Next Article in Journal
Improving Design Project Management in Remote Learning
Previous Article in Journal
The Origins, Evolution, Current State, and Future of Green Products and Consumer Research: A Bibliometric Analysis
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessment of the Nutritional Value of Selected Wild Food Plants in Türkiye and Their Promotion for Improved Nutrition

1
Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, 00153 Rome, Italy
2
Central Research Institute of Food and Feed Control, 16160 Bursa, Türkiye
3
Aegean Agricultural Research Institute, 35661 Menemen, Türkiye
4
Field Crops Central Research Institute, Şehit Cem Ersever Cad. No: 11 Yenimahalle, 06560 Ankara, Türkiye
5
Antalya Metropolitan Municipality, Department of Agricultural Services, Yüksekalan Mahallesi Adnan Menderes Bulvarı No: 20, Muratpaşa, 07310 Antalya, Türkiye
6
Directorate of National Botanical Gardens of Türkiye, Üniversiteler, Çankaya, 06800 Ankara, Türkiye
7
General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies, Üniversiteler Mah. Dumlupınar Bulvarı, Eskişehir Yolu 10. Km, Çankaya, 06800 Ankara, Türkiye
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(17), 11015; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141711015
Submission received: 27 May 2022 / Revised: 28 July 2022 / Accepted: 31 August 2022 / Published: 3 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Food)

Abstract

:
Türkiye represents one of the world’s biodiversity hotspots, containing over 11,000 species of plants, with an estimated 10% being edible. Wild food plants, especially in rural areas, are collected and eaten or sold in local markets, complementing people’s diets, and represent a source of additional income for foraging households. Yet, the use of wild food plants is declining, with both their dietary and cultural values being undermined. Wild food plants can be used as a healthy dietary alternative to imported and ultra-processed foods, particularly as the Turkish population increasingly suffers from diet-related diseases. Using a unique and innovative approach to mainstream biodiversity for food and nutrition, wild food plants from five different regions of Türkiye were analyzed to determine their nutrient composition, and to evaluate their contribution not only to diets and nutrition, but to promoting a more sustainable food system. Examples are presented of how the approach was put into practice and how action was taken to (i) strengthen the evidence of the nutritional value of wild food plants; (ii) use this knowledge to shape new policies and identify emerging markets for food biodiversity; and, (iii) improve awareness of consumers, using capacity building and farmer training, gastronomy, and cultural events.

1. Introduction

The earliest documented ethnobotanical study of Turkish wild flora dates to 40 to 90 CE, when the Greek botanist Pedanius Dioscorides published De Materia Medica on Anatolian folk medicine [1]. Since then, most research focused on the medicinal properties of wild plants, which are species that grow spontaneously in self-sustaining populations outside cultivated areas, in field margins, forests, woodland, grassland, and wetlands, independently of human activity, from where they are collected [2]. It is only in the last two decades that field studies in Türkiye started to document the use of wild plant species used for food. From 2000 to 2020, 33 ethnobotanical surveys were undertaken by Turkish scientists to document the existence and use of Turkish wild food plants (WFP) across half of the country’s 81 provinces and in all of Türkiye’s regions [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35] (Figure 1).
Further, from 2012 to 2019, the GEF-supported project Mainstreaming Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use for Improved Nutrition and Well-Being (Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition Project, or BFN for short) was implemented in Türkiye, among other countries, to strengthen the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity for food and nutrition, by improving the knowledge base of locally important edible biodiversity. Using an innovative, holistic approach illustrated in Figure 2, nutritional data generated on locally important WFP was used to mainstream local diversity in relevant policy and development programs, and raise awareness of the importance of conserving and using this diversity to improve diets [37,38,39].
Most of the areas where the above-mentioned studies were undertaken overlap with the four areas of endemism identified by Noorozi et al. [36] (Figure 1), which are characterized by plant species richness and endemic diversity. At the intersection of three of the world’s 34 biodiversity hotspots (Mediterranean, Caucasian, Irano-Anatolian), Türkiye’s topographic and environmental heterogeneity results in a diversity of habitats that promote increased speciation rates [36]. Home to 11,707 plant species, of which one third (3649) are endemic [1,40], Türkiye has one of the richest floras of the temperate zone. Turkish Ethnobotany Database records from 1928–2014 reveal that 1406 plant taxa have been used as a food source in the past [41].
Collectively, the studies established that collecting wild edibles is still a common practice among rural communities across Türkiye, albeit mostly among older generations, particularly women [4,8,9,10,14,21,25,39], and where, for historical and geographical reasons, people remain relatively isolated [20,23].
The ethnobotanical studies helped to capture the irreplaceable loss of traditional knowledge that often accompanies the migration of young people from rural to urban areas [11,22,26,27]. Yet, the existence of Turkish WFP is also threatened by overexploitation and unsustainable collection practices, over-grazing, the over-use of herbicides, but, most importantly, by land-use changes and habitat destruction, which account for 62% of the threats reported to these genetic resources [1,4,15,21,42,43,44,45].
Despite the recognition that WFP could provide important dietary contributions to rural communities, the studies supplied limited evidence of the nutrient composition of WFP, other than suggesting that “wild leafy vegetables probably provide the same level of nutrients as cultivated species” [8,23] or reporting information on single species, including from neighboring countries [46,47,48,49]. This lack of evidence is a missed opportunity to harness the nutritional properties of WFP to help counteract the diet-related problems that the country is facing. Türkiye has, in fact, made limited progress towards controlling rising levels of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and meeting its national and global nutrition targets [50,51], thus, undermining the country’s economic development [52]. The BFN project partly filled this knowledge gap by determining the nutritional properties of 39 WFP, and made some headway in using this evidence to mainstream biodiversity for food and nutrition, including WFP, in national policy and programs for improved diets and nutrition. The methodology used and examples of how the unique approach developed by BFN was put into practice in Türkiye is presented in the sections below.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Areas and Ethnobotanical Studies

Based on preliminary ethnobotanical work undertaken by Tan and Taskin [53], and on baseline assessments carried out as part of the BFN project to identify the regions with highest concentrations of WFP and associated traditional knowledge [39], the BFN project in Türkiye focused on five geographically distinct areas—the Aegean, Black Sea, Central Anatolia, Marmara, and Mediterranean Regions. Ten provinces within these regions were chosen as the project sites (Figure 1), which included:
  • Aegean: İzmir, Aydın, and Muğla;
  • Black Sea: Kastamonu and Sinop;
  • Central Anatolia: Konya and Karaman;
  • Marmara: Balıkesir;
  • Mediterranean: Antalya and Mersin.
Data collection and sampling protocols were developed for ethnobotanical studies, and training of enumerators was carried out to collect information from local markets, local restaurants, supermarkets, and a select number of villages on the trade and consumption of WFP and to assess their socio-economic importance. Overall, the survey was carried out in 133 villages. A total of 2587 questionnaires documented information from collectors and consumers living in rural areas, while feedback from 1086 urban consumers was collected across the target regions. Data were obtained on collection methods, collection sites, and commercial value of WFP, as well as information on the species’ foraging seasons, and preparation and consumption practices.

2.2. Prioritization Process

With such a wide selection of WFP taxa to choose from, and with nutritional label testing costing up to USD 1000 for a single species [38], it became necessary to establish a set of criteria to reduce the list of WFP for food composition analysis to a manageable number. A tailor-made sustainability index (Table 1) was developed to rank and evaluate the WFP based on known nutritional, environmental, and economic data. Criteria include the species’ likely nutritional benefits based on pre-existing food composition data, conservation status and level of endemism, distribution, market potential, multi-functionality, traditional and modern food uses, as well as value chain upgrading and market development potential.
Using the sustainability index, the sample size was narrowed down to 39 WFP (Table S1—Supplementary Materials), as well as one mushroom (Lactarius deliciosus), three landraces of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata), einkorn wheat (Triticum monococcum), and taro (Colocasia esculenta). To further optimize resources, a desk review was carried out to identify existing data available in food composition databases and tables, as well as in the scientific literature. Where data were missing, unreliable, or incomplete, the project undertook plant collections for laboratory analysis.

2.3. Sampling Protocol and Sample Preparation

Standardized sampling and analytical protocols described in Greenfield and Southgate [54] were used for sample collection (including quantity, number of batches to capture variation, size and property of samples), storage (temperature regulation), and plant sample transfer (packaging, means of transport). Sampling forms were used to record local food names, sampling region, origin of sample, date, and other relevant details. Plants were taxonomically classified using the “Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands” [55]. Herbarium specimens were conserved at the Aegean Agricultural Research Institute. Representative composite samples for food composition analysis were prepared for each species using three batches of 600 g each. The plant samples were transported to the laboratory in a cold system at 20 ± 5 °C on the same day of collection to prevent nutrient loss.

2.4. Nutrient Analysis

Available carbohydrate, moisture, protein, fat, dietary fiber, and crude ash were assayed for all 39 WFP using proximate analysis. Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) was used to establish micronutrient content for the species, including minerals (Fe, P, Ca, Mg, K, Na, Zn, Cu) and vitamins (vitamin C, B1, B2, niacin, beta-carotene, alpha tocopherol). Detailed information on the analytical methods used can be found in Guzelsoy et al. [56].
Due to increased interest in the health-promoting effects of plant polyphenols conferred by their antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antitumor, and antimicrobial properties [57,58], polyphenols analysis and antioxidant activity evaluation was also carried out using 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl radical scavenging effect(DPPH) and Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity/ABTS radical cation decolorization assay method(TEAC) [59]. Relevant results for selected WFP are presented in Section 3.2.
Additionally, aromatic compounds were determined for fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Mill.), sorrel (Rumex acetosella L.), foxtail lily (Eremurus spectabilis M. Bieb.), golden thistle (Scolymus hispanicus L.), and catbriers (Smilax excelsa), using a sampling method in combination with headspace solid phase microextraction (HSSPME), simultaneous distillation extraction (SDE) and steam distillation (SD), followed by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) detection, following the protocol developed by Zhang and Li [60].

3. Results

Work undertaken by BFN Türkiye helped validate previously reported qualitative and quantitative assessments of the value of Turkish WFP. In the following section, outcomes are presented stemming from the ethnobotanical surveys undertaken in five target regions, the food composition analysis of target WFP, and the project’s policy mainstreaming and awareness-raising efforts to raise the recognition and understanding of WFP as important dietary allies to fight food and nutrition insecurity in the country.

3.1. Ethnobotanical Data

In accord with previous ethnobotanical studies, the surveys undertaken in Türkiye during the BFN project established that awareness and consumption of WFP is higher in rural areas, with marked differences within settlements, as well as within households in the same settlement. In contrast, in urban centers, only 32% of the respondents acknowledge consuming WFP, and awareness of WFP is largely limited to the most common species found on sale in local markets.
As with previous studies, the surveys helped confirm that WFP are still widely used in local and traditional cooking in the target geographies (Table S1—Supplementary Materials). Some are reportedly eaten raw, while others are cooked, requiring more complex processing and preparation. WFP are used in savory and sweet dishes alike, such as in the preparation of the traditional molasses-like syrup pekmez made from the berries of Syrian juniper (Juniperus drupacea), or of helva made with the roots of Gypsophila arrostii. In most of the study sites, leafy greens, roots, and fruits are reported to be eaten raw, directly after gathering. Many WFP are used in salads with an olive oil and lemon dressing or with yoghurt. Others are preserved for year-round storage by deep-freezing or pickling. Other preparation methods include frying or sautéing in olive oil, use in omelets, or as filling for pies and in Turkish börek. The leaves of some species are also used to make stuffed rolls (dolma/sarma) filled with rice and/or minced meat cooked and eaten with yoghurt. Other WFP are used to make traditional soups called çorba. Some WFP are reported as being multipurpose and used in traditional medicine, such as sweet flag (Acorus calamus). Of the identified WFP, 29 species are used in traditional herbal medicine for curing almost 40 ailments, including diabetes, indigestion, common colds, kidney stones, coughs, cardio-vascular problems, mouth, and toothache.
Across the target regions, interviewed WFP consumers are generally above 50 years of age, have only completed primary education, are farmers or employed in agriculture (93% in the Black Sea Region), and are collectors themselves. In each region, which is characterized by its own distinct flora, the quantities of WFP consumed varies. Most respondents report eating wild edibles once to twice per week and selling the largest proportion of their collection to local markets. The rarer and harder to collect species are kept and consumed at home.

3.2. Nutritional Analysis

Macronutrient analysis of the 39 WFP reveals that Ferulago trachycarpa, knotgrass (Polygonum cognatum), and catbriers (S. excelsa) contain the highest amounts of dietary fiber (10.80, 5.70, and 5.17 g/100 g, respectively) providing more than 20% of the Dietary Reference Intake (DRI) [61]. Compared to common parsley (Petroselinum crispum), which is widely consumed in Türkiye, F. trachycarpa contains 2.5 times the amounts of dietary fiber (Figure 3), useful for lowering the risk of coronary heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and gastrointestinal problems [62,63].
Antioxidant activity analysis reveals that F. trachycarpa, knotgrass (P. cognatum), and catbriers (S. excelsa) contain the highest amounts of dietary fiber (10.80, 5.70, and 5.17 g/100 g, respectively) providing more than 20% of the Dietary Reference Intake (DRI) [61].
Analysis shows most WFP to be excellent sources of minerals, particularly iron (Fe) (Figure 4), zinc (Zn) (Figure 5), calcium (Ca) (Figure 6), and phosphorous (P) to a lesser extent. Knotgrass (P. cognatum) and watercress (Nasturtium officinale) are rich in iron, providing over 100% of the DRI requirements per 100 g of fresh weight. The highest contents of zinc are observed in crown daisy (Glebionis coronaria). Furthermore, mineral concentrations varies widely among the studied species.
Many WFP are found to be rich sources of vitamin C (Figure 7) when compared to some commonly used fruits and vegetables. The vitamin C content of the fresh samples is highly variable, ranging from 2.0 to 129.4 mg/100 g. Vitamin C is highest in foxtail lily (E. spectabilis), with the plant providing nearly 100% of the DRI per 100 g [DRI is 75 mg/day for women and 90 mg/day for men] [64]. However, most WFP are consumed cooked. Thermal instability of vitamin C during cooking should be considered when evaluating vitamin C content of studied plants [65,66].
Regarding phenolic compounds, foxtail lily (E. spectabilis), belonging to the Liliaceae family, is found to contain considerable amounts of quercetin 3-O-rutinoside hydrate and ferulic acid, while high levels of chlorogenic acid and isorhamnetin 3-O-glucoside are detected in golden thistle (Scolymus hispanicus L.), identifying selected WFP as important and valuable sources of natural antioxidants (Figure 8). Interest in these compounds dramatically increased in the last decade, due to their biological and health-promoting effects [67,68,69].
A total of 59 volatile compounds from seven different chemical groups including aldehydes, ketones, hydrocarbons, esters, alcohols, terpenes, and furans are also identified (Figure 9). Plant volatile compounds provide medicinal and aromatic plants with their typical sensory properties, aromatic features, and disease prevention characteristics, as well as enhancing the plants’ resistance to stress and interactions with other plants [70,71]. While wild fennel (F. vulgare) and sorrel (R. acetosella) are found to be rich in terpenoid hydrocarbons, alcohol and ester compounds are dominant in foxtail lily (E. spectabilis) and catbriers (S. excelsa). The volatile oils typical of fennel seeds have antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antidiabetic, antimicrobial, and antimutagenic activities [72,73].
Food composition data and associated traditional knowledge generated as part of the BFN project on the 39 selected WFP are included in the Turkish Food Composition Database [74], as well as in the FAO/INFOODS Food Composition Database for Biodiversity [75] and made available to others to use. Additional nutritional data were also identified from other national data holders with which collaborative agreements were established. This includes the Ministry of Health, the Universities of Gazi, Selçuk, and Akdeniz, as well as the Association of Turkish Dieticians and the Association of Siyez Producers (NGO).

3.3. Mainstreaming Nutrient-Rich Wild Edibles in Türkiye

The findings from the food compositional analysis of targeted WFP in Türkiye clearly highlight their significant nutritional value. However, such nutrient-rich biodiversity is often under-valued, and rarely considered in policy and decision-making related to food systems, food security, and nutrition. Further, investment and development decisions often fail to take this diversity into account [42,76]. This is beginning to change, with global attention shifting to the health and environmental benefits of consuming a wide diversity of nutrient- and phytonutrient-rich biodiverse foods, and improving diets becoming an important health and economic goal for more and more countries [77,78,79,80,81].
Biodiversity mainstreaming, defined as “the process of embedding biodiversity considerations into policies, strategies, and practices of key public and private actors that impact or rely on biodiversity, so that it is conserved and sustainably used both locally and globally”, is an important strategy to address this lack of consideration [82]. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations additionally understands that mainstreaming biodiversity for improving diets and nutrition involves the promotion of knowledge, conservation, development, and use of local crop varieties, cultivars, and animal breeds, as well as wild, neglected, and under-utilized species in policies and practices [83].

3.3.1. Policies

In Türkiye, the research partnerships established under the BFN project, and knowledge generated on the nutritional value of WFP, were used to support the development of an enabling environment for better promotion and mainstreaming of local biodiversity for food and nutrition [38]. As a starting point, a national cross-sectoral policy platform was established bringing together the Health, Agriculture, Environment, and Education ministries, research and extension services, and academia, as well as key national stakeholder groups and partners (e.g., consumers and producers). Policies and strategies with a bearing on the conservation and use of WFP, and of nutrient-rich biodiversity more broadly, were reviewed to identify entry points for biodiversity mainstreaming (Box 1).
Box 1. The key national strategies, policies and plans reviewed and targeted by BFN-Türkiye. The project was able to influence the first seven policy instruments (in bold) to recognize the conservation and use of local biodiversity for food and nutrition as an important strategy for national food and nutrition security.
  • National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP)
  • MFAL 2013–2017 Strategic Plan
  • 10th National Development Plan 2014–2018
  • GDAR Agricultural Research Master Plan 2016–2020
  • Healthy Nutrition and Active Life Program 2014–2017
  • Nutrition Friendly School Initiative
  • Nutrition and Health Research of Türkiye 2017
  • Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) programs
  • Türkiye’s National Dietary Guidelines (2016)
  • ME Science Teaching Programs/Curriculum
  • The Higher Education Strategy (2007–2025)
  • Vocational and Education Training (VET) Strategy (2014–2018)
  • Türkiye’s Skills Vision 2020
  • Action Plan for Strengthening the Link between Education and Employment (İMEİGEP)
  • Strategy Document of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (2019–2023)
  • National Rural Development Strategy (2021–2023)
  • 11th Development Plan (2019–2023)
To facilitate the mainstreaming process, platform stakeholders were provided with nutritional evidence, case studies, awareness materials, technical bulletins, and policy recommendations. This resulted, following a lengthy and time-consuming process, in nutrient-rich biodiversity being included as a valuable resource in several policy regulations, programs, and master plans originally reviewed by the policy platform. These policy instruments are listed in bold in Box 1, and encourage research, awareness, and key actions related to nutrient-rich biodiversity, including targeting efforts to document traditional knowledge and nutrient value, and to invest in agricultural production for local cultivars and domestication efforts for the most promising wild species.

3.3.2. Markets and Awareness

Information generated as part of the project was also used to improve the promotion and marketing of WFP and other nutrient-rich biodiversity, while paying attention to issues of domestication and sustainability to meet growing consumer demand (e.g., golden thistle, Box 2). Increased interest in WFP was raised by value chain development, being mindful of emerging market opportunities. Links with alternative food movements and gastronomy initiatives, the organization of cooking workshops and demonstrations, the publication of recipe books, and participation in cultural food festivals all helped raise the profile of WFP in the country.
Partnerships were fostered with co-organized editions of the Alaçatı Herb Festival, which continues to this day. The Alaçatı Herb Festival is a four-day event in the Aegean region, bringing together foragers and producers, artisans, and chefs and attracting many thousands of visitors and tourists to celebrate local WFP. The festival also acts as a platform for sharing knowledge about wild biodiversity and Turkish food culture, with the involvement of celebrity chefs helping to popularize the consumption of WFP among younger generations. Competitions to identify and reward foragers who collect the most diversity of wild plants are held (Figure 10), as are contests for the best recipes and dishes served up to a festival panel. The event has opened the market for WFP in the region, an opportunity largely taken up by the enterprising women of Alaçatı who produce and sell local and traditional food products. Additional food festivals that promote WFP in the country are the Çamlık Herb Festival, the Aci Ot (Black bryony) festival, the Gastro Alaturka event, and the Samsun Regional Herb Dishes Festival.
Box 2. Golden thistle: A Mediterranean favorite.
The roots and immature leaves of golden thistle (S. hispanicus) are a Turkish culinary favourite as well as well-known herbal remedy [37].
The thorny plant, which is traditionally collected in Spring from fallow fields and road verges and sold in local markets, is easily domesticated. It was, therefore, possible for the BFN project to promote the species and increase demand for it without risking over-exploitation. In the İzmir province, the Aegean Agricultural Research Institute and the University of Anadolu worked with farmers to select, characterize, and evaluate the species. Selected seeds were later distributed to farmers accompanied by guidelines for the sustainable production of golden thistle that addressed critical aspects such as climate and soil conditions, plant management, harvest, and seed production [38,53,84]. Post-harvest studies also determined the shelf life and market potential of golden thistle, while value chain analysis determined the distribution of economic benefits across the value chain. Production of golden thistle versus collection from the wild turned out to be slightly more expensive (1 EUR/kg as opposed to 0.76 EUR/kg), but clear benefits for farmers to invest in golden thistle cultivation were demonstrated. This includes high net gains, low production costs, and increased demand for the crop, as well as the fact that it can grow on marginal lands with little to no external inputs [36].

3.3.3. Education

As in many parts of the world, the diets of school-aged children in Türkiye changed dramatically in recent decades, with lifestyle changes and a move away from traditional foods in favor of a more western-style diet and the consumption of ultra-processed foods. This resulted in issues of childhood obesity and micronutrient deficiencies, which have implications for the long-term health and wellbeing, as well as the cognitive and educational achievement of Turkish children. Schools were, therefore, recognized as important platforms for interventions promoting lifelong healthy eating habits, including greater awareness of food cultures and the environmental and social impact of food choices [85,86].
The integration of knowledge about diet diversification, conservation, and sustainable use of biodiversity in school systems, particularly in school nutrition policies such as the Turkish Nutrition Friendly School Program, was seen as a key objective, including the incorporation of more knowledge on WFP and nutrient-rich biodiversity into school curricula. Programs and policies that were a focus for this are listed in Box 1.
‘Green’ vocational training offers an effective entry point for intergenerational knowledge transmission of WFP, and of biodiversity for food and nutrition more broadly, by providing unique skills to young people [38]. Partnering with vocational training schools, such as the Halım Foçalı Vocational School, was identified as a way of mentoring and empowering upcoming student chefs to raise the profile of WFP and associated traditional collection practices through a series of lectures and hands-on, land-based learning activities. Through this approach, student chefs were trained on the nutritional value of WFP, on how to recognize and collect the species during nature walks, and use them in cooking classes [87]. During the Foça Science Education Festival, the students involved in this program organized a presentation to visiting teachers, students, and parents entitled ‘Students in Nature and in the Kitchen’. Activities undertaken as part of this project fostered interest from the National Education and Development Directorate of Foça to extend the program to other schools, and officially include traditional WFP as part of the school curriculum [87].
Other opportunities to promote and raise awareness about the value of WFP among young people was through the Youth Leadership Agricultural Camps Initiative jointly organized by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Livestock and the Ministry of Education. In 2018, biodiversity for food and nutrition was chosen for the year’s theme and children learnt about native WFP and biodiversity. Preparatory stages for this initiative included running training-of-trainer workshops on the topic. Between April and June 2018, approximately 2500 4th grade students across Türkiye’s 81 provinces took part in the camps, becoming peer-to-peer ambassadors promoting the multiple benefits of WFP [87].

4. Conclusions

The article reviews the contribution of WFP to food security, nutrition, and livelihoods of the Turkish population over the last two decades, while offering a comprehensive set of tried and tested best practices and lessons learned for mainstreaming biodiversity that could be upscaled or applied in other regions.
The evidence highlighted in the paper suggests that the contribution of WFP to the food security, nutrition, and livelihoods of the Turkish population continues to be significant, particularly in rural areas, where WFP are regularly collected, sold, and consumed. Food composition data, traditional knowledge, and the benefits of using WFP to tackle malnutrition were also documented, showing that most WFP are excellent sources of limiting macro- and micro-nutrients. With 39 species analyzed, the project added a significant body of knowledge to existing information on the nutritional value of WFP and made the information publicly available on the Turkish Food Composition Database [74], as well as in the FAO/INFOODS Food Composition Database for Biodiversity [75].
Information generated as part of the BFN project was used to support the development of an enabling policy environment for the promotion of WFP, and for biodiversity for food and nutrition more broadly. Evidence of the nutritional value of WFP was critical to ensure key national stakeholder groups and partners could develop planning, policy, and regulatory instruments to positively encourage the use of this diversity as part of national nutrition and food security programs and strategies, as well as to enhance the conservation of these genetic resources. The various cross-sectoral working groups and platforms established within the project framework also used the information generated to explore favorable marketing and trade of WFP and related products, particularly in urban areas, where emerging market opportunities exist for organic and natural food products inherently rich in bioactive compounds and nutraceuticals.
Scientific evidence of the nutritional quality of WFP was also critical to reorient food systems towards making greater use of locally important food species and reverse negative perceptions commonly associated with WFP, which are often perceived as famine foods to fall upon when other crops fail, and household budgets do not allow additional food purchases [88,89,90,91]. The paper illustrates how practitioners can make the most of recurring events that revolve around gastronomy and ecotourism, such as the Alaçatı Herb Festival, or national campaigns on healthy eating targeting younger generations. It also demonstrates the strategic importance of partnering with the health and education sectors to stimulate interest and demand for diverse and healthy foods from the consumers of tomorrow.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su141711015/s1. Table S1: BFN priority WFP of Türkiye.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.B., N.A.G. and D.H.; investigation, N.A.G, S.K., H.Ö.U., F.Ç., S.T.A., N.A., K.Ö., B.Ö., E.T. and R.T.; writing—original draft, T.B., D.H. and N.A.G.; and writing—review and editing, T.B., N.A.G., D.H., A.T. and B.Ö. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Overall support for the Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition (BFN) Project was provided by the Global Environment Facility (GEF Project ID 3808). Co-funding and implementation support were received from the UN Environment Programme; the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; Bioversity International and the governments of Brazil, Kenya, Sri Lanka, and Türkiye. Additional funding was received by the CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. These data can be found here: http://www.turkomp.gov.tr/database (accessed on 1 September 2022).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the farmers and communities at the project sites as well as the many colleagues and institutions in Türkiye that contributed to the work described in this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. FAO. Biodiversity of Turkey: Contribution of Genetic Resources to Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems; Muminjanov, H., Karagöz, A., Eds.; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Ankara, Turkey, 2018; p. 222. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/ca1517en/ca1517en.pdf (accessed on 5 July 2022).
  2. Heywood, V.H. Use and Potential of Wild Plants in Farm Households; FAO Farm System Management Series; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1999; Volume 15. [Google Scholar]
  3. Doğan, Y.; Baslar, S.; Ay, G.; Mert, H.H. The Use of Wild Edible Plants in Western and Central Anatolia, (Turkey). Econ. Bot. 2004, 58, 684–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ertuğ, F. Wild Edible Plants of the Bodrum Area (Muğla, Turkey). Turk. J. Bot. 2004, 28, 161–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kargioğlu, M.; Cenkci, S.; Serteser, A.; Evliyaoğlu, N.; Konuk, M.; Kök, S.M.; Bağcı, Y. An Ethnobotanical Survey of Inner-West Anatolia, Turkey. Hum. Ecol. 2008, 36, 763–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Arı, S.; Temel, M.; Kargıoğlu, M.; Konuk, M. Ethnobotanical survey of plants used in Afyonkarahisar-Turkey. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2015, 11, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gürdal, B.; Kültür, S. The edible and miscellaneous useful plants in Marmaris (Southwest Turkey). J. Fac. Pharm. Istanb. 2014, 44, 69–78. [Google Scholar]
  8. Ertuğ, F. An ethnobotanical study in Central Anatolia (Turkey). Econ. Bot. 2000, 54, 155–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Şimşek, I.; Aytekin, F.; Yesilada, E.; Yildirimli, Ş. An ethnobotanical survey of the Beypazarı, Ayaş, and Güdül District Towns of Ankara province (Turkey). Econ. Bot. 2004, 58, 705–720. [Google Scholar]
  10. Sarper, F.; Akaydin, G.; Şimşek, I.; Yesilada, E. An ethnobotanical field survey in the Haymana district of Ankara province in Turkey. Turk. J. Biol. 2009, 33, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yeşil, Y.; Akalin, E. The use of wild edible plants in Kurecik (Akcadag/Malatya). J. Fac. Pharm. Istanb. 2010, 41, 90–103. [Google Scholar]
  12. Korkmaz, M.; Karakuş, S.; Selvi, S.; Çakılcıoğlu, U. Traditional knowledge on wild plants in Üzümlü (Erzincan-Turkey). Indian J. Tradit. Know. 2016, 15, 538–545. [Google Scholar]
  13. Nadiroğlu, M.; Behçet, L. Traditional food uses of wild plants among the Karlıova (Bingöl-Turkey). Int. J. Nat. Life Sci. 2018, 2, 57–71. [Google Scholar]
  14. Polat, R.; Guner, B.; Babacan, E.Y.; Çakılcıoğlu, U. Survey of wild food plants for human consumption in Bingöl (Turkey). Indian J. Tradit. Know. 2017, 16, 378–384. [Google Scholar]
  15. Doğan, A.; Tuzlaci, E. Wild Edible Plants of Pertek (Tunceli-Turkey). Marmara Pharm. J. 2015, 19, 126–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kaval, I.; Behçet, L.; Çakilcioğlu, U. Survey of wild food plants for human consumption in Geçitli (Hakkari, Turkey). Indian J. Tradit. Know 2015, 14, 183–190. [Google Scholar]
  17. Mükemre, M.; Behçet, L.; Çakılcıoğlu, U. Survey of wild food plants for human consumption in villages of Çatak (Van-Turkey). Indian J. Tradit. Know 2016, 15, 183–191. [Google Scholar]
  18. Polat, R.; Çakılcıoğlu, U.; Ulusan, M.D.; Paksoy, M.Y. Survey of wild food plants for human consumption in Elazığ (Turkey). Indian J. Tradit. Know 2015, 1, 69–75. [Google Scholar]
  19. Koçak, S.; Özhatay, N. Wild edible plants in Karaman (Southern Turkey). Istanb. J. Pharm. 2013, 43, 21–32. [Google Scholar]
  20. Şenkendareş, İ.; Tuzlacı, E. Wild edible plants in southern part of Nevşehir in Turkey. Marmara Pharm. J. 2016, 20, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kadıoğlu, Z.; Cukadar, K.; Kalkan, N.N.; Vurgun, H.; Kaya, O. Wild edible plant species used in the Ağrı province, eastern Turkey. An. Jard. Bot. Madr. 2020, 77, e098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kadıoğlu, Z.; Çukadar, K.; Kandemir, A.; Kalkan, N.N.; Vurgun, H.; Dönderalp, V. Kars İlinde Sebze Olarak Tüketilen Yabani Bitki Türlerinin Tespiti ve Kullanım Şekilleri. ANADOLU Ege Tarımsal Araştırma Enstitüsü Derg. 2020, 30, 11–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Çakır, E.A. Traditional knowledge of wild edible plants of Iğdır Province (East Anatolia, Turkey). Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 2017, 86, 3568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Yildirim, E.; Dursun, A.; Turan, M. Determination of the Nutrition Contents of the Wild Plants Used as Vegetables in Upper Çoruh Valley. Turk. J. Bot. 2001, 25, 367–371. [Google Scholar]
  25. Akgul, A.; Senol, S.G.; Yildirim, H.; Secmen, O.; Dogan, Y. An ethnobotanical study in Midyat (Turkey), a city on the silk road where cultures meet. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2018, 14, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Yeşil, Y.; Çelik, M.; Yılmaz, B. Wild edible plants in Yeşilli (Mardin-Turkey), a multicultural area. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2019, 15, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yeşil, Y.; İnal, İ. Traditional knowledge of wild edible plants in Hasankeyf (Batman Province, Turkey). Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 2019, 88, 3633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Özbucak, T.B.; Kutbay, H.G.; Akçin, O.E. The contribution of wild edible plants to human nutrition in the Black Sea region of Turkey. Ethnobot. Leafl. 2006, 10, 98–103. [Google Scholar]
  29. Güneş, S.; Savran, A.; Yavuz, M.; Çakilcioğlu, U. Survey of wild food plants for human consumption in Karaisalı (Adana-Turkey). Indian J. Tradit. Know 2018, 17, 290–298. [Google Scholar]
  30. Salim, M.; Necattin, T. A survey on wild plants with ethnobotanical use in the Bahçe and Hasanbeyli districts of Osmaniye, Turkey. GSC Biol. Pharm. Sci. 2018, 5, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kayabaşı, N.P.; Tümen, G.; Polat, R. Wild edible plants and their traditional use in the human nutrition in Manyas (Turkey). Indian J. Tradit. Know 2018, 17, 299–306. [Google Scholar]
  32. Özdemir, E.; Kültür, Ş. Wild edible plants of Savaştepe District (Balıkesir, Turkey). Marmara Pharm. J. 2017, 21, 578–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hançer, Ç.K.; Sevgi, E.; Altinbaşak, B.B.; Çakir, E.A.; Akkaya, M. Traditional Knowledge of Wild Edible Plants of Biga (Çanakkale), Turkey. Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 2020, 89, 3633. [Google Scholar]
  34. Koçyiğit, M.; Özhatay, N. The wild edible and miscellaneous useful plants in Yalova Province (Northwest Turkey). Istanb. J. Pharm. 2009, 40, 19–29. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kızılarslan, Ç.; Özhatay, N. An ethnobotanical study of the useful and edible plants in İzmit. Marmara Pharm. J. 2012, 16, 194–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Noroozi, J.; Zare, G.; Sherafati, M.; Mahmoodi, M.; Moser, D.; Asgarpour, Z.; Schneeweiss, G.M. Patterns of Endemism in Turkey, the Meeting Point of Three Global Biodiversity Hotspots, Based on Three Diverse Families of Vascular Plants. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 7, 159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Borelli, T.; Hunter, D.; Padulosi, S.; Amaya, N.; Meldrum, G.; de Oliveira Beltrame, D.M.; Samarasinghe, G.; Wasike, V.W.; Güner, B.; Tan, A.; et al. Local Solutions for Sustainable Food Systems: The Contribution of Orphan Crops and Wild Edible Species. Agronomy 2020, 10, 231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gee, E.; Borelli, T.; Beltrame, D.; Oliveira, C.; Coradin, L.; Wasike, V.; Manjella, A.; Samarasinghe, G.; Güner, B.; Tan, A.; et al. The ABC of mainstreaming biodiversity for food and nutrition: Concepts, theory and practice. In Biodiversity, Food and Nutrition: A New Agenda for Sustainable Food Systems, 1st ed.; Hunter, D., Gee, E., Borelli, T., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2020; pp. 85–186. [Google Scholar]
  39. Tan, A.; Adanacioğlu, N.; Karabak, S.; Aykas, L.; Tas, N.; Taylan, T. Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition: Edible Wild Plant Species of the Aegean Region of Turkey. ANADOLU J. AARI 2017, 27, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  40. Güner, A.; Aslan, S.; Ekim, T.; Vural, M.; Babaç, M.T. (Eds.) Turkey Bitkileri Listesi (Damarlı Bitkiler). List of Turkish Plants (Vascular Plants); Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanik Bahçesi ve Flora Araştırmaları Derneği Yayını: İstanbul, Turkey, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  41. Koyu, E.B. TÜRKİYE’NİN ETNOBOTANİK VERİTABANI. Ethnobotanical Database of Turkey. Ph.D. Thesis, Ege University, İzmir, Turkey, 4 February 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. FAO. The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture; Bélanger, J., Pilling, D., Eds.; FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Assessments: Rome, Italy, 2019; p. 572. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/CA3129EN/CA3129EN.pdf (accessed on 5 July 2022).
  43. Şekercioğlu, Ç.H.; Anderson, S.; Akçay, E.; Bilgin, R.; Emre Can, Ö.; Semiz, G.; Tavşanoğlu, Ç.; Baki Yokeş, M.; Soyumerth, A.; İpekdal, K.; et al. Turkey’s globally important biodiversity in crisis. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 2752–2769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. FAO. The State of the Turkey’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture; Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock, Ed.; Country Report; FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture: Rome, Italy, 2019; p. 16. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/CA3505EN/ca3505en.pdf (accessed on 5 July 2022).
  45. Schunko, C.; Li, X.; Klappoth, B.; Lesi, F.; Porcher, V.; Porcuna-Ferrer, A.; Reyes-García, V. Local communities’ perceptions of wild edible plant and mushroom change: A systematic review. Glob. Food Secur. 2022, 32, 100601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Rayne, S.; Mazza, G. Biological activities of extracts from Sumac (Rhus spp.): A review. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 2007, 62, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Keser, S.; Keser, F.; Kaygili, Ö.; Tekin, S.; Türkoğlu, İ.; Demir, E.; Türkoğlu, S.; Karatepe, M.; Sandal, S.; Kirbağ, S. Phytochemical compounds and biological activities of Celtis tournefortii fruits. Anal. Chem. Lett. 2017, 7, 344–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pieroni, A.; Ahmed, H.M.; Zahir, H. The spring has arrived: Traditional wild vegetables gathered by Yarsanis (Ahl-e-Haqq) and Sunni Muslims in Western Hawraman, SE Kurdistan (Iraq). Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 2017, 86, 3519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Karaaslan, Ö.; Çöteli, E.; Karataş, F. Investigation of amounts of A, E, C vitamins with malondialdehyde and glutathione in plant Gundelia tournefortii. Erzincan Üniv. Fen Bilim Enst. Derg. 2014, 7-2, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Turkey Ministry of Health. Turkey Nutrition and Health Survey; Tiraj Basim Ve Yayin Sanayi Ticaret Ltd. Sti.: Ankara, Turkey, 2019. Available online: https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/depo/birimler/saglikli-beslenme-hareketli-hayat-db/TBSA_RAPOR_KITAP_2017_ENG_.pdf (accessed on 5 July 2022).
  51. Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies. 2018 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey; T.R. Presidency of Turkey Directorate of Strategy and Budget and TÜBİTAK; Elma Teknik Basım Matbaacılık Ltd. Şti.: Ankara, Turkey, 2019; p. 282. [Google Scholar]
  52. Turkey Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Towards Sustainable Food Systems, National Pathway of Turkey; TARIMORMAN: Ankara, Turkey, 2021. Available online: https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/ABDGM/Belgeler/Uluslararas%C4%B1%20Kurulu%C5%9Flar/NATIONAL%20PATHWAY%20OF%20TURKEY_BOOKLET_28%20kas%C4%B1m%2002.pdf (accessed on 2 September 2022).
  53. Tan, A.; Taskin, T. Ege Bölgesinde Sebze Olarak Kullanilan Yabani Bitki Turleri ve Kullanim Amacları. (Edible Wild Species used as Vegetables in the Aegean Region). In İzmir: Tarım ve Köyişleri Bakanlığı Ege Tarımsal Araştırma Enstitüsü Müdürlüğü—Aliağa Kaymakamlığı Köylere Hizmet Götürme Birliği Başkanlığı; Series 136. 174 s; Aegean Agricultural Research Institute: İzmir, Turkey, 2009; ISBN 978-975-407-278-5. [Google Scholar]
  54. Greenfield, H.; Southgate, D.A.T. Food Composition Data. Production Management and Use; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  55. Mill, R.R.; Tan, K. Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands; Davis, P.H., Ed.; Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, UK, 1985; Volume 9, p. 724. [Google Scholar]
  56. Güzelsoy, N.A.; Ucurum, Ö.; Tokat, E.; Tan, A.; Tuğrul Ay, S.; Özbek, K. Nutritional properties of some wild edible species in Turkey. ANADOLU J. AARI 2017, 27, 39–45. [Google Scholar]
  57. Pandey, K.B.; Rizvi, S.I. Plant polyphenols as dietary antioxidants in human health and disease. Oxidative Med. Cell. Longev. 2009, 2, 270–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Vermerris, W.; Nicholson, R. Phenolic Compounds and their Effects on Human Health. In Phenolic Compound Biochemistry; Springer Science + Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 235–253. [Google Scholar]
  59. Ayas, F.; Vuran, F.A.; Yuksel, K.; Cınar, O.; Tuğrul Ay, S.; Karabak, S. The Antioxidant Capacities and Consumption per Capita of Edible Wild Species and Local Varieties Collected from Turkey within the GEF-funded Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition (BFN) Project. ANADOLU Ege Tarımsal Araştırma Enstitüsü Derg. 2017, 27, 46–53. Available online: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/anadolu/issue/34063/376843 (accessed on 23 June 2022).
  60. Zhang, Z.; Li, G. A preliminary study of plant aroma profile characteristics by a combination sampling method coupled with GC–MS. Microchem. J. 2007, 86, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition, and Allergies (NDA). Scientific Opinion on Dietary Reference Values for carbohydrates and dietary fibre. EFSA J. 2010, 8, 1462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Li, Y.O.; Komarek, A.R. Dietary Fibre Basics: Health, Nutrition, Analysis, and Applications. Food Qual. Saf. 2017, 1, 47–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ljubičić, M.; Sarić, M.M.; Rumbak, I.; Colic Baric, I. Knowledge about dietary fibre and its health benefits: A cross-sectional survey of 2536 residents from across Croatia. Med. Hypotheses 2017, 105, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board. Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin C, Vitamin E, Selenium, and Carotenoids; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
  65. Lee, S.; Choi, Y.; Jeong, H.S.; Lee, J.; Sung, J. Effect of different cooking methods on the content of vitamins and true retention in selected vegetables. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2017, 27, 333–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Popova, A. The effect of heating on the vitamin C content of selected vegetables. World J. Adv. Res. Rev. 2019, 3, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ferguson, P.J.; Kurowska, E.; Freeman, D.J.; Chambers, A.F.; Koropatnick, D.J. A flavonoid fraction from cranberry extract inhibits proliferation of human tumor cell lines. J. Nutr. 2004, 134, 1529–1535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Boudet, A.M. Evolution and current status of research in phenolic compounds. Phytochemistry 2007, 68, 2722–2735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Shakoor, H.; Feehan, J.; Apostolopoulos, V.; Platat, C.; Al Dhaheri, A.S.; Ali, H.I.; Ismail, L.C.; Bosevski, M.; Stojanovska, L. Immunomodulatory effects of dietary polyphenols. Nutrients 2021, 13, 728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Shukurova, M.K.; Asikin, Y.; Chen, Y.; Kusano, M.; Watanabe, K.N. Profiling of Volatile Organic Compounds in Wild Indigenous Medicinal Ginger (Zingiber barbatum Wall.) from Myanmar. Metabolites 2020, 10, 248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Pinto, T.; Aires, A.; Cosme, F.; Bacelar, E.; Morais, M.C.; Oliveira, I.; Ferreira-Cardoso, J.; Anjos, R.; Vilela, A.; Gonçalves, B. Bioactive (Poly)phenols, Volatile Compounds from Vegetables, Medicinal and Aromatic Plants. Foods 2021, 10, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. El-Soud, N.H.; El-Laithy, N.A.; El-saeed, G.S.; Wahby, M.S.; Khalil, M.G.; Morsy, F.A.; Shaffie, N.M. Antidiabetic activities of Foeniculum vulgare Mill. essential oil in streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats. J. Med. Sci. 2011, 4, 139–146. [Google Scholar]
  73. Badgujar, S.B.; Patel, V.V.; Bandivdekar, A.H. Foeniculum vulgare Mill: A review of its botany, phytochemistry, pharmacology, contemporary application, and toxicology. Biomed Res. Int. 2014, 2014, 842674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. TürKomp. Turkish Food Composition Database. Available online: http://www.turkomp.gov.tr/database (accessed on 23 June 2022).
  75. FAO. FAO/INFOODS Food Composition Database for Biodiversity Version 4.0; BioFoodComp 4.0.; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  76. Afshin, A.; Sur, P.J.; Fay, K.A.; Cornaby, L.; Ferrara, G.; Salama, J.S.; Mullany, E.C.; Abate, K.H.; Abbafati, C.; Abebe, Z.; et al. Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 2019, 393, 1958–1972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. IPES-Food. From Uniformity to Diversity: A Paradigm Shift from Industrial Agriculture to Diversified Agroecological Systems; International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems: Brussels, Belgium, 2016; Available online: http://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/UniformityToDiversity_FULL.pdf (accessed on 25 May 2022).
  78. Bioversity International. Mainstreaming Agrobiodiversity in Sustainable Food Systems: Scientific Foundations for an Agrobiodiversity Index; Bioversity International: Rome, Italy, 2017; Available online: https://www.bioversityinternational.org/mainstreaming-agrobiodiversity/ (accessed on 25 May 2022).
  79. HLPE. Nutrition and Food Systems. A Report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2017; Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/i7846e/i7846e.pdf (accessed on 25 May 2022).
  80. HLPE. Agroecological and Other Innovative Approaches for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems that Enhance Food Security and Nutrition. A Report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2019; Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/ca5602en/ca5602en.pdf (accessed on 25 May 2022).
  81. Vermeulen, S.J.; Park, T.; Khoury, C.K.; Béné, C. Changing diets and the transformation of the global food system. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2020, 1478, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. GEF. Biodiversity Mainstreaming in Practice: A Review of GEF Experience; GEF Secretariat: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; Available online: https://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/publications/GEF_MainstreamingBiod_11.28.16.pdf (accessed on 25 May 2022).
  83. FAO. Voluntary Guidelines for Mainstreaming Biodiversity into Policies, Programmes and National and Regional Plans of Action on Nutrition; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2015; Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/i5248e/i5248e.pdf (accessed on 25 May 2022).
  84. Karik, U. The effect of different harvest dates on the yield and quality of golden thistle (Scolymus hispanicus L.). Turk. J. Field Crops 2019, 24, 230–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Borelli, T.; Hunter, D.; Powell, B.; Ulian, T.; Mattana, E.; Termote, C.; Pawera, L.; Beltrame, D.; Penafiel, D.; Tan, A.; et al. Born to Eat Wild: An Integrated Conservation Approach to Secure Wild Food Plants for Food Security and Nutrition. Plants 2020, 9, 1299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Hunter, D.; Monville-Oro, E.; Burgos, B.; Rogel, C.N.; Calub, B.; Gonsalves, J.; Lauridsen, N. Schools, Gardens and Agrobiodiversity: Promoting Biodiversity, Food, Nutrition and Healthy Diets; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  87. Tan, A.; Adanacioğlu, N.; Tuğrul Ay, S.; Batal, M.; Ghattas, H.; Talhouk, S. Where the wild things are. In Schools, Gardens and Agrobiodiversity: Promoting Biodiversity, Food, Nutrition and Healthy Diets, 1st ed.; Hunter, D., Monville-Oro, E., Burgos, B., Rogel, C.N., Calub, B., Gonsalves, J., Lauridsen, N., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2020; pp. 267–275. [Google Scholar]
  88. Carvalho, A.M.; Barata, A.M. The consumption of wild edible plants. In Wild Plants, Mushrooms and Nuts: Functional Food Properties and Applications, 1st ed.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R., Morales, P., Barros, L., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016; pp. 159–198. [Google Scholar]
  89. Łuczaj, Ł.; Pieroni, A.; Tardío, J.; Pardo-de-Santayana, M.; Sõukand, R.; Svanberg, I.; Kalle, R. Wild food plant use in 21st century Europe: The disappearance of old traditions and the search for new cuisines involving wild edibles. Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 2012, 81, 359–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Torija-Isasa, M.E.; Matallana-González, M.C. A Historical Perspective of Wild Plant Foods in the Mediterranean Area. In Mediterranean Wild Edible Plants, 1st ed.; de Cortes Sánchez-Mata, M., Tardío, J., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 3–13. [Google Scholar]
  91. Hunter, D.; Borelli, T.; Beltrame, D.; Oliveira, C.; Coradin, L.; Wasike, V.; Mwai, J.; Manjella, A.; Samarasinghe, G.; Madhujith, T.; et al. The potential of neglected and underutilized species for improving diets and nutrition. Planta 2019, 250, 709–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. The colored provinces on the map of Türkiye indicate, per region, where ethnobotanical studies on WFP were carried out based on the reviewed literature. The red stars on the map indicate the location of the BFN project pilot sites. Most of the surveyed provinces fall within the four areas of endemism conceptualized by Noorozi et al. [36].
Figure 1. The colored provinces on the map of Türkiye indicate, per region, where ethnobotanical studies on WFP were carried out based on the reviewed literature. The red stars on the map indicate the location of the BFN project pilot sites. Most of the surveyed provinces fall within the four areas of endemism conceptualized by Noorozi et al. [36].
Sustainability 14 11015 g001
Figure 2. The unique, holistic approach adopted by country partners in the BFN project to mainstream agrobiodiversity, including WFP, into research, policies, and practices targeting food and nutrition security. Adapted from Borelli et al. [37].
Figure 2. The unique, holistic approach adopted by country partners in the BFN project to mainstream agrobiodiversity, including WFP, into research, policies, and practices targeting food and nutrition security. Adapted from Borelli et al. [37].
Sustainability 14 11015 g002
Figure 3. Dietary fiber content of several Turkish WFP expressed as g per 100 g of fresh weight (FW). In the bar chart, fiber content of the studied WFP is shown in the orange bars while that of common parsley (Petroselinum crispum) is shown in green.
Figure 3. Dietary fiber content of several Turkish WFP expressed as g per 100 g of fresh weight (FW). In the bar chart, fiber content of the studied WFP is shown in the orange bars while that of common parsley (Petroselinum crispum) is shown in green.
Sustainability 14 11015 g003
Figure 4. Variation in iron (Fe) concentration in selected WFP compared to spinach. Quantities are expressed as mg per 100 g of fresh weight (FW). a. knotgrass (P. cognatum); b. watercress (N. officinale); c. Elm-leaved sumach (Rhus coriaria); d. purple salsify (Tragopogon porrifolius); e. berberis (Berberis crataegina); f. chicory (Cichorium intybus); g. spinach (Spinacia oleracea).
Figure 4. Variation in iron (Fe) concentration in selected WFP compared to spinach. Quantities are expressed as mg per 100 g of fresh weight (FW). a. knotgrass (P. cognatum); b. watercress (N. officinale); c. Elm-leaved sumach (Rhus coriaria); d. purple salsify (Tragopogon porrifolius); e. berberis (Berberis crataegina); f. chicory (Cichorium intybus); g. spinach (Spinacia oleracea).
Sustainability 14 11015 g004
Figure 5. Variation in zinc (Zn) concentration in selected WFP compared to spinach. Quantities are expressed as mg per 100 g of fresh weight (FW). a. crown daisy (G. coronaria); b. berberis (B. crataegina); c. shepherd’s purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris); d. wild lupin (Lupinus albus); e. capers (Capparis spinosa); f. catbriers (S. excelsa); g. spinach (S. oleracea).
Figure 5. Variation in zinc (Zn) concentration in selected WFP compared to spinach. Quantities are expressed as mg per 100 g of fresh weight (FW). a. crown daisy (G. coronaria); b. berberis (B. crataegina); c. shepherd’s purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris); d. wild lupin (Lupinus albus); e. capers (Capparis spinosa); f. catbriers (S. excelsa); g. spinach (S. oleracea).
Sustainability 14 11015 g005
Figure 6. Variation in calcium concentration in selected WFP compared to curled lettuce (Lactuca sativa var. crispa). Quantities are expressed as mg per 100 g of fresh weight (FW).
Figure 6. Variation in calcium concentration in selected WFP compared to curled lettuce (Lactuca sativa var. crispa). Quantities are expressed as mg per 100 g of fresh weight (FW).
Sustainability 14 11015 g006
Figure 7. Variation in vitamin C concentration in selected WFP. Quantities are expressed as mg per 100 g of fresh weight (FW).
Figure 7. Variation in vitamin C concentration in selected WFP. Quantities are expressed as mg per 100 g of fresh weight (FW).
Sustainability 14 11015 g007
Figure 8. Phenolic compounds determined in a. foxtail lily (E. spectabilis); b. golden thistle (S. hispanicus); c. fennel (F. vulgare); d. watercress (N. officinale); e. sorrel (R. acetosella); and f. curly dock (Rumex crispus).
Figure 8. Phenolic compounds determined in a. foxtail lily (E. spectabilis); b. golden thistle (S. hispanicus); c. fennel (F. vulgare); d. watercress (N. officinale); e. sorrel (R. acetosella); and f. curly dock (Rumex crispus).
Sustainability 14 11015 g008
Figure 9. Volatile compounds determined in a. foxtail lily (E. spectabilis); b. fennel (F. vulgare); c. sorrel (R. acetosella); d. catbriers (S. excelsa); e. golden thistle (S. hispanicus).
Figure 9. Volatile compounds determined in a. foxtail lily (E. spectabilis); b. fennel (F. vulgare); c. sorrel (R. acetosella); d. catbriers (S. excelsa); e. golden thistle (S. hispanicus).
Sustainability 14 11015 g009
Figure 10. The competition for WFP collectors held during the 2018 edition of the Alaçatı Herb Festival. Prizes are awarded to the first three collectors of the greatest number of species and with the deepest knowledge of the species’ food and medicinal uses. Winners are awarded a gold bullion coined by the State Mint ranging in value from USD 100 to 400. During this edition, over 200 WFP were recorded by scientists, along with previously unknown information about the species. Credit: BFN-Türkiye.
Figure 10. The competition for WFP collectors held during the 2018 edition of the Alaçatı Herb Festival. Prizes are awarded to the first three collectors of the greatest number of species and with the deepest knowledge of the species’ food and medicinal uses. Winners are awarded a gold bullion coined by the State Mint ranging in value from USD 100 to 400. During this edition, over 200 WFP were recorded by scientists, along with previously unknown information about the species. Credit: BFN-Türkiye.
Sustainability 14 11015 g010
Table 1. The predefined criteria used to narrow down the list of WFP for food composition analysis and future value chain upgrading and market development.
Table 1. The predefined criteria used to narrow down the list of WFP for food composition analysis and future value chain upgrading and market development.
NutritionalEnvironmentalEconomic
-Iron content
-Calcium content
-Fiber content
-Antioxidant ratio
-Beta-carotene content
Conservation status
-Ex situ, in situ/on farm
Collection/Production
-Constraints
-Distance from collection/production sites
-Collection, production stability
Cultivation
-Ease of production
-Growth rate
-High adaptability
-Vegetation period
-Annual growth
Market characteristics
-Readily identifiable
-Ease of packaging
-Shelf-life attributes
Threats
-Habitat destruction and fragmentation
-Pollution
-Overexploitation
-Unsustainable collection practices
Distribution
-Widespread
Habitat preferences
Source: Adapted from Gee et al. [38].
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Borelli, T.; Güzelsoy, N.A.; Hunter, D.; Tan, A.; Karabak, S.; Uçurum, H.Ö.; Çavuş, F.; Ay, S.T.; Adanacıoğlu, N.; Özbek, K.; et al. Assessment of the Nutritional Value of Selected Wild Food Plants in Türkiye and Their Promotion for Improved Nutrition. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11015. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141711015

AMA Style

Borelli T, Güzelsoy NA, Hunter D, Tan A, Karabak S, Uçurum HÖ, Çavuş F, Ay ST, Adanacıoğlu N, Özbek K, et al. Assessment of the Nutritional Value of Selected Wild Food Plants in Türkiye and Their Promotion for Improved Nutrition. Sustainability. 2022; 14(17):11015. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141711015

Chicago/Turabian Style

Borelli, Teresa, Nurcan Ayşar Güzelsoy, Danny Hunter, Ayfer Tan, Sevinç Karabak, Huriye Özgül Uçurum, Filiz Çavuş, Saadet Tuğrul Ay, Neşe Adanacıoğlu, Kürşad Özbek, and et al. 2022. "Assessment of the Nutritional Value of Selected Wild Food Plants in Türkiye and Their Promotion for Improved Nutrition" Sustainability 14, no. 17: 11015. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141711015

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