Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 13:15:37 From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg1276$foo@default> Subject: re: wild collecting
Dear Michael,
> I do not agree with this.
You do not need to. But your opinion is welcome, anyway.
> But your statement is pretty generalized, and perhaps you can
> elaborate?
I have elaborated this in some detail already (cf. also points 1-4
that you cited in your reply).
> In this thread some of us were discussing plants which were "secure" in
> cultivation. (...)
We should distinguish between different forms of "security".
Principally, I agree with you that a species can usually not be
preserved as an ecologically "functioning" system (i.e. as a
population that would be fit for competition in a natural environment
equivalent to the environments from which the plant/s were originally
collected) in cultivation. In cultivation, most of the factors
affecting plant development and life differ from the natural
environment. Plants do adapt to cultivation, and cultivated
plants may lose their ability to survive in a natural habitat. The
idea of preservation for the purpose of restitution in saved or
repared habitats must probably be abandoned, even though this idea is
an appealing one (at least to the rudiments of romanticism that I
think survive in all of us).
So cultivation can probably not contribute much to security of plants
at their natural habitats (except for the reduction of pressure from
overcollection, if plants are artificially propagated to saturate the
market; a concept that did/does work very well for _Nepenthes rajah_
and other species that are +/- complicated to access and collect in
the wild).
But cultivation can do much in terms of securing germplasm for
and within horticulture. With the loss of natural habitats this
becomes an increasingly important, so-to-say secondary environment. I
would even state that for most of us "civilized" people, this
environment - a part of our daily life - is more important than the
natural one. I guess most of us spend more time with their cultivated
plants than with (really) wild ones. This does of course not mean
that we should forget natural environments and just "leave them
alone".
> 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.
That's it.
> 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.
Well, they have no significance in the original environment (except
perhaps as introduced weeds). But hybrids may have sufficient
horticultural value to warrant preservation in cultivation. This
would not be "conservation" in the strict sense, which is at least
influenced by the (admittedly unrealistic) idea of repopulating
devastated environments with their "original" flora. But it is
conservation of germplasm within the manmade environment of
horticulture.
> 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.
And still the maintenance of plants in cultivation is an act of
preservation.
> 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.
I do not apply such a strict definition of conservation, and I
believe conservation and cultivation are more closely related.
> However ex situ conservation is popularly viewed as
> an alternative, if not equal, practice to in situ conservation; a sort of
> "Noah's Ark".
This is of course not the case. It cannot be an equivalent
replacement for in situ conservation. It is an entirely different
approach. But I think it is a legitimate one.
> 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.
It is very different only if you define conservation strictly and
exclusively as in situ conservation. I do not do so.
> 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).
It is my objective to specify exactly this way of extraction that is
not harmful. None of the existing laws will tell us exactly this.
This is why we should think about guidelines.
> But there is some
> responsibility that growers then maintain these plants in cultivation by
> propagation from cultivated sources.
Certainly.
> 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.
In most cases "surmountable" obstacles are the reason for people
using the easy (yet illegal) ways. It is our duty to demonstrate
convenient and practicable avenues. Referring to mountains of legalese
text is *not* sufficient. We have to show what kind of behaviour is
possible and responsible. We have to find a consensus, and hiding
on the safe side ("wild collection is generally discouraged") or
behind walls of law ("it is expected that all legal restrictions are
respected") does not help in this direction. I am not talking about
bylaws (which must always be legally waterproof) but of informal rules
understood, accepted, and obeyed by a leading majority of cp
enthusiasts.
> 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?
Yes (see above).
> 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).
This is due to the different concepts of conservation we two use. We
may agree on another term, but I think what you are doing with your
_Nepenthes_ collection (as long as the plants will stay alive) is in
fact conservation related, and it is worthwhile even from a
conservationist perspective.
> 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.
Not for in-situ conservation in natura but for ex-situ conservation in
horto.
> It is popular to spin elaborate hypothetical scenarios whereby these plants
> could be used to reconstitute a population that could be reintroduced into
> habitat.
Not my opinion (see above).
> 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.
Agreed.
> 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.
Yes.
> Nonetheless, a popular assumption exists that all or virtually all
> cultivation is de facto a kind of conservation.
I do share this popular assumption. We (the human race as a whole;
private decisions in another direction may be praiseworthy and are
endorsed by yours truly, but they have unfortunately little effect
on the general trend) have already decided to irreversibly destroy
the natural environment on this planet (conservation in situ will at
a few ridiculously small spots retard this process, but we will
eventually prove to be unable to stop it), so what we can possibly
achieve is to preserve some bits of biodiversity for future
generations (of humans; the planet does not care, and life will
definitely continue even after our extinction and the mass
extinctions we cause) by means we have command of. Horticulture is one
of these means.
> 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.
It is my aim to separate these two things (by clear and simple
guidelines). Wild collecting should not be banned generally
*and* enjoyment/profit (which are both legitimate per se) alone
should not be accepted as sufficient justification for wild
collecting. I think it is possible to reach a consensus here.
Perhaps informal guidelines may not prevent purely commercial wild
collecting, but I guess the people involved would recognize that they
are doing something wrong that is not endorsed by the cp growing
majority. Cp societies and this discussion forum would be good places
to warn each other of the bad guys, and this could spoil the market
for them.
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:35:07 PST