When conservation
How did a stinky, ugly plant become a higher priority for protection than the kauri tree? In part one of a two-part series, Charlie Mitchell examines how an official ranking of our endangered species came to be.
The little plant by the lake appears to be dying. Orange bubbles cling along its stem like pustules, and it looks dry, wilted – like a figure slowly decomposing.
It’s a jarring presence in the high country, not far from the Powerade-blue lakes that feature heavily in New Zealand’s branding.
You likely wouldn’t notice the small herb, flattened against the dry earth, in such a vast landscape. What betrays the plant, brings it to your attention, is the smell for which it was named. The New Zealand fishguts plant smells even worse than it looks.
The fish-guts plant does not appear on our tourism posters, and has never made it on to a commemorative stamp. Very few people know it exists at all, and fewer have actually seen, or smelled, one.
The little public information that exists remarks on its awful smell, and how it is a close relative of the stinky goosefoot – a plant that is slightly less rancid but significantly more popular – but little else. Even its scientific name, detestans, haunts the fishguts plant, stamping it with unpleasantness.
At the other end of the country, in a sprawling patchwork of wetlands in northern Waikato, a beautiful orchid exists in solitude.
The swamp helmet orchid is a tiny plant with a maximum height of 3cm and an extremely limited range: its entire New Zealand population is confined to one arm of the swamp, where only a couple of hundred orchids remain, blazing brilliantly red like rubies in the mud.
The swamp helmet orchid is so rare, and such a tempting target for orchid thieves, that its exact location is a government secret. When a photographer from New Zealand Geographic went on an expedition to take photos, he was escorted by a Department of Conservation (DOC) ranger to its location, an hour-long slog through the bog, at times chest-deep, under the condition no photos were publicised that would reveal its exact location.
Like the fish-guts plant, the swamp helmet orchid once had a wider habitat, until humans transformed the land for their own purposes. Much of the country’s wetlands have been drained, leaving species like the orchid with few places to survive.
New Zealand has tens of thousands of obscure plants, many of which are threatened in some way.
But the fish guts plant and the swamp helmet orchid are notable for one reason: last year, they were listed as ‘‘priority species’’ by DOC, under a proposed strategy to figure out which of our threatened species most needed to be saved.
It was an ambitious task that resulted in a 150-strong list. It included kiwi, ka¯ ka¯ po¯ , Hector’s dolphin, the great white shark and tuatara; species that are generally considered important for conservation, animals that people know and like.
What was interesting about the list were the outsiders, the little-known species elevated to the rank of those listed above, like the fish-guts plant and the swamp helmet orchid.
They weren’t the only obscure ones.
The list also included seven types of scurvy grass and 17 snails; it featured a beetle that exists in only one patch of grass on a large rock in Hauraki Gulf, and a stick insect species of which only two have ever been found, on a single branch of a tree in Northland.
It did not include kauri, weka or the orange-fronted parakeet; not one of our thousands of fungi species, and no spiders, not even the katipo.
So how did a rancid plant and an orchid few people will ever see make it on to such an important list? And did they deserve their place?
It’s a conundrum that highlights the moral issues that have come to define modern conservation, and the choices that have to be made.
The global rate of extinctions is now 1000 times the natural rate, according to a United Nations panel on biodiversity. Limited resources mean only some species can be saved, and prioritising some can mean condemning others.
Because of its high rate of threatened species, New Zealand is on the forefront of making choices around a tough question that has echoes of Noah’s Ark: which species most deserve to survive?
The algorithm
To a layman, the algorithm is indecipherable; strings of bracketed phrases, drawing information from lengthy spreadsheets that detail every aspect of some of our most threatened species: how rare they are, how many family members they have, whether it’s endemic to New Zealand.
The threatened species algorithm was deployed by DOC last year to create the list of 150 priority species, which had been intended to become government policy. (The new Government is expected to announce its own policy in the coming months, and it is unclear whether the prioritised-species list will remain, or expand.)
It took about 500 of our managed native species – only a small fraction of all species, but those with the most complete data – and put them to the whims of the calculations underpinning the algorithm.
The formal name for this approach is ‘‘systematic