[MPWG] Contribution of Biotechnology to in situ Conservation

[botresearchusa]

In response to Dr. Leaman's post regarding Contribution of biotechnology to in situ conservation, I would suggest that we begin a discussion of this topic and get many opinions rather than a single view as I would perceive it.

 

The following answers are only my perceptions and should not be construed as definitive solutions.

 

1. What is the cause of the current decline or vulnerability of these species, if not harvest pressure? Might the re-introduced individuals and enriched populations be threatened by these circumstances also?

 

There are many factors which can have a direct effect on the vulnerability of a species. Probably the most profound effect would be from "modernization". The impact of loss of land due to the expansion of towns and cities accounts for the greatest losses of species. We are continually replacing green space with concrete and buildings with no attempt to identify or relocate critical species or those with economic value .Therefore species occupying these cleared areas meet their demise. This continual expansion eventually could impact the climate of the area, making it difficult for some species to adapt to these changes and thus perish.

 

The next factor would be from poachers or those who go out into the wild population and  remove these species from wilderness areas to be sold to collectors or for sale to the general public as ornamentals. The problem here is that these plants are distributed into varied climates which may or may not be conducive to the plants survival and as a result many are lost. These losses then lead to more poaching for replacement purposes, thereby slowly depleting the wild supply.

 

As to whether these re-introductions could face the same situations or circumstances and face the same fate, most probably so. A possible solution as I perceive it is to establish a protected area or reserve for these species which is as close to their native habitat as possible. Without this proactive step, despite the quantities possible we could reproduce utilizing biotechnology, enormous continued efforts would at best maintain the status quo.

 

Since many of these species are located within the confines of third world countries and  the local populations utilize them for food and medicines and most probably as a source of a small income, why not establish a program which would get them involved.

 

Such a program might be found in this scenario. Botanical gardens would send members of their staff to these countries as consultants and teachers to train the locals in modern horticultural techniques and help them to set up sanctuaries or reserves. Universities would then be given grants to provide their students with scholarships or stipends for spending their summer months working under the direction of these consultants, thereby gaining practical experience, and helping the locals care for their fields and the reserves.

 

The locals would then  send either seed or seedlings to the botanical gardens for conservation, and the same to biotechnology firms for propagation. The biotechnology firms would then send stage II or III seedlings back to the locals to increase the populations in the reserves and to go into the locals fields. The locals then, under the direction of the botanical consultants, could form cooperatives to sell their goods on the open market. With the profits obtained from sales on the open market, a small amount would be sent to the botanical gardens as reimbursement for their services, and the same  amount sent to the biotechnology firms for their services. The majority of the profit from sales would be retained by the locals and their cooperatives to improve their standard of living. As this scenario is repeated, the population of these plant species  in the reserves grows, the fields are repopulated now from seedlings provided by the biotech companies instead of from wild populations ensuring a continued and growing supply, and the pride and standard of living for people in these third world nations attains new highs. Most important however, is the fact that now there is a proactive team approach with a spirit of  cooperation between factions and a  true trend towards reversal of  threatened species. 

In response to Dr. Leaman's post regarding Contribution of biotechnology to in situ conservation, I would suggest that we begin a discussion of this topic and get many opinions rather than a single view as I would perceive it.

 

The following answers are only my perceptions and should not be construed as

definitive solutions.

 

1. What is the cause of the current decline or vulnerability of these species, if not harvest pressure? Might the re-introduced individuals and enriched populations be threatened by these circumstances also?

 

There are many factors which can have a direct effect on the vulnerability of a species.

Probably the most profound effect would be from "modernization". The impact of loss of land due to the expansion of towns and cities accounts for the greatest losses of species. We are continually replacing green space with concrete and buildings with no attempt to identify or relocate critical species or those with economic value .Therefore species occupying these cleared areas meet their demise. This continual expansion eventually could impact the climate of the area, making it difficult for some species to adapt to these changes and thus perish.

 

The next factor would be from poachers or those who go out into the wild population and 

remove these species from wilderness areas to be sold to collectors or for sale to the general public as ornamentals. The problem here is that these plants are distributed into varied climates which may or may not be conducive to the plants survival and as a result many are lost. These losses then lead to more poaching for replacement purposes, thereby

slowly depleting the wild supply.

 

As to whether these re-introductions could face the same situations or circumstances and face the same fate, most probably so. A possible solution as I perceive it is to establish a protected area or reserve for these species which is as close to their native habitat as possible. Without this proactive step, despite the quantities possible we could reproduce

utilizing biotechnology, enormous continued efforts would at best maintain the status quo.

 

Since many of these species are located within the confines of third world countries and 

the local populations utilize them for food and medicines and most probably as a source of a small income, why not establish a program which would get them involved.

 

Such a program might be found in this scenario. Botanical gardens would send members of their staff to these countries as consultants and teachers to train the locals in modern horticultural techniques and help them to set up sanctuaries or reserves. Universities would then be given grants to provide their students with scholarships or stipends for spending their summer months working under the direction of these consultants, thereby gaining practical experience, and helping the locals care for their fields and the reserves.

 

The locals would then  send either seed or seedlings to the botanical gardens for 

conservation, and the same to biotechnology firms for propagation. The biotechnology firms would then send stage II or III seedlings back to the locals to increase the populations in the reserves and to go into the locals fields. The locals then, under the direction of the botanical consultants, could form cooperatives to sell their goods on the open market. With the profits obtained from sales on the open market, a small amount would be sent to the botanical gardens as reimbursement for their services, and the same 

amount sent to the biotechnology firms for their services. The majority of the profit from sales would be retained by the locals and their cooperatives to improve their standard of living. As this scenario is repeated, the population of these plant species in the reserves grows, the fields are repopulated now from seedlings provided by the biotech companies

instead of from wild populations ensuring a continued and growing supply, and the pride and standard of living for people in these third world nations attains new highs. Most important however, is the fact that now there is a proactive team approach with a spirit of 

cooperation between factions and a  true trend towards reversal of  threatened species.

 

I will now throw these comments out for further discussion amongst other members and their remarks pro or con. In the mean time I will address the next question on Dr. Leaman's, post.



Regards,
J.N.Covanes
Director of Research
Botresearch USA
23410 Harpergate
Spring, Texas 77373
USA
fax: (281)355-1857
www.botresearch.comthreatened species.

 

I will now throw these comments out for further discussion amongst other members

and their remarks pro or con. In the mean time I will address the next question on Dr. Leaman's, post.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/mpwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20040131/0a35a9ac/attachment.html>