Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 10:26:16 From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg1299$foo@default> Subject: re: wild collecting
Dear Michael,
> As an aside, I am not wholly convinced that
> poaching is being reduced by market saturation. As we've seen, poaching of
> VFT, Sarracenia, Saguaro cacti, and other plants widely available in the
> trade does continue.
This is why I did not take these as examples but _Nepenthes rajah_
instead. The plants you mentioned are easy to access, so unnecessary
wild collection does continue (in addition to the limited,
responsible collection to increase the diversity of the cultivated
stock).
All the plants you mentioned are protected by all sorts and flavours
of laws already, so you can also see how effective legal protection
is in such cases. I am convinced education would have done much more
for these plants in situ than formal prohibition.
> I do think that we as a species depend on the integrity of natural
> environment for our long term survival (especially if all 6 billion+ of us
> are to survive).
This depends on how long we *want* to survive. At the moment we
(humans) behave as rather inconsiderate consumers. This can (and
probably will) continue for some decades. Perhaps we can spend a few
thoughts on what we will want to do after the crash (the already
foreseeable ecological breakdown of our planet), but we will
obviously not be able to prevent the crash.
> The "secondary environment" lacks the checks and balances
> and stability of an ecosystem;
The apparent stability of natural ecosystems is in the first line
derived from a comparable stability of climatic and edaphic
conditions. If you look back in geological time, however, these
conditions have not always been stable at all, and considerable
fluctuations in the landscape as well as in the taxonomic composition
of the ecosystems have taken place.
I admit that using vastly different time scales is not scientifically
correct, but it serves the purpose of illustration. Because we humans
are not used to units like thousands or millions of years, we usually
consider Nature to be harmless and stable, when in effect it is (and
always has been) dangerous (to some species), incalculable (in many
respects), and changing (both rapidly and slightly but continuously).
Just consider that probably only one hundred million years ago, the
global flora was composed predominatly of moderately boring
gymnosperms, ferns and bryophytes probably without a single cp! And
still many dinosaur environmentalists may have watched the extinction
of rare ferns with tears in their eyes (perhaps because these ferns
were the favourite dish of their favourite prey; the vanishing basis
of their own lives), just before all of them were wiped out by a
single, possibly extraterrestrial catastrophe (followed by a series
of further terrestrial catastrophes).
This geological revolution (Cretaceous/Tertiary transition, a simply
unimaginable ecological mess without any stability whatsoever for
many long and bitter years) was, however, the very chance for
flowering plants, of which some evolved into cps, and it also marked
the beginning of adaptive mammalian radiation in the niches now no
longer occupied by their reptile cousins, which has after all made
possible the origin of mankind. The subsequent raising of the Alpidic
system, a mountain range of tremendous extension (perhaps with the
highest peaks that ever existed on this planet), during the Tertiary
and the Pleistocene glaciations did likewise extinguish myriads of
species (almost the whole indigenous, south hemisphere flora of India
got lost, all the once native tropical elements have vanished from
Europe), while at the same time they created the homes and paved
the way for many new ones (e.g. most of the Old World species and
all of the South American species of_Pinguicula_, _Drosera_ came to
visit us from America recently, and decided to stay here until
today).
It is a fact (or at least a well supported hypothesis; cf. the
fossil record) that natural climatic changes (some of which gradual,
others catastrophic) have extinguished more species than humans ever
could, although I would not deny that our efficiency at least during
the last centuries has increased considerably.
The lesson we can learn from history (I mean real history, i.e. earth
history) is that we are not as unique as we think. We are also far
from being as clever as we think ("Homo sapiens"; nomen
illegitimum!). We can and probably will become extinct, and nobody
(of the survivors) will care; to the contrary, I am afraid (because I
will not be able to participate) they will have a great global party
with orgies of speciation and adaptive radiation as soon as we will
have "left home".
> requires considerable management and
> maintenance by human caretakers, and so I think can be no substitute.
Of course! Cultivation should not (and could never) be a *substitute*
for natural environments. I just want to stress the point that it is a
considerable and legitimate "home" of biodiversity *in addition* to
the vanishing natural environments. And therefore I consider the
maintenance of a given plant in cultivation as an act of conservation
(it preserves biodiversity).
> If
> the secondary environment appears a larger part of our daily life, that is
> because the contributions of the ecosystem are largely taken for granted in
> everyday life (where does our oxygen come from?
Mainly from the vast areas of agricultural and silvicultural semi-
desert (monocultures with a few weeds) surrounding Wuerzburg,
Germany. A minor part is derived from the still existing but rapidly
decreasing "natural" environment (you have to look very closely to
discover something like this in Germany).
> I am baffled by why you choose such a broad definition
> of conservation that would include essentially all practices I refer to as
> cultivation. Perhaps it is a language difference.
Certainly. How about the more neutral term "preservation", which
would contain conservation in your sense plus what can be achieved by
ex situ methods.
> as we know that a functioning ecosystem is pretty
> important to the survival of cool plants and animals, and incidentally,
> ourselves.
Yes, we do *know* this. But I doubt we are really *aware* of it. We
just continue consuming, and most of us do simply not care. The
planet will not care, either (perhaps some of the species we
extinguish do care, but they do not cry)!
> And among plant cultivators there
> is a widespread belief that any/all cultivation IS maintaining the
> integrity of germplasm useful for reintroduction to the wild (which we both
> seem to agree is far-fetched at best).
Yes, indeed. If habitat destruction will continue (it obviously will),
nothing will remain to reintroduce such plants to. And even if some
suitable habitats will be retained, the plants will no longer be what
they used to be prior to cultivation. What can be achieved at the
most is a seminatural ex horto cultivation. This would certainly be
preservation but not conservation in the strict sense (your sense).
> This bothers me. The concept of conservation is not well understood to
> begin, and is further obfuscated by politics and misinformation. This is
> why I seek a clearer definition of the principles behind the words.
Great! Let us set up the guidelines. I really love clear definitions
(although reality does usually not respect them).
> I do
> not see advantage in synonomizing conservation and cultivation when we seem
> to agree on considerable and important differences that can be recognized.
Let us use the formula: preservation = conservation (in situ only) +
cultivation (see above).
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:35:08 PST