The limited information released by the media in the past two weeks gives people a feeling that the national park protection system and the national park protection system, the former has accurate positioning and clear tasks, while the latter is obscured by clouds and eager to list.
From many perspectives, it is necessary for China to build a national botanical garden. To run the National Botanical Garden well is of course very correct. However, the coherence of the argumentation reports of the relevant departments and the testimony of the media is astonishing and should be regarded as unqualified argumentation.
The official media continued to report on January 13, 2022 that ex situ conservation is emergent protection. At present, 60% of species in China have received ex situ conservation, and the goal of establishing a national botanical garden is to protect 85% of species ex situ.
See the contradiction in it?
First, the botanical gardens have achieved such great achievements now. Is it true that more than half of the plant species have been received ex situ conservation? Second, are 85% of China’s native plants needs ex situ conservation? Are there so many native plants that cannot survive well in the natural territories of the People’s Republic of China? There are some problems in China’s ecological environment and biodiversity conservation, but how bad is it? If it is the case, it means that the “National Park Conservation System” that has just been established will be a complete failure!
At present, according to official publications, the total number of species collected in the north and south parks in Beijing is less than 10,000.
Beijing Botanical Garden: 4825 species, Beijing Botanical Garden of Chinese Academy of Sciences: 3949 species, a total of 8774 species. The official media on January 13 is still mentioning 15,000 kinds. Please explain this to the public first.
It should be noted again that there are thresholds for “ex situ conservation”. The success of ex situ conservation of a species can only be determined after many tests such as adaptability, genetic diversity, interspecific hybridization, seed germination of several generations, and field regression, which require careful research and a long time. Please talk to the academicians and experts who spoke, how many of the 8774 species have been tested for one or more of the above tests? Is there half? If not, how did those species that were recorded in the name of “collection and cultivation” “incubate” overnight into “ex situ conservation” species? Is this academic misconduct?
Can these 8774 plant species be clearly distinguished from the plant species temporarily supported by your home, my home, and garden hawkers? Here are a few guesses, please confirm or deny the relevant departments (the brackets are only guesses, which may be wrong).
- How many of the species collected and cultivated in the north and south gardens of Beijing are counted repeatedly?
- Have all these entered the botanical garden in the name of “ex situ conservation” for decades? 【no】
- Are they all native plant species in China? 【no】
- Do they all need “rescue protection” in theory? 【no】
Is it suspected of academic misconduct when the number of species is rewritten as the number of “ex situ conservation” species for reporting and publicity?
Call for the publication of the relevant argumentation reports written by experts to the State Council. If the content is classified, can the unclassified part be released?
Original Chinese Article: https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/456818922?utm_source
Do you know? The CBCGDF is a non-profit organization. We rely on crowd-funding and donations. You have the opportunity today to help us to advance biodiversity conservation. Donate today to power up the movement to make this a better world for all life.