3.2.B. Wild plants used by humans
Data and text – George Fayvush (Institute of Botany after A. Takhtajyan NAS RA)
Results presentation – Elena Bukvareva (BCC Armenia)
In this section we assess three types of benefits to people from the use of wild plants: culinary species, medicinal species, and the production of nectar by wild plants for subsequent honey production. The assessments of the provided ES are given in points based on the known number of species in the corresponding plant groups. In the future, these assessments should be refined using data on productivity and permissible levels of plant harvesting from the wild.
Edible and culinary plants
The wild flora of Armenia includes around 3,800 species of vascular plants, which accounts for more than half of the entire flora of the Caucasus. Among this botanical richness, many plant species have been used as food by the local population since ancient times. For this study, we selected species that are widely used both across Armenia and in specific regions. In the vast majority of cases, these plants are collected from natural ecosystems for personal use in households. They are more rarely sold at markets in small quantities, and large-scale commercial harvesting is practically absent.
Our review includes 75 species used as vegetables (in fresh or home-cooked form), 27 species of fruit, berry, and nut-bearing plants (used fresh, or in the form of juices, compotes, etc.), 9 species of aromatic herbs typically used as flavoring for dishes or beverages, 5 species used in alcoholic beverage production, and 17 species used in the preparation of non-alcoholic drinks. These species are found in various altitudinal zones and natural ecosystems (Figure 32B-1, Table 32B-1). The highest number of edible plant species is found in forest and steppe ecosystems, primarily within the mid-mountain belt. Slightly fewer species grow in broadleaf woodlands, meadow-steppes, and subalpine meadows. Edible plants are virtually absent in desert ecosystems and are very scarce in the alpine zone. Figure 32В-2 shows the uneven spatial distribution of species richness of culinary and edible plants.
Figure 1. The number of edible plant species characteristic for different types of natural vegetation
Figure 32B-2. Map of the ES provided by natural vegetation, assessed by the total number of edible plant species
Table 1. The number of edible plant species characteristic for different types of natural vegetation
| Type of vegetation | Vegetable | Fruit-berry and nuts | Spicy plants | Used in alcohol drinks | Used in non-alcohol drinks | Total |
| Alpine meadows and carpets | 5 | – | 1 | – | – | 6 |
| Broadleaf woodland | 28 | 13 | 4 | 2 | 10 | 57 |
| Desert | 1 | – | – | – | – | 1 |
| Forest | 38 | 25 | 3 | 5 | 12 | 83 |
| Juniper | 12 | 1 | 4 | – | 2 | 19 |
| Marsh | 13 | 2 | 1 | – | 3 | 19 |
| Meadow-steppe | 27 | 5 | 3 | – | 8 | 43 |
| Semidesert | 28 | 2 | 3 | – | 2 | 35 |
| Steppe | 41 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 8 | 60 |
| Subalpine meadows | 27 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 45 |
Most edible plants are common in Armenia (taking into account the distribution of different ecosystems across the various regions of the country). The only species included in the Red Data Book of Plants of Armenia is Gundelia hajastana (listed in the Red Book as Gundelia rosea). This species was widely used as a food plant in the Kotayk Province (where its main range is located) until the 1950s. It was then largely forgotten and is now rarely gathered or used.
Edible plants in Armenia are collected primarily by the local rural population for personal use and in very small quantities for sale at urban markets. At the current level of use, wild populations of most species remain stable. Only a few species are collected in relatively large quantities for export. For example, several years ago, licorice (Glycyrrhiza glabra) was harvested for export to Georgia for the production of non-alcoholic beverages; however, even in that case, it was collected from abandoned agricultural fields where it was naturally spreading intensively.
Nevertheless, if large-scale commercial harvesting were to begin, many species could face the risk of overexploitation. Unfortunately, while some studies on wild plant resources were conducted during the Soviet period, in the past 30 years such research has been almost entirely lacking, and there are no available data on the current or potentially usable reserves of these plants.
References
Aprikyan, S. V. (1972). Valuable plant raw materials from the flora of Armenia for the food industry. Biological Journal of Armenia, 1972, 25(12), pp. 74–79 (In Russian).
Fayvush G., Aleksanyan A. et al. Plant profiles. In: Bussmann R. (ed.) Ethnobotany of the Caucasus. Springer International Publishing AG 2017, Switzerland, p. 99-715. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-49412-8.
Grossheim, A. A. (1952). Plant Resources of the Caucasus. Moscow (In Russian).
Melkumyan, I. S. (1991). Wild edible plants of the Ararat Valley. In: Flora, Vegetation and Plant Resources of Armenia, 13, pp. 228–246 (In Russian).
Takhtajan, A. L. (Ed.). Flora of Armenia, Vols. 1–11, 1954–2009 (In Russian).
Tamanyan K.G., Fayvush G.M., Babagyulyan S.G., Danielyan T.S. Red Data Book of Plants of Armenia. Yerevan: Zangak, 2010, 598 p. (In Armenian)
Tsaturyan T, Gevorgyan M. Wild edible plants of Armenia. Yerevan; 2007 (in Armenian).
Yaroshenko, G. D. (1941). Wild vegetable plants of the Armenian SSR. Bulletin of the Botanical Garden, 3, pp. 33–37 (In Russian).
Medicinal plants
Armenia is home to a very large number of medicinal plant species. Only a small number of them are included in the official pharmacopoeia, while the vast majority are used in traditional medicine. The medicinal properties of plants native to Armenia have been known since ancient times. As early as the Middle Ages, Armenian scholars wrote specialized treatises on medicinal plants (Harutyunyan, 1990). During the Soviet period, the Institute of Fine Organic Chemistry of the Armenian Academy of Sciences had a department dedicated specifically to studying the medicinal properties of wild plants in Armenia. Today, people mostly rely on pharmaceutical industry products, but at the same time, there is a growing trend toward the use of natural products, including medicinal plants.
From the vast diversity of medicinal plants in Armenia, we selected 155 species for analysis — those that are most widespread and most commonly used in traditional medicine. These species are found across various elevation zones and natural ecosystems (Figure 32B-3, Table 32B-2).
The highest number of medicinal plant species is concentrated in the middle and upper mountain belts, primarily in forests, steppes, meadow-steppes, open woodlands, and subalpine meadows. Figure 32В-4 shows the uneven spatial distribution of species richness of culinary and edible plants.
Figure 32B-3. The number of medicinal plant species characteristic for different types of natural vegetation
Figure 32B-4. Map of the ES provided by natural vegetation, assessed by the total number of medicinal plant species
Table 32B-2. The number of medicinal plant species characteristic for different types of natural vegetation
| Type of vegetation | Species number |
| Alpine meadows and carpets | 8 |
| Broadleaf woodland | 54 |
| Desert | 9 |
| Forest | 84 |
| Juniper | 37 |
| Marsh | 45 |
| Meadow-steppe | 58 |
| Semidesert | 39 |
| Steppe | 76 |
| Subalpine meadows | 53 |
Most populations of medicinal plants are found throughout Armenia within their respective natural ecosystems. They are generally abundant, and the current level of harvesting does not pose a threat of overexploitation. However, a number of species are rare and included in the Red Data Book of Plants of Armenia (Tamanyan et al., 2010) (Table 2).
Most of the species presented in our study are either not used at all today or are used in minimal quantities for personal household needs. Only a very small amount is sold in markets or on the streets of cities. Unfortunately, no research is currently being conducted in Armenia to assess the wild reserves of medicinal plants or the potential for their sustainable use.
Table 32B-3. Medicinal plants included in the Red Data Book of Plants of Armenia
| Species | Category in the Red Book | Comments |
| Acorus calamus | Endangered (EN) | Grows only in Armavir and Ararat marzes |
| Atropa bella-donna | Vulnerable (VU) | |
| Calendula persica | Endangered (EN) | Grows only in Sjuniq marz |
| Cocciganthe flos-cuculi | Critically Endangered (CR) | Only one population is known in Lori marz |
| Cyclamen vernum | Vulnerable (VU) | Grows only in the North of Tavush marz |
| Halostachys belangeriana | Endangered (EN) | Has small area of occurence, grows on salt bodies (solonchaks) in Armavir and Ararat marzes |
| Menyanthes trifoliata | Vulnerable (VU) | Usually size of populations is very small |
| Nuphar lutea | Critically Endangered (CR) | Very rare species, only one population is known in the North of Shirak marz |
| Nymphaea alba | Endangered | Rare species, the main area if distribution lies in Lori marz |
| Paeonia tenuifolia | Critically Endangered (CR) | Very rare species, only one small population is known in Sjuniq marz |
| Potentilla erecta | Critically Endangered (CR) | Only a few small populations are known in the North of Armenia |
| Sphaerophysa salsula | Vulnerable (VU) | Rare species, only one population was known, but in the last years some new small populations were found in Ararat marz |
References
Fayvush G., Aleksanyan A. et al. Plant profiles. In: Bussmann R. (ed.) Ethnobotany of the Caucasus. Springer International Publishing AG 2017, Switzerland, p. 99-715. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-49412-8
Grossheim, A. A. Plant Resources of the Caucasus. Moscow, 1952 (in Russian).
Harutyunyan H. Medieval armenian phytotherapy herbs. Yerevan; 1990 (in Armenian).
Sokolov, P. D. (Ed.). Plant Resources of the USSR. Leningrad: Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1984–1993, Vols. 1–7 (in Russian).
Takhtajan, A. L. (Ed.). Flora of Armenia, 1954–2009, Vols. 1–11 (in Russian).
Tamanyan K.G., Fayvush G.M., Nanagulyan S.G., Danielyan T.S. Red Data Book of Plants of Armenia. Yerevan: Zangak, 2010, 598 p. (in Armenian)
Tsaturyan T, Gevorgyan M. Wild medicinal plants of Armenia. Yerevan; 2014 (in Armenian).
Zolotnitskaya, S. Ya. Medicinal Plant Resources of the Flora of Armenia. Yerevan, 1958–1965, Vols. 1–2 (in Russian).
Nectar production by natural vegetation
In the strict narrow sense, the ES of wild honey production refers specifically to honey collected from wild bees. However, this practice is currently rare in Armenia. Most honey in Armenia is produced through conventional beekeeping using domesticated honeybees (Apis mellifera). Even so, much of this honey is still derived from natural vegetation. In this case, natural ecosystems produce nectar, which is then processed into honey by domesticated bees. At this stage, for a preliminary assessment of the potential supply of the ES, we used the number of honey plant species across different types of natural vegetation in Armenia. Clearly, this estimate should be refined in the future using data on the abundance and productivity of honey plants. The used ES can be considered as honey production for human consumption. However, since we do not have such statistical data, the used ES was not assessed.
Honey plants are those that produce large amounts of nectar and/or pollen. According to A.A. Grossheim (1952), all honey plants can be divided into two groups: primary and secondary. Primary honey plants are those that produce significant quantities of nectar and pollen accessible to bees and are, in most cases, characterized by a long flowering period. A limited flowering period is not always a disadvantage for honey plants. For example, plants that bloom in early spring—although for a relatively short time—are important seasonal sources of nectar. Secondary honey plants are of lesser value but still contribute to the overall nectar potential of an area. Their presence in the vegetation increases the usefulness of the land from the perspective of beekeeping.
In Armenia, nearly half of all flowering plant species—over 1,400 species—are considered honey plants, either primary or secondary (Muradyan, 2019). We analyzed only primary honey plants, as their abundance and diversity largely determine the value of ecosystems in terms of the ecosystem service of wild honey provision. When assessing the importance of plant species for this ES, in addition to the flowering period, it is also necessary to consider their representation across various ecosystems, elevation zones, and ecological amplitude. The broader and more widespread these characteristics are, the more valuable the species is as a honey plant.
We identified 238 species of primary honey flowering plants from 47 families and 117 genera. These species are distributed very unevenly across the main vegetation types of Armenia (Figure 32B-5, Table 32B-4).
The great diversity of honey plants is found in the mid-mountain zone—from the middle to subalpine mountain belts (steppe, meadow steppe, and subalpine zones) —where natural ecosystems occupy the largest areas. However, the relatively low number of honey plant species in the alpine belt should not be underestimated: almost all of them are dominant species in alpine meadows and cover the largest areas there. Moreover, their mass flowering occurs in the second half of summer, when most honey plants in the lower belts have already finished blooming. Semi-deserts should also be considered valuable honey-producing ecosystems, despite the relatively low number of melliferous plant species. This is because their flowering period occurs mainly in spring—when ecosystems at higher elevations have not yet begun to bloom. It should also be noted that the main fruit orchards, which are among the most important honey resources, are located in this zone. However, our analysis does not include cultivated plants. For desert ecosystems, we identified only two honey plant species. Given the very limited area of true deserts in Armenia, their value as honey-producing ecosystems is minimal. Marsh ecosystems, represented by waterlogged habitats along the shores of water bodies, also have low value as honey-producing areas. Forest ecosystems are mainly characterized by spring-flowering and wind-pollinated species, which produce large amounts of pollen. Figure 32В-6 shows the uneven spatial distribution of species richness of culinary and edible plants.
Figure 32B-5. Number of honey plant species in the main vegetation types
Table 32B-4. Number of honey plant species in the main vegetation types
| Vegetation type | Number of honey plant species |
| Alpine meadows and carpets | 12 |
| Broadleaf woodland | 108 |
| Desert | 2 |
| Forest | 112 |
| Juniper | 70 |
| Marsh | 26 |
| Meadow-steppe | 108 |
| Semidesert | 59 |
| Steppe | 144 |
| Subalpine meadows | 105 |
Figure 32B-6. Map of the ES provided by natural vegetation, assessed by the number of honey plant species
References
Grossgeim A.A. Plant resources of the Caucasus. Moscow, 1952 (In Russian).
Muradyan A.G. Honey plants of the flora of Armenia. Takhtajaniya, 2019, 5, pp. 80-96 (In Russian).
Takhtajan A.L. (ed.) Flora of Armenia, 1954-2009, vols. 1-11 (In Russian).
Fayvush G., Aleksanyan A. et al. Plant profiles. In: Bussmann R. (ed.) Ethnobotany of the Caucasus. Springer International Publishing AG 2017, Switzerland, p. 99-715. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-49412-8
Aggregate assessment of the ES provided by human-used plants
The total ES was calculated by adding together the scores for the three plant groups: culinary, medicinal, and honey plants. The scores were normalized within each group (to the maximum value) and expressed as percentages (Table 32B-5). Overall, ES is provided to the greatest extent by forest and steppe ecosystems, and to the least extent by desert and alpine ecosystems. This pattern is very similar across all three plant groups (Figure 32B-7, 32B-8).
Table 32B-5. Species number and score (normalized to the maximum value %) of three groups of useful plants in vegetation zones of Armenia
| Type of vegetation | Medicinal plants | Edible plants | Honey plants | Total | ||||
| Species number | Score | Species number | Score | Species number | Score | Species number | Summed score | |
| Alpine meadows and carpets | 8 | 10 | 6 | 7 | 12 | 8 | 26 | 25 |
| Broadleaf woodland | 54 | 64 | 57 | 69 | 108 | 75 | 219 | 208 |
| Desert | 9 | 11 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 12 | 13 |
| Forest | 84 | 100 | 83 | 100 | 112 | 78 | 279 | 278 |
| Juniper | 37 | 44 | 19 | 23 | 70 | 49 | 126 | 116 |
| Marsh | 45 | 54 | 19 | 23 | 26 | 18 | 90 | 95 |
| Meadow-steppe | 58 | 69 | 43 | 52 | 108 | 75 | 209 | 196 |
| Semi-desert | 39 | 46 | 35 | 42 | 59 | 41 | 133 | 130 |
| Steppe | 76 | 90 | 60 | 72 | 144 | 100 | 280 | 263 |
| Subalpine meadows | 53 | 63 | 45 | 54 | 105 | 73 | 203 | 190 |
Figure 32B-7. ES scores across vegetation zones
Figure 32B-8. The map of ES summed score in vegetation zones
The volume of ES provision by ecosystems within marzes was assessed by multiplying the total scores of vegetation types (Table 32B-5) by the area of each vegetation zone in each marz (Section 2.3.D). The largest ES volume is provided in marzes that have extensive areas of forest and steppe zones (Syunik, Lori, Tavush). The high ES value in the Gegharkunik marz is due to the large area of subalpine meadows, which, along with forests and steppes, also host a considerable number of useful plant species. The lowest level of ES provision is observed in Armavir marz due to the small area of remaining natural ecosystems which are almost entirely semi-deserts with a relatively low number of useful plant species (Figure 32B-9). Figure 32B-10 shows the share of ES provision contributed by different vegetation types in various marzes. In Tavush marz, the overwhelming majority of the ES is provided by forests and woodlands, while in Shirak and Aragatsotn marzes it is delivered mainly by typical and meadow steppes.
Figure 32B-9. ES provision by ecosystems within marzes (summed scores) 
Figure 32B-10. The share of ES provided by different vegetation types within marzes (%)
According to the applied scoring method for assessing ES provided by different vegetation types, the changes in ES across marzes differ from changes in the area of various vegetation types (Section 5 here) by being multiplied by their corresponding total ES scores (Figure 32B-11).
Figure 32B-11. Changes in ES provision by ecosystems across marzes (summed scores)
