Moraea aristata
on 4th September 2012
Other observations of Blue-eye Uintjie (Moraea aristata)
Comments
Goldblatt thinks that they
Goldblatt thinks that they wern't very widespread to begin with (probably here to Rondebosch Common), As to the original habitat, the observatory was built on a hill in the middle of a swamp, (not the best place to put an observatory, now that I come to think of it). The hill itself was hard shale and originally known as slangkop because of the number of snakes found on it. Not the easiest of conditions to replicate either. Bulbs were until quite recently available for sale, so it is not quite as critically endangered as one would think at first blush. Even so, my feeling is to spread the bulbs if possible to the banks of the Liesbeek and to Rondebosch Common if possible. - however, given that there are so few plants (approximately 100 or so), I don't think the Observatory would be willing to give them up that easily. Still, its nice to know that the numbers are increasing. They found new ones this year, and from when Goldblatt published his book the numbers have - by my rough count - approximately doubled.
Last chance to see...
This is one of a number of fynbos species hanging on the brink of extinction. I do hope I get to see it in the "wild" before it is too late! But come to think of it, this plant has been in this perilous situation (aka growing in a garden) since at least the early 1990s - that's 20 years! So the question is, are they hanging on because of, or in spite of the disturbance and exotic company?
Whether or not it is Extinct in the Wild or Critically Endangered is really only an academic matter, but Tony is right in that it is very important that if at all possible, that additional, secure sites need to be found where this species can be reintroduced in order to expand the wild population. BTW Andrew, plants in cultivation do not count towards the evaluation of the status of a species - only wild individuals, which is defined as naturally occurring or reintroduced individuals capabale of surviving and breeding without human intervention - should be assessed (IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria rules).
I also don't think it is a good idea to remove the plants from the Observatory and plant them elsewhere - wherever possible, plants need to be maintained in situ, as we cannot be sure whether they will like their new home or not. Especially since it is not clear what the habitat requirements of this species are!
I am not sure if there is a conservation breeding programme with the aim of reintroduction for this species, which is a whole different story to growing plants for horticultural purposes - but it is definitely a high priority.
Good to hear that the numbers at Observatory is increasing!
Breeding Programme
If all that come out of this is a breeding and restoration programme, then we have made a major step forward.
I must also emphasize the point: "no plants should be removed from the Observatory." They are surviving in the Observatory, quite well until now. Taking them elsewhere is highly unlikely to succeed. We need to only take seeds, grow them until they are most likely to survive and then plant them in prospective habitat, where it might survive and spread.
We want to save the species, not wipe it out!
Oh, one other thing. There
Oh, one other thing. There was a City proposal to clean up Rapenberg and the surrounds, and one of the proposals was to plant these moraeas on the banks where the alien vegetation has been cleared. I don't know who is in charge of the replanting, but if the proposal has been accepted by the city, it would be encouraging, because the city has the funds to do it. I can probably speak to the guy who did the landscaping and find out who the botanist is and see what became of that proposal - I have noted your comment re the possible hybridization below, - it would be difficult to keep the two groupings separate, but if they are from the same original stock, then it should be ok. Kirstenbosch could surely do DNA tests to check?
Issues
The problem is not the Moraea aristea plantings, but all the other bulb species planted in the Observatory.
There is no "other stock" for Moraea aristata.
Will the area:
* be restored to Fynbos?
* be burned every 10-15 years?
* what alien vegetation? If Acacia we may need to get rid of nutrients - is this possible?
* will the molerats be controlled? - or will we just feed them?
* Is this area secure as a natural ecosystem: otherwise it is just a garden and wont count towards restoration. Gardening is not restoring. It will be nice to plant them, but we cannot pretend that it is conservation.
I dont like the sound of "the banks"!
* Will the area be kept free of Kikuyu?
* Will the area be kept free of traffic, like the machines used to clean out the canal?
* Are the areas suitable, or should they be Typha beds - in which case they are unsuitable for Moraea aristata.
Herewith the proposal re
Herewith the proposal : for the plant regeneration in full.
A programme to reintroduce indigenous plant species to appropriate niches should be
established. The programme should take the following form:
! Species to be selected from previous botanical records of the area.
! Species to be introduced at appropriate locations, taking into account their ecological
requirements.
! Methods of revegetation.
! Priorities.
! Time frame.
! Monitoring and review.
The following plant species are some examples that should be included:
! Salix mucronata, an indigenous willow growing in wetland habitats, which is now thought
to be extinct on the Cape Peninsula could be reintroduced to this area.
! Leucadendron levisanus, an endangered wetland shrub species that previously flourished 31
on the Cape Flats, could be planted on certain sites on an experimental basis.
! Reintroduction of some fynbos plants, such as Protea repens, to attract more bird species.
The most suitable area would be east of the Pallotti wetlands.
! Moraea aristata, which grows within the SAAO property, could be planted at Raapenberg
North.
Planting of trees provides roosting/nesting and fruit/seed/nectar for birds. These trees should be
indigenous or non-invasive exotics. Small specimens are recommended as they are able to adapt
more easily. Planting should be undertaken on the edges of the wetlands, on slightly higher areas,
which are not inundated in winter. The beginning of winter is the best time for planting. The
following species are recommended: Salix mucronata, Harpephyllum caffrum, Syzygium
cordatum, Tarchonanthus camphoratus, Rhus pendulina, R. lancea, R. natalensis, R. tomentosa,
Erythrina species, Sideroxylon inerme, Carissa macrocarpa, Cunonia capensis.
Commercial removal of plant material should be prevented, except where it does not impact
negatively on the wetland habitat, is sustainable, contributes to job creation, and for the
propagation of rare and endangered species. In the latter case, authorisation from the
management body must be obtained.
An alien vegetation clearing programme should be established, identifying alien species to be
eradicated, methods of eradication, priority areas, time frames, and monitoring. The following
alien species should be removed to the maximum extent where practical: Polygonum
kitaibelianum, Sesbania punicea, Populus species, Acacia saligna, A. cyclops, A. mearnsii,
Pennisetum clandestinum, Paspalum vaginatum and noxious waterweeds. Also see the
Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act 43 of 1983 for a list of declared alien plant species.
Although mostly alien, the trees along the berm adjacent to the Pallotti wetlands and Raapenberg
North provide important roosting and perching habitats for several species. Therefore, indigenous
trees should be planted and allowed to establish themselves before removing larger alien trees.
Eutrophic conditions and the absence of natural grazers cause the reedbeds (Typha capensis
and Phragmites australis) to spread and therefore artificial management of these reedbeds is
required. This may include controlled burning and/or manual removal.
Not natural
So this is not an attempt to establish a natural ecosystem, but a planting.
For this to be labelled natural these species are wrong:
All these are ALIENS:
Harpephyllum caffrum,
Syzygium cordatum,
Tarchonanthus camphoratus,
Rhus pendulina,
R. lancea,
R. natalensis,
R. tomentosa,
Erythrina spp.
None of them occurred naturally on the Peninsula. There are those who argue that any "tree indigenous to South Africa" will do, but these are as alien as to the area as "trees indigenous to the world".
There are no trees in Fynbos or Renosterveld, although it has been suggested that Acacia karoo may have been present. So the planting of trees for wetland birds would be contrary to any conservation plan.
There is nothing wrong with a gardening plan, but then dont pretend that it is natural or trying to restore a natural system. And if you are going to pretend to plant "indigenous" plants then make sure that they are really indigenous and not aliens from anywhere, whether the east coast of South Africa or the east coast of Australia.
No need to shoot the
No need to shoot the messenger :).
Actually, the City has done a great job of clearing out the area opposite Hartleyvale and should be commended for that. There is a lot of re-planting going on and they have removed alien reeds and tons of rubbish. I have noticed that the area is now being used by more people for all sorts of recreation purposes, so well done to the City.
As for the plight of the Moraeas, does their proposal fit in with conservation values - The Raapenberg precinct is a conservation area as far as I know.
I shot nobody. Merely
I shot nobody. Merely offered a commentary!
There is no point in planting the plant if the ecology is wrong.
Raapenberg might be called a conservation area, but that does not mean that it is a conservation area, or that all of it is.
For biodiversity conservation - what we need for Aristea - we need biodiversity principles. Other conservation goals (cultural, historical, agricultural, silvicultural) are still conservation, but have nothing to do with biodiversity.
Comments:
The observatory was built in the 1800s just outside of the glare of Cape Town!!!!! It was right next to the main road and on low hill - ideal location 200 years ago! Today it might seem absurd, and it would be, but the situation has changed a little. Cape Town is at over 100 times larger in area and population!
Seeds are easily available from Kirstenbosch, so we dont have to touch the Observatory plants.
In fact, we should not touch the Observatory plants: they are all that is left of the total remaining gene pool (and any plants sent to European gardens would probably have come from here as well, although it may be worthwhile seeing if genotypes in Europe may contain additional variation).
And with all the other plantings, we need to carefully screen seeds from Observatory, just in case of hybrids. This is just one of the threats to this species: planting or relatives that might hybridize and result in a next generation of hybrids and not pure plants.
As for "so it is not quite as critically endangered as one would think at first blush" - this is meaningless sentiment. The IUCN criteria are quite simple and very explicit: are there less than 250 plants and declining, or less than 50 plants, or any a localized distribution and decline in the last 3 generations (100 years for a long-lived plant like this) growing in natural stands in natural habitat and fluctuations or fragmentation, what is the potential that it will still be in the wild with a probability of 50% in 10 years or 3 generations (100 years for this species, the longest of) time. This species has thus been evaluated as Critically Endangered under Criterion D. But I maintain that it should be Extinct in the Wild: although it survives in situ, its habitat is totally transformed and artificial: it is no longer 'wild'. It exists in a garden, not a natural population within its ecosystem.
extinct!
This species should be "Extinct in the Wild".
Although the population exists in situ, its habitat is totally transformed from Renosterveld to urban parkland. Its habitat is gone, its associated species are gone, the only thing left are the plants, and a whole lot of alien bulbs planted in the Observatory by misguided people who thought it might be lonely.
(it seems to be pollinated by generalist Monkey Beetles, otherwise its pollinators might have been gone as well).
All it will take will be a spray or herbicide by an ignorant gardener, or a bulldozer by someone putting up a new building or parking lot and this will be gone.
Where on earth might we be able to plant it where it will survive and have a secure future?
What makes the Observatory (presumably it was formerly more widespread from Cape Town central to Rondebosch: some herbarium specimens certainly suggest so) so special for it?
So should we try and put some at
* Rondebosch Common, or
* the Game Enclosure on Table Mountain National Park, or
a few other places in the Raapenberg Nature Reserve (aka Black River Parkway canal and reedbeds).
We do need to do something!