A Different Way To Protect The Ghost Orchid

[WhiteRabbit]

I have been debating on whether or not this thread should be locked. I think there is good discussion, so, for now, will leave it open.
I understand that passionate feelings can lead to heated arguments, but remind all to remain respectful to those with differing points of view / opinions. Personal attacks and insults will not be tolerated, and will result in infractions and temporary bans.

[orchidsarefun]

Isurus79 -using offensive and derogatory language may have worked for you in middle school but doesn't work with adults.
Epiphyte still has his proposal and is working for more people to acknowlege/accept it despite you and others 'calling him out' and tracking him from forum to forum. The self-appointed Guardians of the Internet Protecting People who Believe Everything they Read As Fact.
You have made your position clear but insist on trying to shut down any further debate or discussion from people interested in the topic. Just don't post. Its not mandatory.
Others have made thoughtful comments and I have yet to read Epiphyte's replies to them. I hope he hasn't given up and moved on to another forum.

[hcastil3]

Originally Posted by orchidsarefun

Isurus79 -using offensive and derogatory language may have worked for you in middle school but doesn't work with adults.
Epiphyte still has his proposal and is working for more people to acknowlege/accept it despite you and others 'calling him out' and tracking him from forum to forum. The self-appointed Guardians of the Internet Protecting People who Believe Everything they Read As Fact.
You have made your position clear but insist on trying to shut down any further debate or discussion from people interested in the topic. Just don't post. Its not mandatory.
Others have made thoughtful comments and I have yet to read Epiphyte's replies to them. I hope he hasn't given up and moved on to another forum.

The hybridizing of Dendrophylax lindenii can lead to its extiction, causing pathogens to mutate, and affect multiple species.

also it could lead to them competing for pollinators.

it could become some invasive species out in the wild. If this was just for fun inside a controlled environment, sure go ahead.


if not, we can influence trophic levels,
habitat fragmentation is already doing this, why do it more?

[WhiteRabbit]

The personal arguing must stop! If there is one more post that contains language that IN ANY WAY is insulting to another, there will be infractions with temporary bans given!

[orchidsarefun]

hcastil3 - yes, those are possibilities that need to be considered and probable unintended consequences. There must be reasons why only 1 species is found in the Everglades currently.

Epiphyte78 - I think you need to provide some sort of a timeline to your proposal and acknowledge the types of issues that hcastil3 and others have mentioned. Further Andrew - I think - also raised the issue, and I am paraphrasing, whether its ecologically worthwhile to save the species/hybrid in the wild anyway. What does everyone say to that excellent question ?

On a macro level I also think that novel/far-fetched/out-of-the-box ideas have to be seriously considered as potential solutions to some of the problems facing conservation. I recently heard a radio interview where it was discussed that ivory poaching has increased to more dangerous levels because wealthy Asians are now stockpiling ivory because they think the Elephant is going extinct. I recently was part of a conversation on phal species where it was commented that current species are inferior to those found 50 years ago and the proposed solution was to backcross using older hybrids to try and re-obtain an original species. That's a decades long project too, if it ever gets off the ground.
At work we always approach problem solving by asking for input from everybody and listing the ideas, however seemngly ridiculous, on a whiteboard for further discussion. Its true that some of the best and effective ideas originate with people that you would least expect them from.....in other words not the usual experts. Everyone can have an opinion and it doesn't have to make sense all the time.

[Subrosa]

Originally Posted by WhiteRabbit

I have been debating on whether or not this thread should be locked. I think there is good discussion, so, for now, will leave it open.
I understand that passionate feelings can lead to heated arguments, but remind all to remain respectful to those with differing points of view / opinions. Personal attacks and insults will not be tolerated, and will result in infractions and temporary bans.

If everyone could simply stay on point it would be a big help in the respect department. It's impossible to respect a point of view which changes according to necessity, and by extension the person who debates in this manner. Which is why I'm talking to you and not them Sonya.

[Orchid Whisperer]

I think it is worthwhile to take a step back here, look at some basic facts, and take a realistic look at what can and can't be done to protect Dendrophylax lindenii.

Fact: It is a Florida endangered species. There are estimates that there are only 1,200 wild specimens left.

Fact: It is also on the CITES II list.

Fact: It occurs in only limited areas of Florida. Estimates range from 3 to 5 counties only, most likely in Collier, Hendry, Lee and mainland Monroe counties only, in six protected nature preserves. Start messing around planting things that don't belong in those preserves, you would likely end up in handcuffs before you can say Bob's-your-uncle. D. lindenii may have already been extirpated from the Everglades. There are reports of its occurrence in Cuba and the Bahamas.

Fact: Its habitat is dome swamps, strand swamps, and sloughs. The species occurs naturally on specific tree species, close to eye level, often on trees in standing water with the plants approximately 5 feet above the water. So, they occur in an extremely small area geographically, on a handful of tree types, and within eye level above the water/ground surface. That is an EXTREMELY narrow range of conditions and habitats.

Fact: It has been declining in numbers. Why?

Certainly collection by poachers explains part of the demise, despite the fact that wild-collected plants usually die in cultivation. Other plants have been lost due to habitat destruction. The giant sphinx moth is declining in numbers, and that too may be part of the decline.

A clue from the 1970s explains why much of the decline may be occurring. During the late 1970s, some big freeze events occurred far down into south Florida, especially in 1977. Hundreds of plants died.

Why? Examine where the plants are living. In swamps, above water; during cold spells, the thermal mass of the water keeps temperatures locally warmer, by just a couple of degrees. It now makes sense why these plants grow so close to the ground/water surface.

Surely freezes came to south Florida before the late 1970s? Yes, but here is an interesting fact. Historically, decisions have been made to drain parts of south Florida to make way for agriculture, development, etc. LOWERING the water. Perhaps the colonies of ghost orchids in the wild adapted to survive in a very narrow range above water in the swamps, relying on the thermal mass to survive the winter. Who knows how old individual wild plants, or colonies of plants, are? If the plant was established when water surface was within 3 to 5 feet of the plants, and the water surface was suddenly dropped through man-made drainage, then with the next big freeze, suddenly the plants are too exposed to the cold and die.

Clearly, if you are concerned about preserving this species, then overwhelmingly the best course of action is to preserve habitat. Since the habitat is so limited and narrow, it makes no sense to plant a hybrid, or other species, in the same place. In some cases, it may be possible to reverse habitat loss and restore wetlands of the type where D. lindenii used to live (dome swamps, strand swamps, and sloughs); in time, maybe D. lindenii can re-colonize the restored areas. As with most things, when it comes to conservation, go for the low-hanging fruit first. Way before even contemplating poorly-conceived, far-fetched and scientifically ill-advised measures.

Regarding possible effects of global warming, since a drop in water level may have caused part of the decline in numbers, it is hard to argue that an incremental rise in water level over time will cause D. lindenii to go extinct. I am not arguing in favor of global warming, just saying that I don't see it as a huge threat to the species.

Is this species worth saving? Clearly the loss of the estimated 1200 remaining plants is not going to result in mass extinction. I would hope that the moths have another food source and at least survive. But like the California condor, or whooping crane, the world will be a better place if we do not lose D. lindenii.

I've said my peace on the matter, tried not to insult anyone. If you truly want to save this species, find a conservation group actively trying to preserve habitat in south Florida, and support them, rather than pursuing scientifically unsound strategies.

[orchidsarefun]

OrchidWhisperer - there is much to agree with in your post.
I would just like to point out that climate change has an associated potential impact and that is colder Winter snaps or even prolonged cold. This would be devastating to the Ghost Orchid if the rising tides do not compensate. Timing is crucial to the survival of the species in the wild based on what you have stated.
Here is some data
Winters - Florida Climate Center
Another article
GhostOrchid.info

Also I really don't know why there appears to be no restocking programme, or one that I can find ? Donations could be used to either propagate seeds or purchase seedlings ? Surely there is potential for habitat restocking which is a good example of 'low-hanging fruit'

[gnathaniel]

Okay everyone, how about some ground rules for this thread? Clearly this is a topic many feel pretty passionately about (usually good), but please don't let your passions cloud your judgment and interpersonal morals (almost always bad). No points for calling me out on not always following these rules, since I do try but sometimes fail; the important thing is to TRY.

1. Try to read with charity, in the philosophical sense (go look it up!). That doesn't mean you have to agree with what you're reading, but when you assume something lacks merit from the get-go then it's 100% certain you're not being a good communicative listener/reader, since there's a nonzero chance the person who wrote what you're reading felt it had some merit.

2. Look for points of agreement with others rather than points of disagreement; the latter should be apparent anyway once you've exhausted the former. Trust me on this one, and try it out for real even if you think I'm an idiot for suggesting it (I might agree with you on that ).

3. Stop insulting others! If you wouldn't say something in person to your mother (or BFF, clergy, whomever you hold in high regard in this life) then don't write it in a forum. Someone else insulting you is neither excuse nor justification for doing it back.

4. Try to remember that written communication has a lot (some would say most) of its communicative content stripped out. Something that is perfectly acceptable to say in person while smiling at someone, or with a sarcastic edge to your voice, can be pretty offensive and less readily forgotten on the written page. Likewise don't be so quick to read offense from someone else (see #1).

Originally Posted by tropterrarium

I guess I am one of the people who actually can parse that snippet from that scientific article. Please note, that just because something is published in a peer reviewed journal and written by people with PhDs (both assumptions I'm not sure about in this case) does NOT mean that the arguments are sound. I do have a bit of credentials here, bio PhD, 70 papers in peer reviewed journals, editorial and reviewer appointments in a number of places.

Great! Please do parse that snippet for all of us, then, since I didn't see a summary in your post. I thought I summarized with reasonable accuracy in my last post (essentially that natural hybrids occur between some Epidendrum clades and hybridization is likely significant in their evolution) but I'm often wrong. I read scientific articles for fun rather than work and not infrequently have to consult with others to make sure I'm 'getting' and not overstating something.

Also, if you'd like to stand on your credentials here then please provide your name and a link to your CV. I know many people with bio, chem, ecol, pop bio, stats, genetics, etc. PhDs and hope you understand what I mean when I say some PhDs are worth more than others in certain contexts. Not trying to offend, but credentials only properly lend credence when they're held up for examination. Otherwise you're just a quasi-anonymous forumite like the rest of us.

Anyway, I'm a little confused about what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that the specific conclusions of the reticulate evolution article Carlos quoted are unsound? Or are you advocating a general stance of skepticism toward scientific publications? I agree with the latter, but I'd also point out that very little actual skepticism has gone on in this thread, the vast majority of which I'd characterize more as fearful and angry reactions to a distasteful idea. In my milieu skepticism generally requires arguments based on reason and authority rather than emotion, assumption of no premises without support or at least identification of their assumed status, and a healthy dose of charity (in the sense noted above).

Originally Posted by tropterrarium

So: If something sounds a bit off, then look at what is NOT stated, but implied. You have to start reading between the lines.

Agree 100%. I think there's been waay too much 'argument' here proceeding on sets of assumed but unarticulated premises, which is a bad recipe for misunderstanding when others happen not to share those assumed 'understandings' or the values embedded in them.

Some major implicit premises I'm seeing pop up over and over are the concept of rigid human/nature duality and the related idea that 'human' things can't be 'natural' or 'wild.' These are powerful assumptions to go unexamined, particularly without coherent definitions of what IS 'human,' 'natural,' or 'wild,' or agreement on how to draw boundaries between them.

Originally Posted by tropterrarium

Claim: hybrids can preserve biodiversity. Hybrids by definition are mix of two species, so you take 2 make 1. That is reduction in biodiversity.

True in one sense, but incomplete unless we're talking about one hybrid individual and its two individual species parents. Simplistically put and ignoring ploidy, organelle genes, epigenetics and other potentially confounding effects, primary hybrid nuclear genes will be derived 50% from each parent species. So yes, each individual hybrid offspring possesses half the genes present in both parents collectively (assuming the parent species are distant enough relations as to share no genes already, probably unlikely given they can hybridize). Two such hybrids, though, could (I didn't say will) collectively possess as little as 50% and as much as 100% of the genes collectively present in the two individual parents, and as the hybrid population size grows, particularly if derived from multiple primary crossings plus backcrossing events, diversity of hybrid-swarm genome is more likely to approach 100% of the collective genomic diversity of both parent species.

Your example also proceeds under a zero-sum assumption, that the hybrid will completely supplant the two parent species. Under a different assumption, that hybrid swarms often co-exist with their parent species, we're actually saying 1 + 1 = 3, a net increase in biodiversity in terms of individual clades. Which assumption is correct? I don't know, but I'm guessing the best answer is probably 'it depends'...

Originally Posted by tropterrarium

If you argue that the two original lineages persist with the new hybrid, then that leads to narrowing of niches, and more specialization. More specialized taxa have a greater probability (or Popperian propensity, if you wish) for extinction (plenty of evidence in fossil record). Accordingly, you may get unintentional consequences of reduced biodiversity over evolutionary/geological time scales.

Seems like another zero-sum assumption built in; what about emergence phenomena, ie that greater available complexity of interactions creates new properties or abilities? A hybrid swarm with a more diverse genome than either parent should be better able to colonize a variety of niches. In orchids, niches seem largely delimited by direct climate tolerance (at least partly a function of nutrition), pollinator interactions including pollinator tolerances/niche, and presence/non-pathogenicity of fungal symbiotes. Are you arguing that a hybrid swarm necessarily competes with parent species in sufficient of these regards as to narrow the chances of survival for each? You may be right but I'm curious to hear further explication because I don't think your conclusion exactly follows from just your stated premises, especially if hybrid swarms tend to be more diverse than their parent species (a big if).

Originally Posted by tropterrarium

- Time scales: biological change (anagenesis) is relatively slow (punctuated equilibrium not withstanding). Natural splitting of lineages (cladogenesis) also takes time and is slow (millions of years), regardless of whether by traditional allopatric speciation, by parapatric speciation/secondary reinforcement, by founders, or by controversial sympatric speciation. Hybridization, in contrast, is very rapid. Initially you may get hybrid vigor, but often that gets reduced in the long run due to inbreeding due to small starting population size of hybrids (similar to long range dispersal/founder's effect). Once in a while, you get stable hybrid zones (and possibly even lineage sorting, leading back to the original species), but again, rather the exception than the rule.

Sorry, but this is chock-full of questionable assumptions. First of all, the jury's still out on some of the broad evolutionary dynamics you're treating as settled conclusions here. "Punctuated equilibrium notwithstanding" alone is pretty much a mile-wide caveat, no? And please provide citations for your assertion about the timeframes for cladogenesis, or better yet for cladogenesis rates in Orchidaceae, which we already know have some atypical features as compared with vascular plants generally.

You also seem to imply that hybridization is not a 'natural' means of speciation or lineage-splitting. If it occurs repeatedly without human intervention and leads to stable populations that are pheno- and genotypically distinct from their ancestors, then what is it if not natural? Is it 'unnatural' because humans also do it, even if it's been going on since long before there were humans?

Originally Posted by tropterrarium

Botany has some reasonably well inferred cases for hybrid speculation (aka reticulate evolution), but they are few and far in between. The vast majority still is traditional cladogenic evolution.

Speaking of skepticism in the epistemological sense, lack of evidence FOR a phenomenon doesn't mean it doesn't exist but often only reflects the difficulty of studying that particular phenomenon. Given how much molecular analysis there still is to be done in plants, and given how much our understanding of evolution has shifted in recent decades, don't you think you're overstating things a little here? Sure, you're not saying outright that reticulate evolution will never be found to be more significant than in the current broad consensus, but especially in the context of this ridiculously emotional thread it sure seems likely a some people will take it that way...

I'm curious to hear your reaction to this article:

Reconstructing patterns of reticulate evolution in plants

This and quite a few other publications seem to suggest that reticulate evolution really isn't all that uncommon in plants, though the extent of its importance to evolutionary processes overall is yet unknown. Animals, including humans, do it too, as Svante Paabo's work on the Neandertal genome seems to demonstrate.

Originally Posted by tropterrarium

Our current effect on biodiversity is rather strong, mainly due to habitat reduction. You want to preserve species, preserve land. The vast majority of cases where humans have meddled with species, it has turned out bad, often for unforeseen reasons. Why the ghost orchid hybrids should be different is unclear.

I am very happy that the majority of people on this thread have the good intuitive sense of being skeptical about the referred claims. Please keep those hybrids well under lock and key. Thanks.

Land preservation is unquestionably an important tool in biodiversity conservation but it's far from the whole toolkit, and standing alone rarely works. Ex situ conservation is another important tool, albeit with pretty significant drawbacks, and likewise insufficient by itself. The biotic inhabitants and processes of a given piece of land don't exist in isolation from each other, and we're already a much bigger presence on Earth than is commonly acknowledged for a variety of reasons.

If we don't change how we do things, we're going to lose progressively more and more of the world's biodiversity. Would you, and everyone else posting here, rather see a given species go entirely extinct or have some part of it live on in a hybrid, if you had to make that choice? Why? Is it more important to sustain the patterns or the processes of life today, and why? Are they distinguishable? What do you think about efforts to 'revive' extinct species like the passenger pigeon? Do examples of past bad results and unknown future consequences justify blanket bans on ecological engineering? Is it better to modify biotic networks intentionally or unintentionally, and how should they respectively be regulated?

None of which is to say that I agree with Carlos or support his modest proposal, only that I think it's an interesting idea meriting REAL skepticism, philosophical charity, and above all some CIVIL DISCOURSE! I take exception to your claim that the majority of people on this thread have been skeptical about his claims; vitriol, denial, and kneejerk fear flowing from unexamined bias are unequivocally NOT skepticism. Even trolls deserve some basic human respect.

Sorry if I come across as picking on you, 'tropterrarium'! I find this topic pretty relevant and am feeling irritated with the excessive noise on this thread, so thanks for keeping things more substantive.

[Orchid Whisperer]

A restocking program seems to be a more reasonable idea than placing hybrids in the few habitats where D. Lindenii lives. Whether there are barriers to restocking, I don't know. Perhaps a botanist with skill in orchid ecology might know (James D. Ackerman comes to mind).