further contextualized the socio-economic landscape of the study area. Of the respondents, 94 (65.3%) were illiterate, whereas 50 (34.5%) had some level of formal education. The primary livelihood strategies included farming (54.6%), livestock keeping (19.7%), trade (14.5%), and charcoal or firewood production (12.2%), with a smaller proportion engaged in other activities. This diversity of backgrounds provided a nuanced basis for examining how knowledge and utilization of WEPs vary across gender, age groups, educational levels, and livelihood systems. Ethnobotanical data collection and identification Ethnobotanical data were collected from February to December 2025 across the eight selected study sites in Tegedie District. Standard ethnobotanical protocols integrating qualitative, quantitative, and participatory approaches were employed to systematically document community knowledge and practices related to WEPs. The methodological design was structured to address the study’s research objectives and test the proposed hypotheses regarding knowledge distribution, ecological influence, and cross-regional variability. Data collection methods included semi-structured interviews, guided field walks, focus group discussions (FGDs), preference ranking, pairwise comparisons, direct matrix ranking (DMR), and market surveys. These complementary approaches enabled a comprehensive assessment of plant diversity, use patterns, seasonal availability, socio-cultural variation, and perceived threats to WEP resources. Semi-structured interviews were conducted using a checklist initially prepared in English and subsequently translated into Amharic to ensure linguistic accuracy and cultural appropriateness. The interviews captured detailed socio-demographic information, including age, gender, educational level, occupation, and residence, alongside ethnobotanical data such as vernacular plant names, edible parts, preparation techniques, modes of consumption (fresh, cooked, dried, or stored), and frequency of use. Interviews were conducted in Amharic, with the assistance of native speakers when necessary, and were arranged at times and locations convenient to participants to ensure openness and reliability. Both individual and group-based interviews explored knowledge transmission pathways, seasonal utilization patterns, market participation, and local perceptions of resource availability and management. These data were essential for testing hypotheses related to socio-demographic variation in indigenous knowledge. Voucher specimens of all reported plant species were collected during guided field walks with informants and trained assistants. Specimens were pressed, air-dried, labeled, and preserved using standard herbarium techniques, including heater-drying and deep-freezing to prevent deterioration. All voucher specimens were deposited at the Mini Herbarium of the University of Gondar (UoG) under the collection code UoG0240026, ensuring traceability and reproducibility of taxonomic identification. Additional verification was conducted at the National Herbarium (ETH), Addis Ababa University, where specimens were compared with authenticated collections and identified using the Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea and standard taxonomic keys [ 40 , 41 ]. Scientific names and taxonomic classifications were standardized following internationally recognized databases, particularly World Flora Online, in accordance with journal requirements. Additional cross-checking was performed using African Plant Database, Plants of the World Online, and JSTOR Global Plants to ensure nomenclatural consistency and acceptance. This rigorous taxonomic verification ensured comparability with other ethnobotanical studies and facilitated cross-regional analyses. Focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted to capture shared community knowledge, validate individual responses, and explore collective interpretations of WEP use. Eight FGDs, one per study site, were carried out with purposively selected key informants recognized for their extensive ethnobotanical expertise. These discussions promoted interactive dialogue and consensus-building. Major themes included plant identification, vernacular nomenclature, preparation and processing techniques, seasonal availability, cultural significance, and community-based conservation practices. FGDs also provided critical insights into cultural interpretations of plant use and intergenerational knowledge transmission, supporting comparative and interpretative components of the study. Guided field walks were a central component of data collection, enabling in situ documentation of WEP species within their natural habitats. Researchers accompanied knowledgeable informants who assisted in locating and identifying plant species while describing their ecological settings, morphological characteristics, and traditional uses. Field observations were supported by photographic documentation and detailed field notes. For each species, data were recorded on local names, edible parts, preparation methods, seasonal availability, habitat type, and additional uses or perceptions. Informants were encouraged to freely list all known edible species to ensure comprehensive coverage and minimize omission bias. These field-based interactions also facilitated discussions on perceived environmental and socio-economic threats to WEPs, local conservation practices, and the dynamics of knowledge transmission across generations. This participatory approach strengthened data reliability while highlighting the role of indigenous ecological knowledge in resource management. To capture the economic dimension of WEP utilization, market surveys were conducted in five local marketplaces. Semi-structured interviews with vendors documented species traded, availability, sources, quantities, pricing, consumption patterns, and demand trends. These data provided insights into the commercialization potential of WEPs and their contribution to household income. Integrating market data with ethnobotanical field observations allowed for a more holistic analysis of both subsistence and economic roles of WEPs. Quantitative ethnobotanical analysis To complement the qualitative findings, a range of quantitative ethnobotanical approaches was applied to assess the cultural significance, distribution of knowledge, and conservation concerns associated with WEPs in the study area. These analytical tools helped provide a more objective understanding of the relative importance of species and patterns of similarity with other ethnobotanical studies conducted in Ethiopia. Jaccard similarity index The jaccard similarity index (JSI) was used to compare the composition of WEP species recorded in Tegedie District with those documented in other regions of Ethiopia. This index quantifies the degree of similarity between two study areas by measuring the proportion of species shared relative to the total number of species reported in both locations. The JSI therefore offers insights into floristic overlap, regional variation in plant use, and the extent to which ethnobotanical knowledge and resource availability differ across landscapes. The index was calculated using the standard formula: Where JSI denotes the Jaccard Similarity Index, which quantifies the degree of resemblance between two study areas in terms of their recorded wild edible plant species. In this context, a represents the total number of plant species documented in the present study area, b refers to the number of species reported from another comparative study site, and c indicates the number of species shared by both areas. The index ranges from 0 to 1, where a value of 1 reflects complete similarity in species composition, while a value of 0 indicates no overlap between the compared regions. For easier interpretation, JSI values may also be converted into percentages by multiplying the index by 100, allowing a clearer representation of similarity levels between ethnobotanical datasets [ 42 , 43 ]. Relative frequency of citation The relative frequency of citation (RFC) was used to assess the local importance of each wild edible plant species by determining how frequently it was mentioned by informants during interviews. RFC values range from 0, indicating that a species was not cited by any participant, to 1, representing the highest level of recognition or reliance within the community. Species with higher RFC values are considered culturally more significant and are often those most widely used or valued for food, nutrition, or related purposes [ 44 ]. The RFC for each species was calculated using the following formula: Where; FC = the number of informants citing the use of the species and N = the total number of respondents participating in the survey. Preference ranking Preference ranking of WEPs was conducted following established ethnobotanical protocols [ 45 , 46 ]. Key informants were asked to evaluate the most commonly cited WEPs based on criteria such as taste, availability, ease of access, cultural significance, and potential for income generation. Each informant assigned a score ranging from 1 (least preferred) to 10 (most preferred), with the most desirable or palatable species receiving the highest score. Individual scores were then aggregated to produce an overall rank for each species. This approach provided insight into which WEPs are most valued by the community both culturally and nutritionally. Direct Matrix Ranking (DMR) Many WEPs serve multiple household roles beyond food. To capture this multifunctionality, a direct matrix ranking approach was applied to ten selected multipurpose species, following standard ethnobotanical methods [ 45 , 46 ]. Key informants assigned use-values to each species across multiple functional categories, including food, medicinal use, fodder, firewood, construction, charcoal, fencing, and furniture. Scores were assigned on a scale of 0 (not used) to 5 (best use). Average use-values were calculated for each category and summed to produce a total score for each species, allowing identification of the most versatile and culturally important WEPs in the study area. Data analysis Collected data were systematically organized, including vernacular and scientific names, botanical families, life forms, edible parts, and habitats. Records were maintained in Microsoft Word 2019, and descriptive statistics were used to summarize patterns of WEP utilization. Frequency distributions were presented through tables, pie charts, and bar graphs. Quantitative analyses were conducted using R software (version 4.3.2). Data normality was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test prior to conducting parametric analyses. Independent t-tests were applied to evaluate differences in WEP knowledge across gender, educational levels, and prior experience with WEPs. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine variations in knowledge among age groups. Pearson’s correlation analysis assessed the relationship between informant age and the number of WEP species reported [ 9 , 11 , 15 ]. Ethical considerations Prior to the commencement of fieldwork, ethical clearance and official research permission were obtained from the Department of Biology, University of Gondar. This authorization was further endorsed by the administrative authorities of Tegedie District and local community leaders in all selected study sites. The study was conducted in accordance with the International Society of Ethnobiology (ISE) Code of Ethics, ensuring full respect for indigenous knowledge systems, cultural values, and community rights throughout the research process. Free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) was obtained from all participants before data collection. Informants were clearly informed about the objectives, scope, and scientific significance of the study, as well as their right to decline participation or withdraw at any stage without any consequences. Due to local cultural norms, consent was obtained verbally, and participation was entirely voluntary. No financial incentives were provided, and the research was conducted strictly for academic and non-commercial purposes. Particular attention was given to the ethical documentation and use of indigenous knowledge related to WEPs. Participants were informed that the information they provided would contribute to the documentation, preservation, and promotion of ethnobotanical knowledge, particularly in relation to local food security, cultural heritage, and biodiversity conservation. The confidentiality and anonymity of all respondents were strictly maintained, and no personally identifiable or sensitive information was disclosed. With regard to biological specimen collection, all plant materials were collected, processed, and deposited within Ethiopia at the Mini Herbarium of the University of Gondar (UoG), and taxonomic identification was verified at the National Herbarium (ETH), Addis Ababa University. As no biological materials were transferred outside the country, the study complied fully with national biodiversity regulations. Consequently, Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) and Nagoya Protocol requirements for transboundary transfer were not applicable. Nevertheless, the research adhered to the principles of fair and equitable use of biological resources and associated traditional knowledge, in line with Ethiopia’s commitments to biodiversity conservation frameworks. The study also emphasized respect for local knowledge sovereignty and cultural integrity. Community members were recognized as custodians of ethnobotanical knowledge, and efforts were made to ensure that the outcomes of the research contribute to local awareness, sustainable resource management, and the transmission of knowledge across generations. Emphasis was placed on promoting the sustainable use and conservation of WEPs, recognizing their critical role in supporting food sovereignty, dietary diversity, and ecological resilience in the study area. Results and Discussion Diversity of Wild Edible Plants in the Study Area A total of 52 WEPs species belonging to 32 genera and 29 families were documented in Tegedie District, northwestern Ethiopia (Table 2 ). This reflects a relatively high diversity of wild food plants that continue to support the dietary practices and livelihood strategies of local communities. The recorded species include trees, shrubs, herbs, and climbers, demonstrating the ecological heterogeneity of the area and the broad range of habitats from which local people obtain edible plant resources. Such diversity indicates the close interaction between rural communities and their surrounding natural ecosystems, with WEPs providing supplementary food, particularly during periods of seasonal scarcity. Comparable ethnobotanical studies in Ethiopia including Adola, Burji, Konso, Metema, and Arsi districts have similarly reported diverse WEP inventories and highlighted their contribution to food security and the maintenance of traditional diets [ 9 , 17 , 47 – 49 ]. Table 2. Wild edible plants recorded in Tegedie District Local name Scientific name Voucher No. Family Habit Harvest season Users Parts used Mode of consumption Period of consumption Collection method Kusheshlia Acanthus polystachyus Delile UOGAG014 Acanthaceae Shrub Summer, Autumn All people Fruit Consumed fresh Normal Picking Aluma Amaranthus caudatus L. UOGAG032 Amaranthaceae Herb Summer All people Seed Seeds ground into powder and eaten Famine Picking Aluma Amaranthus hybridus L. UOGAG052 Amaranthaceae Herb Summer Women Leaf Leaves cooked as vegetables Normal Plucking Agamshiro Ampelocissus schimperiana (Hochst. ex A.Rich.) Planch. UOGAG031 Vitaceae Climber Summer All people Stem Peeled and eaten raw Famine Plucking Mekie Balanites aegyptiaca (L.) Delile UOGAG039 Zygophyllaceae Tree Winter All people Fruit Ripe fruits eaten fresh Normal Picking Agam Carissa spinarum L. UOGAG001 Apocynaceae Shrub Summer, Autumn All people Fruit Consumed fresh Normal Picking Ashama Clausena lansium (Lour.) Skeels UOGAG018 Rutaceae Shrub Summer, Autumn All people Fruit Fruits eaten fresh Normal Picking Sama Clausena lansium (Lour.) Skeels UOGAG037 Rutaceae Herb Summer Men Leaf Leaves washed and cooked Normal Plucking Wanza Cordia africana Lam. UOGAG015 Boraginaceae Tree Winter All people Fruit Consumed fresh or used for drinks Normal Picking Melekuya Corchorus olitorius L. UOGAG030 Malvaceae Herb Summer All people Leaf Cooked as vegetable Normal Plucking Astenager Datura stramonium L. UOGAG024 Solanaceae Herb Summer Children Flower Consumed fresh Normal Plucking Mujir Dioscorea bulbifera L. UOGAG051 Dioscoreaceae Climber Summer All people Tuber Boiled before eating Famine Digging Sada Dioscorea cayenensis Lam. UOGAG022 Dioscoreaceae Climber Summer All people Root Cooked before eating Famine Digging Yefyel anjet Dioscorea praehensilis Benth. UOGAG023 Dioscoreaceae Climber Summer All people Root Washed and eaten raw Famine Digging Yeberie chew Dioscorea villosa L. UOGAG026 Dioscoreaceae Climber Summer All people Stem Consumed fresh Famine Plucking Tse tso Diospyros abyssinica (Hiern) F.White UOGAG017 Ebenaceae Shrub Winter All people Fruit Consumed fresh or processed Normal Picking Serkin Diospyros mespiliformis Hochst. ex A.DC. UOGAG002 Ebenaceae Tree Winter All people Fruit Consumed fresh Normal Picking Koshim Dovyalis abyssinica (A.Rich.) Warb. UOGAG028 Salicaceae Tree Winter All people Fruit Consumed fresh Normal Picking Aberbara Ekebergia capensis Sparrm. UOGAG034 Meliaceae Tree Summer All people Stem Washed and eaten raw Famine Plucking Enkoko Embelia schimperi Vatke UOGAG040 Primulaceae Shrub Winter Children Fruit Consumed fresh Normal Picking Dedeho Euclea racemosa L. UOGAG042 Ebenaceae Shrub Winter Men Fruit Consumed fresh Normal Picking Shola Ficus sur Forssk. UOGAG005 Moraceae Tree Autumn, Winter All people Fruit Consumed fresh Normal Picking Bamba Ficus sycomorus L. UOGAG006 Moraceae Tree Winter All people Fruit Consumed fresh Normal Picking Kodo Ficus vasta Forssk. UOGAG007 Moraceae Tree Winter All people Fruit Consumed fresh Normal Picking Ayahda Flueggea virosa (Roxb. ex Willd.) Royle UOGAG011 Phyllanthaceae Shrub Winter All people Fruit Eaten fresh Normal Picking Lenqata Grewia ferruginea Hochst. ex A.Rich. UOGAG040 Malvaceae Shrub Winter All people Fruit Consumed fresh Normal Picking Betre musie Grewia flavescens Juss. UOGAG050 Malvaceae Shrub Spring Children Fruit Consumed fresh Normal Picking Guva Heliotropium steudneri Vatke UOGAG003 Boraginaceae Shrub Winter All people Fruit Consumed fresh Normal Picking Eshe Mimusops kummel Bruce ex A.DC. UOGAG046 Sapotaceae Tree Winter All people Fruit Eaten fresh Normal Picking Enjori Morus alba L. UOGAG041 Moraceae Tree Winter Children Fruit Consumed fresh Normal Picking Qulqual Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill. UOGAG012 Cactaceae Shrub Autumn, Winter All people Fruit Peeled and eaten fresh Normal Picking Michamcho Oxalis obliquifolia Steud. ex A.Rich. UOGAG027 Oxalidaceae Herb Summer All people Leaf Washed and eaten fresh Normal Plucking Tikur Leza Peponium vogelii (Hook.f.) Engl. UOGAG049 Cucurbitaceae Climber Spring Children Fruit Consumed fresh Normal Picking Zenbaba Phoenix reclinata Jacq. UOGAG042 Arecaceae Tree Winter Children Fruit Consumed fresh Normal Picking Mchocho Portulaca oleracea L. UOGAG013 Portulacaceae Herb Summer All people Leaf Eaten fresh or cooked Normal Plucking Yebere daba Pueraria montana (Lour.) Merr. UOGAG029 Fabaceae Climber Summer All people Root Washed and eaten Famine Digging Gesho Rhamnus prinoides L’Hér. UOGAG043 Rhamnaceae Shrub All seasons All people Leaf Used for brewing beverages Normal Plucking Kega Rosa abyssinica R.Br. ex Lindl. UOGAG009 Rosaceae Shrub Winter All people Fruit Consumed fresh Normal Picking Mekmeko Rumex abyssinicus Jacq. UOGAG025 Polygonaceae Herb Summer Women Stem Cooked before consumption Normal Plucking Enbacho Rumex nervosus Vahl UOGAG036 Polygonaceae Herb Summer All people Stem Cooked before eating Normal Plucking Kamo Searsia glutinosa (Hochst. ex A.Rich.) Moffett UOGAG010 Anacardiaceae Tree Winter All people Fruit Consumed fresh Normal Picking Murie Sporobolus africanus (Poir.) Robyns & Tournay UOGAG038 Poaceae Herbs Summer Men Seed Ground to prepare injera Famine Picking Darlie Sterculia setigera Delile UOGAG021 Malvaceae Tree Summer All people Fruit Young fruits eaten fresh Normal Picking Tinkuahayo Strychnos innocua Delile UOGAG019 Loganiaceae Shrub Autumn, Winter All people Fruit Consumed fresh Normal Picking Dokma Syzygium guineense (Willd.) DC. UOGAG016 Myrtaceae Tree Winter All people Fruit Consumed fresh Normal Picking Kumer Tamarindus indica L. UOGAG008 Fabaceae Tree Winter All people Fruit Pulp eaten fresh or prepared as drink Normal Picking Dnbulu Telosma cordata (Burm.f.) Merr. UOGAG033 Apocynaceae Herb Summer All people Stem Washed and eaten raw Famine Plucking Tosign Thymus schimperi Ronniger UOGAG044 Lamiaceae Herb All seasons Women Leaf Powdered leaves added to tea Normal Plucking Sama Urtica simensis Hochst. ex A.Rich. UOGAG045 Urticaceae Herb Summer Women Leaf Cooked as vegetable Normal Plucking Key girar Vachellia abyssinica (Hochst. ex Benth.) Kyal. & Boatwr. UOGAG035 Fabaceae Tree Summer All people Gum Chewed fresh Famine Plucking Tikur girar Vachellia nilotica (L.) P.J.H.Hurter & Mabb. UOGAG048 Fabaceae Tree Winter Children Gum Chewed directly Normal Plucking Nech girar Vachellia seyal (Delile) P.J.H.Hurter UOGAG041 Fabaceae Tree Winter Children Gum Chewed directly Normal Plucking Mesenko baria Vangueria madagascariensis J.F.Gmel. UOGAG020 Rubiaceae Tree Winter, Spring All people Fruit Consumed fresh Normal Picking Enkoy Ximenia americana L. UOGAG004 Olacaceae Shrub Summer, Autumn All people Fruit Consumed fresh Normal Picking Ahya gava Ziziphus abyssinica Hochst. ex A.Rich. UOGAG047 Rhamnaceae Shrub Winter All people Fruit Consumed fresh Normal Picking Open in a new tab The WEPs documented in Tegedie District were unevenly distributed among plant families, with Fabaceae, Malvaceae, Moraceae, Dioscoreaceae, and Rhamnaceae being the most represented. Notably, Fabaceae contributed the highest number of species, including Vachellia abyssinica , Vachellia nilotica , Vachellia seyal , Pueraria montana , and Tamarindus indica . The prominence of Fabaceae is likely associated with its wide ecological distribution and multifunctional value for food, fodder, and traditional medicine. Similar patterns have been observed in Ethiopian districts such as Gursum, Yeki, and Raya, where Fabaceae species are frequently cited among WEPs [ 15 , 50 , 51 ]. Across Africa, countries such as Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania also report Fabaceae species as key contributors to rural diets due to their adaptability, productivity, and nutritional content [ 26 , 52 , 53 ]. From a broader perspective, the diversity of WEPs in Tegedie District aligns with ethnobotanical findings from several African and Asian regions. Studies in West African countries, including Nigeria, Ghana, and Burkina Faso, show that rural populations rely on a similar range of WEP species as seasonal or supplementary foods [ 54 – 58 ]. Ethnobotanical surveys in India, Pakistan, and China further emphasize the importance of WEPs for dietary diversity, nutritional security, and cultural heritage [ 59 – 63 ]. These cross-regional patterns suggest that the use of WEPs is a widespread strategy among rural communities to cope with environmental variability and ensure household food availability. The variety of growth forms recorded in this study trees, shrubs, herbs, and climbers illustrates the ecological breadth of wild edible plant resources in Tegedie District. Consistent with many ethnobotanical investigations, trees and shrubs dominate WEP inventories due to their provision of fruits and edible leaves that are easy to harvest and consume. Comparable trends have been reported in Ethiopian districts such as Hula, East Shewa, and Gibe, as well as in South Africa and Tanzania [ 64 – 68 ]. Tree-based edible plants are particularly important in semi-arid and drought-prone environments, as they often remain productive even when annual crops fail, thereby acting as critical safety-net foods during periods of scarcity. The findings also underscore the role of WEPs in supporting food security, biodiversity conservation, and rural livelihoods in Tegedie District. The considerable species richness suggests that these plants provide dietary supplements rich in vitamins, minerals, and other micronutrients often lacking in staple-based diets. Global assessments highlight that wild foods enhance dietary diversity and strengthen the resilience of local food systems, especially in developing countries [ 69 – 71 ]. Nevertheless, increasing pressures from agricultural expansion, land-use change, and climate variability pose risks to the sustainability of these resources. Promoting community-based conservation and strengthening the documentation of indigenous knowledge are therefore critical for the continued use and preservation of WEPs. Taken together, the diversity of WEPs documented in Tegedie District illustrates the broader significance of traditional plant knowledge and the continued reliance of rural communities on natural ecosystems for food and livelihoods. When compared with similar ethnobotanical studies across Ethiopia, Africa, and Asia, the results confirm that WEPs remain integral to traditional food systems and biodiversity-based livelihoods. Strengthening research, conservation, and awareness initiatives will enhance sustainable utilization of these plant resources while preserving the indigenous knowledge associated with them. The study further highlights the potential for WEPs to contribute to food sovereignty, dietary diversity, and ecological resilience under changing environmental and socio-economic conditions. Growth forms of wild edible plant species in the study area Analysis of the growth forms of WEPs documented in Tegedie District revealed substantial structural diversity, reflecting the ecological complexity of the area and the variety of plant resources utilized by local communities. Among the recorded species, trees constituted the largest proportion, followed by herbs and shrubs, while climbers were represented by relatively fewer species. This distribution indicates that different vegetation strata contribute to local food systems, with woody vegetation playing a particularly important role. Similar patterns have been reported in ethnobotanical studies conducted in Ethiopian districts such as Adola, Konso, Gursum, Metema, and Raya, where trees dominate WEP inventories due to their long lifespan and consistent production of edible plant parts [ 17 , 47 , 48 , 50 , 51 ]. In this study, 19 species (36.5%) were identified as trees, making them the dominant growth form among WEPs. Common examples include Cordia africana , Syzygium guineense , Tamarindus indica , Mimusops kummel , and Diospyros mespiliformis , which provide edible fruits or other plant parts widely consumed by local communities. The predominance of trees highlights the importance of forest and woodland vegetation as key sources of wild foods. Tree species often produce nutrient-rich fruits and remain productive even during dry seasons, making them reliable food resources during periods of crop failure. Comparable observations have been reported from East African countries such as Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania, where fruit-bearing tree species constitute a significant portion of the wild edible flora used by rural populations [ 72 – 75 ]. Similar trends are also noted in West African countries including Nigeria, Ghana, and Burkina Faso, where woody species collected from forests and agroforestry systems provide important seasonal food supplements [ 57 , 76 – 79 ]. These similarities suggest that tree-based wild foods are a common feature of traditional food systems across tropical regions. Herbaceous plants represented 18 species (34.6%) and were the second most common growth form in the study area. Species such as Amaranthus hybridus , Corchorus olitorius , Portulaca oleracea , and Urtica simensis are primarily used for their edible leaves and are commonly prepared as cooked vegetables. The relatively high proportion of herbs may be attributed to their rapid growth, seasonal abundance, and accessibility in farmlands, forest edges, and disturbed habitats. These species contribute important vitamins and micronutrients to local diets. Similar observations have been reported from Ethiopian regions such as Arsi, East Shewa, and Hula, where herbaceous wild vegetables are frequently collected [ 62 , 65 , 80 ]. Studies from Asia, particularly India and Pakistan, have also documented widespread use of herbaceous wild vegetables as affordable and nutritionally valuable components of rural diets [ 81 – 85 ]. Shrubs accounted for 10 species (19.2%) of the recorded WEPs, indicating a moderate contribution to local food resources. Examples include Carissa spinarum , Rhamnus prinoides , Grewia ferruginea , and Ximenia americana , which provide edible fruits or leaves commonly consumed by households. Shrubs often grow in bushlands, field margins, and degraded landscapes, making them readily accessible. Similar findings have been reported from Ethiopian districts such as Quara, Yeki, and Guraferda [ 15 , 16 , 20 ], as well as in parts of Africa including Cameroon and South Africa, where shrubs complement diets by providing edible fruits and medicinal plant resources [ 86 – 89 ]. Climbers represented five species (9.6%) of the WEPs, including Ampelocissus schimperiana , Peponium vogelii , Pueraria montana , and Dioscorea spp. Although fewer in number, climbers contribute to dietary diversity by providing fruits, stems, and underground storage organs such as tubers. Their limited proportion may reflect ecological distribution, growth constraints, or local harvesting preferences. Similar patterns have been observed in East African and Asian ethnobotanical studies, where climbers are typically less abundant but still play a meaningful role in supplementing seasonal diets [ 90 – 93 ]. Thus, the predominance of trees and herbs among the recorded WEPs suggests that both forested and herbaceous vegetation play crucial roles in supporting traditional food systems in Tegedie District. The diversity of growth forms reflects the ecological variability of the landscape, where forests, bushlands, and agricultural fields provide distinct habitats for edible plant species. These findings underscore the contribution of WEPs to rural food security, dietary diversity, and livelihood resilience. Recent studies emphasize that wild foods provide essential micronutrients and diversify diets, particularly in rural communities with limited access to cultivated foods [ 3 , 94 ]. Conserving natural vegetation and promoting sustainable management of WEPs are therefore critical to ensure their continued availability. Strengthening community-based conservation and documenting indigenous knowledge will help maintain both biodiversity and traditional food systems in Tegedie District and similar ecological settings. Parts of wild edible plants used as food in the study area The ethnobotanical survey conducted in Tegedie District revealed that local communities utilize a wide range of plant parts from wild edible species (WEPs) as food. Documented species provide various edible components, including fruits, leaves, roots, tubers, stems, seeds, flowers, and gums. This diversity reflects the extensive indigenous knowledge of the local population in identifying, harvesting, and preparing different plant components for consumption. Such knowledge has been developed through long-term interaction between communities and their surrounding ecosystems. Similar patterns have been reported in Ethiopian districts such as Adola, Konso, Gayint, Metema, and Gursum, where rural households rely on multiple plant parts from wild species to supplement their diets and enhance household food security [ 11 , 18 , 47 , 48 , 50 , 95 ]. Among the edible plant parts recorded in this study, fruits were the most commonly utilized, accounting for 31 species (59.6%) of the documented WEPs. Fruits from species such as Carissa spinarum , Cordia africana , Diospyros mespiliformis , Syzygium guineense , Ximenia americana , Ziziphus abyssinica , and Opuntia ficus-indica are widely consumed fresh, particularly by children, farmers, and herders while moving through forests and agricultural landscapes. The predominance of fruit consumption indicates that wild fruits represent a critical seasonal food resource in the study area. Comparable observations have been reported in African countries, including Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Nigeria, and Ghana, where fruits constitute the most frequently consumed part of WEPs due to their palatability, accessibility, and nutritional value [ 53 , 54 , 96 – 98 ]. Similar trends have also been documented in West Africa and parts of Asia, including India and Pakistan, where wild fruits play a vital role in enhancing dietary diversity and providing supplementary nutrition for rural populations [ 23 , 44 , 63 , 78 ]. Leaves were the second most frequently used plant part, accounting for eight species (15.4%). Leaves of species such as Amaranthus hybridus , Corchorus olitorius , Urtica simensis , Portulaca oleracea , and Thymus schimperi are commonly cooked and consumed as vegetables or used as flavoring agents in traditional foods and beverages. The use of wild leafy vegetables highlights their significance as accessible sources of essential nutrients, including vitamins, minerals, and dietary fiber. Similar observations have been reported in Ethiopian regions such as Delanta, Soro, and Dibatie, where leafy wild plants contribute substantially to household nutrition and dietary diversity [ 2 , 37 , 99 , 100 ]. Studies from China and other Asian countries also underscore the nutritional and cultural importance of wild leafy vegetables in traditional food systems [ 61 , 101 ]. Roots and tubers represented another important category, accounting for five species (9.6%). Underground parts of species mainly from the genera Dioscorea and Pueraria montana are collected and consumed primarily during periods of food shortage. These plants are often considered famine foods, providing alternative sources of carbohydrates when staple crops fail due to drought, crop failure, or economic constraints. Similar patterns have been reported from Ethiopian districts such as Chilga, Goba, and Yeki, where wild tuberous plants serve as emergency food resources [ 15 , 19 , 27 , 95 ]. Comparable reliance on wild tubers has also been documented in several African and Asian regions, highlighting their role as safety-net foods during periods of food insecurity [ 68 , 102 – 104 ]. Other plant parts were less frequently used in the study area. Stems accounted for four species (7.7%), while gums were obtained from three species (5.8%), mainly from Vachellia species, where the gum is chewed as a snack. The occasional use of gums reflects traditional practices in which certain exudates are valued for both taste and cultural or medicinal significance. Seeds and flowers were rarely used, each represented by one species (1.9%). Similar patterns have been reported in other African regions, where fruits and leaves dominate WEP use, while seeds and flowers are infrequently consumed [ 77 , 105 ]. The predominance of fruits and leaves among the edible plant parts suggests that WEPs in Tegedie District primarily function as supplementary foods and seasonal snacks, whereas underground parts such as roots and tubers serve as fallback resources during periods of food scarcity. This pattern reflects a broader ethnobotanical trend observed across Africa and other regions, where communities rely on easily accessible plant parts for daily consumption and turn to alternative resources under environmental or economic stress. From a wider perspective, these findings underscore the importance of WEPs in promoting dietary diversity, nutritional security, and livelihood resilience in rural communities. Global assessments highlight that wild foods provide essential micronutrients and support local food systems, particularly in areas vulnerable to climate variability and food insecurity [ 78 , 106 ]. The results further emphasize the need to preserve indigenous knowledge and promote the sustainable management of wild plant resources. Increasing pressures from deforestation, agricultural expansion, and environmental change may threaten the availability of many WEP species. Integrating traditional ecological knowledge with biodiversity conservation strategies and raising awareness about the nutritional and cultural value of wild foods are essential steps to ensure that WEPs continue to contribute to food security, cultural heritage, and ecological sustainability in Tegedie District and similar environments. Methods of wild edible plant collection in the study area The ethnobotanical survey conducted in Tegedie District revealed that local communities employ various traditional methods to collect WEPs, depending on the plant part being harvested. Three primary collection techniques were identified: picking, plucking, and digging. These harvesting approaches reflect the practical ecological knowledge developed by local people through long-term interaction with their surrounding environment. Similar traditional harvesting practices have been documented in Ethiopian districts such as Guraferda, Shabelle, Gibe, Korahe, and Quara, where rural communities rely on simple manual techniques to gather edible plant resources from forests, grazing lands, and agricultural fields [ 16 , 20 , 31 , 66 , 107 ]. The use of these locally adapted harvesting methods illustrates the strong link between indigenous knowledge systems and the sustainable utilization of plant biodiversity for household nutrition and livelihood support. Among the identified methods, picking was the most frequently practiced, accounting for 32 species (61.5%) of the documented WEPs. This method is primarily used to harvest edible fruits and seeds from trees and shrubs. Species such as Carissa spinarum , Cordia africana , Diospyros mespiliformis , Syzygium guineense , Ximenia americana , and Ziziphus abyssinica are typically collected directly from the plant or gathered after naturally falling to the ground. The predominance of picking corresponds with the high proportion of fruit-bearing WEPs recorded in the study area. Similar findings have been reported in African countries, including Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Nigeria, and Ghana, where manual fruit collection is the most common method due to its simplicity, accessibility, and minimal impact on plant survival [ 26 , 54 , 55 , 75 , 96 , 108 ]. Comparable patterns have also been documented in West Africa and Asia, including India and Pakistan, where rural communities frequently gather wild fruits as seasonal snacks and supplementary food resources [ 76 , 81 , 101 , 109 ]. The second most common method was plucking, applied to 15 species (28.8%). Plucking is used mainly for leaves, stems, flowers, and gums. For example, leaves of Amaranthus hybridus , Corchorus olitorius , Urtica simensis , and Portulaca oleracea are harvested by manually removing them from the plant, while gums are obtained from Vachellia species. Plucking allows the collection of edible plant parts without destroying the parent plant, thereby promoting continued growth and regeneration. Similar harvesting approaches have been reported in Ethiopian regions such as East Shewa, Hula, and Hararghe, where wild leafy vegetables are commonly collected using manual plucking techniques [ 64 , 65 , 110 ]. Studies from China and India also emphasize the widespread use of plucking for harvesting wild leafy vegetables and aromatic herbs, highlighting their role in supporting dietary diversity and local nutrition [ 111 – 113 ]. Digging was the least frequently reported method, accounting for five species (9.6%). This technique is primarily applied to underground plant parts such as roots and tubers, particularly in the genera Dioscorea and Pueraria montana . These underground plant resources often serve as famine foods, consumed during droughts, crop failure, or seasonal food shortages. Similar patterns have been documented in Ethiopian districts including Raya, Yeki, Goba, and Dibatie, where wild tubers and roots constitute critical emergency food resources [ 2 , 15 , 27 , 51 ]. Comparable findings in Africa and Asia confirm that underground plant parts play an important role in food resilience under environmental and economic stress [ 114 , 115 ]. The predominance of picking and plucking indicates that most WEPs in the study area are harvested from aboveground plant parts, particularly fruits and leaves. These methods are generally simple, labor-efficient, and rely primarily on manual skills rather than specialized equipment. Their continued use reflects the importance of indigenous knowledge systems in guiding sustainable resource utilization. In many cases, these practices allow communities to gather plant resources without significantly harming the parent plant, thereby supporting natural regeneration and long-term availability. Similar conclusions have been drawn from ethnobotanical studies conducted across Africa, Asia, and Europe, where traditional harvesting strategies are adapted to balance ecological sustainability with local nutritional needs [ 105 , 116 , 117 ]. Thus, the documented harvesting practices demonstrate how local communities interact with and manage their ecosystems to obtain food resources. These practices have important implications for biodiversity conservation, sustainable resource management, and rural food security. With increasing pressures from deforestation, agricultural expansion, and climate change, the availability of many WEP species may be threatened. Therefore, documenting and strengthening indigenous harvesting knowledge is essential for effective conservation. Promoting sustainable harvesting techniques and integrating traditional ecological knowledge into biodiversity management programs could ensure the continued availability of WEPs and enhance livelihood resilience in Tegedie District and similar ecological regions. Wild edible plant collection seasons in Tegedie District The ethnobotanical survey in Tegedie District revealed that WEPs are harvested across different seasons, largely depending on plant phenology, fruiting periods, and local environmental conditions. Seasonal availability strongly influences community access and utilization, reflecting adaptive ecological knowledge developed over generations. Similar seasonal harvesting patterns have been documented in Ethiopian districts such as Mieso, Bullen, Berek, Burji, and Shabelle, where households rely on WEPs appearing at different times of the year to supplement diets and maintain food security [ 6 , 9 , 18 , 107 , 118 ]. In Tegedie District, summer was the dominant collection season, with approximately 22 species (42.3%) harvested. This period coincides with the rainy season, which promotes the rapid growth of herbaceous plants, climbers, and other edible species. Species such as Amaranthus hybridus , Corchorus olitorius , Urtica simensis , Portulaca oleracea , Dioscorea bulbifera , and Pueraria montana are typically collected during this time due to the abundance of leaves, stems, and underground parts. Comparable trends have been reported in East African countries including Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania, where seasonal rainfall enhances the availability of leafy vegetables and tubers [ 72 , 74 , 75 ]. Similar patterns are also observed in South Asia, particularly India and Pakistan, where monsoon rains increase the growth and accessibility of WEPs in rural landscapes [ 23 , 42 , 59 , 84 ]. Winter accounted for the second-largest proportion of harvested species, with about 21 species (40.4%). During this dry season, many fruit-bearing trees and shrubs reach maturity, providing critical nutritional resources. Species such as Syzygium guineense , Diospyros mespiliformis , Ficus sycomorus , Tamarindus indica , and Ximenia americana are commonly collected in winter. These fruits help rural households supplement diets when cultivated crops are limited. Similar patterns have been documented in West African countries, including Nigeria, Ghana, and Burkina Faso, where wild fruits are essential dietary components during the dry season [ 56 , 79 , 119 ]. Studies from Southern Africa and parts of Asia also highlight the nutritional importance of winter-harvested fruits in sustaining rural food systems [ 67 , 68 , 120 ]. Autumn contributed about six species (11.5%), primarily fruit-bearing plants such as Carissa spinarum , Opuntia ficus-indica , Ficus sur , and Strychnos innocua . These species provide fresh fruits during the transitional period between rainy and dry seasons, bridging seasonal food gaps. Ethnobotanical studies in Cameroon and other West African regions report similar contributions of transitional-season species in maintaining year-round food availability [ 77 , 89 ]. Spring represented the lowest proportion of harvested species, with approximately three species (5.8%) collected, including Peponium vogelii , Grewia flavescens , and Vangueria madagascariensis . Although fewer species are available during this period, they remain important early-year food resources. Comparable seasonal patterns have been observed in East Africa and South Asia, where the early dry season supports fewer WEPs due to limited rainfall and reduced vegetative growth [ 92 , 101 , 102 ]. Overall, the seasonal distribution of WEPs in Tegedie District demonstrates that summer and winter are critical periods for harvesting, reflecting both ecological cycles and local dietary needs. These plants serve as supplementary foods throughout the year, enhancing dietary diversity, nutritional security, and resilience to seasonal fluctuations in crop production. Similar seasonal reliance on WEPs has been documented across Africa, Asia, and other regions, highlighting the universal role of naturally available plant resources in buffering food shortages [ 57 , 60 ]. From a broader perspective, these findings emphasize the importance of conserving wild plant habitats and preserving indigenous knowledge regarding plant phenology and seasonal harvesting. Environmental pressures such as climate variability, land-use change, and deforestation could disrupt the availability of WEPs. Integrating traditional ecological knowledge with biodiversity conservation and sustainable land management strategies is essential for maintaining food security, cultural heritage, and ecological resilience in Tegedie District and comparable landscapes. Wild edible plant harvesters in Tegedie District The ethnobotanical survey in Tegedie District revealed that the harvesting of WEPs is a broadly shared activity across the community, involving children, women, men, and the wider population. Most species (76.9%) were collected by all community members, reflecting the accessibility and abundance of these plants in nearby forests, grazing lands, and farmlands. Species such as Carissa spinarum , Cordia africana , Syzygium guineense , Ximenia americana , and Ziziphus abyssinica were harvested for direct consumption as fruits or supplementary foods, accessible to individuals of all ages. This communal harvesting pattern aligns with findings from Ethiopian districts including Midakegn, Guraferda, Gayint, Metema, and Quara, where widespread collection of readily available WEPs supports household food security and dietary diversity [ 4 , 11 , 16 , 20 , 95 ]. Similarly, in East African countries such as Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania, community-wide access to wild fruits contributes to nutrition and resilience during periods of food scarcity [ 26 , 53 , 75 ]. Children were identified as the second most active harvester group, collecting approximately six species (11.5%), particularly fruits and gums. They often gather resources while herding livestock, traveling to school, or during recreational periods. Species such as Morus alba , Phoenix reclinata , Vachellia nilotica , and Peponium vogelii provide edible fruits or gums consumed fresh. Children’s participation not only supplements their diets but also facilitates the intergenerational transfer of ecological knowledge, including plant identification, seasonal availability, and sustainable harvesting practices. Comparable patterns have been observed in West Africa and parts of Asia, where children’s involvement in foraging contributes both to nutrition and to the preservation of traditional knowledge [ 77 , 78 , 90 , 115 ]. Women were responsible for collecting approximately four species (7.7%), predominantly leafy vegetables and condiments such as Amaranthus hybridus , Urtica simensis , Rumex abyssinicus , and Thymus schimperi . Their involvement underscores the central role of women in household nutrition and meal preparation. Similar gendered patterns of harvesting wild leafy vegetables have been reported in Ethiopian districts such as Arsi, East Shewa, and Hula [ 49 , 64 , 65 , 121 ], as well as in South Asian countries including India and Pakistan, reflecting the culturally defined division of labor in traditional food systems [ 23 , 60 , 82 , 85 ]. Men accounted for the smallest proportion of harvesters (3.8%), primarily collecting species requiring greater effort or associated with outdoor activities, such as Sporobolus africanus and Euclea racemosa . This pattern mirrors findings from ethnobotanical studies across Africa and Asia, where men typically engage in harvesting activities that are physically demanding or linked to occupational routines [ 113 , 122 , 123 ]. Hence, these findings highlight that WEP harvesting in Tegedie District is a community-wide endeavor, with roles influenced by age, gender, and social activity patterns. Children and women play crucial roles in securing fruits and leafy vegetables, while men focus on labor-intensive species. This distribution of harvesting responsibilities ensures equitable sharing of traditional ecological knowledge, preserving information on plant identification, seasonal availability, and sustainable utilization across generations. Understanding these social dynamics is essential for promoting sustainable resource management, biodiversity conservation, and rural food security, as collective participation fosters community stewardship and enhances the resilience of wild plant resources in the face of environmental change [ 3 , 78 , 112 ]. Adverse effects associated with the consumption of wild edible plants in Tegedie District The ethnobotanical survey in Tegedie District revealed that while WEPs provide critical nutritional and dietary support, some species may pose adverse effects if consumed improperly or in excessive quantities. Informants emphasized that most WEPs are safe when processed according to traditional practices such as washing, peeling, or cooking, underscoring the importance of indigenous knowledge in minimizing health risks. Similar observations have been documented in Ethiopian districts including Soro, Gursum, and Metema, where adherence to traditional preparation methods ensures both safety and palatability of wild plant foods [ 11 , 20 , 50 , 100 ]. Globally, studies from East Africa, South Asia, and Australia also highlight that proper processing of WEPs significantly reduces toxicity while enhancing their nutritional contribution [ 61 , 63 , 96 ]. Among the documented species, certain herbaceous plants, notably Datura stramonium (locally “Astenager”), were identified as potentially toxic if consumed raw, particularly by children (Table 3 ). This species contains tropane alkaloids that may induce nausea, dizziness, or more severe toxic reactions when ingested improperly. Comparable risks associated with Datura species have been reported in West African and South Asian contexts, emphasizing the need for careful handling, especially for vulnerable populations [ 56 , 59 , 77 , 78 , 101 ]. Similarly, certain leafy vegetables, including Rumex abyssinicus (Mekmeko) and Rumex nervosus (Enbacho), were noted to have mild bitterness and laxative effects if not thoroughly washed or cooked. While these effects are typically minor, they reinforce the critical role of traditional preparation techniques in mitigating potential health hazards a finding consistent across multiple African ethnobotanical studies [ 8 , 11 , 107 ]. Table 3. Summarizing wild edible plants in Tegedie District with reported adverse effects Scientific Name Reported Adverse Effect Recommended Preparation Method Datura stramonium Toxicity if consumed raw; nausea, dizziness Must be carefully prepared or avoided; only used with expert knowledge Rumex abyssinicus Bitter taste; mild laxative effect if raw Wash thoroughly and cook before consumption Rumex nervosus Bitter taste; mild laxative effect if raw Wash thoroughly and cook before consumption Dioscorea bulbifera Mild gastrointestinal upset if overconsumed Wash thoroughly, peel, and cook before eating Amaranthus caudatus Mild stomach discomfort if consumed in excess Grind seeds properly; wash and cook leaves before consumption Pueraria montana Slight digestive discomfort if overconsumed Wash, peel, and cook before consumption Vachellia abyssinica Can cause mild throat irritation if chewed excessively Chew small amounts only; avoid large quantities Open in a new tab Overconsumption of some fruits, seeds, and tubers may also trigger gastrointestinal discomfort. For instance, seeds of Amaranthus caudatus (Aluma) or tubers of Dioscorea bulbifera (Mujir) can cause mild stomach upset when eaten in large quantities. This observation aligns with global research, which emphasizes that even commonly safe WEPs can lead to adverse effects if dietary moderation is ignored [ 88 , 111 , 112 , 124 ]. Similar patterns have been observed in Kenya, Uganda, India, and China, where wild fruits, leafy greens, and tubers are integral to local diets but require careful handling and controlled consumption [ 33 , 72 , 97 , 125 ]. These findings highlight the essential role of traditional ecological knowledge in guiding safe harvesting, processing, and consumption of WEPs. Indigenous practices dictate which species are appropriate for consumption and prescribe proper methods for handling them, reducing toxicity while maximizing nutritional benefits. From a broader perspective, maintaining such knowledge is crucial for public health, particularly in rural communities that rely on WEPs as seasonal supplements. Educating households on toxic species, safe processing, and moderation can enhance community resilience, safeguard health, and preserve cultural food practices [ 3 , 78 , 82 , 88 ]. Hence, while the majority of WEPs in Tegedie District are safe when prepared according to local methods, species containing bioactive or toxic compounds require careful attention. Documenting and preserving indigenous knowledge is vital to ensuring safe consumption, supporting dietary diversity, and protecting public health in rural food systems. These results underscore the intersection of ethnobotany, nutrition, and community health, a relationship increasingly recognized in both African and global studies of wild plant foods [ 22 , 115 , 121 ]. Marketed wild edible plants in Tegedie District The ethnobotanical survey in Tegedie District revealed that while WEPs are widely consumed, only a small proportion is marketed. Most species are harvested primarily for household consumption, serving as supplementary foods, seasonal snacks, or famine reserves rather than commodities for trade. This pattern reflects a subsistence-oriented utilization system in which wild plants play a crucial role in sustaining local diets and ensuring food security, particularly in rural and marginal environments. Similar trends have been documented in Ethiopian districts including Adola, Konso, Karamara, and Chilga, where wild fruits and leafy vegetables are predominantly consumed within households with limited commercial engagement [ 18 , 19 , 47 , 48 , 126 ]. Comparable observations in East and West African countries such as Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, and Ghana indicate that subsistence use of WEPs is a common strategy for maintaining nutritional diversity and coping with seasonal food shortages [ 55 , 72 , 74 , 79 ]. Among the documented species, a few fruit-bearing trees and shrubs were identified as having market value. Species such as Cordia africana , Tamarindus indica , and Vangueria madagascariensis are occasionally sold in local or nearby markets, providing supplementary income for rural households (Table 4 ). Similarly, leafy vegetables such as Amaranthus hybridus and Corchorus olitorius may be harvested for sale during the rainy season when they are abundant. These observations align with findings from other African and Asian contexts, where wild fruits and leafy vegetables contribute to both household income and community nutrition, albeit on a small scale and in response to seasonal availability [ 82 , 90 , 117 ]. The limited commercialization observed in Tegedie District suggests that local communities prioritize subsistence and food security over market-oriented exploitation, reflecting an intrinsic understanding of sustainable resource use. Table 4. Lists of marketable wild edible plants in the study area Marketable wild edibles Frequency Ximenia Americana 50 Syzygium guineense 48 Ficus sycomorus 44 Cordia africana 42 Ficus vasta 39 Diospyros mespiliformis 37 Rumex abyssinicus 35 Corchorus olitorius 33 Sporobolus africanus 30 Haliotropium steudneri 28 Dioscorea praehensilis 26 Tamarindus indica 19 Open in a new tab The restricted trade of WEPs carries several important implications. First, it emphasizes the reliance of rural households on naturally available resources to supplement diets and enhance nutritional resilience, especially during periods of crop failure or environmental stress. Second, it highlights the need for careful management and conservation of wild plant populations, as overexploitation for commercial purposes could threaten these resources. Similar studies from East and West Africa, as well as Asia and South America, emphasize that maintaining a balance between household consumption and market extraction is critical for the sustainable use of WEPs [ 78 , 80 , 81 ]. Finally, the limited commercialization presents opportunities for community-based interventions, such as promoting sustainable harvesting practices, value addition, or controlled cultivation, which could enhance livelihoods without compromising ecological integrity. Thus, the findings from Tegedie District reinforce the dual role of WEPs as both dietary supplements and potential sources of income. While subsistence consumption remains the dominant use, selective commercialization of certain species demonstrates their economic potential. Ensuring sustainable use, preserving traditional knowledge, and integrating local communities into resource management strategies are essential to maintaining the nutritional, cultural, and economic benefits of WEPs. These insights contribute to broader ethnobotanical and food security discussions in Africa, Asia, and globally, emphasizing the importance of wild plant resources in supporting rural livelihoods and resilient food systems [ 6 , 73 , 127 ]. Novel ethnobotanical findings The findings of this study reveal important ethnobotanical patterns that both align with and extend previous research conducted in Ethiopia and other regions. The documentation of 52 WEPs species highlights substantial biodiversity and confirms that rural communities continue to rely on these resources for subsistence, dietary supplementation, and cultural purposes [ 2 , 5 , 8 , 12 ]. This richness is comparable to earlier ethnobotanical studies in Ethiopia, suggesting that WEPs remain integral components of local food systems despite increasing environmental and socio-economic pressures [ 4 , 9 , 18 ]. A key contribution of this study is the identification of a strong relationship between cultural importance, ecological availability, and multifunctional use of plant species. Fruit-bearing woody plants such as Cordia africana , Carissa spinarum , and Syzygium guineense were consistently ranked highly across multiple evaluation methods. This finding supports earlier studies indicating that species with multiple uses food, fuel, medicinal value, and income generation tend to be more highly valued by local communities [ 1 , 3 , 6 ]. Unlike studies that rely on single ranking indices, this study demonstrates that plant importance is multidimensional, shaped by a combination of accessibility, taste preference, and livelihood contributions [ 21 , 35 ]. The functional classification of WEPs into daily-use, supplementary, and emergency food sources provides further insight into their role in household food security. Trees and shrubs dominate regular consumption due to their availability and ease of use, whereas herbaceous species serve as seasonal dietary supplements. In contrast, climbers and tuberous plants are primarily utilized during food shortages, highlighting their role as fallback resources [ 14 , 22 , 70 ]. This pattern is consistent with findings from other regions, where less preferred species become critical during periods of scarcity, thereby enhancing community resilience [ 23 , 24 ]. The study also highlights significant socio-demographic variation in ethnobotanical knowledge. Older individuals and less formally educated members of the community possess greater knowledge of WEPs, indicating that such knowledge is largely experiential and transmitted through generations [ 32 , 36 ]. This agrees with previous research showing that modernization and formal education systems often contribute to the erosion of traditional ecological knowledge [ 33 , 65 ]. The observed gender differences further reflect culturally defined roles, where women are more involved in the preparation of leafy vegetables, while men and children engage more in fruit collection. Such divisions emphasize the importance of social structure in shaping knowledge distribution and resource use [ 48 , 65 ]. Despite the diversity of WEPs identified, their commercialization remains limited. Only a few species, notably Tamarindus indica and Cordia africana , are regularly traded in local markets, while the majorities are consumed at the household level. This indicates that WEP utilization in the study area is predominantly subsistence-oriented rather than market-driven [ 48 , 69 ]. While this may reduce pressure on natural resources and support sustainable use, it also suggests missed opportunities for income generation and livelihood diversification, as highlighted in broader studies on underutilized plant species [ 21 , 29 ]. Comparative analysis reveals both similarities and differences with studies conducted in other parts of Ethiopia and beyond. The dominance of fruit-bearing woody species is a common feature across many regions, reflecting shared ecological conditions and cultural preferences [ 9 , 19 , 26 ]. However, variations in species composition and use patterns demonstrate the influence of local environmental conditions and socio-cultural contexts [ 31 , 49 ]. These findings underscore the importance of location-specific studies in understanding ethnobotanical diversity and utilization. The preference for fruits over other plant parts can be attributed to their palatability, immediate edibility, and minimal processing requirements. In contrast, tubers of climbers are less preferred due to their labor-intensive preparation and perception as famine foods, despite their nutritional value [ 22 , 81 ]. This highlights the role of cultural perceptions in shaping food choices, sometimes overriding nutritional considerations. Such insights are important for designing interventions aimed at promoting underutilized but nutritionally valuable species. From an environmental perspective, the heavy reliance on fruits of woody species raises concerns about sustainability. Ongoing threats such as agricultural expansion, deforestation, and overgrazing may lead to the depletion of key WEP species [ 30 , 92 ]. This finding aligns with global concerns regarding biodiversity loss and its implications for food security [ 28 , 88 ]. Therefore, integrating WEPs into agroforestry systems and promoting community-based conservation strategies are essential for ensuring their long-term availability. WEPs also play a critical role in enhancing food sovereignty and resilience. Their use during periods of food scarcity demonstrates their importance as safety nets against seasonal hunger and climate variability [ 102 , 103 ]. Additionally, these plants contribute to dietary diversity by providing essential micronutrients, which are often lacking in staple-based diets [ 3 , 14 , 37 ]. This highlights their potential role in addressing malnutrition and improving public health outcomes in rural communities. However, the study identifies a concerning decline in indigenous knowledge associated with WEPs, particularly among younger generations. As traditional knowledge is primarily transmitted orally, it is highly vulnerable to disruption from socio-economic changes, urbanization, and shifting dietary preferences [ 35 , 36 ]. The loss of this knowledge not only threatens cultural heritage but also limits the effective utilization and conservation of plant resources. Relative frequency of citation of wild edible plants in Tegedie District The relative frequency of citation (RFC) is a widely used ethnobotanical index that quantifies how frequently a particular wild edible plant (WEP) is mentioned by informants, reflecting its cultural prominence, utility, and local recognition [ 31 , 69 , 126 ]. Higher RFC values indicate species that are not only widely known but also commonly used, providing insights into their dietary, nutritional, and cultural significance. In Tegedie District, fruit-bearing trees and shrubs were the most frequently cited, highlighting their central role in local diets and cultural practices. Species such as Cordia africana (Wanza), Carissa spinarum (Agam), Syzygium guineense (Dokma), Diospyros mespiliformis (Serkin), and Tamarindus indica (Kumer) recorded the highest RFC values, demonstrating near-universal recognition among informants. These plants provide easily consumable fruits that require minimal processing, making them highly accessible and reliable sources of nutrition. Similar patterns have been reported in East and West African countries, including Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, and Ghana, where fruit-bearing WEPs are consistently highly cited due to their availability, palatability, and importance in household food security [ 56 , 77 , 96 , 108 , 119 ]. Herbaceous species, including Amaranthus hybridus (Aluma), Corchorus olitorius (Melekuya), and Urtica simensis (Sama), exhibited moderate RFC values. These plants are primarily harvested for their leaves and stems and consumed as cooked vegetables within households. Their lower RFC values compared to fruit-bearing trees suggest that seasonal growth, labor-intensive collection, and more localized knowledge influence their cultural recognition. Ethnobotanical studies in Ethiopian districts such as Konso, Yeki, and Metema report similar trends, where herbaceous WEPs are valued but less universally recognized due to their shorter availability and household-specific use [ 11 , 15 , 48 ]. Climbing and tuberous species, including Dioscorea bulbifera (Mujir) and Pueraria montana (Yebere daba), showed relatively lower RFC values. These species are often consumed only during periods of food scarcity or in particular seasons, limiting their recognition across the broader community. Similar observations have been documented in South Africa, Tanzania, and parts of Asia, where famine foods and seasonally restricted species tend to have lower citation frequencies despite their critical role in sustaining households during periods of food shortage [ 96 , 112 , 128 ]. The RFC results emphasize a strong correlation between accessibility, ease of use, and cultural importance. WEPs that are readily available, require minimal processing, and provide nutritious fruits tend to occupy prominent positions in local diets and cultural practices. Conversely, species that require extensive preparation, are seasonal, or are consumed primarily during scarcity are cited less frequently. These patterns have important implications for conservation and sustainable management. High-RFC species, particularly fruit-bearing trees and shrubs, should be prioritized for propagation, protection, and community-based stewardship to maintain dietary diversity, cultural continuity, and food security in Tegedie District. Furthermore, recognizing the differential cultural importance of WEPs can guide educational programs, sustainable harvesting practices, and local resource management strategies that preserve both biodiversity and indigenous ecological knowledge [ 77 , 78 , 85 ]. Preference ranking of wild edible plants in Tegedie District The preference ranking of WEPs in Tegedie District provides valuable insight into the species most highly valued by local communities based on palatability, frequency of use, and cultural significance. Such analyses are essential in ethnobotanical studies because they reflect not only dietary preferences but also the contribution of specific plants to household nutrition, food security, and traditional practices [ 88 , 118 ]. Higher preference scores indicate species that are widely utilized and well-integrated into daily food systems. The results revealed that fruit-bearing trees and shrubs were the most highly preferred WEPs. Species such as Carissa spinarum (Agam), Cordia africana (Wanza), Syzygium guineense (Dokma), Diospyros mespiliformis (Serkin), and Tamarindus indica (Kumer) consistently received the highest scores (Table 5 ). These species are primarily consumed for their fruits, which are eaten fresh, provide sweet or sour flavors, and serve as convenient snacks for both adults and children. Their high preference is attributed to seasonal abundance, ease of harvesting, and significant nutritional contribution. Similar patterns have been reported across East and West African countries, where fruit-bearing WEPs dominate local diets due to palatability, accessibility, and reliability throughout the year [ 56 , 97 ]. Table 5. Preference ranking of the top 12 wild edible plant species in Tegedie District Rank Scientific Name Preference Score (1–5) Notes on Use 1 Cordia africana 5 Fruits eaten fresh and sometimes fermented for local drinks; widely available and palatable. 2 Carissa spinarum 5 Sweet fruits eaten raw; highly preferred snack, especially for children. 3 Syzygium guineense 4.8 Fruits consumed fresh; also used in cultural rituals; highly accessible in forests. 4 Diospyros mespiliformis 4.7 Sweet fruits consumed raw; slow regeneration makes it valued. 5 Tamarindus indica 4.5 Fruits eaten fresh and occasionally sold; significant nutritional value. 6 Ximenia americana 4.3 Fruits eaten fresh; also used in traditional remedies. 7 Carissa spinarum 4.0 Fruits consumed mainly during seasonal availability; supplementary food. 8 Amaranthus hybridus 3.9 Leaves used as cooked vegetables; highly nutritious but less preferred as snack. 9 Corchorus olitorius 3.8 Leaves used in traditional dishes; palatable and locally cultivated near homesteads. 10 Dioscorea bulbifera 3.7 Tubers consumed mainly during famine periods; requires washing and cooking. 11 Pueraria montana 3.5 Roots eaten during food scarcity; supplementary famine food. 12 Vangueria madagascariensis 3.3 Fruits eaten fresh during spring and winter; seasonal preference. Open in a new tab Herbaceous species, including Amaranthus hybridus (Aluma) and Corchorus olitorius (Melekuya), were assigned moderate preference scores. These plants contribute essential nutrients through their leaves but are less favored for direct consumption or snacking compared to fruits. Their lower ranking is influenced by seasonal availability, labor-intensive collection, and household-specific use. Comparable observations have been documented in Ethiopian districts such as Konso, Wollo, and Chilga, as well as in South Asian contexts, where leafy WEPs are nutritionally important yet occupy a more limited role in daily consumption [ 12 , 19 , 48 ]. Climbing and tuberous species, including Dioscorea bulbifera (Mujir) and Pueraria montana (Yebere daba), generally received lower preference scores. These species are primarily consumed during periods of food scarcity or famine, requiring additional processing such as washing, cooking, or grinding, which reduces their immediate appeal. Similar patterns have been reported in South Africa, Tanzania, and parts of Asia, where famine foods are valued for survival rather than everyday dietary consumption [ 61 , 67 , 68 , 90 ]. The ranking results highlight the interplay between accessibility, palatability, and cultural practices in shaping WEP utilization. Species that are easy to harvest, require minimal processing, and are seasonally abundant are highly preferred, whereas those that are bitter, labor-intensive, or seasonally restricted function mainly as emergency foods. These findings underscore the importance of socio-cultural and ecological factors in determining community food choices and the resilience of local diets [ 89 , 123 ]. From a conservation and management perspective, prioritizing fruit-bearing trees and shrubs is essential for maintaining dietary diversity, ensuring household nutrition, and preserving cultural food practices. Understanding community preference patterns can guide interventions such as sustainable harvesting, controlled cultivation, agroforestry integration, and value addition, which simultaneously enhance livelihoods while safeguarding biodiversity [ 88 , 90 ]. In conclusion, the preference ranking demonstrates that WEPs are not equally valued within the local food system. Fruit-bearing trees and shrubs occupy a central role in consumption, whereas herbaceous and famine species serve secondary but critical functions during periods of scarcity. Recognizing these differences informs ethnobotanical research, conservation strategies, and local food security planning, ensuring sustainable management and continued cultural and nutritional benefits of WEPs in Tegedie District. Direct matrix ranking of wild edible Plants in Tegedie District The Direct Matrix Ranking (DMR) exercise conducted in Tegedie District offers comprehensive insights into the relative importance of WEPs based on multiple criteria, including edible value, frequency of use, palatability, availability, and multifunctional roles such as fuel, construction, and medicinal applications. Using a 0–5 scoring system, where 5 represents the highest importance, the DMR captures both the practical reliance of communities on these species and the traditional knowledge guiding their utilization [ 35 , 78 ]. This method provides a holistic understanding of how local populations prioritize WEPs for dietary, cultural, and livelihood purposes. The analysis revealed that fruit-bearing trees and shrubs consistently received the highest scores, reflecting their central role in local diets, cultural practices, and multifunctional contributions. Cordia africana (Wanza) emerged as the top-ranked species, followed by Carissa spinarum (Agam), Syzygium guineense (Dokma), Diospyros mespiliformis (Serkin), and Tamarindus indica (Kumer) (Table 6 ). These species are valued not only for their edible fruits, which can be consumed fresh or processed, but also for their additional functions as sources of fuelwood, construction materials, and resources for traditional rituals. Similar prioritization patterns have been reported in Ethiopian districts including Metema, Quara, Gayint, and Guraferda, as well as in East and West African contexts, where high-ranking WEPs combine nutritional, economic, and cultural significance [ 11 , 16 , 20 ]. The prominence of these species underscores their accessibility, minimal harvesting effort, and contribution to community resilience and food security. Table 6. Direct Matrix Ranking of Selected Wild Edible Plants in Tegedie District Scientific Name Edible Value (0–5) Frequency of Use (0–5) Palatability (0–5) Availability (0–5) Multifunctional Uses (0–5) Total Score Cordia africana 5 5 5 5 4 24 Carissa spinarum 5 5 5 4 4 23 Syzygium guineense 5 4 5 4 4 22 Diospyros mespiliformis 5 4 4 4 4 21 Tamarindus indica 5 4 4 4 3 20 Ximenia americana 4 4 4 3 3 18 Amaranthus hybridus 4 3 4 3 2 16 Corchorus olitorius 4 3 3 3 2 15 Dioscorea bulbifera 3 3 3 2 2 13 Pueraria Montana 3 2 3 2 2 12 Vangueria madagascariensis 3 2 3 2 2 12 Datura stramonium 2 2 2 2 1 9 Open in a new tab Herbaceous species, including Amaranthus hybridus (Aluma) and Corchorus olitorius (Melekuya), received moderate DMR scores. While nutritionally rich and regularly consumed as leafy vegetables, their lower ranking is associated with limited multifunctional applications and reduced availability during off-seasons. Comparable patterns have been observed in other African and South Asian settings, where herbaceous WEPs are culturally important but less integrated into broader livelihood strategies due to seasonal limitations and labor-intensive harvesting [ 18 , 23 ]. Climbing and tuberous species, such as Dioscorea bulbifera (Mujir) and Pueraria montana (Yebere daba), scored lowest in the DMR. These species are primarily consumed during periods of food scarcity, require additional processing such as washing, cooking, or grinding, and are less accessible throughout the year. Similar observations have been documented in South Africa, Tanzania, and parts of Asia, where famine foods, though critical for survival, tend to have lower community preference due to limited palatability, higher labor requirements, and seasonal availability [ 25 , 113 , 120 , 128 ]. The DMR results have important implications for conservation, sustainable management, and community nutrition. High-ranking species, reflecting combined nutritional, cultural, and multifunctional values, should be prioritized in preservation, propagation, and community stewardship programs. Protecting these WEPs ensures continuous access to both daily dietary resources and emergency food reserves, enhancing resilience to environmental stress and crop failure. Moreover, understanding differential species ranking can inform community-based interventions, including agroforestry integration, controlled cultivation, and sustainable harvesting practices, balancing ecological conservation with local nutritional and livelihood needs [ 56 , 77 , 89 , 128 ]. Hence, the Direct Matrix Ranking exercise highlights the complex interplay between ecological availability, cultural preference, and multifunctional utility in shaping WEP selection in Tegedie District. Fruit-bearing trees and shrubs not only provide critical nutrition but also support cultural practices, economic activities, and household resilience. Integrating these insights into local management strategies is essential to sustain biodiversity, preserve traditional ecological knowledge, and enhance food security within the community. Comparative analysis of wild edible plants using jaccard similarity The Jaccard Similarity Index (JSI) was applied to quantitatively assess the overlap between WEP species documented in Tegedie District and those reported in previous ethnobotanical studies across Ethiopia (Table 7 ). By categorizing species as unique to other studies, unique to the current study, or shared between datasets, the JSI provides insights into patterns of species distribution, cultural utilization, and ecological adaptation [ 15 , 53 , 126 ]. Higher similarity values indicate commonalities in plant use and cultural convergence, whereas lower values reflect distinct ecological conditions, localized knowledge, or unique cultural preferences. Table 7. JSI Comparing WEPs with Previous Ethnobotanical Studies in Ethiopia Study Area PS a b c JSI References Yeki 74 65 43 9 9.09 [ 15 ] Yalo 16 11 47 5 9.43 [ 10 ] Soro 64 46 34 18 29.03 [ 100 ] Shabelle 57 45 40 12 16.44 [ 107 ] Sedie 33 18 37 15 37.50 [ 130 ] Raya 59 37 30 22 48.89 [ 51 ] Quara 51 27 28 24 77.42 [ 20 ] Omo 38 25 39 13 25.49 [ 131 ] Mieso 41 29 40 12 21.05 [ 118 ] Midakegn 50 29 31 21 53.85 [ 4 ] Metema and Quara 44 22 30 22 73.3 [ 11 ] Meinit 66 57 43 9 9.89 [ 133 ] Lowland Ethiopia 88 76 40 12 11.54 [ 137 ] Korahe 57 51 46 6 6.59 [ 31 ] Konso 154 133 31 21 14.69 [ 48 ] Kofale 62 43 33 19 33.33 [ 80 ] Karamara 42 36 46 6 7.89 [ 126 ] Hula 50 40 42 10 13.89 [ 64 ] Hararghe 26 21 47 5 7.94 [ 110 ] Gursum 44 34 42 10 15.15 [ 50 ] Guraferda 64 54 43 9 10.23 [ 16 ] Goba 17 11 46 6 11.76 [ 27 ] Gibe 74 60 38 14 16.67 [ 66 ] Gayint 36 21 37 15 34.88 [ 95 ] East Shewa 40 22 34 18 47.37 [ 65 ] Dire Dawa 22 15 45 7 13.21 [ 134 ] Dibatie 54 32 30 22 55.00 [ 2 ] Delanta 49 29 32 20 48.78 [ 99 ] Chilga 33 16 35 17 50.00 [ 19 ] Burji 46 38 44 8 10.81 [ 9 ] Bullen 29 13 36 16 48.48 [ 18 ] Berek 34 22 40 12 24.00 [ 6 ] Awi 39 19 32 20 64.52 [ 135 ] Arsi 36 25 41 11 20.00 [ 49 ] Adola 46 39 45 7 9.09 [ 47 ] Open in a new tab PS= previous study, a = species only in previous studies; b = species only in current study; c = species common to both studies; JSI = Jaccard Similarity Index (%) The analysis revealed the highest similarity with studies from Quara (JSI = 77.42%) and the combined dataset of Metema and Quara (JSI = 73.3%). This substantial overlap suggests that these regions share comparable agroecological conditions, including rainfall regimes, soil fertility, and vegetation cover, as well as similar cultural practices regarding WEP use. Moderately high similarity values were observed with Awi (JSI = 64.52%), Dibatie (JSI = 55.0%), and Midakegn (JSI = 53.85%), indicating that certain WEP species are widely distributed and consistently integrated into local diets across multiple Ethiopian districts. These patterns correspond with findings from East African countries such as Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania, where overlapping species compositions reflect ecological continuity and shared ethnobotanical knowledge [ 16 , 26 , 52 , 75 , 108 ]. Conversely, regions such as Hararghe (JSI = 7.94%), Karamara (JSI = 7.89%), and Korahe (JSI = 6.59%) exhibited low similarity, highlighting the distinctive WEP assemblages in Tegedie District. These differences likely result from variations in climate, topography, vegetation types, and culturally specific dietary preferences. For example, arid or semi-arid zones favor drought-tolerant herbs and shrubs that may be absent or underutilized in Tegedie, emphasizing the role of ecological factors in shaping species selection [ 5 , 31 , 107 ]. Intermediate similarities were observed in Bullen (JSI = 48.48%), Raya (JSI = 48.89%), and Delanta (JSI = 48.78%), reflecting partial overlap where widely used WEPs coexist with region-specific species. This highlights the interplay between biogeographical distribution and cultural mediation in determining local WEP diversity. This comparative analysis carries several implications. First, Tegedie District hosts both widely shared and locally unique WEP species, reflecting the richness of indigenous knowledge and its contribution to dietary resilience. Second, regions with high similarity may benefit from coordinated conservation initiatives and knowledge-sharing networks, whereas species unique to Tegedie require targeted preservation to prevent loss of both cultural and biological diversity [ 106 , 113 , 129 ]. Third, identifying patterns of shared and unique WEPs can inform sustainable harvesting, agroforestry integration, and nutritional diversification programs by prioritizing species that are culturally significant, ecologically resilient, and seasonally available. Thus, the JSI analysis demonstrates that while some WEPs function as shared nutritional and cultural resources across Ethiopian regions, others are distinctive to Tegedie District. These findings underscore the combined influence of ecological availability, cultural preference, and traditional knowledge in shaping local plant use. Documenting such patterns is essential for informing conservation priorities, promoting sustainable utilization, and safeguarding traditional food systems under environmental and socio-economic pressures [ 3 , 61 , 78 , 90 ]. Wild edible plant knowledge among informant groups The analysis of wild edible plant (WEP) knowledge among different informant groups in Tegedie District revealed significant variations associated with gender, literacy, experience, and age (Table 8 ). Male informants reported a higher mean number of known WEP species (3.4 ± 1.6) compared to female informants (2.7 ± 1.4), and this difference was statistically significant (t = 3.03, p < 0.05). This suggests that men possess comparatively greater ethnobotanical knowledge, likely reflecting traditional roles in resource collection, livestock grazing, and forest management, which facilitate frequent interaction with wild plant resources [ 3 , 17 , 78 , 107 ]. Similar patterns have been observed in Kenya, Uganda, and Nigeria, where men’s involvement in harvesting and managing wild plants contributes to higher knowledge scores, although women often retain specialized knowledge related to household nutrition, food preparation, and medicinal plant use [ 72 – 74 , 79 ]. Table 8. WEPs knowledge among informant groups (Independent t-test) Parameters Informant groups N Mean ± SD t –value p – value Gender Male 76 3.4 ± 1.6 3.03 P < 0.05 Female 68 2.7 ± 1.4 Literacy level Illiterate 94 4.0 ± 1.9 7.2 P < 0.05 Literate 50 2.0 ± 1.3 Experience of Informant Key informant 48 4.7 ± 1.9 7.3 P < 0.05 General informant 96 2.4 ± 1.3 Open in a new tab Literacy also significantly influenced WEP knowledge. Illiterate informants demonstrated higher mean knowledge scores (4.0 ± 1.9) than their literate counterparts (2.0 ± 1.3) (t = 7.2, p < 0.05), indicating that traditional ecological knowledge tends to be retained more strongly by individuals without formal education. This trend aligns with ethnobotanical observations in Ethiopia, West Africa, and South Asia, where reliance on natural resources for subsistence rather than formal schooling—promotes experiential learning and the preservation of indigenous plant knowledge [ 42 , 56 , 85 ]. Informal education within households and communities reinforces WEP use, ensuring continuity of traditional dietary and cultural practices. Experience within the community further shaped knowledge distribution. Key informants, recognized for their expertise and regular interaction with plant resources, reported substantially higher knowledge (4.7 ± 1.9) compared to general informants (2.4 ± 1.3) (t = 7.3, p < 0.05). This underscores the crucial role of key individuals as custodians of ethnobotanical knowledge, a pattern also documented in Ethiopian districts such as Yeki, Guraferda, and Metema, and across East Africa [ 11 , 15 , 16 , 31 , 74 ]. These knowledge holders are instrumental in sustaining community resilience, particularly during periods of food scarcity or ecological stress, by maintaining and transmitting WEP-related practices. Age emerged as another major determinant of WEP knowledge. Correlation analyses confirmed a strong positive relationship between age and knowledge acquisition (Spearman ρ = 0.693, p < 0.05; Pearson r = 0.699, p < 0.001; Kendall τ = 0.534, p < 0.05) (Fig. 2 ), reflecting the cumulative nature of ethnobotanical knowledge, acquired gradually through lifelong observation, experience, and cultural transmission (Table 9 ). Similar age-related trends have been reported in South Africa, Tanzania, and multiple Ethiopian districts, emphasizing the role of elder community members as repositories and transmitters of traditional ecological knowledge [ 2 , 6 , 14 , 61 , 72 , 128 ]. Fig. 2. Open in a new tab Pearson correlation showing the relationship between age and wild edible plant knowledge of informants Table 9. Age Categories and Informant Knowledge of WEPs (One-Way ANOVA) Source of Variation Df SS MS = SS/Df F Ratio P -value Between Groups 2 276.5 138.23 84.1 P < 0.05 Residual (within) 141 231.8 1.64 Total 143 508.3 139.87 Open in a new tab Df =degree of freedom, SS = Sum of Squares, MS = Mean of Square, Significant codes: 0.05 These findings have significant implications. They highlight that traditional ecological knowledge is vulnerable to erosion due to modernization, formal education, and generational shifts, as younger community members often possess comparatively less WEP knowledge. This underscores the importance of systematic documentation, intergenerational knowledge transfer, and active engagement of elder knowledge holders in community-based conservation and educational programs. Integrating elders into participatory initiatives can strengthen local food security, dietary diversity, and resilience to environmental and socio-economic challenges [ 76 , 83 , 85 , 120 , 137 ]. In conclusion, gender, literacy, experience, and age significantly influence WEP knowledge distribution in Tegedie District. Older, male, and less formally educated individuals particularly recognized key informants serve as primary repositories of ethnobotanical knowledge. Preserving and leveraging this knowledge through documentation, community engagement, and knowledge-sharing platforms is essential for sustaining cultural heritage, supporting ecological management, and ensuring the resilience of local food systems under ongoing environmental and socio-economic pressures [ 33 , 63 , 128 , 136 ]. Sources and transfer of indigenous knowledge of wild edible plants in Tegedie District The ethnobotanical survey in Tegedie District revealed that indigenous knowledge of WEPs is closely linked to the ecological contexts in which these species are found. Primary sources of WEPs include forests, grazing lands, uncultivated areas, and home gardens. Fruit-bearing trees and shrubs, such as Cordia africana , Syzygium guineense , Diospyros mespiliformis , and Carissa spinarum , are predominantly harvested from forests and fallow lands, whereas herbaceous and climbing species, including Amaranthus hybridus , Corchorus olitorius , and Dioscorea bulbifera , are often collected near homesteads or from grazing areas. This spatial distribution highlights the strong ecological linkage between plant availability and local knowledge, emphasizing that accessibility and habitat diversity directly influence species recognition, selection, and utilization [ 65 , 138 ]. Comparable patterns have been observed in East and West Africa, as well as South Asia, where reliance on forest and semi-natural areas ensures access to seasonal and famine foods essential for subsistence [ 73 , 74 , 77 ]. Knowledge transfer in Tegedie District occurs primarily through oral traditions, observation, and hands-on participation. Elders and experienced adults serve as custodians of ethnobotanical knowledge, teaching younger generations to identify edible species, determine their seasonal availability, and apply safe harvesting and processing techniques. Children often learn by accompanying adults during fruit collection, grazing, or household activities, acquiring practical skills that reinforce experiential learning and ensure knowledge retention [ 15 , 25 , 90 , 107 ]. Similar intergenerational learning mechanisms have been reported in Nigeria, Kenya, and Burkina Faso, demonstrating the social embeddedness of plant knowledge within households and broader community networks [ 26 , 56 , 79 ]. The study also identified gender-specific dimensions in knowledge transmission. Women are primarily responsible for preparing leafy vegetables and herbs, such as Amaranthus hybridus , Corchorus olitorius , and Urtica simensis , while men and children engage more in harvesting fruits, gums, and famine foods. This division of labor fosters complementary skill acquisition across household members, ensuring that critical ethnobotanical knowledge is shared across genders and age groups. Similar gender-specific roles have been documented in Ethiopia, Ghana, and South Africa, reflecting culturally structured participation in plant use that supports the retention of traditional ecological knowledge [ 8 , 11 , 54 , 68 , 120 ]. Despite these robust traditional mechanisms, modernization, increased reliance on cultivated crops, and reduced interaction with natural habitats pose significant threats to the persistence of indigenous knowledge. Younger generations are less involved in wild plant collection, increasing the risk of losing vital information regarding species identification, harvest techniques, and processing methods. Comparable trends have been reported across East and West Africa and South Asia, where urbanization, formal education, and livelihood changes contribute to the erosion of ethnobotanical knowledge [ 16 , 31 , 56 , 78 , 91 , 139 ]. The findings carry important implications for conservation, food security, and cultural heritage. Maintaining access to forests, uncultivated lands, and home gardens is crucial for sustaining ecological connections that underpin WEP utilization. Promoting participatory harvesting, intergenerational learning, and community-based education can safeguard indigenous knowledge while enhancing local food systems. Integrating elders and key knowledge holders into conservation and nutrition programs ensures the protection of culturally valued practices, supports dietary diversity, and encourages sustainable use of wild plant resources [ 65 , 74 , 97 , 128 , 139 ]. Thus, the study highlights that the sources of WEPs and mechanisms of knowledge transfer are tightly interwoven in Tegedie District. Conserving natural habitats and fostering social learning are essential for protecting both biodiversity and ethnobotanical heritage, thereby supporting community resilience and nutritional well-being. Implications of using wild edible plants in Tegedie District The ethnobotanical survey in Tegedie District demonstrates that WEPs play a critical role in sustaining local livelihoods, nutrition, and food security. The documentation of 52 species underscores their multifaceted social, economic, and ecological contributions. WEPs serve as both supplementary and emergency food sources, particularly during periods of seasonal food scarcity. Tuberous and climbing species, such as Dioscorea bulbifera , Dioscorea cayenensis , and Pueraria montana , as well as leafy vegetables like Amaranthus caudatus , provide essential carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals, enhancing household resilience during periods of crop failure or environmental stress. Fruit-bearing species, including Carissa spinarum , Cordia africana , Syzygium guineense , and Ximenia americana , contribute to daily dietary diversity and ensure year-round access to nutrient-rich foods. Similar patterns have been documented in East African countries, including Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania, confirming that wild plants act as critical buffers against seasonal food insecurity, reflecting the adaptive function of traditional food systems [ 26 , 31 , 50 , 74 , 107 ]. Beyond caloric provision, many WEPs supply e ssential micronutrients and bioactive compounds that support health. Leaves of Amaranthus hybridus , Corchorus olitorius , and Urtica simensis are consumed as vegetables and provide iron, calcium, vitamin A, and other key nutrients. Aromatic and medicinal plants, such as Thymus schimperi , are used in flavoring foods and beverages, demonstrating the integration of nutritional and therapeutic knowledge within local diets. Regular incorporation of WEPs into household meals contributes to improved dietary quality, mitigates micronutrient deficiencies, and supports overall health, consistent with findings from rural Ethiopian districts and other African contexts [ 2 , 57 , 66 , 77 , 131 , 134 ]. Although most WEPs are utilized primarily for household consumption, several species provide supplemental income. Fruits of Tamarindus indica , Vangueria madagascariensis , and Cordia africana are occasionally sold in local markets, while gums from Vachellia species and Rhamnus prinoides , commonly used in traditional beverages, contribute to household livelihoods. These economic uses reinforce cultural practices, promote the intergenerational transfer of ethnobotanical knowledge, and support community resilience [ 16 , 50 , 88 , 90 , 95 ]. The use of WEPs also reflects the rich ethnobotanical heritage of Tegedie District. Many species are embedded in traditional food systems, seasonal rituals, and famine-coping strategies, highlighting the importance of preserving both biological diversity and cultural knowledge. However, reliance on wild resources entails potential risks: overharvesting, habitat degradation, and climate-induced environmental changes may threaten the availability of the most valued species. Promoting sustainable management—through forest protection, community awareness, and integration of select WEPs into home gardens—remains critical to ensuring ecological resilience and long-term food security [ 73 , 74 , 123 ]. Hence, WEPs in Tegedie District have extensive implications for food security, nutrition, livelihoods, cultural continuity, and biodiversity conservation. Their continued use reflects the resilience of traditional food systems and underscores the necessity of integrated strategies that support sustainable harvesting, preserve indigenous knowledge, and safeguard these critical plant resources for future generations. Threatening factors of wild edible plants in Tegedie District The ethnobotanical survey in Tegedie District revealed that WEPs are under considerable threat from both anthropogenic and natural factors, consistent with observations across Ethiopia, East and West Africa, and South Asia. Agricultural land expansion was the most frequently reported threat, cited by 33.1% of respondents, followed closely by overgrazing (30.9%). These findings indicate that land-use changes and livestock pressure are primary drivers of habitat degradation, reducing the natural abundance of fruit-bearing trees, shrubs, and herbaceous species essential for dietary diversity and household food security [ 77 , 78 , 118 ]. Agricultural encroachment often converts ecologically diverse habitats into monocultures, thereby limiting species richness and accessibility to WEPs. Wood harvesting for firewood (28.1%) and charcoal production (27.3%) was also highlighted as a major threat, disproportionately affecting woody species such as Cordia africana , Syzygium guineense , and Carissa spinarum (Table 10 ). Similar pressures have been reported in rural communities across East and West Africa, where domestic energy demands and construction needs accelerate the depletion of edible trees and shrubs [ 9 , 16 , 27 , 37 , 56 ]. Additional human activities, including fencing (25.9%), house construction (23.7%), and furniture production (9.4%), further reduce WEP availability by removing mature plants from natural habitats, illustrating the trade-offs between subsistence livelihoods and ecological sustainability. Table 10. Threaten factors of wild edible plants Threatening factors No. of informants cited the threaten factors of WEPs Percentage (%) Over grazing 43 30.94 House construction 33 23.74 Furniture 13 9.35 Firewood collection 39 28.06 Fencing 36 25.9 Farm tools 22 15.83 Drought 8 5.76 Deforestation 27 19.4 Charcoal 38 27.34 Burning of plant 18 12.95 Agricultural land expansion 46 33.09 Open in a new tab Other threats, including deforestation (19.4%), use of plants for farm tools (15.8%), and vegetation burning (13.0%), collectively undermine WEP regeneration and long-term survival. While drought was less frequently cited (5.8%), it represents a natural stressor that, when coupled with climate variability, negatively affects species composition, fruiting phenology, and seedling establishment in semi-arid ecosystems [ 105 , 125 , 140 , 141 ]. This interplay of human-induced and environmental pressures underscores the vulnerability of wild edible plant communities and their dependence on intact habitats. The implications of these threats are far-reaching. Reduced WEP availability compromises household food security, particularly during seasonal shortages or famine periods when these species serve as essential nutritional buffers. Declines in plant abundance may also erode cultural practices and the transmission of indigenous knowledge, as younger generations have fewer opportunities to interact with and learn about these resources [ 16 , 26 , 73 , 93 , 140 ]. Habitat degradation further impacts critical ecosystem services, including soil fertility, pollination, and microclimate regulation, which sustain both wild and cultivated plant diversity. Justification for conservation is therefore compelling. Integrated strategies such as community-based natural resource management, sustainable harvesting, reforestation of key species, and promotion of agroforestry are essential to preserve biodiversity and maintain traditional food systems. Empowering local communities to manage forests and uncultivated lands while balancing subsistence needs with ecological sustainability can mitigate the impacts of agricultural expansion, overgrazing, and wood harvesting [ 11 , 20 , 27 , 136 , 138 ]. Participatory awareness campaigns and monitoring programs can further enhance the recognition of WEPs’ ecological and nutritional value, fostering long-term stewardship. Thus, anthropogenic pressures particularly land conversion, livestock grazing, and wood extraction combined with natural stressors like drought, pose significant threats to WEPs in Tegedie District. Addressing these challenges through integrated conservation approaches, sustainable use practices, and community engagement is crucial for safeguarding both biodiversity and the indigenous knowledge systems that underpin local food security, cultural heritage, and dietary resilience. Threatened wild edible plants in Tegedie District The ethnobotanical survey in Tegedie District revealed that several wild edible plant (WEP) species are increasingly threatened by a combination of anthropogenic and natural factors. According to IUCN threat classification criteria, the primary human-induced drivers include agricultural land expansion, overgrazing, firewood collection, charcoal production, deforestation, and settlement-related construction. These activities directly reduce the abundance, reproductive capacity, and habitat connectivity of WEPs, particularly affecting tree and shrub species that provide fruits, timber, and other essential resources [ 11 , 15 , 24 , 31 , 74 , 125 ]. Comparable patterns have been documented in Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, and West African countries, where land-use change and deforestation are leading causes of decline in edible tree and shrub populations crucial for local food security [ 26 , 54 , 74 , 77 ]. Woody species such as Cordia africana , Carissa spinarum , Syzygium guineense , Diospyros mespiliformis , and Tamarindus indica are particularly vulnerable (Table 11 ). These species are harvested not only for food but also for fuel wood, timber, and construction, making them highly susceptible to overexploitation. Habitat degradation caused by fencing, agricultural encroachment, and settlement expansion further compounds their vulnerability. Herbaceous plants and climbers, including Amaranthus hybridus , Corchorus olitorius , and Dioscorea bulbifera , are not impacted by wood extraction but are sensitive to overgrazing, trampling, and fire, which damage seedlings and hinder regeneration. Similar observations from rural areas in South Africa, West Africa, and South Asia indicate that herbaceous WEPs are particularly at risk from livestock pressure and land-use intensification [ 11 , 67 , 78 , 115 , 120 ]. Table 11. Threatened Wild Edible Plants in Tegedie District Scientific name Main threat factors Notes on vulnerability Amaranthus caudatus Agricultural land expansion, Drought Leaves/seeds used for food; depends on seasonal rainfall Carissa spinarum Charcoal, Firewood collection, Deforestation Fruit widely consumed, branches used for fuel Cordia africana Agricultural land expansion, Firewood collection, Fencing Heavily harvested for fruits, wood, and construction Dioscorea bulbifera Agricultural land expansion, Overgrazing, Burning Famine food; tubers harvested from the wild, sensitive to land clearing Diospyros mespiliformis Charcoal, House construction, Deforestation Fruits eaten fresh; slow regeneration makes it vulnerable Rhamnus prinoides Agricultural land expansion, Firewood collection Leaves used in traditional brewing; slow growth makes it vulnerable Syzygium guineense Agricultural land expansion, Overgrazing, Firewood collection Fruit harvested for food, wood used locally Tamarindus indica Agricultural land expansion, Furniture, Firewood collection Fruits sold and consumed; tree wood is valued Vachellia abyssinica Overgrazing, Firewood collection, Fencing Gum chewed directly; habitat reduction threatens regeneration Ximenia americana Charcoal, Fencing, Overgrazing Fruits eaten fresh; shrubs removed for fencing or fuel Open in a new tab Natural factors, particularly drought and climatic variability, exacerbate these threats. Although fewer informants identified drought as a primary stressor, it significantly affects flowering, fruiting, and seedling survival, particularly for tuberous and famine species. The combination of anthropogenic and climatic pressures can severely limit the availability of emergency foods that serve as critical nutritional buffers during periods of food scarcity. Comparable interactions between human and climate-induced pressures on WEPs have been documented in Tanzania, Burkina Faso, and parts of India, emphasizing the global relevance of integrated conservation planning [ 56 , 60 , 75 , 113 ]. The implications of these threats are substantial. Reduced WEP abundance can compromise household food security, diminish dietary diversity, and disrupt the intergenerational transmission of ethnobotanical knowledge. Overexploitation and habitat degradation also undermine ecosystem services, such as soil fertility, pollination, and microclimate regulation, which are essential for sustaining both wild and cultivated plant species [ 15 , 72 , 74 , 77 ]. From an IUCN perspective, several of the threatened species, particularly long-lived trees, may qualify for “Vulnerable” or “Near Threatened” categories if current pressures persist, underscoring the need for proactive conservation measures. Conservation justification is clear and urgent. Protecting natural habitats, promoting sustainable harvesting, and implementing community-based management strategies are essential to preserve biodiversity and maintain local food systems. Interventions such as reforestation of priority species, establishment of community woodlots, and integration of WEPs into agroforestry systems can mitigate anthropogenic pressures while maintaining access to critical resources. Raising awareness of the ecological, nutritional, and cultural value of WEPs further supports responsible use and intergenerational knowledge transfer [ 6 , 26 , 111 , 112 ]. Hence, WEPs in Tegedie District face multifaceted threats, with woody species bearing the highest risk due to their ecological and economic importance. Addressing both human-induced and natural pressures through integrated, IUCN-aligned conservation and sustainable management strategies is essential to safeguard these species, preserve indigenous knowledge, and strengthen resilient rural food systems. Conservation of wild edible plants and associated knowledge in Tegedie District The findings from Tegedie District emphasize the critical importance of conserving WEPs and their associated traditional knowledge to sustain local food security, dietary diversity, and cultural heritage. Most WEPs are harvested from natural habitats, including forests, grazing lands, and uncultivated areas, making them particularly vulnerable to anthropogenic pressures and environmental changes. The survey identified agricultural expansion, overgrazing, firewood collection, charcoal production, and deforestation as the principal threats, reflecting similar patterns reported in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Nigeria, where habitat conversion and intensive resource extraction significantly reduce the abundance of edible trees and shrubs [ 6 , 88 , 140 ]. These pressures not only diminish species availability but also disrupt the intergenerational transmission of ethnobotanical knowledge, which relies on direct interaction with natural resources. Analysis of local conservation practices indicates that communities employ a range of informal yet effective strategies to mitigate resource depletion. Selective harvesting of fruits and leaves, protection of key trees such as Cordia africana , Syzygium guineense , and Tamarindus indica , and allowing natural regeneration in farmlands or grazing areas are common practices. Herbaceous plants and climbers, including Amaranthus hybridus and Dioscorea bulbifera , are often maintained near homesteads or allowed to regenerate naturally, reflecting localized biodiversity stewardship. These strategies align with practices reported in other African and Asian contexts, where community-level interventions play a critical role in sustaining WEP populations and ensuring long-term food availability [ 26 , 74 , 96 , 97 ]. The study highlights the central role of traditional knowledge in WEP conservation. Older community members act as custodians of information on species identification, seasonal availability, and processing techniques, while children and youth acquire knowledge through observation and participation in harvesting activities. However, modernization, increasing reliance on cultivated crops, and lifestyle changes contribute to a gradual erosion of this knowledge. Without systematic documentation and knowledge-sharing initiatives, valuable ethnobotanical wisdom may be lost, posing risks to both cultural heritage and the resilience of local food systems [ 88 , 105 , 126 ]. The implications of these findings are significant. Integrating in situ and ex situ conservation strategies is essential to safeguard WEPs. Cultivating WEPs in home gardens, agroforestry systems, and school gardens can reduce pressure on wild populations while maintaining year-round availability of edible plants and also to continue the persistence of about knowledge WEPs. Participatory community programs, awareness campaigns, and recognition of local knowledge custodians can further enhance stewardship and intergenerational knowledge transfer. Globally, similar approaches in Asia, South America, and Africa have demonstrated the effectiveness of combining traditional knowledge with sustainable management practices to enhance biodiversity conservation and nutritional security [ 107 , 126 , 134 , 141 , 142 ]. Hence, the conservation of WEPs in Tegedie District extends beyond biodiversity preservation to encompass safeguarding cultural, nutritional, and ecological knowledge that underpins local livelihoods. Implementing integrated strategies that combine habitat protection, sustainable harvesting, cultivation, and systematic documentation is imperative to ensure the continued availability and utilization of WEPs [ 126 , 134 , 141 , 142 ]. These measures will help secure food security, dietary diversity, and cultural continuity for present and future generations. Limitations and future research directions This study provides insights into WEPs diversity, use, and knowledge in Tegedie District; however, several limitations should be noted. Data were primarily based on ethnobotanical surveys and interviews, which may be affected by recall bias and underreporting of less frequently used species. The study is geographically limited to one district, restricting broader generalization. In addition, seasonal variation was not fully captured, as data represent a single-period assessment. The study did not include quantitative ecological, nutritional, or economic analyses. Information on species abundance, regeneration status, and nutritional value is therefore based on local knowledge rather than empirical measurements. Similarly, the role of WEPs in markets and livelihoods was only partially addressed. Future research should incorporate ecological and population-level assessments to evaluate species status and sustainability, including standardized approaches such as IUCN criteria. Nutritional and phytochemical analyses are needed to quantify dietary contributions and health benefits. Socio-economic studies focusing on market potential, value addition, and trade can further clarify the role of WEPs in livelihoods. Longitudinal and comparative studies across different regions and agroecological zones would help assess knowledge dynamics and variation in WEPs use. Such approaches would support integrated strategies linking biodiversity conservation, food security, and indigenous knowledge systems. Conclusion and recommendations The ethnobotanical study in Tegedie District highlights the critical role of WEPs in supporting local livelihoods, nutrition, and cultural heritage. A total of 52 species were documented, with fruit-bearing trees and shrubs providing readily consumable fruits, while herbaceous plants, climbers, and tubers serve as seasonal supplements and famine foods. The use of these plants is deeply embedded in traditional practices, with indigenous knowledge primarily preserved by elders and transmitted to younger generations through observation, participation, and household engagement. This knowledge encompasses species identification, seasonal availability, harvesting methods, and preparation techniques, and is essential for sustaining dietary diversity, food security, and cultural continuity. Despite their importance, WEPs in Tegedie District face multiple anthropogenic and natural threats that compromise their availability and the associated traditional knowledge. Agricultural expansion, overgrazing, deforestation, firewood collection, charcoal production, and construction activities reduce natural habitats and hinder regeneration, particularly for woody species that form the backbone of local wild food resources. Herbaceous and climbing species, while less affected by wood extraction, are vulnerable to overgrazing, trampling, and fire. Climatic variability, particularly drought, further exacerbates these pressures by affecting fruiting, flowering, and seedling establishment. These combined threats not only endanger the survival of WEPs but also limit opportunities for younger generations to learn and engage with these critical resources. To ensure the continued availability and sustainable use of WEPs, integrated conservation strategies are essential. Communities should adopt selective harvesting practices that preserve plant populations and allow natural regeneration. Cultivation of key species in home gardens, agroforestry systems, and school gardens can reduce pressure on wild populations while providing a consistent supply of edible plants. Intergenerational knowledge transfer should be actively promoted, with elders mentoring youth and women in species identification, harvesting techniques, and safe preparation methods. Community awareness programs can reinforce the nutritional, ecological, and cultural significance of WEPs, fostering responsible use and stewardship. At a broader level, participatory resource management strategies should balance subsistence use with habitat protection, while sustainable market engagement for selected species can provide economic incentives without compromising biodiversity. Monitoring and restoration programs, including reforestation and conservation of high-value species, are crucial for maintaining ecological resilience. Thus, WEPs in Tegedie District are vital for food security, nutrition, and cultural heritage, but face multifaceted threats from human activities and environmental pressures. Conserving these resources requires a comprehensive approach that combines sustainable harvesting, habitat protection, cultivation, knowledge preservation, and community engagement. Implementing these strategies will safeguard both the biological diversity and the traditional ecological knowledge that support resilient rural food systems for current and future generations. Acknowledgements We sincerely thank the communities of Tegedie District for generously sharing their knowledge of wild edible plants and for their warm hospitality throughout the study. We also extend our appreciation to the Tegedie District administrative office and the experts from the Agriculture and Rural Development, Health, and Tourism and Culture Offices for their invaluable guidance and support, which greatly facilitated the research process. Abbreviations ANOVA Analysis of Variance IK Indigenous Knowledge WEPs Wild and Semi Wild Edible Plants JSI Jaccard Similarity Index Author contributions AG conceptualized the study, developed the research proposal, conducted field data collection and plant specimen identification, performed the investigation, and drafted the initial manuscript. GM provided critical input during proposal development, participated in field data collection, assisted with specimen identification, and contributed to the preparation of the final manuscript. MA assisted in proposal development and participated in field data collection. AA verified the statistical analyses conducted using R software and contributed to manuscript preparation. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript. Funding No Funding. Data availability All data generated and analyzed during this study are included in this manuscript. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate Prior to data collection, authorization letters were obtained from the Tegedie District Administration Offices. All participants provided verbal informed consent before participating in interviews and focus group discussions, and information was recorded only with their approval. Consent was also obtained for the publication of any data, photographs, or images included in this manuscript. Consent for publication Informed consent was obtained from all participants for the collection, use, and publication of anonymized data obtained during the study. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Footnotes Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. References 1. Bharucha Z, Pretty J. The roles and values of wild foods in agricultural systems. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2010;365(1554):2913–26. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 2. Anbessa B, Lulekal E, Getachew P, et al. Ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants in Dibatie district, Metekel zone, Benishangul Gumuz Regional State, western Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2024;20:27. 10.1186/s13002-024-00671-2. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 3. Powell B, Thilsted SH, Ickowitz A, et al. Improving diets with wild and cultivated biodiversity from across the landscape. Food Secur. 2015;7:535–54. 10.1007/s12571-015-0466-5. [ Google Scholar ] 4. Guzo S, Lulekal E, Nemomissa S. Ethnobotanical study of underutilized wild edible plants and threats to their long-term existence in Midakegn District, West Shewa Zone, Central Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2023;19(1):30. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 5. Tadesse D, Masresha G, Lulekal E, Wondafrash M. A systematic review exploring the diversity and food security potential of wild edible plants in Ethiopia. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):17821. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 6. Kidane L, Kejela A. 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. Agric Food Secur. 2021;10(1):29. [ Google Scholar ] 7. Alemneh D. A narrative review of wild and semiwild edible plants in Ethiopia: agroecological perspectives, ethnic diversity, proximate composition, and phytochemical analysis. International Journal of Food Science. 2025;2025(1):2265433. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 8. Asfaw A, Lulekal E, Bekele T, Debella A, Tessema S, Meresa A, Debebe E. Ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants and implications for food security. Trees Forests People. 2023;14:100453. [ Google Scholar ] 9. Ashagre M, Asfaw Z, Kelbessa E. Ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants in Burji District, Segan area zone of southern nations, nationalities and peoples region (SNNPR), Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2016;12(1):32. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 10. Teklehaymanot T. An ethnobotanical survey of medicinal and edible plants of Yalo Woreda in Afar regional state, Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2017;13(1):40. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 11. Tadesse D, Masresha G, Lulekal E, Alemu A. Ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants in Metema and Quara districts, Northwestern Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2025;21(1):7. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 12. Hassen A. Diversity and potential contribution of wild edible plants to sustainable food security in North Wollo, Ethiopia. Biodiversitas: Journal of Biological Diversity. 2021;22(6). 13. Beleta KG, Gondore TU. Edible woody plants diversity and potential contribution to food security in Ethiopia. Int J Ecotoxicol Ecobiol. 2022;7(3):37–48. [ Google Scholar ] 14. Yazew T. Review on dietary contribution of wild edible food biodiversity to food security and micronutrient status of children in Ethiopia. J Health Environ Res. 2020;6(1):27–30. [ Google Scholar ] 15. Awoke A, Siyum Y, Gudesho G, Akmel F, Abate KS. Ethnobotanical study of wild and semi-wild edible plants in Yeki district, Sheka Zone, Southwest Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2025;21(1):54. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 16. Awoke A, Tigab T, Dessie Y, Bitew G. Ethnobotanical assessment of wild edible plants and associated threats in Guraferda district, Bench-Sheko Zone, Southwest Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2025;21(1):77. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 17. Masresha G, Melkamu Y, Walle GC. Ethnobotanical study on wild edible plants in Metema district, Amhara regional state, Ethiopia. Int J Forest Res. 2023;2023(1):9243343. [ Google Scholar ] 18. Berihun T, Molla E. Study on the diversity and use of wild edible plants in Bullen District Northwest Ethiopia. J Bot. 2017;2017(1):8383468. [ Google Scholar ] 19. Tebkew M, Asfaw Z, Zewudie S. Underutilized wild edible plants in the Chilga District, northwestern Ethiopia: focus on wild woody plants. Agric Food Secur. 2014;3(1):12. [ Google Scholar ] 20. Tebkew M, Gebremariam Y, Mucheye T, Alemu A, Abich A, Fikir D. Uses of wild edible plants in Quara district, northwest Ethiopia: implication for forest management. Agric Food Secur. 2018;7(1):1–4. [ Google Scholar ] 21. Ulian T, Diazgranados M, Pironon S, Padulosi S, Liu U, Davies L, Howes MJ, Borrell JS, Ondo I, Pérez-Escobar OA, Sharrock S. Unlocking plant resources to support food security and promote sustainable agriculture. Plants. People Planet. 2020;2(5):421–45. [ Google Scholar ] 22. Ray A, Ray R, Sreevidya EA. How many wild edible plants do we eat—their diversity, use, and implications for sustainable food system: an exploratory analysis in India. Front Sustainable Food Syst. 2020;4:56. [ Google Scholar ] 23. Kumar BM, Bhavya G, De Britto S, Jogaiah S. Wild edible plants for food security, dietary diversity, and nutraceuticals: a global overview of emerging research. Front Sustainable Food Syst. 2025;9:1686446. [ Google Scholar ] 24. Scott MM, Carolan MS, Long MA. The Role of Wild Food in Fostering Healthy, Sustainable, and Equitable Food Systems. Sustainability. 2024;16(21):9556. [ Google Scholar ] 25. Fang Q, Cheng Z, Zhang R, Luo B, Long C. Wild edible plants of the Yao people in Jianghua, China: plant-associated traditional knowledge and practice vital for food security and ecosystem service. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2024;20(1):80. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 26. Oduor FO, Kaindi DW, Abong GO, Thuita F, Termote C. Diversity and utilization of indigenous wild edible plants and their contribution to food security in Turkana County, Kenya. Front Sustainable Food Syst. 2023;7:1113771. [ Google Scholar ] 27. Gebre A, Gitima G, Berhanu Y. Ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants in Goba District Southwest Ethiopia. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):27689. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 28. Khoury CK, Bjorkman AD, Dempewolf H, Ramirez-Villegas J, Guarino L, Jarvis A, Rieseberg LH, Struik PC. Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the implications for food security. Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences. 2014;111(11):4001-6. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] 29. Hunter D, Borelli T, Beltrame DM, Oliveira CN, Coradin L, Wasike VW, Wasilwa L, Mwai J, Manjella A, Samarasinghe GW, Madhujith T. The potential of neglected and underutilized species for improving diets and nutrition. Planta. 2019;250(3):709–29. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 30. Molotoks A, Smith P, Dawson TP. Impacts of land use, population, and climate change on global food security. Food Energy Secur. 2021;10(1):e261. [ Google Scholar ] 31. Alemayehu G, Awoke A, Kassa Z. Wild edible plant species and their role in nutrition and health in Korahe Zone, Eastern Ethiopia. Trop Med Health. 2025;53:182. 10.1186/s41182-025-00867-6. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 32. Reyes-García V, Fernández‐Llamazares Á, McElwee P, Molnár Z, Öllerer K, Wilson SJ, Brondizio ES. The contributions of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to ecological restoration. Restor Ecol. 2019;27(1):3–8. [ Google Scholar ] 33. Uprety Y, Poudel RC, Shrestha KK, Rajbhandary S, Tiwari NN, Shrestha UB, Asselin H. Diversity of use and local knowledge of wild edible plant resources in Nepal. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2012;8(1):16. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 34. Cruz MP, Peroni N, Albuquerque UP. Knowledge, use and management of native wild edible plants from a seasonal dry forest (NE, Brazil). J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2013;9(1):79. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 35. Kennedy G, Wang Z, Maundu P, Hunter D. The role of traditional knowledge and food biodiversity to transform modern food systems. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2022;130:32–41. [ Google Scholar ] 36. Aswani S, Lemahieu A, Sauer WH. Global trends of local ecological knowledge and future implications. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(4):e0195440. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 37. Duguma HT. Wild edible plant nutritional contribution and consumer perception in Ethiopia. Int J Food Sci. 2020;2020(1):2958623. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 38. G/hawariyat DA, Yalew HF, Azanaw J, Zeleke AM. Mothers’ Knowledge, Practices on House and Environmental Hygiene and Associated Factors in the Tegedie District, Northwest Ethiopia: A Community-Based Cross-Sectional Study. SAGE Open. 2025;15(3):21582440251363287. [ Google Scholar ] 39. Gebeyehu EM, Mebratu A, Atnafu A, Hagos A. Process evaluation of Tuberculosis infection control and prevention practice at public health facilities in Tegede district, Northwest Ethiopia: Facility-based cross-sectional design. PLoS One. 2025;20(2):e0314514. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 40. Hedberg I. Flora of Ethiopia and eritrea. In: The Biodiversity of African Plants: Proceedings XIVth AETFAT Congress 22–27 August 1994, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 1995. p. 802–4. 41. Kelbessa E, Demissew S. Diversity of vascular plant taxa of the flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea. Ethiop J Biol Sci. 2014;13(1S):37–45. [ Google Scholar ] 42. Majeed M, Bhatti KH, Pieroni A, Sõukand R, Bussmann RW, Khan AM, Chaudhari SK, Aziz MA, Amjad MS. Gathered wild food plants among diverse religious groups in Jhelum District, Punjab, Pakistan. Foods. 2021;10(3):594. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 43. Yebouk C. New index for measuring practical knowledge diversity: the combination use diversity index (CUDI) applied to cross-cultural ethnobotany. Ethnobot Res Appl. 2025;31:1–9. [ Google Scholar ] 44. Batool Z, Gairola S. Wild edible plants used by the Indigenous communities of the Trans-Himalayan region of Ladakh, India. Ethnobot Res Appl. 2025;30:1–7. [ Google Scholar ] 45. Cotton CM. Ethnobotany: principles and applications. 1996 Oct 4. 46. Martin GJ. Ethnobotany: a methods manual. Routledge; 2010 Sep 23. 47. Demise S, Asfaw Z. Ethno botanical study of wild edible plants in Adola District, Southern Ethiopia. Int J Res Anal Rev. 2020;7(2):17. [ Google Scholar ] 48. Addis G, Asfaw Z, Woldu Z. The role of wild and semi-wild edible plants to household food sovereignty in Hamar and Konso Communities, South Ethiopia. Ethnobot Res Appl. 2013;11:251–71. [ Google Scholar ] 49. Biri S, Ayenew B, Dida G, Sebsibe A, Gurmessa F, Woldeab B, Awlachew G, Kassa Z, Megersa M. Ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants in Arsi Robe district of East Arsi Zone, Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2024;20(1):70. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 50. Yusuf AM, Alemayehu G, Kassa Z, Fentie MD, Awoke A. Ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants in Gursum district, Ethiopia: implications for nutrition, health, and food security. Trop Med Health. 2026;54:44. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 51. Giday M, Teklehaymanot T. Use of wild edible and nutraceutical plants in Raya-Azebo District of Tigray Region, northern Ethiopia. Trop Med Health. 2023;51(1):58. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 52. Nyero A, Achaye I, Odongo W, Anywar G, Malinga GM. Wild and semi-wild edible plants used by the communities of Acholi sub-region, Northern Uganda. Ethnobotany Res Appl. 2021;21:1–2. [ Google Scholar ] 53. Ojelel S, Mucunguzi P, Katuura E, Kakudidi EK, Namaganda M, Kalema J. Wild edible plants used by communities in and around selected forest reserves of Teso-Karamoja region, Uganda. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2019;15(1):3. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 54. Gada ZY, Ismaila A. Assessment of some selected edible wild fruits (EWFs) as potential remedy to malnutrition in the rural areas of Sokoto state. Nigeria J Agric Environ. 2021;17(2):123–31. [ Google Scholar ] 55. Towns AM, Van Andel T. Wild plants, pregnancy, and the food-medicine continuum in the southern regions of Ghana and Benin. J Ethnopharmacol. 2016;17(9):375–82. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 56. Hahn K, Schmidt M, Thiombiano A. The use of wild plants for food: a national scale analysis for Burkina Faso (West Africa). Flora et Vegetatio Sudano-Sambesica. 2018;18(21):25–33. [ Google Scholar ] 57. Abdellatef E, Gebre YG, Bauer P. Prospective of indigenous African wild food plants in alleviation of the severe iron deficiency anaemia in Sub‐Saharan Africa. Plants People Planet. 2026;8(2):486–98. 58. Yangdon P, Araki T, Rahayu YY, Norbu K. Ethnobotanical study of wild edible fruits in eastern Bhutan. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2022;18(1):27. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 59. Sharma A, Wagh VV. From forests to tables: wild edible plants’ contribution to ethnomedicine and nutrition in northeastern Madhya Pradesh, India. Genet Resour Crop Evol. 2025;72(4):4205–39. [ Google Scholar ] 60. Bhatia H, Sharma YP, Manhas RK, Kumar K. Traditionally used wild edible plants of district Udhampur, J&k, India. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2018;14(1):73. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 61. Liu S, Huang X, Bin Z, Yu B, Lu Z, Hu R, Long C. Wild edible plants and their cultural significance among the Zhuang ethnic group in Fangchenggang, Guangxi, China. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2023;19(1):52. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 62. Jia X, Zhao Y, Zhu Y, Zeng X, Liang X, Xie J, Wu F. Ethnobotany of wild edible plants in multiethnic areas of the Gansu–Ningxia–Inner Mongolia junction zone. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2022;18(1):53. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 63. Ijaz S, Perveen A, Ashraf S, Abid R, Kousar S, Abbas Z, Arslan M. Traditional knowledge of wild edible plants used by the people of Lawat, District Neelum, Azad Jammu & Kshmir, Pakistan. Ethnobotany Research and Applications. 2022;23:1–6. 64. Sina B, Degu HD. Knowledge and use of wild edible plants in the Hula District of the Sidama Zone. Int J Bio-resource Stress Manag. 2015;6(3):352–65. [ Google Scholar ] 65. Feyssa DH. Comparative analysis of indigenous knowledge on use and management of wild edible plants: the case of central east Shewa of Ethiopia. Ethnobotany Res Appl. 2012;10:287–304. [ Google Scholar ] 66. Meragiaw M, Fekadu M, Senbeta F, Demissew S. Ethnobotanical survey of multipurpose, medicinal and wild edible plants in the upper Gibe watershed landscapes, West Shewa zone, Ethiopia. Plant Biosystems-An Int J Dealing all Aspects Plant Biology. 2024;158(5):1149–59. [ Google Scholar ] 67. Mothupi FM, Shackleton CM. Traditional knowledge and consumption of wild edible plants in rural households, Limpopo Province, South Africa. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2025;21(1):23. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 68. Garekae H, Shackleton CM. Foraging wild food in urban spaces: the contribution of wild foods to urban dietary diversity in South Africa. Sustainability. 2020;12(2):678. [ Google Scholar ] 69. Asprilla-Perea J, Díaz-Puente JM. Importance of wild foods to household food security in tropical forest areas. Food Secur. 2019;11(1):15–22. [ Google Scholar ] 70. Erskine W, Ximenes A, Glazebrook D, et al. The role of wild foods in food security: the example of Timor-Leste. Food Secur. 2015;7:55–65. 10.1007/s12571-014-0406-9. 71. Ahmed S, Warne T, Stewart A, Byker Shanks C, Dupuis V. Role of wild food environments for cultural identity, food security, and dietary quality in a rural American state. Front Sustainable Food Syst. 2022;6:774701. [ Google Scholar ] 72. Wanjohi BK, Sudoi V, Njenga EW, Kipkore WK. An ethnobotanical study of traditional knowledge and uses of medicinal wild plants among the Marakwet Community in Kenya. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2020;2020(1):3208634. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 73. Nyakoojo C, Tugume P. Traditional use of wild edible plants in the communities adjacent Mabira Central Forest Reserve, Uganda. Ethnobot Res Appl. 2020;20:1–4. [ Google Scholar ] 74. Ssenku JE, Okurut SA, Namuli A, Kudamba A, Tugume P, Matovu P, Wasige G, Kafeero HM, Walusansa A. Medicinal plant use, conservation, and the associated traditional knowledge in rural communities in Eastern Uganda. Trop Med Health. 2022;50(1):39. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 75. Godlove J, Lyimo LD, Tryphone GM, Hamisy W, van Zonneveld M, N’Danikou S. Traditional Knowledge and use of Wild Cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata) in Selected Communities of Tanzania. Front Sustainable Food Syst. 2025;9:1562474. [ Google Scholar ] 76. Rumicha TD, Belew S, Hasen G, Teka TA, Forsido SF. Food, feed, and phytochemical uses of wild edible plants: a systematic review. Food Sci Nutr. 2025;13(6):e70454. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 77. Indjai B, Frazão-Moreira A, Segurado P, Romeiras MM, Catarino L. Diversity of wild edible plants of Guinea-Bissau (West Africa): traditional uses and trade. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2025;21(1):88. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 78. Bvenura C, Afolayan AJ. The role of wild vegetables in household food security in South Africa: a review. Food Res Int. 2015;76:1001–11. [ Google Scholar ] 79. Olaniyi MB, Rufai SO, Olaniyi AA. Ethnobotanical study of wild edible vegetables used in agri-foods and traditional medicine in the Ogun Waterside Nigeria. Vegetos. 2024;37(5):2138–49. [ Google Scholar ] 80. Nuro G, Tolossa K, Giday M. Consumption of wild edible plants in the Kofale and Heban-Arsi districts, West Arsi Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2024;20(1):105. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 81. 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(7):1453. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 82. Priyadarshini S, Tudu S, Dash SS, Biswal AK, Sahu SC. Wild edible plants: diversity, use pattern and livelihood linkage in Eastern India. Genet Resour Crop Evol. 2024;71(6):3111–33. [ Google Scholar ] 83. Abbasi AM, Khan MA, Shah MH, Shah MM, Pervez A, Ahmad M. Ethnobotanical appraisal and cultural values of medicinally important wild edible vegetables of Lesser Himalayas-Pakistan. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2013;9(1):66. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 84. Waheed M, Haq SM, Arshad F, Bussmann RW, Pieroni A, Mahmoud EA, Casini R, Yessoufou K, Elansary HO. Traditional wild food plants gathered by ethnic groups living in semi-arid region of Punjab. Pakistan Biology. 2023;12(2):269. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 85. Malik A, Adnan M, ben Hasher FF, Abbasi AM, Gatasheh MK, Ullah Z, Aldosari AA, Ali H, Aziz MA. Wild food plant knowledge in multicultural peri-urban area of North-Western Punjab, Pakistan. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2024;20(1):99. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 86. Segnon AC, Achigan-Dako EG. Comparative analysis of diversity and utilization of edible plants in arid and semi-arid areas in Benin. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2014;10(1):80. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 87. Akinola R, Pereira LM, Mabhaudhi T, De Bruin FM, Rusch L. A review of indigenous food crops in Africa and the implications for more sustainable and healthy food systems. Sustainability. 2020;12(8):3493. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 88. Borelli T, Hunter D, Powell B, Ulian T, Mattana E, Termote C, Pawera L, Beltrame D, Penafiel D, Tan A, Taylor M. Born to eat wild: An integrated conservation approach to secure wild food plants for food security and nutrition. Plants. 2020;9(10):1299. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 89. Fongnzossie EF, Nyangono CF, Biwole AB, Ebai PN, Ndifongwa NB, Motove J, Dibong SD. Wild edible plants and mushrooms of the Bamenda Highlands in Cameroon: ethnobotanical assessment and potentials for enhancing food security. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2020;16(1):12. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 90. Liu S, Zhang B, Lei Q, Zhou J, Ali M, Long C. Diversity and traditional knowledge of medicinal plants used by Shui people in Southwest China. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2023;19(1):20. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 91. Geng Y, Zhang Y, Ranjitkar S, Huai H, Wang Y. Traditional knowledge and its transmission of wild edibles used by the Naxi in Baidi Village, northwest Yunnan province. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2016;12(1):10. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 92. Moore N, Alagarswamy G, Pijanowski B, Thornton P, Lofgren B, Olson J, Andresen J, Yanda P, Qi J. East African food security as influenced by future climate change and land use change at local to regional scales. Clim Change. 2012;110(3):823–44. [ Google Scholar ] 93. Koffi CK, Lourme-Ruiz A, Djoudi H, Bouquet E, Dury S, Gautier D. The contributions of wild tree resources to food and nutrition security in sub-Saharan African drylands: a review of the pathways and beneficiaries. Int Forestry Rev. 2020;22(1):64–82. [ Google Scholar ] 94. Tsioumani E. The state of the world’s biodiversity for food and agriculture: a call to action? Environ Policy Law. 2019;49(2–3):110–2. [ Google Scholar ] 95. Yiblet Y, Adamu E. An ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants in Tach Gayint district, South Gondar zone, Amhara region, Northwestern Ethiopia. Evidence-Based Complement Altern Med. 2023;2023(1):7837615. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 96. Mutie FM, Rono PC, Kathambi V, Hu GW, Wang QF. Conservation of wild food plants and their potential for combatting food insecurity in Kenya as exemplified by the drylands of Kitui County. Plants. 2020;9(8):1017. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 97. Tugume P, Ssenku JE, Asiimwe S, et al. Indigenous knowledge on the uses and conservation of medicinal plants in Namutumba District, Eastern Uganda. BMC Complement Med Ther. 2026;26:93. 10.1186/s12906-025-05235-9. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] 98. Peters CR, O’Brien EM, Box EO. Plant types and seasonality of wild-plant foods, Tanzania to southwestern Africa: resources for models of the natural environment. J Hum Evol. 1984;13(5):397–414. [ Google Scholar ] 99. Meragiaw M, Asfaw Z, Argaw M. Indigenous knowledge (IK) of wild edible plants (WEPs) and impacts of resettlement in Delanta, Northern Ethiopia. Res Rev J Herb Sci. 2015;4(3):8–26. [ Google Scholar ] 100. Hankiso M, Warkineh B, Asfaw Z, Debella A. Ethnobotany of wild edible plants in Soro District of Hadiya Zone, southern Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2023;19(1):21. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 101. Ju Y, Zhuo J, Liu B, Long C. Eating from the wild: diversity of wild edible plants used by Tibetans in Shangri-la region, Yunnan, China. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2013;9(1):28. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 102. Guyu DF, Muluneh WT. Wild foods (plants and animals) in the green famine belt of Ethiopia: do they contribute to household resilience to seasonal food insecurity? For Ecosyst. 2015;2(1):34. [ Google Scholar ] 103. Smith E, Ahmed S, Dupuis V, Crane MR, Eggers M, Pierre M, Flagg K, Shanks CB. Contribution of wild foods to diet, food security, and cultural values amidst climate change. J Agric Food Syst Community Dev. 2019;9(B):191–214. [ Google Scholar ] 104. Bellows AC, Raj S, Pitstick E, Potteiger MR, Diemont SA. Foraging wild edibles: dietary diversity in expanded food systems. Nutrients. 2023;15(21):4630. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 105. Ghanimi R, Ouhammou A, Ahouach A, Cherkaoui M. Ethnobotanical study on wild edible plants traditionally used by Messiwa people, Morocco. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2022;18(1):16. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 106. Assefa A, Abebe T. Wild edible trees and shrubs in the semi-arid lowlands of southern Ethiopia. J Sci Dev. 2011;1(1):5–19. [ Google Scholar ] 107. Alemayehu G, Awoke A, Kassa Z. Ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants in Shabelle Zone, Eastern Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2026. 10.1186/s13002-026-00860-1. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 108. Masters ET. Traditional food plants of the upper Aswa River catchment of northern Uganda—a cultural crossroads. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2021;17(1):24. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 109. Amin M, Aziz MA, Pieroni A, Nazir A, Al-Ghamdi AA, Kangal A, Ahmad K, Abbasi AM. Edible wild plant species used by different linguistic groups of Kohistan Upper Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), Pakistan. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2023;19(1):6. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 110. Abdella M, Cheneke B, Ketama M. Assessment of wild edible plant species in East Hararghe Zone, Oromia, Ethiopia. Int J Sci Technol Soc Int CiÊncias Tecnol Soc. 2023;11(3):81–94. [ Google Scholar ] 111. Hou S, Huang P, Yao Z. Ethnobotany study on wild edible plants used by the Tujia ethnic group in Laifeng, southwest Hubei, China. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2024;20(1):94. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 112. Cheng Z, Lu X, Lin F, Naeem A, Long C. Ethnobotanical study on wild edible plants used by Dulong people in northwestern Yunnan, China. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2022;18(1):3. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 113. Hassan M, Mir TA, Jan M, Amjad MS, Aziz MA, Pieroni A, Vitasović-Kosić I, Bussmann RW. Foraging for the future: traditional culinary uses of wild plants in the Western Himalayas–Kashmir Valley (India). J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2024;20(1):66. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 114. Alrhmoun M, Sulaiman N, Pieroni A. Phylogenetic perspectives and ethnobotanical insights on wild edible plants of the Mediterranean, Middle East, and North Africa. Foods. 2025;14(3):465. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 115. Xie J, Liu F, Jia X, Zhao Y, Liu X, Luo M, He Y, Liu S, Wu F. Ethnobotanical study of the wild edible and healthy functional plant resources of the Gelao people in northern Guizhou, China. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2022;18(1):72. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 116. Jia X, Zhao Y, Zhu Y, Zeng X, Liang X, Xie J, Wu F. Ethnobotany of wild edible plants in multiethnic areas of the Gansu–Ningxia–Inner Mongolia junction zone. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2022;18(1):53. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 117. Zhang L, Chai Z, Zhang Y, Geng Y, Wang Y. Ethnobotanical study of traditional edible plants used by the Naxi people during droughts. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2016;12(1):39. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 118. Tahir M, Abrahim A, Beyene T, Dinsa G, Guluma T, Alemneh Y, Van Damme P, Geletu US, Mohammed A. The traditional use of wild edible plants in pastoral and agro-pastoral communities of Mieso District, eastern Ethiopia. Trop Med Health. 2023;51(1):10. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 119. Achaglinkame MA, Aderibigbe RO, Hensel O, Sturm B, Korese JK. Nutritional characteristics of four underutilized edible wild fruits of dietary interest in Ghana. Foods. 2019;8(3):104. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 120. Lubisi NP, Matlala ME, Ramarumo LJ, Ndhlovu PT. Ethnobotanical and nutritional evaluation of understudied wild edible fruits in South africa: bridging Indigenous knowledge and food security: a review. Foods. 2025;14(10):1726. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 121. Alemayehu G, Asfaw Z, Kelbessa E. Plant diversity and ethnobotany in Berehet District, North Shewa Zone of Amhara Region (Ethiopia) with emphasis on wild edible plants. J Med Plants Stud. 2015;3(6):93–105. [ Google Scholar ] 122. Leakey RR, Tientcheu Avana ML, Awazi NP, Assogbadjo AE, Mabhaudhi T, Hendre PS, Degrande A, Hlahla S, Manda L. The future of food: Domestication and commercialization of indigenous food crops in Africa over the third decade (2012–2021). Sustainability. 2022;14(4):2355. [ Google Scholar ] 123. Peduruhewa PS, Jayathunge KG, Liyanage R. Potential of underutilized wild edible plants as the food for the future–a review. J Food Secur. 2021;9(4):136–47. [ Google Scholar ] 124. Abdullah A, Khan SM, Pieroni A, Haq A, Haq ZU, Ahmad Z, Sakhi S, Hashem A, Al-Arjani AB, Alqarawi AA, Abd_Allah EF. A comprehensive appraisal of the wild food plants and food system of tribal cultures in the Hindu Kush Mountain Range; a way forward for balancing human nutrition and food security. Sustainability. 2021;13(9):5258. 125. Aryal KP, Poudel S, Chaudhary RP, Chettri N, Chaudhary P, Ning W, Kotru R. Diversity and use of wild and non-cultivated edible plants in the Western Himalaya. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2018;14(1):10. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 126. Alemayehu G, Awoke A, Kassa Z. Ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants in Karamara forest patches, Eastern Ethiopia. Trop Med Health. 2025;53(1):158. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 127. Cao Y, Li R, Zhou S, Song L, Quan R, Hu H. Ethnobotanical study on wild edible plants used by three trans-boundary ethnic groups in Jiangcheng County, Pu’er, Southwest China. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2020;16(1):66. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 128. Maroyi A. Diversity of use and local knowledge of wild and cultivated plants in the Eastern Cape province, South Africa. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2017;13(1):43. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 129. Khan AH, Adil M, Aziz MA, Sõukand R, Pieroni A. Traditional foraging for ecological transition? Wild food ethnobotany among three ethnic groups in the highlands of the eastern Hindukush, North Pakistan. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2023;19(1):9. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 130. Abera M, Belay K. Ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants and their indigenous knowledge in Sedie Muja District, South Gondar Zone, Northwestern Ethiopia. Am J Plant Sci. 2022;13(2):241–64. [ Google Scholar ] 131. Teklehaymanot T, Giday M. Ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants of Kara and Kwego semi-pastoralist people in Lower Omo River Valley, Debub Omo Zone, SNNPR, Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2010;6(1):23. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 132. Yimer A, Forsido SF, Addis G, Ayelign A. Potential and prospects of utilization, development, and conservation of wild edible plants of the Meinit Ethnic Community in Bench-Maji Zone, Southwestern Ethiopia. East Afr J Sci. 2023;17(2):199–214. [ Google Scholar ] 133. Dejene T, Agamy MS, Agúndez D, Martin-Pinto P. Ethnobotanical survey of wild edible fruit tree species in lowland areas of Ethiopia. Forests. 2020;11(2):177. [ Google Scholar ] 134. Kebede A, Tesfaye W, Fentie M, Zewide H. An ethnobotanical survey of wild edible plants commercialized in Kefira Market, Dire Dawa City, eastern Ethiopia. Plant. 2017;5(2):42–6. [ Google Scholar ] 135. Fassil A, Mazengia E, Gebreamanuel B, Dessie Y, Kumera B, Atnkut B, Mullualem D, Tsega A, Van Damme P. Harvesting nature’s bounty: exploring the ethnobotanical landscape of wild edible plants in the Awi Agäw community, Northwestern Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2024;20(1):59. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 136. Kariuki PM, Onyango CM, Lukhoba CW, Njoka JT. The role of indigenous knowledge on use and conservation of wild medicinal food plants in Loita sub-county, Narok County. Asian J Agricultural Ext Econ Sociol. 2018;28(2):1–9. [ Google Scholar ] 137. Ahmad K, Pieroni A. Folk knowledge of wild food plants among the tribal communities of Thakht-e-Sulaiman Hills, North-West Pakistan. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2016;12(1):17. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 138. Bortolotto IM, Amorozo MC, Neto GG, Oldeland J, Damasceno-Junior GA. Knowledge and use of wild edible plants in rural communities along Paraguay River, Pantanal, Brazil. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2015;11(1):46. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 139. Ding XY, Zhang Y, Wang L, Zhuang HF, Chen WY, Wang YH. Collection calendar: the diversity and local knowledge of wild edible plants used by Chenthang Sherpa people to treat seasonal food shortages in Tibet, China. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2021;17(1):40. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 140. Ogwu MC. Local food crops in Africa: sustainable utilization, threats, and traditional storage strategies. In: Izah SC, Ogwu MC, editors. Sustainable utilization and conservation of Africa’s biological resources and environment. Sustainable Development and Biodiversity. Vol. 32. Singapore: Springer; 2023. 10.1007/978-981-19-6974-4_13. 141. Ouled Belgacem A, Louhaichi M. The vulnerability of native rangeland plant species to global climate change in the West Asia and North African regions. Clim Change. 2013;119(2):451–63. [ Google Scholar ] 142. Kegne T, Masresha G, Asnakew M, et al. Ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants in Dabat District, Ethiopia. Trop Med Health. 2026;54:59. 10.1186/s41182-026-00946-2. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Data Availability Statement All data generated and analyzed during this study are included in this manuscript. Articles from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine are provided here courtesy of BMC ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (2.8 MB) Cite Collections Permalink RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top

Related documents

• Ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants in Dabat District, Ethiopia#5811
• Ethnobotanical Study of Wild and Semi-Wild Edible Plants in Addi Arkay District, Northwestern Ethiopia.#157212
• Health commodities inventory management performance and associated challenges in selected public health facilities of South Gondar Zone, Amhara Region, North Central Ethiopia: A mixed-methods cross-sectional study.#193675
• Wild edible plants of Bhutan: Diversity, use patterns, and motivations for consumption.#610583
• Urban and Home-Based Vegetable Gardening Practices in Ethiopia: A Review on Challenges, Opportunities, and Perspectives.#431088