Subject: Species introduction

From: Jon Reny <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 22:08:14 -0600

I am a seasonal botanist with the Forest Service in NW Montana.  My primary 
duties include the searching for, and monitoring of, TES species (Threatened, 
endangered, and sensitive). 

Now here is something to think about.  Is it wrong for me to try and "spread" 
these "sensitive" species into habitat that appears suitable??  By this, I 
mean the collection seeds or actual transplanting the individuals.  We are 
doing this with animals very much these days, (ie wolves, bears, elk). 

This idea has met with a very lukewarm reception.  I am not supporting this 
idea or against it either.

Post replies to this group...or directly to me.

Thanks  JON RENY

[email-masked]

---

From: Ivan Sache <[email-masked]>
Date: 24 Apr 1996 06:47:40 GMT

>Post replies to this group...or directly to me.

Before introducing a 'new' species, you must be able to evaluate the risk 
for the native plant community.
If the new species has greater competitive ability than the native ones, 
you may induce a biological invasion. If the invasive plant has 
undesirable characteristics (poisonous, weedy...), you can easily imagine 
what will happen.
The introduced species may carry pathogenic fungi, bacteria or viruses. 
If these 'hitch-hikers' find good conditions in the introduction areas, 
they may be able to spread to other native plants and destroy them. The 
risk is high with seeds which may bear fungus spores on their surface but 
also contain embryo-inhabiting spores. The disease will appear only at 
flowering stages and it will be too late to control the disease spread.
I would conclude with : Watch your step when introducing something...

Ivan Sache
Plant Pathology
INRA
78850 Thiverval-Grignon, France

---

From: [email-masked] (Howard Clase)
Date: 24 Apr 1996 12:25:42 GMT

>idea or against it either.

	Plants have evolved all sorts of ways of dispersing their seeds: wind
blown, insect carried, sticking to the fur of animals, ejector mechanisms etc.
A very good one has been to be appealling to gardeners, enabling ocean and even
hemisphere crossing in a matter of a few years - journeys that until recently
would have taken millenia.  Appealling to soft hearted, conservation minded
botanists is surely just another such strategy!

	Seriously though, re-introduction where the plant has died out is
surely justified; although the change in conditions that caused the original
demise may have to be corrected too - like removing the too vigorous competitor
that somehow got introduced there.   Otherwise it's a difficult subject!

	Howard Clase

---

From: Hanne Hvatum <[email-masked]>
Date: 24 Apr 1996 21:52:36 GMT

I think, introduction to a locality far off should be avoided. Species should be helped to 
survive within their natural ranges. And even within the species' range, introducing plants 
>from  a different part of the species' range could alter the genetic structure of the species.

Local introductions of rare or threatened species, I think, means completely different things 
if it is a species of natural habitats (not favoured by human disturbance), or if it is a 
species of managed habitats.

Rare species of natural habitats should not be introduced into new localities if the original 
ones are more or less safe. For one, such a practice would tend to make biogeographical 
studies of the species impossible. If there is an emergency situation concerning the primary 
locality, an introduction to a new locality should at least be published so that the history 
of the new locality is documented.

For rare species strongly associated with managed habitats (hay meadows, grazing meadows etc.) 
I think introduction is completely OK to "complete" the species composition of localities 
where one has taken action to continue the traditional management. Such species have little 
potential to spread out into unmanaged vegetation, and their local distribution is very much a 
result of human traffic in itself. When management is stopped, they will disappear again.

For more common species introduction should be unnecessary - but on the other hand it would 
not mean a problem either. 

The thing one absolutely should avoid, is introducing species alien to the region - it might 
turn out to become a new aggressive alien.

Jan Wesenberg
Oslo, Norway

---

From: [email-masked] (John Meidell)
Date: 25 Apr 1996 05:12:43 GMT

I generally concur with the sound advice given by prior respondants in 
that much care should be given in the reintroduction of imperiled plants 
species. Here in Hawai`i, oft noted as the extinction capital of the 
world, we are more than familiar with this issue. We are also quite 
familiar with the sometimes catastrophic consequences of short-sighted, 
though well-intentioned introductions. At the 8,600 acre preserve that we 
manage, we feel that outplanting of the the most critically imperiled 
taxa is a good way to bring them back from the brink. However, two very 
important guidlines are adhered to: 1) propagation stock must come from 
local sources in order to protect natural genetic integrity, as plants of 
the same species occurring on different islands-or even different 
locations of the same island- can exhibit radical variations, and 2) 
reintroduction locations should match, in terms of natural community type,
 the location of the original range of the taxa in question. This is 
particulary pertinent to us in Hawai`i as abrupt changes and radical 
variations in climate that are produced by rugged terrain have created 
ecological niches or microsystems that appear to have unique evolutionary 
heirarchies. This may or may not apply to you. Well, hope this helps. 
Good luck in bringing `em back from the brink!!

J. Scott Meidell 
Pu`u Kukui Watershed
Maui, Hawaii
[email-masked]