Can we save the charismatic megaflora?

You don’t have to look far to understand the importance of trees in our lives. They dominate vast swathes of the landscape and in many cultures provide the necessities of daily life. At the same time, their ubiquity makes it easy to take trees for granted. They have been exploited ruthlessly and our demand for agricultural land and raw materials means they are too often and too easily swept aside. Nevertheless, this seeming indifference belies the fact that human empathy for trees has deep roots, including strong emotional attachments and powerful cultural associations. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Christian tradition and the Bodhi tree of Buddhism are just two examples. Regrettably, however, trees are under threat almost everywhere. This issue of Oryx is dedicated to reviewing diverse approaches to saving our charismatic megaflora and to raising awareness about their future. In broad terms, we know that thousands of species of trees are threatened with extinction. For plants generally more than %, perhaps , of a total of c. , species, are threatened (Kew, ). This preliminary estimate suggests that plants are less threatened than amphibians, more threatened than birds, and threatened to about the same degree as mammals. But more refined knowledge about the status of trees is harder to come by. One problem is the large number of species involved: ,–, based on crude estimates (more than all species of amphibians, birds and mammals combined). Another is that because trees are not a discrete taxonomic group there is no cadre of specialists devoted to their systematics. Some plant families are composed entirely of trees, but in other groups trees are merely a subset. But a list of tree species is only a beginning. We need to knowmore, especially about their geographical distribution, if we are to think strategically about tree conservation. Ideally we would go much further, to assess populations of each tree species and to understand the dynamics of the ecosystems of which they are part. We would also want to know the levels of threat faced by different species. In many parts of the world, however, simply listing all the species of trees and understanding their geographical distributions is beyond our grasp. The conservation status of more than four out of every five tree species remains to be assessed at even the most basic level (Newton et. al., ). If assessing the conservation status of every tree species is an overwhelming prospect, turning that knowledge into conservation action is even more so. In the best of all possible worlds, populations of the most threatened species would be protected and monitored where they grow, and their ongoing survival would be incorporated into broader landscape, regional and national conservation plans. As a hedge against potential disaster in the wild, all threatened tree species would also be protected in ex situ collections, including in seed and germplasm banks. There is no technical reason why any plant species should go extinct (P. Smith, Botanic Gardens Conservation International, pers. comm.). In general, we know what needs to be done and how to do it. Scaling up the necessary action is a matter of resources, but it is also a matter of will and of the commitment of disparate stakeholders to work together more effectively. If you like orderly and efficient problem solving, the world of plant conservation is not for you. There are a multitude of scientists, institutions, NGOs, and governments and their agencies, all with different agendas, priorities and interests. Top-down directives are hard to implement and problematic to coordinate. A shared sense of purpose, underpinned by unwavering commitment, is difficult to sustain. The Global Strategy for Plant Conservation has been a useful step, but collectively we still fall far short of the conservation action needed. In this messy and frustrating context, what is to be done? The School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University was the brainchild of two progressive politicians of the early th century, Theodore Roosevelt Jr and Gifford Pinchot. Roosevelt in particular was committed to action—not all of it well directed—but he got things done. In a matter of days, in early March , Roosevelt and Pinchot working together created the ‘midnight reserves’:  million acres of new National Forests in the American West. At that particular political juncture opportunity and need for action came together. Roosevelt and Pinchot were not found wanting: they seized the moment. Among the many memorable aphorisms of Roosevelt my favourite is ‘Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.’ This should be the rallying cry for all those interested in securing the future of trees. There is plenty to be done, there is no time to lose, and as opportunities arise they need to be seized with vigour. The Global Trees Campaign—a partnership between Fauna & Flora International (of which Roosevelt was a member of the founding group) and Botanic Gardens Conservation International—sets out an overarching aspiration, but the only way to make more rapid progress is for every individual and every institution to find ways to amplify their impact. A bold vision is PETER CRANE School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, New Haven, USA. E-mail peter.crane@yale.edu