Food systems worldwide are increasingly challenged by climate change, environmental degradation, and growing pressures on agricultural production (Ray et al. 2019). Climate change has been widely recognized as a major threat to food security, reducing crop yields, disrupting growing seasons, degrading nutritional quality, and intensifying the impacts of extreme weather events (Rezaei et al. 2023). These changes undermine the four dimensions of food security: availability, access, utilization, and stability, and disproportionately affect smallholder farmers and climate-vulnerable regions (Singh & Khanna 2021; Trudinger et al. 2023; Shamshad et al. 2024; Aishwarya & Kumar 2024; Ben Hassen et al. 2025). Consequently, there is growing interest in identifying alternative and resilient food resources that can contribute to sustainable and diversified food systems.

Among the promising approaches to addressing these challenges is the promotion of underutilized plant resources. Numerous studies have highlighted the nutritional and ecological importance of these species, which often contain higher levels of micronutrients, vitamins, antioxidants, and proteins than commonly cultivated staple crops. In addition to supporting dietary diversity and reducing micronutrient deficiencies, many underutilized species demonstrate remarkable tolerance to drought, salinity, poor soils, and heat stress. Their cultivation and conservation also contribute to biodiversity enhancement, ecosystem functioning, soil protection, and the long-term sustainability of agricultural landscapes (Li et al. 2020; Ulian et al. 2020; Singha et al. 2021; Ghosh et al. 2023; Anju & Kumar 2024; Kokou et al. 2025).

Traditional food plants represent an important component of these underutilized resources. Evidence from indigenous and traditional agroecosystems demonstrates strong links between biodiversity and nutritional diversity, while local communities continue to play a crucial role in conserving plant genetic resources and maintaining resilient food systems. Many traditional food plants possess high nutritional value and contribute significantly to household nutrition, particularly among vulnerable populations (Singh et al. 2021; McGuigan et al. 2025; Poli 2025; Kühn et al. 2026). As a result, traditional food knowledge and plant-based food practices are increasingly recognized as valuable assets for achieving sustainable diets and food system resilience.

Within this context, wild indigenous vegetables have attracted growing attention as an important yet often overlooked component of traditional food systems. These plants are generally defined as uncultivated species gathered from natural or semi-natural environments, including forests, grasslands, wetlands, mountains, and fallow lands, and consumed as vegetables by local communities (Bvenura & Afolayan 2015; Zhang et al. 2020). Wild vegetables contribute to local diets, cultural food traditions, and livelihood strategies, while also serving as buffer foods during seasonal shortages and environmental disturbances. In some regions, they additionally provide income opportunities through local markets and community-based harvesting enterprises and can be integrated into agroecological production systems and home gardens (Guyu & Muluneh 2015; Kebede & Bokelmann 2016; Mishra et al. 2021; Gorman et al. 2023; Singh & Singh 2023).

Despite increasing interest in wild indigenous vegetables, existing knowledge remains fragmented across regions and cultures. Most ethnobotanical studies have focused on documenting species used by specific communities, while broader syntheses integrating taxonomic diversity, geographical distribution, edible plant parts, culinary utilization, and medicinal relevance remain limited. A comprehensive understanding of these dimensions is essential for recognizing the contribution of wild indigenous vegetables to sustainable food systems, biodiversity conservation, and the preservation of traditional ecological knowledge. Therefore, this study provides a global evidence synthesis of wild indigenous vegetables documented in ethnobotanical studies, with particular emphasis on species diversity, geographic patterns, edible plant parts, culinary utilization, and medicinal relevance.

This study employed a systematic review and evidence synthesis approach to compile and analyze ethnobotanical information on wild indigenous vegetables reported in primary field-based studies. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework to ensure transparent literature identification, screening, and selection. The primary unit of analysis was the plant species documented as a wild indigenous vegetable within its ethnobotanical context.

Literature search strategy

A systematic literature search was conducted in the Scopus database on 17 May 2026. The search strategy combined terms related to ethnobotany and wild edible vegetables using the following query: (ethnobotany* AND (“wild edible plants” OR “wild vegetables” OR “traditional vegetables” OR “indigenous vegetables” OR “local vegetables”)).

The search was restricted to peer-reviewed journal articles published in English between 2006 and 2026. After applying database filters for document type, language, publication status, and publication year, the retrieved records were exported to Zotero reference management software for screening and duplicate removal.

Subsequently, titles, abstracts, and author keywords were screened using the keyword “vegetable” to identify studies specifically documenting vegetable uses. Full-text articles were then assessed for eligibility according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The complete study selection process is summarized in the PRISMA flow diagram (Fig. 1).

Eligibility criteria

Studies were included if they: (i) reported wild, indigenous, or underutilized edible plant species documented through primary ethnobotanical fieldwork; (ii) provided taxonomic information at the species level or identifiable genus level; (iii) explicitly documented vegetable use, including potherbs, leafy vegetables, cooked greens, or salad ingredients; and (iv) reported at least one of the following variables at the species level: edible plant part, preparation method, or medicinal use.

Studies were excluded if they focused primarily on cultivated vegetables, market-purchased food plants, spice plants, medicinal plants without vegetable use, single-species case studies, chemical or pharmacological investigations lacking ethnobotanical inventories, review articles, meta-analyses, conference proceedings, short communications, or studies lacking sufficient information for data extraction. Studies published outside the selected publication period were also excluded. Following full-text assessment, 90 studies met all eligibility criteria and were included in the final synthesis.

Data extraction

Data were extracted manually from each included study using a standardized extraction framework. The following variables were recorded for each species: scientific name, plant family, edible plant part, preparation method, medicinal use (when reported), study location, country, and bibliographic source.

Where a species was reported in multiple studies, all occurrences were initially retained to preserve information on geographic distribution and citation frequency. Data extraction was performed from species inventories, appendices, supplementary materials, and relevant ethnobotanical tables presented in the source articles.

Taxonomic standardization and data cleaning

To ensure taxonomic consistency across studies, scientific names were standardized using currently accepted nomenclature. Synonyms were corrected using Plants of the World Online (POWO) as the primary taxonomic reference, and the validity of names and their authorities was cross-checked against the International Plant Names Index (IPNI). Botanical author citations were then removed from the final dataset. Family assignments were standardized according to the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group IV (APG IV) classification system.

Records lacking sufficient taxonomic resolution for species-level analysis were removed. Duplicate species records originating from multiple studies were consolidated into a single representative species entry while preserving information on geographic occurrence and study frequency. Species citation frequency was calculated as the number of independent studies reporting each species.

Following taxonomic verification, cleaning, and deduplication, the final dataset comprised 1,878 unique species documented across 90 ethnobotanical studies. Detailed synonym corrections, family harmonization procedures, and excluded taxa are provided in the Supplementary Material.

Variable standardization

To facilitate comparative analyses, extracted variables were standardized into broader analytical categories. Edible plant parts were classified into eleven categories: leaf, shoot/stem, root/tuber/rhizome, fruit, flower/inflorescence, seed, bulb/corm, aerial parts, whole plant, multiple parts, and not reported.

Preparation methods were harmonized into nine categories: raw/fresh, boiled/steamed, stir-fried/fried, cooked as vegetable, soup/stew, mixed dish, fermented/pickled, roasted/grilled, and not specified. Species reported exclusively as spices, condiments, infusions, or beverages without evidence of vegetable consumption were excluded from the final dataset.

Medicinal uses were categorized according to major body-system functions, including gastrointestinal, respiratory, dermatological, cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, neurological, hepatobiliary/renal, metabolic/endocrine, reproductive, ophthalmic, immunological, nutritional/tonic, and general medicinal uses. Species lacking medicinal information were classified as “not reported”. Detailed operational definitions of all standardized categories are provided in the Supplementary Material.

Data analysis

Descriptive analyses were performed to characterize the taxonomic diversity, geographic distribution, edible plant parts, preparation methods, and medicinal relevance of wild indigenous vegetables. Species richness was calculated at species, family, and country levels. Citation frequency was determined based on the number of independent studies reporting each species.

The distribution of plant parts, preparation methods, and medicinal use categories was summarized using frequencies and percentages. The overlap between food and medicinal uses was also quantified to evaluate the food–medicine continuum among documented species.

Data management and statistical analyses were conducted using Microsoft Excel and R software (R Core Team, 2025). Results were presented through tables, frequency summaries, and graphical visualizations illustrating global patterns in the diversity and utilization of wild indigenous vegetables. In addition, a conceptual framework was developed from the synthesized evidence to summarize the relationships among ecological availability, traditional ecological knowledge, edible-organ selection, culinary utilization, food–medicinal relevance, and sustainability implications. The conceptual framework and the schematic illustration depicting the percentage distribution of medicinal uses were manually designed by the author using BioRender (BioRender.com) based on the synthesized findings of this review.

The geographic distribution analysis revealed substantial variation in documented wild indigenous vegetable richness across countries (Fig. 2). China showed the highest number of documented species (574), followed by India (527), Turkey (249), Pakistan (200), Bosnia–Herzegovina (189), and Croatia (162). Moderate species richness was recorded in Indonesia, Georgia, Laos, and Armenia. The global map indicates that the highest concentration of documented species occurred in Asia, particularly China and India, with additional hotspots in the Mediterranean and Balkan regions. These results suggest that ethnobotanical knowledge of wild indigenous vegetables is globally distributed but unevenly documented, with Asia and parts of Europe representing major centers of recorded diversity.

Plant parts used as wild indigenous vegetables were highly diverse, but vegetative organs dominated the dataset (Fig. 3). Multiple parts were the most frequently reported category (621 species), followed by leaves (538 species) and shoots/stems (263 species). Aerial parts (105 species) and roots/tubers/rhizomes (104 species) were the next most reported parts, whereas flowers/inflorescences, fruits, whole plants, bulbs/corms, seeds, and unreported parts were less common. Preparation methods also varied widely, with cooking as a vegetable being the dominant category, followed by raw/fresh consumption, soup/stew, stir-fried/fried preparations, fermented/pickled preparations, and boiled/steamed methods. Fried/fried preparations, and soup/stew preparations. These patterns suggest that wild indigenous vegetables are primarily consumed through tender vegetative organs and are integrated into diverse culinary practices, including cooked dishes, fresh consumption, soups, and preservation-based preparations.

Family-level analysis revealed clear differences in edible plant-organ use among the ten dominant families (Fig. 4). Leaves were the most frequently used organ across most families, especially Asteraceae (82 species), Brassicaceae (42), Amaranthaceae (32), Polygonaceae (30), and Lamiaceae (29). In contrast, Poaceae was dominated by shoot/stem use, with 64 species recorded in this category. Fabaceae showed a broader edible-organ profile, including leaves, shoots/stems, fruits, flowers/inflorescences, and seeds. Amaryllidaceae showed relatively higher use of bulbs/corms and whole plants. These patterns indicate that edible-organ utilization among wild indigenous vegetables varies according to family-level morphological and cultural-use characteristics.

The relationship between edible organs and preparation methods revealed clear organ-specific culinary patterns (Fig. 5). Leaves were the most versatile plant part, with high records for cooked vegetable preparations (215), raw/fresh consumption (107), stir-fried/fried dishes (78), and soups/stews (49). Shoots and stems were also commonly cooked as vegetables (108) and consumed raw/fresh (57). Root/tuber/rhizome use was more strongly associated with soup/stew preparations (31), while flowers/inflorescences were mainly cooked as vegetables (27). Bulbs/corms were most frequently consumed raw/fresh (15). These patterns suggest that preparation methods are closely linked to the morphological characteristics of edible plant parts, with leaves and shoots/stems showing the greatest culinary versatility.

Food-only use dominated the dataset, accounting for 77.6% of documented wild indigenous vegetables, while 22.4% of species were reported as having both food and medicinal uses (Fig. 6). At the family level, Asteraceae showed the highest number of food–medicinal species (57), followed by Fabaceae (25), Apiaceae (21), Lamiaceae (18), Polygonaceae (18), and Amaranthaceae (18). Nevertheless, food-only species remained dominant in all major families, particularly Asteraceae, Fabaceae, Brassicaceae, and Poaceae. These findings indicate that wild indigenous vegetables are primarily documented as food resources, while a substantial proportion also reflects the food–medicine continuum within traditional ethnobotanical knowledge.

Medicinal-use records were distributed across several body-system categories (Fig. 7). General or unspecified medicinal use represented the largest category (163 records), reflecting limited specificity in some source studies. Among specified categories, gastrointestinal use was the most frequently reported (91 records), followed respiratory (44), neurological/pain (37), dermatological (37), hepatobiliary/renal (34), musculoskeletal (33), and metabolic/endocrine (33). Cardiovascular, nutritional/tonic, immunological, ophthalmic, and gynecological/reproductive uses were less frequently documented. These results indicate that medicinally relevant wild indigenous vegetables are primarily associated with digestive health, while also contributing to a broad range of traditional health-related applications.

This global evidence synthesis demonstrates that wild indigenous vegetables represent a highly diverse and multifunctional component of traditional food systems. The documentation of 1,878 unique species across 90 ethnobotanical studies indicates that wild vegetables are not merely marginal or emergency foods but form an important part of global food-plant diversity. Wild edible plants retain broader genetic and phenotypic diversity than many domesticated crops and may provide useful traits related to drought tolerance, nutrient-use efficiency, pest resistance, and climate adaptability (Benteima et al. 2026). This is particularly important because many modern crops depend on relatively narrow genetic bases, whereas wild edible plants provide backup diversity that may strengthen long-term food-system resilience (Kamande et al. 2025).

The large number of documented species also supports the view that wild indigenous vegetables contribute to agrobiodiversity and dietary diversification. Previous studies have shown that wild edible plants support year-round micronutrient supply and function as buffer foods during periods of food scarcity. Their use across generations also preserves biocultural diversity because they are embedded in food traditions, medicinal knowledge, and local culinary identity (Hussain et al. 2023; Porcher 2025). Therefore, the diversity captured in this review should be interpreted not only as botanical richness but also as evidence of long-term relationships between communities, landscapes, and edible plant resources.

Despite their importance, wild vegetables remain underrecognized in many formal food systems. In Ethiopia, for example, wild edible plants are nutritionally important but are often overlooked and perceived as foods for poor families, limiting their broader acceptance (Duguma 2020). Similar concerns have been raised in broader food-system studies, where wild food plants remain underrepresented in national policies, conservation programs, and market systems despite their nutritional significance (Borelli et al. 2020). Wild vegetables are also frequently grouped under non-conventional food plants, a category that includes species often discarded or marginalized despite their high potential (Liberalesso & Oliveira 2020). The erosion of traditional knowledge further reduces their visibility and use, as reported in Uganda and broader African reviews (Akinola et al. 2020; Nyakoojo & Tugume 2020).

The geographic patterns observed in this review should therefore be interpreted as hotspots of documented ethnobotanical evidence rather than direct measures of actual global biodiversity. China and India had the highest documented species richness, followed by Turkey, Pakistan, Bosnia–Herzegovina, and Croatia. These patterns likely reflect a combination of floristic diversity, strong traditions of wild plant use, and relatively intensive ethnobotanical documentation. Wild vegetables are particularly relevant for resilient local food systems because many species tolerate saline soils, drought, heat, and nutrient-poor environments, making them robust resources under climate change (Parmar et al. 2024). They may provide calories and nutrients during shortages, droughts, and conflict (Porcher 2025), while access to multiple species with different harvest seasons and climate responses can reduce year-to-year food variability (Gutgesell et al. 2025). In this sense, wild vegetables complement cultivated crops by providing redundancy and functional diversity, both of which are essential for resilient food systems (Borelli et al. 2020).

The taxonomic composition of the dataset shows that wild indigenous vegetable use is concentrated in several major plant families, particularly Asteraceae, Fabaceae, Brassicaceae, Lamiaceae, Apiaceae, Polygonaceae, Poaceae, and Amaranthaceae. The dominance of Asteraceae in this review is consistent with regional ethnobotanical studies. For example, 65 Asteraceae species have been reported as wild vegetables in Spain (García-Herrera et al. 2014), and Asteraceae was also among the top families in Turkey, Morocco, Italy, and the Adriatic islands (Ranfa & Bodesmo 2017; Łuczaj et al. 2019; Yeşil et al. 2019; Aboukhalaf et al. 2022). Fabaceae also frequently appears among dominant wild vegetable families, with leaves and shoots widely consumed; studies in Turkey and recent ethnobotanical work have documented species such as Medicago polymorpha and Trifolium repens as important wild vegetables (Yeşil et al. 2019; Ali et al. 2026).

Other dominant families in this review also align with broader ethnobotanical patterns. Brassicaceae is prominent in Mediterranean and West Asian food traditions, including wild vegetable mixtures in Italy and wild vegetable records from Turkey and the Himalaya (Guarrera & Savo 2016; Ranfa & Bodesmo 2017; Yeşil et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2023). Amaranthaceae is strongly represented in South Asia, Africa, and tropical regions and has been identified as one of the dominant leafy vegetable families in South Africa and India (Mokganya & Tshisikhawe 2019; Parida & Mahalik 2020; Nko et al. 2024). The frequent occurrence of Amaranthus viridis across studies further reinforces the importance of Amaranthaceae as a source of wild leafy vegetables (Ali et al. 2026).

The dominance of these families may reflect ecological traits that make them both available and culturally useful. Families such as Asteraceae, Amaranthaceae, Brassicaceae, and many herbaceous Fabaceae include species that tolerate drought, high light exposure, and nutrient-poor soils through mechanisms such as osmotic adjustment and antioxidant defenses (Benteima et al. 2026). Herbaceous species are frequently dominant in wild vegetable datasets (Ali et al. 2026), likely because they produce fast-growing, nutrient-rich leaves and shoots that can be harvested repeatedly with relatively limited damage. Many wild edible vegetables also occur in natural and semi-disturbed environments such as forest edges, grasslands, fallows, and riverbanks, making them visible, abundant, and easy to collect (Enri et al. 2024; Kamande et al. 2025).

The edible-organ patterns in this review further demonstrate the importance of tender vegetative tissues in wild vegetable use. Multiple parts, leaves, and shoots/stems were the most frequently recorded categories, showing that wild vegetable use is strongly based on flexible and renewable plant organs. This finding is consistent with several regional studies reporting leaves as the most frequently used plant part, including studies from Cyprus, Libya, and the high-altitude Himalaya (Della et al. 2006; Mahklouf 2019; Haq et al. 2024; Haq et al. 2025). Leaves are also commonly reported as a major edible category after fruits in Ethiopia and the Western Himalaya (Hankiso et al. 2023; Khan et al. 2024), while studies focused specifically on wild vegetables, cooking greens, or tender shoots often show particularly high leaf use (Khan et al. 2021; Aboukhalaf et al. 2022; Jalali et al. 2024).

The preference for leaves and young shoots may be explained by their accessibility, rapid regeneration, palatability, and culinary versatility. Leaf production can increase after harvesting in some wild vegetables such as Amaranthus spp. (Sinasson & Shackleton 2023), and communities often prefer leafy vegetables because of their taste, familiarity, and suitability for diverse dishes (Mncwango et al. 2020). Leaves and shoots are used in stews, soups, salads, and traditional dishes across regions from South Africa to Thailand (Punchay et al. 2020). From a sustainability perspective, harvesting leaves, flowers, or aerial parts may allow plant survival because these tissues can regenerate rapidly and may tolerate light harvesting (Mouillac et al. 2025). In contrast, communities often regulate root and bark harvesting because these practices are recognized as more destructive (Bayen et al. 2024).

The preparation-method analysis shows that wild indigenous vegetables are deeply embedded in everyday culinary systems. Cooking as a vegetable was the dominant preparation category, followed by raw/fresh consumption, soups/stews, stir-fried or fried dishes, fermented or pickled preparations, and boiled/steamed methods. This diversity suggests that wild vegetables are not simply gathered and consumed opportunistically but are incorporated into culturally specific food practices and adapted to local cuisines.

Cooking is likely important because many wild vegetables contain compounds that require heat treatment or leaching before consumption. Studies have reported that wild vegetables may contain oxalates, nitrates, alkaloids, ptaquiloside, or other potentially harmful compounds, making processing necessary in some cases. Heat treatment can reduce toxic substances in dark green vegetables (Souza et al. 2023), while boiling or soaking is used to remove toxins from nettles and ferns (Guo et al. 2022; Rumicha et al. 2025). Prolonged cooking or leaching may be required for toxin-containing wild plants (Ding et al. 2021), and cooking has been shown to reduce nitrate levels and associated health risks (Salehzadeh et al. 2020). Blanching can also reduce oxalate and tannin concentrations (Tadesse et al. 2023). These findings help explain why many cultures avoid consuming some wild vegetables raw unless they have undergone appropriate treatment (Liu et al. 2023).

Traditional processing also improves digestibility and palatability. Thermal processing can increase the digestibility of plant proteins (Mukhtar et al. 2023), while fermentation can break down plant polysaccharides and protein complexes (Valerozo et al. 2025). These mechanisms may partly explain the wide range of cooked, fermented, and mixed-dish preparations observed in this review. Preparation methods also operate as adaptive cultural strategies. In Wa cuisine, for example, mixing vegetables and meats strengthens taste and nutritional value under variable resource conditions (Shao et al. 2021). Ghanaian preservation and flavoring techniques, including roasting, leaf-wrapping, and slow cooking, can enhance flavor while conserving resources (Letsyo et al. 2026). In Naivasha, Kenya, migrants exchange foods and preparation knowledge, producing gastronomic syncretism and new adaptive food blends (Volpato & Ellena 2023).

Preservation-based methods such as fermentation and pickling, although less frequent than cooking or raw consumption, are especially relevant for food security. Leafy, seasonal, and wild greens spoil quickly, and fermentation or pickling can inhibit spoilage microorganisms through acidity and salt (Mafe et al. 2024). In Eastern India, wild fruits and tubers are pickled for later use (Priyadarshini et al. 2024). Evidence from Kenya also shows that preserved cowpea leaves help maintain vegetable access when fresh supplies disappear; households consuming preserved forms were more likely to have vegetables available during periods of scarcity (Owade et al. 2021). Fermented amaranth leaves have also been reported to contain higher levels of B vitamins and β-carotene than unfermented dried leaves (Misci et al. 2022). These findings support the interpretation that traditional processing and preservation are not merely culinary preferences but adaptive strategies that extend seasonal availability and strengthen household food resilience.

The heatmap linking edible organs and preparation methods further suggests that culinary processing is shaped by plant morphology. Leaves were the most versatile organs, being cooked, eaten fresh, fried, and prepared in soups or stews, whereas roots, tubers, and rhizomes were more commonly associated with soups or stews. This pattern indicates that preparation methods are selected not only by cultural preference but also by texture, structure, digestibility, and safety requirements of specific plant organs.

The food–medicinal overlap observed in this review demonstrates the multifunctional role of wild indigenous vegetables. Although most species were recorded primarily as food plants, 22.4% had both food and medicinal uses. This pattern reflects the food–medicine continuum frequently observed in traditional knowledge systems, where plants consumed in daily diets may also be recognized for therapeutic or health-supporting properties.

Wild edible plants are often used medicinally because many contain phenolics, flavonoids, carotenoids, vitamins, organic acids, and other compounds with physiological activity. Biochemical analyses have repeatedly confirmed the richness of these compounds in wild edible plants (Cámara et al. 2016; Luţă et al. 2020; Alaca et al. 2022). Antioxidant capacity, which is often linked to perceived medicinal value, has been reported for species such as Rubus, Rumex, wild asparagus, and others (Kewlani et al. 2022; Altuntaş et al. 2025; Özden et al. 2025). In addition, edible plants are abundant, familiar, and regularly harvested, making them natural candidates for medicinal use; cultural salience is often shaped by ease of acquisition and familiarity (Medeiros et al. 2021).

Dietary medicinal plants are particularly important in rural and remote areas, where they may function as a first line of healthcare because of affordability, availability, and intergenerational knowledge transmission. Studies among Malayali tribes, Ethiopian communities, and Pakistani rural groups show extensive reliance on dietary medicinal plants (Unbushe & Getaneh 2023; Rahman et al. 2024; Nigesh et al. 2025). The family-level food–medicine pattern in this review also suggests that multifunctionality may be concentrated in families with aromatic, bitter, or phytochemically rich taxa. Aromatic species, especially those in Lamiaceae, produce essential oils rich in terpenes, terpenoids, and phenolics with antimicrobial, antiseptic, anti-inflammatory, and neuroprotective effects, which helps explain their widespread medicinal use (Elbouny et al. 2022; Jaouani et al. 2026). Bitter plants may contain flavonoids, alkaloids, sesquiterpene lactones, diterpene bitter lactones, saponins, and phenolic acids, compounds associated with strong pharmacological actions (Edo et al. 2023).

Among specified medicinal categories, gastrointestinal uses were the most frequent. This aligns with ethnobotanical studies showing that wild edible plants are commonly used for digestive disorders. Ethiopian wild edibles include species consumed as food and used for digestive ailments (Alemayehu et al. 2025), while studies on the food–medicine continuum in Brazil report stomach problems and intestinal regulation among the main uses (Medeiros et al. 2021). In Rampachodavaram, India, 67.53% of wild edible species reportedly had medicinal uses, most commonly for digestive disorders (Sabitha et al. 2026). The high proportion of general or unspecified medicinal reports in the present review, however, also indicates that medicinal information is inconsistently reported across source studies. Future ethnobotanical research should therefore document ailments, preparation, dosage, administration route, and food-use context more systematically.

The findings also have implications for conservation and future food-system development. While wild vegetables can contribute to food security, overharvesting and habitat loss may threaten key species. Studies have identified overharvesting as a major conservation risk, with heavy extraction reducing availability and potentially causing population decline. Examples include depletion of Rhynchosia venulosa in Zambia due to beverage demand and declines of globally traded medicinal or edible species such as Hydrastis canadensis and Taxus wallichiana (Chanda et al. 2025; Mouillac et al. 2025). Agricultural expansion, illegal fuelwood extraction, habitat alteration, and forest clearing have also been reported as threats to wild edible plants in Ethiopia, Nepal, and Zambia (Schunko et al. 2022; Chanda et al. 2025; Tafere et al. 2026).

Sustainable management is therefore essential. Soft harvesting, such as collecting leaves or fruits without uprooting entire plants, has been proposed as a sustainable approach for indigenous leafy vegetables (Ramdé et al. 2025). Indigenous Kenyan communities identify local knowledge preservation, selection, and propagation as important management options (Oluoch et al. 2023), while community-led strategies including awareness programs, policy enforcement, and home-garden planting have been emphasized in conservation planning in Turkana (Oduor et al. 2025). Domestication and cultivation may reduce pressure on wild stands by decreasing reliance on direct extraction (Masresha et al. 2023; Biri et al. 2024; Tafere et al. 2026). However, increasing commercial interest before effective domestication and management are established may intensify pressure on wild populations and lead to germplasm depletion (Khakurel et al. 2021; Masresha et al. 2023; Tafere et al. 2026).

Based on the synthesized evidence, a conceptual framework was developed to illustrate how ecological availability, traditional ecological knowledge, edible-organ selection, culinary utilization, and food–medicinal relevance interact to shape the role of wild indigenous vegetables in traditional and sustainable food systems (Fig. 8).

Overall, this synthesis suggests that wild indigenous vegetables represent an important pool of underutilized food resources with relevance for dietary diversification, cultural heritage, traditional healthcare, and sustainable food-system resilience. However, their promotion should be accompanied by careful documentation, sustainable harvesting, community-based conservation, and further nutritional, agronomic, and phytochemical validation.

This review should be interpreted within several methodological considerations. First, the literature search was limited to Scopus-indexed, English-language journal articles, which may have excluded some local, regional, or non-English ethnobotanical studies. Second, because the dataset was derived from published literature, the geographic patterns represent documented ethnobotanical evidence rather than the actual global distribution of wild indigenous vegetable diversity. Third, some source studies reported plant parts, preparation methods, or medicinal uses with varying levels of detail, requiring broad standardization across studies. Future research should integrate ethnobotanical documentation with nutritional, phytochemical, ecological, and conservation-based studies to better evaluate the role of wild indigenous vegetables in sustainable food systems.

This global evidence synthesis demonstrates that wild indigenous vegetables represent a highly diverse, multifunctional, and culturally important component of traditional food systems. By synthesizing 90 ethnobotanical studies, this review documented 1,878 unique species used as wild vegetables across different regions of the world. The highest documented species richness was found in China, India, Turkey, Pakistan, Bosnia–Herzegovina, and Croatia, indicating important geographic concentrations of ethnobotanical knowledge and wild vegetable use.

Taxonomically, wild indigenous vegetables were dominated by Asteraceae, Fabaceae, Brassicaceae, Lamiaceae, Apiaceae, Polygonaceae, Poaceae, and Amaranthaceae. The frequent use of leaves, shoots/stems, and multiple plant parts highlights the importance of tender vegetative organs as accessible, renewable, and versatile food resources. Preparation methods were also diverse, with cooking as vegetables, raw/fresh consumption, stir-frying, soups/stews, and fermentation or pickling which shows that wild vegetables are deeply embedded in local culinary systems rather than being limited to emergency foods.

The review also revealed a clear food–medicine overlap, with 22.4% of species reported for both food and medicinal uses. Gastrointestinal applications were the most frequently specified medicinal category, although many medicinal reports remained general or unspecified. These findings support the role of wild indigenous vegetables as part of the food–medicine continuum in traditional knowledge systems.

Overall, wild indigenous vegetables provide an important reservoir of agrobiodiversity, culinary heritage, and locally adapted food resources with potential relevance for dietary diversification, food security, and sustainable food systems. Future research should integrate ethnobotanical evidence with nutritional, phytochemical, ecological, and conservation-based assessments to support sustainable use, local knowledge preservation, and responsible promotion of these underutilized plant resources.