Next Article in Journal
Scale-Dependent Drivers of Plant Community Turnover in a Disturbed Grassland: Insights from Generalized Dissimilarity Modeling
Previous Article in Journal
The Correlation Between High-Fluoride Hot Springs and Microbial Community Structure and Diversity
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 17
Issue 11
10.3390/d17110785
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Ethnobotanical Assessment of the Diversity of Wild Edible Plants and Potential Contribution to Enhance Sustainable Food Security in Makkah, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

by
Afnan Alqethami
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah 21955, Saudi Arabia
Diversity 2025, 17(11), 785; https://doi.org/10.3390/d17110785
Submission received: 19 October 2025 / Revised: 6 November 2025 / Accepted: 7 November 2025 / Published: 8 November 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Plant Diversity)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Wild edible plants contribute significantly to food security, environmental protection, cultural heritage preservation, economic diversification, and the development of communities. In this paper, we present an inaugural ethnobotanical investigation of the traditional knowledge on wild edible plant species from Makkah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Ethnobotanical fieldwork was conducted in Makkah from January to February 2025. Ethnobotanical data pertaining to wild edible plants were collected from 102 informants through free listing, semi-structured interviews, field observations, and a survey of the market. The data were analyzed based on descriptive statistics, the relative frequency of citation, preference ranking, and priority ranking. Forty-one out of one hundred and eighty-four wild plants were gathered and recognized as wild edible plant species belonging to twenty-one families. Poaceae showed the greatest species diversity, comprising five plant species (12%). Phoenix dactylifera L. is the most common wild edible plant. Notably, 11 of the 41 wild edible plants identified in this study had never been reported in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia before. Wild edible plants are currently threatened by several anthropogenic sources in the research region, including overgrazing, fuel wood collection, and the repeated use of multiple species. Therefore, to ensure sustainable future usage, wild food plants must be used carefully and should be the subject of targeted conservation efforts from all stakeholders.

1. Introduction

Ethnobotany is the study of the close relationships among people and plants. This encompasses flora utilized for construction, sustenance, medicine, and other economic applications [1,2,3]. Undomesticated plants containing at least one edible component, such as a root, leaf, or fruit, are called wild edible plants (WEPs) [4,5]. These plants thrive naturally in their native environments without human interference [6]. They are widely used as a primary source of subsistence in many regions globally [7,8]. In addition, a number of studies indicate that WEPs, as opposed to agricultural crop foods, have better nutritional content required for healthy body growth [9,10]. In addition to their nutritional importance, people are now more conscious of the medical advantages of WEPs [11,12]. Globally, rural communities rely on WEPs for food security [13]. Food security refers to people’s ability to achieve their fundamental daily nutritional needs in order to live a decent and healthy life [14,15]. By the year 2030, the Goals for Sustainable Development proposed by the United Nations seek to advance sustainable agriculture, end hunger, and ensure food security [16,17,18].
An international concern in recording ethnobotanical data on underutilized wild edible food sources has led many ethnobotanists to concentrate their research on wild food plants in recent decades [3,19]. Indigenous knowledge is the body of information that native people in a given place have gathered throughout time. In order to maintain long-term relationships with nature, indigenous populations have consistently refined their understanding of traditional plant utilization and resource management [20]. Traditional knowledge about WEPs is in danger of disappearing when habitats, value systems, and natural surroundings change. Wild food plant knowledge is widely declining, particularly among urban inhabitants and young people. This knowledge must therefore be systemically recorded in order to preserve it and its potentially great worth for future generations [21].
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) is home to over 2250 species, making it a significant source of biodiversity [22,23,24]. It encompasses a variety of natural environments, like rocky and sandy deserts, meadows, wadis (wet riverbeds or river valleys that contain water only after a lot of rain), mountains, and salt pans [25,26,27]. Xerophytes, which are related mostly to ecological conditions, make up the majority of the plant life in KSA. Vegetation is almost exclusively found in wadi channels (broad, sloping channels) inside desert regions; this system is often referred to as a “run-off desert.” [27]. Makkah is situated in the Wadis between Saudi Arabia’s western mountain range [28]. It is known for its diverse range of plant species, such as Amaranthus viridis L., Sonchus oleraceus L. and Limeum obovatum Vicary, and its high species diversity [27,29,30]. Makkah is home to over 184 species across 125 genera and 44 families [24]. These plants were discovered to share traits with Irano-Turranean and Saharo-Arabian flora [24,31]. In desert ecosystems, the main site of biodiversity is wadi vegetation [27,32]. However, a number of factors are currently endangering the biodiversity of the country. Climate change, which includes rising temperatures and falling precipitation, is one of the biggest dangers [33,34,35,36]. Over the past few decades, KSA has experienced rising daytime and nighttime temperatures [37]. Temperature increases in KSA are expected to reach 48 °C, which is the highest point of climate change in the Middle East. Additionally, the whole country is experiencing low precipitation [38]. Currently, the domestic food supply in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia falls well short of what is needed to meet local demand. Up to 80 percent of the nation’s food needs are met by imports [39,40]. Climate change, a heavy reliance on food imports, water scarcity, and a reduction in vegetation diversity as a result of habitat loss, environmental disturbances, and fragmentation are considered to be factors that contribute to threats to overall food security [27,41,42].
Recent ethnobotanical research conducted in Makkah has yielded comprehensive information on medicinal plants [43,44]. On the other hand, local knowledge and practices regarding wild edible plant (WEP) species in Makkah are not documented. According to [27], numerous original vegetation regions within the study area in of Wadi Al-Sharaea in Makkah have been either naturally or intentionally destroyed. Therefore, it is imperative that ethnobotanical knowledge about WEP species in Makkah be gathered and recorded before it is permanently lost. For this reason, the current study intends to (1) identify and document ethnobotanical data on wild edible plants, including indigenous knowledge from the Makkah; (2) evaluate the most preferred and extensively utilized WEPs in the study regions, which may provide a foundation for conservation and nutritional assessment; (3) compare the WEPs of the research regions with those from earlier publications in KSA for potential new food species; and (4) determine the main threats for edible wild plants and establish suitable plans of action and strategies to preserve these plants in Makkah, KSA.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

According to Figure 1, KSA is situated between 16°22′ and 32°14′ N, 34°29′ and 55°40′ W. Makkah is located in the western part of KSA, with the coordinates 21°26′ N and 39°46′ E. It is situated between wadis in the hilly area of western KSA [24]. Makkah is home to about 2,427,924 inhabitants. This study was conducted in three neighboring sites to the east of Makkah city: Al-Sharaya, 21°28′40″ N and 39°57′14″ E, Al-Tarwiyah 21°28′46″ N and 39°57′48″ E, and Al Rashidiya 21°29′01″ N and 39°58′59″ E (Figure 1). Al-Sharaya occupies 3.68 km2, Al-Tarwiyah occupies 4.34 km2 and Al Rashidiya occupies 5.83 km2. These are lowland areas and are situated 432 m above sea level.
The study area has a tropical and arid climate. The amount of rainfall in Makkah has a direct impact on the size and growth of the vegetation. In general, January, February, April, August, and September are the wettest months of the year, with the highest rainfall. When the temperature drops between November and February, the mean monthly rainfall rises, while when the temperature rises between April and October (excluding April, August, and September), the mean monthly rainfall falls [45]. According to studies on Makkah’s floristic composition and vegetation, the two most prevalent families are the Poaceae family, which includes 31 species, and the Fabaceae family, encompassing 24 species. The predominant species in the study area are those that are typical of arid subtropical environments such as Calotropis procera (Aiton) W.T.Aiton and Aerva javacica (Burm.fil.) Juss. The floristic elements of Makkah comprise Saharo-Arabian (27.70%), Irano-Turanian (17.91%), and Sudano-Zambezian (16.22%) elements [24].

2.2. Data Collection

The methodologies and procedures established by Martin [1] were employed to gather ethnobotanical information. This study employed established methodologies in ethnobotanical research to document local knowledge of WEPs through free listing and semi-structured interviews and field observations adhering to the guidelines of [1]. Semi-structured interviews covered ethnobotanical information about WEPs, including common names, edible parts, growing characteristics and habitats, methods of eating, threats, and additional use. To gather the data, a pre-made questionnaire was employed. It was approved by Umm Al-Qura University’s Biomedical Research Ethics Committee (HAPO-02-K-012-2024-12-2423). Prior to the formal interview, the study’s aims were clearly outlined to the relevant informants and verbal or informed consent was solicited and acquired. Permanent residents who agreed to participate in the study were selected as participants. Targeted sampling was used to select informants who use WEPs [43]. The entire field study was carried out in accordance with the International Society of Ethnobiology. Ethnobotanical fieldwork was conducted for a duration of four weeks in Makkah from January to February 2025. Ethnobotanical data regarding WEPs was obtained from 102 informants through semi-structured interviews and free listing. adhering to the guidelines proposed by [1]. According to [46], saturation in free listing can happen once 15 or 20 informants have been interviewed. Therefore, interviews were stopped when a saturation of information was reached. Subsequent to data collection, the data were systematically arranged according to the research topics.

2.3. Collection and Identification of Plant Specimens

Most of the voucher specimens were collected during the field survey. In instances where this was impracticable, they were acquired from local stores. Collection numbers were allocated, and the specimens were pressed for future identification. Plant identification was conducted at the herbarium of Umm Al-Qura University utilizing herbarium specimens of the Flora of KSA [47]. Voucher specimens, including herbarium samples, dried plant parts, and pictures, were deposited in the herbarium of Umm Al-Qura University. The scientific names of plants, families and nomenclature adhere to the guidelines described by [48].

2.4. Data Analysis

The collected information was analyzed using descriptive statistics. To summarize and describe the data of WEPs, percentages and frequencies (F) were computed using Microsoft Excel spreadsheet software. The relative frequency of citation (RFC) was calculated to assess the frequency of use of specific species. In the formula used, (RFC = FC/N) N stands for the total number of survey participants and FC is the number of respondents that described a specific wild edible plant. The more significant and valuable a plant is in the area, the higher its RFC value, which ranges from 0 to 1. The FC value of each wild edible plant was used to signify its relevance, allowing all WEPs cited in the important survey to be ordered in order of importance [49].

2.5. Preference Ranking

Preference ranking of the WEPs was performed according to the work of Martin [1] and Cotton [50]. Ten key informants provided values ranging from 1 to 10, which were then added up, and the average was calculated to discover which one was preferred over the others. The eight most popular wild edible plants were presented to the informants for the preference rating exercise, and they were ranked by sweetness. The plant with the least sweet taste received a rating of 1, while the WEP thought to have the sweetest taste received the maximum value of 10. The overall score for each species was used to determine preference classification. By aggregating the number provided by each informant, the overall order of preferences was determined.

2.6. Threat Rankings by Priority

Ten key informants ranked the five main dangers to these plants according to their level of harmful impacts in order to determine their preference [1,50]. Threats were given ratings ranging from 1 to 5. The threat with the least degree of destructive effects received a rating of 1, while the threat with the highest degree of destructive effects received the maximum value of 5. To determine the most pertinent factors, the sum of the values supplied by each key informant was calculated.

2.7. Comparative Studies on Literature Resviews

A systematic literature review was performed to evaluate the documented knowledge of Saudi Arabian WEPs. Data collected locally was contrasted with data from research performed in KSA, bordering nations, regional countries, African countries, and Asian countries. In both Arabic and English, the terms “ethnobotany,” “wild edible plants,” “wild food plants,” or similar expressions were used, without any limitations with regard to the publication date. Any studies that solely reported antibacterial activity for WEPs without referencing local knowledge sources were removed. Methods for documenting explicit knowledge, the collection of herbarium specimens, the literature utilized for their identification, and their deposition in herbaria were quality criteria employed to identify rigorous literature sources [43]. The names from the chosen literature were verified against the plant list to ascertain recognized plant names, family classifications, botanical species, and applications. The purpose of this was to find the new wild plants in the area that are being used as food for the first time [51,52,53,54].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Wild Edible Plant Knowledge Distribution Among Sociodemographic Groups

Interviews were conducted with 102 local informants. The study shows that, even with 102 participants, The study was contributed with novel data on plant use. It investigated differences in knowledge about WEPs among the sociodemographic groups in the study area (Table 1). In Makkah, WEPs were used by both genders. However, women were more knowledgeable about WEPs and their use, with a predominance of 76% compared to 24% of men. Women listed 151 WEPs, while men listed 34 WEPs. This female preponderance can be explained by the fact that women have become familiar with WEPs through their cooking, homemaking, and family health responsibilities. The results of other ethnobotanical studies are supported by these findings [43].
To determine the extent to which botanical knowledge is passed from the elderly to the youth, or whether there a significant gap in indigenous knowledge of wild edible plants between young people and elderly. The ages of the participants were chosen to range from 20 and 71 and older. Although the number of informants aged between 20 and 25 (19 informants) was greater than the number of informants who were aged 71 and older (4 informants), the average number of plants listed by informants who were 71 and older (3) was greater than the average number of plants listed by informants who were between 20 and 25 (1.95). Education level was found to be linked to the ages of the informants. Younger informants reported having an undergraduate education, while older informants were illiterate. Although the number of informants with an undergraduate education (60; 59% informants) was greater than the number of informants who were illiterate (10; 10% informants), the average number of plants listed by informants who were illiterate (2.3) was greater than the average number of plants listed by informants with an undergraduate education (1.95). This means there is a significant gap in indigenous knowledge of WEPs between young people and the elderly. Because they possess a large portion of the oral tradition’s ancestral knowledge, the oldest respondents pass along more trustworthy information. Therefore, there is a lack of knowledge of WEPs among young individuals, which might be explained by their propensity for canned or fast food. These results support the findings of previous studies [43].

3.2. Taxonomic Diversity of Wild Edible Plants

The plant species in the study area are generally diverse. Twenty-one families and forty-one beneficial WEP species were gathered and identified (Table 2). The Poaceae family exhibited the greatest species diversity, comprising five plant species (12%), followed by Asteraceae and Brassicaceae, each with four species (10%), and Lamiaceae with three species (7%). All other families were represented by two WEP species or less (Figure 2). In the current study area, Poaceae is the most dominant WEP family. This might be because Poaceae is the largest family in KSA, composed of 286 species [55]. Unlike other studies conducted around the world, in southern Yemen, the Apocynaceae family was predominant among plant species [56]; in northwest Pakistan, the most prominent families were Rosaceae [57]; and in western Ethiopia, the family Rubiaceae was found to be the dominant family [58]. Anacardiaceae and Tiliaceae were identified as the predominant families in other investigations [59,60]. This variance may be associated with the availability and accessibility of flora, in addition to the cultural inclinations of the studied society [3,61].
Forty-one WEP species were identified and collected in the present study region. This result is close to the 43 species of WEPs documented by [5] in Ensaro, Ethiopia. Conversely, the quantity of WEPs recorded in the study area significantly exceeded that of other regions; for instance, Uganda reported 27 WEP species [62].
Some of the WEPs used in Makkah are medicinal plants. Medicinal plants cited in this study include Cuminum cyminum, Hibiscus sabdariffa, Lepidium sativum, Matricaria aurea, Nigella sativa and Ziziphus spina-christi (Table 2). The widespread usage of food plants as remedies by urban populations may be due to the plants’ easy accessibility. The Mediterranean medical tradition also places a strong emphasis on medicinal foods [43].
Every culture on Earth has unique cultural, social, and dietary traditions and customs that invariably evolve based on their ecological characteristics, economic and social status, and cultural practices. The dietary habits that parents teach their kids are among such traditions. The consumption of dates is one of the eating customs in Saudi society. In the current study area, Phoenix dactylifera (date palm) is the most dominant wild edible plant. This might be because it is part of an ancestral tradition that many people continue to follow and uphold, and it is a part of society’s customs and traditions. Dates are one of the most important main ingredients in many traditional dishes in KSA. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia possesses a wealth of legacies, traditions and ancient customs, including an extensive heritage of food habits. One such food habit is the typical Saudi breakfast. It may include eating dates with Saudi coffee; however, dates with Saudi coffee (traditional drink) may be savored at any time of the day [63,64]. The nutritious date palm fruits are a fundamental component of the food and culture in KSA, frequently ingested during the Rutab and Tamer phases [65]. Date palm fruits possess substantial carbohydrate content (sugars, 44–88%), protein (2.3–5.6%), fat (0.2–0.5%), 15 salts and minerals, vitamins, and a significant dietary fiber proportion (6.4–11.5%). Dates can be regarded as an exemplary food, offering a diverse array of necessary nutrients and significant health advantages [66]. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the world’s second-largest producer and exporter of dates, producing around 1.5 million tons per year. The nutrient-rich fruits of the date palm significantly enhance food security on global as well as local scales [65]. This is a result of its substantial nutritional value and cost-effectiveness as an energy and nutrient source [56,67,68,69]. According to ecological characteristics, the maturation and ripening of date palm fruit occur in dry and hot climatic conditions, rendering it perfect for desert and semiarid areas [65,70,71].

3.3. Edible Parts of Wild Edible Plants

Numerous edible parts of wild plants have been reported in the current research region. Seven distinct components of WEPs were identified (Figure 3). This indicates the diversity of consumable parts of wild flora in Makkah. Of the edible parts, leaves constituted the most commonly ingested portion of WEPs, accounting for (29%), followed by fruits (27%) and seeds (20%; Table 2 and Figure 3). This result is in accordance with other research findings [72]. The least frequently consumed parts of WEPs are bulbs (2%). Among the documented WEPs, several possess multiple edible parts, including stems and leaves (Figure 3). For instance, the stems and leaves of Apium graveolens L. are both edible (Table 2). This outcome aligns with findings from prior research conducted in various areas [58,73] of multiple edible parts of a single plant. Reports indicate that leaves constitute a significant portion of WEPs commonly consumed globally [5,74]. Leaves are favored due to their extended growing season, unique flavor, and broad availability, rendering vegetable plants among the most popular selections [72]. Conversely, fruits may be favored due to their sweetness and elevated sugar content [5,75]. Furthermore, this preference may be attributed to the convenience of ingesting fruits in their raw, unprocessed state [58].

3.4. Methods of Consuming Edible Wild Plants

Most of the WEPs were eaten fresh, ripe, and uncooked (63%) and did not require any form of preparation, whereas a smaller percentage was consumed dried (37%) and needed to be prepared beforehand. For example, seeds of Sorghum bicolor, Avena byzantina, and Panicum turgidum were used as ground seeds and cooked as bread. Moreover, seeds of Raphanus raphanistrum and Cuminum cyminum were used as ground seeds and cooked as spices. In addition, flowers of Matricaria aurea and Hibiscus sabdariffa and stems and leaves of Pulicaria incisa and Mentha longifolia were used as infusions, which were then ingested as a hot beverage. This inclination towards fresh consumption corresponds with global research findings [76,77,78,79,80,81]. The popularity of fresh fruits is attributed to their convenience, palatable flavor, and essential nutritional benefits [7,76]. The plants that were dried and preserved for future use included Cymbopogon schoenanthus, Matricaria aurea, Citrullus colocynthis, Malva neglecta, Sorghum bicolor, Origanum syriacum, Raphanus raphanistrum, Avena byzantina, Pulicaria incisa, Hibiscus sabdariffa, Sesamum indicum, Nigella sativa, Cuminum cyminum, Leptadenia pyrotechnica, and Panicum turgidum. In addition to increasing their availability, this storage capacity improves local communities’ food security [76].

3.5. Wild Edible Plant Life Form

The wild edible plants in the research region demonstrate varying lifespans and growth patterns. Twenty-one species (51%) of WEPs are annuals, and twenty species (49%) are perennial. It is worth noting that the majority of the KSA plants are annuals (50–60%) [55]. Out of the reported WEPs in the current study, most plant species were therophytes (22 species (45%)), followed by Phanerophytes (8 species (20%)), hemicryptophytes (6 species (15%)), and chamaephytes (4 species (10%)), whereas geophytes made the smallest contribution, with only 1 species (2%; Figure 4). In the current study, wild edible herbs were dominant. According to a previous study conducted by [24] in Makkah, the most prevalent life forms are therophytes. In addition, the majority of plants in the KSA (71.02%) are herbs. Studies around the world, in Yemen [56], China [61], Şırnak [82], Ethiopia [7,83], Nepal [84], and India, also identified herbs as the dominant form of WEPs [85]. On the other hand, trees and shrubs are the most common types of wild edible plants, according to other ethnobotanical research. For example, research by [86,87] showed that the most prevalent growth pattern is that of shrubs. Similar research in Ethiopia [76], Guatemala [88], and Uganda [62] cited trees as the dominant form of WEPs. The discrepancies in these findings might be ascribed to differences in the sorts of WEP species and the local culture of a specific region [5,13,61], and to agroecological conditions [61,76].

3.6. Additional Applications for Edible Wild Plants

A wide variety of WEPs are used by the local communities for purposes other than food intake. Only thirteen species (32%) of the forty-one WEPs that were documented were used exclusively as food. There were several uses reported for the remaining 28 species (68%; Table 2). Common applications included traditional medicines (24 species), animal fodder, furniture, natural dye, ornamental and thatch (3 species each), and brooms, construction, forage, and shade (2 species each; Figure 5). Notably, Phoenix dactylifera and Hyphaene thebaica possessed more than six distinct uses beyond edibility, including construction, forage, shade, thatch, furniture, brooms, and ornamental applications (Table 2). Date palms are a multipurpose crop in addition to being a food source. For instance, they may also be used in construction, animal feed production, roofing, fencing, and basketry [71,89,90]. The present study demonstrates an impressive range of applications for WEPs that surpass their nutritional worth, which is consistent with results from additional research carried out in China [91], Ethiopia [76], and Uganda [62]. In the study area, the use of edible wild plants as medicine is widespread, which is consistent with findings from ethnomedicinal and pharmaceutical studies conducted in the study area [43,44,92,93,94,95]. Similar findings were reported in Ethiopia [58], Morocco [96], Brazil [97] and India [98]. The substantial quantity of documented WEPs employed for medicinal purposes highlights their essential contribution to human health and welfare, emphasizing the global acknowledgment of wild edibles as crucial resources for therapeutic use [76,99,100].

3.7. Preference Ranking of Wild Edible Plants

Ten key informants participated in a preference rating to assess ten widely used WEPs based on a number of criteria, including accessibility, availability, cultural importance, taste, and potential for revenue creation. The informants gave the chosen plants ratings ranging from 1 to 10, with 10 denoting the most preferred WEP and 1 denoting the least preferred. The findings indicated that Phoenix dactylifera, Panicum turgidum, and Prunus arabica were placed first, second, and third, respectively (Table 3). The preference ranking’s numbers show the diversity in WEP usage across community members and represent unique viewpoints. The fruits of Phoenix dactylifera were the most highly rated among all the tested plants. This might be because dates are one of the most important main ingredients in many traditional dishes. Nutritious date palm fruits are a fundamental component of the food and culture in KSA [65]. In addition, dates can provide a diverse array of necessary nutrients and significant health advantages [66]. In addition to dates, Panicum turgidum is the main ingredient in one of the most important traditional dessert dishes. Prunus arabica comes in third due to its popular use as a supplemental food and its pleasant taste. Preference ranking draws attention to how important particular WEPs are in regional diets. Communities’ nutritional results and dietary variety can be improved by encouraging the consumption of these favored species. Preference ranking offers important information on which WEPs the community values most. In order to preserve local biodiversity, conservation initiatives can give priority to certain species and guarantee their preservation and sustainable management. The involvement of key informants in the rating process highlights the importance of local conservation knowledge. Involving people in the process of identifying and managing preferred WEPs can improve conservation efforts and promote natural resource stewardship [76].

3.8. Wild Edible Plant Threats and Conservation

Ten key informants participated in a priority rating process that further clarified the most urgent risks to these resources (Table 4). The availability of WEPs is decreasing due to a number of factors. In the research region, WEPs face five main threats. These are urban expansion, overgrazing, fuelwood, multiple use of WEPs and climate change. Overgrazing was viewed as the primary threat, followed by fuel wood collection; the repeated use of multiple species, especially of useful plants (medicinal, edible, forage plants); urban expansion; and climate change. The top-ranked threats are primarily attributed to a surplus population of people or a surplus of wild animals, which led to livestock grazing in randomly managed agricultural practices, in addition to the use of firewood and charcoal for heating and home cooking, the use of these resources in folk medicine and traditional industries, and the population influx from rural areas to urban areas searching for better services. Therefore, in order to preserve these plants and the related indigenous knowledge for the next generation, they need to be used wisely and given special attention by all relevant agencies [58]. According to [27], numerous original vegetation regions within the study area in of Wadi Al-Sharaea in Makkah had been either naturally or intentionally destroyed. The survival of plant species at the research location was mostly influenced by anthropogenic causes. According to other researchers [63,83,101], the main danger to WEPs is human activity. Furthermore, climate change and fluctuation in the area made the threats worse. A number of factors are currently endangering the nation’s biodiversity. Climate change, which includes rising temperatures and falling precipitation, is one of the biggest dangers [33,34,35,36]. Food availability, access, and supply stability are all impacted by climate change [36].
Local populations suggest a number of strategies for the future management of WEPs in order to improve sustainable food security in KSA. First and foremost, recording traditional knowledge about using indigenous wild plants as sustenance would help them to preserve the related indigenous knowledge for future generations. The second proposed strategy is establishing campaigns to raise awareness. The third pertains to the domestication of edible wild plants for household gardens and the creation of nurseries for seedlings of wild food plants, which will facilitate on-site conservation.

3.9. Comparative Study

This is the first ethnobotanical survey of WEPs conducted in Makkah. Compared to the traditional knowledge of other global locations, the indigenous species in Makkah are unique to the local traditional knowledge on WEPs. In order to identify new species that are employed only in the research area and to determine the degree of knowledge dissemination among these countries, the WEPs recorded in this study are compared with ethnobotanical literature from KSA, neighboring countries, regional countries, African countries, and Asian countries. The results of the comparative study are displayed in Table 5 and Table 6. In general, this comparison showed that 31 common species were reported to be used in KSA, and in neighboring countries including (Yemen and Oman), regional countries, African countries, Asian countries, and Arab countries. Thirty edible species identified in the study area are also used for traditional purposes in other KSA regions, according to a comparison with ethnobotanical literature (Table 5). It has also been discovered that six edible species present in the research area are also utilized in traditional ways in neighboring countries (Yemen and Oman; Table 6). Shared WEPs that are used in Oman include Portulaca oleracea and Ziziphus spina-christi. Those that are used in Yemen include Ficus palmata, Lactuca serriola, Opuntia ficus-indica, Portulaca oleracea, Rumex nervosus, and Ziziphus spina-christi. Additionally, Rumex nervosus is employed in nearby nations, albeit with distinct portions. While the study area uses the leaves of Rumex nervosus as sustenance, Yemen uses the plant’s flower nectar for the same purpose [56]. Due to their proximity and shared flora, heritage, and inherited practices, Yemen and Makkah, Saudi Arabia, have very similar traditional applications of WEPs.
Based on the research that is currently available, there is little available ethnobotanical data for WEPs in Arab nations. Studies with a large survey were conducted in Libya [105]; Jordan [108]; Palestine [74]; Lebanon [109]; Iraq [110]; Egypt [111]; Morocco [111,117]; Sudan [77,112]; Somalia [113] and Tunisia [116]. However, significant variation was observed in the kind of plants employed compared to these Arab nations. Even though Arab nations share many linguistic and cultural traits with the KSA, they differ greatly in terms of geography and climate. Because of this, there are notable distinctions between the flora of Makkah and that of the Arab nations. Consequently, there are only four species of common WEPs that are known to be used in Arab nations. These include Libya (three WEPs, Lactuca serriola, Opuntia ficus-indica, Portulaca oleracea), Palestine, Egypt, Morocco, and Sudan (two species for each, Portulaca oleracea, Raphanus raphanistrum); and Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Somalia (one species for each; Portulaca oleracea) and Tunisia (one species, Raphanus raphanistrum; Table 6).
Other Asian and African countries showed the low number of shared WEPs recorded in Makkah, including Pakistan (one species) Ficus palmata, Turkey (two species) Lactuca serriola and Portulaca oleracea, Ethiopia (three species) Ficus palmata, Opuntia ficus-indica, and Ziziphus spina-christi (Table 6). Ziziphus spina-christi and Portulaca oleracea are commonly utilized in numerous surrounding and regional nations, as mentioned (Table 5 and Table 6). Their high nutritional value, proximate composition, and energy content may be the cause of this [56].

3.10. Novel Ethnobotanical Findings

To evaluate the uniqueness of the WEPs found in this study, a comparison with prior studies on WEPs in KSA, neighboring countries including (Yemen and Oman), regional countries, African countries, Asian countries, and Arab countries was carried out. This investigation yields a number of novel results that support the current corpus of information regarding WEPs in the study area. It is noteworthy that 11 of the 41 WEPs detected in this study have never been documented in KSA; these are indicated in bold in (Table 2 and Table 5). Additionally, 10 of the 41 WEPs detected in this study have never been documented in neighboring countries (including Yemen and Oman), regional countries, African countries, Asian countries, or Arab countries; these are indicated in bold in (Table 2 and Table 6). The identification of 11 new species of WEPs expands the KSA’s inventory of WEPs and emphasizes the significance of conducting more research into the rich plant diversity of the nation. This study highlights the potential to bolster local food security by recording new applications and species of newly identified edible plants, hence diversifying diets and enhancing nutrition in local communities.
Our findings indicate that the local population in Makkah has substantial indigenous knowledge on WEPs. This is demonstrated by the substantial variety of novel native wild edible species. The documented WEPs are a significant component of the historical, biological legacy, and cultural identity of KSA. Consequently, they are crucial for safeguarding and revitalizing Indigenous knowledge, culture, and identity. Furthermore, these plants are crucial to people’s food security, particularly in times of food scarcity brought on by a variety of factors. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the prevalence of using edible plants in Taif-KSA increased [118]. Additionally, the public’s health benefits from these wild plants. For instance, one of the most often mentioned salients utilized by Makkah women for respiratory, gynecological, endocrine, and nutritional purposes is Cuminum cyminum [43]. Cymbopogon schoenanthus was also used by Makkah women to treat urinary, digestive, and neurological conditions [43]. Furthermore, wild plants are essential for supporting ecosystems and ensuring ecological stability and balance in KSA [119]. In light of the serious issues of food insecurity and climate change, incorporating WEPs into the diet has far wider implications for environmental sustainability. It may also reduce agricultural footprints and facilitate the transition to more sustainable food systems [120].

4. Conclusions

This is the inaugural ethnobotanical investigation of traditional knowledge of WEP species in Makkah, KSA. The study presents findings on 41 native WEP species consumed by local people in Makkah, KSA. Local inhabitants in the study area have a robust connection with WEP species, utilizing them for nutritional purposes as part of their traditional culture. In addition, multiple WEP species were found to be used as traditional medicines, animal fodder, furniture, natural dye, for ornamental and thatching purposes, as well as in brooms, construction, forage, and shade. Therefore, WEPs necessitate prudent utilization and specific conservation efforts from all stakeholders to ensure their sustainable use in the future. This study suggests a number of strategies for the future management of WEPs that could be used to improve sustainable food security in KAS. First and foremost, recording traditional knowledge related to using indigenous wild plants as sustenance would help with the preservation of related indigenous knowledge for future generations. The second proposed strategy involves creating campaigns to raise awareness. The third involves the domestication of edible wild plants for household gardens and the creation of nurseries for seedlings of wild food plants, which would facilitate on-site conservation. Moreover, the documented WEPs must be validated by additional research on their toxicity assessment, nutritional analysis, antioxidant activity, and phytochemical composition. In conclusion, WEPs are precious resources in KSA that may support sustainable community development, guarantee food security, and safeguard the environment.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Approval from the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee, Umm Al-Qura University, was obtained (HAPO-02-K-012-2024-12-2423). Date: 26 December 2024.

Informed Consent Statement

Before a formal interview was conducted, verbal or prior informed consent was sought and obtained from the individual informants concerned, who were clearly briefed about the objectives of the study.

Data Availability Statement

All data are included in the article.

Acknowledgments

The author expresses gratitude to the 102 adults who consented to participate in interviews and to the members of the herbarium at Umm Al-Qura University for their involvement and assistance.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
KSAKingdom of Saudi Arabia.
WEPsWild edible plants.
WEPWild edible plant.
FFrequencies.
RFCRelative frequency of citation.

References

  1. Martin, G.J. Ethnobotany: A Method Manual. A ‘People and Plants’ Conservation Manual; Chapman and Hall: London, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  2. Balick, M.J. Plants, people and culture: The science of ethnobotany (New York Botanical Garden) and P.A. Cox (Brigham Young University). Scientific American Library, New York. J. Nat. Prod. 1996, 60, 428–429. [Google Scholar]
  3. Kidane, L.; Kejela, A. Food security and environment conservation through sustainable use of wild and semi-wild edible plants: A case study in Berek Natural Forest, Oromia special zone, Ethiopia. Agric. Food Secur. 2021, 10, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Shaheen, S.; Ahmad, M.; Haroon, N.; Shaheen, S.; Ahmad, M.; Haroon, N. Edible wild plants: A solution to overcome food insecurity. In Edible Wild Plants; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 41–57. [Google Scholar]
  5. Asfaw, A.; Lulekal, E.; Bekele, T.; Debella, A.; Tessema, S.; Meresa, A.; Debebe, E. Ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants and implications for food security. Trees For. People 2023, 14, 100453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Maurer, M.; Schueckler, A. Use and Potential of Wild Plants in Farm Households; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  7. Balemie, K.; Kebebew, F. Ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants in Derashe and Kucha Districts, South Ethiopia. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2006, 2, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Powell, B.; Thilsted, S.H.; Ickowitz, A.; Termote, C.; Sunderland, T.; Herforth, A. Improving diets with wild and cultivated biodiversity from across the landscape. Food Secur. 2015, 7, 535–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Alam, M.K.; Rana, Z.H.; Islam, S.N.; Akhtaruzzaman, M. Comparative assessment of nutritional composition, polyphenol profile, antidiabetic and antioxidative properties of selected edible wild plant species of Bangladesh. Food Chem. 2020, 320, 126646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Khan, H.; Jan, S.A.; Javed, M.; Shaheen, R.; Khan, Z.; Ahmad, A.; Safi, S.Z.; Imran, M. Nutritional composition, antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of selected wild edible plants. J. Food Biochem. 2016, 40, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Grace, O.O.; Kayode, J. Ethnomedicinal assessment of wild edible plants in Ijesa Region, Osun State, Nigeria. Bull. Pure Appl. Sci. 2018, 37, 89–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mokganya, M.; Tshisikhawe, M. Medicinal uses of selected wild edible vegetables consumed by Vhavenda of the Vhembe District Municipality, South Africa. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2019, 122, 184–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ju, Y.; Zhuo, J.; Liu, B.; Long, C. Eating from the wild: Diversity of wild edible plants used by Tibetans in Shangri-La Region, Yunnan, China. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2013, 9, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Alagh, Y.K. Poverty, food security and human security. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2002, 3, 271–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Elneel, F.A. Food exports and its contribution to the sudan economic development in the light of COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from simultaneous equation model (1974–2019). In From Industry 4.0 to Industry 5.0: Mapping the Transitions; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 299–312. [Google Scholar]
  16. World Health Organization (WHO). Available online: https://www.who.int/news/item/15-07-2019-world-hunger-is-still-not-going-down-after-three-years-and-obesity-is-still-growing-un-report (accessed on 1 March 2025).[Green Version]
  17. Al-Adhaileh, M.H.; Aldhyani, T.H. Artificial intelligence framework for modeling and predicting crop yield to enhance food security in Saudi Arabia. Peer J. Comput. Sci. 2022, 8, e1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Singh, A.; Dubey, R.K.; Bundela, A.K.; Abhilash, P.C. The Trilogy of Wild Crops, Traditional Agronomic Practices, and Un-Sustainable Development Goals. Agronomy 2020, 10, 648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bharucha, Z.; Pretty, J. The roles and values of wild foods in agricultural systems. Phil Trans. R. Soc. B. 2010, 365, 2913–2926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Quanash, N. Biocultural Diversity and Integrated Health Care in Madagascare; UNESCO: Paris, France, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  21. Asfaw, Z.; Tadesse, M. Prospects for sustainable use & development of wild food plants in Ethiopia. Econ. Bot. 2001, 55, 47–62. [Google Scholar]
  22. Alfarhan, A.; Al-Turki, T.; Basahy, A. Flora of Jizan Region. King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology, Riyadh. Saudi Arab. 2005, 1, 1–523. [Google Scholar]
  23. Masrahi, Y.; AL-Huqail, A.; AL-Turki, T.; Thomas, J. Odyssea mucronata, Sesbania sericea, and Sesamum alatum–new discoveries for the flora of Saudi Arabia. Turk. J. Bot. 2012, 36, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Al-Eisawi, D.M.; Al-Ruzayza, S. The flora of holy Mecca district, Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Biodivers. Conserv. 2015, 7, 173–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Alsherif, E.A. Ecological studies of Commiphora genus (myrrha) in Makkah Region, Saudi Arabia. Heliyon 2019, 5, e01615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Galal, T.M.; Al-Yasi, H.M.; Fadl, M.A. Vegetation zonation along the desert-wetland ecosystem of Taif Highland, Saudi Arabia. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2021, 28, 3374–3383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Elaidarous, A.A.; Osman, H.E.; Galal, T.M.; El-Morsy, M.H. Vegetation–environment relationship and floristic diversity of wadi Al-sharaea, Makkah Province, Saudi Arabia. Rendiconti Lincei. Sci. Fis. E Nat. 2022, 33, 169–184. [Google Scholar]
  28. Alshareef, A. Geography of Saudi Arabia South-West of the Kingdom; Dar Almerikh: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 1984; Volume 2, pp. 1–488. [Google Scholar]
  29. Al-Said, M. Traditional Medicinal Plants of Saudi Arabia, Riyadh. Amer. J. Chin. Med. 1993, 21, 291–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Rahman, M.; Mossa, J.; Al-Said, M.; Al-Yahya, M. Medicinal plant diversity in the flora of Saudi Arabia 1: A report on seven plant families. Fitotherapia 2004, 75, 149–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Al-Turki, T.; Al-Olayan, H. Contribution to the Flora of Saudi Arabia: Hail Region. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. Riyadh. Saudi Arab. 2003, 10, 190–221. [Google Scholar]
  32. Hamed, M.A.; Kasem, W.T.; Shalabi, L.F. Floristic diversity and vegetation-soil correlations in Wadi Qusai, Jazan, Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Plant Soil Sci. 2018, 25, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Alkolibi, F.M. Possible effects of global warming on agriculture and water resources in Saudi Arabia: Impacts and responses. Clim. Chang. 2002, 54, 225–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Alam, J.B.; Hussein, M.H.; Magram, S.F.; Barua, R. Impact of climate parameters on agriculture in Saudi Arabia: Case study of selected crops. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Impacts Responses 2011, 2, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Allbed, A.; Kumar, L.; Shabani, F. Climate change impacts on date palm cultivation in Saudi Arabia. J. Agric. Sci. 2017, 155, 1203–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Haque, M.I.; Khan, M.R. Impact of climate change on food security in Saudi Arabia: A roadmap to agriculture-water sustainability. J. Agribus. Dev. Emerg. Econ. 2022, 12, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Almazroui, M.; Islam, M.N.; Saeed, S.; Alkhalaf, A.K.; Dambul, R. Assessment of uncertainties in projected temperature and precipitation over the Arabian Peninsula using three categories of CMIP5 multimodel ensembles. Earth Syst. Environ. 2017, 1, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Waha, K.; Krummenauer, L.; Adams, S.; Aich, V.; Baarsch, F.; Coumou, D.; Mengel, M. Climate change impacts in the Middle East and Northern Africa (MENA) region and their implications for vulnerable population groups. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2017, 17, 1623–1638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Baig, M.B.; Al-Zahrani, K.H.; Schneider, F.; Straquadine, G.S.; Mourad, M. Food waste posing a serious threat to sustainability in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia—A systematic review. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2018, 26, 1743–1752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Faridi, M.R.; Sulphey, M.M. Food security as a prelude to sustainability: A case study in the agricultural sector, its impacts on the Al Kharj community in The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2019, 6, 1536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Liu, X.; Ma, Z.; Huang, X.; Li, L. How does grazing exclusion influence plant productivity and community structure in alpine grasslands of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau? Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 23, e01066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mseddi, K.; Alghamdi, A.; Abdelgadir, M.; Sharawy, S. Phytodiversity distribution in relation to altitudinal gradient in Salma Mountains–Saudi Arabia. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2021, 27, e01525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Alqethami, A.; Hawkins, J.A.; Teixidor-Toneu, I. Medicinal plants used by women in Mecca: Urban, Muslim and gendered knowledge. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2017, 13, 62. [Google Scholar]
  44. Qari, S.H.; Alqethami, A.; Qumsani, A.T. Ethnomedicinal evaluation of medicinal plants used for therapies by men and women in rural and urban communities in Makkah district. Saudi Pharm. J. 2024, 32, 101881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Khan, S.; Alghafari, Y. Temperature, precipitation and relative humidity fluctuation of Makkah Al Mukarramah, kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1985–2016). Trans. Mach Learn. Artif. Intell. 2018, 6, 42. [Google Scholar]
  46. Bernard, H.R. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 5th ed.; AltaMira Press: Lanham, MD, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  47. Chaudhary, S.A. Flora of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; Ministry of Agriculture and Water: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  48. Plants of the World Online. Available online: https://powo.science.kew.org (accessed on 5 September 2025).
  49. Vitalini, S.; Iriti, M.; Puricelli, C.; Ciuchi, D.; Segale, A.; Fico, G. Traditional knowledge on medicinal and food plants used in Val San Giacomo (Sondrio, Italy)—An alpine ethnobotanical study. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2013, 145, 517–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Cotton, C. Ethnobotany: Principles and Applications; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  51. Alsherif, E.A.; Ayesh, A.M.; Allogmani, A.S.; Rawi, S.M. Exploration of wild plants wealth with economic importance tolerant to difficult conditions in Khulais Governorate, Saudi Arabia. Sci. Res. Essays 2012, 7, 3903–3913. [Google Scholar]
  52. Hegazy, A.K.; Al-Rowaily, S.L.; Faisal, M.; Alatar, A.A.; El-Bana, M.I.; Assaeed, A.M. Nutritive value and antioxidant activity of some edible wild fruits in the Middle East. J. Med. Plant Res. 2013, 7, 938–946. [Google Scholar]
  53. Alfarnan, A.H.; Al-Farraj, M.M.; Hajar, A.S. Wild Edible Plants in Saudi Arabia; Springer Nature: London, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  54. Hegazy, A.K.; Alatar, A.A.; Thomas, J.; Faisal, M.; Alfarhan, A.H.; Krzywinski, K. Compatibility and complementarity of indigenous and scientific knowledge of wild plants in the highlands of southwest Saudi Arabia. J. For. Res. 2014, 25, 437–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Plant Diversity of Saudi Arabia. Available online: https://plantdiversityofsaudiarabia.info/community-impact/ (accessed on 1 March 2025).
  56. Al-Fatimi, M. Wild edible plants traditionally collected and used in southern Yemen. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2021, 17, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  57. Hussain, S.T.; Muhammad, S.; Khan, S.; Hussain, W.; Pieroni, A. Ethnobotany for food security and ecological transition: Wild food plant gathering and consumption among four cultural groups in Kurram District, NW Pakistan. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2023, 19, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Anbessa, B.; Lulekal, E.; Debella, A.; Hymete, A. Ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants in Dibatie district, Metekel zone, Benishangul Gumuz Regional State, western Ethiopia. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2024, 20, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ashagre, M.; Asfaw, Z.; Kelbessa, E. Ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants in Burji District, Segan area zone of southern nations, nationalities and peoples region (SNNPR), Ethiopia. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2016, 12, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Berihun, T.; Molla, E. Study on the diversity and use of wild edible plants in Bullen district Northwest Ethiopia. J. Bot. 2017, 2017, 8383468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ghorbani, A.; Langenberger, G.; Sauerborn, J. A comparison of the wild food plant use knowledge of ethnic minorities in Naban River Watershed National Nature Reserve, Yunnan, Sw China. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2012, 8, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Nyakoojo, C.; Tugume, P. Traditional use of wild edible plants in the communities adjacent Mabira Central Forest Reserve, Uganda. Ethnobot. Res. Appl. 2020, 20, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Bawazeer, N.M.; Al-Qahtani, S.J.; Alzaben, A.S. The association between dietary patterns and socio-demographic and lifestyle characteristics: A sample of Saudi Arabia. Curr. Res. Nutr. Food Sci. J. 2021, 9, 1046–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Mariod, A.; Tahir, H.E.; Salama, S. Food consumption patterns in Saudi Arabia. In Food and Nutrition Security in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Vol. 2: Macroeconomic Policy and Its Implication on Food and Nutrition Security; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 303–319. [Google Scholar]
  65. Al-Mssallem, M.Q.; Al-Khayri, J.M.; Alghamdi, B.A.; Alotaibi, N.M.; Alotaibi, M.O.; Al-Qthanin, R.N.; Al-Shalan, H.Z. Role of Date Palm to Food and Nutritional Security in Saudi Arabia. In Food and Nutrition Security in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Vol. 2: Macroeconomic Policy and Its Implication on Food and Nutrition Security; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 337–358. [Google Scholar]
  66. Al-Shahib, W.; Marshall, R.J. The fruit of the date palm: Its possible use as the best food for the future? Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2003, 54, 247–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Al-Farsi, M.A.; Lee, C.Y. Nutritional and functional properties of dates: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2008, 48, 877–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Al-Mssallem, M.Q.; Alqurashi, R.M.; Al-Khayri, J.M. Bioactive compounds of date palm (Phoenix dactylifera L.). In Bioactive Compounds in Underutilized Fruits and Nuts. Reference Series in Phytochemistry; Murthy, H., Bapat, V., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Al-Mssallem, M.Q. The role of date palm fruit in improving human health. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2020, 14, OE01–OE06. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Manickavasagan, A.; Mohamed, E.M.; Sukumar, E. Dates: Production, Processing, Food, and Medicinal Values; CRC Press Taylor and Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  71. Tengberg, M. Beginnings and early history of date palm garden cultivation in the Middle East. J. Arid. Environ. 2012, 86, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Gillani, S.W.; Ahmad, M.; Manzoor, M.; Waheed, M.; Iqbal, Z.; Ullah, R.; Pieroni, A.; Zhang, L.; Sulaiman, N.; Alrhmoun, M. The nexus between ecology of foraging and food security: Cross-cultural perceptions of wild food plants in Kashmir Himalaya. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2024, 20, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lulekal, E.; Asfaw, Z.; Kelbessa, E.; Van Damme, P. Wild edible plants in Ethiopia: A review on their potential to combat food insecurity. Afr. Focus 2011, 24, 71–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ali-Shtayeh, M.S.; Jamous, R.M.; Al-Shafie, J.H.; Elgharabah, W.A.; Kherfan, F.A.; Qarariah, K.H.; Khdair, I.S.; Soos, I.M.; Musleh, A.A.; Isa, B.A. Traditional knowledge of wild edible plants used in Palestine (Northern West Bank): A comparative study. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2008, 4, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Bhatia, H.; Sharma, Y.P.; Manhas, R.K.; Kumar, K. Traditionally used wild edible plants of district Udhampur, J&K, India. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2018, 14, 7. [Google Scholar]
  76. Tadesse, D.; Masresha, G.; Lulekal, E.; Alemu, A. Ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants in Metema and Quara districts, Northwestern Ethiopia. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2025, 21, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Salih, N.K.E.M.; Ali, A.H. Wild food trees in Eastern Nuba mountains, Sudan: Use, diversity, and threatening factors. J. Agric. Rural. Dev. Trop. Subtrop. 2014, 115, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  78. Cheng, Z.; Lu, X.; Lin, F.; Naeem, A.; Long, C. Ethnobotanical study on wild edible plants used by Dulong people in northwestern Yunnan, China. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2022, 18, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Liu, S.; Huang, X.; Bin, Z.; Yu, B.; Lu, Z.; Hu, R.; Long, C. Wild edible plants and their cultural significance among the Zhuang ethnic group in Fangchenggang, Guangxi, China. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2023, 19, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Fang, Q.; Cheng, Z.; Zhang, R.; Luo, B.; Long, C. Wild edible plants of the Yao people in Jianghua, China: Plant-associated traditional knowledge and practice vital for food security and ecosystem service. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2024, 20, 80. [Google Scholar]
  81. Amin, M.; Aziz, M.A.; Pieroni, A.; Nazir, A.; Al-Ghamdi, A.A.; Kangal, A.; Ahmad, K.; Abbasi, A.M. Edible wild plant species used by different linguistic groups of Kohistan Upper Khy- ber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), Pakistan. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2023, 19, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. ERTAŞ, F.; ÇELİK, S. A Mixed Research on Determining the Edible Wild Herbs (EWH) Consumption of Local People in Şırnak. J. Tour. Gastron. Stud. 2024, 12, 1347–1368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Alemneh, D. Ethnobotany of wild edible plants in Yilmana Densa and Quarit Districts of West Gojjam Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. EthnoBot. Res. Appl. 2020, 20, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Khakurel, D.; Uprety, Y.; Łuczaj, Ł.; Rajbhandary, S. Foods from the wild: Local knowledge, use pattern and distribution in Western Nepal. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0258905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Meitei, L.R.; De, A.; Mao, A.A. An ethnobotanical study on the wild edible plants used by forest dwellers in Yangoupokpi Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary, Manipur, India. Ethnobot. Res. Appl. 2022, 23, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Guzo, S.; Lulekal, E.; Nemomissa, S. Ethnobotanical study of underutilized wild edible plants and threats to their long-term existence in Midakegn District, West Shewa Zone, Central Ethiopia. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2023, 115, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ayele, D. Ethnobotanical survey of wild edible plants and their contribution for food security used by Gumuz people in Kamash Woreda; Benishangul Gumuz Regional State, Ethiopia. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 2017, 12, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Turreira-García, N.; Theilade, I.; Meilby, H.; Sørensen, M. Wild edible plant knowledge, distribution and transmission: A case study of the Achí Mayans of Guatemala. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2015, 11, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Al-Dous, E.; George, B.; Al-Mahmoud, M.; Al-Jaber, M.; Wang, H.; Salameh, Y.; Al-Azwani, E.K.; Chaluvadi, S.; Pontaroli, A.C.; DeBarry, J.; et al. De novo genome sequencing and comparative genomics of date palm (Phoenix dactylifera L.). Nat. Biotechnol. 2011, 29, 521–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Al-Alawi, R.A.; Al-Mashiqri, J.H.; Al-Nadabi, J.S.M.; Al-Shihi, B.I.; Baqi, Y. Date palm tree (Phoenix dactylifera L.). Nat. Prod. Ther. options. Front Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Wang, J.; Ding, X.; Guo, C.A.; Zhang, X.; Feng, H.; Yang, H.; Wang, Y. An ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants used by the Tibetan in the Rongjia River Valley, Tibet, China. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2023, 19, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Alqethami, A.; Aldhebiani, A.Y.; Teixidor-Toneu, I. Medicinal plants used in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: A gender perspective. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2020, 257, 112899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Alqethami, A.; Aldhebiani, A.Y. Medicinal plants used in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: Phytochemical screening. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2021, 28, 805–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Aldhebiani, A.Y.; Alqethami, A.; Alqathama, A.A.; Alarjah, M.; Abdullah, O.A. HPLC and GC-MS Analysis of Five Medicinal Plants Used in Folk Medicine to Treat Respiratory Diseases in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. J. Pioneer. Med. Sci. 2024, 13, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Alqethami, A. Exploration of Ethnomedicinal Plants and Their Traditional Practices for Therapies During Holy Month of Ramadan İn Makkah, Saudi Arabia. J. Pioneer. Med. Sci. 2024, 13, 56–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Aboukhalaf, A.; Tbatou, M.; Kalili, A.; Naciri, K.; Moujabbiret, S.; Sahel, K.; Rocha, J.M.; Belahsen, R. Traditional knowledge and use of wild edible plants in Sidi Bennour region (Central Morocco). Ethnobot. Res. Appl. 2022, 23, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Bortolotto, I.M.; Amorozo, M.; Neto, G.G.; Oldeland, J.; Damasceno-Junior, G.A. Knowledge and use of wild edible plants in rural com- munities along Paraguay River, Pantanal, Brazil. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2015, 11, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Lalmuanpuii, R.; Zodinpuii, B.; Bohia, B.; Zothanpuia Lalbiaknunga, J.; Singh, P.K. Wild edible vegetables of ethnic communities of Mizoram (North east India): An ethnobotanical study in thrust of marketing potential. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2024, 20, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Xie, J.; Liu, F.; Jia, X.; Zhao, Y.; Liu, X.; Luo, M.; He, Y.; Liu, S.; Wu, F. Ethnobotanical study of the wild edible and healthy functional plant resources of the Gelao people in northern Guizhou, China. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2022, 18, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Menendez-Baceta, G.; Aceituno-Mata, L.; Reyes-García, V.; Tardío, J.; Salpeteur, M.; Pardo-De-Santayana, M. The importance of cultural factors in the distribution of medicinal plant knowledge: A case study in four Basque regions. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2015, 161, 116–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Hassen, A. Diversity and potential contribution of wild edible plants to sustainable food security in North Wollo, Ethiopia. Biodiversitas J. Biol. Divers. 2021, 22, 2501–2510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Abbasi, A.M.; Khan, M.A.; Khan, N.; Shah, M.H. Ethnobotanical survey of medicinally important wild edible fruits species used by tribal communities of Lesser Himalayas-Pakistan. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2013, 148, 528–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Addis, G.; Urga, K.; Dikasso, D. Ethnobotanical study of edible wild plants in some selected districts of Ethiopia. Hum. Ecol. 2005, 33, 83–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Dogan, Y. Traditionally used wild edible greens in the Aegean Region of Turkey. Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. Pol. Tow. Bot. 2012, 81, 329–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Mahklouf, M. Ethnobotanical study of edible wild plants in Libya. Eur. J. Ecol. 2019, 5, 30–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Zeghad, N.; Ahmed, E.; Belkhiri, A.; Heyden, Y.V.; Demeyer, K. Antioxidant activity of Vitis vinifera, Punica granatum, Citrus aurantium and Opuntia ficus indica fruits cultivated in Algeria. Heliyon 2019, 5, e01575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Miller, A.G.; Morris, M. Plants of Dhofar, the Southern Region of Oman: Traditional, Economic, and Medicinal Uses; Office of the Adviser for Conservation of the Environment, Diwan of Royal Court, Sultanate of Oman: Muscat, Oman, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  108. Tukan, S.K.; Takruri, H.R.; El-Eisawi, D.M. The use of wild edible plants in the Jordanian diet. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 1998, 49, 225–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Marouf, M.; Batal, M.; Moledor, S.; Talhouk, S.N. Exploring the practice of traditional wild plant collection in Lebanon. Food Cult Soc. 2015, 18, 335–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Pieroni, A.; Zahir, H.; Amin, H.I.M.; Sõukand, R. Where tulips and crocuses are popular food snacks: Kurdish traditional foraging reveals traces of mobile pastoralism in Southern Iraqi Kurdistan. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2019, 15, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Hadjichambis, A.C.H.; Hadjichambi, D.P.; Della, A.; Giusti, M.E.; Pasquale, D.C.; Lenzarini, C.; Censorii, E.; Tejero, M.R.G.; Rojas, C.P.S.; Gutierrez, J.R.R.; et al. Wild and semi-domesticated food plant consumption in seven circum-Mediterranean areas. Int. J. Food Sci. Nut. 2008, 59, 383–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Obied, W.; Mohamoud, E.; Mohamed, O. Portulaca oleracea (Purslane): Nutritive composition and clinicopathological effects on Nubian goats. Small Rumin. Res. 2003, 48, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Samuelsson, G.; Farah, M.H.; Claeson, P.; Hagos, M.; Thulin, M.; Hedberg, O.; Warfa, A.M.; Hassan, A.O.; Elmi, A.H.; Abdurahman, A.D.; et al. Inventory of plants used in traditional medicine in Somalia. IV. Plants of the families Passifloraceae-Zygophyllaceae. J. Ethnopharmacol. 1993, 38, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Miller, A.G.; Morris, M. Ethnoflora of the Socotra Archipelago; Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh: Edinburgh, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  115. Urso, V.; Signorini, M.A.; Tonini, M.; Bruschi, P. Wild medicinal and food plants used by communities living in Mopane woodlands of southern Angola: Results of an ethnobotanical field investigation. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2016, 177, 126–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Ivanišová, E.; Grygorieva, O.; Abrahamová, V.; Schubertova, Z.; Terentjeva, M.; Brindza, J. Characterization of morphological parameters and biological activity of jujube fruit (Ziziphus jujuba Mill.). J. Berry Res. 2017, 7, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. El Maaiden, E.; El Kharrassi, Y.; Moustaid, K.; Essamadi, A.K.; Nasser, B. Comparative study of phytochemical profile between Ziziphus spina christi and Ziziphus lotus from Morocco. J. Food Meas. Charact 2019, 13, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Almathkori, R.S.; Alotaibi, R.N.; Alhumaidi, M.S.; Alotibi, S.T.; Althobaiti, S.A.; Farag, S.F. Prevalence of Using Medicinal and Edible Plants During the Covid-19 Pandemic in Taif-Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Pharm. Res. Allied Sci. 2023, 12, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Aati, H.; El-Gamal, A.; Shaheen, H.; Kayser, O. Traditional use of ethnomedicinal native plants in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2019, 15, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Ray, A.; Ray, R.; Sreevidya, E.A. How many wild edible plants do we eat—Their diversity, use, and implications for sustainable food system: An exploratory analysis in India. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diversity 17 00785 g001
Figure 1. Map of KSA [43] showing the Makkah region and study sites.
Figure 1. Map of KSA [43] showing the Makkah region and study sites.
Diversity 17 00785 g001
Diversity 17 00785 g002
Figure 2. Percentage of wild edible plants species in each family.
Figure 2. Percentage of wild edible plants species in each family.
Diversity 17 00785 g002
Diversity 17 00785 g003
Figure 3. Edible parts of wild edible plants in Makkah, KSA.
Figure 3. Edible parts of wild edible plants in Makkah, KSA.
Diversity 17 00785 g003
Diversity 17 00785 g004
Figure 4. Life form of wild edible plants in Makkah, KSA.
Figure 4. Life form of wild edible plants in Makkah, KSA.
Diversity 17 00785 g004
Diversity 17 00785 g005
Figure 5. Additional uses of wild edible plants.
Figure 5. Additional uses of wild edible plants.
Diversity 17 00785 g005
Table 1. Informants’ sociodemographic attributes.
Table 1. Informants’ sociodemographic attributes.
VariableCategoryNumber of InformantsPercentageNumber of Plants ListedAverage Number of Plants Listed
GenderFemale7876%1511.94
Male2424%341.42
Age20–251919%371.95
26–3077%152.14
31–351717%311.82
36–401313%262
41–451111%141.27
46–501212%262.17
51–5577%81.14
56–601111%151.36
61–6511%11
71 and older44%123
Marital statusSingle2726%531.96
Married6867%1131.66
Widowed44%143.5
Divorced33%51.67
EducationIlliterate1010%232.3
Primary education66%61
Secondary education2625%361.36
Undergraduate6059%1171.95
Table 2. WEPs listed with their scientific name, families, local names, edible parts, mode of preparation, mode of utilization, voucher specimen, additional uses and frequency (F), and relative frequency of citation. Plants not documented in KSA are indicated in bold.
Table 2. WEPs listed with their scientific name, families, local names, edible parts, mode of preparation, mode of utilization, voucher specimen, additional uses and frequency (F), and relative frequency of citation. Plants not documented in KSA are indicated in bold.
Scientific NameFamilyLocal NamePart (s) UsedMode of PreparationMode of UtilizationVoucher SpecimenAdditional UsesFRFC
Allium baeticum Boiss.AmaryllidaceaeKorathLeavesFresh, ripe, and uncookedEaten rawEPM-33-40.04
Allium vinicolor WendelboAmaryllidaceaeBasalBulbsFresh, ripe, and uncookedEatenEPM-4-10.01
Apium graveolens L.ApiaceaeKorfussStems and leavesFresh, ripe, and uncookedEaten rawEPM-37-40.04
Avena byzantina K. KochPoaceaeShoofanSeedsDried, ground seeds, and cookedEaten as breadEPM-23-170.17
Beta vulgaris L.AmaranthaceaeShamandarRootsFresh, ripe, and uncookedEaten as salad and with foodEPM-13Medicine; natural dye80.08
Citrullus colocynthis (L.) Schrad.CucurbitaceaeHandhalSeedsDried, cookedMunchingEPM-11Medicine10.01
Cucumis melo L.CucurbitaceaeShammamFruitsFresh, ripe, and uncookedFruit eatenEPM-25-10.01
Cuminum cyminum L.ApiaceaeKamunSeedsDried, infusion, ground seedsEaten with salad and food; drunk as a hot beverageEPM-34Medicine10.01
Cymbopogon schoenanthus (L.) Spreng.PoaceaeAthkharLeavesDried, decoctionEaten with bread and dates; drunk as a hot beverage EPM-1Medicine30.03
Eruca vesicaria subsp. sativa (Mill.)BrassicaceaeJerjeerLeavesFresh, ripe, and uncookedEaten as saladEPM-8Medicine30.03
Ficus carica L.MoraceaeTeenFruitsFresh, ripe, and uncookedFruit eatenEPM-7Medicine120.12
Ficus palmata Forssk.MoraceaeHamatFruitsFresh, ripe, and uncookedFruit eatenEPM-9Medicine20.02
Glebionis coronaria (L.) TzvelevAsteraceaeOghowanStemsFresh, ripe, and uncookedEaten rawEPM-14Medicine10.01
Hibiscus sabdariffa L.MalvaceaeKarkadahFlowersDried, infusionEaten with salad and food; drunk as a hot beverageEPM-27Medicine, Natural dye20.02
Hyphaene thebaica (L.) Mart.ArecaceaeDoomFruitsFresh, ripe, and uncookedEaten fresh pericarp of the fruitEPM-40Construction, forage, shade, thatch, furniture, brooms and ornamental.30.03
Lactuca serriola L.AsteraceaeKhasLeavesFresh, ripe, and uncookedEaten as saladEPM-38-10.01
Lepidium sativum L.BrassicaceaeRashadLeavesFresh, ripe, and uncookedEaten with salad and foodEPM-17Medicine20.02
Leptadenia pyrotechnica (Forssk.) Decne.ApocynaceaeMarkhLeavesDried, cookedWith foodEPM-36Medicine, Animal fodder30.03
Malva neglecta Wallr.MalvaceaeKhoppaizahLeavesDried, cookedEaten with foodEPM-12-20.02
Matricaria aurea (Loefl.) Sch. Bip.AsteraceaeBaboonigFlowersDried, infusionEaten with salad and food; drunk as a hot beverageEPM-2Medicine20.02
Mentha longifolia (L.) L.LamiaceaeHabagStems and leavesFresh, ripe, and uncooked; infusionEaten as a salad; drunk as a hot beverageEPM-39Medicine20.02
Nigella sativa L.RanunculaceaeHabat AlbarakahSeedsDried and uncookedWith foodEPM-31Medicine10.01
Ocimum basilicum L.LamiaceaeRehanLeavesFresh, ripe, and uncookedEaten with salad and foodEPM-18Medicine; ornamental60.06
Olea europaea L.OleaceaeZaitoonFruitsFresh, ripe, and uncookedFruit eatenEPM-20Medicine60.06
Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill.CactaceaeBirshumiFruitsFresh, ripe, and uncookedFruit eatenEPM-3-20.02
Origanum syriacum L.LamiaceaeZatarLeavesDried leavesEaten with salad and foodEPM-19Medicine90.09
Panicum turgidum Forssk.PoaceaeDukhnSeedsDried, ground, seeds and cookedAs breadEPM-41Animal fodder; thatch160.16
Phoenix dactylifera L.ArecaceaeTamirFruitsFresh, ripe, and uncookedFruit eatenEPM-5Construction, forage, shade, thatch, furniture, brooms and ornamental.200.2
Portulaca oleracea L.PortulacaceaeRejlahLeavesFresh, ripe, and uncookedEaten as salad and with foodEPM-16-190.19
Prunus arabica (Oliv.) MeikleRosaceaeLwzFruitsFresh, ripe, and uncookedEaten rawEPM-35-70.07
Pulicaria incisa (Lam.) DC.AsteraceaeShay AljablStems and leavesDried; infusionEaten with salad and food; drunk as a hot beverageEPM-24Medicine20.02
Raphanus raphanistrum L.BrassicaceaeKhardalSeedsDried, ground seeds, and cookedEaten with salad and foodEPM-22-20.02
Raphanus sativus L.BrassicaceaeFijelRootsFresh, ripe, and uncookedEaten rawEPM-30-10.01
Rubus sanctus Schreb.RosaceaeTootFruitsFresh, ripe, and uncookedFruit eatenEPM-6Medicine; natural dye60.06
Rumex nervosus VahlPolygonaceaeAtrahLeavesFresh, ripe, and uncookedEaten rawEPM-29Medicine10.01
Saccharum spontaneum L.PoaceaeQasabStemsFresh, ripe, and uncookedEaten raw; drunk as juiceEPM-32-10.01
Sesamum indicum L.PedaliaceaeSumsumSeedsDried; cooked as oilWith foodEPM-28Medicine10.01
Sorghum bicolor (L.) MoenchPoaceaeThorahSeedsDried, ground seeds, and cookedAs breadEPM-15Animal fodder10.01
Suaeda maritima (L.) Dumort.AmaranthaceaeHamidLeavesFresh, ripe, and uncookedEaten rawEPM-10Medicine30.03
Tamarindus indica L.FabaceaeTamur-hendiFruitFresh, ripe, and uncookedEaten with foodEPM-26Medicine10.01
Ziziphus spina-christi (L.) Desf.RhamnaceaeSederFruitsFresh, ripe, and uncookedFruit eatenEPM-21Medicine60.06
Table 3. Preference ranking of WEPs used in Makkah, KSA.
Table 3. Preference ranking of WEPs used in Makkah, KSA.
Plant SpeciesKey Informants (1 to 10)SumRank
12345678910
Phoenix dactylifera101010101010101010101001st
Panicum turgidum810988888109862nd
Prunus arabica571091010101095853rd
Ficus carica6109651010889814th
Avena byzantine99541059986745th
Origanum syriacum84591087688736th
Beta vulgaris10557487678677th
Portulaca oleracea4585138778568th
Table 4. Ranking of threats to the conservation of wild edible plants by priority in Makkah, KSA.
Table 4. Ranking of threats to the conservation of wild edible plants by priority in Makkah, KSA.
Major ThreatsKey Informants (1 to 10)SumRank
12345678910
Overgrazing5545555445471st
Fuel wood collection4354343353372nd
The repeated use of multiple species3233421534303rd
Urban expansion1411234122214th
Climate change2122112211155th
Table 5. Novel WEPs for Makkah and similar WEPs used in other KSA regions based on the literature review.
Table 5. Novel WEPs for Makkah and similar WEPs used in other KSA regions based on the literature review.
Novel WEPs Makkah (11 Species)WEPs Used in Other KSA Regions (30 Species)
Allium baeticumApium graveolens [52,53]Lepidium sativum [53]Raphanus sativus [53]
Allium vinicolorAvena byzantine [53]Malva neglecta [53]Rubus sanctus [53]
Cuminum cyminumBeta vulgaris [53]Matricaria aurea [53]Rumex nervosus [53]
Cymbopogon schoenanthusCitrullus colocynthis [53]Mentha longifolia [53]Sesamum indicum [53]
Glebionis coronariaCucumis melo [53]Nigella sativa [53]Sorghum bicolor [53]
Leptadenia pyrotechnicaEruca vesicaria subsp. sativa [52,53]Ocimum basilicum [53]Suaeda maritima [53]
Opuntia ficus-indicaFicus carica [53]Olea europaea [53,54]Tamarindus indica [53]
Panicum turgidumFicus palmata [52,53,54]Origanum syriacum [53]Ziziphus spina-christi [51,53]
Prunus arabicaHibiscus sabdariffa [53]Phoenix dactylifera [51,53]
Raphanus raphanistrumHyphaene thebaica [51,53,54]Portulaca oleracea [53]
Saccharum spontaneumLactuca serriola [53]Pulicaria incisa [53]
Table 6. Similar WEPs used in neighboring countries (Yemen and Oman; 6 WEPs) and other Asian and African countries (5 WEPs).
Table 6. Similar WEPs used in neighboring countries (Yemen and Oman; 6 WEPs) and other Asian and African countries (5 WEPs).
Same WEP Used in Neighboring Countries (Yemen and Oman)Same WEP Used in Other Asian and African Countries
Ficus palmata Yeman [56]Ficus palmata Pakistan [102]; Ethiopia [103]
Lactuca serriola Yeman [56]Lactuca serriola L. Turkey [104]; Libya [105]
Opuntia ficus-indica Yeman [56]Opuntia ficus-indica Algeria [106]; Ethiopia [103]; Libya [105]
Portulaca oleracea Yeman [56]; Oman [107]Portulaca oleracea Jordan [108]; Palestine [74]; Lebanon [109]; Iraq [110]; Turkey [104]; Egypt [111]; Libya [105]; Morocco [111]; Sudan [112]; Somalia [113]
Rumex nervosus Yeman [56]Ziziphus spina-christi Soqotra [114]; Angola [115]; Ethiopia [7]; Libya [105]; Egypt [111]; Sudan [77]; Palestine [74]; Tunisia [116]; Morocco [117]
Ziziphus spina-christi Yeman [56]; Oman [107]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alqethami, A. Ethnobotanical Assessment of the Diversity of Wild Edible Plants and Potential Contribution to Enhance Sustainable Food Security in Makkah, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Diversity 2025, 17, 785. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17110785

AMA Style

Alqethami A. Ethnobotanical Assessment of the Diversity of Wild Edible Plants and Potential Contribution to Enhance Sustainable Food Security in Makkah, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Diversity. 2025; 17(11):785. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17110785

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alqethami, Afnan. 2025. "Ethnobotanical Assessment of the Diversity of Wild Edible Plants and Potential Contribution to Enhance Sustainable Food Security in Makkah, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" Diversity 17, no. 11: 785. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17110785

APA Style

Alqethami, A. (2025). Ethnobotanical Assessment of the Diversity of Wild Edible Plants and Potential Contribution to Enhance Sustainable Food Security in Makkah, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Diversity, 17(11), 785. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17110785

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop