RESEARCH ARTICLE

Ethnobiology and Conservation, 10:11 (2021) doi:10.15451/ec2020-12-10.11-1-26 ISSN 2238-4782 ethnobioconservation.com

We need to appreciate common synanthropic plants before they become rare: Case study in Latgale (Latvia)

Baiba Pr¯use1,2,3,∗; Raivo Kalle4; Gabriella Buffa1; Andra Simanova2,3; Ieva Meˇzaka2 and Renata S˜oukand1

ABSTRACT

Local ecological knowledge holds great potential in contributing to sustainable resource management and conservation activities. For this reason, the authors choose to analyse an ethnobotanical dataset from the Baltic Sea region by exploring the relationship between plants and humans on the basis of three main categories: habitat characteristics, distribution in the wild and plant sensitivity to human impact beyond physical distance. The study provides empirical evidence of widespread usage of so- called common species which are widely distributed in the territory and benefit from human activity. When considering the data via the intensity of use, based on detailed use-reports (DUR), the main category is shown to be apophytes (1001 DUR), followed by anthropophytes (426), hemeradiophores (255) and hemerophobes (54). The authors highlight the co-dependency of plants and humans in the medicinal and wild food domains and stress the need for integrated management strategies where local community knowledge plays a part.

Keywords: Common Species; Conservation; Ethnobotany; Synanthropic Plants.

1 Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Via Torino 155, 30172, Mestre, Venice, Italy. 2 Institute for Environmental Solutions, ”Lidlauks”, Priekul¸u Parish, Priekul¸u County, Latvia. 3 University of Latvia, Rai¸nabulv¯aris19, Riga, Latvia. 4 University of Gastronomic Sciences, Piazza Vittorio Emanuele 9, 12042, Pollenzo, Bra, Cn, Italy. * Corresponding author . E-mail address: BP ([email protected]), RS ([email protected]), GB (buff[email protected]), AS ([email protected]), IM ([email protected]), RK ([email protected])

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

The authors seek to understand the relationship between plant use and plant sensitivity to human impact beyond physical distance. To do so, the authors specifically choose to analyse an ethnobotanical dataset from the Baltic Sea region and divide the named plants into various categories based on human – plant relationships. The authors note the great importance of synanthropic plants in both the human diet and medicinal applications. We highlight the existing work and continued need to integrate local ecological knowledge into conservation actions in order to safeguard biocultural diversity.

1 Pr¯use et al. 2021. We need to appreciate common synanthropic plants before they become rare: Case study in Latgale (Latvia) Ethnobio Conserv 10:11

INTRODUCTION adds that “although common species are those with which we are inevitably most familiar, the state of be- Ecological change and the decline of plant genetic ing common is itself rare” (. . . ) “common species lie resources are among the factors behind the loss of at the very heart of the biodiversity crisis” (p. 354- knowledge regarding traditional plant use (Hanazaki 359). This in turn leads us to the overall question et al. 2013). Not only does the disappearance of of biodiversity and consequently to human well-being wild taxa affect the practice of active use but it might (see FAO 2019). With regard to the above, we would also cause certain damage to cultural heritage as tra- like to provide a closer look at the concept of common ditional knowledge plays a part in defining cultural species through the lens of ethnobotany, and thus the identity (Bharucha and Pretty 2010). While dis- core aspect of this study. cussing change in traditional ecological knowledge, en- As noted by Gaston (2010), common species are vironmental degradation has been an important fac- as important as rare ones, due to their importance tor from the perspective of academic discussion (Tang in supporting ecosystem services. A growing number and Gavin 2016; Aswani et al. 2018). The Millen- of studies have emphasized the importance of com- nium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) lists several nat- mon species among various ecosystems (Winfree et ural and human-induced factors which cause changes al. 2015; Frimpong 2018), including the importance in the ecosystem, including the ongoing land use and of weeds (Stepp and Mowerman 2001; Zimdahl 2018) habitat transformation. However, many habitats, e.g. and neglected and underutilized species in support- hedgerows, grasslands, and road verges, have evolved ing human needs (Hunter et al. 2019). The academic through traditional agricultural practices (Bignal and arena includes numerous discussions related to vari- McCracken 1996; Halada et al. 2011) and depend on ous nature conservation approaches (see Mulder and the continuation of human activities to maintain their Coppolillo 2005) such as the concept of looking be- species composition, structure and function. Despite yond borders of protected areas (Mora and Sale 2011; not being natural, semi-natural habitats are known Western et al. 2015; Heywood 2019). for the high biodiversity they host and the services The link between traditional knowledge and re- they provide (Fantinato et al. 2018). Moreover, schol- source management, as well as theoretical studies on ars stress the historical development of ecosystems plant availability and their use, e.g. optimal forag- in which prehistoric societies played a great part in ing theory, is not new phenomenon and has been de- their creation (Albuquerque et al. 2018). In this re- veloped by many scholars (e.g. Schultes 1994; Cun- spect, conservation strategies should not exclude peo- ningham 2001; Bussman 2002, Albuquerque 2008; Al- ple but rather greatly enhance the coexistence of na- buquerque et al. 2015; Shrestha and Medley 2017), ture and humans (Carter et al. 2012) or their sym- although recent studies have stressed the need to bet- biotic relationship (Ksenzhek and Volkov 1998). The ter integrate ethnobotanical results in practice (Al- importance of the diversity of all forms of life brings buquerque et al. 2019), particularly while prioritizing us closer to the general concept of biocultural diver- plant lists for conservation activities (Heneidy et al. sity (Maffi and Dilts 2014) and the co-dependency of 2017). In respect to plant taxa and their manage- plants and humans (The Shenzhen Declaration 2017; ment, less than three out of 100 useful wild species Raven 2018). Biocultural diversity utilizes the diver- worldwide are sufficiently protected through in-situ sity of nature (Maffi and Dilts 2014). However, few or ex-situ conservation actions (Khoury et al. 2019); studies have explored human dependence on common in Latvia approximately 235 vascular plant species are species which “shape much of the world around us” included in the list of specially protected species with (Gaston 2008). Until now, limited studies have em- additional taxa listed as specially protected with ex- phasized the importance of common species; however, ploitation limits (Cabinet of Ministers No 396 2000). existing studies suggest that dominant or common Khoury et al. (2019) also includes ethnobotanical species “in natural communities play a key role in con- knowledge while defining useful wild plants. ferring short-term resistance to reductions in ecosys- Based on the above, our aim is to gain a glimpse tem function, as rare and uncommon species are lost” into the relationship between plant use and plant sen- (see Smith and Knapp 2003, p. 515). However, com- sitivity to human impact and the ecological charac- mon species “have been the subject of rather little teristics of taxa through the lens of an ethnobotani- explicit attention, either from ecologists or from con- cal study from the Baltic Sea region. The objectives servation biologists” (Gaston 2008, p. 73). While of the study are twofold. Firstly, to assess the pro- discussing plant conservation strategies, attention is portion of plants used among local communities on only rarely given to widely distributed plant taxa (see the basis of three categories: distribution, habitat, Vila-Ruiz et al. (2014) on residential yards). Other and plant sensitivity to human impact. Secondly, to scholars have also noted that little value is placed on draw attention to the need to notice and protect com- marginal lands (Marouf et al. 2015). Gaston (2011) mon synanthropic plants needing human attention, as

2 Pr¯use et al. 2021. We need to appreciate common synanthropic plants before they become rare: Case study in Latgale (Latvia) Ethnobio Conserv 10:11

these provide security food and a medicinal reservoir. Categorization We propose as a hypothesis that people prefer to use The study analyses ethnobotanically significant plants that are more anthropophilic, e.g. plants which plants on the basis of three different categorization need or benefit from human influence. approaches in order to understand the importance of Latgale region (Latvia) was chosen as a case study useful plants in relation to humans and within the and our research goes beyond the classical ethnob- ecosystem. The first approach evaluates the distri- otanical analysis. The region has already been studied bution range of species in the ecosystem, the second with regard to food (Pr¯useet al. 2020 under revision) discusses the habitats in which these plants can be and medicinal plant applications from an ethnobotan- found, while the third addresses plant sensitivity to ical perspective (Simanova et al. 2020) which provides human impact. a list of ethnobotanically used plants. We categorize the used taxa and discuss the results of our search for the dominant characteristics of the ethnobotanical Distribution range dataset, while proposing how ethnobotanical knowl- Following the vascular plant catalogue of Latvia by edge of the region might support nature conservation Gavrilova and Sulcsˇ (2005), for each wild and culti- strategies on a local scale. vated taxon the distribution range across the country e.g. common or rare in the wild, and its naturaliza- tion status, e.g. escaped plants which commonly nat- uralize, were recorded. Additionally, an encyclopae- MATERIAL AND METHODS dia on Latvian plant taxa was used for deriving in- formation for 7 plant taxa as the data were missing from the reference source (Pried¯ıtis2014), as well as The study region (Figure1) is rich in lakes and the for adding conservation status (Pried¯ıtisn.d.), if any, territory is primarily covered by available agriculture with regard to species listed in the Latvian Red Book land (43%) and forests (41%) (DNAP 2012). His- (Andruˇsaitis2003). For 20 plant taxa no distribution torical notes from the work conducted by Lehmann range was defined in the given source, as 18 of these (1985) provide information about the Latgale region taxa were cultivated species and 2 were purchased in (including the study area) indicating the presence of a shop (Additional file1). 819 vascular plant species (Suˇsko and Evarts-Bunders 2010). Depending on the source, the number of vascu- lar plants for the whole of Latvia varies between 1800 Habitat and 1937 species (Tabaka et al. 1988; Gavrilova and The occurrence of plant taxa was listed between ˇ Sulcs 1999; Pried¯ıtis2014; Nikodemus et al. 2018). several habitats on the basis of the information pro- Parts of the study sites are within R¯aznasNational vided in the encyclopaedia of Latvian flora (Pried¯ıtis Park (Dagdas novada paˇsvald¯ıba2018). 2014). For comparative purposes, the various habi- The fieldwork took place in Dagda municipal- tats of occurrence were combined into larger cate- ity (Latgale region) in July 2017, during which gories. In this respect, one or more of 10 habitat the data were collected using semi-structured inter- groups were assigned to each taxa: 1) along roadsides views following pseudo-random and snowball meth- and railways; 2) in nutrient poor habitats including ods. Seventy-three interviewees, with an average age gravel, loam, sand, dolomite, and dunes; 3) in human- of 63 years, provided responses to questions regarding influenced environments which are directly modified wild plant species used as medicine and food. Both by humans including nutrient-rich habitats, at build- past and current practices of plant use were recorded. ings, gardens; 4) on fallow lands; 5) in pastures; 6) in The Code of Ethics of the International Society of various forest habitats including pine forests and in Ethnobiology (ISE 2006) was followed, and prior in- shrubs; 7) across various habitats including open, dry formed oral consent was obtained from all intervie- and other; 8) in various meadows (excluding wet habi- wees. Voucher specimens were collected with the in- tats) including forest edges and hillslopes; 9) in wasty terviewees and deposited at the Estonian University places; and 10) in wet and swampy habitats, bogs and of Life Sciences herbarium (TAA), bearing numbers wet forests. For most of the taxa, their habitats were LGA001-120 and herbarium numbers TAA0146373- not restricted to only one type. Thirty-three taxa 495. The dried plant samples are deposited at the (mostly cultivated) were either not included or had Herbarium of DAIS at Ca’ Foscari University of no information on their occurrence in the online Lat- Venice (UVV), bearing numbers UVVDLGA001-71. vian flora encyclopaedia. In such cases the habitat of For a full description of the data collection methodol- occurrence was left blank. The limitation associated ogy and description of interviewees, see Simanova et with the above division of habitats is two-fold: this al. (2020). information does not necessarily reveal where people

3 Pr¯use et al. 2021. We need to appreciate common synanthropic plants before they become rare: Case study in Latgale (Latvia) Ethnobio Conserv 10:11

Figure 1. Map of the study area including land cover representation (? - 27 study villages & populated areas). collect plants and the description is quite vague as their presence in the flora (native vs. alien). How- it is not directed to the study region specifically but ever, the Laivi¸nˇs(1989) study lacks the hemeradio- rather the whole of Latvia. Additionally, this cate- phore and hemerophobe categories, and therefore we gorization does not include any emic viewpoints and use Kukk’s (1999) categorization which is based on thus is largely based on an outside or so-called etic Estonian flora. Nonetheless, the short geographical perspective. distance and shared climate between the two coun- tries (Rimkus et al. 2018) allows for assuming that Sensitivity to human impact the similarity of the applicable categories is very high. Kukk’s (1999) categorization is based on his own ob- Many ethnobotanical studies limit plant classifi- servations and the work of Enari (1944) and Rebassoo cations to folk botanical classification (Poncet et al. (1962) (see Kukk 1999). 2015), habitat (Beltr´an-Rodr´ıguez et al. 2014) or We further considered the sensitivity of human im- ecosystem division (Ou´edraogoet al. 2014), while pact on the proportion of taxa that was actually used; only two recent studies on Estonian ethnobotany have as, for example, we cannot speak about birch (Betula addressed also categorizations of sensitivity to hu- spp.) being a hemeradiophore, but would rather need mans, although it was only applied to historical data to allocate it to the apophyte group, since it needs to on the use of medicinal plants (S˜oukand and Kalle attain a certain age or thickness in order to be ready 2011; S˜oukand and Kalle 2012). for tapping sap and this is mainly possible when the We followed the forementioned works and applied tree is looked after, to a greater or lesser extent, by the Kukk’s (1999) approach in order to describe plant and users. The same applies to Ribes nigrum L., Quercus human relationships based on dependency rather than robur L., Tilia cordata Mill. and Acer platanoides L., the plant’s physical distance from humans. Sensitiv- all of which grow in human-induced landscapes (for ity to human impact is assessed on the basis of the the full list see Additional file1). positive or negative effect of human activities on the Following such reasoning, we assigned all taxa to plant. More specifically, for some plant taxa, human- one of the four categories of sensitivity to human im- modified environments are the only means to survive. pact. Kukk (1999) names four categories of plants based on their sensitivity to human impact: Analysis (1) anthropophytes (dependent on human activity, Using the list of plants derived from the ethnob- the group also includes cultivated plants), otanical field study, we compiled an Excel spreadsheet (2) apophytes (need human interaction), (Additional file1) in which every used taxon was as- (3) hemeradiophores (indifferent to human activity, sociated with all habitat categories reported in the can grow in both human-disturbed and untouched literature sources. As no single source used for clas- habitats), and sification was exhaustive, or even the list of plants (4) hemerophobes (avoid human disturbance). univocally interpretable, we had to perform several In Latvia, similar terminology regarding adjustments. apophytes and anthropophytes is used by Laivi¸nˇs (1989) reflecting, as with Kukk (1999), the status of • On occasions in which the interviewee described

4 Pr¯use et al. 2021. We need to appreciate common synanthropic plants before they become rare: Case study in Latgale (Latvia) Ethnobio Conserv 10:11

an application only on a class or family level food uses, was 1736. The number of uses for medici- and/or it was not possible to identify the plant, nal application was 841 DUR, while that for food was the plants were excluded from the analysis, i.e. 895 DUR. For food taxa, only wild plant taxa were Poaceae and Polypodiopsida. considered with a few exceptions: the cultivated plant had a special manner of preparation, it was not cul- • In some cases, where the identification was tivated for food purposes, or the plant part used was only made at the genus level and no herbar- not regularly used as food. For medicinal plant taxa, ium specimen was available, the common taxa potted or house plants were also included in the anal- was selected from the Latvian flora data base ysis. This might introduce a slight bias while compar- (Pried¯ıtis2014), e.g. for Betula spp. the com- ing anthropophyte categories between medicinal and mon species Betula pendula Roth was chosen. In food uses. cases in which numerous herbarium specimens In order to test the study objectives, Pearson’s cor- were available with different species of the same relation coefficient (R version 3.5.3.) was calculated genus, the most common species was included in between the four categories of sensitivity to human the data analysis based on the available infor- impact and DURs. The categories of sensitivity to mation on its occurrence in the wild provided in human impact were converted into a numerical scale the plant encyclopaedia of Pried¯ıtis(2014). In (NS) (anthropophytes – 4; apophytes – 3, hemeradio- a few instances, two species were named where phores – 2; hemerophobes – 1). the distribution was different, e.g. Mentha x piperita L. (rarely runs wild), Mentha longi- folia (L.) L. (runs wild) (Pried¯ıtis 2014). In RESULTS such cases, the most human-preferring taxon, e.g. apophytes, was included in the analysis. Habitats • Eighteen taxa were not named in Kukk’s (1999) The main taxa used by interviewees, namely Be- classification and therefore the category was tula pendula, B. pubescens Ehrh., and Vaccinium assigned by the current authors. Sixteen of myrtillus L. (> 100 DUR), grew in habitats which these taxa were cultivated plants and thus clas- are rarely considered important in terms of conser- sified as anthropophytes. Corylus avellana L. vation. More precisely, based on the categorization and Viburnum opulus L. were assigned to the of Pried¯ıtis (2014), out of 139 taxa from the eth- apophyte category. Both taxa are found in the nobotanical data of the Dagda region, thirty-three wild and are also planted near human settle- taxa grew along roadsides/railways, thirty-nine taxa ments either for ornamental or nutritional sup- grew in wasty places and thirty-seven grew in human- plementation purposes (Pried¯ıtis2014, Evarte- induced, nutrient-rich habitats (see Figure2, Table1, Budere et al. 2014, Dabas dati 2020). In cases Additional file1). More than half of the taxa cited of uncertainty, interviewee comments were anal- by interviewees grew in different co-shared habitats. ysed. For example, Achillea millefolium L. grows in gravel and sand pits, on roadsides and in various dry wasty • In cases in which the distribution of taxa was places; and Rumex thyrsiflorus Fingerh can be found not provided by Gavrilova and Sulcsˇ (2005), the in dry meadows, on fallow lands, on the slopes of river- Latvian plant encyclopaedia of Pried¯ıtis(2014) banks and in wasty places (Pried¯ıtis2014). was used to complete the missing information. More than half of the taxa are common or fairly However, for most of the 20 cultivated taxa common in occurrence in Latvian flora (Additional file this data was not provided in either of the two 1). Only two taxa are listed in the Latvian Red Book sources and thus left blank. (Andruˇsaitis 2003) within the third category (rare Detailed use-reports (DUR) were used for the cal- species which are not becoming extinct but might be- culations as they are the best means of assessing the come extinct due to a limited number of individuals intensity and diversity of use for the named taxa. or limited areal distribution): Allium schoenoprasum Both past and present uses were included in the anal- L. and Allium ursinum L. Allium ursinumis L. is also ysis; however, we also compared past and current uses included in the specially protected plant list issued by in order to establish whether changes over time have the Cabinet of Ministers No 396 (2000). occurred. For the analysis, there were a total number of 139 Distribution range taxa deriving from 55 plant families. This included 116 taxa from 50 plant families for medicinal uses, and The ethnobotanical data reveals the high depen- 73 taxa from 38 families for food uses. The total num- dency of local communities on common or fairly com- ber of DUR analysed, including both medicinal and mon taxa across Latvian flora (Figure3).

5 Pr¯use et al. 2021. We need to appreciate common synanthropic plants before they become rare: Case study in Latgale (Latvia) Ethnobio Conserv 10:11

Table 1. Occurrence in the environment of plants of Latvian flora cited by interviewees from communities in Dagda municipality, based on the Pried¯ıtis(2014) encyclopaedia.

Habitat Number of taxa along roadsides and railways 37 in nutrient poor habitats including gravel, loam, sand, dolomite, and dunes 16 in human-influenced environments including nutrient-rich habitats 38 on fallow lands 14 in pastures 4 in various forest habitats including pine forests and in shrubs 42 across various habitats including open, dry and other 8 in various meadows (excluding wet habitats) including forest edges and hillslopes 38 in wasty places 39 in wet and swampy habitats, bogs and wet forests 37

Figure 2. Typical roadsides in the study area of Dagda municipality, Latvia. Credit: BP & RS.

Plant sensitivity to human impact of Potentilla erecta L. as a medicinal remedy which can no longer be found by the interviewee. This and The main plant category among all taxa is anthro- similar narratives inspired us to analyse past uses sep- pophytes, which is followed by apophytes (Figures4 arately. Considering the taxa only named as a past and5). use (13 taxa), most fall under the apophyte and an- While comparing the division between appli- thropophyte categories and only three out of 13 taxa cations, anthropophyte taxa are more represented fall under the hemeradiophore group: Oxalis cornicu- among medicinal uses whereas apophytes are fairly lata L., Melampyrum nemorosum L. and Helichrysum common among both food and medicine uses. A pos- arenarium (L.) Moench. sible explanation for this difference may be linked to the constantly changing need for various medic- It is important to note that most of the taxa re- inal taxa, and thus it is easier for people to oper- ported by interviewees as either disappeared or not ate within the better-known environment. Most of growing nearby were apophytes (e.g. Valeriana of- the anthropophytes are cultivated taxa, of which 12 ficinalis L., Potentilla erecta). An interviewee born are associated with food use and 34 with medicinal in 1976 mentioned that Carum carvi L. has died out, use. Only one shared taxon, Armoracia rusticana sharing their memory that “when my mother gathered P.Gaertn., B.Mey. & Scherb, appears as cultivated Carum carvi it was widespread in the meadows”. within the apophyte category (Additional file1). Among the apophyte group, Fragaria vesca L. The situation is different when considering the (Figure7) stands out with the highest DUR for food data via the intensity of use, based on detailed use- (74 DUR) and Betula spp. (59 DUR)) for medicinal reports (DUR), where the main category is shown application. to be apophytes (1001 DUR), followed by anthro- The taxon with the highest DUR among the an- pophytes (426), hemeradiophores (255) and hemero- thropophyte group for medicinal application is Matri- phobes (54) (Figure6). The number of taxa for caria chamomilla L. (41 DUR), whereas for food it is apophytes is lower in comparison to that of anthro- Mentha sp. (Mentha × piperita (14 DUR)). To note, pophytes, but the diversity of use is higher. An in- anthropophyte taxa also include escaped plants which terviewee (woman born in 1965) reported a past use commonly naturalize. For hemeradiophores, the main

6 Pr¯use et al. 2021. We need to appreciate common synanthropic plants before they become rare: Case study in Latgale (Latvia) Ethnobio Conserv 10:11

Figure 3. Occurrence of plant taxa named by interviewees that are found in the wild based on Gavrilova and Sulcsˇ (2005) apportioned by the number of taxa in each of the four categories of sensitivity to human impact (‘cu’ – cultivated; ‘p’ - purchased; ‘c’ – common; ‘fc’ – fairly common; ‘fr’ – fairly rare; ‘r’ – rare; ‘vr’ – very rare). taxon based on DUR was Vaccinium myrtillus for but in the Anthropocene, plants also need us for their both food (83 DUR) and medicinal application (22 survival” (p. 12). This, in turn, is quite alarming as DUR). The only taxon within the hemerophobe group there is a lack of management strategies particularly for both food and medicinal application is Vaccinium for apophyte taxa since most of these taxa are widely oxycoccos L. (Figure8). This might be explained by distributed and hold no special status, except for Al- the nature of hemerophobe taxa, which are found far lium schoenoprasum which is listed in the Latvian from human-influenced environments and thus diffi- Red Book (Andruˇsaitis2003). However, taxa that cult to reach. benefit from human activities not only hold high im- For calculation, the total number of DUR portance for biologically valuable grasslands (e.g. in- was summed for each category of sensitivity dicator species Polygala vulgaris L., Briza media L.), to human impact (1 NShemerophobes – 54 DUR; umbrella species (Valeriana officinalis) (R¯usi¸naet al. 2 NShemeradiophores – 255 DUR; 3 NSapophytes – 1001 2005; Baroni¸na2016; Auni¸nˇset al. 2013) and var- DUR; 4 NSanthropophytes – 426 DUR). Based on the ious applications as food and medicine, but they analysis of Pearson’s correlation coefficient the corre- also have a tight connection with cultural elements. lation is positive but not significant (R = 0.59). Widely used apophyte taxa such as Fragaria vesca, Rubus idaeus L., Rumex spp., and Carum carvi are named in Latvian Folk Song collections (listed un- DISCUSSION der the UNESCO programme) dating back to 1880 as well as in Latvian beliefs, e.g. collection of P¯eteris A Latgalian man born in 1937 noted that “what Smitsˇ 1940 – 1941 (Sile et al. 2019). For example, grows around needs to be used”, which explicitly de- Urtica spp., which exhibits a high number of DUR in scribes our main results. Our analysis indicates that the apophyte category, has been an important plant both medicinal and food plant uses in Latgale region across the Latvian territory even before the intro- (Latvia) highly depend on apophyte and anthropo- duction of Christianity (Suomela et al. 2018). The hyte taxa, which goes hand in hand with the idea Latvian collection of Folk Songs likens the ability of ‘co-dependency’ as emphasised by Raven (2018). of plants to sting to difficulty in human life (Dainu ‘Co-dependency’ as introduced by Raven presents the Skapis n.d.). The collection of Latvian beliefs indi- following two-way relationship: “We all need plants, cates various applications of nettles including as a hair depending on them absolutely for our very existence,

7 Pr¯use et al. 2021. We need to appreciate common synanthropic plants before they become rare: Case study in Latgale (Latvia) Ethnobio Conserv 10:11

Figure 4. Synanthropic taxa including Leucanthemum vulgare (Vaill.) Lam. and Carum carvi L. at the side of an interviewee’s house. Credit: IM. treatment, to alleviate headache and in the household the traditional management of grasslands (e.g. graz- to combat fleas (Sile et al. 2019; AiLab n.d.). In ad- ing, mowing) in Latvia has been significantly reduced, dition, Carum carvi has a very deep history as a food and this in turn influences plant diversity. plant dating back to medieval towns in the 14th cen- tury (Brown et al. 2017), and is noted as one of the Our results are in line with the findings of Sig- plants symbolizing Latgalian identity (Svil¯anset al. norini et al. (2009) who also noted the dependency 2012). These are only few examples providing a snap of local communities on very common species. In shot of the importance that apophyte species hold for addition, Signorini et al. (2009) used an emic ap- both habitats and human use. Unfortunately, Hal- proach while discussing the distribution of taxa. Al- ada et al. (2011) has already noted that numerous though most of the apophytes named in our study are European habitat types which depend on or benefit widely distributed in the country this does not guar- from low-intensity human activity, in this case agri- antee that the resource is inexhaustible and attainable cultural management throughout Europe, experience by lay people. However, several apophyte taxa were rather worse conservation status compared to non- reported by the interviewees as disappeared or not agricultural habitats. According to MEPRD (2014), found nearby. This is particularly alarming in terms of food security for local communities as well as biodi-

8 Pr¯use et al. 2021. We need to appreciate common synanthropic plants before they become rare: Case study in Latgale (Latvia) Ethnobio Conserv 10:11

Figure 5. Division of the number of taxa named by interviewees for each category of sensitivity to human impact. versity at large (see Gaston 2011). The perception of While looking at past used taxa, we would have ex- common might be dangerous, especially in situations pected to observe more past uses linked with hemera- where profit from wild collection is involved (see, for diophores, as indicated in the case study of Estonia example, Sheldon et al. 1997). Recent studies have (see S˜oukand and Kalle 2011). However, this turned noted that “society increasingly focuses on manag- out not to be the case and a few hemeradiophores were ing nature for the services it provides people rather mentioned only as a past use, most likely because the than for the existence of particular species” (Dee et past for our interviewees is not so distant as the past al. 2017). Following this approach, our results sug- in the above-mentioned article, and by the time our gest that common species support the needs of local interviewees were born the shift towards more anthro- communities by providing provisioning ecosystem ser- pophylic taxa had already occurred. Here we would vices. like to add the point stressed by Albuquerque et al. The high dependency on common or fairly com- (2015): “one must consider that the relationship of mon taxa causes us to contest the safety of their resource use to resource availability is a dynamic one use. Questions concerning herbicides, infrastructure, and can lead to the decreased use of certain species as rural-to-urban migration and land-grabbing have yet the environmental supply decreases” (p. 134). Thus, to be understood regarding the availability of so-called we stress the need to introduce a case-by-case ap- common taxa for collecting in Latvia. These and ad- proach by looking at the number or diversity of uses ditional questions have been addressed by Marouf et while discussing plant sensitivity to human activities. al. (2015) while discussing the declining practice of The study by Kala (2010) provides a case where use wild plant foraging in Lebanon. As noted by Gaston value and additional parameters (e.g. mode of har- (2010), common species lie at the centre of numerous vest, rarity, endemism) are taken into account in or- pressures associated with biodiversity loss. der to prioritize conservation activities. Through this, Similar results have been provided by other stud- we would like to stress the importance of the emic, or ies emphasising the use of nearby taxa (S˜oukand and inside, viewpoint when discussing the importance of Kalle 2011) or disturbed habitats (Signorini et al. human-plant relationships. Ethnobotanical methods 2009; Voeks 2018) for medicinal use. To add, the can help in this regard by providing qualitative data difference between the division of synanthropic cate- from the plant users themselves. Furthermore, peo- gories among medicinal and food uses may be linked ple may provide both temporal (past vs current) and to the constantly changing need for various medicinal spatial dimensions with a particular focus on the lo- taxa, and thus it is easier for people to operate within cal context. While the co-production of knowledge the better-known environment. However, the diver- might be challenging on some level, it is highly prized sity of uses is greater for apophytes, even though there by numerous scholars (Raven 2018; Norstr¨omet al. are fewer taxa in comparison to anthropophytes. This 2020; Rodrigues 2020). To add, Albuquerque et al. demonstrates that the specific, main repertoire of taxa (2019a) study emphasises the positive benefit of inte- is heavily exploited, a phenomenon also recorded in grating people’s knowledge and needs in conservation neighbouring Belarus, where only a few wild taxa had activities. The OECD (2019) report notes that Latvia diverse uses in several domains (S˜oukand et al. 2017). exhibits limited progress in regard to Aichi Biodiver-

9 Pr¯use et al. 2021. We need to appreciate common synanthropic plants before they become rare: Case study in Latgale (Latvia) Ethnobio Conserv 10:11

Figure 6. Division of DUR from the ethnobotanical dataset of the study area among medicinal and food uses for each of the four categories of sensitivity to human impact.

Figure 7. Berries (Vaccinium myrtillus & Fragaria vesca) served by the interviewee. Credit: BP. sity targets (CBD 2010) including the one linked to (1997) which emphasises the general idea of people’s traditional knowledge across indigenous peoples and behaviour towards environment protection as you pro- local communities. In this respect, ethnobotany may tect what you value and care for (in Nisbet and Ze- provide a valuable source of data regarding the cus- lenski 2013). toms of biological resource use of local communities (e.g. Prance 2007; Quave and Pieroni 2015). In sup- port of this, the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia CONCLUSIONS (1922) set the task for the State to safeguard the sur- rounding environment with the following declaration: Our study provides empirical evidence regard- “the State shall protect the right of everyone to live ing local community dependency on common synan- in a benevolent environment by providing informa- thropic taxa. Even though the study is case based tion about environmental conditions and by promot- and restricted to only one geographic area, we stress ing the preservation and improvement of the environ- the importance of the findings regarding the rele- ment”. We follow the rule of thumb given by Howard vance of ethnobotanical data while discussing local nature resource management strategies. The study

10 Pr¯use et al. 2021. We need to appreciate common synanthropic plants before they become rare: Case study in Latgale (Latvia) Ethnobio Conserv 10:11

Figure 8. Division of the four categories of sensitivity to human impact based on DUR > 20 among all taxa as provided by interviewees. indicated high human dependency on taxa which, in zon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant turn, depend on human activity and are widely dis- agreement No 714874). Part of the language editing tributed across the country, which therefore calls at- costs was covered by the University of Latvia. tention to the current management strategies for these taxa. The study also provides grounds for further re- search on investigating possible management actions to safeguard common species before they become rare. DATA AVAILABILITY Additionally, we would like to emphasize the impor- tance of involving local communities, through var- The data that support the findings of this study ious means including ethnobotanical studies, while are available from the corresponding author upon rea- discussing possible management strategies consider- sonable request. ing common species.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST

We are grateful to the local people from the Lat- The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. gale region who shared their local ecological knowl- edge and practices as the study would not have been possible without their contribution. We also thank the team from the Institute for Environmental Solu- CONTRIBUTION STATEMENT tions and especially R¯utaAbaja, Agris Brauns, Inga Holsta, Signe Kr¯uzkopa. We would also like to thank Conceived of the presented idea: BP, RK, RS Andrea Pieroni and M¯arisKl¸avi¸nˇsfor consultation at Carried out the experiment: BP, RS, RK, AS, IM the final stage of manuscript preparation and Solvita Carried out the data analysis: BP, RS R¯usi¸naand Ieva R¯ur¯anefor assistance with identifi- Wrote the first draft of the manuscript: BP, RS, RK, cation of relevant literature concerning Latvian flora. GB And we also thank the reviewers for the valuable ref- Review and final write of the manuscript: BP, RS, erence sources. The research was supported by the RK, AS, IM, GB Institute for Environmental Solutions and European Supervision: RS, RK Research Council under the European Union’s Hori-

11 Pr¯use et al. 2021. We need to appreciate common synanthropic plants before they become rare: Case study in Latgale (Latvia) Ethnobio Conserv 10:11

REFERENCES 23 april 2020.

AiLab (n.d.) Latvieˇsufolklora. Beltr´an-Rodr´ıguezL, Ortiz-S´anchez A, Mariano NA, http://valoda.ailab.lv/folklora Accessed 23 april Maldonado-Almanza B, Reyes-Garc´ıaV (2014) Fac- 2020. tors affecting ethnobotanical knowledge in a mestizo community of the Sierra de Huautla Albuquerque UP (2008) The Role of Ethnobotany Biosphere Reserve, Mexico. Journal of Ethnobi- and Environmental Perception in the Conser- ology and Ethnomedicine doi: 10.1186/1746-4269-10- vation of Atlantic Forest Fragments in North- 14. eastern Brazil. Bioremediation, Biodiversity and Bioavailability 2(1): 27-34. Bharucha Z, Pretty J (2010) The roles and values of wild foods in agricultural systems. Philosoph- Albuquerque UP, Soldati GT, Ramos MA, de Melo ical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological JG, de Medeiros PM, Nascimento ALB, Ferreira Sciences. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0123. J´uniorWS (2015) The Influence of the Environ- ment on Natural Resource Use: Evidence of Bignal EM, McCracken DI (1996) Low-Intensity Apparency. In: Albuquerque U, De Medeiros P, Farming Systems in the Conservation of the Casas A (eds) Evolutionary Ethnobiology. Springer, Countryside. Journal of Applied Ecology doi: Cham. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19917-7 10. 10.2307/2404973. Brown A, Badura M, King G, Gos K, Cerina A, Albuquerque UP, Nascimento ALB, Soldati GT, Kalnina L, Pluskowski A (2017) Plant macrofossil, Feitosa IS, Campos JLA, Hurrell JA, Hanazaki N, pollen and invertebrate analysis of a mid-14th Medeiros PM, Silvia RRV, Ludwinsky RH, Ferreira century cesspit from medieval Riga, Latvia J´unior WS, Reyes-Garc´ıa V (2019) Ten impor- (the eastern Baltic): Taphonomy and indica- tant questions/issues for ethnobotanical re- tors of human diet. Journal of Archaeological Sci- search. Acta Botanica Brasilica. doi: 10.1590/0102- ence: Reports. doi: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.01.016. 33062018abb0331. Bussmann RW (2002) Ethnobotany and biodiver- Albuquerque UP, Nascimento ALBD, Chaves sity conservation. In: Ambasht RS, Ambasht NK LS, Feitosa IS, Moura JMB, Gon¸calves PHS, Silva (eds) Modern Trends in Applied Terrestrial Ecology. RHD, Silva TCD, Ferreira J´unior WS, de Lima Springer, Boston, MA. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-0223- Ara´ujo E (2019a) How to partner with peo- 4 18. ple in ecological research: Challenges and prospects. Perspectives in Ecology and Conserva- Carter NH, Shrestha BK, Karki JB, Pradhan NMB, tion. doi: 10.1016/j.pecon.2019.11.004. Liu J (2012) Coexistence between wildlife and humans at fine spatial scales. PNAS. doi: Albuquerque UP, Gon¸calves PHS, Ferreira J´unior 10.1073/pnas.1210490109. WS, Chaves LS, Oliveira RCS, da Silva TLL, San- tos GC, Ara´ujo EL (2018) Humans as niche Cabinet of Minister No 396 (2000) Noteikumi constructors: revisiting the concept of par ¯ıpaˇsiaizsarg¯ajamosugu un ierobeˇzotiiz- chronic anthropogenic disturbances in ecol- mantojamo ¯ıpaˇsiaizsarg¯ajamosugu sarakstu. ogy. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation doi: https://likumi.lv/ta/id/12821-noteikumi-par-ipasi- 10.1016/j.pecon.2017.08.006. aizsargajamo-sugu-un-ierobezoti-izmantojamo-ipasi- aizsargajamo-sugu-sarakstu. Accessed 23 april 2020. AndruˇsaitisG (2003) Latvijas Sarkan¯agr¯amata. 3. s¯ejums. Vaskul¯arieaugi. R¯ıga: Latvijas Univer- sit¯atesBiologijas‘ instit¯uts,pp. 691. CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) (2010) Convention on Biological Diversity. Auni¸nˇs A (2013) European Union Protected https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-10/cop-10- Habitats in Latvia. Interpretation Manual. dec-02-en.pdf. Accessed 23 april 2020. ROKASGR biotopi EN.pdf. Accessed 23 april 2020. Cunningham AB (2001) Applied Ethnobotany Aswani S, Lemahieu A, Sauer WHH (2018) Global People, Wild Plant Use and Conservation. Lon- trends of local ecological knowledge and fu- don: Earthscan. ture implications. PLoS ONE. doi: 10.1371/jour- nal.pone.0195440. Dabas dati (2020) Dabas dati. Dabas dati. Accessed 23 april 2020. Baroni¸na(2016) Eiropas Savien¯ıbasaizsarg¯ajamos biotopus raksturojoˇsasaugu sugas Lativj¯aII Dainu skapis (n.d.) Kriˇsj¯a¸na Barona Dainu Z¯al¯aji. Eiropas Savien¯ıbas aizsarg¯ajamosbiotopus skapis. http://dainuskapis.lv/katalogs. Accessed 23 raksturojoˇsasaugu sugas Lativj¯aII Z¯al¯aji. Accessed april 2020.

12 Pr¯use et al. 2021. We need to appreciate common synanthropic plants before they become rare: Case study in Latgale (Latvia) Ethnobio Conserv 10:11

Dagdas novada paˇsvald¯ıba (2018) Dagdas novada Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine. doi: 10.1186/1746- paˇsvald¯ıbasPubliskais p¯arskats par 2017.gadu. 4269-9-75. DNPPP-2017.pdf. Accessed 26 march 2020. Heneidy S, Halmy MWA, Bidak L (2017) The Dee LE, De Lara M,Costello C, Gaines SD (2017) ethnobotanical importance and conservation To what extent can ecosystem services moti- value of native plants in eastern Ara- vate protecting biodiversity? Ecology letters doi: bian Peninsula. Feddes Repertorium. doi: 10.1111/ele.12790. 10.1002/fedr.201600024. DNAP (2012) Dagdas novada att¯ıst¯ıbas pro- Heywood VH (2019) Conserving plants within gramma 2013-2019, Dagdas novads. Dagdas and beyond protected areas - still problem- Novada Attistibas Programa-01.pdf. Accessed atic and future uncertain. Plant Divers doi: 23 April 2020. 10.1016/j.pld.2018.10.001. Evarte-Bundere G, Evarts-Bunders P, LakˇsaD, Nitcis Hunter D, Borelli T, Beltrame DMO, Oliveira CNS, M (2014) Inventory of Green Spaces and Woody Coradin L, Wasike VW, Wasilwa L, Mwai J, Man- Plants in the Urban Landscape of R¯ezekne. jella A, Samarasinghe GWL, Madhujith T, Nadee- Acta Biologica Universitatis Daugavpiliensis 14 (2): shani HVH, Tan A, Ay ST, G¨uzelsoy N, Laurid- 123-136. sen N, Gee E, Tartanac F (2019) The poten- tial of neglected and underutilized species for Fantinato E, Del Vecchio S, Giovanetti M, Acosta, improving diets and nutrition. Planta. doi: ATR, Buffa G (2018) New insights into plants 10.1007/s004250190031694. co-existence in species-rich communities: The pollination interaction perspective. Journal of ISE (International Society of Ethnobiology) (2006) Vegetation Science doi: 10.1111/jvs.12592. ISE Code of Ethics. ISE-COE-Eng-rev- 24Nov08.pdf. Accessed 1 july 2017. FAO (2019) Biodiversity for food se- curity Biodiversity for food secu- Kala CP (2010) Ethnobotanical and Ecologi- rity Biodiversity for food security. cal Approaches for Conservation of Medici- http://www.fao.org/3/CA3129EN/CA3129EN.pdf. nal and Aromatic Plants. Acta horticulturae doi: Accessed 18 october 2020. 10.17660/ActaHortic.2010.860.1. Frimpong EA (2018) A case for conserving com- Khoury KC, Amariles D, Soto JS, Diaz MV, Sotelo mon species. PLOS Biology. doi: 10.1371/jour- S, Sosa CS, Ram´ırez-Villegas J, Achicanoy HA, nal.pbio.2004261. Vel´asquez-Tibat´a J, Guarino L, Le´on B, Navarro- Racines C, Casta˜neda-Alvarez´ NP, Dempewolf H, Gaston KJ (2008) Biodiversity and extinction: Wiersema JH, Jarvis A (2019) Comprehensiveness the importance of being common. Progress in of conservation of useful wild plants: An oper- Physical Geography. doi: 10.1177/0309133308089499. ational indicator for biodiversity and sustain- able development targets. Ecological Indicators. Gaston KJ (2010) Ecology. Valuing common doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.11.016. species. Science. doi: 10.1126/science.1182818. Kukk (1999) Eesti taimestik [Vascular plant Gaston (2011) Common Ecology. BioScience. doi: flora of Estonia]. http://www.zbi.ee/ tomkukk/ni- 10.1525/bio.2011.61.5.4. mestik. Accessed 1 March 2020. Gavrilova G¸, Sulcsˇ V (1999) Latvijas vaskul¯aro Ksenzhek OS and Volkov AG (eds) (1998) Chapter augu flora. Taksonu saraksts. 15 - Humans and Plants. In: Ksenzhek OS and Volkov AG (eds) Plant Energetics. Elsevier Inc. doi: Gavrilova G and Sulcsˇ V (2005) Latvijas vaskul¯aro 10.1016/B978-012427350-4/50016-9. augu flora taksonu saraksts. saraksts.6.pdf Ac- cessed 23 April 2020 Laivi¸nˇsM, Zund¯aneA (1989) Latvijas ziedaugu un paparˇzaugudatu katalogs. Sinantropie ele- Halada L, Evans D, Rom˜ao C, Petersen JE menti. ZRA “Silava”, Salaspils. pp. 40. (2011) Which habitats of European importance depend on agricultural practices? Biodiversity Maffi L, & Dilts O (2014) An Introduction to Bio- and Conservation. doi: 10.1007/s10531-011-9989-z. cultural Diversity. Biocultural Diversity Toolkit (Vol. 1, p. 44). http://terralingua.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/07/tk 1 Primer.pdf Accessed Hanazaki N, Herbst, DF, Marques, MS, Vandebroek 23 April 2020 I (2013) Evidence of the shifting baseline syn- drome in ethnobotanical research. Journal of Marouf M, Batal M, Moledor S, Talhouk SN (2015)

13 Pr¯use et al. 2021. We need to appreciate common synanthropic plants before they become rare: Case study in Latgale (Latvia) Ethnobio Conserv 10:11

Exploring the Practice of Traditional Wild Poncet A, Vogl CR, Weckerle CS (2015) Folkbotan- Plant Collection in Lebanon. Food, Culture & ical classification: Morphological, ecological Society. doi: 10.1080/15528014.2015.1043103. and utilitarian characterization of plants in the

th Napf region, Switzerland. Journal of Ethnobiol- MEPRD (2014) 5 National Report to ogy and Ethnomedicine. doi: 10.1186/1746-4269-11- the Convention on Biological Diver- 13. sity. www.cbd.int/doc/world/lv/lv-nr-05-en.pdf. Accessed 23 April 2020. Prance GT (2007) Ethnobotany, the science of survival: a declaration from Kaua’i. Economic Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosys- Botany doi: 10.1007/BF02862367. tems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. Pried¯ıtis(n.d.) Enciklop¯edija”Latvijas Daba”. www.latvijasdaba.lv Accessed 23 april 2020. Mulder MB and Coppolillo P (2005) Chapter 7 The Bigger Picture. In: Monique Borgerhoff M, Cop- Pried¯ıtisN (2014) Latvijas augi. R¯ıga:Gandrs. polillo P (eds) Conservation: Linking Ecology, Eco- Pr¯useB, Simanova A, Meˇzaka I, Kalle R, Prakofjewa nomics, and Culture. Princeton University Press, J, Pieroni A, Holsta I, Kr¯uzkopa S, S˜oukand R (un- Princeton; Oxford, pp. 27-52. der revision) Language and belonging: wild food practices in Latgale, Latvia. Environment, Devel- Mora C, Sale P (2011) Ongoing global biodiver- opment and Sustainability. sity loss and the need to move beyond pro- tected areas: A review of the technical and Quave C, Pieroni A (2015) A reservoir of ethnob- practical shortcomings of protected areas on otanical knowledge informs resilient food secu- land and sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series. doi: rity and health strategies in the Balkans. Nature 10.3354/meps09214. Plants. doi: 10.1038/nplants.2014.21. Nikodemus O, Kl¸avi¸nˇsM, Kriˇsj¯aneZ, ZelˇcsV (2018) Raven PH (2018) Saving plants, saving ourselves. Latvija: zeme, daba, tauta, valsts. Latvijas Uni- Plants, People, Planet doi: 10.1002/ppp3.3. versit¯atesAkad¯emiskais apg¯ads,R¯ıga. Rimkus E, Briede A, Jaagus J, Stonevicius E, Kilpys Nisbet EK and Zelenski JM (2013) The NR-6: a J, Viru B (2018) Snow-cover regime in Lithuania, new brief measure of nature relatedness. Fron- Latvia and Estonia and its relationship to cli- tiers in psychology. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00813. matic and geographical factors in 1961–2015. Boreal Environment Research. 23: 193–208.

Norstr¨omAV, Cvitanovic C, L¨ofMF, West S, Wyborn Rodrigues E, Cassas F, Conde BE, da Cruz C, Bar- C, Balvanera P, Bednarek AT, Bennett EM, Biggs retto EHP, dos Santos G, Figueira GM, Passero LFD, R, Bremond A, Campbell BM, Canadell JG, Car- dos Santos MA, Gomes MAS, Matta P, Yazbek P, penter SR, Folke C, Fulton EA, Gaffney O, Gelcich Garcia RJF, Braga S, Aragaki S, Honda S, Sauini T, S, Jouffray JB, Leach M, Tissier MLe, Mart´ın-L´opez da Fonseca-Kruel VS, Ticktin T (2020) Participa- B, Louder E, Loutre MF, Meadow AM, Nagendra H, tory ethnobotany and conservation: a method- Payne D, Peterson GD, Reyers B, Scholes R, Sper- ological case study conducted with quilom- anza CI, Spierenburg M, Stafford-Smith M, Teng¨oM, bola communities in Brazil’s Atlantic For- van der Hel S, van Putten I, Osterblom¨ H (2020) est. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine. doi: Principles for knowledge co-production in sus- 10.1186/s13002-019-0352-x. tainability research. Nature Sustainability doi: R¯usi¸naS, Auni¸nˇsA, Spru¸ngis‘ V (2005) Chapter 18. 10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2. 6510 Lowland hay meadows. In: R¯usi¸naS (ed). OECD (2019) OECD Environmental 3 ed. Protected Habitat Management Guidelines for Performance Reviews: Latvia 2019. Latvia. Semi-natural Grasslands. Nature Conserva- https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/9c1ffde5- tion Agency, Sigulda, Habitat Management Guide- en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/9c1ffde5- lines for Latvia. pp. 218-227. en. Accessed 23 april 2020. Schultes RE (1994) The Importance of Ethnob- otany in Environmental Conservation. Amer- Ou´edraogoI, Nacoulma BMI, Hahn K, Thiombiano A ican Journal of Economics and Sociology. doi: (2014) Assessing ecosystem services based on in- 10.1111/j.1536-7150.1994.tb02586.x. digenous knowledge in south-eastern Burkina Faso (West Africa). International Journal of Biodiver- Sheldon JW, Balick MJ, Laird SA (1997) Medicinal sity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management. Plants: Can Utilization and Conservation Co- doi: 10.1080/21513732.2014.950980. exist? Advances in Economic Botany. 12 ed. Series

14 Pr¯use et al. 2021. We need to appreciate common synanthropic plants before they become rare: Case study in Latgale (Latvia) Ethnobio Conserv 10:11

Editor Charles Peters. New York: New York Botani- K˜oiva M, Kalle R (2017) Multi-functionality of cal Garden. the few: Current and past uses of wild plants for food and healing in Liuba´nregion, Be- Shrestha S and Medley KE (2017) Integrating Eco- larus. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine. logical and Ethnobotanical Knowledge to Pro- doi: 10.1186/s13002-017-0139-x. mote Collaborative Conservation Planning in the Nepal Himalaya. Mountain Research and S˜oukand R, Kalle R (2011) Change in med- Development. doi: 10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-15- ical plant use in Estonian ethnomedicine: 00081.1. a historical comparison between 1888 and Signorini MA, Piredda M, Bruschi P (2009) Plants 1994. Journal of Ethnopharmacology. doi: and traditional knowledge: An ethnobotanical 10.1016/j.jep.2011.02.030. investigation on Monte Ortobene (Nuoro, Sar- Tabaka L, Gavrilova G, Fatare I (1988) Flora of vas- dinia). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine. cular plants of Latvian SSR. doi: 10.1186/1746-4269-5-6. Tang R, Gavin MC (2016) A classification of Sile I, Romane E, Reinsone S, Maurina B, Tirzite D, threats to traditional ecological knowledge and Dambrova M (2019) Medicinal plants and their conservation responses. Conservation and Soci- uses recorded in the Archives of Latvian Folk- ety. doi: 10.4103/0972-4923.182799. lore from the 19th century. Journal of Ethnophar- macology. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2019.112378. The Shenzhen Declaration (2017) The Shenzhen Simanova A, Pr¯useB, Kalle R, Kochalski, S, Prakof- declaration on plant sciences-Uniting plant jewa J, Meˇzaka I, Pieroni A, Soukand R (2020) sciences and society to build a green, sus- Medicinal plant use at the beginning of the tainable Earth. Plants, People, Planet. doi: 21st century among the religious minority in 10.1002/ppp3.13. Latgale Region, Latvia. Ethnobotany Research & The Constitution of the Republic of Latvia Applications. doi: 10.32859/era.20.21.1-31. (1922) The Constitution of the Republic of Smith MD, Knapp AK (2003) Dominant species Latvia. https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/57980-the- maintain ecosystem function with non-random constitution-of-the-republic-of-latvia. Accessed 23 species loss. Ecology Letters doi: 10.1046/j.1461- april 2020. 0248.2003.00454.x. Vila-Ruiz CP, Mel´endez-Ackerman E, Santiago- Suomela JA, Vajanto K, R¨ais¨anenR (2018) Seek- Bartolomei R, Garcia-Montiel D, Lastra L, Figuerola ing Nettle Textiles – Utilizing a Combi- CE, Fumero-Caban J (2014) Plant species richness nation of Microscopic Methods for Fibre and abundance in residential yards across a Identification. Studies in Conservation. doi: tropical watershed: implications for urban sus- 10.1080/00393630.2017.1410956. tainability. Ecology and Society. doi: 10.5751/ES- 06164-190322. Suˇsko U and Evarts-Bunders P (2010) The his- tory of botanical investigations in South-east Voeks RA (2018) The Ethnobotany of Eden: Re- Latvia. Latvijas Veget¯acija‘ 21: 101-125. thinking the Jungle Medicine Narrative. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, U.S.A. pp. Stepp JR, Moerman DE (2001) The impor- 328. tance of weeds in ethnopharmacology. Jour- nal of Ethnopharmacology. doi: 10.1016/S0378- Western D, Waithaka J, Kamanga J (2015) Finding 8741(00)00385-8. Space for Wildlife beyond National Parks and Svil¯ansA, Roze D, LukaˇseviˇcsV (2012) Plants as Reducing Conflict through Community-based a sign of Latgalian identity in cultural land- Conservation: the Kenya Experience. Parks. scape, writing and stories. Via Latgalica doi: doi: 10.2305/IUCN.CH.2014.PARKS-21-1DW.en. 10.17770/latg2012.4.1692. Winfree R, Fox JW, Williams NM, Reilly JR, S˜oukand R and Kalle R (2012) Personal and Cariveau DP (2015) Abundance of common shared: The reach of different herbal land- species, not species richness, drives delivery of scapes. Estonian Journal of Ecology. doi: a real-world ecosystem service. Ecology Letters. 10.3176/eco.2012.1.04. doi: 10.1111/ele.12424. S˜oukand R, Hrynevich Y, Vasilyeva I, Prakofjewa J, Zimdahl RL (2018) CHAPTER 4 - Ethnobotany: Vnukovich Y, Paciupa J, Hlushko A, Knureva Y, Uses of Weeds. In: Zimdahl RL (ed) Fundamentals Litvinava Y, Vyskvarka S, Silivonchyk H, Paulava A, of Weed Science. Elsevier Inc. pp.464

15 Pr¯use et al. 2021. We need to appreciate common synanthropic plants before they become rare: Case study in Latgale (Latvia) Ethnobio Conserv 10:11

Received: 5 April 2020 Accepted: 23 November 2020 Available: 10 December 2020

16 Pr¯use et al. 2021. We need to appreciate common synanthropic plants before they become rare: Case study in Latgale (Latvia) Ethnobio Conserv 10:11 Total DUR Medicine - DUR FoodDUR - 23 3 26 $ Categorysensitivityhuman of to (Kukk 1999) impact Habitats (Pried¯ıtis 2014) C anthropophytes 10 10 Cultivated or(authors’ notes) wild ˇ Sulcs c Wfc 7 W apophytes 7 3 apophytes 4 3 10 14 Occurrence in the wild (Gavrilova and cfr W 9, W 8, 3, 2, 1 apophytes 7 anthropophytes 29 1 36 9 10 2005; Pried¯ıtis, 2014) – taxa considered as hemeradiophores by Kukk (1999), but which for calculations we considered $ (Gavrilova ˇ Sulcs 2005) Status and cultivatedsometimes plants in found disturbed areas, along railways and on abandoned land sometimesin found disturbed areas, along railways and on abandoned land L., auct., L., Api- L., Aster- L., Sapindaceae c W 6, 3 hemeradiophores L., Acoraceae fc W 10 anthropophytes 3 8 11 Abbreviations: ‘-’ –lack of information in the source used; ‘W’ – wild; ‘LRB’ – Latvian Red Book; ‘C’ – cultivated; ‘P’ - purchased; ‘c’ – L., Amaryllidaceae cultivated plants aceae Rosaceae Latin name Acer platanoides Achillea millefolium aceae Acorus calamus Aegopodium podagraria AesculusSapindaceae hippocastanum Alchemilla vulgaris Allium cepa apophytes due to theirno actual information use in as the cultivars or reference semi-wild sources. status, as their use requires extended human attention; *adopted from Pried¯ıtis(2014); blank – Additional Files Add File 1. common; ‘fc’ – fairlypoor common; habitats; ‘fr’ 3 –pine fairly – forests, rare; human-influenced in ‘r’ environments, shrubs; –places; nutrient-rich rare; 10 7 habitats; - ‘vr’ – 4 wet – across and – very various swampy rare; on habitats, habitats, 1 bogs, fallow open, – wet lands; dry, forests. along other; 5 roadsides/railways; 8 – 2 – – in in gravel, pastures; various loam, 6 meadows sand, (excluding – dolomite, wet in dunes, habitats), nutrient various forest forest edges, habitats hillslopes; including 9 – wasty

17 Pr¯use et al. 2021. We need to appreciate common synanthropic plants before they become rare: Case study in Latgale (Latvia) Ethnobio Conserv 10:11 C anthropophytesC 15 15 anthropophytes 10 10 fr W 8,6fc hemeradiophores W 4 9, 3, 1 4 anthropophytes 2 2 4 rfrfc W (LRB)c W (LRB) 10, 3, 2 W 6fr W apophytesc 10,6 hemeradiophores C 1 10, 6, 3 2fc hemeradiophores W apophytesr 7 3 C/Wfr 9, 8, 6, 1 9 1 C 2 anthropophytesc anthropophytes W 1 7 W apophytes 10 4 9, 4, 21 1 33 anthropophytes 7,3 4 apophytes 21 6 apophytes 3 7 39 8 7 11 3 3 cultivatedsometimes plants in found disturbed areas, along railways and on abandoned land escaped cultivated plants which infre- quently naturalize escapedwhichnaturalize plants commonly escaped cultivated plants which infre- quently naturalize completely natural- ized escaped culti- vated species L., (L.) Mill., (Michx.) L., Api- L., Aster- P.Gaertn., L., Aster- L., Amaran- L., Amarylli- L., Amarylli- Mill., Xanthor- (L.) Gaertn., Be- (L.) Moench, Be- rhoeaceae Spreng., Ericaceae B.Mey. & Scherb., Brassicaceae aceae thaceae Allium sativum AlliumAmaryllidaceae schoenoprasum Allium ursinum daceae Alnus glutinosa Alnus incana tulaceae Aloe arborescens Anethum graveolens aceae ArctiumAsteraceae tomentosum Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Armoracia rusticana Aronia melanocarpa Artemisia absinthium Artemisia vulgaris aceae Atriplex patula daceae tulaceae Elliott, Rosaceae

18 Pr¯use et al. 2021. We need to appreciate common synanthropic plants before they become rare: Case study in Latgale (Latvia) Ethnobio Conserv 10:11 45 59 104 $ CC 9, 3, 1 anthropophytes 1 anthropophytesC 5 1 1 6 anthropophytesC 12 12 anthropophytes 1 1 r* Cfr 3 Wc 10, 6, anthropophytes 5r apophytes W 2 C 3 6,3fr* 2 9, 3, 1 hemeradiophores C 3 anthropophytesvr 4 9, 3, 1 C anthropophytes 4 14 anthropophytes 14 1 1 cultivatedsometimes plants in found disturbed areas, along railways and on abandoned land sometimesin found disturbed areas, along railways and on abandoned land sometimesin found disturbed areas, along railways and on abandoned land escaped cultivated plants which infre- quently naturalize cultivatedsometimes plants in found disturbed areas, along railways and on abandoned land escaped cultivated plants which infre- quently naturalize f. L., capitata L., Aster- (L.) Fritsch, L., Boragi- L., Berberi- Roth, Betula var. L., Asteraceae c W 10 apophytes 7 7 (Lindl.) Wood- L., Poaceae cultivated plants L., Amaranthaceae cultivated plants L., Apiaceae c W 8, 6, 1 apophytes 49 12 61 L., Poaceae c W 8, 4, 6 apophytes 1 1 alba DC., Brassicaceae Saxifragaceae naceae Avena sativa Berberis vulgaris Bergenia crassifolia Beta vulgaris Betula pendula Bidens tripartita Borago officinalis Brassica oleracea Briza media Calendula officinalis Callisia fragrans son, Commelinaceae CapsicumSolanaceae annuum Carum carvi daceae pubescens Ehrh., Betulaceae aceae

19 Pr¯use et al. 2021. We need to appreciate common synanthropic plants before they become rare: Case study in Latgale (Latvia) Ethnobio Conserv 10:11 PCC anthropophytes anthropophytes 5 anthropophytes 4 5 1 4 1 c W 9, 6, 3fr anthropophytes W 7fr 10, 8, 6 7 W hemeradiophores 2 10, 8, 2c* 3 anthropophytes 5 W 3 7 3 hemeradiophores 8 8 cfrfc W W W 3 10, 9, 8, 2, 1 8,6 anthropophytes apophytes 4 apophytes 2frc 4 c C 1 2 W 9, W 1 2, 1c 9, 8, 3, 1 anthropophytes 8, 4, 1 apophytes W apophytes 4 1 10, 8, 6 1 10 1 hemeradiophores 2 1 14 3 1 cultivatedsometimes plants in found disturbed areas, along railways and on abandoned land escapedwhichnaturalize plants commonly (L.) (L.) Gand., sativus L., On- (L.) Hill, L., Ama- L., Aster- L., Equise- L., Papaver- L., Cucur- Mill., Rham- L., Betulaceae c W 10, 8, 6 apophytes 11 1 12 Hill, Asteraceae c W 9, 3, 1 anthropophytes 5 5 (Mill.) Druce, L. subsp. L., Rosaceae c W 8, 6, 4 apophytes 74 74 L., Asteraceae c W 9, 8, 4 apophytes 3 3 (L.) Osbeck, Ru- L., Moraceae C anthropophytes 1 1 aceae Rosaceae (Hoffm.) Arcang., Apiaceae A.Nelson, Elaeagnaceae Maxim., Rosaceae Chelidonium majus Chenopodium album ranthaceae Cichorium intybus aceae Cirsium heterophyllum Asteraceae Citrus limon taceae Corylus avellana Crassula ovata Crataegus rhipidophylla Cucumis sativus bitaceae Cyanus segetum Daucus carota Elaeagnus rhamnoides Epilobium angustifolium agraceae Equisetum arvense Erigeron acris Ficus carica Filipendula ulmaria Fragaria vesca Frangula alnus naceae Crassulaceae taceae

20 Pr¯use et al. 2021. We need to appreciate common synanthropic plants before they become rare: Case study in Latgale (Latvia) Ethnobio Conserv 10:11 C 9,1 anthropophytes 4 4 fr W 8,6 hemeradiophores 1 1 frfc Cfcfc W 9,1fc Wfc anthropophytes Wc W 9, 8, 6fr W 10 anthropophytes 1 apophytes W 6, C 5, 2 hemeradiophores 1 1 2fr 8, 5, 1 apophytes 4, apophytes 3fr apophytes 3 1 22 W/C 14 1 5 anthropophytes C 17 8 39 2 22 9,3 anthropophytes 1 2 10 anthropophytes 1 13 41 10 54 escapedwhichnaturalize plants commonly completely natural- ized escaped culti- vated species escaped cultivated plants which infre- quently naturalize cultivatedsometimes plants in found disturbed areas, along railways and on abandoned land completely natural- ized escaped culti- vated species escapedwhichnaturalize plants commonly L., L., L., (L.) subsp. (Vaill.) Borkh., Crantz, Manden., L., Aster- L., Cupres- L., Lamiaceae vr C 9, 3, 1 anthropophytes 7 7 (L.) Simonk., Apiaceae Moench, Asteraceae Apiaceae Helianthus tuberosus Helichrysum arenarium Heracleum sosnowskyi Heracleum sphondylium sibiricum HumulusCannabaceae Hypericum lupulus maculatum Hypericaceae Juniperus communis saceae Leonurus cardiaca Leucanthemum vulgare Lam., Asteraceae LevisticumW.D.J.Koch, Apiaceae LinumLinaceae officinale usitatissimum MalusRosaceae domestica MatricariaAsteraceae chamomilla aceae

21 Pr¯use et al. 2021. We need to appreciate common synanthropic plants before they become rare: Case study in Latgale (Latvia) Ethnobio Conserv 10:11 CCC anthropophytes 1 anthropophytes 6 anthropophytes 6 20 2 20 2 fr C/W 9,3 anthropophytes 14 15 29 fr Wfrr 1 W Wfr anthropophytes 8,6fc C/Wvr hemeradiophores 1 W 1 9,1 anthropophytes W 1 8,1 anthropophytesr 9,3 1 1 apophytesfc C anthropophytes 4 1 4 1 4 W 9, 3, 1 2 anthropophytes 6 1 hemeradiophores 1 1 1 1 escapedwhichnaturalize plants commonly adventitious species in the Latvian flora – ephemerophytes and(archeopytesviewed neophytes are asnous species) indige- plants which infre- quently naturalize whichnaturalize commonly adventitious species in the Latvian flora – ephemerophytes and(archeopytesviewed neophytes are asnous species) indige- escaped cultivated plants which infre- quently naturalize L., Mentha L., Pa- L., Oxali- DC., Aster- L., L., Legumi- L., Origanum Pall., Paeoni- L., Lamiaceae escaped cultivated (Retz.) Rchb., L., Oxalidaceae c W 6 hemeradiophores 10 10 L., Lamiaceae escaped plants piperita (L.) L., Lamiaceae × longifolia Matricaria discoidea aceae Melampyrum nemorosum Orobanchaceae Melissa officinalis Mentha Nepeta cataria Origanum vulgare vulgare Oxalis acetosella Oxalis corniculata daceae Paeonia lactiflora aceae Papaver somniferum Pelargonium graveolensGeraniaceae L’H´er, Petasites spurius Asteraceae Phaseolus vulgaris nosae paveraceae

22 Pr¯use et al. 2021. We need to appreciate common synanthropic plants before they become rare: Case study in Latgale (Latvia) Ethnobio Conserv 10:11 C anthropophytes 2 1 3 cc* Wc Wfcc 6 W 8,2c Wfr W hemeradiophores 10,3 apophytes W 9, 8, 6, 4c W 9, anthropophytes 4, 3, 2r apophytes 5 9, 4, 3, 1 2 apophytes 10, 8, W 2, 1 1 apophytes 5 fr W 31 anthropophytesfr 10, 1 1 7, 6 1 32 Cr 1 apophytes 8 1 C 1 8 1 anthropophytes C 9 1 3 anthropophytes 3 3 1 anthropophytes 3 12 6 anthropophytes 1 1 12 1 escaped cultivated plants which infre- quently naturalize escapedwhichnaturalize plants commonly whichnaturalize commonly whichnaturalize commonly plants which infre- quently naturalize Vaill., L., Hy- Boreau., L., Sali- L., Polygo- L., Poly- L., Rosaceae c W 10, 9, 8 apophytes 3 3 L., Rosaceae escaped cultivated L., Plantagi- (L.) Raeusch., L., Lamiaceae c W 9, 8, 6, 4 apophytes 9 9 L., Poaceae c W 8, 5, 6, 3 apophytes 1 1 L., Salicaceae c W 6 apophytes 1 1 L., Pinaceae c W 2 hemeradiophores 2 21 23 (L.) H.Karst., (L.) Hill, Primu- L., Rosaceae escaped plants L., Rosaceae escaped plants L., Primulaceae c W 10, 8, 6 apophytes 3 15 18 L., Piperaceae P anthropophytes 2 2 Philadelphus coronarius drangeaceae Phleum pratense Picea abies Pilosella officinarum Pinus sylvestris Piper nigrum Plantago major Polygala vulgaris galaceae Polygonum arenastrum Polygonum aviculare Populus balsamifera caceae Populus tremula Potentilla anserina Potentilla erecta Rosaceae Primula elatior Primula veris Prunella vulgaris Prunus avium Prunus cerasus Prunus domestica Pinaceae Asteraceae naceae Polygonaceae naceae lacea

23 Pr¯use et al. 2021. We need to appreciate common synanthropic plants before they become rare: Case study in Latgale (Latvia) Ethnobio Conserv 10:11 729 28 10 35 39 $ $ C anthropophytes 2 2 frfr Cfr Wfr 10, 9, 6, 3 Wfc 3,1 anthropophytes W 2 10fc W anthropophytes 9 10, 9, 8, hemeradiophores 1r W 10, 9, 8, 3 4 apophytes 5 2 apophytes 10, 9, P 8, 1 14 anthropophytes 73 3 9,1 1 3 1 1 anthropophytes 76 1 1 1 completely natural- ized escaped culti- vated species whichnaturalize commonly completely natural- ized escaped culti- vated species in the Latvian flora – ephemerophytes and(archeopytesviewed neophytes are asnous indige- escaped cultivated plants species); which infre- quently naturalize L., L., Fingerh., DC., Polygo- L., Lamiaceae C anthropophytes 1 1 Hall, Rosaceae fr W 10, 8, 1 apophytes 3 1 4 L., Grossulari- (L.) Scop., Cras- L., Salicaceae c W 10,2 apophytes 1 2 3 L., Fagaceae c W 10, 6, 3 hemeradiophores L., Rosaceae c W hemeradiophores 1 1 L., Rosaceae c W 10, 6, 3, 1 apophytes 69 28 97 L., Grossulariaceae fc C 10,6 hemeradiophores L., Brassicaceae adventitious species Pourr., Rosaceae escaped plants Prunus padus Quercus robur Ribes nigrum Ribes rubrum aceae Rosa glauca RubusRosaceae chamaemorus Rubus idaeus Rubus nessensis Rumex longifolius Rumex thyrsiflorus Salix viminalis Salvia officinalis SaponariaCaryophyllaceae officinalis Sedum roseum sulaceae Sinapis alba naceae Polygonaceae

24 Pr¯use et al. 2021. We need to appreciate common synanthropic plants before they become rare: Case study in Latgale (Latvia) Ethnobio Conserv 10:11 13 21 34 $ apophytes 5 19 24 1 C anthropophytes 1 1 cfc W W 3c 10, 9, apophytes 1 apophytes W 4fc 4 7 W 1 8 c apophytes 7 1 W 15 anthropophytes 6 10,6 7 21 hemeradiophores 7 83 14 22 105 fr* Cfr 9,1fr C anthropophytesc C 10, 9, 1 8 anthropophytesfc 3 Wc 8 W 10, 8, anthropophytes 1 1c W apophytes 8, 6, 2 1 W 9, 5 8, 6, hemeradiophores 4,fc 1 3 apophytes 9, 5 3, 1 9 W 2 2 apophytes 9 5 10 hemerophobes 2 1 43 1 11 54 cultivatedsometimes plants in found disturbed areas, along railways and on abandoned land escapedwhichnaturalize plants commonly plants which infre- quently naturalize L., Lepech., L., Eri- L., Eri- (L.) Merr. L., Borag- L., Lami- L., Aster- (L.) Weber (L.) Vill., L., Legumi- L., Legumi- L., Rosaceae c W 6 apophytes 6 4 10 L., Asteraceae c W 10, 9, 8, 3, 2, L., Oleaceae escaped cultivated L., Urticaceae c W 9, 8, 6, 3, 1 apophytes 30 35 65 Mill., Malvaceae c W 6,3 hemeradiophores Caryophyllaceae inaceae ex F.H.Wigg., Asteraceae nosae caceae SolanumSolanaceae tuberosum Sorbus aucuparia Stellaria media Symphytum asperum Boraginaceae Symphytum officinale Syringa vulgaris Syzygium aromaticum & L.M.Perry, Myrtaceae Tanacetum vulgare Taraxacum officinale Thymus serpyllum Tilia cordata Trifolium repens nosae Trifolium medium Tripleurospermum(L.) Sch.Bip., Asteraceae inodorum Tussilago farfara Urtica dioica Vaccinium myrtillus Vaccinium oxycoccos aceae aceae caceae

25 Pr¯use et al. 2021. We need to appreciate common synanthropic plants before they become rare: Case study in Latgale (Latvia) Ethnobio Conserv 10:11 Total 895 841 1736 fccc* Wfr W Wr* 10,6 W 10, 6, 3 10,6 C hemeradiophores hemeradiophores 4, 11 7, 2, 1 47 apophytes apophytes 1 9 2 1 12 anthropophytes 56 16 1 18 1 2 1 sometimesin found disturbed areas, along railways and on abandoned land L., Eri- L., Eri- L., Caprifo- L., Scrophu- L., Adoxaceae fc C/W 10,6 apophyte 4 10 14 L., Violaceae fc W 8, 4, 2 anthropophytes 2 2 L., Leguminosae cultivated plants Vaccinium uliginosum Vaccinium vitis-idaea caceae Valeriana officinalis liaceae Verbascum thapsus lariaceae Viburnum opulus Vicia faba Viola tricolor caceae

26