Mainstreaming traditional fruits, vegetables and pulses for nutrition, income, and sustainability in sub-Saharan Africa: the case for Kenya and Ethiopia

This study documented existing knowledge on traditional fruits, vegetables and pulses in Kenya and Ethiopia. The aim was to identify neglected and underutilized species with high potential for food security, for their economic value and contribution to sustainable agriculture, based on a literature review and confirmation of existing data by local experts. In order of priority, the top 5 fruit species in Kenya are Tamarindus indica L., Adansonia digitata L., Sclerocarya birrea (A.Rich.) Hochst, Balanites aegyptiaca (L.) Delile, and Ziziphus mauritiana Lam., for vegetables are Amaranthus spp., Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp., Solanum spp., and Cleome gynandra L. Top fruits in Ethiopia are Balanites aegyptiaca (L.) Delile, Ziziphus spina-christi (L.) Desf., Cordeauxia edulis Hemsl., Cordia africana Lam., and Mimusops kummel A. DC., for vegetables are Brassica carinata A. Braun, Cucurbita pepo L., and Amaranthus spp. In both countries, priority pulse species (no ranking) are Phaseolus lunatus L., Sphenostylis stenocarpa (A.Rich.) Harms, Mucuna pruriens (L.) DC., Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet, and Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp. Generally, these priority species are good sources of key nutrients known for their inadequate dietary intakes in sub-Saharan Africa, represent a safety net for household income, and contribute positively to ecosystem resilience in existing agricultural systems. Complete, accurate and reliable nutrient composition data are needed to raise consumer awareness about their nutritional and health benefits. Since women play a central role in traditional food systems, their empowerment, and hence resilience, increase the positive impact they can have on the households’ dietary diversity. In particular, introducing small-scale processing techniques and marketing strategies could enhance their supply and consumption.

Introduction

Traditional/indigenous food plants: neglected or underutilized

Indigenous food plants are plants that have evolved naturally in a specific bio-region in conjunction with those that were introduced into the region and adapted so well that they have become an integral part of the local food culture (1). The term “traditional food plants” is often used to indicate that the plants have been consumed in a region for several centuries (2). What is important is not so much the terminology used but the fact that the modes of cultivation, collection, preparation, and consumption of the food plants are deeply embedded in local cuisine, culture, folklore, and language (FAO, 2001) (3). For the purpose of this study, the term “traditional food plants” is thus used.

Many traditional food plants are not included in local and national diets and consequently remain either neglected or underutilized. They are termed “neglected” if they are grown primarily in their centers of origin or centers of diversity by traditional farmers, where they remain important for the subsistence of local communities, and they are termed “underutilized” if they were once more extensively grown but have fallen into disuse for a variety of agronomic, genetic, economic, and cultural reasons (4, 5). In either case, these traditional food plants have received little or no attention from agricultural researchers, plant breeders or policy makers. Data on their production, consumption, nutrition composition and trade value are therefore largely decentralized, unavailable, incomplete and hence limiting, and often limited among indigenous communities (6).

Inadequate or declining consumption of fruits, vegetables, and pulses

Fruits, vegetables, and pulses form the basis of dietary diversity (7), particularly as the primary sources of important vitamins, minerals, protein and fibers, which are insufficiently supplied and whose dietary intakes are consequently often inadequate in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) (8, 9), where the consumption of fruits, vegetables, and pulses is either insufficient or declining (10, 11). In SSA, food accounts for a very large proportion of the household budget, for example, for 56% in Ethiopia, and 58% in Kenya (12, 13). During the period 2017 to 2019, the cost of a healthy diet in Africa underwent the highest increase (13%) in the world (14). To alleviate hunger, households are forced to prioritize staple foods while more expensive nutrition-dense food such as fruits, vegetables, and pulses are considered unaffordable. According to Harris et al. (15), poor availability, accessibility, affordability, and preferences affect the inclusion of fruits, vegetables, and pulses in household diets and there is consequently an enormous deficit in the consumption of these foods in SSA (Figure 1). For a healthy daily adult diet representing 2,500 kcal, the EAT-Lancet Commission recommends a daily intake of 300 g of vegetables, 200 g of fruit, and 100 g of legumes of which half (50 g) should be pulses (16). To obtain the health and nutrition benefits of fruits and vegetables it is recommended to consume at least 400 g each day or 5 servings of 80 g each (18, 19). Moreover, fruits, vegetables, and pulses should be consumed in different varieties and if possible, above the recommended amounts (20). Exploiting the large number of largely under-used traditional plants with edible fruits, shoots, leaves, flowers, and seeds of high nutritional and economic value could help reach this goal (21).

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. Intakes of fruits, vegetables, and legumes as a percentage of *DRI, Daily recommended intake by EAT-Lancet Commission (16). Data source: Global Dietary Database 2019 (17).

The present study focuses on neglected and underutilized species with a high potential for food security, for their economic value and their contribution to sustainable agriculture. To achieve this goal, priority species should: (i) fill the nutrient gaps in diets (protein, fibers, iron, zinc, vitamin A) in order to have a greater impact on public health, (ii) increase agricultural income to enable the purchase of a diversity of foods, as well as be consumed by the household if not completely sold, (iii) simultaneously address the nutritional, agricultural and environmental dimensions of the malnutrition and poverty issues, and (iv) account for cultural preferences, social pressures, women’s resilience and other elements related to human behavior.

Materials and methods

First, a list of available species of traditional fruit trees, leafy vegetables, and pulses in Ethiopia and Kenya was created based on existing plant databases and was confirmed by local experts. The aim was to fill the gap concerning easily accessible country-specific species, particularly using accepted scientific names in the World Flora Online (WFO) database (22). The rich biodiversity of traditional food plants in the two countries was apparent at first glance. The species list that was generated a great help in tackling the nomenclature confusion in the literature caused by use of different scientific synonyms for the same plant species. This documentation database also enabled identification of floristic regions (Ethiopia) or agroecological zones (Kenya) with the highest abundance of traditional fruit trees, leafy vegetables, and pulses (23).

Since not all traditional fruits, vegetables, or pulses are equally attractive for nutritional, economic and agronomic reasons, several criteria were used to identify, rank, select and prioritize species based on their nutritional, economic and agronomic traits, among other benefits. Based on literature review, existing scientific and indigenous knowledge of traditional fruits, vegetables and pulses was documented and was confirmed by local experts from Kenya and Ethiopia. In this study, the primary selection criterion of the top 5 species was food security and economic potential; the second selection criterion was contribution to ecosystem resilience. Candidate plant species were identified based on their unique nutritional, economic, and agronomic attributes. For traditional fruit trees, the frequency of being included among the top priority 5 species in past prioritization studies informed a mutual decision on the most potential species. The ranking criteria used in past prioritization studies and respective references are presented in Appendices 1–3. For traditional leafy vegetables, very few prioritization studies are available and no ranking is reported. The top 5 most frequently prioritized species and references are listed as presented in Appendix 5. For pulses, no prioritization studies are available. In this case, past research attention was used under which, pulse species that have received the least research attention but are characterized by multipurpose services are listed as presented in Appendix 6.

Findings

Five traditional fruit trees are frequently and consistently selected among the top 5 priority species in Kenya (listed in Table 1; Appendix 1) (21, 24–28). In order of priority, these include Tamarindus indica L., Adansonia digitata L., Sclerocarya birrea (A.Rich.) Hochst, Balanites aegyptiaca (L.) Delile, and Ziziphus mauritiana Lam. Other important traditional fruit trees but less frequently ranked among the top 5 priority species include Ximenia americana L., Berchemia discolor (Klotzsch) Hemsl., Ancylobothrys tayloris (Stapf) Pichon, and Vitex doniana Sweet. In Ethiopia, the top 5 priority species include, Balanites aegyptiaca (L.) Delile, Ziziphus spina-christi (L.) Desf., Cordeauxia edulis Hemsl., Cordia africana Lam., and Mimusops kummel A. DC. (listed in Table 1; Appendix 2) (24, 25, 29–31). Other important priority species ranked among the top 5 species include Sclerocarya birrea (A. Rich.) Hochst., and Vitellaria paradoxa Gaertn. There has been no systematic prioritization study covering the entire African continent due to its diverse ecology, farming systems, and vast geographical area. However, based on the extent of their market and preferences, the priority fruit trees that are available across regions of the continent include Adansonia digitata L., Tamarindus indica L., Ziziphus spina-christi (L.) Desf., Sclerocarya birrea (A. Rich.) Hochst., and Balanites aegyptiaca (L.) Delile as listed in Table 1 and Appendix 3. The specific selection criteria used for priority traditional fruit trees are summarized in the respective appendices.

TABLE 1

Table 1. Top 5 traditional fruit trees (in order of priority) in Kenya, Ethiopia, and other African regions.

Traditional leafy vegetable species in Kenya and Ethiopia were selected based on their economic and nutritional potential. In Kenya, the top 5 species are Amaranthus spp., Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp., Solanum spp., and Cleome gynandra L (listed in Table 2; Appendix 5) (37, 38). In Ethiopia, they include Brassica carinata A. Braun, Cucurbita pepo L., and Amaranthus spp. (listed in Table 2; Appendix 5) (29–31). The top 10 most cited priority traditional leafy vegetables in Kenya and Ethiopia are listed in Table 3. These species form a basis for future prioritization studies.

TABLE 2

Table 2. Top 5 traditional leafy vegetables (in order of priority) in Kenya and Ethiopia.

TABLE 3

Table 3. Top 10 priority leafy vegetable species most frequently cited for research and promotion in Kenya and Ethiopia.

As there have been no prioritization studies on pulses in Kenya and Ethiopia to date, available traditional pulse species were categorized based on past research on (1) mainstreamed pulses that have been the subject of significant research and are the most widely grown and consumed, (2) neglected, underutilized, and promising future pulses that adapt particular well to environments and provide multipurpose services, (3) neglected and underutilized pulses for mainstreaming into agri-food systems, (4) other potential neglected and underutilized pulses (Table 4). The category of neglected, underutilized, and promising future pulses that display particular adaptation to the environment and provide multipurpose services are the most in line with the primary and secondary selection criteria for the top 5 priority species in this study. Based on multi-purposes, nutrient value, market prospects, and their contribution to ecosystem resilience, the top 6 priority long-life cycle pulse species for future research and promotion include Phaseolus lunatus L., Sphenostylis stenocarpa (A.Rich.) Harms, Mucuna pruriens (L.) DC., Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet, and Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp. (listed in Table 5; Appendix 6). Although Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp. has been the subject of considerable research, its multipurpose use is largely underexploited and in particular, its properties that enhance soil nutrient content. All six pulse species in this category were thus considered as priority in both countries.

TABLE 4

Table 4. Categories of pulse species based on past research, current research gaps, and future research opportunities.

TABLE 5

Table 5. Nutrition, income, and ecosystem resilience potential of underutilized and neglected long-life cycle pulses.

TABLE 6

Table 6. Nutrition, income, and ecosystem resilience potential of underutilized and neglected priority fruit trees.

The above priority traditional fruit trees, leafy vegetables, and pulses are usually described as having several household uses that could help fill existing nutritional and economic gaps, cultural needs and preferences, as well as contribute to sustainable agriculture through ecosystem resilience (Tables 5–7; Appendices 4–6). It should be noted that multiple uses are listed randomly as they were in the literature and are therefore not ranked in order of importance, nor is the listing universally applicable across African regions and countries or even within countries. The priority species provide edible fruits, shoots, leaves, flowers and seeds that are good sources of important vitamins and minerals whose dietary intake is often inadequate in SSA. Moreover, both food and non-food food products rank high economically and could therefore serve as a safety net by enhancing household purchasing power for food items that are not included in local subsistence production. Priorities are also climate resistance, local availability, adaptability to arid and semi-arid conditions, compatibility with other crops, and capacity to contribute to ecosystem resilience and sustainable agriculture. They are potential candidates for inclusion in existing farming system in the drylands of SSA which are usually characterized by limited agrobiodiversity.

TABLE 7

Table 7. Nutrition, income, and ecosystem resilience potential of underutilized and neglected leafy vegetables.

Discussion

SSA contains a large number of under-exploited traditional plant species that are of high nutritional value and could therefore play a significant role in diversifying diets at local, national and international level (21). Both the food and non-food products of these species have high market value that could diversify sources of household income and hence, access to food markets. Some traditional food plants are often available in periods when most of the food stocks are used up and new crops are not ready to harvest. As a result, their consumption increases as stocks of staple crops decline and hence, they play an important nutritional and economic role in filling seasonal gaps (26, 49). Traditional food plants could also contribute positively to the ecosystem resilience of existing farming systems by providing green manure, nitrogen-fixing abilities, increasing soil phosphorous availability, and helping control soil erosion, parasitic weeds, nematodes, pests and diseases. These plants are also well adapted to diverse and contrasting climates, cold or heat, droughts or floods, and poor quality soils, and also show good resistance to pests and diseases (50). Compared to large-scale conventional staple crops, most under-exploited traditional food plants are available locally, easy to grow, require simpler technologies and fewer inputs of fertilizer and pesticide and hence, are less damaging to the environment while addressing the cultural needs of indigenous society (11). Integrating the wealth of diverse traditional food plants into local food systems thus has great potential (20), and given the current coexisting issues of malnutrition, climate change, and degradation of agricultural soils in SSA, traditional food plants have the potential to create new value chains provided there is a significant increase in the necessary research and development (51). The nutritional, economic and agronomic benefits of their production make them attractive components of existing food and farming systems, and growing them could enhance agrobiodiversity, sustainable agriculture, ecosystem resilience, food and nutritional security, and economic development (11).

As a first step toward integrating traditional food plants for food and nutritional security, income improvement, and agricultural sustainability, it is essential to identify the most valuable species for smallholder farmers, consumers and the market. The priority traditional food plants identified are neglected or underutilized in the two study countries, which means that, data on production, consumption and the preferences of farmers and/or consumers are either lacking or largely decentralized in the literature or are unpublished indigenous knowledge. Plants are underutilized due to low and irregular production which is affected by a preference for conventional staple cereal crops (52) or neglected due to lack of reliable data to evaluate their contribution to the diet or economy at local, national and international levels (1). These limitations complicate the assessment and identification of priority species for inclusion in existing farming and food systems. The distribution and use of these species also varies between and within countries in line with variations in ecology, farming systems and climatic conditions. As a result, the priority traditional food plants identified in Kenya and Ethiopia are not the same and variation in priority species and ranking is expected across floristic regions or agroecological zones. Despite these challenges, existing knowledge of the identified priority traditional fruit trees, leafy vegetables and pulses was documented and highlighted their potential to contribute to sustainable food security, livelihoods, and agriculture.

The priority species are characterized by high nutritional value and could play an important role in overcoming existing deficits in fruit, vegetable and pulse consumption and consequently increase intakes of key nutrients. In resource-poor areas, these traditional foods are often the only local and affordable alternative sources of protein, fiber, vitamins and minerals. Local production makes them affordable particularly in rural drylands where the majority of poor rural populations live. This is one of the main reason why they are still consumed (53). They are also kept in farming systems because of their social-cultural significance and easy use (1). The fact they are native means knowledge, expertise, skills, and production processes still exist among the indigenous communities (52). However, these traditional foods are not widely used due to misperceptions that they are inferior to conventional staple foods and hence, considered obsolete and unworthy of research and development (11, 54). A major contributing factor is the lack of consumer awareness about their nutrition and health benefits. Nutrition education is therefore paramount in guiding consumer preferences and choices and hence, adoption by both the farmers and markets. Yet, data on nutrient content particularly concerning neglected and underutilized traditional food plants is either unavailable, incomplete or unreliable. The available data on nutrient content in the literature and in food composition tables vary considerably. According to Termote et al. (55), this may be due to the use of different sampling and analytical methods on the one hand, and the geographical and natural variability of nutrient composition and concentrations that occurs among varieties of the same species, on the other hand. This is particularly true of undomesticated species. In the current study, it was therefore considered impractical to compare and rank priority traditional food plants based on their nutrient content or on their contribution to recommended daily intakes. Instead, the major nutrients supplied by the species are reported simply to highlight their nutritional value as presented in Appendices 4–6 for fruits, leafy vegetables, and pulses respectively, under “Nutrient value.” However, there is a real need to assess the nutritional composition of neglected and underutilized traditional foods. Complete, accurate, reliable and representative data on the nutritional composition of traditional foods is critical for raising consumer awareness and hence, increasing consumption.

Priority traditional food plants are also characterized based on their income generating potential. Depending on the species, they may rank high in market value either locally, regionally or internationally (56). A ready market for both food and non-food products therefore exists, but due to lack of modern industrialized markets, there has been little social and scientific research on—or investment in—the benefits and use of these foods (57, 58). The adoption of the priority species by farmers for cultivation or to safeguard existing populations of species remain low unless economic returns on investment associated with their production are profitable (59). If developed successfully, traditional value-added food products could occupy a market niche at different market levels and increase different sources of income for households, smallholder farmers and vulnerable groups, in particular women in rural drylands. This would contribute to the year-round supply and consumption of a diversified diet both through subsistence production and income-generating pathways.

In general, stable access to and the stable quality of food is linked to resilience (60). The priority traditional food plants identified in the current study could play a critical role in the agroecological resilience of existing farming systems. The plants are characterized by adaptability to the diverse biotic and abiotic conditions of SSA drylands. However, due to increase in human and livestock populations in SSA, today these priority traditional food plants are under enormous pressure that has led to intensive species degradation and losses (52). To reverse this situation, it is possible to include them in existing farming systems (33). On one hand, this would expand fruit, vegetable, and pulse production in SSA, which is currently mainly restricted to high altitude regions with moderate to adequate rainfall. On the other hand, their management either in the wild or cultivated on-farm would benefit the environment as they are less reliant on agrochemical inputs, help stabilize agroecosystems, enhance biodiversity and contribute to carbon sequestration.

Agriculture is the most important economic activity in SSA. It contributes to dietary diversity through agrobiodiversity and/or income-generating pathways. Currently, conflicts, climate variability and extreme climate events, economic slowdown and downturn adversely affect agricultural outputs (14). Healthy diets in SSA are unaffordable because, on one hand, the drivers of agricultural production push up the cost of fruits, vegetables, and pulses beyond what the poor population can afford. On the other hand, poverty is exacerbated by inequalities based on gender, youth, ethnicity, and disability (61, 62). With insufficient production and often little agrobiodiversity in farming systems, the low economic status of households adversely influences access to food in terms of quality and diversity. Inequality and poverty are common denominators for factors associated with widespread food insecurity and malnutrition (63). Among the adaptive strategies for food security in SSA drylands in which women are the most actively involved, are gathering of wild species, cultivation, harvesting, processing and sale of traditional fruits, vegetables and pulses (64). Traditional food cultures are informed by locally-specific social relations in which women often play a central role (14). Women are decision makers concerning household food consumption (64, 65). According to Jones et al. (66), women’s control of income and decision making has significant benefits for nutrition outcomes at the child and household levels. However, women in SSA are also the most affected by inequality and the poverty trap. They are disproportionately and adversely affected in terms of economic opportunities and access to nutritious foods (14). Increased access to productive resources, technologies and innovation in exploiting traditional food crops would both improve women’s resilience (36), and help incorporate neglected and underutilized traditional food plants. Access to traditional fruit trees, leafy vegetables, and pulses could reduce the likelihood that female-headed households face food and nutritional insecurity (64). In SSA, the harvesting, processing and trading of fruits, leafy vegetables, and pulses is primarily performed by women. Women are often deeply involved in and benefit from the production, processing and sale of traditional foods (65). This may explain why agricultural biodiversity is more positively associated with female-headed households than with male-headed households (66). However, women’s food and nutritional security is deeply affected by their lack of financial independence. Considering that agricultural income controlled by women has a greater positive impact on household dietary diversity than income controlled by men (67), income control and decision making by women have major advantages for child and household-level nutrition outcomes. This is because women often purchase foods and other health-related inputs that directly benefit the health and nutritional status of the members of their household. Women’s different purchasing behavior, as well as their selection and use of priority traditional food plants could reinforce women’s empowerment as a factor in changing the relationships between agricultural biodiversity, dietary diversity and health.

There is therefore a need to explore suitable processing techniques and culinary practices for traditional fruits, leafy vegetables and pulses. Food processing could tap the unexploited but high potential of traditional foods to provide employment opportunities, the development of small and medium-sized enterprises and generate income (68). As a first step, adequate postharvest handling techniques are needed to reduce post-harvest losses and maintain the quality of the plant products. In particular, small-scale processing techniques that involve women could help extend the shelf life and consequently increase the consumption, availability and access to traditional foods (36). In addition, biological or thermal food processing techniques can reduce antinutritional compounds and improve digestibility of these foods and bioavailability of some nutrients. As mentioned above, traditional foods and products play a critical role for women for whom they represent safety nets as marketable goods that enable them to buy food for their households (64). To ensure sustainability, a marketing strategy is needed to be sure that processed food products do not cost more than vulnerable population groups can afford as well as to avoid failure in promoting the consumption of traditional foods.

Conclusion

The top priority species reported in this study are characterized by multiple uses, they are good sources of nutrients whose dietary intakes are currently often inadequate in SSA, they are ranked high economically and could therefore serve as safety-nets for household incomes, and contribute to sustainable agriculture through ecosystem resilience. However, traditional food plants are perceived as slow growing and as producing low yields and therefore as inappropriate for cultivation. This perception has been aggravated by the limited understanding of their roles in nature in terms of variability, reproductive biology and propagation as well as the absence of techniques for adding value and for facilitating their cultivation. As a result, the true extent to which traditional food plants can alleviate food insecurity remains unknown. Neglected and underutilized traditional food plants should therefore be included in future dietary surveys and their nutritional profiles specified in order to (i) assess their capacity to fill the gaps in (micro) nutrients and (ii) quantify the supply and transform it into production. Food composition analysis in also needed to provide missing data on their nutrient content, to reduce existing variability of available data and to raise consumer awareness. Small-scale processing techniques particularly those that involve women are also needed along with marketing strategies to avoid failures as a result of expensive value-added food products. To ensure the acceptability and adoption of traditional food plant species, consensus is needed among different stakeholders. In particular, the needs of communities and the points of view of researchers must be reconciled. Although this study concerns only two African countries, it has a general scope in SSA and beyond, where numerous plant species studied are present or food by-products are consumed.

After decades of research neglect and hence underutilization of traditional food plants, their contribution to the diet, income and ecosystem services remains largely unevaluated. The available data is poorly managed, highly fragmented and scattered across past decades. Recent data sources on nutritional, economic, and resilience potential are either lacking or only published earlier than 5 years ago and hence, it was necessary to include these data sources. This is a major constraint, characteristic to neglected and underutilized traditional food plants that highlights the research gap yet further. Besides centralizing existing knowledge, this study also calls for future research priorities in mainstreaming these superior traditional food plants to achieve multiple sustainable development goals.

Author contributions

NPB wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to conception, design of the study, manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.

Funding

This work was supported by International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in the framework of flagship Agricultural Development to Improve Human Nutrition and Health (A4NH) -CGIAR and French Research Institutions collaboration [project number: 203004.040.111/112/113 (INRAE)].

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the following local experts for their assistance in the research reported in this paper: Nicanor Obiero (Food Science) from Kenya and Endale Adamu (Ethnobotany) from Ethiopia.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2023.1197703/full#supplementary-material

References

1. Ayanwale, AB, Amusan, CA, Adeyemo, VA, and Oyedele, DJ. Analysis of household demand for underutilized indigenous vegetables. Int J Veg Sci. (2016) 22:570–7. doi: 10.1080/19315260.2015.1103350

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Baskarachary, K, Yemula, S, Gavaravarapu, SR, and Joshi, AK. Traditional foods, functional foods and nutraceuticals. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. (2015) 82:1565–77. doi: 10.16943/ptinsa/2016/48888

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

3. Towns, A, and Shackleton, C. Traditional, indigenous, or leafy? A definition, typology, and way forward for African vegetables. Econ Bot. (2019) 72:461–77. doi: 10.1007/s12231-019-09448-1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

4. Chivenge, P, Mabhaudhi, T, Modi, AT, and Mafongoya, P. The potential role of neglected and underutilised crop species as future crops under water scarce conditions in sub-Saharan Africa. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2015) 12:5685–711. doi: 10.3390/ijerph120605685

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

5. Padulosi, S, Thompson, J, and Rudebjer, P. Fighting poverty, hunger and malnutrition with neglected and underutilized species (NUS): Needs, challenges and the way forward. Rome, Italy: Bioversity International. (2013) doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3494.3842

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

6. Li, X, and Siddique, KHM. Future smart food-rediscovering hidden treasures of neglected and underutilized species for zero hunger in Asia. Bangkok: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2018).

Google Scholar

7. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Promotion of underutilized indigenous food resources for food security and nutrition in Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok: FAO (2014).

Google Scholar

8. Akinola, R, Pereira, L, Mabhaudhi, T, de Bruin, FM, and Rusch, L. A review of indigenous food crops in Africa and the implications for more sustainable and healthy food systems. Sustainability. (2020) 12:3493. doi: 10.3390/su12083493

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Kissinger, G. Pulse crops and sustainability: A framework to evaluate multiple benefits. Rome, Italy: FAO (2016).

Google Scholar

10. Matenge, STP, Van Der Merwe, D, De Beer, H, Bosman, MJC, and Kruger, A. Consumer beliefs on indigenous and traditional foods and acceptance of products made with cow pea leaves. Afr J Agric Res. (2012) 7:2243–54. doi: 10.5897/AJAR10.858

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

11. Merwe, JD, Cloete, P, and Hoeven, M. Promoting food security through indigenous and traditional food crops. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst. (2016) 40:830–47. doi: 10.1080/21683565.2016.1159642

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

12. Mulangu, F, Depetris, CN, and Porto, G. Food production and consumption trends in sub-Saharan Africa: Prospects for the transformation of the agricultural sector. (2012). Available at: https://www.undp.org/africa/publications/food-production-and-consumption-trends-sub-saharan-africa-prospects-transformation-agricultural-sector (Accessed 2 January 2023).

Google Scholar

13. Ruel, MT, Minot, N, and Smith, L. Patterns and determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption in sub-Saharan Africa: A multicountry comparison. (2005). International Food Policy Research Institute. Available at https://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/f%26v_africa_economics.pdf (Accessed 25 November 2021).

Google Scholar

14. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2021. Transforming food systems for food security, improved nutrition and affordable healthy diets for all. Rome: FAO (2021).

Google Scholar

15. Harris, J, de Steenhuijsen, PB, McMullin, S, Bajwa, B, de Jager, I, and Brouwer, ID. Fruits and vegetables for healthy diets: Priorities for food system research and action. (2021). Available at: https://sc-fss2021.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/FSS_Brief_Fruits_Vegetables.pdf (Assessed 14 June 2021).

Google Scholar

16. Willett, W, Rockström, J, Loken, B, Springmann, M, Lang, T, Vermeulen, S, et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet North Am Ed. (2019) 393:447–92. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

17. Global Nutrition Report. The state of global nutrition. Bristol, UK: Development Initiatives. (2021). Available at: https://globalnutritionreport.org/documents/851/2021_Global_Nutrition_Report_aUfTRv0.pdf (Assessed 10 February 2023).

Google Scholar

18. Mason-D’Croz, D, Bogard, JR, Sulser, TB, Cenacchi, N, Dunston, S, Herrero, M, et al. Gaps between fruit and vegetable production, demand, and recommended consumption at global and national levels: an integrated modelling study. Lancet Planet Health. (2019) 3:e318–29. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(19)30095-6

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

19. WHO and FAO. Diet, nutrition, and the prevention of chronic diseases. Report of a joint WHO/FAO expert consultation. Geneva: WHO (2003).

Google Scholar

20. Kennedy, G, Kanter, R, Chotiboriboon, S, Covic, N, Delormier, T, Longvah, T, et al. Traditional and indigenous fruits and vegetables for food system transformation. Curr Dev Nutr. (2021) 5:nzab092. doi: 10.1093/cdn/nzab092

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

21. Muok, BO. (2019). Potentials and utilization of indigenous fruit trees for food and nutrition security in East Africa. Kenya: Jaramogi Oginga Odinga University of Science and Technology.

Google Scholar

22. World Flora Online (WFO). World Flora online. Published on the Internet; Available at: http://www.worldfloraonline.org. (2022). (Accessed 29 November 2022)

Google Scholar

23. Ngigi, PB, Termote, C, Amiot, MJ, Pallet, D, and Mouquet-Rivier, C. Traditional fruit, vegetable and pulse species in Senegal, Ivory Coast, Benin, Ethiopia and Kenya. UMR-Qualisud, DataSuds, Montpellier. (2022) doi: 10.23708/DLPAAL

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

24. Chikamai, B, Eyog-Matig, O, and Mbogga, M. Review and appraisal on the status of indigenous fruits in eastern Africa, A report prepared for IPGRI-SAFORGEN in the framework of AFREA/FORNESSA. Nairobi, Kenya: IPGRI (International Plant Genetic Resources Institute) SSA (2004).

Google Scholar

25. Tahir, El, Bashir, A. Review and appraisal on the status of indigenous fruits in eastern Africa a report prepared for IPGRI-SAFORGEN in the framework of AFREA/FORNESSA FORNESSA-AFREA logo. (2006).

Google Scholar

26. Teklehaimanot, T, and Giday, M. Ethnobotanical study of wildedible plants of Kara and kwego semi-pastoralist people in lower Omo River valley, Debub Omo zone SNNPR. Ethiopia J Ethnobil Ethnomed. (2010) 6:23. doi: 10.1186/1746-4269-6-23

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

27. Muga, M, Chikamai, B, Mayunzu, O, and Chiteva, R. (2016). Production, value addition, marketing and economic contribution of non Wood Forest products from arid and semi arid lands in Kenya. Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI) Available at: https://www.fao.org/3/be720e/be720e.pdf (Accessed 5 September 2022).

Google Scholar

28. Wanjira, E. Wild edible indigenous fruit tree species in East Africa’s drylands: A coping mechanism for vulnerable farmers and pastoralists against drought and hunger. (2017). Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339686255_The_Contributions_of_Wild_Tree_Resources_to_Food_and_Nutrition_Security_in_Sub-Saharan_African_Drylands_A_Review_of_the_Pathways_and_Beneficiaries (Accessed 6 September 2022).

Google Scholar

29. Pauline, M, and Linus, W. “Status of indigenous fruits in Kenya” in Review and appraisal on the status of indigenous fruits in eastern Africa. ed. B. Chikamai Kenya: International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (2004).

Google Scholar

30. Mal, BC. Neglected and underutilized crop genetic resources for sustainable agriculture. Indian J Plant Genet Resources. (2007) 20:1–14.

Google Scholar

31. Weldekidan, N, Hruy, G, and Gebrelibanos, T. Potentials and constraints of under-utilized tree fruits and vegetables in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. J. Drylands. Ethiopia. (2017). 7. 664–674.

Google Scholar

32. Chikamai, B, Eyog-Matig, O, and Kweka, D. Regional consultation on indigenous fruit trees in eastern Africa. Nairobi: Kenya Forestry Research Institute (2005).

Google Scholar

33. Jama, BA, Mohammed, AM, Mulaya, J, and Njui, AN. Comparing the ‘big five’: a framework for the sustainable management of indigenous fruit trees in the drylands of east and Central Africa. Ecol Indic. (2007) 8:170–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2006.11.009

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

34. Teklehaimanot, Z. The role of indigenous fruit trees in sustainable dryland agriculture in eastern Africa. Indigenous Fruit Trees in the Tropics, Domestication, Utillization and Commercialization. Wallingford, UK: CABI, (2007). 204–223.

Google Scholar

35. Franzel, S, Akinnifesi, FK, and Ham, C. Setting priorities among indigenous fruit species: examples from three regions in Africa In: FK Akinnifesi, RRB Leakey, OC Ajayi, G Sileshi, Z Tchoundjeu, and P Matakala, et al., editors. Indigenous Fruit Trees in the tropics: Domestication, utilization and commercialization. Nairobi, Wallingford, UK: World Agroforestry Centre, CAB International Publishing (2007)

Google Scholar

36. Akinnifesi, AOC, Sileshi, GW, Kadzere, I, and Akinnifesi, AI. Domesticating and commercializing indigenous fruit and nut tree crops for food security and income generation in sub-Saharan Africa. (2008). Available at: http://apps.worldagroforestry.org/downloads/Publications/PDFS/pp15397.pdf (Accessed 25 May 2022).

Google Scholar

37. Abukutsa, OM. The diversity of cultivated African leafy vegetables in three communities in western Kenya. Afr J Food Agric Nutr Dev. (2007) 7:85–91. doi: 10.18697/ajfand.14.IPGRI1-3

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

38. Krause, H, Faße, A, and Grote, U. Welfare and food security effects of commercializing African indigenous vegetables in Kenya. Cogent Food Agricult. (2019) 5:31. doi: 10.1080/23311932.2019.1700031

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

39. Maundu, PM, Ngugi, GW, and Kabuye, CHS. Traditional food plants of Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya: Kenya Ressource Centre for indigenous knowledge (KENRIK), National Muséum of Kenya (1999). 270 p.

Google Scholar

40. Shackleton, C, Paumgarten, F, Mthembu, T, Ernst, L, Pasquini, M, and Pichop, G. Production of and trade in African indigenous vegetables in the urban and peri-urban areas of Durban, South Africa. Dev South Afr. (2010) 27:291–308. doi: 10.1080/0376835X.2010.498937

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

41. Bahru, TZ, Asfaw, ZA, and Demissew, S. Whild edible plants: sustainable use and management by indigenous communities in and the buffer area of awash national park, Ethiopia SINET. Ethiop J Sci. (2013) 36:93–108. doi: 10.4314/SINET.V36I2.103502

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

42. Getachew, A, Zemede, A, Singh, V, Zerihun, W, Baidu-Forson, JJ, and Bhattacharya, S. Dietary values of wild and semi-wild edible plants in southern Ethiopia. Afr J Food Agric Nutr Dev. (2013) 13:7486–503. doi: 10.18697/ajfand.57.11125

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

43. Eyassu, F. Actual and potential applications of Moringa stenopetala, underutilized indigenous vegetable of southern Ethiopia: a review. Int J Agricult Food Res. (2014) 3:8–19. doi: 10.24102/ijafr.v3i4.381

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

44. Haimanot, R. Vascular plant diversity, ethnobotany and nutritional values of wild edible plants in Temcha watershed of Amhara region, Ethiopia. (2018). Ph.D. Dissertation, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.

Google Scholar

45. Chibarabada, TP, Modi, A, and Mabhaudhi, T. Expounding the value of grain pulses in the semi-and arid tropics. Sustainability. (2017) 9:10060. doi: 10.3390/su9010060

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

46. Snapp, S, Rahmanian, M, and Batello, C In: T Calles, editor. Pulse crops for sustainable farms in sub-Saharan Africa. Rome: FAO (2018)

Google Scholar

47. Hendre, P, Muthemba, S, Kariba, R, Muchugi, A, Fu, Y, Chang, Y, et al. African orphan crops consortium (AOCC): status of developing genomic resources for African orphan crops. Planta. (2019) 250:989–1003. doi: 10.1007/s00425-019-03156-9

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

48. Aditya, JP, Bhartiya, A, Chahota, RK, Joshi, D, Chandra, N, Kant, L, et al. Ancient orphan legume horse gram: a potential food and forage crop of future. Planta. (2019) 250:891–909. doi: 10.1007/s00425-019-03184-5

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

49. Hunter, D, Borelli, T, Beltrame, DMO, Oliveira, CNS, Coradin, L, Wasike, VW, et al. The potential of neglected and underutilized species for improving diets and nutrition. Planta. (2019) 250:709–29. doi: 10.1007/s00425-019-03169-4

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

50. Meldrum, G, Padulosi, S, Lochetti, G, Robitaille, R, and Diulgheroff, S. Issues and prospects for the sustainable use and conservation of cultivated vegetable diversity for more nutrition-sensitive agriculture. Agriculture. (2018) 8:112. doi: 10.3390/agriculture8070112

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

51. Mabhaudhi, T, Chimonyo, VGP, and Modi, AT. Status of underutilised crops in South Africa: opportunities for developing research capacity. Sustainability. (2017) 9:1569. doi: 10.3390/su9091569

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

52. Okia, CA. Balanites aegyptiaca: A resource for improving nutrition and income of dryland communities in Uganda. Available at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/228909731.pdf (2010). (Accessed 25 May 2022).

Google Scholar

53. Cloete, PC, and Idsardi, E. Consumption of indigenous and traditional food crops: perceptions and realities from South Africa. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst. (2013) 37:902–14. doi: 10.1080/21683565.2013.805179

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

54. National Research Council. Lost crops of Africa: Volume III: Fruits. Washington, DC, USA, Volume III: The National Academies Press (2008).

Google Scholar

55. Termote, C, Odongo, NO, Dreyer, BS, Guissou, B, Parkouda, C, and Vinceti, B. Nutrient composition of Parkia biglobosa pulp, raw and fermented seeds: a systematic review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. (2020) 62:119–44. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2020.1813072

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

56. Modi, AT, and Mabhaudhi, T. Developing a research agenda for promoting underutilised, indigenous and traditional crops; WRC report no. KV 362/16. Pretoria, South Africa: Water Research Commission (2016).

Google Scholar

57. Mbhenyane, XG. Indigenous foods and their contribution to nutrient requirements. S Afr J Clin Nutr. (2017) 30:5–7.

Google Scholar

58. Pereira, L. The global food system still benefits the rich at the expense of the poor. (2017). Available at: https://theconversation.com/the-global-food-system-still-benefits-the-rich-at-the-expense-of-thepoor-81151 (Accessed 24 August 2022).

Google Scholar

59. Omotayo, A, and Aremu, A. Underutilized African indigenous fruit trees and food–nutrition security: opportunities, challenges, and prospects. Food Energy Secur. (2020) 9:220. doi: 10.1002/fes3.220

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

60. Béné, C. Resilience of local food systems and links to food security – a review of some important concepts in the context of COVID-19 and other shocks. Food Sec. (2020) 12:805–22. doi: 10.1007/s12571-020-01076-1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

61. Herforth, A, Bai, Y, Venkat, A, Mahrt, K, Ebel, A, and Masters, WA. Cost and affordability of healthy diets across and within countries. (2020). In: Background Paper for the State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020. FAO agricultural development economics technical study no. 9. Rome, FAO.

Google Scholar

62. Holleman, C, and Conti, V. Role of income inequality in shaping outcomes on individual food insecurity. In: Background paper for the State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2019. (2019). Rome, FAO.

Google Scholar

63. Christian, A, and Dake, F. Profiling household double and triple burden of malnutrition in sub-Saharan Africa: prevalence and influencing household factors. Public Health Nutr. (2021) 25:1563–76. doi: 10.1017/S1368980021001750

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

64. Koffi, C, Lourme-Ruiz, A, Houria, D, Bouquet, E, Dury, S, and Gautier, D. The contributions of wild tree resources to food and nutrition security in sub-Saharan African drylands: a review of the pathways and beneficiaries. Int For Rev. (2020) 22:64–82. doi: 10.1505/146554820828671490

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

65. Schreckenberg, K, Awono, A, Degrande, A, Charlie, M, Ndoye, O, and Tchoundjeu, Z. Domesticating indigenous fruit trees as a contribution to poverty reduction. Trees Livelihoods. (2006) 16:35–51. doi: 10.1080/14728028.2006.9752544

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

66. Jones, AD, Shrinivas, A, and Bezner-Kerr, R. Farm production diversity is associated with greater household dietary diversityin Malawi: findings from nationally representa-tive data. Food Policy. (2014) 46:1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.02.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

67. Snapp, SS, and Fisher, M. “Filling the maize basket” supports crop diversity and qualityof household diet in Malawi. Food Secur. (2015) 7:83–96. doi: 10.1007/s12571-014-0410-0

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

68. Kehlenbeck, K., Asaa, H E., and Jamnadass, R. Diversity of indigenous fruit trees and their contribution to nutrition and livelihoods in sub-Saharan Africa: Examples from Kenya and Cameroon. In book: Diversifying Food and Diets: Using Agricultural Biodiversity to Improve Nutrition and Health. New York, USA: Earthscan Routledge, (2013) 1:257–269.

Google Scholar

69. United Nations Children’s Fund, Division of Data, Analysis, Planning and Monitoring (2021). Global UNICEF global databases: Infant and young child feeding: Zero vegetable or fruit consumption, New York, September 2021

Google Scholar