A Different Way To Protect The Ghost Orchid

[orchidsarefun]

I am unsubscribing to this thread, mostly because its pointless commenting, but partly because
Madbot babble » Blog Archive » Madbot’s Workplace Observation – 4 – Bullshit baffles brains

[calvin_orchidL]

Yes, I apologize for misusing that scenario. I don't know anything about coyotes, mountain lions and wolves!

To clarify, I used Orchidsarefun's example for convenience to illustrate that the opposition seems to recognize the unknown consequences and potential negative impact of alien species in general, yet somehow there's a failure to appreciate the parallels with the proposal at hand.

Or rather, there is some understanding of this concept, but the defence argues zealously that somehow epiphytes/orchids/the ghost orchid are exceptions or perhaps immune to these unknowns/potential negatives. This argument is unfortunately based upon non-scientific 'epiphyte maths', general thoughts about how "orchids grow slowly and don't reproduce easily in nature" (FYI, there are invasive orchids), and an opinion by Benzig.

Since you asked so nicely, here are some specific examples references species spanning various genera:

The establishment of a hybrid zone between red and sika deer - "The genetic integrity of the Scottish mainland red deer is shown to be at risk from the invasion of sika."

Greater male fitness of a rare invader (Spartina alterniflora, Poaceae) threatens a common native (Spartina foliosa) with hybridization"

Extinction by hybridization and introgression in anatine ducks - a review that references field studies.

Translocation Causes Extinction of a Local Population of the Freshwater Shrimp Paratya australiensis

[epiphyte78]

Originally Posted by calvin_orchidL

Please clarify whether greater biodiversity refers to extant species only, man-made hybrids only, or both? If your definition includes hybrids, please explain why the countless new hybrids being registered by the RHS every year don't count.

Man-made hybrids count in the sense that they give us a larger genetic pool. If some rude-mood aliens from outerspace stole all our wild orchids...then, the larger our cultivated genetic pool, the quicker we would be able to fill in all the gaps.

Originally Posted by calvin_orchidL

What's the potential for loss of biodiversity in trying to minimize loss of biodiversity [using your intervention]?

Yeah, I'm struggling with this question. If I manage to track down a good sized division of Encyclia subulatifolia...then what's the potential for loss if I hedge my bets by giving subdivisions to my plant friends with the greenest thumbs? The potential for loss is less than it would be if I didn't hedge my bets. A while back I received a nice division of Laelia anceps var veitchiana "Fort Caroline" from our mutual friend. Right now it's blooming on my tree. Did our mutual friend increase or decrease his potential for loss by giving me the division? If something happens to his plant, then he'll always be able to get a division from me. So I'm his insurance. I'm his backup. Well...unless something happens to my plant as well. But the chances of something happening to both our plants at the same time is certainly a lot smaller than the chances of something happening to either one of our plants.

Originally Posted by calvin_orchidL

Given the numerous specific examples of greedy passengers on the terrestrial bus causing 'harm' (as defined above), please provide specific evidence that the epiphytic bus is actually, indeed, a double decker bus with unfilled spots. Given that we have provided specific examples, I only think it's fair you match with the same level of evidence, and not opinion pieces or expert deductions by Benzig or Sandford. I trust you know the difference between a review/expert opinion, and a field study/randomized control trial.

I'm supposed to match your irrelevant studies with relevant studies? **Deleted long and useless sarcastic rant that ended with..."And my username isn't epiphyte78."**

I've engaged in more than enough due diligence to throw this idea out there. And, as I've said before, given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow. Now it's open season...where somebody, with their unique eyeballs looking someplace that mine have not, can say, "your eyeballs suck and this RELEVANT study proves herclivation does too!" And then I'll say, "well there you go, given enough eyeballs all bugs are shallow. I'm glad that I didn't move to Florida and create hybrid swarms". Maybe it won't happen today, or tomorrow...but the more people who see this thread...the more eyeballs that will be on the lookout for any relevant studies that they happen to stumble on. And it's not like I'll stop looking for relevant studies on epiphytes. I mean, after all...my username is epiphyte78.

Originally Posted by calvin_orchidL

While we're talking about the topic of 'harm', please also explain how many spots are on the bus, how you actually know this (so you don't overbook), how you are sure that a new passenger won't decide to take the seat of another passenger, or maybe take up 2 or 3 seats instead of 1, or act so loud and noisy that other passengers don't want to be on the bus anymore. Please explain how you can predict whether or not the child or maybe grandchild of a new introduced passenger and existing passenger might decide to go to an expensive private university down the road, using up all the resources that the original parents needed to survive? Please explain your strategy in making sure passengers share nicely with each other, instead of being greedy.

Benzing mentioned the fail safe devices in place. An epiphyte can't walk from one tree to the next. We don't see acres of monoplantings of epiphytes like we do with some terrestrials. Each tree is in essence an island...and not all trees are suitable for all epiphytes. As Benzing said, there's a lottery to see who can make it to the next habitable tree.

Originally Posted by calvin_orchidL

You're right, we cannot. However, your goal is biodiversity pure and simple, is it not? And as I mentioned in point number 1, we're perfectly capable of creating biodiversity, crossing genera left right and centre. Why are we relying on adaptive radiation which takes 1000s of years? We've already achieved your goal!

There's a difference between adapating to a pot on a bench in a nice and cozy greenhouse and adapting to a tree that's subjected to the full force of nature. Natural and artificial selection aren't the same thing. Sure, huge greenhouses can be built where thousands and thousands of seedlings are subjected to just enough cold to kill 99.9% of them...and then water can be withheld to kill 99.9% of the remaining seedlings. The survivors would be some pretty tough cookies. But would anybody pollinate them in nature? Would the seeds be able to find any suitable fungus? And who in the world would set up massive greenhouses to select for cold/drought tolerance?

We can create orchids that are relevant/functional (survive in nature)...but the only way to know whether we've truly done so is to introduce them to nature. And again, I'm not recommending that we do so. I'm just sharing my very biased perceptions.

If I perceived that the future was going to have plenty of wild orchids growing on trees...if I felt relatively certain of this outcome...then I'd be doing something else with my time right now. But here I am...thanks to all the relevant information that's floating around in my brain. And there's a lot of epiphyte info in my brain.

If you have a cyrstal ball and it's showing you a world where orchids growing wild on trees are the rule rather than the exception, then please send me a screenshot so I can spend my time doing other things. Or, if you have evidence that leads you to believe that's what a cyrstal ball would show, then by all means, please share it with me.

Originally Posted by calvin_orchidL

You know, you're probably right. In a weird twisted way, I can understand what you're getting at. The environment is changing faster than it has in human history, and you're advocating that we expedite the evolutionary process to keep up with it by introducing novel genetic material.

I get that. However, the point myself and others have made many times is that we don't think you appreciate the fragility of ecosystems, and the impact an introduced alien can have on existing species. There is abundant evidence supporting examples of harm in carrying out this proposal in the terrestrial 'bus' sphere, so when it all boils down, your entire proposal relies on the single assumption that the 'epiphytic bus' is different and immune to these negative impacts. Based upon your blogs, this incredibly important assumption is based on only your own deductions ('epiphyte maths), and a single opinion piece published in the 90s. Take away this assumption, and suddenly all the evidence against doing this in the terrestrial sphere applies to your proposal.

However you spin it, you're basically saying that David Benzing, who wrote the book on epiphytes, is wrong. He might be...but you're going to have to try a little harder than simply saying that terrestrial experts know more about epiphytic habitats than he does. Find another epiphyte expert who contradicts Benzing. Good luck.

Originally Posted by calvin_orchidL

In a way, you've jumped the gun a bit. You are advocating strongly for this intervention using epiphyte maths as the backbone, but you haven't even supported and validated the initial theory of 'epiphyte maths'. Looking at a branch and saying - "hey, it looks pretty bare. It must have microniches!" is not scientific validation. Nor is a single passage from an old text published in the 1990s.

I spent three years pretty much living in the jungles of Panama. I saw more than one bare branch.

I don't know why you feel so confident that the future of orchids in the wild is secure. Do you see many threads being posted on the topic of conservation? Do you hear many stories of more habitat being saved than lost?

[calvin_orchidL]

Originally Posted by epiphyte78

I'm supposed to match your irrelevant studies with relevant studies? **Deleted long and useless sarcastic rant that ended with..."And my username isn't epiphyte78."**

Apparently examples of this happening in various taxa in animals, plants, birds, fish, shrimp etc... are 'irrelevant' because somehow epiphytes are magically exempt from these forces. Oh wait, I said that already:

Originally Posted by calvin_orchidL

Or rather, there is some understanding of this concept, but the defence argues zealously that somehow epiphytes/orchids/the ghost orchid are exceptions or perhaps immune to these unknowns/potential negatives. This argument is unfortunately based upon non-scientific 'epiphyte maths', general thoughts about how "orchids grow slowly and don't reproduce easily in nature" (FYI, there are invasive orchids), and an opinion by Benzig.

I actually don't understand this thing about eyeballs and bugs, so I'll just leave that one alone.

Originally Posted by epiphyte78

Benzing mentioned the fail safe devices in place. An epiphyte can't walk from one tree to the next. We don't see acres of monoplantings of epiphytes like we do with some terrestrials. Each tree is in essence an island...and not all trees are suitable for all epiphytes. As Benzing said, there's a lottery to see who can make it to the next habitable tree.

However you spin it, you're basically saying that David Benzing, who wrote the book on epiphytes, is wrong. He might be...but you're going to have to try a little harder than simply saying that terrestrial experts know more about epiphytic habitats than he does. Find another epiphyte expert who contradicts Benzing. Good luck.

No, I am saying that he is one person, and I am skeptical since all I have seen is the quote on your blog, which contains statements that don't referencing specific species or studies. Again, please confirm you understand what a field study or a controlled experiment is, and the difference between that and an expert opinion. These are very fascinating theoretical ideas, but without some sort of study backing them up, it's doesn't have much substance.

Also, if you ever do present this proposal to a scientific body, just note that the responsibility is on you to provide the evidence and convince people of your idea. Not me. Perhaps you might pause for a moment and wonder why 80% of the participants (most of them lay people like myself) watching this thread are not convinced by your idea. The scientific community is much tougher. Be prepared to be met with scepticism until you provide actual convincing backup. Unfortunately, 'epiphyte maths' doesn't really count. Allow me to return your well wishes - good luck.

On the topic of biodiversity:

Originally Posted by epiphyte78

There's a difference between adapating to a pot on a bench in a nice and cozy greenhouse and adapting to a tree that's subjected to the full force of nature. Natural and artificial selection aren't the same thing. Sure, huge greenhouses can be built where thousands and thousands of seedlings are subjected to just enough cold to kill 99.9% of them...and then water can be withheld to kill 99.9% of the remaining seedlings. The survivors would be some pretty tough cookies. But would anybody pollinate them in nature? Would the seeds be able to find any suitable fungus? And who in the world would set up massive greenhouses to select for cold/drought tolerance?

We can create orchids that are relevant/functional (survive in nature)...but the only way to know whether we've truly done so is to introduce them to nature. And again, I'm not recommending that we do so. I'm just sharing my very biased perceptions.

You didn't answer my question. I'll repeat it. What are the forces threatening the hybrids that we create? If your goal is simply biodiversity, why don't we just continue creating hybrids and grow them in our greenhouses? They're not under any threat - they don't need cold/drought tolerance. They don't need animals to pollinate them. We can just live with tons of hybrids, growing in greenhouses or protected gardens, with biodiversity left right and centre...and if a batch dies, we'll just make more using different parents. The possibilities of infinite, and biodiversity is infinite - please clarify what your goal of 'biodiversity' has to do with creating hybrids that survive in nature.

Originally Posted by epiphyte78

I spent three years pretty much living in the jungles of Panama. I saw more than one bare branch.

Nice.

Originally Posted by epiphyte78

I don't know why you feel so confident that the future of orchids in the wild is secure.

Please kindly point out where I ever made this implication. Just because I think your proposal is poorly formed does not mean I don't support conservation, which seems to be a weird deduction you have made several times towards other people here.

[Subrosa]

I would suggest that anyone who wishes to express complex ideas such as the ones brought up in this thread would do well to consider a basic understanding of the language in which one wishes to express it , along with an understanding of what a chain of logic is, as prerequisites.

[epiphyte78]

Originally Posted by calvin_orchidL

Apparently examples of this happening in various taxa in animals, plants, birds, fish, shrimp etc... are 'irrelevant' because somehow epiphytes are magically exempt from these forces. Oh wait, I said that already:

It's kind of a strange situation where I'm here scratching my head trying figure out how to do a better job than Benzing did explaining the difference between a tree and the ground.

Originally Posted by calvin_orchidL

I actually don't understand this thing about eyeballs and bugs, so I'll just leave that one alone.

It seems I can't explain why trees and the ground are different...so I'll leave it alone as well.

Originally Posted by calvin_orchidL

No, I am saying that he is one person, and I am skeptical since all I have seen is the quote on your blog, which contains statements that don't referencing specific species or studies. Again, please confirm you understand what a field study or a controlled experiment is, and the difference between that and an expert opinion. These are very fascinating theoretical ideas, but without some sort of study backing them up, it's doesn't have much substance.

Sure, I know the difference between a study and an opinion just like I know the difference between a tree and the ground.

Originally Posted by calvin_orchidL

Also, if you ever do present this proposal to a scientific body, just note that the responsibility is on you to provide the evidence and convince people of your idea. Not me. Perhaps you might pause for a moment and wonder why 80% of the participants (most of them lay people like myself) watching this thread are not convinced by your idea.

I don't have to pause to figure that one out...it's because 80% of the participants haven't even heard of David Benzing.

Originally Posted by calvin_orchidL

The scientific community is much tougher. Be prepared to be met with scepticism until you provide actual convincing backup. Unfortunately, 'epiphyte maths' doesn't really count. Allow me to return your well wishes - good luck.

The scientific community is much tougher...because...they don't even know what an epiphyte is?

Originally Posted by calvin_orchidL

You didn't answer my question. I'll repeat it. What are the forces threatening the hybrids that we create? If your goal is simply biodiversity, why don't we just continue creating hybrids and grow them in our greenhouses? They're not under any threat - they don't need cold/drought tolerance. They don't need animals to pollinate them. We can just live with tons of hybrids, growing in greenhouses or protected gardens, with biodiversity left right and centre...and if a batch dies, we'll just make more using different parents. The possibilities of infinite, and biodiversity is infinite - please clarify what your goal of 'biodiversity' has to do with creating hybrids that survive in nature.

You're painting a pretty picture of wonderful biodiversity inside...but what's going on outside? Is there no more outside? Is it just a bleak, post apocalyptic, lifeless wasteland? Inside it's utopia and outside it's dystopia?

If we're going to err with the future of outside...then I want to err on the side of too much life. If I had to choose between Bladerunner's outside or Avatar's outside...then it wouldn't be a difficult choice. Neither would it be a difficult choice if I had to choose between future people hating me because there weren't enough wild epiphytic orchids or hating me because they had to scrape orchids off their homes.

There's a really simple formula if we want to aim for too much life...

More orchids on trees equals more life

When we put more orchids on trees, whether hybrids or species, we facilitate adaptive radiation. Adaptive radiation is a numbers game. The more monkeys we have typing...the quicker they'll produce the complete works of Shakespeare. The more orchids that are throwing seeds in the air, the quicker that they'll adapt to trees in new habitats. And more orchids on trees means more food/shelter for more animals and less global warming.

How'd you get from this...

Originally Posted by epiphyte78

I don't know why you feel so confident that the future of orchids in the wild is secure. Do you see many threads being posted on the topic of conservation? Do you hear many stories of more habitat being saved than lost?

to this...

Originally Posted by calvin_orchidL

Please kindly point out where I ever made this implication. Just because I think your proposal is poorly formed does not mean I don't support conservation, which seems to be a weird deduction you have made several times towards other people here.

I wasn't asking to see your receipts for donations that you've made to conservation organizations. I was asking to see the evidence that makes you so confident that conservation organizations are doing enough to steer us well away from a Bladerruner future. Because I sure see plenty of evidence to the contrary. And I'm not trying to knock what they are doing...I'm just saying that it's a drop in the bucket. And I don't see that changing anytime soon.

This forum doesn't even have a category for conservation. And it's certainly the rule rather than the exception.

With herclivation though, a small group of enthusiasts might be able to greatly increase the diversity and biomass of epiphytic orchids in Florida. Of course, as usual, I'm not suggesting or recommending that people introduce any non-native plants or animals into the wild. This is just purely hypothetical and theoretical.

Regarding your concern...let me provide an example that's more relevant than all your examples combined...

If P. bifurcatum plants become very dense on trees, they could displace native epiphytes. - Robert W. Pemberton, The Common Staghorn Fern, Platycerium bifurcatum, Naturalizes in Southern Florida

That was written 10 years ago. Have they become very dense on trees since then?

Last week I went to Andy's Orchids. While there I noticed a baby P. bifurcatum on the gravel between some rows of orchids. Somebody had recently done some weeding.

Personally, I'd do the same thing if a P. bifurcatum started to grow on my tree. Why? Opportunity cost. It would pretty quickly crowd out dozens of other epiphytes. In other words, my tree would have less biodiversity if I let it grow.

But in Florida, bifurcatum's going to have to try pretty hard to displace any native epiphytes. I'm not saying it's impossible...I'm just saying that if it does manage to grow so well...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?

[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.