Next Article in Journal
Integrating Ecological Principles for Addressing Plant Production Security and Move beyond the Dichotomy ‘Good or Bad’ for Nitrogen Inputs Choice
Next Article in Special Issue
Chemical Composition and Insecticidal Properties of Origanum vulgare (Lamiaceae) Essential Oil against the Stored Product Beetle, Sitophilus granarius
Previous Article in Journal
Coordinating High Yield and Superior Eating Quality of Rice: A Case Study of Hybrid Varieties Derived from Longke638S and Jing4155S
Previous Article in Special Issue
Joint Effects of Developmental Stage and Water Deficit on Essential Oil Traits (Content, Yield, Composition) and Related Gene Expression: A Case Study in Two Thymus Species
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 12
Issue 7
10.3390/agronomy12071631
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Lamiaceae Plants in Bulgarian Rural Livelihoods—Diversity, Utilization, and Traditional Knowledge

by
Teodora Ivanova
1,*,
Yulia Bosseva
1,
Mihail Chervenkov
1,2 and
Dessislava Dimitrova
1,*
1
Department of Plant and Fungal Diversity and Resources, Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria
2
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Forestry, 1797 Sofia, Bulgaria
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2022, 12(7), 1631; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12071631
Submission received: 8 June 2022 / Revised: 4 July 2022 / Accepted: 5 July 2022 / Published: 7 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue It Runs in the Family: The Importance of the Lamiaceae Family Species)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Lamiaceae comprises widely distributed medicinal and aromatic plants, many of which are traditionally used in European countries. The current study aimed to document Lamiaceae taxa used in rural Bulgaria (Southeast Europe) and to explore the related local knowledge and cultural practices that influence their utilization for various purposes. Field work included inventory of Lamiaceae diversity in home gardens and semi-structured interviews focused on the cultivation, collection, and utilization practices common among elderly inhabitants of 34 settlements in rural Bulgaria. We report the utilization of 27 Lamiaceae taxa, 9 of which were collected from the wild. Traditional and contemporary ways of utilizing Lamiaceae taxa as culinary and medicinal plants, in herbal teas, as repellents, ritual plants, etc., are presented. Recent knowledge on medicinal properties contributed to the introduction of new taxa in gardens (wild and cultivated), while traditional culinary practices were found to sustain the diversity of local forms (landraces).

1. Introduction

Lamiaceae (Labiatae) is a cosmopolitan family and accounts for over 7000 species belonging to 245 genera [1]. Members of the family have long-lasting popularity for their diverse essential oil profiles, hence their multiple applications in medicine, cosmetics, gastronomy, etc. [2,3,4]. Many members of the Lamiaceae family used and cultivated since antiquity are still utilized [5,6,7]. Due to the broad spectrum of the biological activities (e.g., antimicrobial, antifungal, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anticancer, biocidal, etc.) of their secondary metabolites, Lamiaceae plants are used by local people based on their inherited empirical skills, or as a result of acquisition and exchange of traditional and/or modern knowledge [8,9,10,11,12]. Numerous ethnobotanical studies reported on the various past and current utilizations of different Lamiaceae taxa around the world and in Europe [4,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21].
The status of Lamiaceae taxa as culinary and medicinal plants made them common in home gardens. Moreover, the growing urbanization and industrialization of agriculture turned several Lamiaceae taxa, e.g., Lavandula, Ocimum, Origanum, Salvia, etc., into important industrial crops that are grown around the world [22,23,24]. However, many of the traditionally used Lamiaceae plants are still harvested from the wild, often in an unsustainable way, which could be evaded through cultivation [25,26]. Global climate changes also threaten the crop yields and quality of production [26]. Large scale cultivation generally relies on limited biodiversity of crops which, in essential oil plantations, could result in a reduced range of bioactive constituents, flavors, and aromas, thus not meeting the expectations of different communities for their specific (traditional) medical practices, cuisines, and/or their cultural/spiritual needs. Conversely, small-scale farming offers opportunities to maintain a wider range of assorted crops, varieties, and/or landraces which not only provide for a more diverse diet and additional income for their owners, but can also assist the preservation of valuable genetic resources, like valuable Lamiaceae plants [27,28,29]. In this sense, small farms and home gardens, as compact, diverse, and multilayered agroforestry systems provide for an important multitude of services to their owners and to local communities [30,31,32,33]. These environmentally friendly and more sustainable systems also cater to the conservation of wild and agrobiodiversity [34,35,36,37]. The owners of small farms and larger home gardens are more likely to use traditional agricultural practices and the related traditional knowledge inherited from previous generations, which is regarded as an important stepping stone for the implementation of agroecological principles in practice [38,39,40,41,42].
Local plant genetic resources preserved by gardeners and farmers, as well as the traditional knowledge related to their use and cultivation, however, are threatened by the gradual urbanization of the industrialized societies and growing depopulation and ageing of the inhabitants of the rural areas [43,44]. Plant diversity in European home gardens, and especially in those of Eastern and Southeastern Europe, remains understudied in comparison to home gardens and homesteads in the tropics, mostly due to the specific socio-economic impact of the latter [30,31,32,33]. Bulgarian rural home gardens, which currently range in size between several square meters and half a hectare, were found to provide substantially for the family sustenance, harboring a relatively large number of annual and perennial crop species [45]. Lamiaceae was found to be the second most represented plant family in Bulgarian rural home gardens, after Rosaceae, the latter being represented mainly by singular trees and shrubs cultivated for their fruits or grown as ornamentals [45]. On the contrary, in home gardens across Europe and the East Mediterranean, members of Lamiaceae were found more scarcely [46,47,48]. Additionally, it was found that most of the gardening area was cultivated on an annual basis, while herbs/spices, ornamentals, and fruit trees bordering the plots were more permanent elements.
The aim of the current study is to assess the variety of Lamiaceae taxa cultivated in Bulgarian home gardens as a function of their traditional and modern uses and to evaluate the factors/drivers that maintain and/or change their taxonomic diversity and related knowledge. We present the case in the frame of the local tradition to use and cultivate plants of the Lamiaceae family as medicinal and aromatic plants all over Bulgaria.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area and Data Collection

Bulgaria is located in the center of the Balkan Peninsula, in the most southeast corner of Europe. The territory of the country is in the transitional area between the temperate and the Mediterranean climatic zones, with slightly elevated average annual temperatures and lower precipitation rates in the last three decades: hardiness zones 7–8 [49]. Bulgarian vascular flora comprises 4064 species of spermatophytes affiliated with 921 genera and 159 families, of which nearly 150 taxa belong to Lamiaceae [50,51].
Representatives of 74 households took part in the field study (2017–2022). They were from settlements in eight Bulgarian provinces (Blagoevgrad, Haskovo, Plovdiv, and Smolyan on the southern site of the Balkan Mt. range, and Lovech, Montana, Pleven, and Vratsa on the northern site, Figure 1).
Participants were recruited directly using the snowball sampling approach. Assistance of local leaders (mayors, local cultural activists, etc.) was acquired so as to identify prominent gardeners, agronomists, and/or local healers, when needed. Formal information on the age, education and occupation of every participant was collected. Informed consent was verbally obtained from every participant prior to the interview. The guidelines prescribed in the Code of Ethics of the International Society of Ethnobiology [52] were followed during the field study, and their compliance was confirmed by the Scientific Council of the Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, acting as independent institutional Ethics Board (Decision No. 6/21/05/21).
Participants were asked to share information about the ways they currently utilize plants of the Lamiaceae family, as well as the taxa they cultivate in their home gardens and those collected from the wild. Information on the source of different crop plants was collected together with data on the processing of the collected/cultivated plants, if any. Participants were invited to freely list the plants they utilized. Additional information was asked if some plants were present in the garden or stored on a visible place in the living premises. Guiding questions on popular culinary herbs and herbal teas were asked, if necessary.
Voucher specimens and/or image data were collected for identification purposes; herbarium specimens were deposited in the Herbarium of the Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (SOM). The identification of the plants was carried out at least to the genus and species taxonomical levels in accordance with the Handbook of Bulgarian vascular flora [53]. Plant names are in accordance with the Plant list (2013) [1].
Presented plants/herbal products were summarized in eight use categories:
  • Culinary herbs (CUL)—used fresh and/or cooked in preparation of salads and/or dishes;
  • Ornamental plants (ORN)—grown for their ornamental flowers and/or foliage;
  • Medicinal plants (MED)—used for healing purposes incl. for preparation of recreational herbal teas;
  • Aromatic plants (AROM)—used for aromatization of the garden and/or of the home (fresh or dry);
  • Insect repellents (REP)—for deterring biting and vexing insects (mosquitos, flies), agricultural pests and clothes moths;
  • Pollinator attraction (POLL)—plants planted and/or reported to be grown around other crops so to attract pollinators;
  • Symbolic plants (SYM)—fresh/dry used traditionally for decoration of the home and other buildings or for personal decoration following religious or other rituals;
  • Technical plant (TECH)—used for making of the household and other objects.
Importance of each taxon was assessed using the use reports (UR) of the participants [54]. We visualized the multitude of utilization via Venn diagrams and compared the use of the recorded taxa using the Jaccard (similarity) index (JI) for each pair of use records. Calculation of the JI was performed using the following formula:
JI (X, Y) = |X ∩ Y|/|X ∪Y|,
where X and Y signify every two datasets. JI ranges from 0 (no similarity) to 1 (total equality) [55].
Sources of seeds and/or planting material were categorized as: local forms (landraces, purchased from the market/retail, introduced from the wild into the garden or collected from the wild for direct consumption and/or other uses).

2.2. Data Analysis and Statistics

Statistical association between nominal and ordinal variables was evaluated through chi-square tests (Fisher’s exact test) and correlation analysis (Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient). All statistical tests were based on two-sided tests and with a significant level of at least α = 0.05. Statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS statistical package (ver. 20.0, SPSS, IBM Inc., Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

Participants were primarily seniors, 90% over 56 years of age, actively engaged in home gardening (Table 1). The sets of single living participants and families were similar in number, 37 and 38, respectively. Education of the participants was prevalently secondary or higher. Half of the retired participants (79% of all participants) were professionally involved in industrial agriculture during their active years. However, even those who used to work or were still working in other professions were involved in agricultural activities throughout their lives. The retired family members were those responsible for decisions related to the composition of the gardens and spent most of their time in household organization and agricultural activities. Younger family members were those who were supplying new and foreign varieties for the gardens or helping in the processing of the garden yield, as well as introducing new recipes and knowledge.
Most of the participants (69%) used two to four taxa of Lamiaceae, while those interested in six or more were relatively few (Figure 2). The number of those growing only one taxon was fairly small (three). These were usually people with very small gardens, keen in ornamental gardening with little or no interest in herbal teas. Age, sex, and education were not significantly correlated with the number of cultivated/used taxa (p > 0.2). The highest number of taxa (nine) was recorded in a twin house with a common home garden managed by four people. There were no participants that would collect Lamiaceae plants only from the wild.
Studied gardens were found to harbor small patches or separately planted individuals of 22 taxa of Lamiaceae, belonging to 15 genera (Table 2, Supplementary Table S1). Four of them were both cultivated and collected from the wild for personal/family use, while five species were collected by the participants only from the wild. Salvia was the most diverse genus with four cultivated species, followed by Mentha and Satureja, with three taxa each. The latter two genera concentrated most of the citations (76.5%). Third place was occupied by Ocimum, which was represented by two species, Ocimum basilicum L. and O. minimum L., the latter being rarely registered (28 and 4 mentions, respectively). Clinopodium, Marrubium and Origanum were presented by two taxa, one collected from the wild and one introduced into the gardens from the nearby populations and/or grown from seeds or planting material procured by informal exchange or from the market. Several participants demonstrated various Thymus sp. and Mentha spicata L. cultivars as well as Origanum vulgare subsp. hirtum (Link) Ietsw., imported from other European countries as culinary herbs. The remaining seven genera were represented by only one species.
Altogether, ten taxa were accountable for the 88.1% of all mentions for utilization of Lamiaceae plants led by Mentha spicata L. and Satureja hortensis L. They also encompassed most of the local forms (landraces) that participants were maintaining in their gardens, 68 and 55, respectively. Ocimum basilicum and O. minimum were the other taxa of which local forms were preferred.
Each participant cited no more than four uses per taxon, which was related not only to the overall use of the taxon, but also to differences in utilization of varieties/local forms. Ocimum basilicum was the species with the highest number of uses (seven uses). Additionally, O. basilicum was, respectively, mentioned two and three times less frequently than the most popular—M. spicata and S. hortensis. More than half of the taxa (55.5%) had one or two uses of which 11 taxa had only one use. Culinary use was about twice as popular as the medicinal one.
Lamiaceae plants were used most often (61.4% of the use-reports) as culinary herbs, followed by those appreciated for their ornamental value (39.3%). The similarity between CUL and MED categories on a taxonomical level was high (JI = 0.83) (Figure 3). However, the varieties/local forms demonstrated as culinary herbs were rarely appreciated for other purposes, with negative correlation being significant (Spearman rank correlation p < 0.01, Table 3) for four out of seven categories (ORN, MED, AROM, and SYM).
For example, O. basilicum was more frequently mentioned as an ornamental and aromatic plant than as a culinary one for which mostly foreign broad-leaf varieties were considered. On the other hand, only locally grown white flowering forms with small leaves were used for ritual purposes, but they were not consumed (Figure 4). Ocimum basilicum was the only Lamiaceae representative used symbolically in different rituals and for its protective (apotropaic) powers. Flowering O. basilicum branches were used by Ortodox Christians as church and home decoration and in various ceremonies as well as in rituals related to birth, weddings, and burials.
Top (left to right): local landrace ‘Zhenski bosilek’ (women’s basil) used as ritual and medicinal plant in Banichan village; Ocimum basilicum L. and O. minimum L. from retail seeds in Central Rhodope Mts.; and the drying of flowering whole plants of O. basilicum. Bottom (left to right): ornamental patch of O. basilicum and Gomphrena globosa L.; O. basilicum sown in front of greenhouse to attract pollinators; and the ritual decoration of O. basilicum for home protection.
Half of the studied taxa (11) were reported to be edible with only one collected exclusively from the wild (Origanum vulgare L.). The latter was also cited as spirit flavouring and as a medicinal plant. Mentha spicata, S. hortensis, and O. vulgare subsp. hirtum were most frequently used for preparation of traditional dishes. All culinary herbs were used dried, and only M. spicata (Figure 5) was also traditionally used fresh in the preparation of lamb meat, bean, and vegetable stews. Dried herbs were stocked in bunches or sealed in containers and bags in quantities matching the usual demands of the household until the next harvest. Fresh herbage or leaves of other taxa were used only for preparations of foreign dishes like O. basilicum for Italian dishes and salads, Mentha × piperita L. and Melissa officinalis L. for desserts and cocktails, as well as Thymus sp. and Rosmarinus officinalis L. for roasted meats. Interestingly, the latter was appreciated for its aromatic and decorative foliage rather than as a culinary herb, and some of our respondents shared that they are aware of its culinary use but never used it in their cooking.
Twenty-one taxa were used for their healing properties, with M. × piperita, M. officinalis, and Salvia officinalis being the most commonly mentioned. Still, only 30.2% of the reports were related to the healing properties of Lamiaceae taxa. For medicinal purposes, dried plants were used as infusions. Some of the participants consumed them daily as healthy herbal teas, while others associate herbal teas with childhood illnesses and reject to cultivate and/or collect medicinal plants. Taxa used for household aromatization (10 taxa), insect repellents (5 taxa), and as pollinator attraction/honey plants (2 taxa) overlapped completely with medicinal plant category. Dried Lavandula angustifolia Mill. and Mentha spicata bunches were reported as effective in the repelling of clothes moths. Origanum vulgare subsp. hirtum and M. spicata were demonstrated as pantry pest repellents, placed directly in the containers with legumes, grains, etc. Ocimum balisicum and Rosmarinus officinalis were grown in the gardens next to windows to repel mosquitoes.
Only one species was mentioned as a technical plant; Marrubium peregrinum L., which was used for garden brooms that were made of large, sturdy herbage collected towards the end of vegetation. (Figure 6). However, the local knowledge on broom making was fading away, demonstrated by only one participant. On the other hand, the use of Lamiaceae plants to attract pollinators in greenhouses so as to promote tomato pollination should be regarded as a relatively new practice, popular among gardeners interested in eco-friendly agriculture.
The culinary use of some species resulted in the preservation of numerous local forms (Table 4). Contrastingly to the ornamental, aromatic and even medicinal plants that were sourced mainly from the market, seeds, rhizomes, and/or plantlets for culinary herbs were predominantly personally propagated. These were handed down through the generations and were replaced through exchange within the community only if inherited plants were lost. The practice of introducing plants from wild populations into home gardens was most popular for medicinal plants. Among these taxa, Sideritis scardica Gris., a species that became popular for its health benefits in recent years, was the only one that was transferred outside the area of its natural distribution. Cultivation of Lamiaceae species was preferred not only for the convenience and availability, but also due to the popularity of the protected status of some of the medicinal plants (e.g., O. vulgare ssp. hirtum, S. scardica). Additionally, our participants were more inclined to introduce wild-growing culinary herbs into their gardens than to lose time visiting natural populations.
Additionally to cultivated Lamiaceae taxa studied gardens harbored several wild Lamiaceae species (Ballota nigra L., Lamium amplexicaule L., L. maculatum L., L. purpureum L., Leоnurus cardiaca L., Glechoma hederacea L., Salvia nemorosa L., S. pratensis L. S. verticillata L.) that were considered by the participants as weeds without practical application.

4. Discussion

The overall number of Lamiaceae family members (22) found cultivated in Bulgarian rural home gardens was similar to that reported for other European home gardens, however, none of the taxa mentioned in these studies were present even in half of the studied gardens [46,56]. In the current study, two species, namely M. spicata and S. hortensis, were almost compulsorily present in the home hardens, grown in 98% and 74% of the studied gardens, respectively. Although Lamiaceae taxa were grown in limited quantities in Bulgarian home gardens, it is noteworthy to mention that their occurrence was comparable with many of the garden vegetables that were found to be main crops in cultivation [45,57]. Even some Lamiaceae taxa, which are not so popular as culinary herbs in Bulgaria (e.g., O. basilicum, R. officinalis), were also found more frequently cultivated in the Bulgarian home gardens than in other European countries [29,48,58,59]. The observed high diversity of Lamiaceae taxa in Bulgarian rural home gardens should be attributed not only to the fact that nearly 70% of our participants cultivated two to four Lamiaceae taxa in their gardens, but also to the very high preference for local forms (landraces) of culinary herbs that were inherited from previous generations or obtained through informal exchange within their community. Utilization of local genetic resources for their local organoleptic perceptions and their perceived cultural value was previously shown to contribute to their in situ preservation, which creates additional opportunities for the development of local entrepreneurship [60,61]. Still, the relatively high age of the rural population in Bulgaria should be considered as an alarming factor in terms of the need for the development of targeted collection programs for the safeguarding of these resources [62].
Mentha spicata and S. hortensis, the culinary herbs that occupied the first two places among the reported taxa, also had the highest number of local forms. On the other hand, other, incl. wild-growing members of Lamiaceae, such as Origanum, Thymus, and Mentha, popularly used in different dishes, preserved and fermented foods in the Mediterranean area were far less consumed by Bulgarians [63,64,65,66]. Specific plant spices and their combinations play key roles in the local cuisines that underline their uniqueness [67,68,69]. Practicing of traditional (agro)ecological knowledge is of crucial importance, as demographic and socioeconomic changes in the rural areas, especially in industrialized societies, gradually diminish natural human connectedness [4,70,71]. While utilization of M. spicata was reported from all over the world [29,72,73,74], S. hortensis was found popular both as a culinary herb and a medicinal plant mainly in the Balkans, Iran, and Turkey [75,76,77]. In this sense traditional culinary use underpins the maintenance of local Lamiaceae diversity. Recent results from the Adriatic area show that traditional knowledge related to usage of certain species is not only diminishing, but also changes in agricultural practices and land use are making home gardens the main source of medicinal plants, rather than the wild [78]. Still, similarly to other studies, it is hard to designate every inherited form with a landrace status, as no genetic and/or phytochemical analyses were performed during the study [56]. Nonetheless, the high number of gardens in which M. spicata and S. hortensis were recorded highlights the importance of home gardens for the preservation of local plant genetic resources, and also urges for their more detailed characterization, given the numerous factors that cause genetic erosion and loss of crop diversity [59,79].
Traditionally, consumed plants that have two or more other applications and are relatively easy to grow would possibly attract more attention even from unexperienced gardeners, which would contribute to the broadening of the impact of home gardens for the safeguarding of local plant diversity [80,81,82]. In the current study, single use was mostly a signifier for recent introduction of taxa into the gardens (e.g., ornamental varieties) or of outdated practices such as the preparation of brooms from the herbage of Marrubium peregrinum. Others, such as Clinopodium dalmaticum L., have a limited distribution range in the country, which could be regarded as a restrictive factor for its usability [83]. Here, it is important to distinguish the O. basilicum, which was the only species with symbolic (ritual) use. Sweet basil is one of the most important ritual plants in Bulgarian Orthodox Christian traditions [84], and we found the local forms used for ritual purposes to be rarely consumed fresh or cooked. Similarly, O. minimum was perceived mostly as an aromatic and ornamental plant. The discerning and preservation of landraces and varieties of both O. basilicum and O. minimum, however, would be a complicated enterprise due to the high variability in genome size and chromosome number, plant morphology, essential oil profile, etc., that have created considerable taxonomical ambiguities throughout the years and were related also to the frequent intrageneric hybridization and extensive breeding of Ocimum [85,86].
While almost all of the reported taxa were known as medicinal plants, the number of use reports related to medicinal properties was less than 1/3. The number of taxa used in this category (21) was about twice as low when compared to ethnographical data previously reported for Bulgaria, however close to the number of Lamiaceae taxa used in other parts of the Balkans as medicinal plants [77,87,88]. Given the fact that in Bulgarian folk medicine several species of one taxa could be used for various ailments, sometimes interchangeably (e.g., Lamium album L., L. maculatum, L. purpureum), it is probable that knowledge of the uses of other members of Lamiaceae have remained preserved outside the assessed areas/among other communities [77]. Nonetheless, we should consider the transformative role of the publication of numerous phytotherapy books that provided the Bulgarian public with modern and/or foreign knowledge on the use of indigenous and introduced plant taxa since the 1950s [89,90,91,92]. Many of these books also provided information on the threats to natural populations of some medicinal plants and recommend more responsible utilization of the natural resources. The latter could also explain the low number of wild medicinal plants of the Lamiaceae family (8) used traditionally by Bulgarian farmers in the early 1990s [93]. Additionally, only five species of the Lamiaceae family, all of which were also shown here, were reported for recreational teas used in Bulgaria [94]. It is important to mention that Bulgarian folk medicine was, and in some places still is, typically practiced by skilled healers (called bilkari, bilyari, znahari, etc.) who collect, supply and often process medicinal plants that are further used by the patients. Hence, a substantial part of Bulgarian traditional knowledge related to medicinal plants was never largely available [77]. This could explain why the plants mentioned by our participants as medicinal were mainly sourced from the market and were exclusively consumed as infusions, most of which are taken as daily herbal teas. Common examples for such plants are Thymus spp., Origanum vulgare, and Sideritis scardica, which are popular winter teas sold allover Bulgaria. However, the traditional knowledge related to their use would be hard to trace. Complementary to the initial interest in the medicinal properties, we observed that the purchased plants were often appreciated as ornamental and aromatic plants. Still, utilization of Lamiaceae taxa for their healing properties was found to be an important factor for plant domestications in gardens which was found to be a useful approach to alleviate pressure on the natural populations of medicinal plants [33,95,96].
In conclusion, the cultivation of members of the Lamiaceae family in Bulgarian home gardens accommodates both the various needs and interests of their owners, as well as the preservation of wild and agrodiversity. While the medicinal properties of these taxa cater to higher diversity on a species level, local culinary practices were found to sustain the variety of local forms (landraces) that underline the role of home gardens as important pools of plant genetic resources that should be preserved and further explored in the frame of the multitude of benefits provided by these plants.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agronomy12071631/s1; Table S1: Use reports and sources of the Lamiaceae taxa used in rural Bulgaria.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.I. and D.D.; methodology, T.I. and D.D.; formal analysis, Y.B.; investigation, T.I., Y.B., M.C. and D.D.; data curation, Y.B.; writing—original draft preparation, T.I.; writing—review and editing, T.I., Y.B., M.C. and D.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study is funded by the Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science under the National Research Programme “Healthy Foods for a Strong Bio-Economy and Quality of Life” approved by DCM # 577/17.08.2018. Part of the field studies were supported under the project DN10/1/2016 “The Garden: Site of Biocultural Diversity and Interdisciplinary Junction” funded by the National Science Fund.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study ethical compliance was confirmed by the Scientific Council of the Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, acting as independent institutional Ethics Board (Decision No. 6/21/05/21).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study prior the interviews.

Acknowledgments

Authors are grateful to all participants for the shared knowledge and kind cooperation during the field study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Royal Botanic Gardens Kew Garden; Missouri Botanical Garden The Plantlist Database. Available online: http://www.theplantlist.org (accessed on 26 May 2022).
  2. Napoli, E.; Siracusa, L.; Ruberto, G. New Tricks for Old Guys: Recent Developments in the Chemistry, Biochemistry, Applications and Exploitation of Selected Species from the Lamiaceae Family. Chem. Biodivers. 2020, 17, e1900677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Waller, S.B.; Cleff, M.B.; Serra, E.F.; Silva, A.L.; Dos Reis Gomes, A.; de Mello, J.R.B.; de Faria, R.O.; Meireles, M.C.A. Plants from Lamiaceae family as source of antifungal molecules in humane and veterinary medicine. Microb. Pathog. 2017, 104, 232–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Turner, N.J.; Luczaj, L.J.; Migliorini, P.; Pieroni, A.; Dreon, A.L.; Sacchetti, L.E.; Paoletti, M.G. Edible and tended wild plants, traditional ecological knowledge and Agroecology. CRC Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2011, 30, 198–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cilliers, L.; Retief, F.P. Horticulture in antiquity, with emphasis on the Graeco-Roman era|Akroterion. Akroterion 2009, 54, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  6. Hrisrova, I.; Atanassova, J.; Marinova, E. Plant economy and vegetation of the Iron Age in Bulgaria: Archaeobotanical evidence from pit deposits. Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci. 2017, 9, 1481–1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bosi, G.; Castiglioni, E.; Rinaldi, R.; Mazzanti, M.; Marchesini, M.; Rottoli, M. Archaeobotanical evidence of food plants in Northern Italy during the Roman period. Veg. Hist. Archaeobot. 2020, 29, 681–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ntalli, N.G.; Ozalexandridou, E.X.; Kasiotis, K.M.; Samara, M.; Golfinopoulos, S.K. Nematicidal Activity and Phytochemistry of Greek Lamiaceae Species. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Do Nascimento, L.D.; de Moraes, A.A.B.; da Costa, K.S.; Galúcio, J.M.P.; Taube, P.S.; Costa, C.M.L.; Cruz, J.N.; de Aguiar Andrade, E.H.; de Faria, L.J.G. Bioactive natural compounds and antioxidant activity of essential oils from spice plants: New findings and potential applications. Biomolecules 2020, 10, 988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ghalkhani, A.; Moradkhani, S.; Soleimani, M.; Dastan, D. Functional components, antibacterial, antioxidant, and cytotoxic activities of Lamium garganicum L. ssp. pictum as a novel natural agents from Lamiaceae family. Food Biosci. 2021, 43, 101265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dzhambazov, B.; Daskalova, S.; Monteva, A.; Popov, N. In Vitro Screening for Antitumour Activity of Clinopodium vulgare L. (Lamiaceae) Extracts. Biol. Pharm. Bull. 2002, 25, 499–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Mladenova, T.; Stoyanov, P.; Denev, P.; Dimitrova, S.; Katsarova, M.; Teneva, D.; Todorov, K.; Bivolarska, A. Phytochemical Composition, Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Activity of the Balkan Endemic Micromeria frivaldszkyana (Degen) Velen. (Lamiaceae). Plants 2021, 10, 710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Mustafa, B.; Hajdari, A.; Krasniqi, F.; Hoxha, E.; Ademi, H.; Quave, C.L.; Pieroni, A. Medical ethnobotany of the Albanian Alps in Kosovo. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2012, 8, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Papp, N.; Birkás-Frendl, K.; Farkas, Á.; Pieroni, A. An ethnobotanical study on home gardens in a Transylvanian Hungarian Csángó village (Romania). Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2012, 60, 1423–1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mükemre, M.; Behçet, L.; Çakilcioğlu, U. Ethnobotanical study on medicinal plants in villages of Çatak (Van-Turkey). J. Ethnopharmacol. 2015, 166, 361–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sarri, M.; Boudjelal, A.; Hendel, N.; Sarri, D.; Benkhaled, A. Flora and ethnobotany of medicinal plants in the southeast of the capital of Hodna (Algeria). Arab. J. Med. Aromat. Plants 2015, 1, 24–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Menković, N.; Šavikin, K.; Tasić, S.; Zdunić, G.; Stešević, D.; Milosavljević, S.; Vincek, D. Ethnobotanical study on traditional uses of wild medicinal plants in Prokletije Mountains (Montenegro). J. Ethnopharmacol. 2011, 133, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Šavikin, K.; Zdunić, G.; Menković, N.; Živković, J.; Ćujić, N.; Tereščenko, M.; Bigović, D. Ethnobotanical study on traditional use of medicinal plants in South-Western Serbia, Zlatibor district. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2013, 146, 803–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sõukand, R.; Pieroni, A. The importance of a border: Medical, veterinary, and wild food ethnobotany of the Hutsuls living on the Romanian and Ukrainian sides of Bukovina. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2016, 185, 17–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pieroni, A.; Quave, C.L.; Giusti, M.E.; Papp, N. “We Are Italians!”: The Hybrid Ethnobotany of a Venetian Diaspora in Eastern Romania. Hum. Ecol. 2012, 40, 435–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pieroni, A.; Nedelcheva, A.; Dogan, Y. Local knowledge of medicinal plants and wild food plants among Tatars and Romanians in Dobruja (South-East Romania). Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2014, 62, 605–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Nikolić, M.; Jovanović, K.K.; Marković, T.; Marković, D.; Gligorijević, N.; Radulović, S.; Soković, M. Chemical composition, antimicrobial, and cytotoxic properties of five Lamiaceae essential oils. Ind. Crops Prod. 2014, 61, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chen, Y.; Liu, L.; Wang, H.; Ma, J.; Peng, W.; Li, X.; Lai, Y.; Zhang, B.; Zhang, D. Environmentally friendly plant essential oil: Liquid gold for human health. Adv. Agron. 2021, 170, 289–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kowalski, R.; Kowalska, G.; Jankowska, M.; Nawrocka, A.; Kałwa, K.; Pankiewicz, U.; Włodarczyk-Stasiak, M. Secretory structures and essential oil composition of selected industrial species of Lamiaceae. Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus 2019, 18, 53–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Schippmann, U.; Leaman, D.J.; Cunningham, A.B. Impact of Cultivation and Gathering of Medicinal Plants on Biodiversity: Global Trends and Issues. In Biodiversity and the Ecosystem Approach in Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2002; pp. 1–21. ISBN 92-5-104917-3. [Google Scholar]
  26. Applequist, W.L.; Brinckmann, J.A.; Cunningham, A.B.; Hart, R.E.; Heinrich, M.; Katerere, D.R.; Van Andel, T. Scientists’ Warning on Climate Change and Medicinal Plants. Planta Med. 2020, 86, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ortiz-Sánchez, A.; Monroy-Ortiz, C.; Romero-Manzanares, A.; Luna-Cavazos, M.; Castillo-España, P. Multipurpose functions of home gardens for family subsistence. Bot. Sci. 2015, 93, 791–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Rao, M.R.; Rao, B.R.R. Medicinal plants in tropical homegardens. In Tropical Homegardens. Advances in Agroforestry; Kumar, B.M., Nair, P.K.R., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 205–232. ISBN 978-1-4020-4947-7. [Google Scholar]
  29. Vogl, C.R.; Vogl-Lukasser, B. Tradition, Dynamics and Sustainability of Plant Species Composition and Management in Homegardens on Organic and Non-Organic Small Scale Farms in Alpine Eastern Tyrol, Austria. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 2003, 21, 349–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Kumar, B.M.; Nair, P.K.R. The enigma of tropical homegardens. Agrofor. Syst. 2004, 61, 135–152. [Google Scholar]
  31. Galluzzi, G.; Eyzaguirri, P.; Negri, V. Uncovering European home gardens: Their human and biological featurs and potential contribution to the conservation of agro-biodiversity. In Crop Genetic Resources in European Home Gardens; Bailey, A., Eyzaguirre, P., Maggioni, L., Eds.; Bioversity International: Rome, Italy, 2009; pp. 8–17. [Google Scholar]
  32. Birol, E.; Bela, G.; Smale, M. The Role of Home Gardens in Promoting Multi-Functional Agriculture in Hungary. EuroChoices 2005, 4, 14–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Calvet-Mir, L.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Reyes-García, V. Beyond food production: Ecosystem services provided by home gardens. A case study in Vall Fosca, Catalan Pyrenees, Northeastern Spain. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 74, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Calvet-Mir, L.; Riu-Bosoms, C.; González-Puente, M.; Ruiz-Mallén, I.; Reyes-García, V.; Molina, J.L. The Transmission of Home Garden Knowledge: Safeguarding Biocultural Diversity and Enhancing Social–Ecological Resilience. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2016, 29, 556–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Raymond, C.M.; Diduck, A.P.; Buijs, A.; Boerchers, M.; Moquin, R. Exploring the co-benefits (and costs) of home gardening for biodiversity conservation. Local Environ. 2018, 24, 258–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ulug, C.; Horlings, L.G. Connecting resourcefulness and social innovation: Exploring conditions and processes in community gardens in the Netherlands. Local Environ. 2018, 24, 147–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ghosh, S. Measuring sustainability performance of local food production in home gardens. Local Environ. 2014, 19, 33–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Altieri, M.A.; Nicholls, C.I. The adaptation and mitigation potential of traditional agriculture in a changing climate. Clim. Chang. 2013, 140, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Altieri, M.A.; Nicholls, C.I.; Henao, A.; Lana, M.A. Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 869–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Alzate, C.; Mertens, F.; Fillion, M.; Rozin, A. The study and use of traditional knowledge in agroecological contexts. Rev. Fac. Cienc. Agrar. UNCuyo 2019, 51, 337–350. [Google Scholar]
  41. Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Reyes-García, V.; Olsson, P.; Montes, C. Traditional ecological knowledge and community resilience to environmental extremes: A case study in Doñana, SW Spain. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2012, 22, 640–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Tataridas, A.; Kanatas, P.; Chatzigeorgiou, A.; Zannopoulos, S.; Travlos, I. Sustainable Crop and Weed Management in the Era of the EU Green Deal: A Survival Guide. Agronomy 2022, 12, 589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Burholt, V.; Dobbs, C. Research on rural ageing: Where have we got to and where are we going in Europe? J. Rural Stud. 2012, 28, 432–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Giannakis, E.; Bruggeman, A. Regional disparities in economic resilience in the European Union across the urban–rural divide. Reg. Stud. 2020, 54, 1200–1213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ivanova, T.; Bosseva, Y.; Chervenkov, M.; Dimitrova, D. Enough to Feed Ourselves!—Food Plants in Bulgarian Rural Home Gardens. Plants 2021, 10, 2520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Vogl-Lukasser, B.; Vogl, C.R. The changing face of farmers’ home gardens: A diachronic analysis from Sillian (Eastern Tyrol, Austria). J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2018, 14, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Bassullu, C.; Tolunay, A. General characteristics of traditional homegarden involving animal practices in rural areas of Isparta Region of Turkey. J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 2010, 9, 455–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Reyes-García, V.; Aceituno, L.; Vila, S.; Calvet-Mir, L.; Garnatje, T.; Jesch, A.; Lastra, J.J.; Parada, M.; Rigat, M.; Vallès, J.; et al. Home Gardens in Three Mountain Regions of the Iberian Peninsula: Description, Motivation for Gardening, and Gross Financial Benefits. J. Sustain. Agric. 2012, 36, 249–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bocheva, L.; Trifonova, L.; Marinova, T.; Malcheva, K. Climate profile of Bulgaria in the period 1988-2016 and brief climatic assessment of 2017. Bulg. J. Meteorol. Hydrol. 2017, 22, 2–15. [Google Scholar]
  50. Petrova, A.; Vladimirov, V. Recent progress in floristic and taxonomic studies in Bulgaria. Bot. Serbica 2018, 42, 35–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Stoyanov, S.; Marinov, Y. Thymus jalasianus (Lamiaceae), a New Species from the Serpentine Area of the Eastern Rhodope Mountains, Bulgaria. Ann. Bot. Fenn. 2020, 57, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. International Society of Ethnobiology ISE Code of Ethics. Available online: http://ethnobiology.net/code-of-ethics/ (accessed on 21 June 2021).
  53. Delipavlov, D.; Cheshmedzhiev, I.; Popova, M.; Terziyski, D.; Kovachev, I. Handbook of Bulgarian Vascular Flora; Delipavlov, D., Cheshmedzhiev, I., Eds.; Academic Publishing House of Agricultural University-Plovdiv: Plovdiv, Bulgaria, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  54. Tardío, J.; Pardo-De-Santayana, M. Cultural Importance Indices: A Comparative Analysis Based on the Useful Wild Plants of Southern Cantabria (Northern Spain). Econ. Bot. 2008, 62, 24–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Jaccard, P. The distribution of the flora in the alpine zone. New Phytol. 1912, 11, 37–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Calvet-Mir, L.; Calvet-Mir, M.; Vaqué-Nuñez, L.; Reyes-García, V. Landraces in situ Conservation: A Case Study in High-Mountain Home Gardens in Vall Fosca, Catalan Pyrenees, Iberian Peninsula. Econ. Bot. 2011, 65, 146–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Toleva-Novak, N. Spatial Aspects. Urban Gardening as Astrategy for Improvement of the Urban Community Well-Being. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKqEmkkElsg&t=1793s (accessed on 20 April 2021).
  58. Grasser, S.; Schunko, C.; Vogl, C.R. Gathering “tea”—From necessity to connectedness with nature. Local knowledge about wild plant gathering in the Biosphere Reserve Grosses Walsertal (Austria). J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2012, 8, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Vitasović-Kosić, I.; Kaligarič, M.; Juračak, J. Divergence of Ethnobotanical Knowledge of Slovenians on the Edge of the Mediterranean as a Result of Historical, Geographical and Cultural Drivers. Plants 2021, 10, 2087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Riu-Bosoms, C.; Calvet-Mir, L.; Reyes-García, V. Factors Enhancing Landrace in Situ Conservation in Home Gardens and Fields in Vall de Gósol, Catalan Pyrenees, Iberian Peninsula. J. Ethnobiol. 2014, 34, 175–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Thanopoulos, R.; Chatzigeorgiou, T.; Argyropoulou, K.; Kostouros, N.M.; Bebeli, P.J. State of Crop Landraces in Arcadia (Greece) and In-Situ Conservation Potential. Diversity 2021, 13, 558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Davidova, S.; Fredriksson, L.; Gorton, M.; Mishev, P.; Petrovici, D. Subsistence Farming, Incomes, and Agricultural Livelihoods in the New Member States of the European Union. Environ. Plan. C 2012, 30, 209–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hadjichambis, A.C.; Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, D.; Della, A.; Elena Giusti, M.; De Pasquale, C.; Lenzarini, C.; Censorii, E.; Reyes Gonzales-Tejero, M.; Patricia Sanchez-Rojas, C.; Ramiro-Gutierrez, J.; 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]
  64. 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. 2009, 56, 245–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tardío, J.; Pardo-de-Santayana, M.; Morales, M. Ethnobotanical review of wild edible plants in Spain. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2006, 152, 27–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Łuczaj, Ł.; Jug-Dujaković, M.; Dolina, K.; Vitasović-Kosić, I. Plants in alcoholic beverages on the Croatian islands, with special reference to rakija travarica. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2019, 15, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Chironi, S.; Bacarella, S.; Altamore, L.; Columba, P.; Ingrassia, M. Consumption of spices and ethnic contamination in the daily diet of Italians—Consumers’ preferences and modification of eating habits. J. Ethn. Foods 2021, 8, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Verbeke, W.; López, G.P. Ethnic food attitudes and behaviour among Belgians and Hispanics living in Belgium. Br. Food J. 2005, 107, 823–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Emmez, B.C. Plants and foods as identity markers: An ethnographic analysis on the case of the (Y)Ezidis from Batman (Turkey). J. Ethn. Foods 2020, 7, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Sõukand, R.; Kalle, R.; Pieroni, A. Homogenisation of Biocultural Diversity: Plant Ethnomedicine and Its Diachronic Change in Setomaa and Võromaa, Estonia, in the Last Century. Biology 2022, 11, 192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Łuczaj, Ł.; Pieroni, A.; Tardío, J.; Pardo-De-Santayana, M.; Sõukand, R.; Svanberg, I.; Kalle, R. Wild food plant use in 21st century Europe: The disappearance of old traditions and the search for new cuisines involving wild edibles. Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 2012, 81, 359–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Peroni, N.; Hanazaki, N.; Begossi, A.; Zuchiwschi, E.; Lacerda, V.D.; Miranda, T.M. Homegardens in a micro-regional scale: Contributions to agrobiodiversity conservation in an urban-rural context. Ethnobiol. Conserv. 2016, 5, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Sulaiman; Shah, S.M.; Sadaf; Amin, M.; Gul, B.; Begum, M. Ethnoecological, Elemental, and Phytochemical Evaluation of Five Plant Species of Lamiaceae in Peshawar, Pakistan. Scientifica 2020, 2020, 2982934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Motti, R. Wild Plants Used as Herbs and Spices in Italy: An Ethnobotanical Review. Plants 2021, 10, 563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Jarić, S.; MačUkanović-Jocić, M.; Djurdjević, L.; Mitrović, M.; Kostić, O.; Karadžić, B.; Pavlović, P. An ethnobotanical survey of traditionally used plants on Suva planina mountain (south-eastern Serbia). J. Ethnopharmacol. 2015, 175, 93–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Fierascu, I.; Dinu-Pirvu, C.E.; Fierascu, R.C.; Velescu, B.S.; Anuta, V.; Ortan, A.; Jinga, V. Phytochemical Profile and Biological Activities of Satureja hortensis L.: A Review of the Last Decade. Molecules 2018, 23, 2458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Georgiev, M. Bulgarian Folk Medicine, 2nd ed.; Vasileva, M., Georgiev, M., Georgieva, I., Penchev, V., Popov, R., Simeonova, G., Troeva, E., Tsaneva, E., Eds.; Professor Marin Drinov Academic Publishing House: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2013; ISBN 978-954-322-542-8. [Google Scholar]
  78. Łuczaj, Ł.; Jug-Dujaković, M.; Dolina, K.; Jeričević, M.; Vitasović-Kosić, I. Insular Pharmacopoeias: Ethnobotanical Characteristics of Medicinal Plants Used on the Adriatic Islands. Front. Pharmacol. 2021, 12, 597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Khoury, C.K.; Brush, S.; Costich, D.E.; Curry, H.A.; de Haan, S.; Engels, J.M.M.; Guarino, L.; Hoban, S.; Mercer, K.L.; Miller, A.J.; et al. Crop genetic erosion: Understanding and responding to loss of crop diversity. New Phytol. 2022, 233, 84–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Galluzzi, G.; Eyzaguirre, P.; Negri, V. Home gardens: Neglected hotspots of agro-biodiversity and cultural diversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 2010, 19, 3635–3654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Huai, H.; Hamilton, A. Characteristics and functions of traditional homegardens: A review. Front. Biol. China 2008, 4, 151–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Zhang, Y.; Yang, L.X.; Li, M.X.; Guo, Y.J.; Li, S.; Wang, Y.H. The best choices: The diversity and functions of the plants in the home gardens of the Tsang-la (Motuo Menba) communities in Yarlung Tsangpo Grand Canyon, Southwest China. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2020, 16, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Mincheva, I.; Jordanova, M.; Benbassat, N.; Aneva, I.; Kozuharova, E. Ethnobotany and exploitation of medicinal plants in the Rhodope Mountains—Is there a hazard for Clinopodium dalmaticum? Pharmacia 2019, 66, 49–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Dafni, A.; Petanidou, T.; Vallianatou, I.; Kozhuharova, E.; Blanché, C.; Pacini, E.; Peyman, M.; Dajić Stevanovic, Z.; Franchi, G.G.; Benítez, G. Myrtle, Basil, Rosemary, and Three-Lobed Sage as Ritual Plants in the Monotheistic Religions: An Historical–Ethnobotanical Comparison. Econ. Bot. 2019, 74, 330–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Gupta, S.; Srivastava, A.; Shasany, A.K.; Gupta, A.K. Genetics, Cytogenetics, and Genetic Diversity in the Genus Ocimum. In The Ocimum Genome; Shasany, A.K., Kole, C., Eds.; Compendium of Plant Genomes; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 73–78. ISBN 978-3-319-97429-3. [Google Scholar]
  86. Naghibi, F.; Mosaddegh, M.; Motamed, S.M.; Ghorbani, A. Labiatae Family in folk Medicine in Iran: From Ethnobotany to Pharmacology. Iran. J. Pharm. Res. 2022, 4, 63–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Zlatković, B.K.; Bogosavljević, S.S.; Radivojević, A.R.; Pavlović, M.A. Traditional use of the native medicinal plant resource of Mt. Rtanj (Eastern Serbia): Ethnobotanical evaluation and comparison. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2014, 151, 704–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Mustafa, B.; Hajdari, A.; Pulaj, B.; Quave, C.L.; Pieroni, A. Medical and food ethnobotany among Albanians and Serbs living in the Shtërpcë/Štrpce area, South Kosovo. J. Herb. Med. 2020, 22, 100344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Jordanov, D.; Nikolov, P.; Boychinov, A. Phytotherapy, 3rd ed.; Medicina i Fizkultura State Publishing House: Sofia, Bulgaria, 1969. [Google Scholar]
  90. Maleev, A.; Kuzmanov, B.; Petkov, V.; Vlahov, V.; Mitsov, V.; Furnadzhiev, G.; Zhelyazkov, D.; Minkov, E.; Petkova, E.; Krushkov, I.; et al. Modern Phytotherapy; Petkov, V., Ed.; Medicina i Fizkultura State Publishing House: Sofia, Bulgaria, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  91. Nikolov, S.; Assenov, I.; Kuzmanov, B.; Marekov, N. Specialized Encyclopedia of Medicinal Plants; Nikolov, S., Assenov, I., Kuzmanov, B., Marekov, N., Eds.; Trud Publishing/Bulgarian Academy of Sciences: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2006; ISBN 978-954-528-555-4. [Google Scholar]
  92. Asenov, I.; Gussev, C.; Kitanov, B.; Nikolov, S.; Petkov, T. Guide to Medicinal Plant Collection, 2nd ed.; GeoFar-2003: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2003; ISBN 978-619-91383-0-4. [Google Scholar]
  93. Ivancheva, S.; Stantcheva, B. Ethnobotanical inventory of medicinal plants in Bulgaria. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2000, 69, 165–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Sõukand, R.; Quave, C.L.; Pieroni, A.; Pardo-de-Santayana, M.; Tardío, J.; Kalle, R.; Łuczaj, Ł.; Svanberg, I.; Kolosova, V.; Aceituno-Mata, L.; et al. Plants used for making recreational tea in Europe: A review based on specific research sites. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2013, 9, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  95. Gautam, R.; Sunwar, S.; Subedi, A.; Shrestha, P.; Sthapit, B. Home Gardens and Their Roles in Domestication of Wild and Uncultivated Plant Genetic Resources in Nepal. Acta Hortic. 2009, 806, 677–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Patel, S.K.; Sharma, A.; Singh, R.; Tiwari, A.K.; Singh, G.S. Diversity and Distribution of Traditional Home Gardens Along Different Disturbances in a Dry Tropical Region, India. Front. For. Glob. Chang. 2022, 5, 822320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 12 01631 g001 550
Figure 1. Map of the studied provinces.
Figure 1. Map of the studied provinces.
Agronomy 12 01631 g001
Agronomy 12 01631 g002 550
Figure 2. Number of used Lamiaceae taxa per participant (N, %).
Figure 2. Number of used Lamiaceae taxa per participant (N, %).
Agronomy 12 01631 g002
Agronomy 12 01631 g003 550
Figure 3. Multipurpose utilization of Lamiaceae representatives in rural Bulgaria. 1 Taxon collected only from the wild; 2 Taxon cultivated and collected from the wild; pollinator attraction; * repellent; ****** are the three pollinator attraction; * repellent; ** (Ocimum basilicum L. only) symbolic together; JI: Jaccard similarity index.
Figure 3. Multipurpose utilization of Lamiaceae representatives in rural Bulgaria. 1 Taxon collected only from the wild; 2 Taxon cultivated and collected from the wild; pollinator attraction; * repellent; ****** are the three pollinator attraction; * repellent; ** (Ocimum basilicum L. only) symbolic together; JI: Jaccard similarity index.
Agronomy 12 01631 g003
Agronomy 12 01631 g004 550
Figure 4. Ocimum basilicum L. in Bulgarian rural livelihoods.
Figure 4. Ocimum basilicum L. in Bulgarian rural livelihoods.
Agronomy 12 01631 g004
Agronomy 12 01631 g005 550
Figure 5. Variety of Mentha spicata L. local forms (landraces) in Bulgarian rural home gardens.
Figure 5. Variety of Mentha spicata L. local forms (landraces) in Bulgarian rural home gardens.
Agronomy 12 01631 g005
Agronomy 12 01631 g006 550
Figure 6. Home yard broom made of Marrubium peregrinum L.
Figure 6. Home yard broom made of Marrubium peregrinum L.
Agronomy 12 01631 g006
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the participants.
Table 1. Characteristics of the participants.
CharacteristicTotal
Sex
Single female; N (%)26 (34.7)
Single male; N (%)11 (14.7)
Family; N (%)38(50.7)
(N 1)75
Participant age (years)
Median70.00
Mean ± SD68.44 ± 10.19
Age range (years)35–84
35–55 N (%)7 (11.3)
56–75 N (%)40 (64.5)
76–84 N (%)16 (25.8)
Education
Primary; N (%)14 (18.7)
Secondary; N (%)34 (45.3)
College/University; N (%)19 (25.3)
1 Sample sizes vary due to missing data in the different variables. N: Sample size.
Table
Table 2. Cultivated and wild Lamiaceae taxa used in rural Bulgaria.
Table 2. Cultivated and wild Lamiaceae taxa used in rural Bulgaria.
GenusTaxon/Voucher Specimen Collection ReferenceOriginSourceOccurrence, % of Gardens (Landraces 3)ProvincesURNU
AgastacheAgastache foeniculum (Pursh) Kuntze/BI300317_AFIC2.7Hs54
ClinopodiumClinopodium dalmaticum L./SOM177666; I040517_ClDAW0.0Sm21
Clinopodium vulgare L./B160617_ ClVAC, W1.3Pd21
LamiumLamium galeobdolon (L.) Crantz/B140617_LGIC1.3Lv11
LavandulaLavandula angustifolia Mill./B300317_LAn;B140617_LAn; IC13.3Bl, Hs, Lv, Mo, Pv194
MarrubiumMarrubium peregrinum L./BI300817_MPAW0.0Hs11
Marrubium vulgare L./B140617_MVAC1.3Bl11
MelissaMelissa officinalis L./BI140617_MO; BI300317_MO; B140617_MO; BY300717_MO; B160418_MOAC24.0Bl, Hs, Lv, Mo, Pv264
MenthaMentha pulegium L./B230419_MPuAW0.0Bl32
Mentha spicata L./B260719_Ms; B030821_MS; B040821_MS; B300317_MS; B040517_MS; B130617_MS; B140617_MS; B280617_MS; B300817_MS; B100719_MS; BI260819_MSA, IC98.7 (68)All1185
Mentha × piperita L./B300317_MxP; B040517_ MxP; B130617_ MxP; B140617_ MxP; B280617_ MxP; B300817_ MxP; B100719_ MxP; BI260819_ MxPIC26.7Bl, Hs, Lv, Mo, Pd, Pv, Sm353
OcimumOcimum basilicum L./SOM177657; SOM177659; B260819_OB; I101019_OB;IC37.3 (16)All527
Ocimum minimum L./SOM177655; SOM177660; B050717_OM; I110917_OM; I120917_OMIC5.3 (1)Hs, Sm, Vr73
OriganumOriganum vulgare L./B260819_OV; B280819_OV; B290819_OV, AW0.0Bl32
Origanum vulgare subsp. hirtum (Link) Ietsw./SOM177661; SOM177662A, I 1C, W21.3Hs, Lv, Pd, Pv, Sm255
RosmarinusRosmarinus officinalis L./B300317_RO; B010417_ROIC18.7Bl, Hs, Mo, Pd, Pv285
SalviaSalvia aethiopis L./B290819_SAEAC1.3Bl11
Salvia officinalis L./BI160617_SO; I300817_SO; B260819_SO; B030821_SOIC12.0Bl, Hs, Lv, Pd, Sm173
Salvia splendens Sellow ex J.A. Schultes/B130617_SSpIC1.3Lv11
Salvia viridis L./BI120917_SVIC1.3Sm11
SaturejaSatureja cuneifolia Ten./SOM177658AW0.0Bl11
Satureja hortensis L./SOM177656; BI150617_SH; BI260819_SH; I020821_SH; B030821_SHIC74.7 (55)All572
Satureja pilosa Velen./SOM177663 (c); SOM177664 (w); SOM177665 (w)AC, W1.3Hs31
SideritisSideritis scardica Gris./B310317_ SSc; B310317_SScA 2C5.3Hs72
StachysStachys byzantina K. Koch/B140617_StBIC2.7Bl, Mo21
ThymusThymus sp./I040517_ThA, IC, W2.7Bl, Sm53
Thymus vulgaris L./B040517_TV; B280617_TV; B100719_TV; B030821_TVIC5.3Pd, Pv, Sm, Vr63
1 Cultivated plants were introduced from nearby wild populations or were grown from seeds/planting material procured from elsewhere; 2 cultivated plants were grown outside the natural distribution of the species; 3 number of local forms (landraces) if any; A: autochthonous; I: introduced; C: cultivated; W: wild; UR: use-reports; NU: number of uses; provinces (Bl: Blagoevgrad; Hs: Haskovo; Lv: Lovech; Mo: Montana; Pd: Plovdiv; Pv: Pleven; Sm: Smolyan; and Vr: Vratsa).
Table
Table 3. Usage of Lamiaceae plants in rural Bulgaria and correlation between different usages.
Table 3. Usage of Lamiaceae plants in rural Bulgaria and correlation between different usages.
UseCUL 1MEDAROMREPPOLLTECHSYMTotal Number of Use-ReportsTotal Number of Taxa
ORN−0.307 **0.0810.169 **0.1000.018−0.0480.08211217
CUL −0.562 **−0.331 **−0.103−0.106−0.075−0.185 **17511
MED −0.030.0030.036−0.039−0.0438621
AROM −0.0290.099−0.0220.172 **3410
REP 0.183 **−0.0130.085135
POLL −0.005−0.01222
TECH −0.00911
SYM 61
1 Abbreviations—CUL: culinary herb: ORN: ornamental plant; MED: medicinal plant, incl. herbal teas; AROM: aromatic plant; REP: insect repellent; POLL: pollinator attraction; SYM: symbolic plant used ritually; TECH: technical plant (brooms). ** Spearman correlation coefficient is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table
Table 4. Sources of Lamiaceae taxa used in rural Bulgaria.
Table 4. Sources of Lamiaceae taxa used in rural Bulgaria.
SourceORN 1CULMEDAROMREPPOLLTECHSYM
Local forms 2401268104006
Introduced from the wild672031000
Retail512938135200
Informal exchange135871000
Collected from the wild 305910010
Fisher exact test, significance (p)<0.001<0.001<0.0010.0080.5910.3740.060.310
1 Abbreviations—CUL: culinary herb: ORN: ornamental plant; MED: medicinal plant, incl. herbal teas; AROM: aromatic plant; REP: insect repellent; POLL: pollinator attraction; SYM: symbolic plant used ritually; TECH: technical plant (brooms); 2 data are presented as a number of reports; 3 plants collected regularly from the wild for direct consumption or other use.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ivanova, T.; Bosseva, Y.; Chervenkov, M.; Dimitrova, D. Lamiaceae Plants in Bulgarian Rural Livelihoods—Diversity, Utilization, and Traditional Knowledge. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1631. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12071631

AMA Style

Ivanova T, Bosseva Y, Chervenkov M, Dimitrova D. Lamiaceae Plants in Bulgarian Rural Livelihoods—Diversity, Utilization, and Traditional Knowledge. Agronomy. 2022; 12(7):1631. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12071631

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ivanova, Teodora, Yulia Bosseva, Mihail Chervenkov, and Dessislava Dimitrova. 2022. "Lamiaceae Plants in Bulgarian Rural Livelihoods—Diversity, Utilization, and Traditional Knowledge" Agronomy 12, no. 7: 1631. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12071631

APA Style

Ivanova, T., Bosseva, Y., Chervenkov, M., & Dimitrova, D. (2022). Lamiaceae Plants in Bulgarian Rural Livelihoods—Diversity, Utilization, and Traditional Knowledge. Agronomy, 12(7), 1631. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12071631

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