Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Harvesting nature's bounty: exploring the ethnobotanical landscape of wild edible plants in the Awi Agäw community, Northwestern Ethiopia

Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine volume 20, Article number: 59 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Feeding the world's future population while still facing a variety of socioeconomic and climate change scenarios with uncertain outcomes is a key global societal concern that should be addressed in a science-based manner. Ethiopia boasts a great diversity of wild edible plant species (WEPS), but millions of its citizens still suffer from chronic hunger every year. In this context, we here document the use and conservation of WEPS in the Awi Agäw community, Northwestern Ethiopia.

Methods

We performed a cross-sectional study from October 2021 to June 2022. Ethnobotanical and conservation status data were collected via semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, field walks and market surveys. A total of 374 respondents from three districts (Guangua, Jawi and Ankasha) were purposely selected for the study. Descriptive statistics, including preference rankings, frequencies and direct matrix rankings, were employed for the data analysis.

Results

We identified a total of 39 WEPS plant taxa distributed among 26 families and 32 genera. The Moraceae and Rosaceae had the greatest numbers of plants, with five and three species, respectively. The WEPS are regularly consumed in the study area to alleviate hunger. However, threats such as habitat loss, agricultural expansion, deforestation for firewood and other reasons, and pesticide use threaten WEPS availability.

Conclusion

Therefore, community-based conservation interventions need to be encouraged to safeguard WEPS and associated traditional knowledge. Furthermore, nutritional quality analysis is recommended for the selection of promising WEPS candidates.

Introduction

Wild edible plants (WEPs) are defined as ‘species that are neither cultivated nor domesticated or are not actively managed by humans, but are available from their wild natural habitat and used as sources of food’ [1,2,3,4,5]. According to numerous ethnobotanical studies, using WEPs as alternative food sources is a common practice worldwide [1, 3, 4, 6,7,8]. WEPs are often sourced by local, traditional communities because they are locally available, whereas their use is based on traditional ethnobotanical knowledge that has been accumulated, tested and validated over centuries of use, with low costs involved in sourcing them (usually only collection work). WEPs are considered to provide great benefits to vulnerable, poor populations [4, 9, 10]. WEPs bridge food gaps during times of drought or seasonal food scarcity (e.g., tiding-over periods) [1, 8, 11, 12]. The WEPs can be directly used for snacks and/or side dishes [10, 13] but also presents an opportunity for trade and can thus generate additional income and improve livelihoods if properly supported by extension services [14, 15] and an overall enabling environment. However, the problem is that ethnobotanical and associated indigenous knowledge is rapidly disappearing and should thus be documented and shared for future WEP nutritional value analyses and use recommendations. In combination with the current conservation status data of prospective WEPs, studies may also inform sustainable environmental stewardship [8, 16, 17].

The varied topography and wide spectrum of habitats of Ethiopia blesses the country with diverse natural resources, such as land, soil, forests, water and wildlife, which provide numerous im/material ecosystem services and represent the fundamental resource base for maintaining and improving livelihoods [1, 18]. The country is an important wild and cultivated plant genetic diversity hotspot that can form the basis for developing a more sustainable food provision system [19]. However, the country is also one of the world’s nine countries that will represent half of the projected population growth between 2019 and 2050, bringing additional challenges to efforts to eradicate poverty and hunger [20]. Thus, natural resources such as WEPs could be indispensable factors in addressing poverty and hunger alleviation. However, the consumption of WEPs in Ethiopia is currently a widespread coping mechanism that may come under pressure from increasing population numbers, especially in drought-prone areas [10, 14, 21, 22].

However, even though there is rich WEPs diversity in the country, there is very limited and only fragmentary formal ethnobotanical information on the cultural and socioeconomic values of Ethiopian plants [1, 8]. Still many more wild species are believed to be edible and undocumented yet [23]. For example, the Awi Administrative Zone is among the 11 administrative zones of the Amhara Regional State, where few ethnobotanical studies on WEPs have been performed. To our knowledge, there has been only one previous ethnobotanical study on WEPs in the zone that was performed in Banja and Guangua districts [24]. Despite this, the study area is under pressure of declining forest resources alarmingly and associated indigenous knowledge. There is also a lack of prior ethnobotanical research conducted in Jawi and Ankasha districts, where the current study took place. Hence, documenting ethnobotanical knowledge related with WEPs use and management practices before persistence loss is a well-timed and vital activity.

Given this context, our study was guided by several key scientific questions that will be answered: (1) which plant species do local communities use for food? (2) Are there WEPs community preferences regarding plant growth forms, plant parts used, modes of preparation and times of use? (3) What are the conservation threats to these WEPs? As a result, the objective of current study was (1) to identify and document ethnobotanical knowledge on WEPs consumption and perception for use, (2) identify the economic contribution of WEPs and its implication to livelihood and (3) identify the threats on WEPs conservation and future use strategies. It is expected that policymakers and other stakeholders could use the study's findings to identify and design plans for future use in fighting hunger and poverty.

Methods

Study area

The research was performed in the districts of Jawi, Ankasha and Guangua, which are part of the Awi Administrative Zone, Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia (Fig. 1). Districts were selected based on their distinctive agro-ecological characteristics, i.e., Jawi district represents moist kola agroecology with an altitude ranging from 500 to 1500 m above sea level (masl) and mean annual precipitation ranging from 1400 to 900 mm, whereas Guangua and Ankasha districts represent Wet Weyna Dega agroecology with altitudes ranging from 1500 to 2300 masl and 1500 to 2800 masl, respectively, and mean annual precipitation > 1400 mm [25]. Geographically, the Jawi district is located between 10° 38′–11° 30′ N and 36°–37° E. The Ankasha district is located between 10° 31′ 46″ and 10° 41′ 32″ N and between 36° 36′ 18″ and 36° 59′ 33″ E, whereas the Guangua district occurs between 10° 57″–10° 95″ N and 36° 30′–36° 50″ E.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Map of the study area (ArcMap 10.7)

Full size image

Study communities

Agäws, which migrated due to pressure from the Aksumite Kingdom, ultimately settled in scattered territories and separated into different dialectal groups. The Awi Agäw form one of these groups. The latter still follow the traditions of their ancestors—the seven ‘brothers’ came from Lasta/Seqota to constitute what are now known as the ‘Seven House Agäw’. These seven houses are called after the seven brothers: Banja, Ankasha, Kwakwra, Chara, Metekel, Zigem and Azena [26].

Language, traditional music, indigenous beliefs, horsemen's associations, horse plow traditions and other cultural components have been preserved by the Awi Agäw [26]. The Awi Agäw community communicates in Agäw (Awgni), an Agäw language belonging to the Cushitic subfamily within the Afro-Asiatic linguistic group [27], alongside Amharic, the national language of Ethiopia. People produce house utensils and fly whisks from highland bamboo (Oldeania alpina) and horse tails, respectively. These handcrafted items have great sociocultural importance for local communities. Bamboo goods are used to make domestic furniture, musical instruments, basketry and storage bins, traditional sticks and traditional house constructions. The fly whisk (chira) handicraft is made by cutting a horse’s tail for ceremonial use by older men and priests during cultural festivities and holidays, whereas it is also used by older horsemen when they ride horses and conduct traditional ceremonies in their respective localities [28].

Climate

Based on Ethiopia’s climatic zone typology, the study area falls under moist kola and Wet Weyna Dega agro-ecological zones [29]. In the three research districts, > 90% of the total annual rainfall is recorded from early May to October (Fig. 2), with a peak value occurring in August (i.e., 390 mm). At the district level, the highest annual rainfall is recorded for the Ankasha district, followed by the Guangua and Jawi districts, with values of 2037.77 mm, 1755.78 mm and 1958.19 mm, respectively (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Mean monthly rainfall and temperature of the Jawi, Guangua and Ankasha districts [30]

Full size image

Sampling design and informant selection

Ethnobotanical data were collected using the participatory rural appraisal approach in two contrasting seasons, from October to December 2021 and April to June 2022, when most WEPs are available after long and short rainy seasons, respectively. The Guangua, Jawi and Ankasha districts were purposively selected based on their known/documented natural resource potential and agro-ecological representativeness after proper discussions with local agricultural experts. Similarly, study kebeles (a kebele is the lowest administrative unit in Ethiopia) selected purposively based on WEPs resource availability, infrastructure access for ease of data collection and based on recommendations given by Kebele administrators and Agricultural officers. Hence, from Guangua district, we selected Ambiki, Chereka and Lunsi Degere kebeles. Similarly, from the Jawi district, Alu Kurand, Kabi Abo and Simda Farint kebeles, and from the Ankasha district, Mesele, Bakona and Zewula Degeha kebeles were selected. The respondents at the district and kebele levels were selected proportionately to collect both qualitative and quantitative data via semi-structured interviews, key informants, focus group discussions (FGDs) and guided field walks. A total of 36 key informants, i.e., 12 per district, were selected to collect data on WEPs types, parts used and modes of consumption, multipurpose uses of WEPs and their market potential. Key informants were selected based on recommendations given by local elderly persons, kebele administrative bodies and Development Association (DA) officers.

Additionally, three focus group discussions (FGDs), one FGD per district and each with 10 members (for a total of 30 participants), were organized to obtain information on threats to WEPs conservation and the marketability of WEPs. The focus group discussions (FGDs) participants included kebele administrators, religious leaders, agricultural experts and schoolteachers. Focus group discussions (FGDs) members were asked to provide a list of WEPs sold and current market prices in the Jawi, Chagni and Azena marketplaces in the Jawi, Guangua and Ankasha districts, respectively.

The proportional sample size allocation method was used to assign the remaining 308 respondents across the three districts (i.e., Guangua district, n = 135; Ankasha district, n = 123; and Jawi district = 50) for the semi-structured interviews [31]. Respondents for semi-structured interviews were randomly selected from the study districts by subsequently walking through the 'streets,' starting from the first inhabitant of contact until the required number was attained. The interviewees were asked to provide a full list of plant species used for food, their perceptions of their respective WEPs use, their frequency of use, etic categorization based on factors such as geographic location, ethnic background, dietary habits, or economic status in relation to their knowledge and use of the WEPs, and emic categorization such as nutritional value and seasonal availability, along with their reasons for consumption. Key informants were selected to try and document community preferences for different WEPs utilizations, multipurpose uses of WEPs and their market potential. FGDs and guided field walks were organized to provide information on the threats encountered for/in WEPs conservation and the reasons why the communities are not highly engaged in WEPs consumption and/or commercialization.

Plant specimen collection and identification

Plant specimens were collected during field surveys. All field and laboratory protocols were approved by the Injibara University College of Natural and Computational Sciences Institutional Review Committee in accordance with international laws such as the Declaration of Helsinki and the ethical clearance guidelines developed by the Ethiopian Science and Technology Agency. While collecting plant specimens and seeds from both governmental forests and private lands, permission for collection was obtained from the Awi Administrative Zone Agricultural Office and landowners. Furthermore, informed consent was obtained for the personal pictures shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Teenagers selling Syzygium guineense fruits at the Chagni local market (Photo by Amare Fassil, June, 2023)

Full size image

We also recorded the local names of the species to aid in further taxonomical identification using the Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea, Volumes 2–7 [32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39]. The full scientific names, families and growth forms were recorded following Martin [40]. All 39 plant species specimens were identified by the first author. Voucher specimens were collected, processed and stored in the Injibara University Herbarium.

Data analysis

Ethnobotanical data collected through interviews, key informants and FGDs were analyzed through descriptive statistics using Excel spreadsheets and R software (R version 4.1.0). The results are presented in tables and figures and summarized into botanical families, growth forms, use categories and parts following Cotton [41] and Martin [40]. Similarly, priority ranking was performed to identify threats to WEPs conservation and future use; direct matrix rankings [40] were used to analyze the degree of importance of the wild plant species for multiple purposes. Jaccard’s coefficient of similarity (JI) was calculated to evaluate WEPs compositions and degrees of similarity from studies done with similar or adjacent floristic regions and agroecology [42].

$$\text{JI}= \frac{c}{a+b-c}$$

where a is the total species in the study area; b is the total species in the reference area; and c is the number of common species between the study area and the reference.

Results and discussion

Demographic characteristics of study area

There were 374 participants in this study out of which 308 of them are ordinary respondents; 30 of them are FGD members and 36 of them are key informants (Table 1). These study respondents’ ages ranging from 18 to 71 and highest number of respondents were within 45–69 age range. Most of the respondents (83.77%) were Orthodox Christianity followers followed by Muslims (15.58%). Based on the vegetation types of Ethiopia, both Ankasha and Guangua districts belonged to dry evergreen Afromontane forest while Jawi district belonged to Combretum/Terminalia broadleaved deciduous woodland type [43].

Table 1 Demographic characteristics of the study area indicating geographic coordinates of study kebeles, number, age category and religion study participants and vegetation types and number of inhabitants of Guangua, Jawi and Ankasha districts
Full size table

Taxonomic diversity

A total of 39 WEPs distributed across 26 families and 32 genera were identified in the present study indicating a significant level of biodiversity within the study area (Table 1). Comparable results were reported elsewhere in the country [24, 44, 45]. This biodiversity is crucial for ecosystem stability and resilience, offering various ecological services such as soil fertility, air quality and habitat for wildlife. However, the number of WEPs identified in this study is somewhat lower than those from studies performed in Bulen district, northwest Ethiopia [46] and the drylands of the country [22], with 77 and 88 WEPs, respectively.

The Moraceae family had the greatest number of species (6), followed by the Rosaceae family (3), whereas the Anacardiaceae, Apocynaceae, Fabaceae, Malvaceae, Solanaceae and Urticaceae families were represented by two species each. The remaining 18 families were represented by a single species (45% of the total number). The number of WEPs demonstrate that the environment offers a diverse set of species [47].

Growth forms, plant parts used and mode of consumption

Our study revealed four WEPs growth forms, i.e., trees, shrubs, herbs and climbers, following Kent [48]. Trees (46.15%) and shrubs (41.03%) jointly made up the highest proportion (87.18%) of the WEPs documented. Fruits, leaves, roots, young shoots, gum and nectar are plant parts and/or plant products used for food. Fruits were the most widely used part harvested from 36 WEPs. The diverse growth forms (trees, shrubs, herbs, climbers) and parts used (fruits, leaves, roots, etc.) suggest that these plants play multiple roles in the ecosystem, supporting different organisms and ecological functions.

Most of the reported WEPs were also mentioned in other studies in the country. Thus, 12 species overlap with those from studies in Derashe and Kucha districts (southern Ethiopia) and Bulen districts [46, 49], 16 species overlap with those from Chilga district [45], and 15 species overlap with those from Nech Sar National Park [50]. The use of comparable WEPs nationwide might suggest that people share usage practices and commonalities in WEPs due to ecological adaptations to diverse environmental factors [45].

Among the different WEPs, Carissa spinarum, Cordia Africana, Ficus sur, Ficus vasta, Syzygium guineense, Ximenia Americana and Rumex nervosus were reported from more than 15 districts of the country. The widespread utilization of WEPs, as indicated by multiple citations in Table 2, suggests their ecological importance and potential impact on local ecosystems. Contrary to this, Senegalia mellifera, Ficus laurifolia, Pittosporum viridiflorum and Zizyphus mucronata were not previously reported in Ethiopia for their WEPs uses (Table 2).

Table 2 Wild edible plants used in Guangua, Jawi and Ankasha districts and their previous WEPs use reports
Full size table

Jaccard’s coefficient of similarity index (JI)

Jaccard’s coefficient of similarity index (JI) used to show the degree of similarity of WEPs between the current study and previous studies done in Gojam and Gondar floristic regions (Table 3). Jaccard’s coefficient of similarity index (JI) showed that the study area has the highest (33.33%) species overlaps with Sedie Muja district [52] followed by Tach Gayint district with 31.58% species overlaps [56]. Both Sedie Muja and Tach Gayint districts have three climatic zones, namely, Dega (above 2500 m), Woinadega (2500–1800 m) and Kola (below 1800) which are also similar with study area [52, 56]. The higher species overlaps of the study area with Sedie Muja and Tach Gayint districts may be attributed with similarities in agroecology with the study area. However, slight (5.06%) species overlaps observed between the study area and Metema district which may be attributed with agro-ecologic dissimilarity [43].

Table 3 Jaccard’s coefficient of similarity index of the study area on degree species similarity with other study areas in Amhara region
Full size table

Perception of local communities on WEPs use

A total of 374 respondents participated in the assessment of current local community WEPs use. Two hundred five of them (54.8%) responded that they received income from them to support their family in addition to household consumption. The rest of the participants, on the other hand, either did not earn enough money to sustain their families (n = 66; 17.6%) or did so only with extreme difficulty (n = 103; 27.5%). Respondents were asked whether there had been incidents of food shortage in their locality during their life. Approximately half (n = 187; 50%) answered positively. On the other hand, 159 (42.5%) respondents said they had not experienced any food shortage in their community, whereas 28 (7.5%) had no clear idea.

WEPs collection and consumption are currently vital practices in local communities. However, there was a response variance among respondents on WEPs consumption rates when food scarcity was mentioned. Of the 374 respondents, 218 (58.29%) said they used WEPs during food shortages, while the remaining 156 (41.71%) did not think that WEPs might be considered a solution to cover food shortages. However, 89% (N = 335) of respondents reported consuming WEPs for reasons other than food scarcity, such as its use as a supplement and for therapies. Furthermore, our research revealed that the majority of respondents (88.5%) had either had prior WEPs use experience or had at least witnessed them. In terms of WEPs consumption frequency, 170 (45.45%) respondents confirmed that they consumed WEPs extremely frequently, whereas 196 (52.41%) respondents ate WEPs on a regular basis. Only 2.13% of responders only occasionally harvested WEPs. Our study demonstrated that WEPs intake in the study area is a daily activity that is widely acknowledged to be highly relevant.

The respondents were requested to answer the question ‘In which circumstances does the community use WEPs?’ Our study revealed that community members consume WEPs during the drier periods of the year (especially children, N = 186, 49.73%), during prolonged drought and famine (N = 100, 26.74%) and as emergency food in food-insecure conditions (N = 57, 15.24%) and for other unspecified reasons (N = 31, 8.29). WEPs consumption for supplementary, emergency and seasonal conditions was confirmed by a comprehensive study performed by Lulekal, Asfaw [1] in the country.

Economic contribution and marketability of WEPs

Local communities fulfill their socioeconomic needs by selling crop products such as sorghum, maize and teff, as well as animal products such as cattle, horses, sheep and goats. Additionally, they engage in charcoal production, local trade, including traditional crafts and market transactions, and the sale of wild edible plant (WEPs) products, either individually or in combination with two or more of the aforementioned activities. Selected WEPs were observed to be sold at local markets and around school gates (Fig. 3).

Syzygium guineense, Oxytenanthera abyssinica and Dioscorea prahensilis were the top three WEPs frequently mentioned for sale in local markets (Table 4). Similarly, D. prahensilis had the highest mean market price of 30.20 Ethiopian Birr (ETB)/kg. D. prahensilis produces root tubers from May to early June, when there is limited rain in the region (Jawi district) and little abundance, which may cause the price to be relatively higher than that of the other marketed WEPs. The sale of WEPs provides a source of income for many families, relying on this income in addition to household consumption. This economic aspect is crucial in regions where other reliable income sources might be limited. However, the widespread utilization and economic reliance on WEPs sale, may put pressure on these species, leading to overharvesting. As a result, special conservation policy should be employed for sustainable use of aforementioned WEPs.

Table 4 Mean market price and frequency of citation on WEPs sale for livelihood
Full size table

Threats on WEPs conservation and future use

The extent to which human activities pose a threat to WEPs in their natural habitats varies by location and level of impact [46, 49]. The types of threats and their levels of impact on WEPs conservation were identified following Bekele, Woldeyes [77] using the priority ranking method [40]. Ten key informants were selected and asked to list and rank WEPs conservation threats on a scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 being the least destructive and 5 the most destructive threat; following Balemie and Kebebew [49] and Berihun and Molla [46]. A total of five threats to WEPs were identified in the study area (Table 3). In descending order, agricultural expansion and land-use change, deforestation for construction and firewood, and overharvesting/selective harvesting of multipurpose trees were the three most-cited destructive factors (Table 5). Similar studies from elsewhere in the country evidenced comparable threats to WEPs [22, 49, 70]. The threats identified, such as agricultural expansion, deforestation and selective harvesting, further endanger these species and their ecosystems, potentially leading to reduced biodiversity and degradation of natural resources.

Table 5 Priority ranking of threats to WEP conservation (Key: R = Respondents)
Full size table

Direct matrix ranking for the multipurpose use of WEPs

The 36 key informants (KI) were requested to free list multipurpose uses of WEPs and number of citation by KI was summed up and used as a prioritizing criterion. Top six more frequently mentioned WEPs selected downwards and randomized for fairness. Similarly, five use categories were also filtered out from free listings. Direct matrix ranking was employed to rank these six WEPs (Cordia africana, Zizyphus mucronata, Ficus sycomorus, Ximenia americana, Dioscorea prahensilis, and Embelia schimperi) across the five use categories following Martin [40]. Ranking was carried out based on the opinions of 10 key informants (from the three districts) to assess the relative importance of the six WEPs in the study area over different use categories (Table 6). Five use categories, namely, traditional medicine, wood for fuel, construction materials, fencing and farm utensils, were used to compare the utilization of the selected WEPs, rated from 0 to 4, where 0 signifies not used, 1 indicates least used, 2 reflects good use, 3 implies very good use, and 4 denotes excellent use.

Table 6 Direct matrix ranking of six WEPs in five use categories
Full size table

The top three ranked use categories reported by respondents for the six WEPs are wood fuel, fencing and construction material, in decreasing order (Table 6). Comparable results for various use categories, such as medicine, construction materials, fuel wood and fencing, were reported elsewhere in the country [45, 46]. Among the six WEPs, Embelia schimperi and Zizyphus mucronata were the most commonly used plants for multiple purposes followed by Cordia africana and Ficus sycomorus, respectively. Cosequently, plants such as Zizyphus mucronata and Embelia schimperi, which ranked highest in versatility, should be prioritized for conservation efforts because of their diverse uses and potential overexploitation.

Conclusions and recommendation

The study identified 39 wild edible plants (WEPs) across 26 families and 32 genera, reflecting significant diversity, although other studies in the country reported varying numbers of these plants. Trees and shrubs were predominant among the four growth forms identified, with fruits being the most commonly harvested plant part, highlighting the versatility of WEPs in local diets. WEPs collection serves as a vital income source for many local communities, although opinions on its role in food shortages vary. However, most respondents acknowledged using WEPs beyond mere sustenance, including for supplementation and therapeutic purposes.

Local economies benefit from the sale of WEPs products, such as Syzygium guineense and Dioscorea prahensilis, underscoring their economic importance to local communities indicating their market potential. However, threats such as agricultural expansion, deforestation and overharvesting endanger WEPs conservation, necessitating concerted efforts for sustainable management. Community-based conservation initiatives, alongside awareness programs, can mitigate risks. Promoting high-value WEPs species cultivation and marketing offers additional income opportunities. Collaboration and knowledge sharing among stakeholders can enhance conservation strategies, recognizing the cultural, ecological and economic significance of WEPs. Safeguarding these resources ensures resilience and livelihood security for future generations in the study area. Moreover, policy interventions aimed at protecting biodiversity, conserving natural habitats and promoting sustainable agricultural practices are crucial. Integrating WEPs conservation into broader biodiversity conservation strategies and land-use planning frameworks can help mitigate threats and ensure the long-term viability of WEPs populations.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this research are available from the corresponding author upon motivated request.

Abbreviations

WEPs:

Wild edible plant species

NMA:

National Meteorological Agency

FGDs:

Focus Group Discussions

DA:

Development Association

ETB:

Ethiopian Birr

References

  1. Lulekal E, et al. Wild edible plants in Ethiopia: a review on their potential to combat food insecurity. Afrika Focus. 2011;24(2):71–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Carvalho AM, Barata AM. The consumption of wild edible plants. Wild plants, mushrooms and nuts: functional food properties and applications, 2016: p. 159–198.

  3. Mokganya M, Tshisikhawe M. Medicinal uses of selected wild edible vegetables consumed by Vhavenda of the Vhembe District Municipality, South Africa. S Afr J Bot. 2019;122:184–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Malan DF, et al. Wild edible plants in four Agni tribes of Central-east and Northeast of Côte d’Ivoire: a comparative study. Biodiversitas J Biol Divers. 2020;21(10):4896–4902.

  5. Ulian T, et al. Unlocking plant resources to support food security and promote sustainable agriculture. Plants People Planet. 2020;2(5):421–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Avohou HT, et al. Ethnobotanical factors influencing the use and management of wild edible plants in agricultural environments in Benin. Ethnobot Res Appl. 2012;10:571–92.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Thakur A, Singh S, Puri S. Exploration of wild edible plants used as food by Gaddis: a tribal community of the Western Himalaya. Sci World J. 2020;2020:1–6.

  8. Hassen A. Diversity and potential contribution of wild edible plants to sustainable food security in North Wollo, Ethiopia. Biodivers J Biol Diver. 2021;22(6):2501–2510.

  9. Shumsky SA, et al. Understanding the contribution of wild edible plants to rural social-ecological resilience in semi-arid Kenya. Ecol sSoc. 2014;19(4):1–21.

  10. 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):1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Van Damme P. Wild plants as food security in Namibia and Senegal. Geo J Lib. 1998;41:229–50.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lachat C, et al. Dietary species richness as a measure of food biodiversity and nutritional quality of diets. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2018;115(1):127–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 

  14. Feyssa DH, et al. Seasonal availability and consumption of wild edible plants in semiarid Ethiopia: implications to food security and climate change adaptation. J Hortic For. 2011;3(5):138–49.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 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):1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kumar A, et al. Role of traditional ethnobotanical knowledge and indigenous communities in achieving sustainable development goals. Sustainability. 2021;13(6):3062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Shisanya CA. Role of traditional ethnobotanical knowledge and indigenous institutions in sustainable land management in Western Highlands of Kenya. Indigenous People. 2017;315–391.

  18. Carvalho AM, Barata AM. The consumption of wild edible plants. Wild Plants Mushrooms Nuts Functi Food Prop Appl. 2017;159–188.

  19. Conservation International, Hotspots Revised, ed. PRGRA Mittermeier, M Hoffman, J Pilgrim, T Brooks, CG Mittermeier, JL Gustavo and AB Fonseca. 2004, Cemex. Conservation International: p. 1-390.

  20. United Nations, World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights. 2019, Population Division of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs/Population Division. p. 2.

  21. Teklehaymanot T. An ethnobotanical survey of medicinal and edible plants of Yalo Woreda in Afar regional state, Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2017;13(1):1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dejene T, et al. Ethnobotanical survey of wild edible fruit tree species in lowland areas of Ethiopia. Forests. 2020;11(2):177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Balemie K, Kebebew F. Ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants in Derashe and Kucha Districts, South Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2006;2:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Degualem, A., Wild Edible Plant Resources in Guangua and Banja Districts and Contribution for Food Security. 2018, Addis Ababa University: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. p. 73.

  25. Idd LOL. Guideline for agro-ecology based packages of nutrition sensitive interventions. 2017.

  26. Tadesse T. Process of ethnic interaction and integration in Ethiopian history: the case of Agua. In: Proceedings of the 9th international coverage of Ethiopian studies. Moscow: Nauka Publisher; 1988. 6, p. 192–206.

  27. Raz S. Areal features as a further criterion in elucidating the term ‘Ethiopian Semitic.’ Afr Lang Cult. 1989;2(1):93–108.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Sewnet S. Practice and Challenges of Promoting Major Tourism Destinations in Awi Administration Zone. PhD Thesis, Addis Ababa University, 2019.

  29. Gonfa L. Climate classifications of Ethiopia. 1996. NMSA, Meteorological Research, Vol. 1, No. 1. p. 1-137

  30. (NMA), NMA. National Meteorological Agency (NMA) 2005–2019 2019, Bahir Dar District.

  31. Berhanu Y, Tesfa M, Bekele M. Assessment of climate variability context and local farmers’ adaptation strategies in Halaba Special Woreda, Ethiopia. Int J Environ Monit Prot. 2015;2(5):84–93.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hedberg IES. Flora of Ethiopia, volume 3: Pittosporaceae to Araliaceae. Sweden: Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia and Uppsala.

  33. Edwards STM, Hedberg I. Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea, volume 2, part 2: Canellaceae to Euphorbiaceae. Sweden: Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia and Uppsala. 1995.

  34. Hedberg IES, Phillips S. Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea, vol. 7: Poaceae (Gramineae). Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. 1995.

  35. Edwards SDS, Hedberg I. Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea, Volume 6: Hydrocharitaceae to Arecaceae. Sweden: Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia and Uppsala. 1997.

  36. Edwards STM, Demissew S, Hedberg I. Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea, Volume 2, part 1: Magnoliaceae to Flacourtiaceae. Sweden, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and Uppsala. 2000.

  37. Hedberg IES, Nemomissa S. Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea, Volume 4, part 1: Apiaceae to Dipsacaceae. Sweden, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia and Uppsala. 2003.

  38. Hedberg IKE, Edwards S, Demissew S, Persson E. Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea, volume 5: Gentianaceae to Cyclocheilaceae. Sweden, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia and Uppsala. 2006.

  39. I., E.S.T.M.D.S.a.H. Flora of Ethiopia & Eritea Volume 2, Part 1: Magnoliaceae to Flacourtaceae 2000: Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia and Uppsala, Sweden.

  40. Martin GJ. A methods manual. London: Chapaman and Hill; 1995. p. 1–251.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Cotton CM. Ethnobotany: principles and applications. Hoboken: Wiley; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Tefera BN, Kim Y-D. Ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants in the Hawassa Zuria District, Sidama zone, Southern Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2019;15:1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Masresha G, Melkamu Y, Walle GC. Ethnobotanical study on wild edible plants in Metema District, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia. Int J For Res. 2023;2023.

  44. Chekole G, Asfaw Z, Kelbessa E. An ethnobotanical study of plants used in traditional medicine and as wild foods in and around Tara Gedam and Amba remnant forests in Libo Kemkem Wereda, South Gonder zone, Amhara region, Ethiopia. South Gonder Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2015;11(4):1–38.

  45. 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: p. 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Berihun T, Molla E. Study on the diversity and use of wild edible plants in Bullen District Northwest Ethiopia. J Bot. 2017.

  47. Ojelel S, Kakudidi EK. Wild edible plant species utilized by a subsistence farming community in Obalanga sub-county, Amuria district, Uganda. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine. 2015;11: p. 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kent M. Vegetation description and data analysis: a practical approach. Hoboken: Wiley; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Balemie K, Kebebew F. Ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants in Derashe and Kucha Districts, South Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2006;2(1):53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Kebebew M, Leta G. Wild edible plant bio-diversity and utilization system in Nech Sar Natonal Park, Ethiopia. Int J Bio-resour Stress Manag. 2016;7(4):885–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Awas T, et al. Ethnobotany of Berta and Gumuz people in western Ethiopia. Biodiversity. 2010;11(3–4):45–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Regassa T, Kelbessa E, Asfaw Z. Ethnobotany of wild and semi-wild edible plants of Chelia District, West-Central Ethiopia. Sci Technol Arts Res J. 2015;3(4):122–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Tebkew M, et al. Uses of wild edible plants in Quara district, northwest Ethiopia: implication for forest management. Agric Food Secur. 2018;7(1):1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Yiblet Y, Adamu E. An ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants in Tach Gayint district, South Gondar zone, Amhara region, Northwestern Ethiopia. Evid Based Complement Altern Med. 2023;2023.

  57. 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):1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Alemneh D. Ethnobotany of wild edible plants in Yilmana Densa and Quarit Districts of west Gojjam Zone, Amhara Region Ethiopia. Ethnobot Res Appl. 2020;20(47):2020.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Hankiso M, et al. Ethnobotany of wild edible plants in Soro District of Hadiya Zone, southern Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2023;19(1):21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Tahir M, et al. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Duguma HT. Wild edible plant nutritional contribution and consumer perception in Ethiopia. Int J Food Sci. 2020;2020.

  63. Addis G, Asfaw Z, Woldu Z. Ethnobotany of wild and semi-wild edible plants of Konso ethnic community, South Ethiopia. Ethnobot Res Appl. 2013;11:121–41.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Anbessa B, et al. Ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants in Dibatie district, Metekel zone, Benishangul Gumuz Regional State, western Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2024;20(1):27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Bahru T, Asfaw Z, Demissew S. Wild edible plants: sustainable use and management by indigenous communities in and the buffer area of Awash national park, Ethiopia. SINET Ethiop J Sci. 2013;36(2):93–108.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Asfaw A, et al. Ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants and implications for food security. Trees For People. 2023;14: 100453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Kidane B, et al. Ethnobotany of wild and semi-wild edible fruit species used by Maale and Ari ethnic communities in southern Ethiopia. 2014.

  68. Feyssa DH. Comparative analysis of indigenous knowledge on use and management of wild edible plants: the case of central east Shewa of Ethiopia. Ethnobot Res Appl. 2012;10:287–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 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 

  70. 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;12:1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Feyssa DH, et al. Uses and management of Ximenia americana, Olacaceae in semi-arid East Shewa, Ethiopia. Pak J Bot. 2012;44(4):1177–84.

    Google Scholar 

  72. 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;6:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Spohn M, Stendahl J. Soil carbon and nitrogen contents in forest soils are related to soil texture in interaction with pH and metal cations. Geoderma. 2024;441: 116746.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Dumpa Premavani TNM, Venkaiah M. Tree species diversity and population structure in the tropical forests of North Central Eastern Ghats, India. Notulae Scientia Biologicae. 2014;6(4):448–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Balemlay S, Siraj M. Analysis of floristic composition and plant community types in Kenech Natural Forest, Kaffa Zone, Ethiopia. Trees Forests People. 2022;7.

  76. Atomsa D, Dibbisa, D. Floristic composition and vegetation structure of Ades forest, Oromia regional state, West Hararghe zone, Ethiopia. Tropical Plant Res. 2019;6(1):139–147.

  77. Bekele M, et al. Ethnobotanical investigation of medicinal plants in Buska Mountain range, Hamar district, Southwestern Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2022;18(1):1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their heartfelt gratitude to Injibara University for providing financial and logistical support and to the many respondents for sharing their indigenous knowledge and invaluable time.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Patrick Van Damme

    Present address: Faculty of Tropical AgriSciences, Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, College of Natural and Computational Sciences, Injibara University, Injibara, Ethiopia

    Amare Fassil, Ethiopia Mazengia, Bekele Gebreamanuel, Yitayih Dessie, Bulti Kumera, Belsti Atnkut, Destaw Mullualem & Alemu Tsega

Authors
  1. Amare Fassil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ethiopia Mazengia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bekele Gebreamanuel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yitayih Dessie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bulti Kumera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Belsti Atnkut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Destaw Mullualem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Alemu Tsega
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Patrick Van Damme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AF, EM and BG contributed to the conceptualization and data analysis of the research. YD, BK, BA, DM and AT gathered the research data and participated in writing the manuscript. PVD reviewed and co-wrote the draft manuscript. All authors participated in manuscript revision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amare Fassil.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

First, the authority to conduct the study was obtained from the district administration and Kebele administrative offices by providing formal written official letters provided by Injibara University's Department of Biology. After receiving a brief description of the study's aims in the local language, participants expressed verbal consent. The respondents are actively participated from inception to completion of the study, and the final findings were shared with the local communities. Informed consent was provided by the community members and researchers. Similarly, researchers were working in compliance with local systems for the management of knowledge and local innovations. Written informed consent for the publication of detailed images of children, as displayed in Fig. 3 (depicting Syzygium guineense fruit selling practices by children at Chagni town local market), was obtained from their parents.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, 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 changes were made. 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/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fassil, A., Mazengia, E., Gebreamanuel, B. et al. Harvesting nature's bounty: exploring the ethnobotanical landscape of wild edible plants in the Awi Agäw community, Northwestern Ethiopia. J Ethnobiology Ethnomedicine 20, 59 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-024-00696-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-024-00696-7

Keywords

Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine

ISSN: 1746-4269

Contact us