Jump to content

CP in Viet Nam 2


Mr. Son

Recommended Posts

Ah but that's a tricky one. If we don't know about it, then how can we be sure it isn't already extinct. Just as there may still be huge populations of it - somewhere that no one knows about.

It is only by knowing that something is threatened, that things get done to try and save it.

The biggest problem this time, may not have been those locals who found it and made this known - after all they never knew it was thorelli.

But by US 'westerners' making such a fuss about it's discovery - thus making others (looking over the forums) aware that it was a highly valued plant and worth digging up to sell.

Presumably they were all dug up by the same guys as they knew the location!

The only way to preserve plants is to leave them where they are, period. Arguments about bringing plants into cultivation to preserve the species and one day return them to the wild are largely fallacious in my view, and on that basis I don't need to know where they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Presumably they were all dug up by the same guys as they knew the location!

That presumtion 'may' not be true - it is unknown.

The only way to preserve plants is to leave them where they are, period. Arguments about bringing plants into cultivation to preserve the species and one day return them to the wild are largely fallacious in my view,

No arguments from me, I've previously said the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Presumably they were all dug up by the same guys as they knew the location!

The only way to preserve plants is to leave them where they are, period. Arguments about bringing plants into cultivation to preserve the species and one day return them to the wild are largely fallacious in my view, and on that basis I don't need to know where they are.

Hi,

This plant needs to enter cultivation and need to be protected in situ as well. If plants occur in non protected areas, I would be willing to move them in a National Park for example ot to collect seed.

I've been in several thorelii original locations and found nothing else than rubber plantations or paddy fields. Thorelii is likely to be a lowland plant which must have been quite widespread in the Mekong Delta (Southern Vietnam) in the last century. It is on the brink of a "programmed extinction". Southern Vietnam is over populated and people want to use any parcel of land they can. I'm quite confident that thorelii still grow somewhere but its localizations must ve BERY scattered and unless it is in a National park, it is condemned, eventually. I contacted several rangers from NP and they all show me or send me pictures of mirabilis and smilesii.

I am working on a paper that will sum up all the botanical and horticultural story of Nepenthes thorelii. I will provide and emended description, an illustration and a conservation status. It will be published by the middle of the year.

All the best,

François.

Edited by Sockhom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way to preserve plants is to leave them where they are, period. Arguments about bringing plants into cultivation to preserve the species and one day return them to the wild are largely fallacious in my view, and on that basis I don't need to know where they are.

Then you probably underestimate the impact of us humans on nature. Your argument would maybe be true if we wouldnt destroy natural habitats, but how do you expect a living being to survive, if its natural habitat is gone? Some make it, by quickly adabting to our way of living, but some just cant make this adaption fast enough. And that goes probably for most of our beloved plants. Why else would we all talk so much about the culture of these plants if it were so easy for the plants to adept to a different enviroment? In most cases its not easy, because we have to meet certain requirements for a successful growing.

Take a Look at animals like Baji, probably extinct as we speak, many birds of new zealand that have a hard time dealing with predatory mammals (the birds of new zealand dont know mammals, as they didnt occur there in the past) that humans brought there. Or to stay with our carnivorous plants, have a look at Drosera regia, we can actually be fortunate enough to have plants of both populations in culture because one population is probably extinct in nature, and the other one might just be a matter of time. Pinguicula vulgaris var. gypsophila (as disputed as its taxonomic rank may be) is also only surviving thanks to a relocation.

Sometimes if you "leave them where they are, period" you end up losing a species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you probably underestimate the impact of us humans on nature. Your argument would maybe be true if we wouldnt destroy natural habitats, but how do you expect a living being to survive, if its natural habitat is gone? Some make it, by quickly adabting to our way of living, but some just cant make this adaption fast enough. And that goes probably for most of our beloved plants. Why else would we all talk so much about the culture of these plants if it were so easy for the plants to adept to a different enviroment? In most cases its not easy, because we have to meet certain requirements for a successful growing.

Take a Look at animals like Baji, probably extinct as we speak, many birds of new zealand that have a hard time dealing with predatory mammals (the birds of new zealand dont know mammals, as they didnt occur there in the past) that humans brought there. Or to stay with our carnivorous plants, have a look at Drosera regia, we can actually be fortunate enough to have plants of both populations in culture because one population is probably extinct in nature, and the other one might just be a matter of time. Pinguicula vulgaris var. gypsophila (as disputed as its taxonomic rank may be) is also only surviving thanks to a relocation.

Sometimes if you "leave them where they are, period" you end up losing a species.

It might seem sensible to protect them by bringing them into cultivation, and in the short term it may work (maybe even for a few decades). Long term it is, i believe, doomed to failure.

We as a generation are privileged and very very lucky, we live in a relatively stable time, life is relatively affluent (in the west), fuel is still relatively cheap and we have spare time to do what we want with. This is unlikely to always be the case and what happens then?

Where are all the plants that were in cultivation before the first and second world wars? Most of them did not survive the war. If you rely on plants in cultivation to preserve a species, theres a good chance they wont around for long. So once the habitat is destroyed, thats pretty much it for the species, long term some form of 'domesticated' variety of it may survive but thats not guaranteed and is probably unlikely long term.

I take your point about D regia, but efforts should be made to reintroduce it to the wild while the chance still exists and before the plants are so changed by enthusiastic growers that it could actually no longer survive in the wild, which in time will happen.

Any effort at conservation should aim at educating people and where possible forming national parks and protected areas, thats the only way most of these plants can survive unchanged and intact long term. Lose the habitat and you will probably lose the species, sooner or later.

Edited by manders
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think N thorelii is a very sad case study. It shows that doing nothing is not an option. Those poachers did dig up what may have been the last plants and certainly destroyed one locality for it.

There is a possibility that they dug all the plants up because we on this forum alerted them to the fact that this is a rare and therefore valuble plant.

However the problem is not poachers, its human enchroachment. If they hadnt dug them up those plants were probably doomed any way by human activities. So doing nothing is not really an option, in such a case. I think sitting around moaning about what the poachers did is not all that helpful. D regia is an another example beacuse the place where it grows has not been burnt for so long the other vegetation is outgrowing and shading out the Drosera plants. This shows that just "preserving" habitat is not always that helpful. I believe in more active conservation; yes protecting habitats is important but sometimes plants become so rare they need more help. This could be collecting the seeds, propagating and reintroducing plants, perhaps relocating to a safer environment. At least their are people like Sockhom who dont just talk, they are actually prepared to do something to help these plants. Good for you Sockhom you are really inspiring.

Ross

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case of D regia the problem is the habitat has apparently not been preserved in its natural state, so the habitat is in fact not preserved.

Which safer habitats would you introduce them too? Where other competitive species already grow? Is that really the answer? And what about all the other species that lived in the original ecosystem. going to move all those as well? And to where a different country? It all seems a bit unconsidered.

Nobody is knocking Sokhom and bringing plants into cultivation is certainly not a negative but neither is it the final solution to the problem.

BTW, In terms of conservation I reduced CO2 emissions last year by around 1,000,000 te/yr or about the size of a small coal fired power station, what did you do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any effort at conservation should aim at educating people and where possible forming national parks and protected areas, thats the only way most of these plants can survive unchanged and intact long term. Lose the habitat and you will probably lose the species, sooner or later.

I agree with you, education and protection are key issues in conversation. but the general idea behind having plants in cultivation is that they function as some sort of "back-up" in case something goes wrong in the wild. Because having plants in cultivation offers some control about how many plants are existent.

In my opinion, education and conservation are nice words, but mean nothing compared to human interests. What does this one plant mean to a country, if the country can benefit much more from making money with, for example palm oil? Its not only about money, but how do you want to feed all the people if the planet runs out of resources.

I consider your example of the world wars rather an exception, besides, the plants in cultivation are far more widespread now then they were at that time.

Im not saying having plants in cultivation is the solution to it all, but it definitely helps as a whole.

I take your point about D regia, but efforts should be made to reintroduce it to the wild while the chance still exists and before the plants are so changed by enthusiastic growers that it could actually no longer survive in the wild, which in time will happen.

See, its a nice thing to know that at least the plants still exist in cultivation, even for you. (Although you never know, its possible that a few seeds still remain in the soil, as there are a few documented examples of Drosera intermedia having seeds germinate after a few decades)

And regarding the last part of your sentence: You can also flip the argument the other way round, having control about the parent plants doesnt necessarily have to lead into a selection of certain features, it can also be used to make sure the plants get crossed properly in order to maintain genetical diversity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that humans made a lot of these species endangered so we cant just sit back and watch while they go extinct. My idea is that plants are easy to propagate for the most part and the reloacation idea is to plant them as close as possible in some kind of protected area Im sure even Veitnam has some protected reserves. Of course you would have to protect them until they become estabilished from competion etc. Thats what I mean by active conservation.

Iv done my bit for conservation over the years but I think there are a lot of purists involved in conservation that would not do anything, thats not natural or whatever and they just stand back while species go down the drain.

Another argument for having plant in cultivation is that if they are widly grown, people wont be able to make much money from poaching. Collect some seed and make the progeny available to good growers and pretty soon its grown my many people. Our whole hobby is based on people bringing wild species into cultivation. It is how its done that is the problem.

It would be nice if large percentages of any given country was protected in its natural state but in most cases its to late. Even in New Zealand that has many National Parks, they are predominently in mountainous areas that were impossible to farm or do much with. Preservation is great but it should not be the only possible answer. Lowland Nepenthes are often going to be in places that are going to be used for something, such as agriculture or towns or cities. We are just animals that are driven to survive just as much as any species. It has to be worth money to protect it in poor countries. So we in the west visiting national parks in SE Asia are providing that money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in this specific case there was much more of 'we can make an easy buck' attitude than survival or deep argument about species conservation. To dig up the plants first and try and explain away that the area may or may not be developed in the future is just trying to justify a wrong with romantic notions that what we do is conservation. There are some of us who grow CPs because we like them (collectors), and there are those of us who grow CPs as a business. Few are those of us who grow CPs for conservation purposes.

I might be less inclined to be so cynical if plants were going to Kew gardens or other bona fide conservation projects, but from my first hand experience as a botanist, private citizen collection more often leads to depletion than to conservation. Private collectors lose plants, and sometimes lose interest. Private collector conservation has worked for some species but doomed many more (as much animals as plants).

I do accept that a plant can be so endangered that the only viable option for its conservation is to remove it from the wild, undertake massive propagation, and try to spread it out as much as possible. One case that springs to mind is the Woolemi Pine, though it's not a great example as there was a lot of money to be made from the "Dinosaur Tree". However for a private citizen to go and remove the plants on vague plans to introduce them into cultivation (Translate" sell them to tourists") does not come even close.

The next best thing might have been for François or Marcello to have publicly collected seeds or a few plants to properly identify and propagate, since even though they are private citizens like most of us, I probably speak for most when I say I'd trust them to do the right thing (and I thank them for keeping us updated on this sort of stuff when it happens). By that stage the entire population was gone and probably sold to people who have no idea what they got is unique and nearly extinct. We can only hope that somebody out there got some of these, knows what they are, and can propagate enough to ship around to the rest of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, its a nice thing to know that at least the plants still exist in cultivation, even for you. (Although you never know, its possible that a few seeds still remain in the soil, as there are a few documented examples of Drosera intermedia having seeds germinate after a few decades)

And regarding the last part of your sentence: You can also flip the argument the other way round, having control about the parent plants doesnt necessarily have to lead into a selection of certain features, it can also be used to make sure the plants get crossed properly in order to maintain genetical diversity.

I have two problems with this, firstly its of little use having plants in collections and pretending its conservation if the habitat no longer exists. Secondly, plants raised by seeds in cultivation will always be those that are easiest to grow in cultivated conditions, they may well be plants that can not survive in the natural environment. Nature is very harsh on seeds and only the most suitable survive, that is never the case in cultivation.

You can easily find examples of birds or fish for example, that have been bred for several generations in captivity are adapted to captive conditions in some way and were they to be reintroduced to the natural habitat would simply die or fail to breed.

My idea is that plants are easy to propagate for the most part and the reloacation idea is to plant them as close as possible in some kind of protected area Im sure even Veitnam has some protected reserves. Of course you would have to protect them until they become estabilished from competion etc. Thats what I mean by active conservation.

Thats ok, if you can find suitable habitat that isn't already populated with a similar species or even a dissimilar species that it will compete with/hybridize or otherwise interfere with.

Another argument for having plant in cultivation is that if they are widly grown, people wont be able to make much money from poaching. Collect some seed and make the progeny available to good growers and pretty soon its grown my many people. Our whole hobby is based on people bringing wild species into cultivation. It is how its done that is the problem.

I'm not sure i can agree with this, mirabilis is widely grown, cheap and easy to buy, yet poached plants are still for sale in bangkok market for less than a euro. Nepenthes growing has never been more popular than it is now, fueled by cheap and easy to obtain plants produced from tc. However, that has only added to demand for wild collected seeds and plants! Collectors the world over will always behave in the same way, they always want the rarest most difficult to obtain plants and anything mass produced is somehow not worth collecting.

I don't at all have a problem with bringing plants into cultivation if done responsibly and I can think of one example in the UK where an orchid was mass produced and returned to the wild from extinction, but in that case, loss of habitat was not the reason for the extinction!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Conservation worker myself, I have to largely agree with manders.

Bringing plants 'into protective custody' sounds all well and good - but on the whole, is pointless. That does not mean there are not exceptions and some species have been saved by bringing them into captivity TEMPORARILY, while their habitat was sorted out. But it is no long term solution.

Unless a species can be protected in it's native habitat, then it is ultimately doomed. Plus, what is the point of just preserving a species in cultivation - that is not survival. Just as keeping someone alive on a life support machine, may be life but it is not living (assuming they will never make a recovery).

But yes, active conservation is also required, to maintain the habitat. Man has often so interfered with things that natural processes have been altered in most places. Such as here in the UK, most of the animals and processes which kept grassland as grassland have gone - so domestic grazing is the only way to maintain the species that require this habitat.

Growing plants in cultivation is mostly about us and our pleasure, not preserving species. But equally it is good to have a varied genetic example of the species in cultivation, just in case something happens to the wild population (such as wild fire, drought etc.), but the habitat is still there.

Making a species widely and cheaply available can reduce poaching. But on the other hand, poaching only exists because people want to grow them. So when poaching is the only threat, it is our growing of the plants which is endangering them - not saving them.

Allowing species to go extinct is an interesting one. We all hate the thought of things going extinct, but that is natural and has been going on forever. We are only here because other species went extinct, which allowed other species to evolve eventually into us. So, by us trying to prevent extinctions we are effecting natural evolution and possible preventing new species evolving. But, how do we know when an extinction is natural and when we are the only cause ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify Im not saying what Mr Sons friend did was in any way an act of conservation it was just pure destruction for the sake of money. Im not sure you understand the angle Im coming from if you take that from what I wrote. Im saying what people like Sockhom do is sometimes the answer. And thats the last Im saying on the whole topic.

Ross

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Phil hits it in the nail when he says making the plants cheap and available may reduce poaching.

As a side effect they also become less desirable as they become more common in cultivation, and people are unwilling to pay the large sums of 'rarity bonus' that often doom species when they would appear to be too hard to find to make the exercise worthwhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Join the CPS Donate


×
×
  • Create New...