Oluoch et al. Journal of Ethnobiology Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2023) 19:13 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-023-00584-6 and Ethnomedicine RESEARCH Open Access Indigenous communities’ perceptions reveal threats and management options of wild edible plants in semiarid lands of northwestern Kenya Wyclife Agumba Oluoch1,4*, Cory Whitney1,2, Céline Termote3, Christian Borgemeister1 and Christine B. Schmitt1,4 Abstract Background Understanding how local communities perceive threats and management options of wild edible plants (WEPs) is essential in developing their conservation strategies and action plans. Due to their multiple use values, including nutrition, medicinal, construction, and cultural as well as biotic and abiotic pressures, WEPs are exposed to overexploitation, especially within arid and semiarid lands, and hence the need to manage and conserve them. We demonstrate how an understanding of indigenous communities’ perceptions could be achieved through an inte- grated participatory approach involving focus group discussions (FGDs) and field plot surveys. Methods We conducted three FGDs between October 2020 and April 2021 within three community units in northwestern Kenya with different socioeconomic and environmental characteristics. We subsequently surveyed 240 field plots of size 1 ha each to assess threats facing WEPs within a 5 km buffer radius in every study community. We compared ranks of threats and management options across community units. Results Rankings of threats and management options differed across the three study communities. We obtained strong positive linear relationships between field and FGD rankings of threats facing WEPs. Climate change, overstock- ing, overharvesting, and invasive species were the highest-ranked threats. Mitigation of climate change, local knowl- edge preservation, selection, propagation, processing, and marketing of WEPs ranked high among possible manage- ment options irrespective of the socioeconomic and environmental characteristics of the community unit. Conclusions Our approach emphasizes the relevance of leveraging indigenous communities’ perceptions and conducting field plot surveys to assess threats and management options for WEPs. Evaluating the effectiveness and cost–benefit implications of implementing the highly ranked management options could help determine potentially suitable habitats of the WEPs for conservation and management purposes, especially for priority WEPs. Keywords Conservation, Sustainable use, Wild food plants, Integrated participatory approach, Field survey, Focus group discussion, Local knowledge, Kenya *Correspondence: 3 Alliance of Bioversity International and International Center for Tropical Wyclife Agumba Oluoch Agriculture (CIAT), Nairobi, Kenya wyclifeoluoch@gmail.com 4 Geography Section, University of Passau, Passau, Germany 1 Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany 2 Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation (INRES), Horticultural Sciences, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany © The Author(s) 2023. 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:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ publi cdoma in/ zero/1. 0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. Oluoch et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2023) 19:13 Page 2 of 15 Background contemporary threats, including those of anthropogenic Wild edible plants (WEPs) are ‘safety nets’ for many com- climate change. Managing valuable resources such as munities during lean seasons [1–3] and in times of con- WEPs for sustainable use is crucial to local communities. flict [4, 5]. They have been essential assets in the fight We define ‘sustainable use’ as the case when WEPs are against malnutrition and hunger in many societies [6–8] harvested within the limits of their carrying capacity for and of benefit to modern communities and in the future self-renewal and the manner of harvest does not degrade [9, 10]. However, WEPs have witnessed continued local- the environment in other ways [45]. ized habitat destruction and overexploitation [11, 12], We sought to understand the threats and management attributable to various anthropogenic and natural factors options that could aid the sustainable use of WEPs in [13, 14]. Such factors compromise the sustainable use of northwestern Kenya. To achieve this, we used an inte- WEPs as safety nets for many communities across the grated participatory approach to combine FGDs results globe [15]. with field plot surveys guided by three research ques- Within Africa, threats to WEPs pose challenges to tions: (i) Which threats do WEPs face in Turkana County, about 80% of the rural populations that derive food from and how do they vary across different socioeconomic and the wild [16]. The threats inhibit the optimal regenera- environmental settings? (ii) How do indigenous commu- tion of WEPs and their use as food by such communities nities’ perceptions of these threats compare with field [17, 18]. While some threats have adverse effects on the survey results? (iii) What are possible effective manage- local abundance of WEPs, changes in lifestyle and con- ment options and how do they differ across socioeco- sumption patterns, among other socioeconomic and cul- nomic and environmental settings? tural reasons, also explain the declining use of WEPs [19, 20]. The impacts from such threats are primarily felt by Materials and methods poor rural people [16, 21], thus negatively affecting the Study area description role of WEPs as ‘safety nets’ for rural African populations We conducted the study in three community health vulnerable to malnutrition and hunger [22, 23]. units (Nasiger, Atala Kamusio, and Lopur), reflecting the Turkana County in northwestern Kenya is one of the socioeconomic and environmental differences in Tur- affected regions in Africa. It is inhabited by the Turkana kana County (Fig.  1). A community health unit, hereaf- people, among others, whose traditional livelihood strat- ter called a community unit, is a designated geographical egy is nomadic pastoralism [24, 25]. Accordingly, their zone with approximately 1000 households and served by primary diet comprises animal products like meat, milk, ten community health volunteers and one health exten- and blood. They derive plant-based vitamins and herbal sion worker [46]. Nasiger community is located in the dry medicines primarily from WEPs [20, 26, 27]. Some com- plains about 40 km north of Lodwar town, the headquar- munities have diversified their livelihood strategies into ter of Turkana County. It receives an annual rainfall of trade, such as the sale of Aloe vera [28, 29], honey har- about 166 mm (average 1981—2022) [47]. The vegetation vesting [25, 30], artisanal gold mining [31], poultry keep- consists of scanty scrubs with occasional trees along the ing [32], basket weaving [33–35], hide processing [36], riparian areas (normally dry riverbeds) [44]. According local brewing [37], fishing [38, 39], and crop cultivation to the Food Economy Group, the community unit falls [25, 40]. under the Turkana Central Pastoral livelihood zone, an Of the 47 counties in Kenya, Turkana County has the “exceptionally hot, dry, and arid environment” [48]. highest poverty and malnutrition rates [41]. Only 3.2% of Atala Kamusio community is situated in the Turkana its population hold food stocks that can last more than Border Pastoral livelihood zone [48], about 100  km one month [42]. Against the national poverty headcount west of Lodwar town (Fig.  1). The landscape undulates rate of 36.1%, it has the highest poverty rate of 79.4% between mid- and lowland elevations, and woody and (about 80% of Turkana people are considered poor) shrubby plants dominate the landscape [44]. It receives [42]. The county also has the highest food poverty rate an annual rainfall of 371  mm (average 1981—2022) at 66.1%, compared to the national average of 32% [42]. [47]. The Lopur community is in the Turkwel Riverine- With WEPs known to aid in food and nutritional secu- Agro Pastoral livelihood zone [48], about 118 km south rity [43], assessing their threats and management options of Lodwar town (Fig. 1), along the only permanent river could be a significant step in sustainably utilizing them in in Turkana County, the Turkwel River. The area receives such a setting as Turkana County. 327  mm of rainfall per year (average 1981—2022) [47] Turkana people have relied on locally constituted man- and has intensive crop cultivation with irrigation water agement methods like seasonal grazing (via migration from the river [49]. Inhabitants grow crops such as maize, with livestock) and clear designation grazing fields [44]. beans, tomatoes, and pawpaw and keep livestock such as These, however, could not be sufficient in countering cattle, sheep, goats, camels, and donkeys [49, 50]. O luoch et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2023) 19:13 Page 3 of 15 Fig. 1 Study area map showing the distribution of the study plots within the three community units of Nasiger, Atala Kamusio, and Lopur within Loima and Turkana South sub-counties of Turkana County, Kenya Data collection of agricultural land” into the same category (Additional We obtained threats and management options data on file 1: Table s2). WEPs from the literature and discussed these with each of the three community units during FGDs. We also con- Focus group discussions ducted field observations of threats. The research activi- We held FGDs with 14 adults (age > = 18 years) partici- ties were carried out from October 2020 to April 2021. pants in each of the three study community units [53]. With the help of local administrators, we included par- Extraction of threats and management option categories ticipants in the study who were involved in the WEPs from the literature value chain, including harvesting, use, and conserva- We extracted threats and management options for tion efforts. They included, among other community WEPs from published literature using a snow-ball  sam- members, village elders, community health volunteers, pling approach [51]. We went through as many literature church leaders, community nutritionists, public health sources as possible (n = 23) that featured either threat or officers, community health workers, and teachers. management reports. The list of threats and management Village elders, for example, oversee matters concern- options with their corresponding reviewed sources are ing the use and conservation of community resources, given in Additional file 1: Table s1 and Table s3, respec- including WEPs. Local administrators maintain peace tively. We also obtained threat categories from the threats and ensure adherence to rules, such as settling dis- classification scheme version 3.2 by the International putes whenever they arise, including those concern- Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) [52]. We then ing WEPs. They are also the main entry points to the went through all threat categories in the obtained litera- communities for government and non-government ture. We grouped categories referring to similar threats, programs. Teachers instill knowledge in the young e.g., by placing “expansion of agriculture” and “expansion generation in school settings, including nutrition skills Oluoch et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2023) 19:13 Page 4 of 15 that could involve the use of WEPs. Health workers, FGD sites central. None of our five-km buffers overlapped such as health extension officers, nutritionists, public with neighboring community units. Based on prior infor- health officers, and community health volunteers at mal discussions with local administrators, we assumed the community level, support the improvement of the that the participants, and other community members health and well-being of local people, including advo- in general, resided within that radius, and their scored cating for the use of WEPs in their diets. Lastly, other threats would be represented within that spatial extent. members of the FGDs were drawn from residents who We then generated 40 random survey plots and estab- participated in harvesting and use of WEPs for food lished 100 m by 100 m (1 ha) plots at each point along the and medicine, among others. We thus considered all digitized streams such that no two plots were closer than the participants very resourceful in discussing threats 1 km (Fig. 1). For every random riverine plot, we gener- and management options for WEPs. ated a corresponding off-riverine plot at least 100 m from We selected three priority  woody WEPs, i.e., Sal- the river bank. That resulted in 80 survey plots per com- vadora persica, Ziziphus mauritiana, and Balanites munity unit and 240 survey plots for the three commu- rotundifolia, considered priority [53] due to their high nity units. We chose to include ‘riverine’ as a factor since use values in the region for detailed FGDs with the our study area was largely arid. We assumed occasional local participants. We opted for woody species as their higher relative moisture levels confined within riverine longer lifespan in the field implied that participants areas could explain some variations. Both S. persica and interacted with them more and could discuss them Z. mauritiana have also been reported to prefer riverine more exhaustively. Further, the trees were also present sites [58–60]. in the field during our plot surveys. Using nine of our ten threat categories (we dropped We commenced every FGD by allowing participants ‘climate change’ as it was impractical to observe indica- to free list and discuss threats facing the three prior- tors of climate change in a single field visit), we scored ity woody WEPs. We then consensually co-grouped observable threats to WEPs in each survey plot. Each the listed threats into the nine pre-defined (cf. 2.2.1) threat category could receive a score between 1 (least categories with the participants. We added a tenth threat) and 9 (highest threat). Scoring was based on the category for all mentioned threats that were not in consensus of the threat categories by three observers our nine pre-selected categories (Additional file  1: (two trained research assistants and the correspond- Table  s2). We did preference ranking [54–56] that ing author). Observed indicators of threats included fire involved asking the participants to score each of the scars to denote fire threat, over-browsed seedlings/lower ten threat categories on a scale of 10 (threat of great- branches of priority woody WEPs to denote overstock- est concern) to 1 (threat of least concern) according to ing/overgrazing, and plowed land to characterize agricul- their perceived magnitude of effects on the three pri- ture expansion threat, among others that were obtained ority woody WEPs. We gave each participant 10 white from FGDs (Additional file 1: Table s2). circular pieces of cardboard, and they raised a card after concluding the discussion on each threat cat- egory. We took note of the number on the raised card- Data analysis board by each participant. We repeated that for all ten We calculated score-sums [54, 56] for all threat and man- threat categories as we expounded on the indicators agement scores from all participants to obtain an overall under each threat category. We ranked management ranking of each threat and management category for all options in the same manner. community units combined and individually. We then tested for differences in the scores within and between Field observations of threats to woody wild edible plants community units for management options and scores We obtained geographic coordinates of the FGD venue from threats we observed from field plot surveys. We ran in each of the three community units using a handheld the test using nonparametric friedmanAlignedRanksTest global positioning system (GPS). Treating this as the cen- and friedmanAlignedRanksPost functions in the scmamp tral point of the community unit, we created a virtual [61] package version 0.3.2 in R [62] version 4.2.2. The test buffer zone of a five-km radius (Fig. 1) as buffers, within is well-suited for nonparametric, non-normally distrib- which we traced all rivers/streams using QGIS software uted, and ranked or ordinal data. To compare FGD and [57] and Google Earth base layers. Though there were no field plot survey ranking of threats to woody WEPs, we distinct boundary maps of the community units to help ran pairwise correlation tests on the resulting rankings. derive the centers, the local communities considered our O luoch et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2023) 19:13 Page 5 of 15 Results overharvesting, and overstocking/overgrazing were General description of FGD participants ranked the highest here. We then tested for possible dif- Participants in the FGDs were individuals knowledgeable ferences in threat scores. about WEPs (cf. 2.2.2) within Turkana County, Kenya. At least one community unit was significantly different Their representation is summarized in Table 1. (α < 5%) from the other(s) in the ranking of each threat Table  1 indicates that many of the participants, 31% category except for invasive species, pests and diseases, (n = 13), were ordinary community members, followed by and others (Fig. 2). health workers, village elders, and a public health officer. 60% (n = 25) of the participants were female, 40% (n = 17) Threats to woody wild edible plants from field were male. The participants were considered diverse and observations knowledgeable enough to give detailed discussions on We observed no significant differences in threat scores the WEPs needed for the study. between riverine and off-riverine field survey plots; hence, we formed a composite of the two datasets result- Threats to woody wild edible plants from focus group ing in 80 survey plots per community unit. Overstocking/ discussions overgrazing, invasive species, and selective harvesting/ Climate change, invasive species, and overstocking/ overharvesting were the top three threats we observed in overgrazing ranked highest among the threats facing the field at Nasiger (Table 3). At Atala Kamusio, top three priority woody WEPs according to scores by FGD par- threats were overstocking/overgrazing, selective har- ticipants (Table  2). We observed similar patterns in the vesting/overharvesting, and fuelwood collection/char- Nasiger and Atala Kamusio community units but not coal burning. Agricultural expansion was the top-ranked in Lopur. Agriculture expansion, selective harvesting/ threat to WEPs at Lopur, followed by invasive species and uncontrolled fire (Table 3). In field plot observations, overstocking/overgrazing was the highest-ranked threat, Table 1 Proportion of participants in the FGDs followed by selective harvesting/overharvesting and inva- Participants Number included Proportion (%) sive species (Table 3). The same threats were identified in in the study the FGDs. Village elders 7 17 Our rankings of threat categories facing woody WEPs Chiefs/assistants chiefs 5 12 from the field plots surveys varied significantly among Teachers 5 12 the study community units (Fig.  3). We, however, Health workers 8 19 observed some similarities in the rankings, as were the Nutritionists 3 7 cases for overstocking/overgrazing at all communities, Public health officers 1 2 selective harvesting/overharvesting at Atala Kamusio and Other community members 13 31 Lopur, infrastructural development at Nasiger and Lopur, Total 42 100 Table 2 Rank summaries of threat categories in each community unit and across all community units combined (Nasiger, Atala Kamusio, and Lopur) in Turkana County, Kenya Threat categories Nasiger Atala Kamusio Lopur All communities Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Climate change 117 1 111 1 57 8 285 1 Invasive species 88 2 104 2 89 6 281 2 Overstocking/overgrazing 65 3 93 3 102 3 260 3 Selective harvesting/overharvesting 61 4 76 4 110 2 247 4 Fuelwood collection/charcoal burning 43 5 69 5 97 5 209 5 Agricultural expansion 23 9 38 7 130 1 191 6 Uncontrolled fire 40 6 25 9 101 4 166 7 Infrastructural development 31 7 62 6 72 7 165 8 Pests and diseases 30 8 33 8 41 9 104 9 Others 16 10 19 10 17 10 52 10 Each score represents the sum of scores from cards raised by 14 participants in the focus group discussion. For all communities, we summed the scores from each community unit. The rank column indicates the order of the scores Oluoch et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2023) 19:13 Page 6 of 15 Fig. 2 Comparison of scores on threats across the three study community units in Turkana County, Kenya. ns, *, **, ***, and **** represent not significant, significant at α = 5%, 1%, 0.1% and 0.01%, respectively Table 3 Sum of scores and ranks of threat categories from field plot observations (n = 80) in three community units (Nasiger, Atala Kamusio, and Lopur and all combined) in Turkana County, Kenya Threat categories Nasiger Atala Kamusio Lopur All communities Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Overstocking/overgrazing 581 1[2] 635 1[2] 615 4[3] 1831 1[2] Selective harvesting/overharvesting 471 3[3] 557 2[3] 442 5[2] 1470 2[3] Invasive species 483 2[1] 332 4[1] 628 2[6] 1443 3[1] Fuelwood collection/charcoal burning 269 4[4] 448 3[4] 387 6[5] 1104 4[4] Agricultural expansion 80 9[8] 168 6[6] 658 1[1] 906 5[5] Uncontrolled fire 105 7[5] 160 7[8] 617 3[4] 882 6[6] Infrastructural development 168 6[6] 154 8[5] 282 7[7] 604 7[7] Pests and diseases 197 5[7] 204 5[7] 129 8[8] 530 8[8] Others 102 8[9] 83 9[9] 82 9[9] 267 9[9] Ranks drawn from FGDs, after dropping climate change threat (see Table 1), are indicated in brackets [] for comparison O luoch et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2023) 19:13 Page 7 of 15 pests and diseases at Nasiger and Lopur, and others at Management options for threats to priority woody wild Nasiger and Atala Kamusio. edible plants To spatially visualize variations in scores among threats Overall, the three study communities mentioned mitiga- facing priority WEPs in all the 240 surveyed plots and tion of climate change, preservation of local knowledge community units, we developed a graduated gray scale about WEPs, and selection, propagation, processing, and map (Fig.  4). For example, overstocking/overgrazing marketing as the highest-ranked management options for ranked similarly high in almost all three community threats facing WEPs (Table  4). At least two of these top units. At the same time, the agricultural expansion was three management options appeared among the top three least in Nasiger and highest in Lopur. for each community unit individually. However, no two Figure  5 shows how the scores for threats (except community units attained similarity for the top-ranked climate change) in FGDs are associated with that of management option per community unit. Nasiger, Atala field plot surveys. Strong positive linear associations Kamusio, and Lopur community units ranked control har- existed between FGD rankings and field plot survey vesting for food and fodder, cultivating WEPs, and miti- rankings of threats facing priority woody WEPs in gating climate change as their top-ranked management Turkana County, similar to the one-to-one ranking in options, respectively. We thus checked for possible simi- Table 3. larities and differences in the ranked management options. Fig. 3 Comparison of rankings of threat categories observed in the field across three study community units in Turkana County, Kenya. ns, *, **, ***, and **** represent not significant, significance at α = 5%, 1%, 0.1% and 0.01%, respectively Oluoch et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2023) 19:13 Page 8 of 15 Fig. 4 Map showing the variation in the ranking of threat categories facing priority woody wild edible plants within three study community units (Nasiger, Atala Kamusio, and Lopur) in Turkana County, Kenya. We did not include the ‘Others’ category in the figure as it had negligible rankings, while climate change indicators were not assessed in the field Out of the 12 scored management options, there Discussion were seven with significant differences in at least two We assessed threats facing priority woody WEPs from compared community units (Fig. 6). The four manage- local community perspectives involving FGDs and field ment options, control harvesting for food and fodder, plot surveys in an integrated participatory approach. assess nutrition and toxicity, monitor and inventor, and We also assessed management options with the poten- others, ranked similarly across the community units, tial to counter the adverse effects of these threats from suggesting commonality in how the FGD participants the point of view of FGD participants. From the FGDs, from the study communities perceived the manage- we most importantly found climate change, invasive ment options. species, and overstocking/overgrazing to be among the O luoch et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2023) 19:13 Page 9 of 15 Fig. 5 Association between focus group discussion and field plot survey ranking of studied threat categories (except climate change) facing wild edible plants within Nasiger, Atala Kamusio, and Lopur community units in Turkana County, Kenya. The gray margin area around the best line of fit (black line) represents the 95% confidence interval. Points outside that margin are labeled by their threat category names highest-ranking threats facing WEPs in Turkana County. southern Ethiopia that put agricultural land expansion, Our findings from the field plot surveys revealed that fuelwood collection, uncontrolled fire setting, over- overstocking/overgrazing, selective harvesting/over- grazing, and overharvesting as highly ranked threats harvesting, and invasive species were the top-ranking to WEPs [17, 63–65]. The different socioeconomic and threats. Field plot surveys and FGD rankings of threats environmental settings of the studied community units showed strong positive linear relationships. We found can explain the observed differences in the scoring of mitigation of climate change, preservation of local knowl- threats facing WEPs: For example, inhabitants of the edge, and selection, propagation, processing, and market- three community units derived their livelihoods dif- ing to be the highest-ranking management options for ferently. While livestock keeping was predominant in the priority woody WEPs. Nasiger and Atala Kamusio, crop farming dominated Our FGDs and field observations results on threats in Lopur [48]. The extensive irrigated croplands astride correspond to those from similar studies conducted in the banks of River Turkwel in Lopur partly explained Oluoch et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2023) 19:13 Page 10 of 15 Table 4 Scores and ranks of management options by participants (n = 14 in each community unit and n = 42 for all the three community units combined) for threats to wild edible plants in Turkana County, Kenya Management categories Nasiger Atala Kamusio Lopur All communities Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Mitigate climate change 113 3 138 2 133 1 384 1 Preserve local knowledge about the WEPs 115 2 137 3 130 5 382 2 Selection, propagation, processing and marketing 110 4 136 4 132 2 378 3 Cultivate WEPs 100 6 139 1 131 3 370 4 Control harvesting for food and fodder 122 1 121 6 119 7 362 5 Prohibit charcoal burning 86 7 136 4 131 3 353 6 Assess nutrition and toxicity 110 4 107 8 114 8 331 7 Create public awareness on WEPs 72 9 109 7 124 6 305 8 Conserve in sacred areas 80 8 102 9 76 10 258 9 Establish protected areas 62 10 46 10 102 9 210 10 Monitor and inventor 38 12 35 12 43 11 116 11 Others (home gardens, pruning and pollarding, enhance par- 39 11 38 11 31 12 108 12 ticipatory planning, alternative livelihood for local people) Scoring was done by each participant at a scale of 1 (least ranked management option) to 12 (highest-ranked management option) and summed for every community unit individually and all community units combined why this community scored the threat of agricultural change, preservation of local knowledge about WEPs, expansion highest. Efforts by the Kenyan government and carrying out selection, propagation, processing, to expand agricultural land for irrigated crop farming and marketing of WEPs in the region were perceived as since 2015 [48] could jeopardize the future of WEPs in plausible. While the communities called for document- the region. ing local knowledge about the WEPs and passing that In terms of invasive species, although receiving aver- knowledge to current generations, they also understood age to high scores across the communities, no differences that climate change should be mitigated and that scien- among the community units could be detected. The dom- tists could help in selecting WEPs, propagating them on inant invasive species in northwestern Kenya, Prosopis a large scale, processing/improving on traditional pres- juliflora [66, 67], was perceived by all three community ervation methods to add value, and availing them in the units as a threat to the priority woody WEPs. This species market for sustainable income generation. was highlighted by the FGDs as highly invasive, a fodder Implementing management options such as mitiga- to livestock although known to destroy teeth of goats, tion of climate change [73, 74], controlling harvesting and is used for charcoal to try and manage its spread. We [75], establishing protected areas [76–78], and nutritional also observed the species in the field surveys. and genetic profiling [79] have been proposed to pro- Climate change was perceived by the FGD participants tect WEPs, and some places implemented with notable in terms of a range of indicators that they experienced successes [80, 81]. In particular, Feyssa [81] in Ethiopia in the region (Additional file  1: Table  s2). We acknowl- showed how important indigenous knowledge and its edge that these could be subjective and that structured intergenerational transfer could aid the management and scientific investigations could help reveal the extent of conservation of WEPs. Marketing has also been reported the impact of climate change or variability on WEPs in as a potential management strategy of WEPs elsewhere the region. WEPs have the  potential to  cushion a com- [82] because communities that derive an income from munity against the negative impacts of climate change the sale of fruits from WEPs will also consider them more [68–70], climate change can also threaten their sustain- valuable and worthy of conservation. Moreover, propaga- able use [14, 64]. Further, overstocking/overgrazing could tion and cultivation are also reported elsewhere as poten- also inhibit optimal production of WEPs while at the tial ways to use WEPs sustainably [83–85]. same time inhibiting the regeneration potential as the In more recent work, Borelli [86] emphasized the need seedlings or propagules get stampeded, overgrazed/over- for an integrated conservation approach to better manage browsed [71, 72]. WEPs. This would entail cooperation across sectors and Our results on the potential management options for diverse stakeholders in the WEP’s value chain(s). Indeed, priority woody WEPs indicated that mitigation of climate we noted that local communities knew the threats facing O luoch et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2023) 19:13 Page 11 of 15 Fig. 6 Mean comparisons of management options in three community units in Turkana County, Kenya. ns, *, **, ***, and **** represent not significant, significant at α = 5%, 1%, 0.1%, and 0.01%, respectively their WEPs, as indicated by a strong positive linear cor- areas (cemeteries, churches, cultural gathering sites), relation with our field plot survey scores, and should, controlling harvesting for food and fodder, cultivation accordingly, be integrated into the formulation of WEP of WEPs, regulation of charcoal burning, and preser- management options. Their voice in the implementation vation of local knowledge about WEPs could fit within of management options should be borne in mind by sci- local community action plans (personal communica- entific communities and policymakers alike since they tion from FGD participant). On the other hand, the have used their management options to sustainably uti- assessment of nutritional value and toxicity, the estab- lize their resources throughout history. lishment of protected areas, selection, propagation, Among the possible management options men- processing, and marketing require external interven- tioned by FGD participants, some could be imple- tion but with local collaboration. Some measures, such mented through local community initiatives, while as raising public awareness about the benefits of WEPs, others would require interventions from external bod- mitigation of climate change, and monitoring and ies. For instance, the conservation of WEPs in sacred inventorying WEPs, can only be achieved by closely Oluoch et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2023) 19:13 Page 12 of 15 engaging with local communities, policymakers, and Supplementary Information any actors attempting to influence the management of The online version contains supplementary material available at https:// doi. WEPs. Involving local communities in implementing org/ 10. 1186/ s13002- 023- 00584-6. any management option is imperative. We understand that cost implications always play Additional file 1: Supplementary Table 1. Threats facing wild edible plants or biodiversity in general mentioned in 23 literature sources and a big role in implementing any management options used to guide development of 10 threat categories for both focus group for threats facing biodiversity [87]. However, it is discussions and field plot surveys in Turkana County, Kenya. Supplemen- beyond the scope of our study to address the question tary Table 2. Indicators derived from the focus group discussions on threats facing priority woody wild edible plants in Turkana County, Kenya. of cost implications in deploying any of the manage- The same indicators were used in field plot surveys except for climate ment options to ensure sustainability in the conserva- change. Supplementary Table 3. Management options for wild edible tion efforts of WEPs. It is important to map the extent plants mentioned in 9 literature sources and used to guide development of management categories for focus group discussions in selected com- of potentially suitable habitats for the WEPs so that munity units within Turkana County, Kenya. conservation and management options can be imple- mented site-specific. How future climate change sce- Acknowledgements narios might exacerbate the already existing threats We sincerely thank focus group discussion participants from Nasiger, Atala would also be important to determine moving forward. Kamusio, and Lopur community units of Turkana County, Kenya, who hosted us and shared their knowledge about threats and management options of Even though these findings agreed well with most studies their WEPs. We also acknowledge field plot survey support from our research on threats to biodiversity across the region, it is important assistants Mr. Robert Esekon and Mr. Phillip Abura. to note that the relative significance varied with environ- Author contributions mental and socioeconomic gradients at local scales. Local WAO, CW, CT, and CBS conceptualized the study. WAO, CW, and CBS com- differences in threats and management options are there- posed methodology for the study. Formal analysis and investigation of the fore worth considering in developing sustainable manage- study were done by WAO. Writing–original draft preparation was done by WAO. Further review and editing were done by all authors. Funding acquisi- ment solutions for WEPs to bring them back into dietary tion was done by CT. Supervision of the study was done by CW and CBS. All diversification programs sustainably [14, 88]. authors read and approved the final manuscript. Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This work was Conclusion supported by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Climate change, invasive species, and overstocking/ Development (BMZ) commissioned and administered through the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) Fund for International overgrazing threaten the sustainable use of WEPs in Agricultural Research (FIA), grant number: 81235248. The grant supported Turkana County, Kenya. How threats are perceived to data collection and writing of the project report. This work was also supported affect WEPs depends on socioeconomic and environ- by the Open Access Publication Fund of the University of Bonn. The support from the University of Bonn covered the Article Processing Charges by the mental gradients across communities. Our integrated journal. participatory approach, combining local community perceptions and field plot assessments, revealed close Availability of data and materials The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available links, but some threats were ranked strikingly differ- in the GitHub repository, https:// github. com/ Wycol ogy/ wep_ threa ts_ manag ently across the three study community units. ement. Across all the study communities, the most plausible management options for the WEPs were mitigation of Declarations climate change, preservation of local knowledge, and Ethics approval and consent to participate selection, propagation, processing, and marketing. We This study was approved by the Center for Development Research – ZEF ethi- propose a detailed cost–benefit analysis of the assessed cal review committee, Bonn, Germany, and National Commission for Science, management options, bringing on-board all stakehold- Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI), Nairobi, Kenya under license number NACOSTI/P/20/7052. Prior informed verbal consent was obtained from all ers in the WEP value chain, which should be a prerequi- participants before their participation in the study. site before conservation plans are implemented. It is also important to establish the extent of the suitable habitats Consent for publication Not applicable. of the WEPs. Such an overview could improve the suc- cess of conservation and management interventions. Competing interests The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Abbreviations FGD F ocus group discussion Received: 1 February 2023 Accepted: 23 April 2023 GPS Global positioning system IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature WEP W ild edible plant O luoch et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2023) 19:13 Page 13 of 15 References 22. Paumgarten F, Locatelli B, Witkowski ETF. Wild foods: safety net or 1. Shumsky S, Hickey GM, Pelletier B, Johns T. Understanding the contribu- poverty trap? A South African case study. Hum Ecol. 2018;46:183–95. tion of wild edible plants to rural Socialecological resilience in semi-arid 23. Bélanger J, Pilling D. The state of the world’s biodiversity for food and Kenya. Ecol Soc. 2014;19:34. agriculture. FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agri- 2. Shackleton S, Delang CO, Angelsen A. From subsistence to safety nets culture Assessments; 2019. and cash income: exploring the diverse values of non-timber forest 24. Otieno JR. Role of livelihood platform in adaptation and poverty allevia- products for livelihoods and poverty alleviation. Non-timber For Prod tion case study of Turkana District, Kenya. Int J Adv Soc Sci Humanit Glob Context. Springer; 2011. p. 55–81. [Internet]. 2016;04. http:// www. ijassh. com/ index. php/ IJASSH/ artic le/ 3. Nkem J, Kalame FB, Idinoba M, Somorin OA, Ndoye O, Awono A. Shap- view/ 261 ing forest safety nets with markets: adaptation to climate change under 25. Opiyo F, Wasonga O, Nyangito M, Schilling J, Munang R. Drought changing roles of tropical forests in Congo Basin. Environ Sci Policy adaptation and coping strategies among the Turkana Pastoralists of Elsevier. 2010;13:498–508. Northern Kenya. Int J Disaster Risk Sci. 2015;6:295–309. 4. Sulaiman N, Pieroni A, Sõukand R, Polesny Z. Food behavior in emer- 26. Ratemo CM, Ogendi GM, Huang G, Ondieki RN. Application of tradi- gency time: wild plant use for human nutrition during the conflict in tional ecological knowledge in food and water security in the semi-Arid Syria. Foods. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute; 2022;11:177. Turkana County, Kenya. Open J Ecol Scientific Research Publishing. 5. Redžić S, Ferrier J. The use of wild plants for human nutrition during a 2020;10:321–40. war: Eastern Bosnia (Western Balkans). Ethnobot Biocultural Divers Balk 27. Ng’asike JT, Blue Swadener B. Turkana indigenous knowledge: Envi- Perspect Sustain Rural Dev Reconcil. 2014. ronmental sustainability and pastoralist lifestyle for economic survival. 6. Hunter D, Borelli T, Beltrame DMO, Oliveira CNS, Coradin L, Wasike VW, Indig Innov Universalities Peculiarities. 2015. et al. The potential of neglected and underutilized species for improv- 28. Ouma C, Obando J, Koech M. Post Drought recovery strategies ing diets and nutrition. Planta. Springer Verlag; 2019. p. 709–29. among the Turkana pastoralists in Northern Kenya. Sch J Biotechnol. 7. Shaheen S, Ahmad M, Haroon N. Edible wild plants: an alternative 2012;1:90–100. approach to food security. Edible Wild Plants An Altern. approach to 29. Watson DJ, Binsbergen J van. Life beyond pastoralism: livelihood diver- food Secur. 2017. sification opportunities for pastoralists in Turkana District, Kenya. ILRI Br. 8. Giraud NJ, Kool A, Karlsen P, Annes A, Teixidor-Toneu I. From trend to International Livestock Research Institute; 2006; threat? Assessing the sustainability of wild edible plant foraging by 30. Akall G. Effects of development interventions on pastoral livelihoods in linking local perception to ecological inference. bioRxiv. Cold Spring Turkana County. Kenya Pastoralism SpringerOpen. 2021;11:1–15. Harbor Laboratory; 2021; 31. Odero FO. Challenges of foreign direct investment within Turkana 9. Baldermann S, Blagojević L, Frede K, Klopsch R, Neugart S, Neumann A, county. Kenya: University of Nairobi; 2015. et al. Are neglected plants the food for the future? CRC Crit Rev Plant 32. Bett BK, Jost C, Mariner JC. Participatory investigation of important Sci. 2016;35. animal health problems amongst the Turkana pastoralists: relative inci- 10. Dempewolf H, Baute G, Anderson J, Kilian B, Smith C, Guarino L. Past dence, impact on livelihoods and suggested interventions. ILRI Target and future use of wild relatives in crop breeding. Crop Sci Wiley Online Innov Discuss Pap. International Livestock Research Institute; 2008; Library. 2017;57:1070–82. 33. Lokuruka M. Fatty acids in the nut of the Turkana Doum Palm 11. Kideghesho JR. The potentials of traditional African cultural practices (Hyphaene Coriacea). African J Food, Agric Nutr Dev. 2008;8:118–32. in mitigating overexploitation of wildlife species and habitat loss: 34. Omire A, Neondo JO, Budambula N, Gituru R, Mweu C. Hyphaene com- experience of Tanzania. Int J Biodivers Sci Manag. Taylor \& Francis; pressa, an important palm in the arid and semi-arid regions of Kenya. 2009;5:83–94. 2020; 12. Vinceti B, Termote C, Thiombiano N, Agundez D, Lamien N. Food tree 35. Ejore E, Ongugo R, Kemboi J, Ojunga S, Mwenja P, Owino J. Plant spe- species consumed during periods of food shortage in Burkina Faso and cies and their importance to housing in the Turkana community, Kenya. their threats. For Syst. 2018;27:e006–e006. J Hortic For. 2020;12:101–8. http:// www. acade micjo urnals. org/ JHF 13. Kidane Y, Stahlmann R, Beierkuhnlein C. Vegetation dynamics, and land 36. Wayua FO, Kuria SG, Gudere A, Golicha D, Lesuper J, Walaga HK, et al. use and land cover change in the Bale Mountains, Ethiopia. Environ Client satisfaction with livestock improvement technologies in Marsa- Monit Assess. 2012; bit, Turkana and Garissa counties of northern Kenya. Livest Res Rural 14. Schunko C, Li X, Klappoth B, Lesi F, Porcher V, Porcuna-Ferrer A, et al. Dev. CIPAV Foundation; 2014;26. Local communities’ perceptions of wild edible plant and mushroom 37. Akujah PE. Interaction of coping strategies as determined by rainfall: change: a systematic review. Glob Food Sec. Elsevier; 2022;32:100601. the case of Turkana Riverine smallholders, Kenya. Wageningen, The 15. Schunko C, Li X, Klappoth B, Lesi F, Porcher V, Porcuna-Ferrer A, et al. Netherlands: Van Hall University of; 2011. Local communities’ perceptions of wild edible plant and mushroom 38. Carr CJ, Carr CJ. Turkana survival systems at lake turkana: vulnerability to change: a systematic review. Glob. Food Sec. Elsevier B.V.; 2022. p. collapse from omo basin development. River basin dev hum rights East 100601 Africa — a policy crossroads. 2017. 16. Hickey GM, Pouliot M, Smith-Hall C, Wunder S, Nielsen MR. Quantifying 39. Smith BD. Hunting in yellow waters: an ethnoarchaeological perspec- the economic contribution of wild food harvests to rural livelihoods: A tive on selective fishing on Lake Turkana. Quat Int [Internet]. Elsevier global-comparative analysis. Food Policy Pergamon. 2016;62:122–32. Ltd; 2018;471:241–51. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. quaint. 2017. 11. 038 17. Balemie K, Kebebew F. Ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants in 40. Juma RO. Turkana livelihood strategies and adaptation to drought in Derashe and Kucha Districts, South Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. Kenya [Internet]. Victoria University of Wellington; 2009. http:// resea 2006;2:1–9. rchar chive. vuw. ac. nz/ bitst ream/ handle/ 10063/ 1063/ thesis. pdf? seque 18. Devi Thakur S, Kapoor KS, Samant SS. Diversity, distribution and nce=1 Indigenous uses of some threatened medicinal plants in Kullu district 41. KER. Kenya Economic Report 2020: Creating an enabling environment of Himachal Pradesh, Northwestern Himalaya. Asian J Adv Basic Sci. for inclusive growth in Kenya [Internet]. Nairobi; 2020. Available from: 2016;9:42–5. https:// kippra. or. ke/ index. php/ publi catio ns? task= downl oad. send& id= 19. Pawera L, Khomsan A, Zuhud EAM, Hunter D, Ickowitz A, Polesny Z. Wild 226& catid= 4&m=0 food plants and trends in their use: from knowledge and perceptions to 42. KER. Kenya Economic Report 2021: Kenya in COVID-19 era: fast-tracking drivers of change in West Sumatra, Indonesia. Foods. Multidisciplinary recovery and delivery of the “Big Four” agenda [Internet]. Nairobi; Digital Publishing Institute; 2020;9:22. 2021. https:// kippra. or. ke/ downl oad/ kenya- econo mic- report- 2021/? 20. Bender L. The use of indigenous knowledge in nutrition communica- wpdmdl= 10678 & ind= 16451 75207 803 tion: The example of pastoralist communities in Turkana County, Kenya. 43. Sarfo J. Effects of wild foods and food interventions in reducing the University of Hohenheim. Masters Thesis; 2017. minimum cost of diet using linear programming modelling: a case 21. Angelsen A, Jagger P, Babigumira R, Belcher B, Hogarth NJ, Bauch S, study of Turkana in Kenya. Germany: George-August-University of Göt- et al. Environmental income and rural livelihoods: a global-comparative tingen; 2018. analysis. World Dev Pergamon. 2014;64:S12-28. Oluoch et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2023) 19:13 Page 14 of 15 44. Morgan WTW. Ethnobotany of the Turkana: use of plants by a pastoral 68. Feyssa DH, Njoka JT, Asfaw Z, Nyangito MM. Seasonal availability and people and their livestock in Kenya. Econ Bot. 1981;35:96–130. consumption of wild edible plants in semiarid Ethiopia: implications 45. Hamilton A. Resource assessment for sustainable harvesting of medici- to food security and climate change adaptation. J Hortic For [Internet]. nal plants. A side-event Int Bot Congr Source to Shelf Sustain Supply 2011;3:138–149. Available from: http:// www. acade micjo urnals. org/ jhf/ Chain Manag Med Aromat Plants, Vienna. 2005. p. 21–2. PDF/ pdf20 11/ May/ Feyssa et al.pdf 46. Hossain S. Kenya’s Community Health Volunteer Program [Internet]. 69. Tebkew M. Wild and semi-wild edible plants in Chilga District, North- CHWCentral. 2020 [cited 2023 Mar 13]. p. 1. https:// chwce ntral. org/ western Ethiopia : implication for food security and climate change kenyas- commu nity- health- volun teer- progr am/#: ~: text= Kenya ’s adaptation. Glob J Wood Sci For Wildl. 2015;3:72–82. community-based health workers,served by approximately 10 CHVs. 70. Gradé JT. Karamojong (Uganda) pastoralists’ use of wild edible plants: 47. Funk C, Pete P, Landsfeld M, Diego P, Verdin J, Shukla S, et al. The climate a traditional coping mechanism towards climate change. In: Mulugeta hazards infrared precipitation with stations-a new environmental GB, Butera J-B (eds) Clim Chang Pastor Tradit Coping Mech Confl Horn record for monitoring extremes. Sci Data. 2015;2:1–21. Africa [Internet]. Addis Ababa: Institute for Peace and Security Studies 48. Food Economy Group. Livelihood Profiles Baseline Update: Six Liveli- and University for Peace; 2012. p. 34–55. https:// espace. libra ry. uq. edu. hood Zones in Turkana County, Kenya. 2016. au/ view/ UQ: 337443/ UQ337 443_ OA. pdf# page= 166 49. Emuria WH. Factors affecting farm-level efficiency in irrigation schemes: 71. Singh T, Singh A, Dangwal LR. Impact of overgrazing and documenta- a Case of Turkana South Sub-county. University of Nairobi; 2018. tion of wild fodder plants used by Gujjar and Bakerwal tribes of district 50. Stevenson EGJ. Plantation development in the Turkana basin: the mak- Rajouri (J&K). India J Appl Nat Sci. 2016;8:804–11. ing of a new desert? Land. 2018;7:16. 72. Teketay D, Geeves G, Kopong I, Mojeremane W, Sethebe B, Smith S. 51. Wohlin C. Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies Diversity, stand structure and regeneration status of woody species, and a replication in software engineering. In: Proceedings of the 18th and spatial cover of herbaceous species in Mokolodi Nature Reserve, international conference evaluation assess software engineering. 2014. Southeastern Botswana. Int J Biodivers Conserv Academic Journals. p. 1–10. 2016;8:180–95. 52. IUCN. IUCN-CMP Unified Classification of Direct Threats [Internet]. SSC/ 73. Mabhaudhi T, Chibarabada TP, Chimonyo VGP, Murugani VG, Pereira LM, IUCN Gland & Cambridge; 2012. Available from: https:// www. iucnr Sobratee N, et al. Mainstreaming underutilized indigenous and tradi- edlist. org/ resou rces/ threat- class ifica tion- scheme (Accessed on 10th tional crops into food systems: A South African perspective. Sustain. August 2020) 2018. 53. Oluoch WA, Whitney CW, Termote C, Borgemeister C, Schmitt CB. 74. Mabhaudhi T, Chimonyo VGP, Hlahla S, Massawe F, Mayes S, Nhamo Integrated participatory approach reveals perceived local availability of L, et al. Prospects of orphan crops in climate change. Planta Springer. wild edible plants in northwestern Kenya. Hum Ecol [Internet]. [Manu- 2019;250:695–708. script submitted for publication]; 2022;16. https://link.springer.com/ 75. Hanazaki N, Zank S, Fonseca-Kruel VS, Schmidt IB. Indigenous and article/https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10745- 022- 00370-0 traditional knowledge, sustainable harvest, and the long road ahead 54. Martin GJ. Ethnobotany: a methods manual (people and plants conser- to reach the 2020 Global Strategy for Plant Conservation objectives. vation series). Earthscan Publications; 2010. Rodriguesia SciELO Brasil. 2018;69:1587–601. 55. Martin GJ. Ethnobotany: a methods manual. London: Chapman and 76. Heywood VH. Conserving plants within and beyond protected Hall; 1995. areas – still problematic and future uncertain. Plant Divers Elsevier. 56. Cotton CM. Ethnobotany: principles and applications. Wiley, 1996. 2019;41:36–49. 57. QGIS Development Team. QGIS geographic information system. Open 77. Valderrábano EM, Gil T, Heywood V, Montmollin B De. Conserving wild Source Geospatial Foundation Project. http:// qgis. osgeo. org. Qgiso rg. plants in the south and east Mediterranean region. Conserv. wild plants 2022. south east Mediterr. Reg. 2018. 58. Ma’Ayergi HA, Ismail SI, Batanouny KH, Rizik AM. Ecological and phy- 78. Vincent H, Amri A, Castañeda-Álvarez NP, Dempewolf H, Dulloo E, tochemical studies on the “Miswak”, Salvadora persica l. Qatar Univ Sci Guarino L, et al. Modeling of crop wild relative species identifies areas Bull. 1984;4:37–44. globally for in situ conservation. Commun Biol Nature Publishing 59. Falasca S, Pitta-Alvarez S, del Fresno CM. Salvadora persica agro-ecolog- Group. 2019;2:1–8. ical suitability for oil production in Argentine dryland salinity. Sci Total 79. Fongnzossie EF, Nyangono CFB, Biwole AB, Ebai PNB, Ndifongwa NB, Environ Elsevier. 2015;538:844–54. Motove J, et al. Wild edible plants and mushrooms of the Bamenda 60. Singh A, Singh RK, Kumar A, Kumar A, Kumar R, Kumar N, et al. Adapta- Highlands in Cameroon: ethnobotanical assessment and potentials for tion to social-ecological stressors: a case study with Indian jujube enhancing food security. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed Springer. 2020;16:1–10. (Ziziphus mauritiana Lam.) growers of north-western India. Environ Dev 80. Tebkew M, Gebremariam Y, Mucheye T, Alemu A, Abich A, Fikir D. Uses Sustain. 2020; of wild edible plants in Quara district, northwest Ethiopia: implication 61. Calvo B, Santafé Rodrigo G. scmamp: Statistical comparison of multiple for forest management. Agric Food Secur. 2018;7:1–14. algorithms in multiple problems. R Journal, Vol 8/1, Aug 2016 [Internet]. 81. Feyssa DH. Comparative analysis of indigenous knowledge on use and The R Foundation; 2016; https:// hdl. handle. net/ 2454/ 23209 management of wild edible plants: the case of central east Shewa of 62. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and environment for statisti- Ethiopia. Ethnobot Res Appl. 2012;10:287–304. cal computing. Vienna, Austria; 2022. https:// www.r- proje ct. org/ 82. Sundriyal M, Sundriyal RC. Wild edible plants of the Sikkim Himalaya: 63. Berihun T, Molla E. Study on the diversity and use of wild edible marketing, value addition and implications for management. Econ Bot plants in Bullen District Northwest Ethiopia. J Bot. Hindawi Limited; Springer. 2004;58:300–15. 2017;2017:10. 83. Pant S, Pant VS. Status and conservation management strategies for 64. Kidane L, Kejela A. Food security and environment conservation threatened plants of Jammu and Kashmir. J Phytol. 2011;3:50–6. through sustainable use of wild and semi-wild edible plants: a case 84. Tuncer B. In vitro germination and bulblet and shoot propagation for study in Berek Natural Forest, Oromia special zone. Ethiopia Agric Food wild edible Eremurus spectabilis M. Bieb Not Bot Horti Agrobot Cluj- Secur Springer. 2021;10:1–16. Napoca. 2020;48:814–25. 65. Regassa T, Kelbessa E, Asfaw Z. Ethnobotany of wild and semi-wild 85. Zulu D, Ellis RH, Culham A. Propagation of lusala (Dioscorea hirtiflora), a edible plants of Chelia District, West-Central Ethiopia. Sci Technol Arts wild yam, for in situ and ex situ conservation and potential domestica- Res J. 2015;3:122–34. tion. Exp Agric Camb Univ Press. 2020;56:453–68. 66. Maundu P, Kibet S, Morimoto Y, Imbumi M, Adeka R. Impact of Prosopis 86. Borelli T, Hunter D, Powell B, Ulian T, Mattana E, Termote C, et al. Born juliflora on Kenya’s semi-arid and arid ecosystems and local livelihoods. to eat wild: an integrated conservation approach to secure wild food Biodiversity. Taylor \& Francis; 2009;10:33–50. plants for food security and nutrition. Plants . 2020. 67. Mwangi E, Swallow B, others. Invasion of Prosopis juliflora and local 87. Pienkowski T, Cook C, Megha Verma |, Luis |, Carrasco R. Conservation livelihoods: Case study from the lake Baringo area of Kenya [Internet]. cost-effectiveness: a review of the evidence base. 2021; https:// doi. org/ Nairobi, Kenya World Agrofor. Cent. 2005. https:// hdl. handle. net/ 10535/ 10. 1111/ csp2. 357 4277 O luoch et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2023) 19:13 Page 15 of 15 88. Visseren-Hamakers IJ, Razzaque J, McElwee P, Turnhout E, Kelemen E, Rusch GM, et al. Transformative governance of biodiversity: insights for sustainable development. Curr Opin Environ Sustain Elsevier. 2021;53:20–8. 89. Abbasi AM, Khan MA, Khan N, Shah MH. Ethnobotanical survey of medicinally important wild edible fruits species used by tribal com- munities of Lesser Himalayas-Pakistan. J Ethnopharmacol Elsevier. 2013;148:528–36. 90. 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;3:93–105. 91. Ali-Shtayeh MS, Jamous RM, Al-Shafie’ JH, Elgharabah WA, Kherfan FA, Qarariah KH, et al. Traditional knowledge of wild edible plants used in Palestine (Northern West Bank): A comparative study. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2008;4:13. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ 1746- 4269-4- 13 92. Asfaw Z. The future of wild food plants in southern Ethiopia: ecosystem conservation coupled with enhancement of the roles of key social groups. Int Symp Underutilized Plants Food Secur Nutr Income Sustain Dev. 2008;806:701–8. 93. Ashagre M, Asfaw Z, Kelbessa E. Ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants in Burji District, Segan Area Zone of Southern Nations, Nationali- ties and Peoples Region (SNNPR), Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2016;12. 94. Assefa A, Abebe T. Wild edible trees and shrubs in the semi-arid low- lands of southern Ethiopia. J Sci Dev. 2011;1:5–19. 95. Badimo D, Lepetu J, Teketay D. Utilization of edible wild plants and their contribution to household income in Gweta Village, central Botswana. Afr J Food Sci Technol. 2015;6:220–8. 96. 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;36:93–108. 97. Duguma HT. Wild edible plant nutritional contribution and consumer perception in Ethiopia. Int J Food Sci. Hindawi; 2020;2020:16. 98. Feyssa DH, Njoka JT, Asfaw Z, Nyangito MM. Uses and management of Ximenia americana, Olacaceae in semi-arid East Shewa, Ethiopia. Pakistan J Bot Pakistan Bot Soc. 2012;44:1177–84. 99. Guinand Y, Lemessa D. Wild food plants in Southern Ethiopia: Reflec- tions on the role of ‘famine foods’ at a time of drought. UNDP-EUE F. Mission Report, Addis Ababa. 2000. 100. Kidane B, van der Maesen LJG, Asfaw Z, Sosef MSM, van Andel T. Wild and semi-wild leafy vegetables used by the Maale and Ari ethnic com- munities in southern Ethiopia. Genet Resour Crop Evol. 2015;62:221–34. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10722- 014- 0147-9. 101. N’Danikou S, Achigan-Dako EG, Wong JLG. Eliciting local values of wild edible plants in southern Bénin to identify priority species for conservation1. Econ Bot. 2011;65:381–95. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12231- 011- 9178-8. 102. Suwardi AB, Navia ZI, Harmawan T, Mukhar E. Ethnobotany and con- servation of indigenous edible fruit plants in South Aceh, Indonesia. Biodiversitas J Biol Divers. 2020;21. 103. Tebkew M, Asfaw Z, Zewudie S. Underutilized wild edible plants in the Chilga District, northwestern Ethiopia: Focus on wild woody plants. Agric Food Secur [Internet]. 2014;3:16. http:// www. agric ultur eandf oodse curity. com/ conte nt/3/ 1/ 12 104. Salih NKEM, Hassan AA. Wild food trees in Eastern Nuba mountains, Sudan: Use, diversity, and threatening factors. J Agric Rural Dev Trop Subtrop. 2014;115:1–7. Ready to submit your research ? Choose BMC and benefit from: Publisher’s Note • fast, convenient online submission Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub- • thorough peer review by experienced rese archers in your field lished maps and institutional affiliations. • rapid publication on acceptance • support for research data, including large and complex data types • gold Open Access which fosters wider collaboration and increased citations • maximum visibility for your research: over 100M website views per year At BMC, research is always in progress. Learn more biomedcentral.com/submissions