Content uploaded by Ceren Kazancı
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ceren Kazancı on Aug 11, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae
Article ID: 906
DOI: 10.5586/asbp.906
Publication History
Received: 2020-11-28
Accepted: 2021-05-05
Published: 2021-08-07
Handling Editor
Marcin Nobis; Jagiellonian
University, Poland;
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
1594-2418
Authors’ Contributions
CK and SO designed the study,
organized and conducted all the
eldwork, and wrote all
sections of the manuscript;
CK conducted the interviews,
identied the plant specimens,
constructed the database,
analyzed the data, and
generated all the tables, graphs,
and map of the study area;
MM partially participated in the
eldwork in Georgia, provided
advice and revisions
during plant identication,
and during preparation of the
manuscript; ŁŁ contributed to
the discussion section
Funding
In Georgia, Ilia State University
partially funded the eldwork
for this study for three summer
seasons (2016, 2017, and 2018).
GIZ Georgia also partially
supported the eldwork in 2017
as a scholarship to the rst
author, Ceren Kazancı.
The authors and crowdfunded
donations contributed to the
rest of the eldwork budget.
In Turkey, funding support for
this study was provided by
crowdfunding, the authors’ own
budgets, and the rst authors’
parents. The funding sources
did not have a role in the writing
of the paper or in the decision
to submit the paper for
publication.
Competing Interests
ŁŁ is an associate editor of Acta
Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae;
other authors: no competing
interests have been declared
Copyright Notice
© The Author(s) 2021. This is an
open access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License,
which permits redistribution,
commercial and
noncommercial, provided that
the article is properly cited.
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER in ETHNOBOTANY
Wild Plants Used as Vegetables by
Transhumant People Around the
Georgia–Turkey Border in the Western
Lesser Caucasus
Ceren Kazancı
1* , Soner Oruç2, Marine Mosulishvili1,
Łukasz Łuczaj
3
1Ilia State University, Georgia
2Artvin Çoruh University, Turkey
3University of Rzeszów, Poland
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: ceren.kazanci.1@iliauni.edu.ge
Abstract
Recent ethnobotanical studies in the Caucasus, mainly in Georgia, reveal the
signicant ethnobotanical knowledge of local people related to wild edible plants.
However, few studies have been conducted in the Lesser Caucasus, west Georgia,
and Turkish Caucasus. is study aims to represent and evaluate the cultural
importance of wild vegetable plants and their patterns of use along the
Georgia–Turkey border. During the transhumance period in the summers of 2017
and 2018, 104 participants (65 in Turkey and 39 in Georgia) were interviewed
using a semistructured questionnaire. e Cultural Importance Index and
Relative Frequency of Citation were used to compare the relative importance of
species in each region. e use of 83 wild plant species from 23 plant families as
vegetables was documented, with 45 species recorded in Georgia and 72 species in
Turkey. One-third of the recorded wild plant species and 52 use instances out of
122 species-use combinations were shared on both sides of the border. Women
and men had mentioned almost the same number of species, and there was a
nonsignicant correlation between the plant knowledge and age. Although there
were no signicant differences in the plant parts used, the way people used plants
as vegetables varied signicantly across the border. Considering the oral
similarity across the border, the number of species used in common and shared
vegetable plant knowledge was quite low. ere is not a signicant difference
between the two countries in terms of the most frequently cited and culturally
important species (Rumex,Urtica, and Polygonum spp.). However, the
recognition of some of the most important shared species (Heracleum,
Chaerophyllum,Arctium, and Campanula spp.) diverged signicantly in different
administrative regions.
Keywords
wild vegetables; transhumant people; cross-border ethnobotany; Caucasus
1. Introduction
Human communities worldwide have collected and consumed many wild plants as
food throughout history (Turner et al., 2011). However, with the decrease in
gathering and use of these plants as a result of lifestyle changes, many observations,
practices, and a signicant amount of traditional knowledge related to wild edible
plants is being forgotten (Łuczaj, 2010; Łuczaj et al., 2012; Menendez-Baceta et al.,
2017; Turner & Turner, 2008). Concurrently, in industrialized societies, several plant
species are being appreciated as healthy delicacies, and plant gathering traditions
continue as a recreational activity (Łuczaj et al., 2012; Reyes-García et al., 2015;
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae / 2021 / Volume 90 / Article 906
Publisher: Polish Botanical Society
1
Kazancı et al. / Ethnobotany of Wild Vegetables Across the Georgia–Turkey Border
Stryamets et al., 2015). Documenting the ethnobotany of edible plants and
sustaining plant gathering traditions appears to be crucial not only for ensuring food
security (Nolan & Pieroni, 2014; Quave & Pieroni, 2015) and for the nutritional
potential and health benets of the plants, but also to maintain cultural identities as
well as to conserve biocultural heritage (Nebel et al., 2006; Reyes-García et al., 2015).
Wild vegetable plants are an important part of Mediterranean food culture (Łuczaj &
Pieroni, 2016). Further, recent ethnobotanical studies in the South Caucasus,
especially in Georgia, have also revealed people’s signicant ethnobotanical
knowledge related to wild edible plants (Bussmann, 2017; Bussmann, Paniagua
Zambrana, Sikharulidze, Kikvidze, Darchidze, et al., 2020; Bussmann et al., 2016,
2017a,2017b,2018; Bussmann, Paniagua Zambrana, Sikharulidze, Kikvidze,
Kikodze, et al., 2020; Hovsepyan et al., 2016; Łuczaj et al., 2017; Nanagulyan et al.,
2020; Pieroni et al., 2020; Pieroni & Sõukand, 2019; Sõukand & Pieroni, 2019).
is area of high cultural importance of wild vegetables forms a belt stretching from
the Mediterranean, through Turkey (e.g., Çakır, 2017; Ertuğ, 2004; Hançer et al.,
2020; Yeşil & İnal, 2019) up to the Middle East and the Caucasus. However, only a
few studies have documented wild edible plants in the Lesser Caucasus, Western
Georgia, and Turkish Caucasus (Akgül, 2007; Bussmann et al., 2017a; Güneş &
Özhatay, 2011; Kadıoğlu et al., 2020; Łuczaj et al., 2017; Özgen et al., 2004; Sağıroğlu
et al., 2012; Saraç et al., 2013). In addition, there have been no cross-border
ethnobotanical studies in this area earlier.
erefore, in this study we aimed to: (i) document wild vegetables used among
transhumant communities living on both sides of the Turkey–Georgia border;
(ii) evaluate the cultural signicance of plant species and their usage in different
administrative regions; (iii) identify and discuss the similarities and differences in
plant usage across the border; and (iv) compare the data with the ethnobotanical
literature of the Caucasus ecoregion.
We tested the following null hypotheses: (i) the mean number of species used on
both sides of the border does not differ signicantly; (ii) the number of species used
is positively correlated with the age of participants; and (iii) both genders have
similar knowledge of wild vegetables.
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Area of Study
e geographical area covered in this study is located along the border between
Georgia and Turkey in the Western Lesser Caucasus (Figure 1). is area
corresponds to part of the highlands between the Hopa–Artvin–Ardahan–Çıldır
main road in Turkey and Batumi–Khulo–Akhaltsikhe–Ninotsminda main road in
Georgia. It falls within the borders of the Adjara and Samtskhe-Javakheti regions in
Georgia, and Artvin and Ardahan provinces in Turkey. e area includes the
characteristics of three of the world’s ecological regions: the Caucasus Mixed Forest
Ecoregion, the Euxine Colchic Deciduous Forest Ecoregion, and, to a lesser extent,
the Eastern Anatolian Montane Steppe Ecoregion (World Wildlife Fund, 2006).
Its principal climate ranges from humid subtropical and mildly dry subtropical
mountainous to continental climates. e annual average precipitation is
approximately 2,200 mm in Adjara, 500–600 mm in Samtskhe-Javakheti, 700 mm
in Artvin, and 900 mm in Ardahan. e minimum and maximum average
temperatures are 3, +24 °C in Adjara; 0, +20 °C in Samtskhe-Javakheti; 2, +32 °C in
Artvin; and 11, +16 °C in Ardahan. Dominant natural landscapes extend from
forest and high mountain vegetation to Caucasian subalpine meadows and steppe
meadows with freshwater lakes, mainly located along the Ardahan and the
Samtskhe-Javakheti border (Williams et al., 2006) (Figure 2).
Between 1300 BCE and 580 ADE, the area fell within the old Georgian kingdoms of
Colchis, Diauehi, and Iberia. e region witnessed various wars, migrations,
and deportations and later became part of several kingdoms, empires, principalities,
and countries. e variety of ethnolinguistic groups inhabiting the area includes
Turks, Georgians, Armenians, Kurds, Azeris, Laz people, Hemshins, and Russians,
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae / 2021 / Volume 90 / Article 906
Publisher: Polish Botanical Society
2
Kazancı et al. / Ethnobotany of Wild Vegetables Across the Georgia–Turkey Border
Figure 1 e study area: Distribution of surveyed highland pastures and villages; black
dots correspond to locations in Turkey, white dots refer to locations in Georgia
(map generated by Ceren Kazancı using QGIS).
with small-scale agriculture and relatively large-scale livestock farming as their main
economic activities. Nearly all participants in this study were transhumant,
maintaining an agropastoral way of life. Highland pastures, referred to as “yayla” in
Turkey, are known as “mta” and/or “ialagi” (iala) in Georgia. People move to their
summer pastures at the end of May, where they live mainly in wooden houses for
3 to 5 months, with some people living in dry stone dwellings or even tents.
2.2. Ethnobotanical Data Collection
To restrict the focus of the study on the ethnobotanical knowledge of transhumant
people, more than two-thirds of the eldwork was conducted in highland pastures
along the Georgian–Turkish border. Firstly, over 150 potential highland pastures
were identied between altitudes of 1,600 m and 2,500 m within the study area using
Google Earth. Subsequently, possible research locations were selected from among
those settlements according to a number of geographical barriers (mountains, rivers,
lakes, and passes) that would help identify a high diversity of oral and cultural
characters. We attempted to reach people who had maintained their agropastoral
transhumance lifestyle, as they would have been in contact with a variety of
vegetation types during regular seasonal migrations, thus having a relatively strong
living memory of traditional knowledge and practices related to wild plants.
In the summer of 2016, 2 weeks of nonsystematic preliminary eldwork
was conducted, and informal interviews were conducted in 20 highland pastures
and villages in Georgia and Turkey (Oruç & Kazancı, 2018). Over the following two
summers (2017–2018), eld work was carried out for approximately 90 days during
the period of transhumance (approximately June 15–September 15), which involved
visits to 102 highland pastures, 65 in Turkey, and 37 in Georgia (Figure 1). During that
period, 104 participants were interviewed: 65 in Turkey and 39 in Georgia. e mean
ages of the participants were 57 and 58 years in Georgia and Turkey, respectively.
e presented results are part of a larger research project involving medicinal plants.
e results that refer to the use of medicinal plants were gathered using the same
methodology and oen from the same respondents, and were published recently
(Kazancı et al., 2020).
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae / 2021 / Volume 90 / Article 906
Publisher: Polish Botanical Society
3
Kazancı et al. / Ethnobotany of Wild Vegetables Across the Georgia–Turkey Border
Figure 2 Landscapes from the study area. (A) Adjara; (B) Samtskhe-Javakheti; (C) Artvin; (D) Ardahan. Photos: Soner Oruç.
e initial investigation considered the ora in different vegetation zones (forest,
meadow, wetlands, steppe, and rocky areas) en route to and in the vicinity of each
selected highland pasture. is process took approximately 2–3 hours for each
highland pasture. is reconnaissance involved the identication of wild plants to
the species level when possible, in which photographs and a minimum of three
samples were collected for each plant. is had a dual purpose: rst, to enable the
participants to be shown plants to identify and discuss, and second, to prepare
herbarium voucher specimens for later detailed identication.
e research team was comprised of three or four people. e rst (female) and
second (male) authors were always involved in the interviews, together with a
translator, either male or female. roughout the study, the rst author was the
principal interviewer. In Turkey, the interviews were conducted in the Turkish
language, while in Georgia, interviews were conducted in Georgian, Russian, or
Turkish. A majority of the interviews in Georgia were performed with the help of
translators who spoke Georgian, Russian, and English, either as a mother tongue or
as a second language. e interviews were translated into English. e translators
were provided with information and terminology relevant to the research 2 weeks
before the eldwork. Information regarding the purpose of the study was provided
to all participants and their free, prior informed consent for interviewing, recording,
photographing, and/or publishing their knowledge was obtained orally from each
participant at the beginning of their interviews. All interviews conformed to the
International Society of Ethnobiology’s Code of Ethics (International Society of
Ethnobiology, 2006).
A snowball technique was used to identify the participants with signicant
traditional knowledge regarding wild plants and their usage. A majority of the
participants were elderly transhumant people. Each participant was interviewed
individually for an average of 2 hours using semistructured questionnaires. Usually,
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae / 2021 / Volume 90 / Article 906
Publisher: Polish Botanical Society
4
Kazancı et al. / Ethnobotany of Wild Vegetables Across the Georgia–Turkey Border
Figure 3 (A) Interview with a participant in their highland house in Samtskhe-Javakheti region (photo: Soner Oruç). (B) Interview
in the eld by showing fresh plants in Ardahan (photo: Utkan Bugay).
the person’s relatives and neighbors also contributed to the responses in the
interviews. e rst author took notes directly in a notebook during the interviews.
Depending on the preferences of the participants, audio or video recordings were
made during the interviews. Information about plants collected from the wild was
documented, specically with data regarding their folk names in different languages
and dialects, collection time and place, parts used, processes of preparation,
and sources of plant knowledge. In addition, observations were made and
photographs were taken in byres, cellars, and other relevant places whenever
possible, so as to document unmentioned uses and to observe ethnobotanical
practices that were still in use.
Initially, the participants were asked to discuss points about wild plants that they
immediately thought of (ca. 15 min). ey were then shown fresh plants and asked
to identify the vernacular names and usage of the plants (ca. 45 min). Depending on
the weather and the participants’ willingness, a “walk around the house” was
undertaken to observe wild plants in the vicinity (ca. 15 min). To conrm previous
information and to gain further learning about various plants, participants were
shown an illustrated plant catalog, including 400 plant species from the ora of the
region (ca. 45 min). Certain participants were visited a second time to complete the
rst interview or to conrm the information (Figure 3).
2.3. Taxonomic Identication of Plants
e preliminary identication of plant species was carried out in the eld by the
authors. e plants were photographed together with their coordinates, and voucher
herbarium specimens were prepared by the rst author for further identication.
Relevant ora resources were used for identication (Davis, 1965–1985; Davis et al.,
1988; Güner et al., 2000; K’etskhoveli, 1941–1952; K’etskhoveli et al., 1971–2011;
Komarov, 1968–2002). Some of the species were identied through detailed plant
and habitat descriptions and previously recorded folk names. Specimens identied
in Georgia were stored in the National Herbarium of Georgia (TBI) in Botanical
Institute of Ilia State University, while specimens identied in Turkey were stored in
the Herbarium of Artvin Çoruh University. Species names were based on the
currently accepted names from e Plant List (http://www.theplantlist.org/).
Furthermore, plant synonyms were provided based on Güner et al. (2012) and
Gagnidze (2005).
2.4. Data Analysis
Firstly, all reported plant species and their relevant ethnobotanical data were entered
into a Microso Excel spreadsheet in a use-report (UR)-based order. Each use in
every use-category was counted as one UR. In this study, ethnobotanical data of only
wild (noncultivated) plants consumed as vegetables during the eldwork from 2017
and 2018 were considered in the analysis. We included all of the green aboveground
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae / 2021 / Volume 90 / Article 906
Publisher: Polish Botanical Society
5
Kazancı et al. / Ethnobotany of Wild Vegetables Across the Georgia–Turkey Border
parts of plants as well as their underground storage organs (roots and bulbs) in the
category of wild vegetables, regardless of whether they were used raw or processed
by cooking or frying.
ese include wild green vegetables and root vegetables that were boiled and/or
stewed for dishes, soups, pastries, pickles, wraps, and eaten as snack vegetables.
ese do not include beverages, fruits, sweets, or spices.
Two indices were used to compare the relative importance of species and the ways in
which they were used in each region:
• Relative Frequency of Citation (RFC) (Tardío & Pardo-de-Santayana, 2008):
, where FC (frequency of citation) the number of informants who
mentioned the use of the species; Nthe number of participants in the survey.
• Cultural Importance Index (CI) (Pardo-de-Santayana et al., 2007):
, where NU total number of uses; ivaries from one use to
NU;Nthe number of participants in the survey; UR use report.
e Pearson correlation coefficient was used to measure the correlation between the
age of the participants and the number of species, as well as the age of the
participants and the number of use reports. Student’s ttest was used to determine
the relationship between gender and the number of plant species known (initially,
the normality of data was checked with the Shapiro–Wilk test). e chi-square test
was used to compare the plant parts used, and the methods of preparation
mentioned between the locations on both sides of the border. e Mann–Whitney
Utest was used to test the differences between the mean number of species used in
both countries.
3. Results
3.1. Overall Results
Altogether, 1,154 citations of 83 wild plant species used as vegetables were obtained
in the study area, of which 45 species were recorded from Georgia and 72 species
were recorded from Turkey (Table 1). More than a third of the recorded species (34)
were shared on both sides of the border (Figure 4A).
In the comparison of the 122 species-use combinations, participants in both
countries shared similar knowledge of 52 use instances (43% of total species-use
combinations) (Figure 4B). e most important shared species based on mean CI
values were Urtica spp. (1.29), Chaerophyllum spp. (0.92), Polygonum bistorta (0.91),
Heracleum spp. (0.87), Rumex crispus (0.76), Rumex acetosa (0.62), Arctium spp.
(0.55), Tragopogon spp. (0.37), Polygonum aviculare (0.33), Anthriscus spp. (0.28),
Polygonum cognatum (0.27), Plantago major (0.21), Capsella bursa-pastoris (0.20),
Rumex acetosella (0.20), and Campanula lactiora (0.18).
Overall, 83 wild plant species from 23 families were recorded in this study. e best
represented families were Apiaceae (11 species) and Asteraceae (seven species) in
Georgia, and similarly, Apiaceae (14 species) and Asteraceae (12 species) in Turkey.
e most frequently cited genera by more than half of the participants were Rumex,
Urtica, and Polygonum in Georgia, and Polygonum,Rumex,Urtica,Heracleum,
Chaerophyllum, and Arctium in Turkey. Although Chaerophyllum (RFC 0.75),
Arctium (RFC 0.45), and Heracleum (RFC 0.30) species had considerable mentions
in Samtskhe-Javakheti in Georgia, they were scarcely recognized by participants
in Adjara.
3.2. Plant Knowledge Among Participants
In both countries, women and men mentioned almost the same number of wild
vegetable plant species on average. ere was no signicant relationship between
gender and the number of plant species known (Georgia: t0.668, df 37,
p0.51; Turkey: t1.146, df 63, p0.26). On the other hand, there was a very
low and nonsignicant correlation between people’s age and the number of species
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae / 2021 / Volume 90 / Article 906
Publisher: Polish Botanical Society
6
Kazancı et al. / Ethnobotany of Wild Vegetables Across the Georgia–Turkey Border
Table 1 Wild plants used as vegetables in the study area.
Latin names of families and
species (voucher or digital
photograph number)a
Recorded local namesbPlant
part(s)
usedc
Use categoriesdCIeRFCfSimilar use in the
literatureg
Geo Tur Adj S-J Art Ard
n39 n65 n19 n20 n35 n30
Amaranthaceae
Amaranthus retroexus L.
(CK, SO 490)
natsarkatama (Geo) 1 L Boiled and/or
stewed dish 1
0.03 0.02 - -3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12,
16, 17, 18, 19
Atriplex hortensis L.
(CK, SO 1535)
unuca,yabani pancar (Tur) 1 A Boiled and/or
stewed dish 1
0 0.03 - - - 12
Chenopodium
spp. (C. album L.)
(TBI1060359)
natsarkatama, katamnatsara
(Geo); tel pancarı,telce,kuş
pancarı,salmanca,kaz ayağı,
sirken,cücük otu (Tur),
katamnatsara (Geo)
1 A
2 L
Boiled and/or
stewed dish 1,2
Pickle 1
Snack 2
Pastry 2
0.13 0.28 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
18, 19
Chenopodium foliosum L.
(FP-SO 1)
eskeruvi? 1 L Boiled and/or
stewed dish 1
0 0.02 - - - 6, 10, 18
Amaryllidaceae
Allium spp. (A. szovitsii Regel)
(TBI1060346) (CK, SO 723)
niori (Geo); yabani soğan,yabani
sarımsak (Tur)
1 L Pickle 1
Snack 1
0.03 0.03 - - 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19
Apiaceae
Anthriscus spp. [A. sylvestris
(L.) Hoffm.; A. nemorosa
(M. Bieb.) Spreng.]
(CK, SO 509, 243)
(CK, SO 754)
khima, khımi, ghımi (Geo), ghemi
(Arm), kupyr (Rus); kımi,kımı,
has kımi (Tur), gımi,ğımi,ğımı
(Kur), cil (Tur)
1 A Pickle 1
Snack 1
Boiled and/or
stewed dish 1
Soup 1
0.21 0.32 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12,
14, 15, 17, 18
Carum carvi L.
(TBI1060354)
(CK, SO 1559)
çemen otu,çaman,çimen (Tur) 1 A Boiled and/or
stewed dish 1
Snack 1
0.03 0.03 - -8, 12
Continued on next page
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae / 2021 / Volume 90 / Article 906
Publisher: Polish Botanical Society
7
Kazancı et al. / Ethnobotany of Wild Vegetables Across the Georgia–Turkey Border
Table 1 continued.
Latin names of families and
species (voucher or digital
photograph number)a
Recorded local namesbPlant
part(s)
usedc
Use categoriesdCIeRFCfSimilar use in the
literatureg
Geo Tur Adj S-J Art Ard
n39 n65 n19 n20 n35 n30
Chaerophyllum spp.
(C. aureum L.; C. bulbosum L.)
(TBI1060363, TBI1060357)
(FP-SO 2, 3)
ghımi, khımi, ghemi, ghima, gimi
(Geo) ghebi, harhanduk, mandak,
mendek (Arm), tetu?; kımi,kımı,
has kımi,yabani kımi,atol,adol,
ettol,adoli,töre,cil,yer elması
(Tur), tetroy,ghımi,hoza kımisi,
hozaghima (Geo) ğımi,ğımı,gımi,
mendık,medik (Kur-Arm)
1 A
2 U
3 L
4 S
5 E
Snack 1,2, 3,
4, 5
Soup 1,5, 4
Pickle 1, 2, 3,
4, 5
Boiled and/or
stewed dish 1,
2, 4
0.67 1.08 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
14, 15, 17, 18
Unidentied Apiaceae ghrienchvela, lohkchima (Geo);
ğırınço,ğırinço,ğıranço,ğırançola,
ğıriyançola,baldırgan (Tur), sühe
(Kur?)
1 A
2 S
Snack 1,2
Pickle 1
0.05 0.12 - - 12
Eryngium spp. (E. billardierei
F. Delaroche)
(FP-SO 5)
push (Arm); gelenk (Kur), huti
(Geo), gırmiço?
1 A
2 S
Snack 1, 20.05 0.02 - -1, 6, 7, 8, 11
Falcaria vulgaris Bernh. kaz ayağı (Tur) 1 A
2 L
Boiled and/or
stewed dish 2
Snack 1
0 0.03 - - 6, 7, 8, 10, 15, 17,
18, 19
Ferula orientalis L.
(FP-SO 6)
çaşır,çakşur,çaşur,çançur,çaşkur,
çakşur otu (Tur)
1 A
2 L
3 S
Pickle 1,2
Snack 3
0.03 0.20 - 3, 6, 7, 8
Heracleum spp. (H. sosnowskyi
Manden.; H. trachyloma Fisch.
& C. A. Mey.; H. sphondylium
L.; H. antasiaticum Manden.;
H. platytaenium Boiss.)
(TBI1060360)
(CK, SO 1338)
dilgha, dilkha, ghırienchvela,
telahashi, telaharshi, datvibaba
(Geo), kekh, has keh (Arm); kekro,
keküre,kekre,kekir,kekire,kekre,
kırkor,kıçi,kekira,bayır kekrası,
bayır kekresi,su kekrosu,su kekresi,
keçi kekresi,kerkaç,gülisi,gölisi,
cacık,geçi cacığı (Tur-Kur), dikhi,
telaharshi (Geo), ğırançola,telehaj,
teleharji,telehaj,telekaj,kelehaj
1 A
2 L
3 S
Snack 1,3
Pickle 1,3
Boiled and/or
stewed dish 3
Soup 3
Wrap (sarma) 2
0.33 1.18 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11,
12, 14, 15, 16, 17,
18, 19
Continued on next page
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae / 2021 / Volume 90 / Article 906
Publisher: Polish Botanical Society
8
Kazancı et al. / Ethnobotany of Wild Vegetables Across the Georgia–Turkey Border
Table 1 continued.
Latin names of families and
species (voucher or digital
photograph number)a
Recorded local namesbPlant
part(s)
usedc
Use categoriesdCIeRFCfSimilar use in the
literatureg
Geo Tur Adj S-J Art Ard
n39 n65 n19 n20 n35 n30
Asparagaceae
Asparagus officinalis L. satatsuri (Geo); zatatol?, kuşkovan,
kuşkonmaz (Tur)
1 A
2 S
Boiled and/or
stewed dish 1,2
0.03 0.02 - - 11, 15, 19
Scilla monanthos K. Koch
(FP-SO 7)
it soğanı (Tur),
sirmasan,sirpivaz (Kur)
1 U Snack 10 0.02 - - - NO
Asteraceae
Arctium spp. [A. platylepis (Boiss. &
Balansa) Sosn. ex Grossh;
A. tomentosum Mill.; A. lappa L.]
(TBI1060345)
(CK, SO 1387, 1619)
ghalaghunta, ghalagunta, dzirkvena,
orovani (Geo), kroduk (Arm),
kabalak (Tur), sherepuk, lopukh
(Rus); diken,kabalak,düğe tabanı,
deve tabanı (Tur), hunta,elahunta,
alahunda,durhuna,dilhuna,dilgvina
(Geo), geleng,hozik,gelem (Kur), huti,
huta,hozaghimay,hozaghima
1 A
2 E
3 U
4 L
5 S
Snack 2,3,5
Soup 4, 5
Wrap (Sarma)
1,4
Pickle 4,5
0.23 0.74 - 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 15, 16,
17, 18
Carduus spp. (C. nutans L.)
(FP-SO 10)
diken,tiken (Tur) 1 S Snack 10 0.03 - - - 5, 6, 8
Cirsium spp. [C. echinus (M. Bieb.;
Cirsium obvallatum (M. Bieb.)
M. Bieb.) Hand.-Mazz.]
(CK, SO 32)
(FP-SO 11, 12)
push (Arm); diken,keçi dikeni,kobuk,
beyaz diken (Tur)
1 A
2 S
3 U
4 R
Snack 2,3,4
Pickle 1
0.05 0.11 - 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12,
13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
Echinops spp. (E. pungens Trautv.;
E. sphaerocephalus L.)
(TBI1060347)
(CK, SO 1556)
kotochina, motsotsina, jorekala
(Geo), topuz (Tur), kozoz?; toptopik
topuz,tup tup,yağlı diken,çobuk
(Tur), hoşnik?
1 R Snack 10.21 0.28 - 2, 3, 6, 8
Continued on next page
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae / 2021 / Volume 90 / Article 906
Publisher: Polish Botanical Society
9
Kazancı et al. / Ethnobotany of Wild Vegetables Across the Georgia–Turkey Border
Table 1 continued.
Latin names of families and
species (voucher or digital
photograph number)a
Recorded local namesbPlant
part(s)
usedc
Use categoriesdCIeRFCfSimilar use in the
literatureg
Geo Tur Adj S-J Art Ard
n39 n65 n19 n20 n35 n30
Trachystemon orientalis (L.)
G. Do
burtkilai (Geo); bulvi,burği,burgu,
burgi (Laz), purği,purge (Arm),
bulgo,burgva (Geo)
1 A
2 S
Pickle 1, 2
Boiled and/or
stewed dish 2
0.03 0.17 - 5, 9, 12, 17
Taraxacum spp.
(TBI1060356)
(CK, SO 1289)
khadudik, khatutik (Arm),
babuatsvera, satovlia (Geo); kaz
ayağı (Tur), pızbizek (Kur)
1 A
2 U
3 L
Snack 1, 2, 3
Boiled and/or
stewed dish 1, 3
Pickle 3
0.1 0.03 -3, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13,
15, 17, 18
Tragopogon spp.
[T. buphthalmoides (DC.)
Boiss.; T. reticulatus Boiss. &
A. Huet]
(TBI1060361)
(FP-SO 15)
yemlik (Tur), sintz, sindz (Arm),
phamphara (Geo); sıpınk,sıplınk,
sıpink,süpilink (Kur), poşu?,
pampar otu,pampara,yemlik,
kaymak çiçeği (Tur)
1 A
2 L
3 S
Snack 1,2, 3
Boiled and/or
stewed dish 2
Pickle 1
0.23 0.45 - 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11,
15, 17, 18
Tussilago farfara L.
(FP-SO 16)
(FP-SO 17)
elma yaprağı,bir yüzlü yaprak
(Tur)
1 L Wrap (sarma) 10 0.05 - - 7, 15, 16, 17
Brassicaceae
Armoracia rusticana
P. Gaertn., B. Mey. & Scherb.
khren, khreni (Rus) 1 L
2 U
Pickle 1
Soup 1, 2
0.13 0 - - 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
16, 17, 19
Bunias orientalis L.
(FP-SO 19)
acıgıcı (Tur), tita 1 A
2 L
Snack 1,20 0.05 - - - 6, 8, 10, 12
Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.)
Medik.
(CK, SO 538)
(CK, SO 289)
mtskemsis chanta (Geo), pastusha
sumka, pastushi sumka (Rus);
piçok,ğıcı,selmasık (Kur), dere
maydanozu,kuş ekmeği,dede otu,
çoban dürmeği,civciv otu,acıgıcı,
kuş pepe,kuş pancarı,kaz otu
(Tur), tita
1 A
2 L
Snack 1,2
Boiled and/or
stewed dish 1
0.15 0.23 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12,
13, 14, 15, 16, 18
Continued on next page
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae / 2021 / Volume 90 / Article 906
Publisher: Polish Botanical Society
10
Kazancı et al. / Ethnobotany of Wild Vegetables Across the Georgia–Turkey Border
Table 1 continued.
Latin names of families and
species (voucher or digital
photograph number)a
Recorded local namesbPlant
part(s)
usedc
Use categoriesdCIeRFCfSimilar use in the
literatureg
Geo Tur Adj S-J Art Ard
n39 n65 n19 n20 n35 n30
Cardamine spp. (C. hirsuta L.;
C. raphanifolia Pourr.;
C. uliginosa M. Bieb.)
(FP-SO 20, 21)
tere,tita,yaban teresi,acıgıcı,
yabani tere,yabani roka,roka
(Tur), ğıçi,kıçi (Kur), sukupiyi
(Laz), godim,gedim (Arm)
1 A
2 L
3 S
Snack 1,2,30 0.20 - - 6, 8, 11, 12, 13
Rapistrum rugosum (L.) All.
(FP-SO 23)
tita; acıgıcı (Tur) 1 A Snack 10.03 0.02 - -6
Sinapis arvensis L.
(FP-SO 24)
eşekturpu (Tur) 1 L Snack 10 0.02 - - - 1, 3, 8, 10, 11, 12
Sisymbrium loeselii L.
(FP-SO 25)
tita,dida,yabani turp,eşekturpu
(Tur)
1 A
2 L
Snack 1,20 0.06 - - - NO
Campanulaceae
Campanula spp. (C. lactiora
M. Bieb.; C. rapunculoides L.)
(FP-SO 41)
(CK, SO 502)
dondolo (Geo); dondolo (Geo),
pencer (Tur)
1 A
2 L
3 S
4 E
Snack 1, 3, 4
Boiled and/or
stewed dish 1, 2
Pickle 1, 3, 4
0.41 0.08 9, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19
Caryophyllaceae
Silene spp. [S. latifolia Poir.;
S. vulgaris (Moench) Garcke]
(TBI1060350)
(CK, SO 651)
olena (Rus); civanay,çırçırık
(Tur)
1 A
2 L
3 S
Snack 2,3
Boiled and/or
stewed dish 1, 2
Pickle 2
0.15 0.06 - 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 17,
19
Stellaria media (L.) Vill. çunaçuna,cunacuna (Tur) 1 L Snack 10 0.02 - - - 4, 5, 13, 15, 16, 18
Colchicaceae
Colchicum sp. olena (Rus), olenay 1 A Pickle 1 0.03 0 - - - 2, 3
Convolvulaceae
Convolvulus arvensis L.
(CK, SO 30)
patatuk, patatuki (Arm) 1 A
2 L
Boiled and/or
stewed dish 1, 2
0.05 0 - - - 6, 10, 19
Continued on next page
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae / 2021 / Volume 90 / Article 906
Publisher: Polish Botanical Society
11
Kazancı et al. / Ethnobotany of Wild Vegetables Across the Georgia–Turkey Border
Table 1 continued.
Latin names of families and
species (voucher or digital
photograph number)a
Recorded local namesbPlant
part(s)
usedc
Use categoriesdCIeRFCfSimilar use in the
literatureg
Geo Tur Adj S-J Art Ard
n39 n65 n19 n20 n35 n30
Crassulaceae
Sedum spp. (S. album L.;
S. telephium L.)
(FP-SO 27)
saknatuna, kilitavashli (Geo),
mamur (Arm); hatun
parmağı,elmacık,camış
kulağı,at dişi,kaya elması
(Tur), picibiri (Kur), tiknikura
(Geo)
1 A
2 L
Snack 1,2
Boiled and/or
stewed dish 1, 2
Pickle 2
Soup 2
0.13 0.17 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10,
11, 12
Sempervivum spp.
[S. caucasicum Rupr. ex Boiss;
S. brevipilum Muirhead;
S. minus Turrill ex Wale;
S. davisii subsp. furseorum
(Muirhead) Karaer]
(FP-SO 28, 29, 30)
gelin parmağı,çoban ekmeği,
ayı pençesi,keçi tırnağı,gelin
tırnağı (Tur), sikatola?tırnaği
piye (Kur), vashlay (Geo),
1 A
2 L
Snack 1,2
Boiled and/or
stewed dish 1,2
Pickle 2
0 0.35 - - 10, 11, 12, 17, 18
Fabaceae
Lathyrus sp. (L. tuberosus L.)
(FP-SO 32)
çunaçuna,cunacuna,
cinacora,cinacura (Tur)
1 A
2 L
3 U
Snack 1,2,30 0.08 - - 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14,
17, 18, 19
Iridaceae
Crocus spp. (C. vallicola Herb.;
C. suworowianus K. Koch)
(FP-SO 31)
(FP-SO 26)
zaphrana, satovlia (Geo); kar
çiçeği,yerelması,yaylakovan,
çiğdem,şaşortikovan,
nenekovan,şaşortikalay,yayla
mısırı,yayla çiçeği,
şaşortkovani (Tur)
1 U Snack 1
Boiled and/or
stewed dish 1
0.13 0.25 1, 15, 17
Lamiaceae
Salvia glutinosa L.
(TBI1060352)
purçumela (Laz) 1 L Boiled and/or
stewed dish 1
0.03 0 - - - NO
Salvia verticillata L.
(FP-SO 34)
öküz kuyruğu (Tur), boçkagan
(Kur)
1 S Snack 10 0.02 - - - 1, 8, 14
Continued on next page
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae / 2021 / Volume 90 / Article 906
Publisher: Polish Botanical Society
12
Kazancı et al. / Ethnobotany of Wild Vegetables Across the Georgia–Turkey Border
Table 1 continued.
Latin names of families and
species (voucher or digital
photograph number)a
Recorded local namesbPlant
part(s)
usedc
Use categoriesdCIeRFCfSimilar use in the
literatureg
Geo Tur Adj S-J Art Ard
n39 n65 n19 n20 n35 n30
Malvaceae
Malva spp. (M. neglecta
Wallr.; M. sylvestris L.)
(TBI1060351)
(CK, SO 1686, 1745)
gorgit,kuş pepesi,ebegümeci,dolik,
kömeç,körmeç,gorcolo otu,korkut,
kömeç,körmen (Tur), moloka,
korkotina,korkotai (Geo), sırkok
(Kur)
1 A
2 L
Boiled and/or
stewed dish 1,2
Soup 1,2
Wrap (sarma) 2
0 0.34 - - 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 15, 16,
17, 18, 19
Papaveraceae
Papaver orientale L.
(TBI1060349)
(CK, SO 1561)
kakacho, (Geo) 1 A
2 L
3 S
Snack 3
Boiled and/or
stewed dish 1, 2
0.1 0 - - - 8, 15, 18
Plantaginaceae
Plantago major L.
(TBI1060348)
(CK, SO 53, 1563)
yezan lezu (Arm); belhavıs,
belghavis,belghebis,belghavas
(Kur), mravaldzargya (Geo), bağa,
belbağı,yara yaprağı,bağ yaprağı,
bağa yaprağı,yara otu,yedi damar
otu (Tur), garduk,ohte damar
(Arm)
1 L Snack 1
Boiled and/or
stewed dish 1
Wrap (sarma) 1
0.03 0.32 - 3, 4, 6, 8, 14, 15, 16,
17, 18
Polygonaceae
Polygonum spp. (P. aviculare
L.; P. cognatum Meisn.)
(FP-SO 35)
matitela (Geo), çencar, cancar
(Arm), gorets sporish (Rus); cacık,
kuş ekmeği,kuş otu,kuş pancarı,
kuş pepeği,kuş pepesi,madımak,
madamak,madımalak,matitel,
pencer,telce (Tur), paluği cuçki
(Kur)
1 A
2 L
Snack 1, 2
Boiled and/or
stewed dish 1,2
Soup 1,2
Pickle 1,2
0.26 0.8 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11,
14, 15, 17, 18
Continued on next page
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae / 2021 / Volume 90 / Article 906
Publisher: Polish Botanical Society
13
Kazancı et al. / Ethnobotany of Wild Vegetables Across the Georgia–Turkey Border
Table 1 continued.
Latin names of families
and species (voucher or
digital photograph
number)a
Recorded local namesbPlant
part(s)
usedc
Use categoriesdCIeRFCfSimilar use in the
literatureg
Geo Tur Adj S-J Art Ard
n39 n65 n19 n20 n35 n30
Polygonum spp. (P. bistorta
L.; P. bistorta subsp.
carneum Coode & Cullen)
(CK, SO 68)
(FP-SO 39, 40)
dvalura, dvaluri (Geo); çayır pancarı,dağ
pancarı,kızılcık pancarı,pancar otu,pazı
pancarı,pencar,yabani pancar,yayla
lahanası,yayla pancarı (Tur), ghali,
tiphala,dvalura (Geo), yaylaşi luku (Laz)
1 A
2 L
1 S
Snack 1,2,3
Boiled and/or
stewed dish 1,2
Soup 1,2
Pickle 1,2
Wrap (sarma) 2
0.49 1.17 3, 5, 8, 14, 19
Rumex sp. (R. acetosa;
R. acetosella;R. scutatus)
(TBI1060353)
(CK, SO 1454, 1541, 73)
kukumzhava, kakamjova, kokomzhava
(Geo), kuzukulağı (Tur), shevil shavel
(Rus), tetu tetergich, tetvash (Arm);
cağuna,cağunay,çarghela,çarhala,
çavutay,mjauda,kokomjava,mjauna
(Geo), kızılpencarı,kuzukulağı,evelik
(Tur), kıçi,gıhbelghi,tırşo,tırşobelg,
tırşoderha,tırşoga,turşo (Kur)
1 A
2 L
Snack 1,2
Boiled and/or
stewed dish 1,2
Soup 2
Pickle 1,2
Wrap (sarma) 2
0.55 1.05 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 15, 16, 17,
18, 19
Rumex spp. (R. crispus L.;
R. alpinus L.; R. patientia L.)
(FP-SO 38)
(CK, SO 654, 776)
aveluk (Arm), ghalo, ghvalo,
kokomzhava, kukumzhava (Geo), övelik
(Tur); at kulağı,ebelik,evelek,evelik (Tur),
çarghala,çarghela,çarhala,ğalo,gholo,
ghvalo
1 A
2 L
3 U
Snack 1
Boiled and/or
stewed dish 1,2
Soup 1,2,3
Pickle 1, 2, 3
Wrap (sarma) 2
0.59 1.27 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
17, 19
Continued on next page
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae / 2021 / Volume 90 / Article 906
Publisher: Polish Botanical Society
14
Kazancı et al. / Ethnobotany of Wild Vegetables Across the Georgia–Turkey Border
Table 1 continued.
Latin names of families and
species (voucher or digital
photograph number)a
Recorded local namesbPlant
part(s)
usedc
Use categoriesdCIeRFCfSimilar use in the
literatureg
Geo Tur Adj S-J Art Ard
n39 n65 n19 n20 n35 n30
Portulacaceae
Portulaca oleracea L. danduri, danduri, mraval
pekha (Geo); semiz otu
(Tur)
1 A Snack 1
Boiled and/or
stewed dish 1
Pickle 1
0.13 0.03 - 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15,
17, 18, 19
Primulaceae
Cyclamen sp. kochivarda (Geo) 1 L Snack 1 0.03 0 - - - 11
Primula spp. (P. woronowii
Losinsk.; P. veris L.)
satsripina (Geo), baranchki
(Rus)
1 L Boiled and/or
stewed dish 1
0.05 0 - - 6, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 19
Ranunculaceae
Caltha palustris L.
(FP-SO 36)
pispisk,bizbizik,bizik
(Kur), düdüklük (Tur)
1 A
2 L
Boiled and/or
stewed dish 1,2
Wrap (sarma) 2
0 0.06 - - - 6, 8, 17
Rosaceae
Aruncus vulgaris (Maxim.)
Raf. ex Pojark.
(TBI1060355)
ajhorika, ajharkela (Geo);
açıkele,ancorikay,ancorika,
arçikela,sarbedelan
1 A
2 L
3 S
Boiled and/or
stewed dish 1,2
Snack 3
Pickle 1, 2, 3
0.23 0.09 - 9, 11, 12, 14, 19
Filipendula vulgaris Moench
(FP-SO 37)
at kulağı (Tur) 1 S Snack 10 0.02 - - - 16
Continued on next page
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae / 2021 / Volume 90 / Article 906
Publisher: Polish Botanical Society
15
Kazancı et al. / Ethnobotany of Wild Vegetables Across the Georgia–Turkey Border
Table 1 continued.
Latin names of families
and species (voucher or
digital photograph
number)a
Recorded local namesbPlant
part(s)
usedc
Use categoriesdCIeRFCfSimilar use in the
literatureg
Geo Tur Adj S-J Art Ard
n39 n65 n19 n20 n35 n30
Urticaceae
Urtica spp. (mainly Urtica
dioica L.)
(TBI1060358)
(CK, SO 1526)
chinchari, jhinchari, (Geo),
aghinch, yeghinch, gecan, haci,
kecan (Arm), asırgan (Tur),
kırapiva (Rus); ağinç (Arm), cincal,
cincar,çincar,çinçar,zincar,
çinçari,cacır,cancır,dıçkıçi (Laz),
gevgez,gezgezik,geznik (Kur),
ısırgan (Tur)
1 A
2 E
3 L
Snack 1, 3
Boiled and/or
stewed dish 1,3
Pastry 2
Soup 1,3
Wrap (sarma) 1
Pickle 1
1 1.46 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17, 18, 19
a“CK, SO (number)” – plant species collected by Ceren Kazancı and Soner Oruç; “FP-SO (number)” – eld photo number of the specimen by Soner Oruç. Bold numbers indicate specimens from Georgia and others from Turkey.
e species photographs are available in Zenodo (Kazancı, 2021).
bRecorded local names of species in both countries during eldwork. Names written in italics are from Turkey, while the rest are from Georgia. Arm – Armenian; Geo – Georgian; Kur – Kurdish; Laz – Laz language;
Tur – Turkish; Rus – Russian.
cEach different number (1, 2, 3…) indicates the plant part used in the recipe. A – aerial parts; E – entire plant; L – leaves; S – stems; U – undergroundparts; R – receptacles.
dNumbers written in bold are shared reports between participants in both countries; italics are associated with the recipes from Turkey; the rest are from Georgia. Each number (1, 2, 3…) at the end of the method of use matches
the plant parts used.
ee Cultural Importance Values in Georgia (Geo) and in Turkey (Tur).
f“” sign gives range of the relative frequency of citation values in four administrative regions. 0 -; 0 20; 20 40; 40 60; 60 . Adj – Adjara; S-J – Samtskhe-Javakheti; Art – Artvin; Ard – Ardahan.
gNumbers and its corresponding references: 1 – Özgen et al. (2004); 2 – Akgül (2007); 3 – Güneş and Özhatay (2011); 4 – Sağıroğlu et al. (2012); 5 – Saraç et al. (2013); 6 – Çakır (2017); 7 – Karakaya et al. (2019); 8 – Kadıoğlu
et al. (2020); 9 – Bussmann et al. (2016); 10 – Hovsepyan et al. (2016); 11 – Bussmann et al. (2017a); 12 – Bussmann et al. (2017b); 13 – Łuczaj et al. (2017); 14 – Bussmann et al. (2018); 15 – Pieroni and Sõukand (2019);
16 – Sõukand and Pieroni (2019); 17 – Pieroni et al. (2020); 18 – Bussmann, Paniagua Zambrana, Sikharulidze, Kikvidze, Kikodze, et al. (2020); 19 – Bussmann, Paniagua Zambrana, Sikharulidze, Kikvidze, Darchidze, et al.
(2020); NO indicates that no use is reported in the cited references.
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae / 2021 / Volume 90 / Article 906
Publisher: Polish Botanical Society
16
Kazancı et al. / Ethnobotany of Wild Vegetables Across the Georgia–Turkey Border
Figure 4 Venn diagram depicting overlaps among studied communities in number of wild
vegetable plant species (A) and number of species-use combinations (B).
Figure 5 e gure depicts the correlation between age and number of species known by
participants in each country.
known in both countries (Georgia: r0.098, p0.55; Turkey: r0.0054,
p0.97) (Figure 5). Similarly, there was a nonsignicant correlation between the
age of the individuals and the number of species-uses in both countries (Georgia:
r 0.15, p0.37; Turkey: r0.03, p0.81) (Figure 6).
Overall, the informants on the Turkish side of the border mentioned more species
than on the Georgian side (mean of species: 10.1 ± SD and 5.9 ± SD, respectively).
In summary, we rejected the rst two hypotheses presented in the introduction.
e number of species used was signicantly higher on the Turkish side, and there
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae / 2021 / Volume 90 / Article 906
Publisher: Polish Botanical Society
17
Kazancı et al. / Ethnobotany of Wild Vegetables Across the Georgia–Turkey Border
Figure 6 e gure depicts the correlation between age and number of uses for
participants in each country.
was no signicant correlation between the age of the participants and the number of
species listed. However, as we predicted, both genders had similar knowledge of
wild vegetables.
3.3. Comparison Between Four Administrative Regions
e highest number of plants were mentioned in Ardahan (64 species), followed by
Artvin (39), Samtskhe-Javakheti (37), and Adjara (21 species). Fourteen plant
species were reported throughout the entire study area in each administrative region,
12 of which were also found among the 15 most culturally important species
(Figure 7), namely Urtica dioica,Rumex crispus,Chaerophyllum spp., Polygonum
bistorta,Rumex acetosa,Rumex acetosella,Heracleum spp., Polygonum cognatum,
Anthriscus spp., Campanula lactiora,Capsella bursa-pastoris, and Crocus spp.
e most popular genera used by the majority of the participants (RFC 0.7) in all
regions were Urtica spp. (mostly Urtica dioica) and Rumex spp. Urtica spp. have
similar cultural signicance, with comparable CI values in each administrative
region (Figure 7). While Rumex crispus is used mainly in the Ardahan and
Samtskhe-Javakheti regions, R. acetosella and R. acetosa are popular chiey in the
Ardahan and Adjara regions. Polygonum bistorta was popular in Artvin, Ardahan,
and Adjara (RFC 0.7) but scarcely reported in Samtskhe-Javakheti (RFC 0.05).
Chaerophyllum spp. have signicant and comparable cultural importance in
Ardahan, Samtskhe-Javakheti, and Artvin, but a very low CI value in Adjara. ere
were also several species that were exclusively mentioned in one administrative
region, such as Campanula lactiora (RFC 0.53) and Aruncus vulgaris (RFC 0.32) in
the Adjara region. Sempervivum species (RFC 0.53) were also popular only in
Ardahan. ey occur in rocky habitats at high altitudes, have mostly been
appreciated by shepherds, and are called “çoban ekmeği” in Turkish, which literally
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae / 2021 / Volume 90 / Article 906
Publisher: Polish Botanical Society
18
Kazancı et al. / Ethnobotany of Wild Vegetables Across the Georgia–Turkey Border
Figure 7 e 15 plant species that were culturally most important in the study area and
comparison of the CI index values in each region. Rumex spp. (R. crispus and
R. patientia); Rumex spp. (R. acetosa and R. acetocella); Polygonum spp. (P. cognatum
and P. aviculare). Rumex spp. have been divided into two groups according to their local
names, ways of use, and tastes.
translates to “shepherd’s bread”. Similarly, Echinops and Tragopogon species are
highly popular in Ardahan and Samtskhe-Javakheti, but not in Artvin or Adjara.
3.4. Plant Parts Used and Preparation Methods
Wild vegetables are consumed in various ways in the study area. Young aerial parts
are consumed in almost every possible way. e plant parts used were not
signicantly different across the border (chi-squared test value 2.96, df 5,
p0.71). e cultural importance of use categories and the number of species used
for each category in the four administrative regions are compared in Figure 8.
A signicant difference in plant use categories across the border was found
(chi-squared test value 60.7, df 5, p0.05). e main methods of consumption
in the study area were raw, as a snack, and processed. Raw snacks are more
frequently used in Turkey than in Georgia. is is especially apparent in Ardahan,
the only region where consumption as a raw snack (74% of the reported genera)
predominates over processed consumption (63%). e young aerial parts of Rumex
and Tragopogon, young stems of Heracleum, young stems and underground parts of
Arctium, underground parts of Chaerophyllum, receptacles of Echinops, and leaves of
Sempervivum are the preferred snack vegetables in Ardahan. On the other hand, raw
consumption is uncommon in Adjara, where 50% of the genera are consumed raw,
whereas 83% of them are processed.
e most common preparation methods on both sides of the border were as boiled
and/or stewed dishes. Young leaves or aerial parts of Polygonaceae and Urticaceae
family members were mostly mentioned in this category. Urtica dioica,Rumex
crispus, and Polygonum bistorta were the preferred species in Georgia. Urtica dioica,
Polygonum bistorta,P. aviculare,P. cognatum, and Rumex crispus were the most
widely used vegetable species in Turkey. “Pkhali” is the main boiled dish with
various recipes mentioned by Georgia participants in this category. e two most
common recipes in this study included boiling, squeezing, and chopping the plants,
then either stewing them with onion in oil or occasionally with eggs, or mixing them
together with garlic, coriander, and walnut. It has been reported that pkhali recipes
can be prepared with a single plant species, usually with a mixture of several spring
plants, such as Aruncus vulgaris,Campanula lactiora,Capsella bursa-pastoris,
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae / 2021 / Volume 90 / Article 906
Publisher: Polish Botanical Society
19
Kazancı et al. / Ethnobotany of Wild Vegetables Across the Georgia–Turkey Border
Figure 8 Cultural importance of use categories and the number of species used in each
category in four administrative regions.
Chaerophyllum spp., Chenopodium album,Convolvulus arvensis,Polygonum
aviculare,P. bistorta,Rumex acetosa,R. crispus, and Urtica dioica. Although the
above recipes are shared among participants on both sides of the border, dishes in
Turkey are also prepared by stewing plants with bulgur or rice aer mixing them
with fried onion in Turkey.
Ardahan was distinguished from other regions by its larger number of root
vegetables. Six genera were appreciated for their underground parts. e most
widely used species based on RFC were Chaerophyllum,Crocus, and Arctium.
Lacto-fermented pickling is another widely applied form of consumption and is
represented by 30 species in this study. Young aerial parts of Chaerophyllum,
Heracleum, and Anthriscus species are used in all regions, but there were few reports
from Adjara. Local people were observed selling pickles prepared from these plants
along the roadsides, especially in the Samtskhe-Javakheti region (Figure 9). ere
were also several species exclusively used in one region, such as the peeled stems and
leaves of Trachystemon orientalis in Artvin, young aerial parts of Campanula
lactiora,Aruncus vulgaris,Polygonum bistorta, and Silene spp. in Adjara. e most
common and rapid method for pickling in Turkey is preserving slightly boiled and
drained plants in whey “şırat” and salt, and occasionally with garlic. However, whey
(liquids le aer cheese making) is rarely used in Georgia, where pickles are
produced through lactic fermentation in salty water with other avorings such as
garlic, pepper, dill, coriander, and parsley.
Both fresh and dried (for winter) consumption of young aerial parts of plants in
soups were mostly preferred in Turkey. Young aerial parts of Urtica dioica and
Polygonum bistorta were widely used in soups in Artvin and Ardahan. e soup of
Polygonum bistorta has a particularly special signicance in transhumant life in
Artvin (Figure 10), where several summer festivals have been named aer the plant,
which they call “yayla pancarı.” Although people used to gather this plant and eat the
“yayla pancarı” soup together for healing, nowadays the plant is used individually
and remains a symbol through the names of the festivals. Several participants
transplanted the species and grew them in their highland homegardens. Similarly,
in Georgia, it is known for its delicious and healthy leaves, which are used with milk
and cream to make a unique soup. is soup is considered as a panacea. Rumex
crispus is another popular species used in soups in the Ardahan and
Samtskhe-Javakheti regions. Fresh or mainly dried braided leaves of the plant were
prepared as a winter soup (Figure 10). Boiled leaves were mixed with dairy products
(milk, cream, ayran, yogurt, cheese, or whey) and/or our or cereal varieties (corn,
wheat, and rice). Alternatively, this soup mixture was prepared with eggs.
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae / 2021 / Volume 90 / Article 906
Publisher: Polish Botanical Society
20
Kazancı et al. / Ethnobotany of Wild Vegetables Across the Georgia–Turkey Border
Figure 9 (A) Preparing young aerial parts of Chaerophyllum for making pickle in Samtskhe-Javakheti. (B)Heracleum species
growing naturally in the garden of participants house in Ardahan. (C) Local people are selling Heracleum and Chaerophyllum
pickles in front of their houses in Samtskhe-Javakheti. (D) e stems of Heracleum are eaten fresh or cooked. Photos: Soner Oruç.
e wrap (sarma) is also a common method of consumption only in Turkey.
irteen species were used in this way in Turkey. e most common species were
Rumex spp. (mostly R. crispus) and Plantago major in Ardahan and Artvin.
Generally, bulgur or rice were wrapped in the leaves of these species. Arctium spp.
were also preferred mostly in Ardahan. On the other hand, only two species (Rumex
crispus and Plantago major) were mentioned, and only rarely, as being used to
prepare wraps (sarma) in Samtskhe-Javakheti in Georgia. Some recipes reported in
the study area include the leaves of Caltha palustris consumed as a wrap (sarma).
Although infrequently, young aerial parts of Chenopodium album and Urtica dioica
species were used in stuffing for pastry (katmer, börek) in Turkey. No wild vegetable
species for stuffing pastry in Georgia were reported in this study.
4. Discussion
Regional differences in the number of plant species recorded in each administrative
region may be partly due to the differences in the number of interviews carried
out as well as habitat types of each region. Communities living in open lands
(in Ardahan and Samtskhe-Javakheti) seem to use more diverse wild vegetable plants
than communities living close to the forests (in Artvin and Adjara).
Considering the oral similarity across the border, the number of common species
used and vegetable plant knowledge shared among communities was quite low.
However, there was not much difference in terms of the most frequently cited and
culturally important species with several uses. Nevertheless, some of the most
important shared species (Heracleum,Chaerophyllum,Arctium, and Campanula
spp.) diverge signicantly in recognition on a regional scale, between Adjara and
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae / 2021 / Volume 90 / Article 906
Publisher: Polish Botanical Society
21
Kazancı et al. / Ethnobotany of Wild Vegetables Across the Georgia–Turkey Border
Figure 10 (A) Natural vegetation with Polygonum bistorta in the subalpine meadows in Ardahan. (B) Dried Polygonum bistorta
leaves for the preparation of soup in Artvin. (C) Transplanted Polygonum bistorta cultivated in the garden of the highland houses in
Artvin. (D) Braided Rumex crispus leaves are dried for preparing soup in winter in Samtskhe-Javakheti. Photos: Soner Oruç.
Samtskhe-Javakheti. is might be due to differences in the frequencies of species
occurences and cultural differences among communities in these regions.
A comparison of the present study with relevant literature related to folk knowledge
of edible plants, especially from the South Caucasus and Turkey, shows that there are
several species that have not been reported as vegetables, namely Cirsium
obvallatum,Crocus vallicola,Scilla monanthos, and Sempervivum minus.
Nevertheless, there are a number of wild vegetable plants in common with various
areas of the Caucasus Ecoregion.
e most important species consistent with both this study’s reports and more than
half of the consulted literature were the following: Anthriscus spp. (A. sylvestris and
A. nemorosa), Chaerophyllum spp. (C. aureum and C. bulbosum), Heracleum spp.
(H. sosnowskyi,H. trachyloma,H. sphondylium,H. antasiaticum, and
H. platytaenium), Tragopogon spp. (T. buphthalmoides and T. reticulatus), Polygonum
spp. (P. aviculare and P. cognatum), Rumex spp. (R. acetosa,R. acetosella, and
R. scutatus), Rumex spp. (R. alpinus,R. crispus, and R. patientia) (Rumex spp. have
been divided into two groups according to their local names, ways of use, and tastes),
Urtica spp. (Urtica dioica), Chenopodium spp. (C. album), and Capsella
bursa-pastoris. Consensus on these species between our results and relevant
literature is indicative of their high cultural value in the Caucasus Ecoregion.
Although two of the most popular vegetable species (Urtica dioica and Rumex
acetosa) according to this study were also frequently reported previously from the
Caucasus region, the most frequently cited species (Polygonum bistorta) in this study
was earlier reported in only three studies in Turkey (Güneş & Özhatay, 2011;
Kadıoğlu et al., 2020; Saraç et al., 2013) and in two studies in Georgia (Bussmann,
Paniagua Zambrana, Sikharulidze, Kikvidze, Darchidze, et al., 2020; Bussmann
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae / 2021 / Volume 90 / Article 906
Publisher: Polish Botanical Society
22
Kazancı et al. / Ethnobotany of Wild Vegetables Across the Georgia–Turkey Border
et al., 2018). Popular soup recipes and associated collective gathering activities and
festivals presented the special cultural value of P. bistorta for the study area. Several
other important species that appear in this study are uncommon in the existing
literature. Of these, the most important ones are: Echinops spp. (E. pungens and
E. sphaerocephalus), Sempervivum spp. (S. caucasicum,S. brevipilum,S. minus, and
S. davisii subsp. furseorum), Trachystemon orientalis,Campanula spp. (mainly
C. lactiora), Aruncus vulgaris, and Crocus spp. (C. vallicola and C. suwarowianus).
eir popularity in the study area, in comparison with that in other studies, could be
related to the way of life of this study’s specic participants (transhumant
communities) as well as their intense contact with diverse habitats such as dense
forests, highlands, and high rocky places for their livestock.
Among the species mentioned above, Campanula lactiora and Aruncus vulgaris
appear to be specic to Adjara, even though they are sometimes used in the Artvin
region as well. ese species have similar uses and are known by the same local
names in the two regions. is convergence might be related to similar forest
habitats in these regions, as well as the similarity in cultural background of the
communities living there.
e high popularity of Sempervivum in Ardahan and Echinops as snack vegetables in
Ardahan and Samtskhe-Javakheti, but not in the other two regions, may be related to
the predominance of seminomadic pastoral life in these regions. Since the
consumption of raw plants in the eld has been associated with mobile pastoralism
(Pieroni et al., 2019), the highest number of mentioned species with dominance of
consumption of raw plants as a snack in Ardahan could be related to the existence of
diverse pastoral communities. In addition, having access to relatively larger
agricultural lands may enable the agropastoralists of Ardahan to come into contact
with diverse synanthropic plant species such as Atriplex,Bunias,Sisymbrium,
and Sinapis. On the other hand, the presence of small-scale, agropastoral-based
communities with vegetable home gardens, even in the highlands, might be the
reason for the lower dependency on wild vegetables in Adjara. Wild plant snacks are
an oen an overlooked type of wild food, but more detailed wild food studies oen
feature them (e.g., Kaliszewska & Kołodziejska-Degórska, 2015). ey are oen
associated with childhood, especially in areas where children play an important role
in guarding grazing animals (Łuczaj & Kujawska, 2012).
Caltha palustris is usually regarded as a toxic plant and has an acrid taste when eaten
unprocessed. It has been reported to be used in food several times in the relevant
literature (Çakır, 2017; Kadıoğlu et al., 2020; Kang et al., 2014; Pieroni et al., 2020).
In the case of Caltha, the toxic agent is protoanemonine, which is broken down by
prolonged boiling or drying (Aslam & Ijaz, 2012). e use of Colchicum (a genus that
is also regarded as very toxic) for pickles should be investigated, as this genus is
usually regarded as highly toxic.
e results of this study are yet another example of the high cultural importance of
lacto-fermented foods in the Caucasus (Nanagulyan et al., 2020). e number of
wild vegetables pickled in this way is higher than that recorded in the review of
fermented foods of Eastern Europe (Sõukand et al., 2015), according to which only
cultivated vegetables are pickled in those areas.
Crocus species were the most common root vegetable species in the highlands of all
four regions. In our study area, they are historically known as a signature of seasonal
change and are considered indicators of oncoming cold days or snow. eir
blooming calls for “the end of yayla season” or “the time to migrate down.” Before
going down from the highlands to the villages, the bulbs are collected and mostly
boiled or cooked in the stove, but are also sometimes eaten raw (Figure 11).
A very interesting feature of the studied food culture is a relatively long list of species
whose underground organs are used as snacks. is is similar to the observations
made by Pieroni et al. (2019) among Kurds. e wide use of underground organs can
be seen as a very archaic cultural feature that can be practiced more easily in
mountainous areas with low population density. Knowledge of edible bulbs and
roots is probably of high importance to the survival of shepherds, giving them access
to plant calories in seasons during which grassland geophytes are dormant.
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae / 2021 / Volume 90 / Article 906
Publisher: Polish Botanical Society
23
Kazancı et al. / Ethnobotany of Wild Vegetables Across the Georgia–Turkey Border
Figure 11 (A)Crocus spp. are about to color the highlands in white in September in Adjara. (B)Crocus suworowianus is used for its
edible bulb and also as “a sign of the end of yayla season,” owering in Ardahan in September. Photos: Soner Oruç.
5. Conclusion
is study indicates a signicantly diverse ethnobotanical knowledge heritage
regarding wild vegetable plants among transhumant communities in the Western
Lesser Caucasus. Having been in contact with various environments and with other
communities for centuries has enabled these communities to create diverse
knowledge. However, despite the richness of species used as vegetables, very few
species are actually used by the majority of people in these communities. Knowledge
of most of the species, as well as a rich local cuisine, seem to be at a risk of
disappearing due to industrialization and disrupted intergenerational bonds.
Publications, such as books and articles on wild edible plants and practical
workshops (elders and children plant gathering and preparation tours) on wild food
plants during local festivals are vital for the transmission of this knowledge to future
generations. More importantly, supporting the local products of transhumant
communities could help maintain this way of life.
Acknowledgments
is study was possible with the help of friendly people from Artvin, Ardahan,
Adjara, and Samtskhe-Javakheti, who shared their knowledge and experience.
Heartfelt thanks to all of them. We would like to thank our friends N. Ivanov,
S. Gelashvili, N. Khuroshvili, O. Lamm, T. Nadiradze, S. Kiknavelidze,
and N. Kuljanishvili for their translation of the interviews and eld assistance during
the surveys in Georgia and Z. Türkmen, D. Dağtaş, K. Kırlangıç, A. H. Altuğ,
M. Çavuşoğlu, B. Civelek, U. Bugay, B. Kazancı, and Ç. Kazancı in Turkey. We thank
Prof. Özgür Eminağaoğlu and Dr. Hayal Akyıldırım Beğen for providing us with a
work environment in the Herbarium of Artvin Çoruh University. We thank Çağatay
Altın and Nature Conservation and the National Park Branch of Ardahan. We thank
Dr. Temur Vasadze, Dr. Nino Memiadze, and the staff of the Batumi Botanical
Garden, Manana Khutsishvili, Eto Svanidze, and the staff of the National Herbarium
of Georgia (TBI). We also thank Prof. Zaal Kikvidze and all the funders. We are also
indebted to Dr. Füsun Ertuğ for her long-term encouragement, love, and support for
our ethnobotanical research. We appreciate the comments and suggestions of
Prof. Beata Zagórska-Marek and two anonymous reviewers from ASBP, which
improved our manuscript.
Official research and plant collection permits were obtained from the Ministry of
Forest and Water Affairs (issue date-No: 09/02/2018-E.8919), as well as from the
Scientic Research and Ethical Committee of Artvin Çoruh University in Turkey
(issue date-No: 14/02/2018-E.2708). Ilia State University in Georgia was informed,
and necessary official scientic research and travel permits were obtained from the
Department of Land Border Protection of the Border Police of the Ministry of
Internal Affairs of Georgia.
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae / 2021 / Volume 90 / Article 906
Publisher: Polish Botanical Society
24
Kazancı et al. / Ethnobotany of Wild Vegetables Across the Georgia–Turkey Border
References
Akgül, G. (2007). Çıldır (Ardahan) ve çevresinde bulunan bazı doğal bitkilerin yerel adları ve
etnobotanik özellikleri [Local names and ethnobotanical features of some natural plants
in Çıldır (Ardahan) and its surroundings]. Ot Sistematik Botanik Dergisi,14(1), 75–88.
Aslam, M. S., & Ijaz, A. S. (2012). e genus Ranunculus: A phytochemical and
ethnopharmacological review. International Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical
Science,4(5), 15–22.
Bussmann, R. W. (Ed.). (2017). Ethnobotany of the Caucasus. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49412-8
Bussmann, R. W., Paniagua Zambrana, N. Y., Sikharulidze, S., Kikvidze, Z., Darchidze, M.,
Manvelidze, Z., Ekhvaia, J., Kikodze, D., Khutsishvili, M., Batsatsashvili, K., & Hart,
R. E. (2020). From the sea to the mountains-plant use in Adjara, Samegrelo and Kvemo
Svaneti, Sakartvelo (Republic of Georgia), Caucasus. Ethnobotany Research and
Applications,20, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.32859/era.20.09.1-34
Bussmann, R. W., Paniagua Zambrana, N. Y., Sikharulidze, S., Kikvidze, Z., Kikodze, D.,
Tchelidze, D., Batsatsashvili, K., & Hart, R. E. (2016). Medicinal and food plants of
Svaneti and Lechkhumi, Sakartvelo (Republic of Georgia), Caucasus. Medicinal and
Aromatic Plants,5(5), Article 1000266. https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-0412.1000266
Bussmann, R. W., Paniagua Zambrana, N. Y., Sikharulidze, S., Kikvidze, Z., Kikodze, D.,
Tchelidze, D., Batsatsashvili, K., & Hart, R. E. (2017a). Ethnobotany of
Samtskhe-Javakheti, Sakartvelo (Republic of Georgia), Caucasus. Indian Journal of
Traditional Knowledge,16(1), 7–24.
Bussmann, R. W., Paniagua-Zambrana, N. Y., Sikharulidze, S., Kikvidze, Z., Kikodze, D.,
Tchelidze, D., Batsatsashvili, K., & Hart, R. E. (2017b). Plant and fungal use in Tusheti,
Khevsureti, and Pshavi, Sakartvelo (Republic of Georgia), Caucasus. Acta Societatis
Botanicorum Poloniae,86(2), Article 3517. https://doi.org/10.5586/asbp.3517
Bussmann, R. W., Paniagua Zambrana, N. Y., Sikharulidze, S., Kikvidze, Z., Kikodze, D.,
Tchelidze, D., Batsatsashvili, K., & Hart, R. E. (2018). Unequal brothers – Plant and
fungal use in Guria and Racha, Sakartvelo (Republic of Georgia), Caucasus. Indian
Journal of Traditional Knowledge,17(1), 7–33.
Bussmann, R. W., Paniagua Zambrana, N. Y., Sikharulidze, S., Kikvidze, Z., Kikodze, D.,
Tchelidze, D., Khutsishvili, M., Batsatsashvili, K., & Hart, R. E. (2020). An ethnobotany
of Kakheti and Kvemo Kartli, Sakartvelo (Republic of Georgia), Caucasus. Ethnobotany
Research and Application,19(48), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.32859/era.19.48.1-27
Çakır, E. A. (2017). Traditional knowledge of wild edible plants of Iğdır Province
(East Anatolia, Turkey). Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae,86(4), Article 3568.
https://doi.org/10.5586/asbp.3568
Davis, P. H. (1965–1985). Flora of Turkey and the Aegean Islands (Vols. 1–9). Edinburgh
University Press.
Davis, P. H., Miller, R. R., & Tan, K. (1988). Flora of Turkey and the Aegean Islands (Vol. 10,
Suppl. I). Edinburgh University Press.
Eminağaoğlu, Ö. (2015). Artvin’in doğal bitkileri [Artvin’s natural plants]. Promat.
Ertuğ, F. (2004). Wild edible plants of the Bodrum area (Muğla, Turkey). Turkish Journal of
Botany,28(1–2), 161–174.
Esen, S. (2010). Ardahan ili, Posof, Damal Ve Hanak ilçeleri orası [Flora of Ardahan
province, Posof, Damal and Hanak districts] [Unpublished master’s thesis].
Artvin Çoruh University.
Gagnidze, R. I. (2005). Vascular plants of Georgia: A nomenclatural checklist. Georgian
Academy of Sciences.
Güner, A., Aslan, S., Ekim, T., Vural, M., & Babaç, M. T. (2012). Türkiye Bitkileri Listesi
(Damarlı Bitkiler) [Turkey’s plant list (vascular plants)]. Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanik
Bahçesi ve Flora Araştırmaları Derneği.
Güner, A., Özhatay, N., Ekim, T., & Başer, K. H. C. (2000). Flora of Turkey and the Aegean
Islands (Vol. 11, Suppl. II). Edinburgh University Press.
Güneş, F., & Özhatay, N. (2011). An ethnobotanical study from Kars (Eastern) Turkey.
Biological Diversity and Conservation,4(1), 30–41.
Hançer, Ç. K., Sevgi, E., Altinbaşak, B. B., Çakir, E. A., & Akkaya, M. (2020). Traditional
knowledge of wild edible plants of Biga (Çanakkale), Turkey. Acta Societatis
Botanicorum Poloniae,89(1), Article 8914. https://doi.org/10.5586/asbp.8914
Hovsepyan, R., Stepanyan-Gandilyan, N., Melkumyan, H., & Harutyunyan, L. (2016). Food as
a marker for economy and part of identity: Traditional vegetal food of Yezidis and
Kurds in Armenia. Journal of Ethnic Foods,3(1), 32–41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jef.2016.01.003
International Society of Ethnobiology. (2006). International Society of Ethnobiology Code of
Ethics (with 2008 editions).http://ethnobiology.net/code-of-ethics/
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae / 2021 / Volume 90 / Article 906
Publisher: Polish Botanical Society
25
Kazancı et al. / Ethnobotany of Wild Vegetables Across the Georgia–Turkey Border
Kadıoğlu, Z., Çukadar, K., Kandemir, A., Kalkan, N. N., Vurgun, H., & Döneralp, V. (2020).
Kars İlinde Sebze Olarak Tüketilen Yabani Bitki Türlerinin Tespiti ve Kullanım Şekilleri
[Determination of wild plant species consumed as vegetables in Kars Province and
their usage methods]. Anadolu Journal of the Aegean Agricultural Research Institute,
30(1), 11–32. https://doi.org/10.18615/anadolu.727146
Kaliszewska, I., & Kołodziejska-Degórska, I. (2015). e social context of wild leafy vegetables
uses in Shiri, Daghestan. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine,11(1), Article 63.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-015-0047-x
Kang, Y., Łuczaj, Ł., Kang, J., Wang, F., Hou, J., & Guo, Q. (2014). Wild food plants used by the
Tibetans of Gongba Valley (Zhouqu County, Gansu, China). Journal of Ethnobiology
and Ethnomedicine,10(1), Article 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-10-20
Karakaya, S., Polat, A., Aksakal, Ö., Sümbüllü, Y. Z., & İncekara, Ü. (2019). Plants used in
traditional medicine and other uses in south of Erzurum (Turkey): An ethnobotanical
study. Ethnobotany Research and Applications,18, 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.32859/era.18.13.1-18
Kazancı, C. (2021). Wild plants used as vegetables by transhumant people around the
Georgia–Turkey border in the Western Lesser Caucasus. Zenodo.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5139580
Kazancı, C., Oruç, S., & Mosulishvili, M. (2020). Medicinal ethnobotany of wild plants:
A cross-cultural comparison around Georgia–Turkey border, the Western Lesser
Caucasus. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine,16(1), Article 71.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-020-00415-y
კეცხოველი [K’etskhoveli], ნ. [N.] (1941–1952). საქართველოს ფლორა [Flora of
Georgia] (Vols. 1–8). Georgian National Academy of Science.
კეცხოველი [K’etskhoveli], ნ. [N.], ხარაძე [Kharadze], ა. [A.], & გაგნიძე [Gagnidze],
რ.[R.] (1971–2011). საქართველოს ფლორა [Flora of Georgia] (Vols. 1–16).
Georgian National Academy of Science.
Komarov, V. L. (1968–2002). Flora of the U.S.S.R. Smithsonian Institution Libraries.
Łuczaj, Ł. (2010). Changes in the utilization of wild green vegetables in Poland since the 19th
century: A comparison of four ethnobotanical surveys. Journal of Ethnopharmacology,
128, 395–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2010.01.038
Łuczaj, Ł., & Pieroni, A. (2016). Nutritional ethnobotany in Europe: From emergency foods to
healthy folk cuisines and contemporary foraging trends. In M. Sánchez-Mata, &
J. Tardío (Eds.), Mediterranean wild edible plants (pp. 33–56). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3329-7_3
Łuczaj, Ł., Pieroni, A., Tardío, J., Pardo-de-Santayana, M., Sõukand, R., Svanberg, I., & Kalle,
R. (2012). Wild food plant use in 21st century Europe: e disappearance of old
traditions and the search for new cuisines involving wild edible. Acta Societatis
Botanicorum Poloniae,81(4), 359–370. https://doi.org/10.5586/asbp.2012.031
Łuczaj, Ł., Tvalodze, B., & Zalkaliani, D. (2017). Comfrey and buttercup eaters: Wild
vegetables of the Imereti Region in Western Georgia, Caucasus. Economic Botany,
71(2), 188–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-017-9379-x
Łuczaj, Ł. J., & Kujawska, M. (2012). Botanists and their childhood memories:
An underutilized expert source in ethnobotanical research. Botanical Journal of the
Linnean Society,168(3), 334–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8339.2011.01205.x
Menendez-Baceta, G., Pardo-de-Santayana, M., Aceituno-Mata, L., Tardío, J., & Reyes-García,
V. (2017). Trends in wild food plants uses in Gorbeialdea (Basque Country). Appetite,
112, 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.01.010
Nanagulyan, S., Zakaryan, N., Kartashyan, N., Piwowarczyk, R., & Łuczaj, Ł. (2020). Wild
plants and fungi sold in the markets of Yerevan (Armenia). Journal of Ethnobiology and
Ethnomedicine,16, Article 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-020-00375-3
Nebel, S., Pieroni, A., & Heinrich, M. (2006). Ta chòrta: Wild edible greens used in the
Graecanic area in Calabria, Southern Italy. Appetite,47(3), 333–342.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2006.05.010
Nolan, J. M., & Pieroni, A. (2014). Introduction to Special Issue on Food Security in a
Changing World. Journal of Ethnobiology,34(1), 4–6.
https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-34.1.4
Oruç, S., & Kazancı, C. (2018, June 15). Biocultural diversity on the border: e Yaylas of the
Western Lesser Caucasus. Langscape Magazine,7(1).
https://medium.com/langscape-magazine/biocultural-diversity-on-the-border-the-
yaylas-of-the-western-lesser-caucasus-4736597057fa
Özgen, U., Kaya, Y., & Coşkun, M. (2004). Ethnobotancal studies in the villages of the district
of Ilica (province Erzurum), Turkey. Economic Botany,58(4), 691–696.
https://doi.org/fcsnhx
Pardo-de-Santayana, M., Tardío, J., Blanco, E., Carvalho, A. M., Lastra, J. J., San Miguel, E., &
Morales, R. (2007). Traditional knowledge of wild edible plants used in the northwest
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae / 2021 / Volume 90 / Article 906
Publisher: Polish Botanical Society
26
Kazancı et al. / Ethnobotany of Wild Vegetables Across the Georgia–Turkey Border
of the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal): A comparative study. Journal of
Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine,3(1), Article 27.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-3-27
Pieroni, A., Hovsepyan, R., Manduzai, A. K., & Sõukand, R. (2020). Wild food plants
traditionally gathered in central Armenia: Archaic ingredients or future sustainable
foods? Environment, Development and Sustainability,23, 2358–2381.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00678-1
Pieroni, A., & Sõukand, R. (2019). Ethnic and religious affiliations affect traditional wild plant
foraging in Central Azerbaijan. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution,66(7),
1495–1513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-019-00802-9
Pieroni, A., Zahir, H., Amin, H. I. M., & Sõukand, R. (2019). Where tulips and crocuses are
popular food snacks: Kurdish traditional foraging reveals traces of mobile pastoralism
in Southern Iraqi Kurdistan. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine,15(1), Article
59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-019-0341-0
Quave, C. L., & Pieroni, A. (2015). A reservoir of ethnobotanical knowledge informs resilient
food security and health strategies in the Balkans. Nature Plants,1, Article 14021.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2014.21
Reyes-García, V., Menendez-Baceta, G., Aceituno-Mata, L., Acosta-Naranjo, R., Calvet-Mir,
L., Domínguez, P., Garnatje, T., Gómez-Bagetthun, E., Molina-Bustamante, M., Molina,
M., Rodríguez-Franco, R., Serrasolses, G., Vallès, J., & Pardo-de-Santayana, M. (2015).
From famine foods to delicatessen: Interpreting trends in the consumption and
gathering of wild edible plants through their connection to cultural ecosystem services.
Ecological Economics,120, 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.11.003
Sağıroğlu, M., Arslantürk, A., Akdemir, Z. K., & Turna, M. (2012). An ethnobotanical survey
from Hayrat (Trabzon) and Kalkandere (Rize/Turkey). Biological Diversity and
Conservation,5(1), 31–43.
Saraç, D. U., Özkan, Z. C., & Akbulut, S. (2013). Ethnobotanic features of Rize/Turkey
province. Biological Diversity and Conservation,6(3), 57–66.
Sõukand, R., & Pieroni, A. (2019). Resilience in the mountains: Biocultural refugia of wild
food in the Greater Caucasus Range, Azerbaijan. Biodiversity and Conservation,28(13),
3529–3545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01835-3
Sõukand, R., Pieroni, A., Biró, M., Dénes, A., Dogan, Y., Hajdari, A., Kalle, R., Reade, B.,
Mustafa, B., Nedelcheva, A., Quave, C. L., & Łuczaj, Ł. (2015). An ethnobotanical
perspective on traditional fermented plant foods and beverages in Eastern Europe.
Journal of Ethnopharmacology,170, 284–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2015.05.018
Stryamets, N., Elbakidze, M., Ceuterick, M., Angelstam, P., & Axelsson, R. (2015). From
economic survival to recreation: Contemporary uses of wild food and medicine in rural
Sweden, Ukraine and NW Russia. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine,11(1),
Article 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-015-0036-0
Tardío, J., & Pardo-de-Santayana, M. (2008). Cultural importance indices: A comparative
analysis based on the useful wild plants of Southern Cantabria (northern Spain).
Economic Botany,62(1), 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-007-9004-5
Turner, N. J., Łuczaj, Ł. J., Migliorini, P., Pieroni, A., Dreon, A. L., Sacchetti, L. E., & Paoletti,
M. G. (2011). Edible and tended wild plants, traditional ecological knowledge and
agroecology. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences,30(1–2), 198–225.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07352689.2011.554492
Turner, N. J., & Turner, K. L. (2008). “Where our women used to get the food”: Cumulative
effects and loss of ethnobotanical knowledge and practice; case study from coastal
British Columbia. Botany,86(2), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1139/B07-020
Williams, L., Zazanashvili, N., Sanadiradze, G., & Kandaurov, A. (2006). An ecoregional
conservation plan for the Caucasus (2nd ed.). WWF Caucasus Programme Office.
World Wildlife Fund. (2006). WildFinder: Online database of species distributions, ver. Jan-06.
https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/wildfinder
Yeşil, Y., & İnal, İ. (2019). Traditional knowledge of wild edible plants in Hasankeyf (Batman
Province, Turkey). Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae,88(3), Article 3633.
https://doi.org/10.5586/asbp.3633
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae / 2021 / Volume 90 / Article 906
Publisher: Polish Botanical Society
27
