Next Article in Journal
Microtensiometers Accurately Measure Stem Water Potential in Woody Perennials
Next Article in Special Issue
The Biology of the Genus Ceiba, a Potential Source for Sustainable Production of Natural Fiber
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Potassium Pre-Harvest Applications on Fruit Quality and Condition of Sweet Cherry (Prunus avium L.) Cultivated under Plastic Covers in Southern Chile Orchards
Previous Article in Special Issue
Influence of Habitat Types on Diversity and Species Composition of Urban Flora—A Case Study in Serbia
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Orchids of Azerbaijani Cemeteries

Department of Botany, University of Debrecen, Egyetem tér 1, H-4032 Debrecen, Hungary
Wetland Ecology Research Group, Centre for Ecological Research, Bem tér 18/C, H-4026 Debrecen, Hungary
Arbeitskreis Heimische Orchideen Baden-Württemberg, D-69469 Weinheim, Belgium
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2021, 10(12), 2779;
Submission received: 30 November 2021 / Accepted: 11 December 2021 / Published: 16 December 2021


In order to explore their orchid flora, we performed surveys of 96 Azerbaijani burial places in 2018 and 2019. Altogether, 28 orchid taxa were found in 37 visited cemeteries. In the orchid diversity a remarkable pattern was observed: geographic latitude was significantly and positively related to the number of taxa and number of individuals. The most widespread and abundant orchids in Azerbaijani graveyards were Anacamptis pyramidalis and A. papilionacea (found in 23 and 8 cemeteries, respectively). Azerbaijani cemeteries can be important refuges for rare and threatened orchids, e.g., Himantoglossum formosum (three cemeteries), Ophrys sphegodes subsp. mammosa (eight), Orchis adenocheila (two), O. punctulata (three), O. stevenii (one) and Steveniella satyrioides (one). Epipactis turcica, detected in a single locality, was previously unknown to the flora of Azerbaijan. Additionally, we documented orchid tuber (salep) collection in two cemeteries.

1. Introduction

The Earth’s surface has changed dramatically in recent centuries, with human activities serve as a leading cause of the drastic reduction in the area of natural habitats [1,2]. In parallel with the degradation and fragmentation of natural environments throughout the world, isolated natural habitat patches as remnants of the original wildlife have been revalued [3]. Anthropogenically influenced habitats now occupy a significant part of the Earth’s surface and expand rapidly [4]. In order to conserve the remaining biodiversity, it is of the utmost importance to identify and protect the remaining habitats with a high conservation value, to develop a sustainable habitat management practice, and to plan future developments in the light of nature conservation priorities [5].
Recently, conservation professionals have recognized that some of the anthropogenically influenced or even human-made habitats, such as abandoned mines and industrial sites [6,7,8], road verges [9,10,11], tree plantations [12,13,14], river dikes [15], burial mounds [16], and urban habitats [17,18], play significant roles in conserving biodiversity. During the last decades, it has become increasingly evident that cemeteries also play an important role in maintaining biodiversity [19]. Although the orchid flora of cemeteries is globally rather poorly known, occurrences of orchids were published from Australian, Asian, and European burial places [20]. Based on previous knowledge on the occurrence and diversity of orchids in Turkish [21,22,23,24], Albanian [25] and central European [26] burial grounds, we predicted potential conservational importance of traditional Caucasian cemeteries. One of the main goals of our study was to search for Himantoglossum formosum, the rarest and perhaps the least known orchid of the Caucasian region [27]. During the 180 years after its description [28], almost nothing was known about the species [29], and it was re-discovered in 1994 [30]. According to recent studies, this is an ancient, phylogenetically isolated [31] and morphologically well separated [32] bona fide species. It is listed as Vulnerable (Rare) in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Plants [33].
The aims of this paper were to survey Azerbaijani cemeteries as orchid habitats, and to test which geographic factors influence the prevalence of orchids in the surveyed cemeteries.

2. Materials and Methods

We studied burial grounds (Azerbaijani: məzarlıq, hereafter cemeteries) regardless of their spatial dimension, position within settlements, or presence of built facilities. We surveyed 96 Azerbaijani cemeteries (Figure 1, Table A1) during 2018 (17–30 May by Molnár V., Löki, Mizsei and Süveges, and 28 June–4 July by Molnár V. and Szabó) and 2019 (29 April–6 May by Verbeeck, Duijnhouwer, Segers and Bobocea) and (31 May–6 June by Verbeeck, Duijnhouwer and Bradeanu). Most cemeteries were visited only once (90 and 3 cemeteries in May 2018 and in April 2019, respectively), but three cemeteries were visited in both years. All orchid taxa and the number of individuals were counted or estimated in the whole area of each visited cemetery. Species were identified based on the comprehensive book of Kuehn et al. [34]. Authors of plant names were listed in Table 1. The geocoordinates and the elevation of the visited cemeteries were determined using a Garmin eTrex Legend handheld GPS device and recorded in WGS84 format. During field trips, particular attention was devoted to documenting salep collection activity in cemeteries.
To understand the role of geographic factors in determining variation in taxon richness and abundance of orchids across Azerbaijan, we built statistical models with either of these variables as dependent variables, and latitude, longitude and altitude as explanatory variables. Both the number of individuals and the number of taxa had Poisson distributions, but due to the overdispersion in these variables, we used generalized linear model (GLMs) with quasi-Poisson distribution. All models were built in the R statistical environment [35].

3. Results

Numbering (ID), geographic location, and altitude above see level of the cemeteries visited, together with lists of the orchid taxa found in each one, are given in Table A1. In total, 28 orchid taxa were found, and considerable differences can be observed in the number of individuals and frequency of each taxon (Table 1), as well as in orchid species richness and abundance of each cemetery (Table 2).
Each taxon was found total in 1–24 cemeteries (mean ± SD = 3.2 ± 4.5), with the number of individuals varying from 1 to 1902 (mean ± SD = 150 ± 374). The most widespread and abundant species was Anacamptis pyramidalis (Figure 2A). The number of taxa detected in only one graveyard was 15, whereas four species were found in more than five cemeteries. The highest number of taxa in a given cemetery was 9. In most cases only one taxon (18 cemeteries (15%)) or two taxa (11 cemeteries (9.4%)) occurred. Cemeteries that serve as habitats for five or more taxa were extremely rare (4 (3.4%)). The most orchid-rich cemeteries were found near Lerik (AZ-16, 9 species) Ağabəyli (AZ-52, 8 species), Nohurqishlaq (AZ-93, Figure 2B, 8 species), and DashliJalgan (AZ-90, 5 species).
The harvest of orchid tubers (“salep”) was observed in two cemeteries during 2018. In Ağabəyli cemetery (AZ-52, Figure 2D) three species (Anacamptis papilionacea, Orchis adenocheila, O. simia), and in Dashli Jalgan cemetery (AZ-90) five species (Anacamptis collina, A. papilionacea, Ophrys sphegodes subsp. mammosa, Orchis simia, Neotinea tridentata), were collected. Both of these localities host notable orchid populations with eight and five species, respectively.
The number of orchid taxa and individuals found in Azerbaijani cemeteries was significantly positively related to latitude (Table 3 and Table 4, respectively), but not to longitude and altitude. When non-significant predictors were removed from the model in a stepwise manner (based on the largest p-values), only latitude remained in the final model as a significant predictor of orchid species richness and abundance.

4. Discussion

During our work, it has been proved that Muslim Azerbaijani cemeteries host significant orchid populations. The key conservation importance of Azerbaijani cemeteries can be explained by two facts: (1) Religious privileges protected these sacred sites and their natural values, because they have largely been exempt from forest and agricultural utilization ever since; and (2) the mostly fenced area of cemeteries provide protection against excessive grazing (Figure 2E).
Azerbaijani cemeteries provide shelters for several valuable populations of rare and threatened orchids. From a conservation point of view, one of the most valuable species is the Eastern Caucasian endemic Himantoglossum formosum (Figure 2H), which was found in three of the visited cemeteries (Zizik, AZ-74, Figure 2C; Yasab, AZ-78; Piral, AZ-79). Viable populations of the rare Orchis adenocheila were found in two cemeteries (Lerik, AZ-16; Ağabəyli, AZ-52). The occurrence of Steveniella satyrioides was detected in cemetery of Lerik (Lerik, AZ-16, Figure 2F). The occurrence of Epipactis turcica (Figure 2G) was also found near Tengealti (AZ-85); this taxon was formerly unreported in Azerbaijan.
The long-term survival of these orchid populations in cemeteries strongly depends on long-established, sustainable management practices and traditional burial habits [22,36]. Establishment of graves (especially modern graves covered by marble or concrete tombstones) on the most valuable parts of these cemeteries is expressly undesirable from a conservation perspective, as well as the use of herbicides or electric trimmers. However, mowing or moderate grazing of grassy areas around the burial ground is preferred and encouraged for a more efficient conservation of the local biodiversity and valuable flora elements. Based on their diverse and abundant orchid community in some of the visited cemeteries, we strongly recommend the local councils and the nature protection authorities to protect certain burial places, especially near Lerik (AZ-16), Ağabəyli (AZ-52), DashliJalgan (AZ-90), Nohurqishlaq (AZ-93), and Nugadi (AZ-92).
A special threatening factor of tuberous orchids, namely the harvest of their tubers (making salep for culinary purposes [37]) was observed in Azerbaijani cemeteries. On the one hand, the right of local human communities to continue using traditional natural resources is unquestionable and seems also sustainable [38,39]. On the other hand, the effects of tuber collection on populations of frequent and widespread orchids is little known, while the sustainability of salep harvesting is at least controversial [40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47]. However, destroying the rarest taxa (Himantoglossum formosum, Orchis adenocheila) should definitely be avoided.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: A.M.V.; formal analysis: K.S.; investigation: A.M.V., V.L., M.V. and K.S.; writing—original draft preparation: A.M.V.; writing—review and editing: V.L., M.V. and K.S.; visualization: A.M.V., V.L. and M.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research was funded by the National Research, Development and Innovation Office of Hungary (grant number NKFI-OTKA K132573).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data analyzed in this study are available in Appendix A.


The authors are grateful to Edvárd Mizsei, Éva Szabó, Luc Segers, Roel Duijnhouwer, Alin Bradeanu and Mihai Bobocea for their assistance during the field work, to Attila Takács for editing the map of surveyed cemeteries and to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions and useful recommendations. We would like to express our gratitude to C. A. J. Kreutz (The Netherlands) for identification of Epipactis turcica, and to Orsolya Vincze for her linguistic corrections of the earlier version of our manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Numbering (ID), geographic location, altitude, year of observation and orchid taxa of the 96 cemeteries studied in Azerbaijan. A dash “–” indicates that no orchid taxa were recorded. Generic name abbreviations: A.—Anacamptis, C.—Cephalanthera, D.—Dactylorhiza, E.—Epipactis, H.—Himantoglossum, L.—Limodorum, O.—Orchis, Op.—Ophrys, S.—Steveniella.
Table A1. Numbering (ID), geographic location, altitude, year of observation and orchid taxa of the 96 cemeteries studied in Azerbaijan. A dash “–” indicates that no orchid taxa were recorded. Generic name abbreviations: A.—Anacamptis, C.—Cephalanthera, D.—Dactylorhiza, E.—Epipactis, H.—Himantoglossum, L.—Limodorum, O.—Orchis, Op.—Ophrys, S.—Steveniella.
IDSettlementLatitude, LongitudeAlt. (m)YearTaxa (Number of Individuals)
01Şorsulu39.42429° N, 48.82938° E262018
02TəzəAlvadı39.09155° N, 48.61027° E22018
03Lənkəran38.77246° N, 48.83487° E292018
04Lənkəran38.74200° N, 48.83201° E192018
05Velədi38.72414°N, 48.82849°E152018
06Şürük38.69889° N, 48.78815° E212018
07Telman38.65184° N, 48.80355° E12018
08Kəkülus38.61265° N, 48.84406° E172018
09Kərgəlan38.73326° N, 48.79404° E02018
10Shaglakuche38.72074° N, 48.76931° E582018
11Shaglakuche38.71618° N, 48.76020° E602018
12Shaglakuche38.71618° N, 48.74096° E802018
13Shaglakuche38.71839° N, 48.72004° E972018
14Lerik38.80257° N, 48.45105° E8032018O. mascula (4)
15Lerik38.77126° N, 48.41079° E11082018
16Lerik38.76576° N, 48.42419° E10622018, 2019A. papilionacea (2019: 3), A. pyramidalis (2018: 500, 2019: 300), D. romana (2019: 20), Op. caucasica (2019: 5), Op. sphegodes subsp. mammosa (2018: 50, 2019: 100), O. adenocheila (2018: 5, 2019: 200), O. mascula (2019: 5), O. simia (2018: 50, 2019: 200), S. satyrioides (2019: 1)
17Ambu38.75581° N, 48.44571° E12382018
18Gosmalijion38.69194° N, 48.40264° E13082018
19Laman38.85799° N, 48.39724° E8002018
20Aran38.87474° N, 48.39668° E7802018
21Aran38.87868° N, 48.39648° E7802018
22Bülüdül38.83971° N, 48.30756° E8052018A. pyramidalis (7), L. abortivum (4)
23Züvüç38.86909° N, 48.30655° E8852018
24Yardımlı38.88330° N, 48.28216° E10202018
25Yardımlı38.90051° N, 48.25522° E8272018
26Yardımlı38.90921° N, 48.24933° E7202018
27Perimbel38.90218° N, 48.09793° E13662018
28Yardımlı38.91879° N, 48.31857° E5802018
29Yeyənkənd38.98335° N, 48.57487° E1022018L. abortivum (8)
30Allahyarlı39.00025° N, 48.60194° E662018
31Göygöl40.57610° N, 46.30989° E7202018
32Zurnabad40.51304° N, 46.24282° E9582018A. pyramidalis (100), Op. sphegodes subsp. mammosa (8)
33Dağ Kəsəmən41.08915° N, 45.38852° E4012018
34Poylu41.15871° N, 45.44410° E3282018
35Köçəsgər41.05043° N, 45.50680° E4562018
36Qaraxanlı41.05042° N, 45.68841° E3462018
37Tovuz40.97800° N, 45.62000° E4402018
38İbrahimhacılı40.89159° N, 45.74460° E5482018
39Ağaməmmədli40.85088° N, 45.73310° E5812018A. morio (1)
40Yanıqlı40.84016° N, 45.67080° E6692018A. pyramidalis (100), O. simia (20)
41Məşədilər40.87028° N, 45.74312° E5482018
42Düyərli40.91173° N, 45.85246° E3692018
43Gəncə40.71074° N, 46.42177° E3702018
44Şiştəpə40.83121° N, 45.87962° E5922018A. morio (8)
45Şəmkir40.80390° N, 46.01184° E5592018
46Çinarlı40.78807° N, 46.10889° E4312018
47Ağsu40.53386° N, 48.33778° E1522018A. pyramidalis (25), O. simia (20)
48Ağsu40.56429° N, 48.38220° E1522018
49Muğanlı40.63904° N, 48.50003° E7322018
50Muğanlı40.66912° N, 48.52951° E8782018
51Böyük Xınıslı40.65781° N, 48.61163° E8702018A. papilionacea (1)
52Ağabəyli40.66747° N, 48.57887° E9272018A. collina (1), A. papilionacea (465), A. pyramidalis (150), Op. apifera (1), Op. sphegodes subsp. mammosa (3), O. adenocheila (39), O. punctulata (1), O. simia (26)
53Şamaxı40.64936° N, 48.62496° E7832018
54Muğanlı40.67730° N, 48.55807° E9712018A. pyramidalis (9), Op. apifera (2)
55Suraxanı40.71495° N, 48.47015° E9002018A. pyramidalis (1)
56Kalva40.72985° N, 48.48152° E9072018A. pyramidalis (1)
57Xatman40.72947° N, 48.49023° E8622018
58Dilman40.72596° N, 48.49876° E8312018
59Məlhəm40.69225° N, 48.62865° E11152018A. papilionacea (1)
60Qəleybuğurd40.75093° N, 48.56726° E9122018L. abortivum (10)
61Əngixaran40.67143° N, 48.65670° E9782018A. papilionacea (2), A. pyramidalis (140), Op. sphegodes subsp. mammosa (8), Op. oestrifera (1)
62Gandov40.81714° N, 48.31921° E9522018
63Müşkəmir40.81919° N, 48.33202° E11002018
64Lahıc40.84393° N, 48.37823° E12142018A. coriophora (1), A. pyramidalis (7)
65Qaraqaya40.79417° N, 48.30885° E11112018
66Talıstan40.79954° N, 48.20033° E8272018
67Talıstan40.80186° N, 48.20287° E8502018
68İkinci Yeniyol40.75425° N, 48.26252° E8502018A. pyramidalis (12), Op. oestrifera (1)
69Təzəkənd40.73435° N, 48.27164° E6712018A. papilionacea (10), A. pyramidalis (2)
70Sabir40.59207° N, 48.70527° E5672018
71Digah41.38517° N, 48.47876° E6622018A. pyramidalis (3)
72Qirmizi Qəsəbə41.37358° N, 48.51741° E6072018
73Ağbil41.42650° N, 48.56662° E4102018C. damasonium (1), E. sp. (2)
74Zizik41.38543° N, 48.57021° E4822018, 2019H. formosum (2018: 21, 2019: 7), Op. sphegodes subsp. mammosa (2018: 1)
75Avadjuk41.47244° N, 48.39413° E6702018A. pyramidalis (1)
76Hil41.46756° N, 48.35726° E7702018
77Hil41.46891° N, 48.33767° E7682018-
78Yasab41.49661° N, 48.31670° E7872018, 2019H. formosum (2018: 4, 2019: 0)
79Piral41.50062° N, 48.29514° E8382018A. pyramidalis (13), H. formosum (2)
80Hazra41.50588° N, 48.25472° E7252018A. pyramidalis (2)
81Laza41.29840° N, 48.11429° E17032018
82Urva41.40196° N, 48.34058° E10462018
83Qusar41.41850° N, 48.40676° E7682018C. rubra (2)
84Pirvahid41.32669° N, 48.65619° E3702018A. pyramidalis (6)
85Tengealti41.23764° N, 48.62676° E7012018A. pyramidalis (10), C. rubra (5), E. turcica (7), L. abortivum (1)
86Sirt-Chichi41.22650° N, 48.67541° E6722018
87Chichi41.21673° N, 48.67737° E5382018A. pyramidalis (2), C. rubra (2), E. microphylla (3)
88Gilanov41.23790° N, 48.75276° E3252018
89Mashrif41.09305° N, 48.96764° E4202018
90Dashli Jalgan41.08023° N, 48.98348° E1802018A. collina (77), A. papilonacea (35), Neotinea tridentata (3), Op. sphegodes subsp. mammosa (96), O. simia (11)
91Tıxlı40.90958° N, 49.10128° E5932018A. collina (8), A. sp. (6), Op. sp. (24)
92Nugadi41.31504° N, 48.59641° E5062018A. pyramidalis (800), O. cf. caucasica (50), O. simia (200)
93Nohurqishlaq40.95280° N, 47.92485° E7492019A. coriophora (5), A. pyramidalis (5), A. morio (505), Op. sphegodes subsp. mammosa (10), Op. oestrifera (1), O. ×chabalensis (O. punctulata × O. stevenii) (30), O. punctulata (10), O. stevenii (20)
94Chukhur Gabala40.87934° N, 47.69153° E4042019A. pyramidalis (5)
95Şəfili40.84899° N, 47.69877° E3542019A. papilionacea (50), Op. sphegodes subsp. mammosa (1), O. punctulata (3), O. simia (15)
96Gosmalijion38.67424° N, 48.37322° E14502018


  1. Le Roux, J.J.; Hui, C.; Castillo, M.L.; Iriondo, J.M.; Keet, J.H.; Khapugin, A.A.; Médail, F.; Rejmánek, M.; Theron, G.; Yanelli, F.A.; et al. Recent anthropogenic plant extinctions differ in biodiversity hotspots and cold spots. Curr. Biol. 2019, 29, 2912–2918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Fahrig, L. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2003, 34, 487–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Saunders, D.A.; Hobbs, R.J.; Margules, C.R. Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: A review. Conserv. Biol. 1991, 5, 18–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ellis, E.C. Evolution: Biodiversity in the Anthropocene. Curr. Biol. 2019, 29, R831–R833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Areendran, G.; Sahana, M.; Raj, K.; Kumar, R.; Sivadas, A.; Kumar, A.; Deb, S.; Gupta, V.D. A systematic review on high conservation value assessment (HCVs): Challenges and framework for future research on conservation strategy. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 709, 135425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Ratcliffe, D.A. Ecological effects of mineral exploitation in the United Kingdom and their significance to nature conservation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 1974, 339, 355–372. [Google Scholar]
  7. Esfeld, K.; Hensen, I.; Wesche, K.; Jakob, S.S.; Tischew, S.; Blattner, F.R. Molecular data indicate multiple independent colonizations of former lignite mining areas in Eastern Germany by Epipactis palustris (Orchidaceae). Biodivers. Conserv. 2008, 17, 2441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Shefferson, R.P.; Kull, T.; Tali, K. Mycorrhizal interactions of orchids colonizing Estonian mine tailings hills. Am. J. Bot. 2008, 95, 156–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Way, J.M. Roadside verges and conservation in Britain: A review. Biol. Conserv. 1977, 12, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Fekete, R.; Nagy, T.; Bódis, J.; Biró, É.; Löki, V.; Süveges, K.; Takács, A.; Tökölyi, J.; Molnár, V.A. Roadside verges as habitats of rare lizard-orchids (Himantoglossum spp.): Ecological traps or refuges? Sci. Tot. Environ. 2017, 607–608, 1001–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  11. Fekete, R.; Bódis, J.; Fülöp, B.; Süveges, K.; Urgyán, R.; Malkócs, T.; Vincze, O.; Silva, L.; Molnár, V.A. Roadsides provide refuge for orchids characteristic of the surrounding landscape. Ecol. Evol. 2020, 10, 13236–13247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Adamowski, W.; Conti, F. Mass occurrence of orchids in poplar plantations near Czeremcha village as an example of apophytism. Phytocoenosis 1991, 3, 259–267. [Google Scholar]
  13. Adamowski, W. Population expansion of native orchids in anthropogenous habitats. Neobiota 2004, 3, 86. [Google Scholar]
  14. Süveges, K.; Löki, V.; Lovas-Kiss, Á.; Ljubka, T.; Fekete, R.; Takács, A.; Vincze, O.; Lukács, B.A.; Molnár, V.A. From European priority species to characteristic apophyte: Epipactis tallosii (Orchidaceae). Willdenowia 2019, 49, 401–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Bátori, Z.; Körmöczi, L.; Zalatnai, M.; Erdős, L.; Ódor, P.; Tölgyesi, C.; Margóczi, K.; Torma, A.; Gallé, R.; Cseh, V.; et al. River dikes in agricultural landscapes: The importance of secondary habitats in maintaining landscape-scale diversity. Wetlands 2016, 36, 251–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Deák, B.; Tóthmérész, B.; Valkó, O.; Sudnik-Wojcikowska, B.; Moysiyenko, I.I.; Bragina, T.M.; Apostolova, I.; Dembicz, I.; Bykov, N.I.; Török, P. Cultural monuments and nature conservation: A review of the role of kurgans in the conservation and restoration of steppe vegetation. Biodivers. Conserv. 2016, 25, 2473–2490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kantsa, A.; Tscheulin, T.; Junker, R.R.; Petanidou, T.; Kokkini, S. Urban biodiversity hotspots wait to get discovered: The example of the city of Ioannina, NW Greece. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 120, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Molnár, V.A.; Siffer, S.; Molnár, H.A.; Fekete, R. Occurrence of the rare plant Sternbergia colchiciflora in urban environment. Biol. Futur. 2020, 71, 93–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Barrett, G.W.; Barrett, T.L. Cemeteries as repositories of natural and cultural diversity. Conserv. Biol. 2001, 15, 1820–1824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Löki, V.; Deák, B.; Lukács, B.A.; Molnár, V.A. Biodiversity potential of burial places—A review on the flora and fauna of cemeteries and churchyards. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2019, 18, e00614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Löki, V.; Tökölyi, J.; Süveges, K.; Lovas-Kiss, Á.; Hürkan, K.; Sramkó, G.; Molnár, V.A. The orchid flora of Turkish graveyards: A comprehensive field survey. Willdenowia 2015, 45, 231–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Löki, V.; Molnár, V.A.; Süveges, K.; Heimeier, H.; Takács, A.; Nagy, T.; Fekete, R.; Lovas-Kiss, Á.; Kreutz, C.A.J.; Sramkó, G.; et al. Predictors of conservation value of Turkish cemeteries: A case study using orchids. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 186, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Molnár, V.A.; Nagy, T.; Löki, V.; Süveges, K.; Takács, A.; Bódis, J.; Tökölyi, J. Turkish graveyards as refuges for orchids against tuber harvest. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 7, 11257–11264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Molnár, V.A.; Süveges, K.; Molnár, Z.S.; Löki, V. Using localpeople’s traditional ecological knowledge in discovery of rare plants: A case study from Turkey. Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 2017, 86, 3541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Molnár, V.A.; Takács, A.; Mizsei, E.; Löki, V.; Barina, Z.; Sramkó, G.; Tökölyi, J. Religious differences affect orchid diversity of Albanian graveyards. Pak. J. Bot. 2017, 49, 289–303. [Google Scholar]
  26. Löki, V.; Schmotzer, A.; Takács, A.; Süveges, K.; Lovas-Kiss, Á.; Lukács, B.A.; Tökölyi, J.; Molnár, V.A. The protected flora of long-established cemeteries in Hungary: Using historical maps in biodiversity conservation. Ecol. Evol. 2020, 10, 7497–7508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Vakhrameeva, M.G.; Tatarenko, I.V.; Varlygina, T.I.; Torosyan, G.K.; Zagulskii, M.N. Orchids of Russia and Adjacent Countries; ARG GantnerVerlag KG: Ruggel, Lichtenstein, 2008; 690p. [Google Scholar]
  28. Steven, C. Stirpes rariores in itinere Caucasico A 1810 lectae a C. Steven. Mémoires Société Impériale Nat. Moscou 1813, 4, 89–112. [Google Scholar]
  29. Baumann, H.; Kunkele, S. Die Wildwachsenden Orchideen Europas; Kosmos: Stuttgart, Germany, 1982; 432p. [Google Scholar]
  30. Rückbrodt, D.; Rückbrodt, H.; Gügel, E.; Zaiss, W.-W. Bemerkungen zu Orchideen des Kaukasusgebietes. Ber. Arbeitskr. Heim. Orch. 1994, 11, 46–56. [Google Scholar]
  31. Sramkó, G.; Molnár, V.A.; Hawkins, J.A.; Bateman, R.M. Molecular phylogeny and evolutionary history of the Eurasiatic orchid genus Himantoglossum s. l. (Orchidaceae). Ann. Bot. 2014, 114, 1609–1626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Bateman, R.M.; Molnár, V.A.; Sramkó, G. In situ morphometric survey elucidates the evolutionary systematic of the Eurasian Himantoglossum clade (Orchidaceae: Orchidinae). PeerJ 2017, 5, e2893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Walter, K.S.; Gillett, H.J. 1997 IUCN Red List of ThreatenedPlants; IUCN—The World Conservation Union: Gland, Switzerland, 1998; 932p. [Google Scholar]
  34. Kuehn, R.; Pedersen, H.A.; Cribb, P. Field Guide to the Orchids of European and the Mediterranean; Kew Publishing: Kew, UK, 2019; 430p. [Google Scholar]
  35. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Available online: (accessed on 30 November 2021).
  36. Tamer, E.C.; Karaman, B.; Copur, U.O. A traditional Turkish beverage: Salep. Food Rev. Int. 2006, 22, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Molnár, V.A.; Löki, V. Disappearing botanical and cultural heritage of wooden headboard-graveyards in Eastern-Hungary and Transylvania (Romania). Kitaibelia 2018, 23, 51–64. [Google Scholar]
  38. Berkes, F.; Folke, C.; Gadgil, M. Traditional ecological knowledge, biodiversity, resilience and sustainability. In Biodiversity Conservation; Perrings, C., Ed.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 269–287. [Google Scholar]
  39. Turner, N.J.; Turner, K.L. Traditional food systems, erosion and renewal in Northwestern North America. Indian J. Tradit. Knowl. 2007, 6, 57–68. [Google Scholar]
  40. Kasparek, M.; Grimm, U. European trade in Turkish salep with special reference to Germany. Econ. Bot. 1999, 53, 396–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pieroni, A. Reader ponders trade in salep (ground orchid bulbs). Econ. Bot. 2000, 54, 138–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sezik, E. Destruction and conservation of Turkish orchids. In Biodiversity—Biomolecular Aspects of Biodiversity and Innovative Utilization; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2002; pp. 391–400. [Google Scholar]
  43. Sezik, E. Turkish orchids and salep. Acta Pharm. Turc. 2002, 44, 151–157. [Google Scholar]
  44. Ghorbani, A.; Gravendeel, B.; Naghibi, F.; de Boer, H. Wild orchid tuber collection inIran: A wake-up call for conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 2014, 23, 2749–2760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kreziou, A.; de Boer, H.; Gravendeel, B. Harvesting of salep orchids in north-western Greece continues to threaten natural populations. Oryx 2016, 50, 393–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Mincheva, I.; Petrova, A.; Yordanova, M.; Kozuharova, E. Is the traditional use of “salep” in the Bulgarian Rhodopes hazardous for the wild populations of terrestrial orchids? Flora Mediterr. 2018, 28, 399–418. [Google Scholar]
  47. Charitonidou, M.; Stara, K.; Kougioumoutzis, K.; Halley, J.M. Implications of salep collection for the conservation of the Elder-flowered orchid (Dactylorhiza sambucina) in Epirus, Greece. J. Biol. Res. Thessalon. 2019, 26, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Number of orchid taxa in the cemeteries surveyed.
Figure 1. Number of orchid taxa in the cemeteries surveyed.
Plants 10 02779 g001
Figure 2. Orchids in Azerbaijani cemeteries. (A) Anacamptis pyramidalis population in the cemetery of Əngixaran (AZ–61). (B) Cemetery of Nohurqishlaq (AZ-93), habitat of Orchis punctulata, O. stevenii and their hybrids (Orchis ×chabalensis). (C) Viable population of Himantoglossum formosum was found on a few tens of square meter of refuge under some old oak trees in cemetery of Zizik (AZ-74). (D) Spurs of salep harvesting in the cemetery of Ağabəyli (AZ-52). (E) Effect of fencing around cemetery against grazing: plant cover is considerable lower outside (left) than inside (right, with flowering individuals of Anacamptis pyramidalis) of cemetery of Zurnabad (AZ-32). (F) Inflorescence of Steveniella satyrioides. (G) Occurrence of Epipactis turcica was formerly unknown from Azerbaijan (Tengealti, AZ-85). (H) A very localized and rare endemic species, Himantoglossum formosum in cemetery of Zizik (AZ-74). Photo credit: A, C, D, G and H by A. Molnár V.; B and F by M. Verbeeck; E by V. Löki.
Figure 2. Orchids in Azerbaijani cemeteries. (A) Anacamptis pyramidalis population in the cemetery of Əngixaran (AZ–61). (B) Cemetery of Nohurqishlaq (AZ-93), habitat of Orchis punctulata, O. stevenii and their hybrids (Orchis ×chabalensis). (C) Viable population of Himantoglossum formosum was found on a few tens of square meter of refuge under some old oak trees in cemetery of Zizik (AZ-74). (D) Spurs of salep harvesting in the cemetery of Ağabəyli (AZ-52). (E) Effect of fencing around cemetery against grazing: plant cover is considerable lower outside (left) than inside (right, with flowering individuals of Anacamptis pyramidalis) of cemetery of Zurnabad (AZ-32). (F) Inflorescence of Steveniella satyrioides. (G) Occurrence of Epipactis turcica was formerly unknown from Azerbaijan (Tengealti, AZ-85). (H) A very localized and rare endemic species, Himantoglossum formosum in cemetery of Zizik (AZ-74). Photo credit: A, C, D, G and H by A. Molnár V.; B and F by M. Verbeeck; E by V. Löki.
Plants 10 02779 g002
Table 1. Orchid taxa recorded in Azerbaijani cemeteries.
Table 1. Orchid taxa recorded in Azerbaijani cemeteries.
TaxonNo. of CemeteriesTotal Number
of Individuals
Anacamptis pyramidalis (L.) Rich.231901
Anacamptis papilionacea L.8567
Ophrys sphegodes subsp. mammosa (Desf.) Soó ex Nelson8227
Orchis simia Lam.7492
Limodorum abortivum (L.) Sw.423
Anacamptis morio (L.) Bateman et al.3514
Anacamptis collina (Banks and Sol. ex Russell) Bateman et al.386
Himantoglossum formosum (Steven) K. Koch327
Orchis punctulata Steven ex Lindl.314
Cephalanthera rubra (L.) Rich.39
Ophrys oestrifera M. Bieb.33
Orchis adenocheila Czerniak.2239
Orchis mascula subsp. longicalcarata Akhalk. et al.29
Anacamptis coriophora (L.) Bateman et al.26
Ophrys apifera Huds.23
Orchis caucasica Regel150
Orchis ×chabalensis B. Baumann et al. (O. punctulata × O. stevenii)130
Ophrys sp.124
Dactylorhiza romana (Sebast.) Soó120
Orchis stevenii Rchb. F.120
Epipactis turcica Kreutz17
Anacamptis sp.16
Ophrys caucasica Woronow ex Grossh.15
Epipactis microphylla (Ehrh.) Sw.13
Neotinea tridentata (Scop.) Bateman et al.13
Epipactis sp.12
Cephalanthera damasonium (Mill.) Druce11
Steveniella satyrioides (Spreng.) Schltr.11
Table 2. Descriptive statistics orchid flora of Azerbaijani cemeteries.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics orchid flora of Azerbaijani cemeteries.
Number of cemeteries studied96
Number of cemeteries hosting orchids37
Rate of cemeteries hosting orchids38.5%
Mean (±SD) number of orchid taxa/cemeteries0.92 (±1.73)
Maximum number of orchid taxa/cemeteries9
Mean (±SD) number of orchid individuals/cemeteries44.4 (±173.8)
Maximum number of orchid individuals/cemeteries1050
Table 3. Effect of geographic location on number of orchid taxa per cemetery. Parameter estimates, their standard errors (SE), associated t-values (t) and significance levels (p) are presented.
Table 3. Effect of geographic location on number of orchid taxa per cemetery. Parameter estimates, their standard errors (SE), associated t-values (t) and significance levels (p) are presented.
Full ModelMinimal Model
Table 4. Effect of geographic location on number of orchid individuals in Azerbaijani cemeteries.
Table 4. Effect of geographic location on number of orchid individuals in Azerbaijani cemeteries.
Full ModelMinimal Model
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Molnár V., A.; Löki, V.; Verbeeck, M.; Süveges, K. Orchids of Azerbaijani Cemeteries. Plants 2021, 10, 2779.

AMA Style

Molnár V. A, Löki V, Verbeeck M, Süveges K. Orchids of Azerbaijani Cemeteries. Plants. 2021; 10(12):2779.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Molnár V., Attila, Viktor Löki, Marc Verbeeck, and Kristóf Süveges. 2021. "Orchids of Azerbaijani Cemeteries" Plants 10, no. 12: 2779.

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