AbstractMongolian traditional botanical knowledge has been rarely researched concerning the ethnobotany theory and methodology in the last six decades (Pei in Acta Botanica Yunnanica 135–144, 1988, as reported (Martin in Ethnobotany: A methods manual, Chapman and Hall, 1995)). However, most of the known literature of indigenous knowledge and information regarding the use of local wild plants among Mongolian herders was first documented by several botanical research of Russian researchers in Mongolia through the 1940s and 1950s. One of the most comprehensive works was completed by A. A. Yunatov (1909–1967), which is known as “Fodder Plants of Pastures and Hayfields of the People’s Republic of Mongolia” (FPM). Yunatov’s research sampled forage plants in Mongolia from 1940 to 1951 and subsequently published a study in 1954. The original transcript of FPM was later translated into Chinese and Mongolian (Cyrillic alphabet) during 1958 and 1968. In addition to morphological characteristics, distribution, habitat, phenology, palatability, and nutrition of forage plants, Yunatov`s record collected local names, the folk understanding and evaluation of the forage, as well as other relevant cultural meanings and the use of local wild plants (collected from the wild as opposed to cultivated plants) in FPM through interviews. The book contains the most precious records created in the 1940s and 1950s on folk knowledge of the Mongolians' wild plants in Mongolia. It was composed of 8 chapters and 351 pages in total. The fifth chapter of FPM, entitled “The systematic overview of forage plants,” making up 272 pages (77.49% of the total page counts). The order and content of the book-oriented along with profiles of specific plants. Yunatov collected detailed information on plants, such as the local name, morphology, distribution, habitats, ecological characteristics, and phenology. He also discussed the palatability of livestock, particular forage use, other usages, and chemical composition. Through careful reading and understanding of all three versions of the book (in Russian, Chinese, and Mongolian (Cyrillic alphabet)), the FPM-listed information of edible plants was categorized using ethnobotanical dependent analysis. The list of edible plants was ranked based on purposes and ethnobotanical inventories as per methodology and analysis used in the ethnobotany research. FPM listed 35 species are part of 15 families and 25 genera of wild edible plants. Most species belong to Liliaceae and Allium. Naturally grown grain and some food substitutes (plants that could be used as substitutions for typical food) come from the starchy organs, such as seeds, bulbs, roots, and rhizomes of 12, accounting for 34.28% of all species. Wild vegetables come from the parts of a young plant, tender leaves, young fruits, lower leg of stems, and bulbs of 9 species, accounting for 25.71% of all species. There are only three species of wild fruits, accounting for 8.57% of all edible plant species. Tea substitutes consist of leaves, roots, follicle, and aboveground parts of 8 wild plant species, accounting for 22.85% of all species. Seasonings from the wild were made of the elements such as seeds, rhizomes, tender leaves of 7 species, accounting for 20.00% of all species (Fig,8). Similarities and differences are noticeable in utilizing wild edible plants among Mongolian populations living in Mongolia and Inner Mongolia. Six species of wild edible plants listed in FPM have been proven to be collected and consumed by Mongolians from the Genghis Khan era in the twelfth century to the present day. This proved that the Mongolians have a tradition of recognizing and utilizing wild plants, demonstrating historical and theoretical value. Seven species of plants mentioned in this book were closely correlated to the locals' processing of traditional dairy products, meat, and milk food. Yunatov was not an ethnobotanist, but his accurate documentation of interviews and surveys with Mongolians represents valuable information about the collection and consumption of local wild plants during 1940–1951 in Mongolia. His research mission meant to focus on forage grass, the feed plant that sustained livestock, while he also recorded plants consumed by humans. His records on the edible parts and intake methods of some plants are incomplete. Still, it provided ethnobotanical materials of a remarkable scientific value and a living history of ethnobotany in Mongolian regions. Even by today`s standards, it will be challenging to obtain first-hand information of the richness and to the extent of Yunatov’s research.
Biodiversity-productivity relationship in urban vascular flora: a comparison between wild edible and non-edible plants