You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Plants
  • Review
  • Open Access

30 June 2025

Wild Species from the Asteraceae Family, Traditionally Consumed in Some Mediterranean Countries

,
,
,
,
,
,
,
and
1
Faculty of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacognosy, Medical University-Sofia, 1000 Sofia, Bulgaria
2
Department of Drug and Health Sciences, University of Catania, Viale A. Doria 6, 95125 Catania, Italy
3
Research Centre on Nutraceuticals and Health Products (CERNUT), University of Catania, Viale A. Doria 6, 95125 Catania, Italy
4
Department of Plant Biology and Ecology, University of Seville, Avda. Reina Mercedes s/n, 41012 Seville, Spain
This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Botanical Research in the Mediterranean Area: Studies in Honor of Prof. Francesco Maria Raimondo on the Occasion of His 80th Birthday

Abstract

Mediterranean countries represent a dynamic hub of cultural exchange, where wild plants play a significant role in culinary traditions. A substantial number of these plants belong to the Asteraceae family. The climate similarities across the region contribute to the common distribution ranges of the plants. While many species are widely distributed, others are confined to specific subregions, such as the western Mediterranean, eastern Mediterranean, or North Africa. Only six taxa of the traditionally consumed wild Asteraceae plants are endemic to just one country. This review focuses on wild plants from the Asteraceae family traditionally used as food across 13 study sites, comprising 11 countries in the Mediterranean and adjacent territories, including both mainland areas and three islands. The objective is to identify and analyze patterns of native distribution in relation to actual consumption. As a result, 167 edible wild plants from the Asteraceae family were identified. Their patterns of distribution and consumption are described and analyzed. The highest number of these edible wild plants from the Asteraceae family is consumed in Spain (n = 65), followed by southern Italy (n = 44) and Morocco (n = 32). A similar pattern of consumption is seen in Turkey (n = 24), Sicily (n = 23), Jordan and Palestine (n = 21), and Bulgaria (n = 21). It is notable that 106 plants are used as food in one particular country only, although most of them are distributed in several other countries. Many of the species consumed in certain countries are not used by neighboring populations, highlighting a limited cross-border transmission of ethnobotanical knowledge. The findings from a Jaccard index statistical analysis are discussed.

1. Introduction

The consumption of edible wild plants is deeply rooted in the cultural heritage of various regions, reflecting the local traditions and identities of their communities. The Mediterranean basin, in particular, stands out as a melting pot of diverse cultures and religious traditions, shaped over centuries by significant migrations, invasions, and conquests. For example, during the 10th and 11th centuries, various European territories were taken over by Muslim forces [1]. Later, in the 14th and 15th centuries, the Ottoman Empire expanded its reach, moving west into the Balkans, south into the Near East and North Africa, and east toward the Caspian Sea, encompassing regions like Armenia [2]. Additionally, historical ties between eastern Spain and Sicily can be traced back to the 13th century when Sicily was under the rule of the Kingdom of Aragon. The island also managed to maintain its political stability by resisting pressures from dominant maritime republics like Pisa and Genoa [3]. Furthermore, notable cultural exchanges occurred between Spain and Morocco during the Middle Ages [4].
Trade routes crisscrossing the Mediterranean Sea played a crucial role in the transmission of knowledge among the diverse cultures inhabiting the region, including practices related to the consumption of wild plants as food. Due to enduring Mediterranean customs, many of these wild plants remain integral to local cuisines today [5]. Since ancient times, native plant species have served as one of the most accessible food sources. Across the globe, communities have explored and consumed various parts of the plants available in their immediate environments. Over time, numerous plant species underwent prolonged selection and domestication, and as human populations relocated to new areas, they brought these plants along with them [6]. This has given rise to a rich tapestry of culinary traditions; however, while they often share similarities, each region has also preserved its own unique food customs.
Since ancient times, wild plants consumed by populations in the Mediterranean have attracted attention due to their positive effects on human health. The notable life expectancy of people in this region is often linked to their dietary habits. The Mediterranean diet, in particular, is widely regarded as a health-promoting and environmentally sustainable model. It supports biodiversity, fosters a deep cultural identity, and helps preserve long-standing traditions among communities throughout the Mediterranean basin [7]. Typically, the traditional diet in these countries emphasizes the consumption of a wide variety of foraged plant foods. These include climbing plants with tender shoots, wild tubers, leafy greens, fruits from native trees and shrubs, and aromatic herbs used for seasoning [8,9]. In recent years, growing scientific interest has focused on edible wild plants, especially regarding the health-related properties of their phytochemicals. This has led to them being referred to as “new functional foods” [10].
In the Mediterranean region, approximately 2300 species of fungi and plants are foraged from the wild for food, with a significant proportion belonging to the Asteraceae family. For instance, in Andalusia, 336 wild plant taxa—representing about 7% of the region’s total wild flora—are gathered and consumed, and Asteraceae members lead the list with 65 species (18% of the plants used for food) [11]. The Asteraceae family includes over 1600 genera and 25,000 species worldwide. This plant family has long been valued for its diverse usesok, ranging from culinary and traditional medicinal applications in ancient times to modern roles in the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries [12,13].
The shared characteristics of the Mediterranean climate influence the distribution patterns of many plant species across the region. While numerous plants are widespread throughout the entire area, some are found only in either the western or eastern parts of the Mediterranean. Certain species are exclusive to North Africa, whereas others do not extend as far south [14]. As a result, these floristic differences shape the use of particular wild plants as food, making them common in some countries or regions, yet absent from the traditional diets of others.
The aim of this review is to study wild plants from the Asteraceae family that are traditionally consumed in 13 study sites across 11 countries, including three islands in the Mediterranean, and their adjacent territories (Figure 1). Here we endeavor to trace the native distribution and patterns of cultural exchange. We aim to test the following statements: (1) the neighboring countries have high similarity in the distribution of Asteraceae taxa, and (2) the countries with a common history have high similarity in consumption patterns.
Figure 1. Study sites. Legend: JO—Jordan and Palestine; IT—southern Italy; MA—Morocco; Sicily; ES—Spain; SY—Syria; TR—Turkey (Türkiye); AL—Albania; AM—Armenia; BG—Bulgaria; Crete; CY—Cyprus; GR—Greece. Credit https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BlankMap-Europe-v4.png. accessed on 16 May 2020.

2. Results

2.1. Distribution of Wild Asteraceae Species, Traditionally Used as Food

Based on our literature review, we compiled a list of 167 wild Asteraceae species traditionally consumed across 13 study locations, including mainland areas and three islands, spanning 11 countries within the Mediterranean region and its neighboring territories (see Figure 1, Table 1).
Table 1. Wild plants from the Asteraceae family traditionally used as food, and their distribution in 11 Mediterranean countries and adjacent territories. Legend: JO—Jordan and Palestine; IT—southern Italy; MA—Morocco; Sicily; ES—Spain; SY—Syria; TR—Turkey; AL—Albania; AM—Armenia; BG—Bulgaria; Crete; CY—Cyprus; GR—Greece. Note: asterisk marks those species that are collected in the field and eaten only in one or two of the 50 Spanish provinces, while all other species listed for Spain are used in three or more provinces. The distribution of the taxa basically follows the Euro+Med Plantbase [14]; double asterisks mark the synonym names used in the original publications.
The distribution of these 167 taxa is either all over the territory of the studied sites or restricted to certain parts (Table 1).
The listed 167 wild plants from family Asteraceae, consumed traditionally (Table 1) are documented from west to east as follows: 32 taxa in Morocco [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22], 65 taxa in Spain [23,24,25], 23 taxa in Sicily [26,27,28,29], 44 taxa in southern Italy [30,31,32,33,34], 11 taxa in Albania [32,34,35,36], 11 taxa in Greece [37,38,39], 16 taxa in Crete [37,40,41], 14 taxa in Cyprus [37,41], 24 taxa in Turkey (Türkiye) [42,43,44,45,46], 21 taxa in Bulgaria [43,47,48,49,50,51], 18 taxa in Armenia [52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59], 13 taxa in Syria [60], 22 taxa in Jordan and Palestine [61,62,63,64] (Figure 2). The highest number of these edible wild plants from the Asteraceae family is consumed in Spain (n = 65), followed by southern Italy (n = 44) and Morocco (n = 32) (Figure 2). A similar pattern of consumption is seen in Turkey (n = 24), Sicily (n = 23), Jordan and Palestine (n = 21), and Bulgaria (n = 21) (Figure 2). This rating pattern may mean that the tradition of consumption is strongest in these countries. However, it may be a reflection of the depth of ethnobotanical studies in these countries compared to the others.
Figure 2. Number of wild species from the Asteraceae family distributed and consumed in each of the study sites. The x-axis presents the studied countries, and the y-axis presents the number of wild species from the family Asteraceae, respectively distributed (green) and consumed (purple) in each of the study sites.
It is also demonstrated that only a little more than half of the distributed edible plants from the Asteraceae family (in Spain), or often less than half (in the other countries), are traditionally consumed (Figure 3). Spain has the highest rate of utilization of edible wild Asteraceae species found within its territory (56.8%), followed by Italy (41.9%), Armenia (32.7%), Morocco (31.1%), Jordan and Palestine (30.1%), and Bulgaria (29.2%). The lowest level of consumption is recorded in Greece, where only 10.6% (11 taxa) of the edible wild Asteraceae members distributed within its borders are utilized (Figure 3). Notably, Spain hosts the largest number of wild plants recognized as edible from the Asteraceae family (116 taxa, or 69.5%. Figure 2 and Figure 4). Next is Turkey with 109 taxa, or 65.3%. Similarly, a high number of edible wild Asteraceae members grow in Italy (105 taxa or 62.9%), Morocco (105 taxa or 62.9%) and Greece (98 taxa or 58.7%, Figure 2 and Figure 4).
Figure 3. Percentage of traditionally consumed versus distributed edible wild plants from the Asteraceae family in each country. The x-axis presents the studied countries, and the y-axis presents the percentage of consumed versus distributed edible wild plants from the Asteraceae family in each country.
Figure 4. Percentage of distribution in each study site versus all detected edible wild plants from the Asteraceae family. The x-axis presents the studied countries, and the y-axis presents the percentage of distribution in each country versus all detected edible wild plants from the family Asteraceae.
In general, the edible wild plants from the Asteraceae family have a wide distribution range, growing in many of the study sites. For example, in all the study sites, Bellis perennis L., Calendula arvensis (Vaill.) L. (although in Bulgaria it is only along the Black Sea coast), Centaurea solstitialis L., Chondrilla juncea L., Cichorium intybus L., Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten., Dittrichia graveolens (L.) Greuter, Dittrichia viscosa (L.) Greuter, Lactuca serriola L., L. viminea (L.) J. Presl & C. Presl, Senecio vulgaris L., Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertn., Sonchus asper (L.) Hill, Sonchus oleraceus L., Tragopogon porrifolius L., and Urospermum picroides (L.) F. W. Schmidt (Table 1).
Only a few of the traditionally consumed wild Asteraceae plants are endemic to just one country (Table 1), such as Carduncellus dianius Webb (Syn. Carthamus dianius (Webb) Coincy) and Sonchus crassifolius Willd. to Spain; Sonchus pinnatifidus Cav. to Morocco; Crepis apula (Fiori) Babc. to Italy; Onopordum cyprium Eig to Cyprus.
Several taxa have restricted distribution in several neighboring countries (Table 1).
The range of several taxa is restricted to the western Mediterranean, namely Helminthotheca comosa (Boiss.) Holub (Syn. Picris comosa (Boiss.) B. D. Jacks. to Spain, Morocco (and Algeria); Carduus tenuiflorus Curtis to Spain, Morocco (also France, Portugal, Algeria and several other countries); Cynara humilis L. to Spain, Morocco (also Portugal and Algeria); C. tournefortii Boiss. & Reut. to Spain, Morocco (also Portugal); Pseudopodospermum crispatulum (DC.) Zaika, Sukhor. & N. Kilian (Syn. Scorzonera crispatula (DC.) Boiss.) to Spain, Morocco (Portugal and Algeria); Onopordum acaulon L. to Spain, Morocco (as well as Portugal, Algeria and Sardinia); O. corymbosum Willk. to Spain (and France); O. macracanthum Schousb. to Spain, Morocco (also Baleares, Portugal, Algeria and Tunisia); O. nervosum Boiss. to Spain (and Portugal); Scorzonera angustifolia L. to Spain and Morocco (and Portugal); S. schweinfurthii Boiss. to Jordan (and Egypt), (Table 1, [14]).
Restricted to the eastern Mediterranean are Arctium lappa subsp. platylepis (Boiss. & Balansa) Arènes to Turkey (as well as Azerbaijan and Georgia); Cynara syriaca Boiss. to Syria, Jordan and Palestine (as well as Israel and Lebanon); Echinops orientalis Trautv. to Armenia and Turkey (as well as Azerbaijan, Nakhichevan, and North Caucasus); Helichrysum rubicundum (K. Koch) Bornm. to Armenia and Turkey (as well as Azerbaijan and Georgia); Taraxacum cyprium H. Lindb. to Cyprus, Jordan and Palestine (as well as Israel, and Lebanon); Tragopogon reticulatus Boiss. & A. Huet to Armenia and Turkey (as well as Azerbaijan and Georgia), (Table 1, [14]).
Artemisia atlantica Coss. & Durieu, Chrysanthoglossum trifurcatum (Desf.) B. H., Otoglyphis pubescens (Desf.) Pomel (Syn. Aaronsohnia pubescens (Desf.) K. Bremer & Humphries); and Endopappus macrocarpus Sch. Bip.; Raponticum acaule (L.) DC. grow only in North Africa (Morocco and neighboring countries) (Table 1, [14]).
It is notable that 106 plants are used as food only in one particular country, although most are distributed in several other countries (Table 1). They represent 63.1% of all edible wild Asteraceae members in the studied sites. Such unique consumption is recorded in 12 study sites (all study sites except Greece). The specifics are as follows: 28 taxa are used exclusively in Spain (accounting for 43.1% of all edible wild plants from Asteraceae consumed there). Furthermore, 15 taxa are used as food only in Morocco (28.8% of all edible wild plants from Asteraceae consumed there), 13 taxa in southern Italy (29.5%), 12 taxa in Jordan and Palestine (54.5%), 9 taxa in Armenia (50%), 7 taxa in Turkey (29.2%), 7 taxa in Sicily (30.4%), 5 taxa in Bulgaria, (23.8) 5 taxa in Crete (31.3%), 2 taxa in Syria (15.4%), 2 taxa in Cyprus (14.2%) and 1 species in Albania (9.1%), (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Number of wild plants from the Asteraceae family with limited consumption in only one country. The x-axis presents the studied countries, and the y-axis presents the number of wild species of the Asteraceae family traditionally consumed as food.

2.2. Statistical Analyses of the Distribution and Consumption of Wild Umbellifers

Jaccard Index

The Jaccard index (JI) revealed notable differences in the level of similarity between country pairs in terms of traditional consumption of wild Asteraceae species, compared to the distribution pattern of these edible wild plants among the same country pairs.
The similarity of distribution patterns (floristic similarity) between countries is rather high. Neighboring countries have higher similarity, although some distantly located study sites, such as the pairs Spain and Turkey or Spain and Albania, and several others, still have more than 50% similarity (Figure 6). This reflects the fact that the edible wild Asteraceae plants have a wide distribution. The highest similarity in terms of distribution patterns of edible wild plants from the Asteraceae family is observed between Greece and Turkey (JI = 78.3%), followed closely by Italy and Greece (JI = 75.6%), Albania and Greece (JI = 73.4%), Spain and Greece (JI = 72.4%), Spain and Italy (JI = 71.9%), Albania and Bulgaria (JI = 71.3%), Albania and Italy (JI = 71.2%). Seventeen pairs of countries have a similarity between 60 and 70% (Figure 6). Also, 13 pairs of countries have a similarity between 50 and 60% (Figure 6). Only one pair of countries has less than 20% similarity in the distribution of edible wild plants from the Asteraceae family, namely Morocco and Armenia (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Similarity between pairs of countries in both the traditional consumption of wild Asteraceae and the distribution of these edible wild plants, expressed as JI%.
However, pairwise similarity in consumption patterns (consumption similarity) diverges from the distribution patterns. In general, the JI values for consumption are much lower across all country pairs compared to the distribution patterns. Interestingly, the similarity between the consumption pairs does not follow the distribution patterns. Contrary to expectations, the pairs with the highest distribution similarity demonstrate low consumption similarity. For example, the pair Greece and Turkey with the highest distribution similarity (JI = 78.3%) has a low consumption similarity (JI = 12.9%). Also, the consumption similarity between Italy and Greece is JI = 12.2%, while the distribution similarity is the second highest (JI = 75.6%). Additionally, other pairs with high distribution similarity have low consumption similarity, namely Albania and Greece (JI = 73.4%) vs. (JI = 15.8%), Spain and Greece (JI = 72.4%) vs. (JI = 8.6%). Only several pairs with high distribution similarity have comparatively high consumption similarity and are as follows: Spain and Italy (JI = 71.9%) vs. (JI = 21.1%), Albania and Bulgaria (JI = 71.3%) vs. (18.5) and Albania and Italy (JI = 71.2%) vs. (JI = 22.2%).
The highest consumption similarity is recorded between Greece and Cyprus (JI = 31.6%), but their distribution similarity is moderate (53.2%). The second highest consumption similarity is recorded between southern Italy and Sicily (JI = 26.4%), with a high distribution similarity (68.6%), followed by Albania and Crete (JI = 22.7%), also with a high distribution similarity (64.7%) (Figure 6).
Contrary to expectations, the similarity in use patterns between Bulgaria and Turkey—two neighboring countries with shared historical ties under the Ottoman Empire—is not very high (JI = 21.6%). This is valid for Armenia and Turkey, too (JI = 10.5%). Similarly, the similarity in use patterns between Morocco and Spain (JI = 19.8%) is also lower than expected (Figure 6). A possible explanation is that the distribution similarity of the edible wild members of the Asteraceae family is moderate (Figure 6). But also, it suggests that ethnobotanical knowledge does not cross national borders as extensively as expected, since many plants used in one country are not utilized by neighboring countries. Of course, there are limitations to the interpretations due to the inconsistency of ethnobotanical data collection.
If we compare the floristic similarity with the consumption similarity of the pairs of studied countries, some interesting patterns are noticed. For example, the consumption similarity between Greece and Turkey (JI = 12.9%, Figure 6) is low, despite the high floristic similarity (JI = 78.3%, Figure 6) and common history [2]. The floristic similarity (JI) exceeds by a factor of about six times the consumption similarity (JI). When we compare Armenia and Turkey (Figure 6), the floristic similarity (JI = 48.6%) exceeds the consumption similarity (JI = 10.5%) by a factor of only 4.6. The consumption similarity between Bulgaria and Turkey (JI = 21.6%, Figure 6) is less than three times lower than the floristic similarity (JI = 61.1%, Figure 6). The common history of these three countries [2] influenced the culinary cultural exchange differently. The floristic similarity of Sicily and southern Italy (JI = 68.6%) exceeds their consumption similarity by a factor of only two (JI = 26.4%). Such is also the case with Sicily and Albania, as well as Albania and Cyprus (Figure 6). Here, obviously, the cultural exchange is more efficient. Interestingly, the floristic similarity of pairs of countries like Jordan and Palestine and Bulgaria exceeds the consumption similarity by a factor of more than 13. Jordan and Palestine and Albania are a similar case. Also, the similarity of consumption between this Middle East region and Italy is 12.4 times lower than the floristic similarity regarding edible plants from the Asteraceae family. This is not surprising considering the fact that most plants from this family identified as edible have a wide distribution on the one hand (Table 1), and on the other hand, the countries are some distance apart (Figure 1). This notable distance obviously has restricted wild plants’ cultural culinary exchange, even though, during the Crusades, the Balkan Peninsula was a crossroad [1]. Surprisingly, when comparing the floristic similarity with consumption similarity of Syria to those of Albania, Bulgaria and Greece, the ratio is less than three times, and we cannot find a convincing explanation for this result. Although Turkey and Syria are neighboring countries with a common border (Figure 1), neither the floristic similarity nor the consumption similarity is high, as could be expected (Figure 6).

3. Discussion

The consumption of wild plants from the Asteraceae family is generally well documented in all studied countries (Table 1).
Only dandelion is reported “consumed wild” in all 13 study sites. Several species of Taraxacum are used (Table 1). Interestingly, the consumption of dandelion in Greece is reported in only one publication. At the same time, Taraxacum is the genus with the highest number of species used in Greece, Spain and Italy [39]. Additionally, dandelion is obviously a popular wild green in Greece. There are plenty of recipes for preparing “horta” found on Internet sites which include dandelion greens (πικραλίδα or ραδίκα in Greek) together with other greens, such as amaranth, mustard greens, and chicory. This indicates that ethnobotanical studies in Greece regarding wild food plants are still insufficient.
Cichorium intybus L. is the second most popular species. It is reported to be used raw in salads or cooked in eleven study sites, all except Crete and Jordan and Palestine (Table 1). This plant is well known as a medicinal plant and a coffee substitute [65,66].
Sonchus oleraceus L. is reported as gathered and consumed in ten of the study sites, namely Albania, Bulgaria, Crete, Cyprus, Spain, southern Italy, Sicily, Jordan, Syria, and Turkey (Table 1). This plant is distributed in all 13 study sites [14]. Interestingly, for Morocco, it is reported that the related but endemic taxon S. pinnatifidus and not the common one is used (Table 1).
Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertn. is consumed raw or cooked in 9 of the 13 study sites (Table 1). This plant is distributed in all 13 study sites [14]. The Milk thistle is a popular medicinal plant [67]. Concerning the traditional use of wild food plants, most publications present qualitative data [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64]. They only mark the presence or absence of consumption in certain regions and communities, but refrain from evaluating the extent of gathering and knowledge. Such evaluation is rarely performed and reveals that in some parts of our study sites, such as the Taounate Region in northern Morocco, the knowledge and use of S. marianum exist, but they are limited [68].
Scolymus hispanicus L. is reported as a plant gathered for food in eight of the study sites (Spain, Morocco, southern Italy, Albania, Greece, Crete, Cyprus, and Turkey, Table 1), but the parts used and methods of preparation are different (Table 1). The plant in Spain is so popular as food that it has recently been introduced into cultivation [69].
Lactuca serriola L. is consumed in seven of the study sites (Albania, Armenia, Bulgaria, Turkey, Crete, southern Italy and Spain, Table 1). Interestingly, this species is listed among ten plants prohibited in the temple in Ptolemaic Egypt due to its aphrodisiac and psychoactive properties [70]. However, there is no scientific proof for this, and on the contrary, the seeds of this plant are recommended for reducing libido [71].
Reichardia picroides (L.) Roth is consumed in seven countries—southern Italy, Sicily, Greece and Turkey, as well as Spain and Morocco (Table 1). Two other species of this genus are also consumed in Spain (Table 1).
Cynara cardunculus L. is traditionally gathered from wild populations and consumed in five countries: Spain, Morocco, southern Italy, Sicily and Cyprus (Table 1). Its native distribution also extends to Albania, Crete, and Turkey [14]. Cardoon, also known as artichoke, is a well-known cultivated vegetable with several varieties [72]. Lately, a tendency for multiuse is recommended [73], and cultivation has expanded [74].
Centaurea calcitrapa L. is gathered for consumption in five countries—Albania, Cyprus, Spain, Sicily, and Syria, although it is distributed in all study sites except Armenia (Table 1). If the consumption is referred to at the genus level, then it spreads to nine countries with several other species of Centaurea (Table 1).
Leontodon tuberosus L. is consumed in five countries—Greece, Crete, southern Italy, Sicily and Spain, although it is distributed in all study sites except Armenia (Table 1).
Arctium lappa L. is consumed in three countries that were part of the former Ottoman Empire—Armenia, Bulgaria, and Turkey. All parts of greater burdock are used raw in salads or cooked in Armenia and Bulgaria, while in Turkey, only the leaves of A. lappa subsp. platylepis (Boiss. & Balansa) are used to roll “sarma” (Table 1).
Interestingly, Armenia has a comparatively low proportion of Asteraceae consumption. The possible explanation may not be due to cultural exchange routes, but traditions in taste values. Armenians were found to dislike bitter greens [56].

4. Materials and Methods

The focus of this study was on wild plants from the Asteraceae family that are traditionally used as food across the territories of 11 countries (including the mainland and three islands; see Figure 1) within the Mediterranean region and adjacent areas. The selection of regions was based on principles of historical unity (e.g., the Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, Visigothic Kingdom, Ostrogothic Kingdom, Umayyad Caliphate, Ottoman Empire, Kingdom of Aragon, Kingdom of Sicily, etc.) [75], as well as considerations of potential cultural exchange, geographic proximity, phytoclimatic similarities, and floristic relationships.
To identify relevant literature published between 1990 and 2022, we conducted searches in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and PubMed using a combination of country names (“Spain”, “France”, “Morocco”, “Sicily”, “Italy”, “Albania”, “Greece”, “Crete”, “Cyprus”, “Turkey”, “Bulgaria”, “Armenia”, “Egypt”, “Syria”, “Jordan and Palestine”, “Kosovo”, “north Macedonia”) and keywords such as “traditionally”, “wild”, “food”, “plants”, “ethnobotany”, etc. The countries were selected based on territorial proximity as well as historical and cultural interrelations.
Following the PRISMA 2000 guidelines [76], all records were screened for eligibility. A total of 561 publications were excluded for the following reasons: the information was not relevant to the research topic; the data pertained solely to medicinal uses of plants; the studies addressed traditional food practices but did not include wild plants; the records referred exclusively to the consumption of cultivated plants.

4.1. Distribution of Traditionally Consumed Wild Plants from the Asteraceae Family

From the selected publications, we extracted information on wild plants from the Asteraceae family that are traditionally used as food in the following countries and regions: Spain [23,24,25], Morocco [16,17,18,19,20,21,22], Sicily [26,27,28,29], southern Italy [30,31,32,33,34], Albania [32,35,36], Greece [37,38], Crete [37,39,40], Cyprus [37,40], Turkey (Türkiye) [41,42,43,44,45,46], Bulgaria [42,47,48,49,50,51], Armenia [52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59], Syria [60], and Jordan and Palestine [61,62,63,64]. We detected a potential bias in the source data, such as overrepresentation of some regions due to more intensive fieldwork or publication rates. For example, the studies in Spain, Morocco, southern Italy, and Turkey exceed the research performed in Syria and Jordan and Palestine. Also, there is an indication that ethnobotanical studies in Greece regarding wild food plants are still insufficient, considering the irrelevant presentation of dandelion consumption. It was found that, for France, Egypt, Kosovo, and northern Macedonia, there is a lack of studies and publications on the traditional use of wild food plants, and in particular, from the Asteraceae family, rendering the available data inadequate for inclusion in this investigation. The presentation of the consumption methods is rather heterogeneous in the published sources [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64]. Therefore, this information is summarized in Table 1, but is not used for further analysis and interpretation.

4.2. Data Set Preparation and Analyses

We organized the reported data for each country in Excel tables. The distribution range of each plant taxon in the territories of the studied areas was added to the tables following Euro+Med Plantbase [14]. Additionally, the distribution range was double-checked following the Plants of the World Online [77] as we noticed that some species were reported in error in the Euro+Med Plantbase for some of the areas included in this study. Also, some mistakes in the published data were noticed and eliminated in the tables and analyses. For instance, Helianthus tuberosus L., reported to be gathered and consumed in Turkey [43], is actually an introduced species in this country, naturalized in Albania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, southern Italy, Sicily, Spain, and cultivated in Greece and Palestine [14]. Also, Arctium tomentosum Mill., which is documented as a food plant only in Armenia [52], is native in all studied countries except Armenia and Spain, where it is an introduced species [14]. They are not included in Table 1, nor in the analysis.
Particular taxa are casual (alien species that do not form self-sustaining populations in the invaded region) or naturalized in some countries, and these cases are removed from the data set.
We summarized the data about the plant parts utilized and the modes of consumption, as reported in the original sources (Table 1). Due to inconsistencies in the precision and detail of these descriptions, standardization of plant part usage was not feasible. Consequently, the resulting data matrix did not support in-depth analyses of convergent or divergent plant uses, nor allow for robust interpretations of cultural exchange. Where original publications included synonyms, these were replaced with the currently accepted taxonomic names following [14], which were subsequently used for basic descriptive statistical analysis

Jaccard Similarity Coefficient or Jaccard Index JI

Jaccard similarity coefficient or JI is used when the level of similarity between two groups of elements needs to be identified [78]. We used JI to evaluate the similarity of use and the similarity of distribution among all possible country pairs. JI is calculated using the following formula:
JI [%] = NAB ∗ 100/(NA + NB − NAB)
where
  • NA is the number of elements in study site A (country/mainland or island)
  • NB is the number of elements in study site B (country/mainland or island)
  • NAB is the number of elements available in both study sites (country/mainland or island)

5. Conclusions

This work focused on the wild plants of the Asteraceae family, which are traditionally used as food in some Mediterranean countries. It has provided an overview of the most commonly consumed members of this family, highlighting similarities and differences between the territories of reference. In particular, this survey revealed 167 specific and infraspecific taxa from the Asteraceae family used traditionally as food in 11 Mediterranean countries and three islands. This traditional knowledge about edible wild plants is a priceless heritage that should be passed to future generations. The working statement that neighboring countries have high similarity in the distribution pattern of edible wild Asteraceae species is confirmed by the Jaccard index statistical model. However, the consumption of these plants does not follow the distribution pattern. This indicates the important role of the cultural exchange, but tracing it is too complicated and practically impossible. Our results are a basis for future pharmacological and phytochemical studies that will contribute to sustainable food systems in the Mediterranean. It points to wild plant candidates for domestication or agroecological innovations in food production. These are Scolymus hispanicus, Cynara cardunculus, Cichorium intybus, as well as other traditionally popular plants.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization E.K.; methodology, E.K., B.V. and D.B.; data collection: E.K., G.A.M., R.A., B.V., C.S., M.R., P.M. and V.S.; formal analysis, D.B. and E.K.; writing—original draft preparation E.K., D.B. and V.S.; writing, review and editing, E.K., G.A.M., R.A., B.V., C.S., M.R., P.M. and V.S.; visualization E.K.; supervision, E.K.; project administration, E.K. and P.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Ekaterina Kozuharova is grateful for the financial support from the European Union—NextGenerationEU, through the National Recovery and Resilience Plan of the Republic of Bulgaria, Project No. BG-RRP-2.004-0004-C01. The authors are also grateful for financial support from PLANTA/Centre for Research, Documentation and Training, FURTUNA SKIN and LA FURTUNA estate.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to F. Raimondo for the research inspiration, passion for botanical science and endless knowledge of plants, which he shared with us.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mundy, J.H. Europe in the High Middle Ages: 1150-1300, 3rd ed.; Routledge: London, UK; Taylor and Fransis Group: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 1–432. [Google Scholar]
  2. Vryonis, S. Religious Change and Continuity in the Balkans and Anatolia from the Fourteenth through the Sixteenth Century. In Islam and Cultural Change in the Middle Ages; Vryonis, S., Wiesbaden, H., Eds.; Near Eastern Center, University of California: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1975; Volume 4, pp. 127–141. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bresc, H. Medieval and modern Sicily and the kingdoms of Sardinia and Corsica. In A Companion to Sardinian History, 500–1500; Brill: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 141–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Stenner, D. Mediterranean crossroads: Spanish-Moroccan relations in past and present. J. N. Afric. Stud. 2019, 24, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Torija-Isasa, M.; Matallana-González, M. A Historical Perspective of Wild Plant Foods in the Mediterranean Area. In Mediterranean Wild Edible Plants; Sánchez-Mata, M., Tardío, J., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lewington, A. Plants for People; Transworld Publishers: London, UK, 2003; pp. 1–304. [Google Scholar]
  7. Dogan, Y. Traditionally used wild edible greens in the Aegean Region of Turkey. Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 2012, 81, 329–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Molina, M.; Pardo-de-Santayana, M.; Tardío, J. Natural production and cultivation of Mediterranean wild edibles. In Mediterranean Wild Edible Plants: Ethnobotany and Food Composition Tables; de Cortes Sanchez-Mata, M., Javier Tardio, J., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016; Chapter 5; pp. 81–107. [Google Scholar]
  9. Sánchez-Mata, D.; Morales, R. The Mediterranean landscape and wild edible plants. In Mediterranean Wild Edible Plants: Ethnobotany and Food Composition Tables; Sánchez-Mata, M., Tardío, J., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 15–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ceccanti, C.; Landi, M.; Benvenuti, S.; Pardossi, A.; Guidi, L. Mediterranean wild edible plants: Weeds or “new functional crops”? Molecules 2018, 23, 2299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Benítez, G.; Molero-Mesa, J.; González-Tejero, M.R. Wild Edible Plants of Andalusia: Traditional Uses and Potential of Eating Wild in a Highly Diverse Region. Plants 2023, 12, 1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rolnik, A.; Olas, B. The plants of the Asteraceae family as agents in the protection of human health. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 3009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gangwar, H.; Kumari, P.; Jaiswal, V. Phytochemically Rich Medicinally Important Plant Families. In Phytochemical Genomics: Plant Metabolomics and Medicinal Plant Genomics; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2023; pp. 35–68. [Google Scholar]
  14. Greuter, W. 2006+: Compositae (pro parte majore). In Compositae. Euro+Med PlantBase—The Information Resource for Euro-Mediterranean Plant Diversity; Greuter, W., von Raab-Straube, E., Eds.; Euro+Med PlantBase: Berlin, Germany, 2011; Available online: https://europlusmed.org/ (accessed on 3 February 2025).
  15. Nassif, F.; Tanji, A. Gathered food plants in Morocco: The long-forgotten species in ethnobotanical research. Life Sci. Leafl. 2013, 3, 17–54. [Google Scholar]
  16. Tanji, A.; Nassif, F. Edible weeds in Morocco. Weed Technol. 1995, 9, 617–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Fennane, M.; Ibn Tattou, M.; El Oualidi, J. Flore Pratique du Maroc. In Pteridophyta, Gymnospermae, Angiospermae (Lauraceae-Neuradaceae): Manuel de Détermination; Institut Scientifique, Université Mohammed V: Rabat, Morocco, 1999; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  18. Fennane, M.; Ibn Tattou, M. Statistiques et commentaires sur l’inventaire actuel de la flore vasculaire du Maroc. Flora 2008, 1986, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  19. Fennane, M.; Tattou, M.I.; El Oualidi, J. Flore pratique du Maroc, Dicotylédones (pp), Monocotylédones. In Travaux de l’Institut Scientifique Rabat, Série Botanique 40; Institut Scientifique de Rabat: Rabat, Morocco, 2014; Volume 3. [Google Scholar]
  20. Belahsen, R.; Rguibi, M. Population health and Mediterranean diet in southern Mediterranean countries. Public Health Nutr. 2006, 9, 1130–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tbatou, M.; Belahyan, A.; Belahsen, R. Wild edible plants traditionally used in the countryside of El Jadida, coastal area in the Center of Morocco. Life Sci. Leafl. 2016, 75, 28–48. [Google Scholar]
  22. Tbatou, M.; Fagroud, M.; Belahyan, A.; Belahsen, R. Wild edible plants traditionally used in the rural area of El Jadida (Center of Morocco): Assessing traditional knowledge erosion. Life Sci. Leafl. 2016, 78, 30–51. [Google Scholar]
  23. Tardío, J.; Pascual, H.; Morales, R. Wild food plants traditionally used in the province of Madrid, Central Spain. Econ. Bot. 2005, 59, 122–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Tardío, J.; Pardo de Santayana, M.; Morales, R. Ethnobotanical review of wild edible plants in Spain. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2006, 152, 27–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Morales, R.; Tardío, J.; Aceituno, L.; Molina, M.; Pardo de Santayana, M. Biodiversidad y Etnobotánica en España. In Memorias Real Sociedad, Española de Historia Natural; Real Sociedad Española de Historia Natural: Madrid, Spain, 2011; pp. 157–208. [Google Scholar]
  26. Raimondo, F.M.; Lentini, F. Indagini entnobotaniche in Sicilia. I. Le piante della flora locale nella tradizione popolare delle Madonie (Palermo). Nat. Sicil. 1990, 14, 77–99. [Google Scholar]
  27. Giardina, G.; Raimondo, F.M.; Spadaro, V. A catologue of the plants growing in Sicily. Bocconea 2007, 20, 5–582. [Google Scholar]
  28. Schicchi, R.; Geraci, A. Verdure Spontanee per L’alimentazione e la Salute; Palermo University Press: Palermo, Italy, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  29. Mazzola, P. Le Piante Selvatiche Nella Tradizione Alimentare Dei Monti Nebrodi (Sicilia); Università di Palermo e Parco dei Nebrodi: Palermo, Italy, 2020; p. 174. [Google Scholar]
  30. Pieroni, A.; Quave, C.L. Traditional pharmacopoeias and medicines among Albanians and Italians in southern Italy: A comparison. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2005, 101, 258–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Nebel, S.; Pieroni, A.; Heinrich, M. Ta chòrta: Wild edible greens used in the Graecanic area in Calabria, Southern Italy. Appetite 2006, 47, 333–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pieroni, A.; Quave, C.L. Functional foods or food medicines? On the consumption of wild plants among Albanians and southern Italians in Lucania. In Eating and Healing Traditional Food as Medicine; Pieroni, A., Leimer Price, L., Eds.; Haworth Press: Binghamton, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 101–129. [Google Scholar]
  33. Pieroni, A.; Nebel, S.; Santoro, R.F.; Heinrich, M. Food for two seasons: Culinary uses of non-cultivated local vegetables and mushrooms in a south Italian village. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2005, 56, 245–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Biscotti, N.; Pieroni, A. The hidden Mediterranean diet: Wild vegetables traditionally gathered and consumed in the Gargano area, Apulia, SE Italy. Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 2015, 84, 327–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Pieroni, A. Traditional uses of wild food plants, medicinal plants, and domestic remedies in Albanian, Aromanian and Macedonian villages in South-Eastern Albania. J. Herb. Med. 2017, 9, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pieroni, A.; Sõukand, R.; Quave, C.L.; Hajdari, A.; Mustafa, B. Traditional food uses of wild plants among the Gorani of South Kosovo. Appetite 2017, 108, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Hadjichambis, A.C.; Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, D.; Della, A.; Elena Giusti, M.; De Pasquale, C.; Lenzarini, C.; Censorii, E.; Gonzales-Tejero, M.R.; Sanchez-Rojas, C.P.; Ramiro-Gutierrez, J.M.; et al. Wild and semi-domesticated food plant consumption in seven circum-Mediterranean areas. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2008, 59, 383–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Pieroni, A.; Cattero, V. Wild vegetables do not lie: Comparative gastronomic ethnobotany and ethnolinguistics on the Greek traces of the Mediterranean Diet of southeastern Italy. Acta Bot. Bras. 2019, 33, 198–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Leonti, M.; Nebel, S.; Rivera, D.; Heinrich, M. Wild gathered food plants in the European Mediterranean: A comparative analysis. Econ. Bot. 2006, 60, 130–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Della, A.; Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, D.; Hadjichambis, A.C. An ethnobotanical survey of wild edible plants of Paphos and Larnaca countryside of Cyprus. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2006, 2, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pieroni, A.; Sulaiman, N.; Polesny, Z.; Sõukand, R. From Şxex to Chorta: The Adaptation of Maronite Foraging Customs to the Greek Ones in Kormakitis, Northern Cyprus. Plants 2022, 11, 2693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Dogan, 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]
  43. Dogan, Y.; Nedelcheva, A.; Łuczaj, Ł.; Drăgulescu, C.; Stefkov, G.; Maglajlić, A.; Ferrier, J.; Papp, N.; Hajdari, A.; Mustafa, B.; et al. Of the importance of a leaf: The ethnobotany of sarma in Turkey and the Balkans. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2015, 11, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kaval, İ.; 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]
  45. Cakir, E.A. Traditional knowledge of wild edible plants of Igdir Province (East Anatolia, Turkey). Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 2017, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Baser, K.H.C. Current Knowledge on Turkey’s Wild Food and Non-Food Plants. In Identification of Wild Food and Non-Food Plants of the Mediterranean Region Chania: CIHEAM Cahiers Options Méditerranéennes; Heywood, V.H., Skoula, M., Eds.; CIHEAM: Chania, Greece, 1997; Volume 23, pp. 129–159. [Google Scholar]
  47. Stoyanov, N.; Kitanov, B. Wild Useful Plants; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Publish House: Sofia, Bulgaria, 1960; p. 480. [Google Scholar]
  48. Nedelcheva, A. An ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants in Bulgaria. Eurasia. J. Biosci. 2013, 7, 77–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Cheshmedzhiev, I.; Genchev, S.; Dimitrova, D.; Varbanova, K. Wild Plants on Our Table; Zemizdat: Sofia, Bulgaria, 1999; p. 147. [Google Scholar]
  50. Ivanova, T.; Chervenkov, M.; Kozuharova, E.; Dimitrova, D. Ethnobotanical knowledge on herbs and spices in Bulgarian traditional dry-cured meat products. Diversity 2022, 14, 416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ivanova, T.; Marchev, A.; Chervenkov, M.; Bosseva, Y.; Georgiev, M.; Kozuharova, E.; Dimitrova, D. Catching the Green—Diversity of Ruderal Spring Plants Traditionally Consumed in Bulgaria and Their Potential Benefit for Human Health. Diversity 2023, 15, 435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Grossheim, A.A. Plant Resources of the Caucasus; Publishing House of AS of Azerbaijani SSR: Baku, Republic of Azerbaijan, 1946. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  53. Zolotnitskaya, S. Medicinal Resources of the Flora of Armenia; Armenian Academy of Sciences: Yerevan, Armenia, 1958; Volume 1–2. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  54. Sargsyan, M. Usage of spicy aromatic plants of the flora of Armenia in the national cuisine. Regul. Mech. Biosyst. 2023, 14, 469–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Nanagulyan, S.; Zakaryan, N.; Kartashyan, N.; Piwowarczyk, R.; Łuczaj, Ł. Wild plants and fungi sold in the markets of Yerevan (Armenia). J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomedicine 2020, 16, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Pieroni, A.; Morini, G.; Piochi, M.; Sulaiman, N.; Kalle, R.; Haq, S.M.; Devecchi, A.; Franceschini, C.; Zocchi, D.M.; Migliavada, R.; et al. Bitter Is Better: Wild Greens Used in the Blue Zone of Ikaria, Greece. Nutrients 2023, 15, 3242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bussmann, R.W. Ethnobotany of the Caucasus; XXVII; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; p. 746. ISBN 978-3-319-49411-1. [Google Scholar]
  58. Fayvush, G. Biodiversity of Armenia; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; p. 440. ISBN 9783031343315. [Google Scholar]
  59. Pieroni, A.; Hovsepyan, R.; Manduzai, A.K.; Sõukand, R. Wild food plants traditionally gathered in central Armenia: Archaic ingredients or future sustainable foods? Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 2358–2381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Sulaiman, N.; Pieroni, A.; Sõukand, R.; Polesny, Z. Food Behavior in Emergency Time: Wild Plant Use for Human Nutrition during the Conflict in Syria. Foods 2022, 11, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Tukan, S.K.; Takruri, H.R.; Al-Eisawi, D.M. The use of wild edible plants in the Jordanian diet. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 1998, 49, 225–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tukan, S.K.; Takruri, H.R.; Ahmed, M.N. Food habits and traditional food consumption in the Northern Badia of Jordan. J. Saud. Soc. Food Nutr. 2011, 6, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  63. Takruri, H.R.; Tukan, S.K.; Ahmad, M.N. Medicinal and edible wild plants used by the community of Northern Badia of Jordan. Jordan J. Agric. Sci. 2008, 4, 391–405. [Google Scholar]
  64. Ali-Shtayeh, M.S.; Jamous, R.M.; Al-Shafie, J.H.; Elgharabah, W.A.; Kherfan, F.A.; Qarariah, K.H.; Khdair, I.S.; Soos, I.M.; Musleh, A.A.; Isa, B.A.; et al. Traditional knowledge of wild edible plants used in Palestine (Northern West Bank): A comparative study. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2008, 4, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Janda, K.; Gutowska, I.; Geszke-Moritz, M.; Jakubczyk, K. The Common Cichory (Cichorium intybus L.) as a Source of Extracts with Health-Promoting Properties—A Review. Molecules 2021, 26, 1814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Birsa, M.L.; Sarbu, L.G. Health Benefits of Key Constituents in Cichorium intybus L. Nutrients 2023, 15, 1322. Nutrients 2023, 15, 1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Zhang, X.; Liu, M.; Wang, Z.; Wang, P.; Kong, L.; Wu, J.; Wu, W.; Ma, L.; Jiang, S.; Ren, W.; et al. A review of the botany, phytochemistry, pharmacology, synthetic biology and comprehensive utilization of Silybum marianum. Front. Pharmacol. 2024, 15, 1417655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Louafi, B.; Slimani, C.; Bessi, A.; Rais, C.; El Ghadraoui, L.; Benjelloun, M. Ethnobotanical study of Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertn in the Taounate Region (Northern Morocco): Knowledge and Use of the Plant for Food and Medicinal Purposes. Ethnobot. Res. Appl. 2024, 28, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Valdes, B.; Kozuharova, E.; Stoycheva, C. A Review of Edible Wild Plants Recently Introduced into Cultivation in Spain and Their Health Benefits. Int. J. Plant Biol. 2025, 16, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Andreozzi, R.; Sarkady, C. Forbidden at Philae: Proscription of Aphrodisiac and Psychoactive Plants in Ptolemaic Egypt. In The Routledge Companion to Ecstatic Experience in the Ancient World; Routledge: London, UK; Taylor and Fransis Group: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 152–172. [Google Scholar]
  71. Leonti, M.; Cabras, S.; Nueda, M.E.C.; Casu, L. Food drugs as drivers of therapeutic knowledge and the role of chemosensory qualities. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2024, 328, 118012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Grabowska, A.; Caruso, G.; Mehrafarin, A.; Kalisz, A.; Gruszecki, R.; Kunicki, E.; Sękara, A. Application of modern agronomic and biotechnological strategies to valorise worldwide globe artichoke (Cynara cardunculus L.) potential-an analytical overview. Ital. J. Agron. 2018, 13, 1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Mauromicale, G.; Pesce, G.R.; Curt, M.D.; Fernández, J.; González, J.; Gominho, G.; Tabla, R.; Roa, I.; Portis, E. Cynara cardunculus as a Multiuse Crop. Globe Artichoke Genome 2019, 65–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kurtar, E.S.; Korkmaz, C. Effect of Different Growing Periods on Yield and Quality Characteristics in Artichoke (Cynara cardunculus var. scolymus) Production. Harran Tarım Ve Gıda Bilim. Derg. 2024, 28, 604–615. [Google Scholar]
  75. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY9P0QSxlnI (accessed on 6 May 2025).
  76. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 88, 105906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. POWO (2025). Plants of the World Online. Facilitated by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Published on the Internet. Available online: https://powo.science.kew.org/ (accessed on 25 March 2025).
  78. Real, R.; Vargas, J.M. The probabilistic basis of Jaccard’s index of similarity. Syst. Biol. 1996, 45, 380–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.