RE: Is Extinction better than Captive Cultivation?

From: Michael.Chamberland (23274MJC@MSU.EDU)
Date: Thu Jan 02 1997 - 10:18:00 PST


Date: Thu, 02 Jan 97 13:18 EST
From: "Michael.Chamberland" <23274MJC@MSU.EDU>
To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <aabcdefg16$foo@default>
Subject: RE: Is Extinction better than Captive Cultivation?


> From: Nigel Hurneyman <NHurneyman@softwar1.demon.co.uk>
>
>
> 'It is important for hobby growers to understand that commercially propagate
> plants and hobby collections do not represent conservation material'.
>
> Sorry Michael, but there are precedents that suggest hobbyists can be an
> important conservation resource.

Ah, but I have not been saying that hobbyists are not an important
conservation resource! I've been saying that hobby COLLECTIONS are not
an important conservation resource.

I think the greatest contribution that hobby collection makes to conservation
is through interesting and educating people about plants. A person interested
in plants can then easily make the jump to being interested in conservation.
But I believe it is important to understand that hobby collections do not
conserve wild biodiversity. That is part of the education about conservation.

> 1) A peat bog in Northern England restored by volunteers and repopulated
> with native CPs from hobbyists collections. It wasn't a stunning success
> AFAIK because hobbyists can't suddenly come up with thousands of D.
> rotundifolia with a couple of months notice, but the plants provided were a
> start.

Successful reintroduction will depend on the long-term success (over several
years).

I do not know which plants were reintroduced. But since you mention D.
rotundifolia, I must wonder why D. rotundifolia from hobby collections was
used? This species is fairly common and widespread in the northern
latitudes. Why were not plants transferred from another wild source, ie.
salvaged from a wild spot about to be destroyed? Why not grow up plants
from wild-collected seed? Perhaps these were done? This needs clarification.

> 2) A leading UK botanic garden had a scheme whereby succulents that were
> too boring to display in its show houses were given to enthusiasts to preser
> in their collections, on the understanding that the garden could reclaim
> material
> as and when necessary for conservation and analysis purposes. I haven't
> heard anything of this scheme for a long time so it may have ceased.

This is very reasonable for keeping plants in cultivation. I don't know if
the enthusiasts could really preserve the plants better than the garden over
the long term. But since this is material propagated from cultivation,
there's no reason not to give it a try. I have serious doubts that this
material would be suitable for conservation of plants in the wild... but
there's no reason not to keep the plants in cultivation for aesthetic
purposes.

> 3) A species long considered extinct from Central America due to loss of
> habitat was found many years later in a private collection in the UK. It is
> being bulked up by a US Botanic Garden to ensure it never comes so close
> to lights out again, both by distribution to other botanic gardens and by
> populating a new protected location close to where it was originally wiped o
> I'm kicking myself because the name of the plant is on the tip of my tongue,
> but I think it is a Fuchsia.

I think there are better chances this species will be rediscovered in the
wild than this plant has of being successfully reintroduced, for all the
reasons I've given before: lack of genetic diversity, unknown fate of
pollinators, seed distributors, and mycorrhizae, not to mention lack of
natural habitat to reintroduce to! If this plant COULD be successfully
reintroduced, success would be out of sheer luck! Perhaps a rare plant
could be re-grown from a necklace made out of nuts? This does not mean
that nut-necklaces are a form of conservation. The necklace, like
the hobby collection, is a leisure commodity. Both have their own important
aesthetic value. But neither are designed for conservation.

> I believe that some of the pygmy Drosera in my collection are now extinct in
> the wild, and more are likely to follow through loss of habitat. I certainl

I have heard this before on the list (perhaps from you?) and I'd be
interested in more information. Which species are involved?

Michael Chamberland



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:30:58 PST