7/17/2019 Conservation Massacre of Ariocarpus - Héctor M Hernández Cact. Succ. J. 80 (5) 2008

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conservation-massacre-of-ariocarpus-hector-m-hernandez-cact-succ-j-80 1/2

220   CACTUS AND SUCCULENT JOURNAL

HÉCTOR M HERNÁNDEZ

Conservation massacre

Ariocarpus bravoanus driven near extinction

T

ed Anderson and I were cautious

not to disclose the locality of  Ari-

 ocarpus bravoanus at the time of

its original description, and I nowbelieve that it was a mistake to

bring to its home a group of surely

well-intentioned people: members

of the CITES-financed Mexican

cactus monitoring project (1993–1994). Clear-

ly, some of the participants of this group could

not resist sharing the locality with their closest

friends, and that was the beginning of the dis-

semination process that resulted in an increas-

ing number of people knowing of and visiting the

location of this rare plant, and (why not?) col-

lecting a few specimens.

 Anderson did not report evidence of threats

to  A.  bravoanus in his book Threatened Cacti

 of Mexico2, but by 1996 an increasing number of

collectors knew the location of the species, and

signs of poaching were already evident. Field-col-

lected plants were being confiscated in Europe,

and accounts of plants being sold on the black

market were already common. The population at

the type locality soon became almost totally dec-

imated. In the meantime, two more small popula-

tions were discovered near the original site. Onewas destroyed by agricultural development, and

the second, containing only a few plants, unfortu-

nately appears to be known to plant poachers.

Recently I went with my colleagues Rolando

Bárcenas and Carlos Gómez-Hinostrosa to visit the

type locality of  A.  bravoanus  in San Luis Potosí.

The goal was to collect small samples of tissue for a

project lead by Julie Hawkins and Rolando, who are

trying to develop a DNA-based certification scheme

aimed at reducing trade of wild-collected cacti3,4.

 We were shocked by what we found: virtually all

plants (about 100 individuals) in the populationwere “marked” with permanent enamel paint.

The perpetrators of this terrible mistake will be

a negative example in the history of plant conser-

vation. It is hard to figure out why they did this in

the way they did it. Maybe, they simply wanted to

mark the plants for monitoring purposes, or per-

haps they wanted to discourage collectors, in thesame way that activists paint Canadian harp seals.

In any case, the people who carried out this irra-

tional act probably were not aware of the poten-

The March 1991 discovery of Ariocarpus

bravoanus was a happy and highly

significant event 1. To the Mexicancommunity of botanists it was aremarkable new addition to the richendemic flora of the country. To the

amateur cactus and succulent world itmeant an exciting new species belonging

to an already charismatic cactus genus. At the time I could not have predictedthe series of events bringing it to almost

total extinction.

7/17/2019 Conservation Massacre of Ariocarpus - Héctor M Hernández Cact. Succ. J. 80 (5) 2008

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conservation-massacre-of-ariocarpus-hector-m-hernandez-cact-succ-j-80 2/2

2008 VOLUME 80 NUMBER 5  221

tial health effects of covering a signifi-

cant part of the plant’s body with toxic

paint. They were obviously unaware that

the thick enamel coating reduces the

photosynthetic function of the plantsand impedes gas interchange through the

stomata. And what about the potential

absorption of the paint solvents into the

plant’s body? In many cases the paint

covers virtually all of the woolly area in

the central part of the stem, creating an

impenetrable barrier for flower and fruit

development. These plants will no longer

be able to reproduce.

 When we discuss the most com-

mon threats to biodiversity, especial-

ly those affecting cacti and other suc-culent plants, we immediately think of

habitat destruction and illegal collect-

ing. But poorly trained biologists and

would-be conservationists can also be

destructive. The very presence of peo-

ple in some desert habitats can dis-

turb the stability of fragile soils and the

plants they harbor. Many of the species

are so cryptic that damage from tram-

pling underfoot is a real risk. The degree

of endangerment for many Mexicancacti is so high that access to their natu-

ral populations should be prohibited by

law, unless there is a way to guarantee

that the organisms and their habitat will

remain unaffected. What we have seen

in San Luis Potosí is a sad testament to

our appreciation for these plants.

 Ariocarpus bravoanus at the type locality

damaged by well-intentioned conservation-

ists. The thick coating of paint reduces pho-

tosynthesis and impedes gas interchange

through the stomata. The paint covering the

woolly area at the central part of the stem

also creates an impenetrable barrier forflower and fruit development. These plants

no longer have any commercial value,

but now no longer can they reproduce.

Photos by Carlos Gómez-Hinostrosa.

REFERENCES

1 Hernández HM, Anderson EF. 1992. A new species of

 Ariocarpus   (Cactaceae). Bradleya 10: 1–4. 2 Anderson EF,Arias S, Taylor N. 1994. Threatened cacti of México. Royal

Botanic Gardens, Kew. 3 Bárcenas RT. 2006. Comercio

de cactáceas mexicanas y perspectivas para su conser-

vación. Biodiversitas 68: 11–15. 4 O’reilly C. 2005. Pilot

project uses DNA to control trade in Mexican cacti. Plant

Talk  42: 10.