Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 09:26:22 -0700 From: chamb@u.arizona.edu To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg1263$foo@default> Subject: re: wild collecting
At 03:30 AM 4/25/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>The first lesson should perhaps be that both conservation and
>cultivation depend on each other and that neither can sensibly exist
>without the other.
I do not agree with this. But your statement is pretty generalized, and
perhaps you can elaborate?
In this thread some of us were discussing plants which were "secure" in
cultivation. I think that plants such as VFT and Drosera capensis would
fit this description. They are widely cultivated and sold, have been for a
long time. I have no idea about the rarity of D. capensis in habitat (can
anyone fill me in on this?) But I do think that D. capensis is "secure"
enough in cultivation that its perpetuation in cultivation is wholly
independent from the fate of the wild plants. Consider also the hybrid
Nepenthes and Sarracenia, bred for attractive combinations of traits. The
complex crosses never existed in the wild, and can have no conservation
status. Yet their rarity, popularity, and overall fate in cultivation is a
real phenomenon. In fact, most plants in cultivation are as divorced from
wild populations as they can be on a small planet. I am referring to
bedding plants, houseplants, hybrid ornamentals. Cultivation and
conservation approach each other when one deals with plants which are just
a few generations or less removed from the bog. But I believe the two
activities are paraphyletic, even if they are monophyletic by the origin of
the plants.
>1. I do maintain that some species can only be conserved effectively,
>i.e. at least for the next few years or decades, ex situ (because
>existing policies in situ efficiently prevent protection in many
>cases). This does not at all mean that I am against in situ
>conservation. This must of course continue, and it should be
>supported where possible.
I get picky about the use of the term ex situ conservation. As I have seen
the practice employed in the US ie. by the Center for Plant Conservation
(CPC), ex situ conservation is a tool used to augment ongoing in situ
conservation efforts. However ex situ conservation is popularly viewed as
an alternative, if not equal, practice to in situ conservation; a sort of
"Noah's Ark". I think that establishing a plant as "secure" in cultivation
is a good thing and will ensure the plants are around for enjoyment even if
they are extinct in the wild, but that is very different in practice from
ex situ conservation strategies.
>2. All species that are of potential horticultural interest should be
>introduced into and maintained in cultivation (because no prohibition
>will decrease the interest).
I have no problem with this, if the original propagation material is
extracted from wild populations in a way that is not harmful (and this is
always possible, if not always practiced). But there is some
responsibility that growers then maintain these plants in cultivation by
propagation from cultivated sources.
>3. In a number of cases, this will necessitate wild collection, for
>which legal and sustainable avenues must be established
I think in most cases these avenues do exist, and the restrictions on
collecting are not an insurmountable obstacle to introducing plants to
cultivation. They just make it a tad less convenient than no restrictions
at all.
>And 4. I do think that both institutional *and* amateur collections
>can and should contribute to conservation, and they should
>collaborate rather than compete with each other.
Can you be more specific about this? I have an amateur collection of some
half-dozen Nepenthes plants. These plants have labels indicating some are
species, some are hybrids. They are of unknown provenance and unknown
pedigree. I am growing them for personal enjoyment. Is what I am doing
conservation?
I have followed threads on this subject before, and in other plant
newsgroups. There is a very popular myth that collections like my little
Nepenthes collection DO have conservation value. I maintain that my
amateur collection has no conservation function whatsoever, although I may
be accomplishing something towards keeping these plants in cultivation
(especially when I give away cuttings).
I am growing these plants for enjoyment, and I am keeping them alive. But
I am doing nothing special to enhance their utility towards conservation.
It is popular to spin elaborate hypothetical scenarios whereby these plants
could be used to reconstitute a population that could be reintroduced into
habitat. But this is incredibly far-fetched and overlooks so many
important variables (like the existence of pollinators or even remaining
habitat) that it's just a silly prospect. What's more I COULD be doing
more for conservation--not with those Nepenthes, but if I designed a
cultivation program with conservation as a goal from the start, and
maintained it in a matter that enhanced the conservation value of the
material, then I could justify saying I was doing conservation. How can
such an effort be structured? That is worth further discussion.
Nonetheless, a popular assumption exists that all or virtually all
cultivation is de facto a kind of conservation. This is then sometimes
used to "justify" shady collecting practices really intended as a quick way
to obtain plants for enjoyment or profit rather than conservation. A good
essay on this is Barry Meyers-Rice's story of CLODS, published in CPN
(CLODS, collectors, and pseudo-environmentalists, Meyers-Rice, B.A., 1996,
Carniv. Pl. Newsletter., 25, 122.)
I emphasize the differences between cultivation and conservation to help
dispel these myths and to hopeful offer some education about what
conservation is really about. I'm not saying that cultivation and
conservation are mutually exclusive, but that the specifics and differences
of each should be examined more closely for clearer understanding. This is
better than generalizing that both are doing the same thing in their own
different ways.
Michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:35:07 PST