Wild Plants Used as Vegetables by Transhumant People Around the Georgia–Turkey Border in the Western Lesser Caucasus

Abstract

Recent ethnobotanical studies in the Caucasus, mainly in Georgia, reveal the significant 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. This 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. The Cultural Importance Index and Relative Frequency of Citation were used to compare the relative importance of species in each region. The 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 nonsignificant correlation between the plant knowledge and age. Although there were no significant differences in the plant parts used, the way people used plants as vegetables varied significantly across the border. Considering the floral similarity across the border, the number of species used in common and shared vegetable plant knowledge was quite low. There is not a significant 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 significantly in different administrative regions.

Multigenerational differences in harvesting and use of wild edible fruits and nuts in the South Caucasus

“…Our findings are in line with other cross‐cultural studies on plant use, whereby even geographically close communities sharing the same or similar landscapes have their own distinct preferences and harvesting patterns (Ghimire et al, 2004; Kazancı et al, 2021; Mattalia et al, 2020; Stryamets et al, 2021; Vitasović‐Kosić et al, 2021). Reasons can be linked to historical events (Stryamets et al, 2021) and/or sociocultural backgrounds (Kazancı et al, 2021). However, at the plant family level, Rosaceae was found to be of high importance for harvest within both communities (13 species used).…”

“…In rural communities in the South Caucasus, strong links between wild et al, 2004;Kazancı et al, 2021;Mattalia et al, 2020;Stryamets et al, 2021;Vitasovi c-Kosi c et al, 2021). Reasons can be linked to historical events (Stryamets et al, 2021) and/or sociocultural backgrounds (Kazancı et al, 2021).…”