EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America
- Major Loss to Organic Farmers as Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto
- The Judicial Lynching of Bradley Manning
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
Popular content
Today's Top News
One in Five Plant Species Face Extinction
First ever comprehensive study of plants, from giant rainforests to common snowdrops, finds 22% of all species at risk • Third of all 'extinct' mammals species found alive
One in five of the world's plant species – the basis of all life on earth – are at risk of extinction, according to a landmark study published today.
An orchid is seen at the University of Costa Rica in Cartago, close to San Jose. The greatest peril to plants came from human-induced habitat loss, mostly the conversion of natural habitats for crops or livestock, research by respected Kew Gardens in London has revealed. (AFP/File/Yuri Cortez) At first glance, the 20% figure looks far better than the previous official estimate of almost three-quarters, but the announcement is being greeted with deep concern.
The previous estimate that 70% of plants were either critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable was based on what scientists universally acknowledged were studies heavily biased towards species already thought to be under threat.
Today the first ever comprehensive assessment of plants, from giant tropical rainforests to the rarest of delicate orchids, concludes the real figure is at least 22%. It could well be higher because hundreds of species being discovered by scientists each year are likely to be in the "at risk" category.
"We think this is a conservative estimate," said Eimear Nic Lughadha, one of the scientists at Kew Gardens in west London responsible for the project.
The plant study is also considered critical to understanding the level of threat to all the natural world's biodiversity, said Craig Hilton-Taylor of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which runs the world's offical "red list" of threatened species. "Plants are the basis of life, and unless we know what's happening to plants it has many implications," said Hilton-Taylor.
The results will be presented to world leaders meeting at Nagoya in Japan in October to discuss the world's biodiversity crisis, along with new red lists for vertebrates and several groups of the planet's millions of invertebrate species.
"This is a base point," said Lughadha. "What we do from now is going to lead to the future of plants. We need to challenge the idea that plants are there to be exploited by us, we need to move to a system where we're nurturing plants much more carefully [and] actively taking steps to conserve them."
Politicians and conservation experts will also be told that by far the biggest threat to plants is human – rather than natural – causes, especially intensive agriculture, livestock grazing, logging and infrastructure development.
Caroline Spelman, the environment secretary, who will travel to Japan for the final talks, said the results were deeply troubling. She added: "Plant life is vital to our very existence, providing us with food, water, medicines, and the ability to mitigate and adapt to climate change."
Scientists randomly selected 7,000 species from across the major plant groups as a representative sample of the estimated 380,000-400,000 so far known to science. Of these, 3,000 were found to have too little information to begin making an proper assessment – a result that was expected and so built into the selection process.
The remaining 4,000 species were assessed and the level or risk based on a combination of the absolute number of plants estimated in the wild, the known decline, and the total area in which they are thought to live.
Of the 4,000, 63% were found to be of "least concern", 10% near threatened, 11% vulnerable, 7% endangered and 4% critically endangered. Another 5% were rated "data deficient".
The proportion of plant species deemed at-risk is similar to that of the IUCN's red list for mammals, worse than that for birds (less than 10% at-risk) and better than the number for amphibians (more than a quarter under threat).
Nearly two-thirds of threatened plant species are found in tropical rainforests, five times the proportion for the nearest other habitats – rocky areas, temperate forests and tropical dry forests. This is because of their huge density of biodiversity and the widespread risks of logging and clearance for other agriculture, said analysts.
Previously the red list for plants contained assessments for a greater number of plants – about 12,873 or 3% of known species – but was not considered representative because scientists had focused on at-risk species so that they could get attention and funding for conservation.
The assessment was done using experts and collections at the herbaria at Kew Gardens, the Natural History Museum in London and Missouri Botanical Garden in the US, plus specialist experts from the IUCN.
From pines to snowdrops to rosewood – six of the endangered plants
Wollemi pine (Wollemia nobilis) – critically endangered
The wollemi pine was discovered in 1994 in Wollemi National Park, Australia, and there fewer than 50 mature individuals are known. Its long-term regeneration from seed is unknown but seems doubtful due to competition with other trees. Its small size and limited range means it is at risk from any chance event such as fire or the spread of disease.
Common snowdrop (Galanthus nivalis) – near threatened
The common snowdrop was once widely distributed in the east Carpathian mountains in central and eastern Europe. Although it is widely naturalised, including in the UK, during the past decade its native distribution has been considerably reduced, due mainly to habitat loss through the increase in residential developments and recreational land use.
Rosewood (Dalbergia andapensis) – critically endangered
D. andapensis is a species of rosewood, a highly valued timber sed in the production of fine furniture and musical instruments. It is estimated that 52,000 tonnes of rosewood and ebony were logged in north-east Madagascar in 2009, and this habitat is itself under threat from conversion to agriculture for a growing rural population.
Wood bitter-vetch (Vicia orobus) – least concern
Wood bitter-vetch is a rare species found through much of western Europe, including the British Isles, at woodland margins, field edges and rocky places, often on limestone. In Ireland it is considered to be threatened as a result of habitat loss, and is being protected by the National Botanic Gardens of Ireland.
Whited's milkvetch (Astragalus sinuatus) - Critically Endangered
Whited's milkvetch is restricted to a tiny area of the state of Washington, USA. Its dry hillside habitat is threatened by invasive, non-native species, by grazing and by agriculture. Seeds have been collected and banked by the Berry Botanic Garden Seed Bank for Rare and Endangered Plants of the Pacific Northwest and the Miller Seed Vault, University of Washington Botanic Gardens.
Encephalartos altensteinii – vulnerable
E. altensteinii is found in coastal regions of the eastern cape, South Africa, where the number of individuals has declined by more than 30% in the past 50 years. Large numbers have been removed from its native habitat, including 438 plants in one poaching incident in 1995, mainly by horticultural collectors for pot plants or medicinal use.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



16 Comments so far
Show AllHate to be a nit-picker, but you have to know what percent of plants would be endangered naturally in order to make a comparison between environments abused by humans and those left alone. In other words, even in pristine environments plants (and other organisms) go extinct. Some occupy niches so narrow any slight change will push it over the edge.
Mostly the problem with plant extinction has to do with habitat destruction. We need to identify those habitats richest in plant species and protect them. It may be hopeless to stop the general spread of agriculture or urbanization or deforestation, but it might be possible to save the truly precious habitats in each country that still exist. These islands of biological riches could be defended from development through eco-tourism and direct grants from governments and nonprofits. It's a better plan than simply saving seeds or DNA because the environmental niches are preserved, too.
From Wikipedia:
"...the rate of species extinctions at present is estimated at 100 to 1000 times "background" or average extinction rates in the evolutionary time scale of planet Earth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction#Modern_extinctions
We are causing permanent damage to the Earth that will impoverish and brutalize countless future generations. It's not enough to throw up our hands and say that it's "...hopeless to stop the general spread of agriculture or urbanization or deforestation." It's simply criminal not to do more than we're currently doing to prevent the creation of Hell on Earth.
It's time for triage. Lots of places are past saving: parts of the Middle East, India, China--almost everywhere you look--there are lands so ruined by human abuse that they will not come back for hundreds of years. At the same time, there are ecosystems nearly unchanged from times before the population explosion of a certain primate we know all too well. We must save what we can. That does not mean we stop demanding people stop withdrawing water from degraded aquifers, paving over land for parking lots and buildings, fertilizing fields with chemical fertilizers--we should try to do everything we can to get people to stop. But the big battles should center around those centers of biological diversity that are threatened: places like the Great Barrier Reef, the Brazilian rainforest, tundra ecosystems, and more. If those go, hundreds of thousands of species go with them, never to return. We've got to save them first.
While we continue to drive our 12 mpg GMC Yukon to MacDonald's for a Rainforest Big Mac?
It's not enough to send ten bucks to Rainforest Action while our rapacious, over-consumptive lifestyles deplete the planet.
What about the other big "C" word?:
http://www.gerdludwig.com/html/stories_soviet.html
"The extent of pollution and ecological collapse in Russia is due to decades of ill-considered military and industrial development undertaken in virtual secrecy and with scant concern for the environmental and health consequences. Environmental pollution clamps a stranglehold on the big cities in Russia. Pollution in Russia now threatens the health of millions of citizens and the safety of crops, water and air. In 84 of Russia's largest cities the air pollution is ten times the accepted safety levels."
http://www1.american.edu/ted/russair.htm
at least the poppies in Afghanistan are thriving.
Maybe we ought to spend less time eradicating 'devil' plants, and planting more things ourselves. Every plant has its purpose in nature, and I guess that some natural herbs just aren't as profitable as there pharmaceutical analogs.
Plant extinction doesn't make sense. They have seeds. These can be preserved and regrown, whatever...
Each species is adapted to a certain niche. You cannot duplicate that niche (always) in gardens. Some have unique pollinators, others have unique relationships with fungi in their roots or are dispersed in specific ways. Many plants--especially those in the orchid family--require a rainforest to survive. It shouldn't be a surprise: it is where they evolved.
Also, it's like keeping tigers in a zoo. Tigers are adapted for hunting in certain kinds of forests. If they grow up without learning how to survive in the wild, then--in a sense--they are lost since they must depend upon humans for life. Same with plants. You might be able to grow them in artificial conditions but that is not the same as preserving them in nature. That's why it is so important to preserve habitat.
People extinction doesn't make sense. They have sperm and eggs. These can be preserved and regrown, whatever...
No wonder the planet is in such a mess, this type of thinking is beyond my comprehension....
But, hey, whatever...
"We need to do this . . . "
"We need to do that . . . "
Bollocks! That's a load of bollocks, folks!
Defective evolution produced a mutant species that's out-of-control and reeks of arrogance. Liberals always whinning and crying, "Human rights before animal rights!" Why not human rights before EVERYTHING ELSE? See what happens?
The "sanctity of human life"? How about the INsanctity of nonhuman life? Isn't that the norm?
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
And yet, PBS's Charlie Rose had on the former leader of pre-Chinese takeover Hong Kong last night and they went on and on about how the "economic development" of China was a win-win for China and America. 150 new Chinese mega-cities to be built with new water and sewage systems with solid and liquid waste disposal and all the other material needs of the new 300 million strong and rapidly growing Chinese middle-class to be satisfied. It'll only take 5 or 6 more planet's worth of resources to supply this fantasy for China and India and neo-lib economists know zilch about the environment while politicians just deny what little they do know by humoring increasingly corrupt old school U.S. environmental organizations.
A full on global Depression might be the ONLY thing that slows down this juggernaut and politically breaks up the global weld points on "free trade" anti-regulatory neo-liberal capitalism long enough for enough folks to take a thinking breath and realize the suicidal nature of what is unfolding. Either way things are looking mighty grim and I wonder what people imagine they are doing by bringing more children into the world these daze--especially more than one or two.
The Charlie Rose parade of plutocrats' general attitude is: Put meaningful environmental change off indefinitely because technology will swoop in at the last minute and save "us."
[Read: The elite who have agricultural safe havens in the form of garrisoned large farms and ranches with clean well water supplies and enough goons to guard them.]
I do not want to import plant species from overseas! What was once growing wild here in the US, has been disamated by "forego environment for profit." Astragalus Americanus is exstinct....I do not want to use Astragalus Membranus.....so If I can't find Astragalus Bernardinus here in Cali, I'll have to go to Arizona. Gather some seeds, and wait a year until I can harvest the roots. Astragalus root is one the most effective immune boosters there is! And I don't want "pills," I want the root to put in stew!
Leaving your health in the care of "others" is a costly, wait til the creek rises attitude! I believe in prevention!