Customary Forests as Models of Traditional Agroforestry: Ethnobotany of Wild Edible Plants in the Dayak Sisang Forest, Indonesia

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-7907552/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Customary Forests as Models of Traditional Agroforestry: Ethnobotany of Wild Edible Plants in the Dayak Sisang Forest, Indonesia

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7907552/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Around 20–25% of Indonesia’s population depends on Indigenous Territories, including the Dayak Sisang Indigenous Community. For the Dayak Sisang, the Indigenous Territory plays a crucial role, particularly as an ecosystem that provides wild edible plants (WEP). However, deforestation driven by land-use conversion and socio-economic pressures threatens environmental sustainability, leading to the loss of WEP diversity and the erosion of local knowledge. Therefore, this research seeks to explore and document WEP and to analyse their significance in safeguarding Indigenous Territory. An ethnographic approach combined with ethnobotanical methods was intentionally employed to ensure the accuracy of the data collected. Data collection involved in-depth interviews with 53 key informants, focusing on their perspectives and recollections of local botanical knowledge. Plant specimen collection was carried out through participatory forest walks to ensure accuracy in botanical analysis. This research identified 103 WEP species within the study area, representing 48 plant families. Nine families were found to be dominant: Arecaceae (8.74%), Moraceae (7.77%), Sapindaceae (7.77%), Zingiberaceae (5.83%), Aspleniaceae (3.88%), Phyllanthaceae (3.88%), Anacardiaceae (2.91%), Lauraceae (2.91%), and Rubiaceae (2.91%). Fruit (46.60%) is the most abundant part of the plant. Gastronomic preferences indicate that WEP is consumed chiefly raw (63.10%). Regarding growth form, WEP consists of trees (50%), the dominant one. Spatially, WEP is mainly found in sacred forests (46%). Customary territories have a crucial role as providers of biodiversity, ecosystem services, and economic potential. This study contributes to bridging ethnobotany and agroforestry research by framing indigenous forest management as a living model of biodiversity based agroforestry.

Bornean Endemic Flora

Borneo Tropical Rainforest

Indigenous Community

Indigenous Forest

Traditional Agroforestry

Wild Edible Plants

The relationship between humans and nature, particularly within the context of Indigenous communities (masyarakat adat), is grounded in the productive, ecological, social, and cultural functions of nature (Moran 2017). Forests play a central role as providers of food, medicine, raw materials, and cultural services, fostering a deep human dependency on the environment since the earliest stages of civilization. This dependency has led to the development of diverse forms of traditional knowledge (Efriani et al. 2020; Efriani et al. 2019; Mulyanto et al. 2023; Niko et al. 2024). In particular, human reliance on wild edible plants (WEP) is fundamental in meeting daily needs (Ajiningrum et al. 2025; Gurbanova 2025). The utilization of WEP includes their role as food (Asfaw et al. 2023), sources of nutrition (Servin & Moseley 2023) and animal feed (Azzahra & Mulyanto 2024), as well as spices (Singh et al. 2021), medicine (Afandi et al. 2022; Nafayu et al. 2025; Panjaitan et al. 2023), building materials, providers of ecosystem services (Ali et al. 2025), and cultural resources of significant value to humans (Suwardi et al. 2025).

It is estimated that 85–90% of the world’s population depends on wild edible plants (WEP) to meet their food needs (Wangchuk 2018). In Indonesia, there are 2,499 Indigenous communities spread across the archipelago, with an estimated population of around 70 million people, or approximately 20–25% of the national population (IWGIA 2025). On the island of Kalimantan, 87 Indigenous communities have been formally recognized by the Government of the Republic of Indonesia, with their Indigenous Forests overing an area of 2.682.570 hectares. The Dayak Sisang Indigenous Community is one of these recognized communities.

Research on the role of forests as sources of food within Indigenous Territories in Indonesia remains limited. Much of the existing research has focused on issues of recognition and community protection in response to the displacement of Indigenous peoples by land concessions (Afiff & Rachman 2019; Arizona et al. 2019; Bedner & Arizona 2019; Dhiaulhaq and McCarthy 2020; Efriani et al. 2024). Other studies have primarily emphasized conservation and environmental sustainability (Dawson et al. 2023; Fa et al. 2020; Gonzales Tovar et al. 2021). However, understanding how indigenous communities utilize customary forests by understanding ecological, social, and economic aspects through the study of ethnobotanical practices seems to be very rare. How can customary forests be understood as traditional agroforestry through the services of edible wild plants? This question has been asked as a research question in this study.

The study of ethnobotany plays a crucial role in understanding agroforestry as a dynamic ecological and social system. Ethnobotany traces the relationship between humans and plants and uncovers how local knowledge and traditional practices play a role in maintaining the sustainability of forest landscapes (Kumar et al., 2021). Indigenous peoples' participation in agroforestry increases food security and household income and promotes the maintenance of the diversity of increasingly threatened plant species (Chaudhary et al., 2025). In agroforestry, the ethnobotanical approach allows researchers to trace the cultural dimensions of the use of living resources, including how societies recognise, classify, and manage valuable plant species on a hereditary basis.

This study confirms that traditional agroforestry systems often grow from a foundation of ethnobotanical knowledge, where species selection and planting patterns reflect local communities' ecological, economic, and spiritual values (Afentina et al., 2020). The ethnobotanical study in this study is intended to understand the ecological value and utilisation of forests rooted in indigenous peoples' local wisdom. This integration places indigenous peoples not only as users of resources, but as guardians of agroforestry landscapes whose sustainability (Gonçalves et al., 2021). The ethnobotanical and ethnographic approach in the agroforestry study has created opportunities to strengthen the rights and knowledge of indigenous peoples as key holders of customary forest management, especially in Indonesia.

Dayak Sisang community

The Dayak Sisang community was officially recognized as an Indigenous People in 2018 through a regulation issued by the Regent of Sanggau Regency Regulation No. 327. Their Indigenous Territory was designated as the Wilayah Adat Ketemenggungan Sisang, covering an area of 2.235 hectares. On September 7, 2018, 651 hectares of this territory were formally recognized as Hutan Adat (Indigenous Forest) by the Decree of the Minister of Environment and Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia (Decree No. SK.5771/MENLHK-PSKL/PKTHA/PLS.1/9.2018). The Dayak Sisang live in and around this Indigenous Forest, relying on its resources for their livelihoods. Based on local knowledge, they have inhabited this territory for generations, bound by ancestral origins and shared settlement. They maintain a strong relationship with their Indigenous Territory and uphold a value system that shapes their economic, political, social, cultural, and legal institutions. The Ketemenggungan Sisang Indigineour territory plays a crucial role for the Dayak Sisang community, providing essential needs such as food, medicine, and building materials. It also serves as the foundation of their traditional knowledge systems and sustainable environmental management practices. Wild plants are harvested within the territory for consumption, particularly vegetables and fruits.

Indigenous Territory, particularly Indigenous Forest (hutan adat), represents a large ecosystem that sustains numerous species while serving as a cultural heritage for local communities. However, the existence of indigineous forest is increasingly threatened by deforestation (Safkaur et al. 2025), land-use conversion such as monoculture plantation expansion (Prahesty et al. 2025), and socio-economic changes (Jers et al. 2025) all of which undermine ecosystem sustainability. The loss of forest cover leads not only to a decline in the diversity of WEP (Saraan et al. 2025), but also to the erosion of local practices and knowledge (Mourya, Bargali, and Bargali 2019; Ungirwalu et al. 2025). These threats endanger both the survival of Indigenous Territories and the biodiversity they encompass. Therefore, documenting and analyzing the diversity of WEP in the Dayak Sisang Indigenous Territory is urgently needed, both for the conservation of biological resources and for the preservation of the local knowledge of the Dayak Sisang community.

This research was conducted in the Indigenous Territory of the Dayak Sisang with the aim of exploring and documenting the diversity of wild edible plants (WEP). The study is particularly significant in light of ongoing forest degradation caused by resource exploitation, declining forest quality and quantity due to climate change, and increasing demographic pressures. These factors pose a serious threat to the loss of WEP species, many of which have not yet been studied or documented. The findings of this research have important implications for Indigenous communities, particularly within the Bornean landscape, by highlighting the role of WEP in sustaining biological diversity and emphasizing their significance in safeguarding Indigenous Territory.

Study Area

This research was conducted in the Indigenous Territory of the Dayak Sisang, located in Lubuk Sabuk Village, Sanggau Regency, West Kalimantan Province, Indonesia. The study area was divided into four categories: settlement, field, garden, and Indigenous Forest (Fig. 1). The settlement area includes spaces inhabited by people, such as front and back yards of houses. Fields are areas cultivated by the Dayak Sisang for rice and vegetable crops, managed throughout the year. Gardens are fruit tree areas that have been developed to resemble secondary forests. The indigenous forest is a forest area officially recognized by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia and managed by the Indigenous community. It is accessible only at certain times, regarded as sacred, and serves as a site of ancestral worship.

Demographic Information

The subjects of this research were members of the indigenous territory society Ketemenggungan Sisang. A total of 53 key informants actively participated in this study, selected based on the following criteria: (1) residing in villages within the Indigenous Territory, (2) practicing subsistence farming, and (3) possessing knowledge of local wisdom related to the management of Indigenous Territory. The selected informants represent a diversity of demographic categories, including age, gender, and educational background. They cover both male and female participants, range from youth and adults to the elderly, and represent educational attainment from illiteracy to higher education.

Table 1

Demographic characteristics of the key informants selected from the research site
Factors	Category	Number of Participants	Percentage (%)
Gender	Male	24	45
	Female	29	55
Age	15–24 years	11	21
	25–35 years	8	15
	35–45 years	10	19
	55–65 years and above	24	45
Education	Illiterates	3	6
	Elementary School	10	19
	Middle School	12	23
	High School	25	47
	College Graduates	3	6

Data Collection

Fieldwork was conducted ethnographically from June to August 2025. First, incidental interviews were carried out with 250 members of the Dayak Sisang community. From these, 53 individuals were selected as key informants and participated in in-depth interviews (Table 1). The interviews focused on local plant names, growth forms, plant parts harvested, gastronomic references, and plant habitats. In addition, ethnographic observation was conducted through “walks in the woods” (Turner 1988) across the four research zones. During these walks, plant specimens, photographs, and artifacts of wild edible plants were collected for identification (Adelisa, et al. 2023; Thomas, et al. 2007) Representative examples of these materials are presented in the Fig. 2.

Data Analysis

This research successfully documented 103 plant species across four zones of the Wilayah Adat Ketemenggungan Dayak Sisang. All specimens were recorded using local names in the Dayak Sisang language. For botanical identification, each specimen was classified by its scientific name, family, and growth form. The identification process referred to The Endemic Plant Genera of Borneo (Neo 2025); PROSEA: Plant Resources of South-East Asia, and Flora Malesiana. Several online databases were also consulted, including asianplant.net, powo.science.kew.org, inaturalist.org, borneoficus.info, worldfloraonline.org, iucnredlist.org, and ipni.org.

Each collected specimen was assigned a code (SG 001–103) for the purpose of documenting the diversity of wild edible plants found in the Indigenous Territory of Ketemenggungan Sisang. The ethnobotanical data is then used to assess the role of customary forests as traditional agroforestry. Analysis of plant forms, habitats, and economic, social, and ecological benefits is carried out on the species that have been successfully discovered. Data analysis employed quantitative descriptive methods using Relative Frequency of Citation (RFC), RFC\(\:=\frac{\text{n}\text{i}\:\left(\text{N}\text{u}\text{m}\text{b}\text{e}\text{r}\:\text{o}\text{f}\:\text{c}\text{i}\text{t}\text{a}\text{t}\text{i}\text{o}\text{n}\:\text{i}\text{n}\text{f}\text{o}\text{r}\text{m}\text{a}\text{n}\text{t}\text{s}\right)}{\text{N}\:\left(\text{N}\text{u}\text{m}\text{b}\text{e}\text{r}\:\text{o}\text{f}\:\text{f}\text{o}\text{r}\text{m}\text{a}\text{n}\text{t}\text{s}\right)}x\:100\) measured how frequently each species was cited (Tardío and Pardo-de-Santayana 2008) and percentage of species distribution across habitats.

Diversity of WEP in Ketemanggungan Sisang Indigenous Territory

This study represents the first ethnobotanical work conducted in the Ketemenggungan Sisang Indigenous Territory. The research engaged with the community’s botanical memories to document lists of WEP based on the lived experiences of the Dayak Sisang and their interactions with the forest. During interviews, informants recalled fruiting seasons that mostly occur at the end of the year, particularly in November and December. In these fruiting seasons, tree species are typically harvested at specific times, whereas leafy plants are harvested continuously without seasonal limitation. Botanical memories often rely on sensory cues, such as taste, shape or physical characteristics, and aroma, to guide recognition and harvesting practices.

Indigenous territories are living spaces where local knowledge about plants develops and is practised for generations. Indigenous communities rely heavily on the environment for much of their food, making these territories a primary source of rich and diverse ethnobotanical knowledge. Within these territories, complex and sustainable natural resource management systems exist, often unwritten but based on customary norms, rules, and traditions. These systems protect biodiversity and ensure the availability of essential plants for the community. Ethnobotanical practices within indigenous communities are an integral part of the local wisdom system governing their customary territories. For example, the prohibition on cutting down certain trees is an integral part of the forest management system, which serves as a source of biodiversity. Furthermore, the concept of "eating unclean" or prohibiting the consumption of certain plants is also a cultural practice with a positive ecological impact. This practice is part of ethnobotany, linking plant use to spiritual and social values.

Biodiversity has a significant relationship with cultural values. The ability of indigenous peoples to describe various plant species provides a snapshot of well-preserved local knowledge. The greater the biodiversity of an area, the richer the potential for local knowledge about plants. Language is the most practical tool for identifying plants. Local languages contain specialised vocabulary about plants, including names of plants, plant parts, processing methods, and uses. This vocabulary often lacks direct equivalents in other languages, making local languages key to understanding authentic ethnobotanical knowledge. Unfortunately, the tendency to transmit plant knowledge orally is highly vulnerable to the loss of local botanical knowledge. Cultural practices such as folklore, myths, and rituals serve as a medium for indigenous communities' botanical memories.

The Sisang Dayak of the Sisang Ketemenggungan are an indigenous group in Kalimantan with a rich and complex ethnobotanical tradition. They possess the ability to identify various types of plants found in their customary territory. They recognise plants for various purposes, including food, traditional medicines, building materials, and even plants with spiritual and ritual significance. The natural management practices developed by the Sisang Dayak employ a system that maintains ecosystem balance, such as selective logging and land rotation for shifting cultivation. This spiritual connection with plants is also reflected in the sacred role of several plants in traditional rituals and beliefs. For example, certain plants are used in healing ceremonies, death rituals, or as symbols in myths and ancestral stories.

The Sisang Dayak ethnobotanical practices are a concrete manifestation of cultural decisions in their interactions with bioculture in their customary territories. Through ethnobotany, communities express cultural values, community identity, patterns of dependence, and relationships with natural resources. Cultural decisions are dynamic, adaptable to social and environmental changes. This study found a high diversity of WEP in customary forests, demonstrating the resilience of the Sisiang Dayak to social pressures related to environmental issues in Indonesia. The Sisang Dayak are an example of an indigenous community that maintains botanical knowledge (tabel 2).

Table 2

Wild Edible Plants (WEP) traditionally consumed by the Dayak Sisang in the Ketemenggungan Sisang Indigenous Territory
Family	Species	Vernacular name	Documentation Code	Life Form	Habitat	Parts Used	Gastronomic References
Actinidiaceae	Saurauia subcordata Korth.	Rebede	SG94	Trees	Gardens	Fruits	Cooked
Anacardiaceae	Mangifera foetida Blume	Me'tat	SG36	Trees	Settlements, Indigenous Forests	Fruits	Raw
	Mangifera odorata Griff.	Kuini	SG88	Trees	Gardens	Fruits	Raw
	Mangifera parvifolia Boerl. & Koord.-Schum.	Pauh	SG96	Trees	Gardens	Fruits	Raw
Annonaceae	Polyalthia borneensis Merr.	Plangaya	SG78	Trees	Indigenous Forests	Fruits, Leaves	Cooked
Aquifoliaceae	Ilex hypoglauca (Miq.) Loes.	Kecepi'	SG58	Trees	Indigenous Forests	Fruits	Raw
Araceae	Amorphophallus paeoniifolius (Dennst.) Nicolson	Mayo	SG53	Herbs	Indigenous Forests	Tubers	Cooked
Arecaceae	Salacca affinis Griff.	Terisep	SG4, SG42	Palms	Indigenous Forests	Fruits	Raw, Cooked
	Caryota mitis Lour.	Sompur; Tajur	SG27, SG93	Palms	Settlements, Indigenous Forests	‘Palm cabbage’ or ‘leaf-bud’ (Umbut)	Raw, Cooked
	Calamus manan Miq.	Tingkes	SG38	Palms	Indigenous Forests	Fruits	Raw, Fermentation
	Eleiodoxa conferta (Griff.) Burret	Mut muha, marau	SG39, SG41	Palms	Indigenous Forests	Fruits, ‘Palm cabbage’ or ‘leaf-bud’ (Umbut)	Raw, Cooked
	Calamus caesius Blume	Uwi sabut	SG40	Palms	Indigenous Forests	Fruits, ‘Palm cabbage’ or ‘leaf-bud’ (Umbut)	Raw, Cooked
	Oncosperma horridum (Griff.) Scheff.	Parrai	SG45	Palms	Indigenous Forests	‘Palm cabbage’ or ‘leaf-bud’ (Umbut)	Raw, Cooked
	Salacca zalacca (Gaertn.) Voss	Ngkap	SG56	Palms	Indigenous Forests	Fruits, ‘Palm cabbage’ or ‘leaf-bud’ (Umbut)	Raw
	Pinanga crassipes Becc	Runga	SG82	Palms	Gardens	Fruits, ‘Palm cabbage’ or ‘leaf-bud’ (Umbut)	Raw
	Arenga pinnata (Wurmb) Merr.	Mayang	SG105	Palms	Indigenous Forests	‘Palm cabbage’ or ‘leaf-bud’ (Umbut)	Raw, Cooked
Aspleniaceae	Stenochlaena palustris (Burm.f.) Bedd.	Cekas	SG13	Ferns	Settlements, Indigenous Forests	Inflorescences	Cooked
	Diplazium esculentum (Retz.) Sw.	Pekuh iko	SG33	Ferns	Settlements, Indigenous Forests	Inflorescences	Cooked
	Blechnum oriInflorescencese L.	Pekuh prengkis	SG49	Ferns	Indigenous Forests	Inflorescences	Cooked
	Thelypteris interrupta (Willd.) K.Iwats.	Pekuh orut	SG50	Ferns	Indigenous Forests	Inflorescences	Cooked
Asteraceae	Erechtites hieraciifolius (L.) Raf. ex DC.	Morru	SG61	Shrub	Gardens, Swidden Fields	Leaves	Raw, Cooked
Begoniaceae	Begonia stenogyna Sands	Kuru	SG1	Shrub	Settlements	Leaves	Cooked
Burseraceae	Dacryodes rugosa (Blume) H.J.Lam	Kembeyu	SG84	Trees	Gardens	Fruits	Cooked
Burseraceae	Santiria laevigata Blume	Kembayu tajuk	SG90	Trees	Gardens	Fruits	Raw
Cannabaceae	Trema cannabina var. cannabina	Gemi	SG80	Trees	Gardens	Fruits	Cooked
Chloranthaceae	Ascarina philippinensis C.B.Rob.	Sempe'k	SG74	Shrub	Indigenous Forests, Gardens	Leaves	Cooked
Clusiaceae	Garcinia parvifolia (Miq.) Miq.	Kenis	SG97	Trees	Indigenous Forests	Fruits, Leaves	Cooked
Clusiaceae	Garcinia linearis Pierre	Torok	SG98	Trees	Indigenous Forests	Fruits	Cooked
Convolvulaceae	Decalobanthus peltatus (L.) A.R.Simões & Staples	Komop	SG60	Lianas	Gardens	Leaves	Cooked
Convolvulaceae	Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.	Ubi rambat	SG62	Lianas	Gardens	Tubers, Leaves	Cooked
Costaceae	Hellenia speciosa (J.Koenig) S.R.Dutta	Obul-obul	SG6	Herbs	Settlements	Leaves	Cooked
Cucurbitaceae	Momordica denticulata Miq.	Fruits titi	SG15	Lianas	Settlements	Fruits	Raw
Dilleniaceae	Dillenia suffruticosa (Griff. ex Hook.f. & Thomson) Martelli	Daut dangin	SG19	Trees	Settlements, Indigenous Forests	Leaves, Flowers	Cooked
Dioscoreaceae	Dioscorea alata L.	Kribe' buntat	SG7	Lianas	Gardens	Tubers	Cooked
Dioscoreaceae	Dioscorea hispida Dennst.	Kribe' tangan	SG8	Lianas	Gardens	Tubers	Cooked
Euphorbiaceae	Elateriospermum tapos Blume	Ropi	SG70	Trees	Gardens	Fruits	Cooked
Fabaceae	Archidendron jiringa (Jack) I.C.Nielsen	Kadap	SG64	Trees	Indigenous Forests	Fruits	Cooked
Fabaceae	Spatholobus ferrugineus (Zoll. & Moritzi) Benth.	Kebedo'	SG71	Lianas	Gardens	Fruits	Cooked
Fagaceae	Lithocarpus conocarpus (Oudem.) Rehder	Pansi	SG91	Trees	Gardens	Fruits	Raw
Fagaceae	Castanopsis megacarpa Gamble	Keraci wow	SG106	Trees	Indigenous Forests	Fruits	Cooked
Gnetaceae	Gnetum leptostachyum Blume	Entebet	SG67	Trees	Indigenous Forests, Gardens	Fruits, Leaves	Raw, Cooked
Hypoxidaceae	Curculigo latifolia Dryand. ex W.T.Aiton	Roma'	SG31	Herbs	Settlements, Indigenous Forests	Fruits	Raw
Lamiaceae	Clerodendrum japonicum (Thunb.) Sweet	Empeya'k	SG32	Shrub	Settlements, Indigenous Forests	Fruits, Leaves	Cooked
Lamiaceae	Vitex pinnata L.	Leaves meruat	SG34	Trees	Settlements	Fruits, Leaves	Raw, Cooked
Lauraceae	Litsea accedens (Blume) Boerl.	Taak	SG20	Trees	Settlements	Leaves	Raw
	Caryodaphnopsis tonkinensis (Lecomte) Airy Shaw	Dout sonuk	SG52	Trees	Indigenous Forests	Leaves	Cooked
	Litsea elliptica Blume	Mejeh	SG100	Trees	Indigenous Forests	Leaves	Raw, Cooked
Malvaceae	Brownlowia ferruginea Kosterm.	Bronti'k	SG47	Trees	Indigenous Forests	Seeds	Cooked
Marantaceae	Donax canniformis (G.Forst.) K.Schum.	Bomban	SG103	Herbs	Indigenous Forests	Fruits	Raw
Melastomataceae	Bellucia pentamera Naudin	Jamu'k kompoh	SG12	Trees	Settlements	Fruits	Raw
Melastomataceae	Melastoma malabathricum L.	Dout risa'k	SG54	Shrub	Indigenous Forests	Fruits, Leaves	Raw, Cooked
Meliaceae	Lansium parasiticum (Osbeck) K.C.Sahni & Bennet	Ruku'	SG57	Trees	Indigenous Forests	Fruits	Raw
Meliaceae	Sandoricum koetjape (Burm.f.) Merr.	Situ	SG83	Trees	Gardens	Fruits	Raw
Menispermaceae	Parabaena megalocarpa Merr.	Kopiat	SG2	Lianas	Settlements	Leaves	Cooked
Moraceae	Artocarpus integer (Thunb.) Merr.	Tebudos, Kebedos	SG28	Trees	Settlements, Indigenous Forests	Fruits	Raw, Cooked, Fermentation
	Artocarpus odoratissimus Blanco	Terap	SG29	Trees	Settlements, Indigenous Forests	Fruits	Raw, Cooked
	Ficus variegata Blume	Ara	SG37	Trees	Settlements	Fruits	Raw
	Artocarpus sericicarpus F.M.Jarrett	Pruntat	SG46	Trees	Indigenous Forests	Fruits	Raw, Cooked
	Ficus grossularioides var. grossularioides	Kumpat	SG73	Trees	Indigenous Forests	Fruits, Leaves	Raw
	Artocarpus elasticus Reinw. ex Blume	Peet	SG87	Trees	Gardens	Fruits	Raw, Cooked
	Ficus uncinata (King) Becc.	Timu	92	Trees	Gardens	Fruits	Raw
	Artocarpus anisophyllus Miq.	Entowa	SG101	Trees	Indigenous Forests	Fruits	Raw, Cooked
Musaceae	Musa borneensis Becc.	Bera kera, Bera engkodat	SG30, SG107	Herbs	Settlements, Indigenous Forests	Flowers, ‘Palm cabbage’ or ‘leaf-bud’ (Umbut)	Cooked
Musaceae	Musa acuminata Colla	Pisang sumpak	SG77	Herbs	Swidden Fields	‘Palm cabbage’ or ‘leaf-bud’ (Umbut)	Cooked
Myrtaceae	Syzygium nervosum DC.	Bungkang	SG65	Trees	Indigenous Forests, Gardens	Fruits, Leaves	Raw, Cooked
Myrtaceae	Syzygium leptostemon (Korth.) Merr. & L.M.Perry	Singko'	SG89	Trees	Gardens	Fruits	Raw
Olacaceae	Erythropalum scandens Blume	Mika'	SG75	Lianas	Gardens	Leaves	Cooked
Olacaceae	Scorodocarpus borneensis (Baill.) Becc.	Kudur	SG109	Trees	Indigenous Forests	Fruits, Leaves, Bark, Stems	Cooked
Passifloraceae	Passiflora foetida L.	Sendani	SG9	Lianas	Settlements	Fruits	Raw
Phyllanthaceae	Baccaurea angulata Merr.	Gelumik	SG11	Trees	Settlements, Indigenous Forests	Fruits	Raw, Cooked
	Baccaurea motleyana (Müll.Arg.) Müll.Arg.	Rambai	SG22	Trees	Settlements, Indigenous Forests	Fruits	Raw
	Baccaurea bracteata Müll.Arg.	Rambai prenu'	SG81	Trees	Indigenous Forests	Fruits	Raw
	Baccaurea macrocarpa (Miq.) Müll.Arg.	Kurap	SG108	Trees	Gardens	Fruits	Raw
Poaceae	Gigantochloa balui K.M.Wong	Engkot buru	SG17	Bamboos	Settlements, Indigenous Forests	Buds	Cooked, Fermentation
Poaceae	Gigantochloa apus (Schult.f.) Kurz ex Munro	Engkot munti	SG18	Bamboos	Settlements, Indigenous Forests	Buds	Cooked, Fermentation
Polypodiaceae	Nephrolepis radicans (Burm.f.) Kuhn	Gerubu'	SG21	Ferns	Settlements, Swidden Fields	Inflorescences	Cooked
Polypodiaceae	Dryopteris cycadina (Franch. & Sav.) C.Chr.	Pekuh entawa	SG26	Ferns	Settlements, Indigenous Forests	Inflorescences	Cooked
Primulaceae	Embelia javanica A.DC.	Pelanuk	SG3	Lianas	Settlements	Leaves	Cooked
Putranjivaceae	Drypetes fusiformis Airy Shaw	Koko'	SG102	Trees	Indigenous Forests	Fruits	Raw
Rosaceae	Rubus moluccanus L.	Ngkurop	SG51	Shrub	Indigenous Forests	Fruits	Raw
Rubiaceae	Nauclea officinalis (Pierre ex Pit.) Merr. & Chun	Bengkal	SG63	Trees	Indigenous Forests	Leaves	Raw
	Uncaria cordata (Lour.) Merr.	Ngekah kluya'k	SG72	Lianas	Indigenous Forests, Gardens	Stems, Fruits	Raw
	Gardenia tubifera Wall.	Riba	SG76	Trees	Gardens	Leaves	Raw, Cooked
Sapindaceae	Lepisanthes alata (Blume) Leenh.	Kerumi	SG5	Trees	Settlements	Fruits	Raw
	Lepisanthes amoena (Hassk.) Leenh.	Nturi kemik	SG35	Trees	Settlements	Fruits, Leaves	Raw
	Pometia pinnata J.R.Forst. & G.Forst.	Krengah	SG48	Trees	Indigenous Forests	Fruits	Raw
	Nephelium laurinum Blume	Rement	SG66	Trees	Indigenous Forests, Gardens	Fruits	Raw
	Dimocarpus longan subsp. malesianus Leenh.	Bedara	SG79	Trees	Indigenous Forests	Fruits	Raw
	Nephelium cuspidatum Blume	Sangau	SG95	Trees	Gardens	Fruits	Raw
	Nephelium maingayi Hiern	Sibau	SG99	Trees	Indigenous Forests	Fruits	Raw
	Lepisanthes divaricata (Radlk.) Leenh.	Bletek sangau SG	SG104	Trees	Indigenous Forests	Fruits	Raw
Schizaeaceae	Lygodium circinnatum (Burm.f.) Sw.	Pekuh mohu	SG14	Ferns	Settlements, Indigenous Forests	Inflorescences	Cooked
Smilacaceae	Smilax odoratissima Blume	Renga'k	SG16	Lianas	Indigenous Forests	Fruits, Shoots	Raw, Cooked
Solanaceae	Solanum torvum Sw.	Tuip sibidah	SG10	Shrub	Settlements	Fruits	Raw, Cooked
Solanaceae	Physalis angulata L.	Sitop	SG69	Shrub	Gardens	Fruits, Leaves	Raw, Cooked
Urticaceae	Leucosyke capitellata (Poir.) Wedd.	Lidah katak, krangan	SG55, SG68	Trees	Indigenous Forests	Leaves	Cooked
Urticaceae	Poikilospermum suaveolens (Blume) Merr.	Mehrat	SG59	Lianas	Indigenous Forests	Stems	Raw
Zingiberaceae	Etlingera coccinea (Blume) S.Sakai & Nagam.	Ngkereh'	SG23	Herbs	Settlements, Indigenous Forests	Fruits, Flowers, ‘Palm cabbage’ or ‘leaf-bud’ (Umbut)	Raw, Cooked
	Globba tricolor Ridl.	Ngkereuh kesuh	SG24	Herbs	Settlements, Indigenous Forests	Fruits	Raw
	Etlingera elatior (Jack) R.M.Sm.	Kala'	SG25	Herbs	Settlements, Indigenous Forests	Fruits, Flowers, ‘Palm cabbage’ or ‘leaf-bud’ (Umbut)	Raw, Cooked
	Plagiostachys strobilifera (Baker) Ridl.	Murai	SG43	Herbs	Indigenous Forests	Fruits	Raw
	Hornstedtia havilandii (K.Schum.) K.Schum.	Puyak	SG44	Herbs	Indigenous Forests	Fruits	Raw, Cooked
	Hornstedtia reticulata (K.Schum.) K.Schum.	Pinyang	SG85	Herbs	Indigenous Forests, Gardens	Fruits, ‘Palm cabbage’ or ‘leaf-bud’ (Umbut)	Raw, Cooked

This research recorded 103 species of WEP belonging to 48 plant families in the Ketemenggungan Dayak Sisang Indigenous Territory. Among these, Arecaceae was the most dominant family, represented by 9 species. It was followed by Moraceae and Sapindaceae with 8 species each, Zingiberaceae with 6 species, and Aspleniaceae and Phyllanthaceae with 4 species each. Several families were represented by 3 species, namely Anacardiaceae, Lauraceae, and Rubiaceae. Other families, such as Burseraceae, Clusiaceae, Convolvulaceae, Dioscoreaceae, Fabaceae, Fagaceae, Lamiaceae, Melastomataceae, Meliaceae, Musaceae, Myrtaceae, Olacaceae, Poaceae, Polypodiaceae, Solanaceae, and Urticaceae contributed 2 species each. The remaining 21 families were represented by only 1 species, including Actinidiaceae, Annonaceae, Aquifoliaceae, Araceae, Asteraceae, Begoniaceae, Cannabaceae, Chloranthaceae, Costaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Dilleniaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Gnetaceae, Hypoxidaceae, Malvaceae, Marantaceae, Menispermaceae, Passifloraceae, Primulaceae, Putranjivaceae, Rosaceae, Schizaeaceae, and Smilacaceae.

Table 3

Plant Families, Number of Species, and Percentage Representation of WEP
Family	Number of Species	Percentage Representation
Actinidiaceae	1	0.97%
Anacardiaceae	3	2.91%
Annonaceae	1	0.97%
Aquifoliaceae	1	0.97%
Araceae	1	0.97%
Arecaceae	9	8.74%
Aspleniaceae	4	3.88%
Asteraceae	1	0.97%
Begoniaceae	1	0.97%
Burseraceae	2	1.94%
Cannabaceae	1	0.97%
Chloranthaceae	1	0.97%
Clusiaceae	2	1.94%
Convolvulaceae	2	1.94%
Costaceae	1	0.97%
Cucurbitaceae	1	0.97%
Dilleniaceae	1	0.97%
Dioscoreaceae	2	1.94%
Euphorbiaceae	1	0.97%
Fabaceae	2	1.94%
Fagaceae	2	1.94%
Gnetaceae	1	0.97%
Hypoxidaceae	1	0.97%
Lamiaceae	2	1.94%
Lauraceae	3	2.91%
Malvaceae	1	0.97%
Marantaceae	1	0.97%
Melastomataceae	2	1.94%
Meliaceae	2	1.94%
Menispermaceae	1	0.97%
Moraceae	8	7.77%
Musaceae	2	1.94%
Myrtaceae	2	1.94%
Olacaceae	2	1.94%
Passifloraceae	1	0.97%
Phyllanthaceae	4	3.88%
Poaceae	2	1.94%
Polypodiaceae	2	1.94%
Primulaceae	1	0.97%
Putranjivaceae	1	0.97%
Rosaceae	1	0.97%
Rubiaceae	3	2.91%
Sapindaceae	8	7.77%
Schizaeaceae	1	0.97%
Smilacaceae	1	0.97%
Solanaceae	2	1.94%
Urticaceae	2	1.94%
Zingiberaceae	6	5.83%
Family = 48	Spesies = 103	100%

Parts of Wild Edible Plants for Consumption

The Dayak Sisang community harvests various parts of wild edible plants (WEP) for consumption, including fruits, stems, seeds, flowers, shoots (pucuk), leaves, buds (tunas), umbels (‘Palm cabbage’ or ‘leaf-bud’ (Umbut)), bark (kulit), and inflorescences (ental) (Table 4). Among these, fruits are the most frequently consumed part, accounting for 46.60% of all recorded uses. This is followed by leaves (13.59%), inflorescences (ental, 6.80%), ‘Palm cabbage’ or ‘leaf-bud’ (Umbut) (4.85%), and tubers (2.91%). Other plant parts, such as buds (1.94%), and stems, seeds, flowers, bark, and shoots (each 0.97%) are less commonly utilized. Interestingly, a significant proportion of species provide multiple edible parts. For instance, some plants are consumed both for their fruits and leaves (9.71%), while others offer combinations such as fruits, flowers, and ‘Palm cabbage’ or ‘leaf-bud’ (Umbut)s (1.94%).

Table 4

Number of Species by Plant Parts Used
Parts Of WEP	Frequently Consumed	Percentage
Stems	1	0.97%
Stems, Fruits	1	0.97%
Seeds	1	0.97%
Fruits	48	46.60%
Fruits, Flowers, ‘Palm cabbage’ or ‘leaf-bud’	2	1.94%
Fruits, Leaves	10	9.71%
Fruiyts, Leaves, Bark	1	0.97%
Fruits, Shoots	1	0.97%
Fruits, Leaf-Bud	5	4.85%
Flowers, Umbels	1	0.97%
Leaves	14	13.59%
Leaves, Flowers	1	0.97%
inflorescences	7	6.80%
Buds	2	1.94%
Tumbers	3	2.91%
Tumbers, Leaves	1	0.97%
Leaf-Bud	4	3.88%
Total	103	100%

Preferensi Gastronomi

This study revealed that the Dayak Sisang Indigenous community shows a strong preference for consuming wild edible plants (WEP) directly or raw (36.89%) (Fig. 4). Several plant families are commonly eaten raw, including Anacardiaceae, Arecaceae, Moraceae, Phyllanthaceae, Sapindaceae, and Zingiberaceae. In addition, the community also possesses extensive knowledge of processing WEP through cooking, either as main ingredients or as culinary enhancers with aromatic and flavoring functions (35.92%). Plant families that are typically cooked include Aspleniaceae, Dioscoreaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Fabaceae, Musaceae, Olacaceae, and Polypodiaceae. A considerable number of WEP are prepared according to more than one gastronomic preference (27.18%), meaning they can be consumed both raw and cooked. Families such as Arecaceae, Asteraceae, Gnetaceae, Lamiaceae, Lauraceae, Melastomataceae, Moraceae, Myrtaceae, Phyllanthaceae, Rubiaceae, Smilacaceae, Solanaceae, and Zingiberaceae were reported to be consumed in both ways. Furthermore, the Dayak Sisang also have knowledge of WEP fermentation. For example, Artocarpus integer (Thunb.) Merr., locally known as Tebudos or Kebedos from the Moraceae family, can be eaten raw, processed into snacks, or fermented into a traditional product called pekasam.

Habitats of Wild Edible Plants

The interviews with informants revealed that the Dayak Sisang possess detailed ecological knowledge in dividing their indigenous territory into distinct zones according to function. Broadly, there are four zones: settlements, swidden fields, gardens, and indigenous forest. Settlements are residential areas that serve as living spaces and social environments, where houses, schools, and places of worship are located. This area functions as the center of community life, where people gather, live together, and utilize the environment to sustain their daily activities. The settlement zone is characterized by residential houses, educational facilities, and places of worship. The swidden fields are designated for shifting cultivation, usually cultivated for one agricultural cycle and then left fallow for 5–10 years before reuse. The gardens are managed for replanting and cultivation of various fruit trees and rubber trees tapped for latex, resembling secondary forests in structure. Meanwhile, the indigenous forest is a sacred landscape with deep spiritual, historical, and cultural significance that ties the Dayak Sisang to their ancestors. This forest cannot be converted into gardens or swidden fields, as it is protected and revered. The findings of this research indicate that 66.99% of wild edible plants (WEP) are found in indigenous forests, 11.65% in settlements, 20.39% in gardens, and 0.97% in swidden fields (Fig. 5).

The Sisang Dayak customary forest in West Kalimantan shows how customary-based management systems play a role as a complex form of natural agroforestry. The dominance of families such as Arecaceae, Moraceae, and Sapindaceae shows that indigenous forests serve as the leading providers of food, medicine, and material resources, which underpin the sustainability of traditional agroforestry systems (Rendón-Sandoval et al. 2020). Of the 103 species of edible wild plants, trees are the most dominant with 52 species, followed by lianas (12 species), herbs (12 species), palms (9 species), shrubs (8 species), ferns (7 species), and bamboos (2 species) (Fig. 6). The predominance of these trees signifies the characteristics of natural agroforestry, where the canopy layer creates a humid microclimate, maintains soil moisture, and provides habitat for pollinating fauna. This layered vegetation structure resembles a multi-strata system of agroforestry that maintains ecosystem productivity and stability, improves carbon sequestration, water retention, and reduces soil erosion (Gauly et al. 2025). Multiple woody species such as Mangifera odorata and Baccaurea motleyana indicate strong ecological and economic integration, confirming that dual-function tree vegetation is at the core of indigenous agroforestry systems (Rumondang et al. 2025). Thus, the Dayak Sisang customary forest is a concrete example of "natural agroforestry" that maintains biodiversity while sustaining a subsistence economy.

In addition, the spatial pattern consisting of settlements, shifting fields, gardens, and sacred forests in the Dayak Sisang customary territory reflects the ecological zoning system passed down from generation to generation and functions as a model of traditional agroforestry. The distribution of WEP shows that customary forests are the richest areas of species, with 69 or 66.99% of the total 103 WEP species found in the Ketemenggungan Sisang customary area (fig.5). This phenomenon confirms that forested areas managed based on customary norms have an important role in maintaining flora diversity and facilitating natural regeneration (Sari et al. 2023). Customary norms such as the prohibition of cutting down trees in sacred locations and restrictions on harvest times are forms of local environmental governance that ensure the sustainability of forest resources (Jim 2025). Table 5 shows the relationship between land use zones and the distribution of WEP species.

Table 5 Ecological and Social Functions of the Ketemenggungan Sisang Customary Territory Zone

Customary Territory Zone	Number of WEP Species	Percentage (%)	Dominant Plant Type	Ecological and Social Functions
Gardens	21	20.39%	Fruit trees and shrubs	Secondary agroforestry, combination of fruit trees and crop rotation
Settlements	12	11.65%	Herbs and shrubs	Daily consumption, medicinal plants and household vegetables
Indigenous Forests	69	66.99%	Wild trees and palms	The main source of biodiversity; Sacred Areas and Natural Conservation
Swidden Fields	1	0.97%	Seasonal vegetables	Seasonal use, traditional moving fields
Total	103

Indigenous territory represents an integrated unit of both biological and social ecosystems, embodying the interconnectedness between indigenous communities and natural resources. It sustains daily life while also serving as a legacy for future generations. Indigenous forests, in particular, constitute a vital resource for ensuring the welfare of indigenous peoples (Jayantiari et al. 2024). These forests play a crucial role as ecosystems for endemic and endangered species, while also safeguarding the ethnobotanical practices of local communities. Furthermore, indigenous forests function as important sources of wild edible plants (WEP), which are not cultivated but provide rich plant diversity (Shah et al. 2025; Undaharta et al. 2025). Beyond biodiversity, they also contribute economic value as sources of income (Mardiyanto et al. 2024), and deliver critical ecosystem services, such as mitigating global warming (Susilowati et al. 2025).

The diversity of WEP has significant potential as food sources for the Dayak Sisang Indigenous People (MHA), reflecting functional redundancy in local subsistence strategies. For example, Amorphophallus paeoniifolius (Dennst.) Nicolson, locally known as Mayo (Fig. 7), was found to grow abundantly in the area. The Dayak Sisang harvest its corms for cooking, and according to their botanical memory (Ryan 2013), during times of food scarcity, articularly when rice harvests fail, they rely on Mayo as a staple substitute for rice. Recent research indicates that A. paeoniifolius functions as a valuable food source, providing carbohydrates, proteins, minerals, vitamins, resistant starch, and dietary fiber (Singh et al. 2024). A biochemical analysis conducted by (Sarkar et al. 2025) further revealed starch concentrations ranging from 13.90–17.89%, protein content between 1.08–1.95% (with levels above 1.5% considered nutritionally significant), the highest antioxidant activity (17.45 μg/ml; 50% inhibition), Fe content of 7.45 mg/100 g, and the lowest total oxalate concentration (29.70 ppm). These findings underscore that WEP diversity has critical implications for food security (Asfaw et al. 2023).

Besides their utilization as food sources, WEP also provide opportunities for income generation (Tadesse et al. 2025). Both WEP and forest-based foods create economic opportunities for Indigenous communities due to their high trade value (Trimanto et al. 2025). Ojha and Devkota (2023) reported that in Nepal, Blechnum orientale L. is not only consumed as food but is also commonly sold in local markets. Similarly, in the Ketemenggungan Sisang Indigenous Territory, six fern species belonging to the families Aspleniaceae, Polypodiaceae, and Schizaeaceae were documented. In the case of Kalimantan, six out of these seven species are frequently found in vegetable markets, where they are harvested from forests and sold by local communities (table 6). Diplazium esculentum (Retz.) Sw. dari Family Aspleniaceae, Nephrolepis radicans (Burm.f.) Kuhn Family Polypodiaceae, dan Stenochlaena palustris (Burm.f.) Bedd. Family Aspleniaceae menunjukan RFC yang tinggi rata-rata 96.85 persen disebutkan oleh informan dapat dipanen dan dijual.

Several species, such as Baccaurea motleyana (rambai), Mangifera odorata (kuini), and Artocarpus integer (tebudos), are seasonal commodities sold in local markets. Other varieties, such as Etlingera elatior (Kala') and Salacca zalacca (Ngkap), serve as high-value culinary ingredients and ground cover plants that prevent erosion. In a socio-economic context, these plants strengthen household food security, especially during the famine season, and provide additional income without damaging forests (table 7).

Table 7. Socio-economic analysis of selected wild food plants (WEP) in the Sisang Dayak Customary Forest

Spesies / Famili	Local name	Socio-economic function	Ecological value	Reference
Baccaurea motleyana (Phyllanthaceae)	Rambai	Seasonal fruits are sold in the market; Family consumption	Shade and soil moisture storage	Navia et al., 2025
Mangifera odorata (Anacardiaceae)	Kuini	Fruit consumption and sale; Symbols of kinship in rituals	High canopy trees, habitat for birds and bees	Akhter et al., 2022
Artocarpus integer (Moraceae)	Tebudos	Fresh and fermented consumption (pekasam)	Endemic trees, enriching biomass	Nelson et al. 2023
Etlingera elatior (Zingiberaceae)	Kala’	Spices and traditional medicines; Gender roles (female collectors)	Ground cover, preventing erosion	Jamil et al., 2025
Salacca zalacca (Arecaceae)	Ngkap	Seasonal economic commodities; Family Management	Water retention on slopes, habitat of microfauna	Mazumdar et al. 2019

Fruits, young leaves, and ‘Palm cabbage’ or ‘leaf-bud’ collection activities are carried out collectively and are oriented towards subsistence needs, not large commercial ones. Thus, customary forests are not only providers of food and medicine but also social arenas where indigenous peoples reproduce ecological knowledge, environmental ethics, and cultural identities. Indigenous knowledge of when and how to harvest each part of the crop reveals the ecological dimension of conservation. For example, fruits are only taken when fully ripe so the seeds can germinate, while the leaves and ‘Palm cabbage’ or ‘leaf-bud’ are picked selectively. This approach aligns with the principle of "conservation through use," which is now the central paradigm of sustainable agroforestry (Dako et al. 2025; Tokannou et al. 2025). Recognition of indigenous knowledge is a fundamental requirement for the sustainability of tropical agroforestry (Sabarivasan and Gokul 2025). In the Indonesian context, strengthening the position of the Sisang Dayak indigenous people and the ethnobotanical documentation of WEP is a cultural preservation and a national ecological strategy to contain the rate of degradation of customary forests.

Besides its role in providing Wild Edible Plants (WEP), the Ketemenggungan Sisang Indigenous Territory also delivers essential forest ecosystem services, covering an area of approximately 651.00 hectares. The Indigenous forest functions as a provisioning system for natural resources that are managed and utilized by humans. In addition to food, it also provides medicines, clean water, and non-timber forest products (FAO 2020). The dominant life form of WEP in the Indigenous forest consists of trees (50%), which contribute to regulating ecosystem services. The forest plays a crucial role in climate regulation through carbon dioxide absorption, maintaining the hydrological cycle, and reducing the risks of natural disasters (IPCC 2021: Gresya et al. 2019). Furthermore, Indigenous forests support a wide range of ecological processes, including ecosystem stability, water provision, soil fertility, and the maintenance of habitats for biodiversity. Beyond ecological benefits, Indigenous forests also hold significant cultural value as sites for traditional practices that contribute to long-term conservation outcomes.

The protection of Indigenous peoples and their territories is closely aligned with the conservation of WEP. Local knowledge, inherited from ancestral traditions and rooted in cultural values, has long served as a tool for maintaining environmental sustainability (Jim 2025). The findings of this study highlight that Indigenous communities are not merely passive beneficiaries but active agents who should be given due recognition in international law for their role in preserving biodiversity. Indigenous peoples possess the capability to manage their rights over natural resources in their surroundings, expressing this through diverse practices in agriculture, forest management, and the protection of sacred landscapes. Ensuring justice for Indigenous societies is inseparable from ensuring justice for the environment. Thus, the recognition of Indigenous territories is inherently an act of protecting biodiversity and sustaining the environment for future generations.

Research conducted in the Ketemanggungan Sisang Indigenous Forest represents the first effort to systematically document WEP in the area. The use of an ethnographic approach, through perceptions and botanical memories, also marks an initial attempt to study natural resources within Indigenous forests. This study has proven valuable in highlighting the importance of protecting Indigenous territories, particularly in Indonesia. Local knowledge of WEP is essential for ensuring environmental sustainability, as the availability and diversity of plants within Indigenous territories serve as indicators of the interdependent relationship between humans and nature. However, deforestation, including the conversion of land into oil palm plantations, poses a serious threat to the survival of Indigenous territories. Therefore, efforts to raise community awareness of their role in protecting the natural environment must receive greater attention.

This research also revealed that 14 species (13.59%), consisting of 1–3 species each, are Borneo endemics. Further studies are required to conduct more detailed documentation of these species. A concerning issue, however, is the potential loss of traditional knowledge among future generations, largely due to the dominance of the Indonesian language over local languages. Informants aged 15–21 showed limited ability to recall plant names in the Sisang language (the local language). Moreover, there was a tendency among younger respondents to struggle in providing adequate descriptions of plant characteristics, such as distinguishing between trees and shrubs. This situation highlights the need for further research exploring the relationship between cultural elements, such as language, and botanical knowledge.

Acknowledgements

The authors sincerely thank all informants in Ketemenggungan Dayak Sisang for sharing their ethnobotanical knowledge. Special thanks are also extended to the Research and Community Service Institute of Tanjungpura University for facilitating this research, and to the Institut Dayakologi as a field research partner. Thanks to Aprillan Audi Saputra for helping photograph the specimens.

Author contributions: EE: conceptualization, data collection and curation, writing—original draft, review, editing, and funding administration. AA: data collection and curation. DM: conceptualization, methodology, writing—review and editing. AR: data collection and curation, plant identification. SAZA: data collection and curation, plant identification. KG: data collection.

Availability of data and materials: All data obtained from informants during the study are included in this manuscript.

Funding: This research was funded by the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia, under Grant No. 115/C3/DT.05.00/PL/2025.

Ethics approval and consent to participate: The project was approved by the Research and Community Service Institute of Tanjungpura University under the number: 7888/UN22.10/PT.01.03/2025. Prior informed consent was obtained individually from all informants before the interviews were conducted.

Consent for publication: Not applicable, as no personal data are included in this article.

Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Adelisa SN, Sari LDK, Ciptaningrum BA (2023) Kajian pengetahuan lokal dan nilai kepentingan budaya tumbuhan berguna masyarakat sekitar KKI Kebun Raya Purwodadi. Semnas Biologi XI Tahun 2023 FMIPA Universitas Negeri Semarang, Semarang:136–143.
Afandi A, Ningsih K, Junanto T (2022) Tren riset tanaman obat di Indonesia dari tahun 2011–2021: analisis bibliometrik menggunakan Vosviewer. Klorofil: Jurnal Ilmu Biologi dan Terapan 6(2):14–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.30821/kfl:jibt.v6i2.12043
Afentina P, McShane P, Wright W (2020) Ethnobotany, rattan agroforestry, and conservation of ecosystem services in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Agrofor Syst 94:639–650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-019-00428-x
Afiff SA, Rachman NF (2019) Institutional activism: seeking customary forest rights recognition from within the Indonesian state. Asia Pac J Anthropol 20(5):453–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/14442213.2019.1670245
Ajiningrum PS, Munawaroh E, Oktaviani D, Saparita R, Hewindati YT, Purwanto Y (2025) Ethnobotanical knowledge of diversity and utilization of plants among Dayak Lundayeh in Malinau, North Kalimantan, Indonesia. Ethnobot Res Appl 31(60):1–10. https://ethnobotanyjournal.org/index.php/era/article/view/6987
Akhter S, McDonald M, Jashimuddin M, Bashirul-Al-Mamun M, Sarker P (2022) Agroforestry potential of a wild mango species (Mangifera sylvatica Roxb.). Trees For People 7:100194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2022.100194
Ali FSM, Sommer JH, Borgemeister C, Biber-Freudenberger L (2025) Participatory and non-participatory forest ecosystem services valuation in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic literature review. Discov Sustain 6(199):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-00907-5
Asfaw A, Lulekal E, Bekele T, Debella A, Tessema S, Meresa A, Debebe E (2023) Ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants and implications for food security. Trees For People 14:100453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2023.100453
Azzahra AS, Mulyanto D (2024) Gathering edible wild plants in a mountain village of West Java, Indonesia: diversity of species, utilizations, and local perceptions. J Trop Ethnobiol 2(2):79–101.
Bedner A, Arizona Y (2019) Adat in Indonesian land law: a promise for the future or a dead end? Asia Pac J Anthropol 20(5):416–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/14442213.2019.1670246
Chaudhary S, Achhami H, Rai E, Shyaula M, Ghimire M, Adhikari A, Shrestha I, Karki N, Pachhai BB, Mahato L, Bhatt LR (2025) Diversity and spatiotemporal trends of wild edible plants in Nepal: a review on wild edible plants contribution to food security. Flora 152853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2025.152853
Dako FX, Ranta F, Ora YANR, Benu Y, Paga B, Aramak FS, Pujiono E (2025) Traditional agroforestry models based on local knowledge in the Mount Mutis–Timau Highlands, Timor Island, Indonesia. J Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Alam dan Lingkungan 15(2):192–205. https://doi.org/10.29244/jpsl.15.2.192
Dawson N, Carvalho WD, Bezerra JS, Todeschini F, Tabarelli M, Mustin K (2023) Protected areas and the neglected contribution of Indigenous peoples and local communities: struggles for environmental justice in the Caatinga dry forest. People Nat 5(6):1739–1755. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10288
Dhiaulhaq A, McCarthy JF (2020) Indigenous rights and agrarian justice framings in forest land conflicts in Indonesia. Asia Pac J Anthropol 21(1):34–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/14442213.2019.1670243
Efriani E, Dewantara JA, Pramulya M, Supriyanto S, Ruliyansyah A, Azahra SD (2024) Resolving conflicts between corporate cultivation rights and Indigenous community property rights: a study of abandoned land in Indonesian palm oil plantations. J Glob Innov Agric Sci 12(3):845–854. https://doi.org/10.22194/JGIAS/24.12
Efriani E, Dewantara JA, Utami D, Listyaningrum I (2020) Dayak Tamambaloh traditional ecology. Environ Sci Bull 18(3):503–514. https://doi.org/10.14710/jil.18.3.503-514
Efriani E, Gunawan B, Garna JK (2019) Desain kosmologi sebagai konservasi alam pada komunitas Dayak Tamambaloh di Kalimantan Barat. Studi Desain 2(2):66–74.
Fa JE, Watson JEM, Leiper I, Potapov P, Evans TD, Burgess ND, Molnár Z, Fernández-Llamazares A, Duncan T, Wang S, Austin BJ, Jonas H, Robinson CJ, Malmer P, Zander KK, Jackson MV, Ellis E, Brondizio ES, Garnett ST (2020) Importance of Indigenous peoples’ lands for the conservation of intact forest landscapes. Front Ecol Environ 18(3):135–140. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2148
FAO (2020) Global forest resources assessment 2020: main report. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. https://openknowledge.fao.org/items/ac91b7b4-87eb-41eb-bdb1-d1c31fe249a8
Gairola S, Singh K, Kumar P, Kumar B, Sharma YP (2021) Wild edible plants of Paddar Valley, Jammu Division, Jammu and Kashmir, India. Ethnobot Res Appl 22:1–21. https://ethnobotanyjournal.org/index.php/era/article/view/3147
Gauly SK, Hauschild ME, Dix BA, Gattinger A, Niether W (2025) Food forests and forest gardens: definition, practical application and role in sustainable development. Agrofor Syst 99(224):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-025-01310-9
Gonçalves CBQ, Schlindwein MM, Martinelli GDC (2021) Agroforestry systems: a systematic review focusing on traditional indigenous practices, food and nutrition security, economic viability, and the role of women. Sustain (Switz) 13(20):11397. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011397
Gurbanova L (2025) Ethnobotanical studies of wild edible plants in some regions of Azerbaijan. Ethnobot Res Appl 31:1–17. https://ethnobotanyjournal.org/index.php/era/article/view/7170
IWGIA (2025) The Indigenous world 2025: Indonesia. International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, Copenhagen. https://iwgia.org/en/indonesia/5660-iw-2025-indonesia.html
Jamil M, Adnan A, Irawan H, Navia ZI, Suwardi AB (2025) Wild spices and their ecosystem service contributions in smallholder agroforestry systems of Aceh, Indonesia. Agrofor Syst 99(170):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-025-01273-x
Jayantiari GAMR, Arjawa IGPBS, Rebeiro L, Paquita JA (2024) Forming legal culture in customary forest management: local wisdom approach of customary law communities. Udayana J Law Cult 8(1):67–82. https://doi.org/10.24843/UJLC.2024.v08.i01.p04
Jers LOT, Efriani E, Jalil A, Alias A, Ashmarita A (2025) From nomads to sedentary: the role of coastal reclamation in the socio-economic transformation of the Bajo people on Wawonii Island. J Hum Behav Soc Environ 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2025.2537666
Jim C, Xie CY (2025) Where culture merges with conservation: indigenous wisdom preserving Jingmai’s ancient tea forests and heritage trees. Agrofor Syst 99(259):1-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-025-01366-7
Kumar A, Kumar S, Komal R, Ramchiary N, Singh P (2021) Role of traditional ethnobotanical knowledge and indigenous communities in achieving sustainable development goals. Sustain (Switz) 13(6):3062. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063062
Mardiyanto A, Sianipar CPM, Shibata S (2024) Forest ecosystem services and local communities neighboring Biha Resort in Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park, Southern Sumatra, Indonesia. Asian J For 8(1):18–30. https://doi.org/10.13057/asianjfor/r080102
Mazumdar P, Pratama H, Lau SE, Teo CH, Harikrishna JA (2019) Biology, phytochemical profile and prospects for snake fruit: an antioxidant-rich fruit of South East Asia. Trends Food Sci Technol 91:147–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2019.06.017
Moran EF (2017) People and nature: an introduction to human ecological relations. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Mourya NR, Bargali K, Bargali SS (2019) Impacts of Coriaria nepalensis colonization on vegetation structure and regeneration dynamics in a mixed conifer forest of Indian Central Himalaya. J For Res 30(1):305–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-018-0613-x
Mulyanto D, Iskandar BS, Iskandar J, Indrawardana I, Aufa AA (2023) Ethnobotanical analysis of phytonyms and plant-related glosses mentioned in Bujangga Manik, a pre-Islamic Sundanese text (15th century Java, Indonesia). Reinwardtia 22(2):131–143. https://doi.org/10.55981/reinwardtia.2023.4608 https://biologyjournal.brin.go.id/index.php/reinwardtia/article/view/527/485
Nafayu YHD, Pratama ANW, Josafat A, Raharjo AM, Triatmoko B, Nawiyanto N, Wangchuk P, Keller PA, Nugraha AS (2025) Bioprospecting medicinal plants of Centhini: Javanese ancient manuscript. Ethnobot Res Appl 31:1–42. https://doi.org/10.32859/era.31.66.1-42
Navia ZI, Suwardi AB, Baihaqi B, Efriani E, Irawan H, Manguntungi B (2025) Diversity, utilization, and sustainable management of Baccaurea spp. in agroforestry systems of West Sulawesi, Indonesia. Agrofor Syst 99(131):1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-025-01230-8
Nelson J, Noweg GT, Jusoh I, Philip B, Tuen AA, Judi S (2023) The diversity of native tree species from Bung Jagoi community forests, Bau, Sarawak and their potential for reforestation. Int J Environ Stud 80(1):51–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2022.2044696
Neo L (2025) The endemic plant genera of Borneo: a synoptic appraisal. Sandakania 26:1–75.
Niko N, Widianingsih I, Sulaeman M, Fedryansyah M, Rahmaniah SE, Efriani E, Atem A, Wahyudi H, Solina E, Jitprakong P (2024) Guardians of the green: exploring the forest management wisdom of Dayak Benawan women in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. J Glob Innov Agric Sci 12:38. https://doi.org/10.22194/JGIAS/24.1261
Ojha R, Devkota HP (2023) A note on an edible fern of Nepal: Blechnum orientale L. Ethnobot Res Appl 25:1–4. https://doi.org/10.32859/era.25.52.1-4
Panjaitan RGP, Titin T, Afandi A, Ningsih K, Wahyuni ES, Fajri H, Yuniarti A, Tenriawaru AB, Yeni LF, Aprilianti M (2023) The utilization of medicinal plants local wisdom of the Salako Dayak tribal community in Kaliau Village, Sambas District. J Pijar Mipa 18(6):929–937. https://doi.org/10.29303/jpm.v18i6.5744
Prahesty DYS, Adibowo A, Suharjito D (2025) Land use change and indigenous knowledge systems in the Tampun Juah customary forest: implications for resilience and cultural sustainability. BIO Web Conf 175:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/202517501001
Rendón-Sandoval FJ, Casas A, Moreno-Calles AI, Torres-García I, García-Frapolli E (2020) Traditional agroforestry systems and conservation of native plant diversity of seasonally dry tropical forests. Sustain 12(11):4600. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114600
Rumondang AL, Yulizah Y, Rahajoe JS, Adman B, Maharani R, Rayadin Y, Mukhlisi M, Pratama BA, Rahmawati K, Lestari VB, Susanti R, Atikah TD, Wibisono Y, Alhamd L (2025) Conserving native Kalimantan species: the role of agroforestry in biodiversity conservation and carbon storage. Trees For People 20:100891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2025.100891
Ryan JC (2013) Botanical memory: exploring emotional recollections of native flora in the southwest of Western Australia. Emotion Space Soc 8(1):27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2012.09.001
Sabarivasan R, Gokul S (2025) Mapping the global scientific landscape of indigenous knowledge in agroforestry systems: a bibliometric review. Agrofor Syst 99(233):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-025-01333-2
Safkaur O, Pangayow B, Hutajulu H, Hanasbey L (2025) The role of digital green accounting and environment performance on forest sustainable development goals: a case study on customary forest in Papua. Int J Data Netw Sci 9:677–688. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijdns.2024.7.011
Saraan M, Harahap RH, Hilmi E, Sibarani R, Fujiwara T (2025) Ecological analysis of tree-strata plants in the Pandumaan Sipituhuta customary forest area. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 1452:1–9. 012032. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1452/1/012032
Sari RR, Priyadarshini R, Rozendaal DMA, Saputra D, Hairiah K, van Noordwijk M (2023) Tree diversity and social–ecological resilience of agroforestry after volcanic ash deposition in Indonesia. Sustain Sci 18:2735–2753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01400-6
Sarkar M, Gandhi K, Singh S, Varshney N, Patil H, Patel B, Chakraborty B, Patel K, Karmakar N (2025) Nutritional and antinutritional profiling of Indian elephant foot yam (Amorphophallus paeoniifolius (Dennst.) Nicolson) genotypes: breeding potential of Indian elephant foot yam genotypes focusing their agro-morphological traits. Vegetos 38(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42535-025-01224-y
Servin J, Moseley WG (2023) The hidden safety net: wild and semi-wild plant consumption and dietary diversity among women farmers in southwestern Burkina Faso. Afr Geogr Rev 42(4):483–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/19376812.2022.2074481
Shah A, Haidar S, Shah GM, Rehman S, Ali N, Alam J, Waheed F, Ali F, Hussain W (2025) Ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants traditionally used by the inhabitants of Lalku Valley, District Swat, Pakistan. Ethnobot Res Appl 30:1–22. https://doi.org/10.32859/era.30.1.1-22
Singh B, Kaur S, Kaur A (2024) Bioactive chemicals and biological activities of elephant foot yam (Amorphophallus paeoniifolius (Dennst.) Nicolson) In: Murthy, H.N., Paek, K.Y., Park, SY. (eds) Bioactive Compounds in the Storage Organs of Plants. Reference Series in Phytochemistry. Springer, Cham.:165–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44746-4_8
Susilowati A, Lisnawati Y, Rachmat HH, Kurniawan H, Adinugroho WC, Imanuddin R, Sudrajat DJ, Dharmawan IWS, Iqbal M, Fahmi S, Nugraha LM, Novriyanti E, Sutrisno E, Siswanto AB (2025) Conserving biodiversity, carbon, and community values in a fragmented landscape. Glob J Environ Sci Manag 11(3):1057–1078. https://doi.org/10.22034/gjesm.2025.03.11
Suwardi AB, Navia ZI, Sutrisno IH, Elisa H, Efriani E (2025) Ethnobotany of ritual plants in Malay culture: a case study of the Sintang community, Indonesia. Ethnobot Res Appl 30:1–35. https://doi.org/10.32859/era.30.67.1-35
Tadesse D, Masresha G, Lulekal E, Alemu A (2025) Ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants in Metema and Quara Districts, northwestern Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 21(7):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-025-00761-9
Tardío J, Pardo-de-Santayana M (2008) Cultural importance indices: a comparative analysis based on the useful wild plants of Southern Cantabria (Northern Spain). Econ Bot 62(1):24–39
Thomas E, Vandebroek I, Damme PV (2007) What works in the field? A comparison of different interviewing methods in ethnobotany with special reference to the use of photographs. Econ Bot 61(4):376–384. https://doi.org/10.1663/0013-0001(2007)61[376:WWITFA]2.0.CO;2
Tokannou IET, Sanogo S, Valère K, Achille S, Sèdoami H, Dogbo F (2025) Cultural and socio-economic drivers of conservation and cultivation of the cola nut tree (Cola nitida) in Benin. Agrofor Syst 99(261):1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-025-01363-w
Tovar JG, Barletti JPS, Larson AM, Barnes G, Tucker CM (2021) Can multistakeholder forums empower Indigenous and local communities and promote forest conservation? A comparative analysis of territorial planning in two Brazilian states with contrasting contexts. Conserv Sci Pract 3(1):1-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.326
Trimanto T, Fauziah F, Fiqa AP, Wicaksono H, Gunawan G, Riefani MK, Sujarwo E, Soendjoto MA (2025) Ethnobotanical and ecological perspectives on local fruits in South Kalimantan: cultivation, trade, and conservation. Ethnobot Res Appl 31:1–37. https://ethnobotanyjournal.org/index.php/era/article/view/6853
Turner NJ (1988) The importance of a rose: evaluating the cultural significance of plants in Thompson and Lillooet Interior Salish. Am Anthropol 90(2):272–290. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1988.90.2.02a00020
Undaharta NKE, Martini F, Wee AKS (2025) Comparable biodiversity and demographic structure between sacred groves and protected forests with Dipterocarpus hasseltii reveal conservation value of customary forests in Bali, Indonesia. Biodivers Conserv 34:3147–3162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-024-02885-y
Ungirwalu A, Mansoben JR, Runtuboi YY, Fatem SM, Peday MH, Marwa J, Maryudi A (2025) The fall of the kings: power relations and dynamics in Papua’s Indigenous community in forest resource management. For Policy Econ 172:103424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103424
Wangchuk P (2018) Therapeutic applications of natural products in herbal medicines, biodiscovery programs, and biomedicine. J Biol Act Prod Nat 8(1):1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/22311866.2018.1426495
Yance A, Wicaksono MT, Vel J (2019) The role of indigeneity NGOs in the legal recognition of adat communities and customary forests in Indonesia. Asia Pac J Anthropol 20(5):487–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/14442213.2019.1670241

Table 6 is available in the Supplementary Files section

No competing interests reported.

Table6.docx

Download PDF

Reviewers agreed at journal
29 Dec, 2025
Reviewers agreed at journal
28 Dec, 2025
Reviews received at journal
08 Nov, 2025
Reviewers agreed at journal
04 Nov, 2025
Reviewers agreed at journal
29 Oct, 2025
Reviewers invited by journal
28 Oct, 2025
Editor assigned by journal
24 Oct, 2025
Submission checks completed at journal
22 Oct, 2025
First submitted to journal
20 Oct, 2025

You are reading this latest preprint version

Customary Forests as Models of Traditional Agroforestry: Ethnobotany of Wild Edible Plants in the Dayak Sisang Forest, Indonesia

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Data Analysis

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Table

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1