Since the beginning, we have clearly known intentions and methods to be used in this research: do not touch the plants in habitat, and do not pick up specimens or parts thereof. Our observations are performed on the plant site, and the only documentation that we collect are only photos, notes and sketches. To identify the detection of a species in a particular area of its range, we put a serial number, preceded by our initials: A&M.
The growing impact of human activities on the environment, be it for the construction of new infrastructures, such as dams and highways, or for the conversion of native land to agricultural or grazing land, is endangering several cactus species. To these causes of extinction, the illegal collection of rare species must be added that is carried out indiscriminately by, or on behalf of, unscrupulous collectors.
As Anderson points out (2001, 79), citing P. F. Hunt (1974, 11-12), the methods to preserve plants are basically three: the first is to let them live without interfering in their habitats, the second is the creation of protected areas (parks, reserves, natural monuments, etc.) dedicated to the protection of specific ecosystems. These two methods are the most desirable, and are known as in situ conservation. The third method, known as ex situ conservation, is that of growing plants under threat far from their original places.
back to topWe said that the best way to preserve the plants is obviously to let them live undisturbed in their habitat; and in agreement with Anderson (2001, 79), we think that the education about the respect of the environment is very important. But, we believe that it is equally essential that the same inhabitants (native or not) are aware of the richness of their environment and therefore defend it. The awareness that the plants must remain in their habitat is important, and for study, is not essential to take them away. As we know, often the economic gap does not help, but it is essential that residents learn to be wary of those who, for a little money, ask them help to steal them their own natural wealth. The plants are protected by local law, and taking them away without permission is a crime: we try to communicate this principle whenever we have the opportunity, and we hope to have achieved some small results. The other method of in situ conservation is the creation of protected areas in the plants original places, and we have some good examples regarding the cacti. In Chile, where, in the Parque Nacional Pan de Azucar (II° Región de Antofagasta e III° Región de Atacama) there are different species, such as Copiapoa cinerascens (Salm-Dyck) Britton & Rose, Copiapoa columna-alba F. Ritter, Copiapoa grandiflora F. Ritter, Copiapoa serpentisulcata F. Ritter, and Eulychnia iquiquensis (K. Schumann) Britton & Rose; or in the Parque Nacional Laguna del Laja (VIII° Región del Bio-Bio) where Maihuenia poeppingii (Pfeiffer) K. Schumann lives. In Brazil, in the Minas Gerais state, the Parque Estaudal da Serra Negra protects populations of Uebelmannia gummifera (Backeberg & Voll) Buining, and the Parque Estaudal de Grão Mogol offers protection to the rare Discocactus horstii Buining & Brederoo, to Discocactus placentiformis (Lehmann) K. Schumann, Micranthocereus auriazureus Buining & Brederoo, Micranthocereus violaciflorus Buining, Pilosocereus fulvilanatus Buining & Brederoo, and to other taxa of the family. Still in Brazil, in the state of Paraná, the Parque Estaudal Villa Velha preserves Parodia carambeiensis (Buining & Brederoo) Hofacker. In Paraguay the Parque Nacional T.te Agripino Enciso y Medanos del Chaco (Boquerón) hosts populations of Gymnocalycium eurypleurum F. Ritter, Gymnocalycium pflanzii (Vaupel) Werdermann, Gymnocalycium stenopleurum F. Ritter, Quiabentia verticillata (Vaupel) Borg, Stetsonia coryne (Slam-Dyck) Britton & Rose, and others. Before a visit to a protected area, we recommend everyone to report themselves to the competent authorities, to ask for permission and to check whether being accompanied by rangers is needed. As you can see from the photos of our surveys, when we introduce ourselves we are always greeted with extreme kindness and we always manage to see and photograph plants. For that reason we did not expect to learn that this does not usually happen: on the contrary, the foreign visitors usually prefer not to announce themselves, in order to be more free. And unfortunately, visitors are sometimes caught trying to steal the plants. Although many of these protected areas are extremely large to be managed by the staff, coverage is usually good, and supported by various devices as in the case of Grão Mogol. where in 2009, the Rangers built their new houses close to one of the populations of the most endangered taxon. Another form of protection, that is also mentioned by Anderson (2001, 79-80), is offered by landowners who are aware of the importance of defending the native species on their properties. Also in this case, when we happened to introduce ourselves, we have always received hospitality and help. But we do not agree with Anderson when he says that a problem with landowners can be that they do not distinguish between people who want to steal the plants, and scientists. The important thing, in our opinion, is being able to recognize respectful people, regardless who are scientists or not. In addition, researchers should be the first ti give a good example by minimizing the collection of living material in habitats. In this regard, it could be the time to start thinking of another method to try and define a species, or if you prefer a lineage, that is different from a type-specimen which is still today a pressed plant on a herbarium sheet.
back to topIf the previous forms of conservation are not feasible, the ex situ conservation remains, ie the cultivation of rare or endangered plants in botanic gardens or nurseries. If in the opinion of some scientists, including Hamilton (1994), this method cannot preserve the genetic variability and evolutionary potential of populations, there is no doubt that nurseries, where cacti are reproduced from seeds, are a deterrent to illegal harvesting of plants. Certainly, conservation in botanical gardens or similar places, is better than nothing, but it is not the same thing: ecologically, and therefore physiologically, it is not the same plant anymore. And we would like to emphasize that, for the same reason, also plants stolen from their habitats are not the same plants anymore. However, a plant that is extinct in habitat, is painfully and definitively extinguished.
In Minas de Camaquà (RS, Brazil) in October 2008, an unpleasant and instructive episode happened to us. By chance we met two Europeans, members of a welknown association of cactus lovers, which were accompanied by a local couple who, to support their position as guides, were dressed as Rambo, as if cacti lived in dangerous war zones. During a brief conversation, one of the collectors proudly said that the day that some taxa will be extinct in habitat, their preservation is guaranteed by the specimens that he, and those like him, would have preserved in greenhouses. It sounded like he was waiting for that moment... Unfortunately, what is certain is that the cacti collected by these 'preservers' are, thanks to those people, closer to extinction, and the hotel staff confirmed our suspicions.
The Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) born in 1976, is responsible for regulating the trade of rare species among member states. For this purpose, species were divided into three appendices, depending on the degree of risk that international trade would bring. Appendix I, contains those organisms that would be seriously affected by the trade, that is therefore prohibited between member states. In Appendix II, are those organisms which could be endangered by uncontrolled trade; marketing is then allowed between the member countries only if accompanied by a license. Finally, Appendix III, is used by countries that want to control the trade of the organisms that are not included in the first two appendices. Almost all cacti are listed in Appendix II, and only about fifty species in Appendix I. Since 1980 the World Conservation Union-IUCN (International Union for Consevation of Nature and Natural Resources) has established several categories of danger to assign risk assessments to the species. Following further revisions, the Categories and Criteria resulted, made by the IUCN Species Survival Commission, and published in the booklet IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: version 3.1 (2001), also available in www.iucnredlist.org. For risk assessments about conservation status of species, we used the IUCN categories and criteria as specified in version 3.1. (Quoted from: Anceschi & Magli 2010, 35-38)
back to topUnder the Conservation entry, in the cards of each species that we present, the number in brackets before the risk category indicates the source we followed to compile; namely: