Floristic composition of wild forage plants in the region

Local residents furnished information on 73 forage plants by their local names, which we further investigated, identifying 116 distinct wild forage plant species. These 116 plants belong to 21 families, all classified under angiosperms (Table 2). Among these, two families belong to monocotyledons: Poaceae and Liliaceae. Notably, Poaceae is the most prolific family, offering 22 forage grass plants, along with two plants suitable for forage utensils and grasses (Neotrinia splendens (Trin.) M.Nobis, P.D.Gudkova & A.Nowak and Achnatherum caragana (Trin.) Nevski), and one plant exclusively used for forage utensils (Achnatherum inebrians (Hance) Keng). Liliaceae also presents six forage grass plants, though they are relatively scarce. Of these, only two Allium species are widely distributed and also serve as wild vegetables for local residents. Dicotyledons are represented by 19 families and 84 species, prominently featuring Fabaceae and Asteraceae. In particular, we identified 24 wild forage plants in Asteraceae, second only to Poaceae, while Fabaceae presented 15 wild forage plants. Remarkably, Amaranthaceae plants also demonstrated notable performance.

Table 2 Inventory of forage plants in the study area

Although we encountered monocotyledonous plants in the area, we regrettably did not gather any information regarding their use as forage grasses. Examples include Ephedraceae plants and Pinus plants. It is possible that the scent of these plants correlates with their unpopularity among animals. Additionally, we noted significant variation in the information regarding wild forage grasses provided by informants from different villages. This discrepancy appears directly linked to their respective environments, particularly in areas where they graze or collect forage grasses daily.

Ecological types and distribution of pastures

The pastures in this area are predominantly comprises four types: farmland pastures, desert pastures, dry riverbed pastures, and mountain pastures. Farmland pastures rely on natural precipitation or irrigation from the Yellow River, supporting the growth of grasses from the Poaceae family and leguminous plants (Fig. 4A). Desert pastures predominantly feature plants from the Asteraceae family, such as Artemisia and Aster altaicus Willd (Fig. 4B). Dry riverbed pastures are characterized by species from the Stipa genus (needlegrasses) and leguminous plants from the Astragalus genus (Fig. 4C). Mountain pastures harbor vegetation primarily composed of Bistorta vivipara (L.) Delarbre and Juniperus procumbens (Siebold ex Endl.) Miq (Fig. 4D).

Fig. 4

Different ecological types of pastures. A Farmland-based Pasture; B Desert Pasture; C Dry Riverbed Pasture; D Mountainous Pasture

Among these, primary forest land, high mountain gravel beach, and high mountain meadow are specialized types limited to specific areas, such as the Hashan area in Jingyuan County and Shoulu Mountain area in Jingtai County, both high-altitude regions within this area. This unique geographical context creates distinctive ecological environments. The majority of this area's ecology falls under the two subtypes of farmland type: afforestation type and sandy river type. Grazing and forage harvesting predominantly occur in mountain type, artificial forest type, desert type, and low mountain meadow type. Due to drought and the expansion of the yellow irrigation area, extensive portions of mountains have been abandoned as high-quality pastures. Furthermore, while low mountain meadow represents the most favorable pasture, this ecological type is notably limited.

Usage of forage plants in the region

Forage plants utilized by local residents in this region can be categorized into three types based on their uses: single-use (exclusively for forage), dual-use (both medicinal and edible), and auxiliary materials (employed in tool production). The edible category is the most predominant, further subdivided into broad-spectrum forage suitable for all domestic animals, forage specific to ruminant animals primarily for horses, cattle, and sheep, and specialized forage like Ranunculaceae plants of the Clematis genus used exclusively for sheep. Some forage plants, such as Peganum harmala L., require frost-induced dormancy before they can be used as forage.

Medicinal usage of forage plants includes species such as Rheum rhabarbarum L. and Rumex acetosa L. from the Polygonaceae family, which are mainly employed for treating animal ailments. Cannabis sativa L. seed oil is also commonly used as an animal remedy for grass knot. Additionally, certain forage plants, such as Taraxacum mongolicum Hand-Mazz., Artemisia annua L., B. vivipara (L.) Delarbre, and Lilium pumilum Redouté, are traditional herbal medicines frequently used by local residents.

Auxiliary forage plants encompass Timouria (utilized in crafting baskets, brooms, etc.) (Fig. 5A), Agropyron, Leymus, and Psammochloa (with roots used in making grass ropes), as well as Caragana plants of the Fabaceae family (strips employed in weaving baskets, etc.) (Fig. 5B).

Fig. 5

Baskets and backpack made of Achnatherum splendens (Trin.) Nevski stems. A Basket (used for feeding animals with forage); B Backpack (used for harvesting wild forage in the field)

In the region, out of the 116 identified wild forage plants, the majority are herbaceous, with 83 being perennial herbs, accounting for 71.55% of the total. Annual herbs are fewer than perennials, with 20 species making up 17.24% of the total. Shrubs comprise 9 species, accounting for 7.76%, while trees contribute only 4 species, amounting to 3.45%. Distinguishing between cultivated and wild trees proves challenging. In terms of utilized parts, perennial herbs mainly consist of above-ground parts, with roots playing a minor role. Annual herbs are mostly used in their entirety, while shrubs and trees are predominantly harvested for leaves, young stems, and branches. Trees, especially, provide a crop of fallen leaves in autumn. However, it is strictly prohibited to gnaw on bark in this area.

In terms of dietary preferences, larger animals like sheep enjoy a wide variety of forage options and can adapt to nearly any plant suitable for forage. Conversely, smaller animals like pigs and poultry have significantly narrower choices. Besides a few types of fresh forage, which can serve as supplements, most wild forage plants are dried and crushed for feed. Fresh forage typically includes plants with succulent leaves, tender stems, and juicy content, along with certain plant seedlings. The former category comprises mainly Asteraceae plants like I. polycephala Cass., L. tatarica (L.) C.A.Mey., T. mongolicum Hand-Mazz., etc., while the latter includes Avena fatua L., Plantago asiatica L., Medicago sativa L., etc.

In essence, wild forage plants in this region primarily serve for natural grazing of animals. Cutting and collecting primarily cater to large labor-providing animals such as horses, donkeys, mules, and cattle to offer supplementary forage at night during summer and autumn. Another collection practice is observed during field weeding, where local residents identify wild plants suitable for forage. Tender and juicy ones (like I. polycephala Cass., L. tatarica (L.) C. A. Mey., T. mongolicum Hand-Mazz., etc.) are typically chopped and mixed with bran to feed pigs (sometimes directly) or chickens. Other forages are also used as supplementary feed for large animals at night. Generally, there's limited large-scale collection of forage for winter hay storage.

Quantitative evaluation of local residents’ use of wild forage plants

We conducted a quantitative analysis of the utilization of wild forage plants by local residents, focusing on uniformity, richness, and similarity of the medicinal information gathered from ten surveyed villages (Table 3). The Simpson Index for medicinal information ranged from 0.0161 to 0.0251 (Fig. 6A), while the Shannon Wiener Index ranged between 3.7792 and 4.1815 (Fig. 6B).

Table 3 Analysis of evenness and richness in different villages' survey informationFig. 6

Analysis of Information from Different Villages. A Evaluating the Uniformity of Forage Plant Information Obtained from Different Village Surveys Using the Simpson Index. B Determining the Richness of Medicinal Plant Information Obtained from Different Village Surveys Using Shannon Wiener Index. C Similarity of Medicinal Plant Information Obtained from Different Village Surveys Using Sorenson Index

Among the surveyed villages, Village 1, known as "Snow Mountain," exhibited the lowest Simpson Index and the highest Shannon Wiener Index. This indicates that the information provided by this village was widely dispersed, with low concentration and uniformity. This observation aligns with our fieldwork, revealing a diverse range of ecological types and abundant plant resources. In contrast, Village 10 (Ningxia) displayed the lowest Shannon Wiener Index and the highest Simpson Index, suggesting concentrated information with minimal variation among providers. It is worth noting that the economic contribution from animal husbandry in this village was relatively modest. Moving forward, we delved into the correlation of information obtained from different villages based on the 73 species of forage plants provided by local residents (Fig. 6C) (Table 4). The Sorenson Index values ranged from 0.81 to 1.00. Broadly speaking, the information acquired from all ten villages exhibited a notable level of consistency. This coherence likely stems from the interplay between plant resource distribution and population migration patterns within the region. We conducted an extensive survey of all 73 species of forage plants in both Villages 1 and 2, which demonstrated the highest degree of similarity. These villages are in close proximity, sharing a highly similar ecological environment. Despite minor distinctions in ecological subtypes, they both present a remarkable convergence in the species composition. In stark contrast, the disparity between Villages 1, 2, and Village 8 was most pronounced. Village 8 is geographically distant from Villages 1 and 2 and, more significantly, exhibits marked differences in ecological types. It is worth noting that our similarity analysis was based on local plant names provided by the residents. Should we employ specific plant species names (totaling 116 species), the dissimilarities between villages would likely be even more pronounced.

Table 4 Evaluation of similarity in survey information among different villages

These findings underscore that geographical distance and ecological variation play pivotal roles in accounting for inconsistencies in information provided across different villages.

Assessment of local residents' perception of wild forages

Based on the information provided by the reporters, it is evident that there are notable discrepancies in their assessments of the value (importance) of different wild forages. Consequently, we undertook a quantified evaluation of the significance attributed to 73 species of wild forage plants (classified by local names). This was followed by an assessment of local residents' adaptability to their environment using the Utilization Frequency (HUF), and an evaluation of the importance of wild forage plants in daily life utilizing the National Cultural Significance Index (NCSI).

The Utilization Frequency (HUF) was notably low at 0.06, with Lycoris squamigera Maxim. exhibiting the lowest value, closely followed by Thereianthus spicatus (L.) G.J.Lewis and Bupleurum hamiltonii N.P.Balakr. These plants primarily serve as wild vegetables and medicines in the lives of local residents. It is worth noting that most local residents perceive their use as forage to be an underutilization of these resources. Nine plants obtained a HUF value of 1, indicating unanimous recognition among information providers regarding their pivotal role in the local animal husbandry process. This suggests a comprehensive understanding of these plants among the residents (Table 5).

Table 5 Quantitative evaluation index of forage plants in the study area

The normalized data from Table 5 are represented in Fig. 7, illustrating the comparative results of the National Cultural Significance Index (NCSI) for wild forage plants in the region. The color transition from blue to red indicates increasing values of the corresponding ordinate. Within the top-tier of importance (NCSI > 1000), 13 plants stood out, all of which are characterized as high-quality forages. Notable representatives include Poaceae Bing Cao (encompassing Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn., Leymus secalinus (Georgi) Tzvelev, Elymus dahuricus Turcz. ex Griseb., Psammochloa villosa (Trin.) Bor, etc.), Suo Cao (Stipa plants), Asteraceae’s Ku Cai (I. polycephala Cass., L. tatarica (L.) C.A.Mey., Solanum nigrum L., etc.), Gu Youzi (Setaria viridis (L.) P.Beauv.), Yan Mai (A. fatua L.), and Fabaceae Niao zi (Astragalus plants). Strikingly, the top four plants in the actual ranking all belong to the Asteraceae. Although their forage use in this area may not be as prominent as Gramineae plants, we observed that these Compositae plants were also the subjects of studies on edible and medicinal plants in this region. This underscores their pivotal role in the lives of local residents, substantiating their higher ranking. In the second tier of significance (1000 > NCSI ≥ 500), there were 12 plants, which are relatively common in this area and serve as prevalent wild forage plants. However, their nutritional value is lower than that of the plants in the first tier. The third tier (500 > NCSI ≥ 100) comprised 19 plants, which were characterized by relatively limited resources and distribution, and may have specific restrictions regarding applicable seasons and animal groups. Lastly, the fourth tier (100 > NCSI) encompassed 29 plants that played a supplementary role as forage plants. These plants had lower resource distribution and nutritional value and were primarily utilized as supplementary forage in instances of forage scarcity during dry or winter seasons.

Fig. 7

Quantitative evaluation of forage plants

Social and economic impacts

We surveyed families engaged in Lycium, Zea and breeding farms in the region to understand the situation of pig, chicken and sheep breeding and sheep herding. Although we did not obtain accurate economic benefit information, most information reporters believed that grazing-type breeding was the agricultural industry with the lowest input cost, highest income and lowest risk in this region. In addition, Jingyuan lamb and Dongwan donkey meat are very famous brand products in this region (Fig. 8). Jingyuan lamb is a national geographical indication product of China (Jingyuan County Government’s slogan: Famous for three thousand miles in Northwest China, attracting guests from all over the world) [34], which played a very important role in promoting the economic development of this region.

Fig. 8

Renowned Brand Products in the Multi-ethnic Inhabited Area at the Junction of Gansu, Ningxia, and Inner Mongolia. A Dongwan Donkey Meat, a specialty snack in the Gansu–Ningxia–Inner Mongolia region, known for its unique local flavor and traditional cooking techniques passed down through generations, featuring the distinctive meat texture. B Jingyuan Lamb—Utilizing lambs primarily produced from the high-quality local breed of Tan sheep in the Gansu–Ningxia–Inner Mongolia region, Jingyuan Lamb is a culinary creation combining traditional cooking and processing techniques from Jingyuan, Gansu. It is renowned for its tender and succulent meat, not overly fatty, with a delicious and refreshing taste. It has gained widespread popularity and is sold in major cities across the country