A Different Way To Protect The Ghost Orchid

[katrina]

Originally Posted by epiphyte78

...then it would behoove us to consider all the carbon it could sequester and all the food and shelter it could provide for animals if it continued to do so. Basically, how much would it help steer us towards Avatar and away from Bladerunner?

I think you mean carbon DIOXIDE. And if one of your major goals/objectives is geared around carbon dioxide sequestration/storage...shifting your focus to trees would be more valuable. Trees are far more efficient at the process than any orchid (species or hybrid) ever will be.

As for food and shelter...again, trees are a greater resource.

[epiphyte78]

Originally Posted by katrina

And if one of your major goals/objectives is geared around carbon dioxide sequestration/storage...shifting your focus to trees would be more valuable. Trees are far more efficient at the process than any orchid (species or hybrid) ever will be.

A few posts back I linked to this blog entry of mine...Herclivation. If you had read it then you would have read this...

Green biomass (and presumably photosynthetic capacity as well) of nonvascular and higher plants anchored in tree crowns can rival - probably even exceed - that of phorophytes. - David Benzing, Vascular Epiphytes

If you don't know who David Benzing is and don't trust his expert opinion...then here's a study...

Epiphyte biomass may store up to 300 l of water in each emergent tree, and add 40–150% of photosynthetic biomass to the tree crowns. Based on this evidence, epiphytes may play key but generally neglected roles in ecosystem carbon uptake, water storage, and nutrient cycling. - Diaz et al., Epiphyte diversity and biomass loads of canopy emergent trees in Chilean temperate rain forests: A neglected functional component

Originally Posted by katrina

I think you mean carbon DIOXIDE

Originally Posted by katrina

As for food and shelter...again, trees are a greater resource.

From the same people who brought you the last study... A field experiment links forest structure and biodiversity: epiphytes enhance canopy invertebrates in Chilean forests

Trees with epiphytes are a greater resource than trees without epiphytes.

A few years ago I started this group on flickr...Orchid on TREES and more recently this group on reddit...Orchids on TREES. In that last group you can find a link to this blog entry of mine...

Natural Orchid Hosts (Phorophytes)

Trees with epiphytes are better than trees without epiphytes. This means that Florida should have more trees with more epiphytes. Every state should have more trees with more epiphytes. Every country should have more trees with more epiphytes.

Should we limit the selection of epiphytes to natives? I'm not sure if we can afford to try and keep wild trees "pure". And the concept of "purity" isn't that solid to begin with...An Evolutionary Perspective on Strengths, Fallacies, and Confusions in the Concept of Native Plants

[gnathaniel]

Not to fan the 'flames' back up, but the Radiolab show aired today is quite apropos to the broad themes discussed here. The discussion explicitly touches on hybridization at least two times, one as genetic conservation attempt and another apparently natural and possibly directly induced by an environmental stressor: Season 12/Episode 9: Galapagos.

Also, a conversation with my father (a prof. emeritus of plant evolution, paleontology and systematics, though all views I've expressed here are my own) also called to mind an example of ecological engineering via hybridization that might feel less threatening to some of you, namely the attempted reintroduction of blight-resistant 'American' Chestnut. I'd point you all toward some beautiful test plots where you can see how these hybrids are faring in their (mostly) native forests, but I wouldn't want anyone getting shot by a landowner understandably irate at some 'purist' ripping out his chestnut seedlings in a fit of sanctimonious pique.

[Orchid Whisperer]

Nat, in addition to the transgenic chestnuts, wasn't an isolated grove of true American chestnuts (adults) found sometime in the last 15 years or so? I'm wanting to say it was somewhere in the Appalachians; a closely-held secret location. I htink I heard and NPR story on it years ago. If you think of it, maybe ask your dad?

Originally Posted by gnathaniel

Not to fan the 'flames' back up, but the Radiolab show aired today is quite apropos to the broad themes discussed here. The discussion explicitly touches on hybridization at least two times, one as genetic conservation attempt and another apparently natural and possibly directly induced by an environmental stressor: Season 12/Episode 9: Galapagos.

Also, a conversation with my father (a prof. emeritus of plant evolution, paleontology and systematics, though all views I've expressed here are my own) also called to mind an example of ecological engineering via hybridization that might feel less threatening to some of you, namely the attempted reintroduction of blight-resistant 'American' Chestnut. I'd point you all toward some beautiful test plots where you can see how these hybrids are faring in their (mostly) native forests, but I wouldn't want anyone getting shot by a landowner understandably irate at some 'purist' ripping out his chestnut seedlings in a fit of sanctimonious pique.

[gnathaniel]

Dennis, I know the vague location of a large remnant grove of mature trees on private land in the Southern Appalachians, if you want I can try to get more precise directions from my informant (not my dad and unlikely to cough up the location, though), I'll also ask my dad if he knows of other healthy groves in the east. I received one nut from the large grove many years ago but disappointingly failed to germinate it.

I've also heard there's a small stand near Warm Springs, GA, that has provided genetic material for ACF hybridizing efforts. Other groups are apparently working to develop transgenic Castanea dentata in addition to the hybrids, but maybe I shouldn't 'go there' in this wacky thread...

[Subrosa]

Originally Posted by gnathaniel

Dennis, I know the vague location of a large remnant grove of mature trees on private land in the Southern Appalachians, if you want I can try to get more precise directions from my informant (not my dad and unlikely to cough up the location, though), I'll also ask my dad if he knows of other healthy groves in the east. I received one nut from the large grove many years ago but disappointingly failed to germinate it.

I've also heard there's a small stand near Warm Springs, GA, that has provided genetic material for ACF hybridizing efforts. Other groups are apparently working to develop transgenic Castanea dentata in addition to the hybrids, but maybe I shouldn't 'go there' in this wacky thread...

Indeed! One bad idea per thread is more than enough.

[Orchid Whisperer]

Originally Posted by gnathaniel

Dennis, I know the vague location of a large remnant grove of mature trees on private land in the Southern Appalachians, if you want I can try to get more precise directions from my informant (not my dad and unlikely to cough up the location, though), I'll also ask my dad if he knows of other healthy groves in the east. I received one nut from the large grove many years ago but disappointingly failed to germinate it.

I've also heard there's a small stand near Warm Springs, GA, that has provided genetic material for ACF hybridizing efforts. Other groups are apparently working to develop transgenic in addition to the hybrids, but maybe I shouldn't 'go there' in this wacky thread...

Hi Nat

Believe me when I say that I am thrilled that there are remnant groves here and there . . . and I deliberately DON'T want to know where they are!!! Better to have them hidden and secret for now. Thanks for the info.

[epiphyte78]

gnathaniel, thanks for sharing those two examples. That Galapagos story was pretty crazy. What was the takeaway?

change is constant
Goats are bad
Pirates are mostly bad but they can be unintentionally good
Don't keep all your tortoises on one island (hedge your bets)
A certain intern has a very interesting resume
Hybrid swarms can be used to recreate the parent species
A Hybrid finch might be less suspectible to brain sucking maggots (hedge your bets)
Future biodiversity depends on how well we play God

Is that right? Am I missing any?

That was kind of grizzly about the goats. I really hope that all that meat didn't go to waste.

Speaking of conservation/eradication...

The Big Kill

I knew about the Moas but I didn't realize that there also use to be a giant eagle that preyed on them... Haast's eagle. I always feel ripped off when I learn about a modern extinction...especially when it's something as cool as a giant eagle.

People in the not-so-distant past stole many valuable treasures from us. But it's hard to judge them too harshly because we wouldn't be here if it wasn't for them. As it stands, most of us are really glad that we don't have to live in "those" times.

Prior to humans visiting New Zealand, the islands didn't have any mammals other than a few bats. As a result, birds had the opportunity to adaptively radiate into the major empty niches. The Moas functioned as deer and the eagles functioned as wolves.

This is relevant because herclivation is based on the premise that there's an abundance of unfilled arboreal niches. For reasons previously discussed, I've argued that we should seriously consider filling them as quickly as possible. But, if we had somehow applied my logic to prehistoric New Zealand and filled the empty niches with deer and wolves...then Moas and Haast's eagles would never have evolved.

This does give me pause...but, then again, Tasmanian Devils and Tigers are/were pretty cool as well.

If us humans weren't around, and barring any natural disaster, in a few million years or so Florida's epiphytic diversity would probably rival the epiphytic diversity of present day Costa Rica. And Canada would have as many epiphytic orchids as Florida currently does.

Maybe future Florida would have had a giant species of Ghost Orchid that was pollinated by a moth the size of a hawk. How crazy cool would that have been?

The not-so-minor detail is that us humans, well, we are around. Maybe in the long long run most of us will rocket away and help terraform a swath of lifeless planets. We'll stop cramping mother nature's style here on earth and she could get back to churning out Moas and giant eagles. But who knows when or if we'll ever make it off this planet (it depends on how long it takes people to understand that progress depends on difference).

Because wild habitats have been drastically reduced in size and number...it's a given that the future is going to have far less biodiversity than it would have had. So if we want the future to have more, rather than less biodiversity, then I think we need to seriously consider trying to help maximize the speciation potential of any and all habitats. This means filling empty niches with life...which, over time, will change and adapt to the different selective pressures of the new environments. As I've argued before, places like Florida are a good place to start because there's an abundance of unnoccupied arboreal niches.

We can imagine mother nature as a scientist in a laboratory churning out new species. Here we are on this forum because we're big fans of the orchids that she's produced. What's important to understand is that every output, whether it's a Ghost Orchid or a Haarst eagle, depends on inputs. The two main inputs that mother nature needs for her outputs are wild habitats and genetic material. If either input is reduced then her output will also be reduced. Given that we've drastically reduced the amount of wild habitat that she has to work with, mother nature's productivity will drastically suffer...unless we offset the reduction of habitat material by giving her more genetic material to work with.

So the basic function looks something like this...

xSpace * yGenes = zSpecies

x and y are the inputs and z is the output. We've slashed x which means we need to boost y in order to avoid ripping off future generations. They won't get Moas and Haast's eagles but they'll get Tasmanian Tigers/Devils...which are pretty cool consolation prizes.

[Subrosa]

I'd like to clarify my last post. Given the inanity of the original topic, a slight detour really can't hurt. The reason why transgenic solutions to the plight of the American Chestnut are a bad idea should be obvious. The problem is a singular one. There is a pathogen which was introduced into the population which the population is generally very susceptible to. Generally however is not totally, as the existence of resistant members of the species proves. Therein lies the obviousness. Resistance to the pathogen already exists within the genome. The species possesses the ability to recover all by itself. Not to say that helping it to do so is undesirable. Indeed every resistant member of the species which is discovered should be as widely propagated asexually as possible, and put into position to propagate sexually with as many other resistant individuals as possible. The only downside to this process is the length of time required. But as in many cases in all aspects of life, the right thing isn't the easiest or most expedient thing. The desire to seek a transgenic solution in this particular instance is motivated by aspects of our human nature, some not so good. Impatience comes to mind, along with the need for closure. I can understand the attraction of being able to claim one "solved" this problem and determining that putting this gene from that plant onto this location on that chromosome of the Chestnut could allow one to do so, in one's own mind. As long as one ignores the forest for the trees, pun intended.

[gnathaniel]

Subrosa, I think I share your general distaste for transgenic technology, or maybe more precisely I'm afraid of where it might lead without adequate moral controls. For those who are into science fiction and philosophy (anyone? ), I've really enjoyed Frank Herbert's Dune series (just the original 6, thank you very much) and Octavia Butler's Xenogenesis trilogy on these subjects.

Back on sort-of topic, I don't think it's known whether there is sufficient natural blight resistance within the American chestnut's own genome for selective breeding on that basis, hence the parallel (and to-date far more successful, AFAIK) hybrid and transgenic strategies. While not all 'pure' Castanea dentata are equally vulnerable to blight, the general consensus seems to be that the remnants likely persist more as a result of geographic isolation, lack of related reservoir species like certain Quercus (oaks) nearby, lack of animals that wound bark (allowing in spores), and/or other less-understood environmental factors like mineral content of soils, mycorrhizal communities, etc.

And even if C. dentata has sufficient material remaining within its genome, resistance or susceptibility factors encoded by more than one gene can be hard to breed for or against. Characteristics encoded by multiple genes might express partially when only some of the genes are present, sometimes not at all unless all are present, or not unless all present WITHOUT another suppressive gene. Epigenetic influences of both environment and development further confound this. Not impossible, but far easier to start with a compatible species already known to express or not whichever gene(s) impart blight-resistance or susceptibility.

Interestingly, many of the 'dead' American chestnuts survive at their roots throughout the eastern forests. I've seen young chestnut sprouts all over certain areas when hiking. These aren't fully blight-resistant so the aboveground shoots eventually develop cankers and die, usually before flowering age, but this is a potentially large reservoir of genetic material that can hopefully be included in eventual reestablished breeding populations of American chestnut. I wonder if anyone is making efforts to gather tissue from these other remnants while they persist?