Traditional Plant Knowledge across Rural and Peri-Urban Istanbul: Documented Plants and Uses

Abstract

Purpose: This study examines traditional plant knowledge in rural and peri-urban Istanbul, where environmental access, household production and metropolitan connections coexist. Method: Fieldwork within Türkiye’s national programme for documenting traditional knowledge associated with bio-logical diversity covered 30 neighbourhoods in ten districts in 2021–2022. Purposive selection and local referrals iden-tified 112 informants contributing 667 plant-use reports. Original descriptions were retained alongside standardized taxonomic and use fields. Analyses examined repertoire composition, citation frequency, multifunctionality and district overlap. Retrospective taxon-level classifications distinguished predominantly wild-gathered from cultivated, managed, planted or otherwise obtained taxa, and identified a conservative subset confirmed in Istanbul flora sources. District overlap was assessed using an informant-block permutation model; sampling-adequacy estimates were exploratory. Findings: The repertoire comprises 174 taxa in 129 genera and 52 families, spanning 52 use categories, 25 plant-part groups and 12 preparation groups. Food accounted for 55.2% of reports, human health for 22.3% and household and material uses for 11.8%. Fruit and aerial parts predominated; cooking and raw use were the leading preparations. Tilia tomentosa led food citations, Olea europaea health and Castanea sativa household and material uses. The null model largely reproduced the raw increase in district overlap from taxa to preparations. Lower-than-expected preparation over-lap did not survive multiple-testing correction. Reports involving predominantly wild-gathered taxa accounted for 52.9%; their share was higher in food than health, but taxon-level permutation did not support a systematic domain–acquisition association. Twenty-nine source-confirmed locally occurring or naturalized taxa were linked to 196 reports. Conclusion: The food-weighted repertoire connects gathering and cultivation with household provisioning, seasonal processing and preservation. Wild-gathered and cultivated plants reflect varied forms of environmental access and household production. Spatial differences are described as locally configured combinations, without attribution to a single ecological, historical or migratory cause.

Keywords

• urban ethnobiology
• wild food
• preparation techniques
• household provisioning
• local flora

Supporting Institution

Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks (DKMP)

Project Number

2021/100857

Ethical Statement

Ethics committee approval was not obtained, because the interviews were not conducted as an independent academic study but within an official project commissioned by the Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (tender registration no. 2021/100857). In each locality, the neighbourhood headman was contacted first, and technical staff of the DKMP Istanbul Provincial Branch Directorate took part in the field visits. Participants were informed of the official purpose of the project and took part voluntarily; audio, photographic and video recordings were made and plant material was collected with their permission. The present article analyses the anonymized project records; no names or other personal identifying information of participants are published, and the data are reported in aggregate.

Thanks

We thank the participating residents, neighbourhood headmen, taxonomic specialists and local institutions. Fieldwork was carried out within the project “İstanbul İli Biyolojik Çeşitliliğe Dayalı Geleneksel Bilginin Belirlenmesi İşi” (Determination of Traditional Knowledge Based on Biological Diversity in Istanbul Province; tender registration no. 2021/100857, 2 April 2021 – 25 August 2022), commissioned by the Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks (DKMP), 1st Regional Directorate, Istanbul Provincial Branch Directorate within the national programme for documenting traditional knowledge associated with biological diversity, and executed by BİTEY Eğitim Çevre ve Danışmanlık (Ankara). We thank the technical staff of the DKMP Istanbul Provincial Branch Directorate, who joined field visits and helped establish the programme’s official standing locally, and Dr. Muazzez Gürgan Eser, member of the project field team. Funding: Field data were collected within the project “İstanbul İli Biyolojik Çeşitliliğe Dayalı Geleneksel Bilginin Belirlenmesi İşi” (Determination of Traditional Knowledge Based on Biological Diversity in Istanbul Province; tender registration no. 2021/100857, 2 April 2021 – 25 August 2022), funded by the Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks (DKMP), 1st Regional Directorate, Istanbul Provincial Branch Directorate. The analyses reported here received no additional specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

References

1. [1] L. Maffi, “Linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity,” Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 34, pp. 599–617, 2005, doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120437.
2. [2] F. Berkes, J. Colding, and C. Folke, “Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management,” Ecological Applications, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 1251–1262, 2000, doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1251:ROTEKA]2.0.CO;2.
3. [3] E. Gómez-Baggethun and V. Reyes-García, “Reinterpreting change in traditional ecological knowledge,” Human Ecology, vol. 41, pp. 643–647, 2013, doi: 10.1007/s10745-013-9577-9.
4. [4] C. Arjona-García et al., “How does urbanization affect perceptions and traditional knowledge of medicinal plants?” Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, vol. 17, Art. no. 48, 2021, doi: 10.1186/s13002-021-00473-w.
5. [5] M. Ceuterick, I. Vandebroek, and A. Pieroni, “Resilience of Andean urban ethnobotanies: A comparison of medicinal plant use among Bolivian and Peruvian migrants in the United Kingdom and in their countries of origin,” Journal of Ethnopharmacology, vol. 136, no. 1, pp. 27–54, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2011.03.038.
6. [6] R. Haselmair, H. Pirker, E. Kuhn, and C. R. Vogl, “Personal networks: A tool for gaining insight into the transmission of knowledge about food and medicinal plants among Tyrolean (Austrian) migrants in Australia, Brazil and Peru,” Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, vol. 10, Art. no. 1, 2014, doi: 10.1186/1746-4269-10-1.
7. [7] A. Casagrande, M. R. Ritter, and R. R. Kubo, “Traditional knowledge in medicinal plants and intermedicality in urban environments: A case study in a popular community in southern Brazil,” Ethnobotany Research and Applications, vol. 25, pp. 1–34, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://ethnobotanyjournal.org/index.php/era/article/view/4397
8. [8] U. P. Albuquerque, A. Ladio, E. D. Almada, I. Vandebroek, M. T. Pulido Silva, and V. Stern da Fonseca-Kruel, “Exploring biocultural diversity in urban ecosystems: An ethnobiological perspective,” Ethnobiology and Conservation, vol. 12, Art. no. 10, 2023, doi: 10.15451/ec2023-06-12.10-1-12.

9. [9] M. R. Emery and P. T. Hurley, “Ethnobiology in the city: Embracing the urban ecological moment,” Journal of Ethnobiology, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 807–819, 2016, doi: 10.2993/0278-0771-36.4.807.
10. [10] J. Hurrell and J. Puentes, “Urban ethnobiology: A space for reflection on the relationships between people and their environment in multicultural contexts,” in Nature(s) in Construction, M. L. Pochettino, A. Capparelli, P. C. Stampella, and D. Andreoni, Eds. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2024, pp. 159–174, doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-60552-9_10.
11. [11] G. Bulut, “Folk medicinal plants of Silivri (Istanbul-Turkey),” Marmara Pharmaceutical Journal, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 25–29, 2011.
12. [12] G. Ecevit Genç and N. Özhatay, “An ethnobotanical study in Çatalca (European part of Istanbul) II,” Turkish Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, vol. 3, pp. 73–89, 2006.
13. [13] G. E. Genç and N. Özhatay, “An ethnobotanical study from European part of Istanbul (Çatalca) in Turkey (I),” Journal of Faculty of Pharmacy of Istanbul University, vol. 37, pp. 67–74, 2004.
14. [14] G. Bulut, “Medicinal and wild food plants of Marmara Island (Balikesir-Turkey),” Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae, vol. 85, no. 2, Art. no. 3501, 2016, doi: 10.5586/asbp.3501.
15. [15] Ç. Kizilarslan Hançer, E. Sevgi, B. Büyükkiliç Altinbaşak, E. Altundağ Çakir, and M. Akkaya, “Traditional knowledge of wild edible plants of Biga (Çanakkale), Turkey,” Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae, vol. 89, no. 1, Art. no. 8914, 2020, doi: 10.5586/asbp.8914.
16. [16] POWO. “Plants of the World Online.” Facilitated by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, 2026. Accessed: Sep. 10, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://powo.science.kew.org/
17. [17] G. Akaydın, B. Özüdoğru, H. Kırmızıbekmez, and E. Yeşilada, “The flora of Kayışdağı (İstanbul/Turkey) and floristic comparison with neighboring floras,” Biological Diversity and Conservation, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 67–78, 2011. [Online]. Available: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1191966
18. [18] A. Chao and L. Jost, “Coverage-based rarefaction and extrapolation: Standardizing samples by completeness rather than size,” Ecology, vol. 93, no. 12, pp. 2533–2547, 2012, doi: 10.1890/11-1952.1.
19. [19] A. Chao et al., “Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: A framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies,” Ecological Monographs, vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 45–67, 2014, doi: 10.1890/13-0133.1.
20. [20] M. Lozada, A. H. Ladio, and M. Weigandt, “Cultural transmission of ethnobotanical knowledge in a rural community of northwestern Patagonia, Argentina,” Economic Botany, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 374–385, 2006, doi: 10.1663/0013-0001(2006)60[374:CTOEKI]2.0.CO;2.
21. [21] K. Ohmagari and F. Berkes, “Transmission of indigenous knowledge and bush skills among the western James Bay Cree women of subarctic Canada,” Human Ecology, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 197–222, 1997, doi: 10.1023/A:1021922105740.
22. [22] A. Ouma, “Intergenerational learning processes of traditional medicinal knowledge and socio-spatial transformation dynamics,” Frontiers in Sociology, vol. 7, Art. no. 661992, 2022, doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2022.661992.
23. [23] J. Tardío and M. Pardo-de-Santayana, “Cultural importance indices: A comparative analysis based on the useful wild plants of southern Cantabria (northern Spain),” Economic Botany, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 24–39, 2008, doi: 10.1007/s12231-007-9004-5.