There are many good examples of conservation efforts that combine in situ and ex situ strategies to safeguard against species extinctions. Have a look at the literature pertaining to conservation of endemic birds in both New Zealand and Mauritius. Organisations in these countries use both techniques very effectively to conserve their unique avifaunas. In addition, plant conservation is at the forefront of the combined in situ/ex situ approach. I highly recommend you find a copy of 'Plant Conservation in the Tropics - perspectives and practice' where you will find good case studies where in situ and ex situ tactics have been used to preserve extremely rare species.

Thanks Aleksandra. There are indeed several cases of both in situ and ex situ conservation and I have reported one for all. However, during 30 years of practical experience, I found too many times several conservationists totally against ex situ conservation or, at the best, it is to be considered the last resource. Today we are facing imminent extinction of flagship species and still preeminent people adverse ex situ for them. I am very familiar with their reasoning but my question is referring to their tangible, negative opposition to ex situ activity rather than their theory or papers. My concern is that there should be more respect for other view points and not to create problems once facts have demonstrated ex situ to be also very effective in saving species. Perhaps my question should be: why in situ and ex situ species conservation often don't co-exist?

As you rightly state, a lot of the reasoning behind people rejecting ex situ conservation has to do with personal opinions. The main argument I have come across is that people feel if species are conserved in zoos, collections etc. others might think that it is not imperative to conserve the habitats that these species require to exist in nature. Thankfully, I believe that this opinion is now somewhat outdated. There have been too many examples of where extinctions would likely have ocurred without ex situ strategy intervention, and after all, despite all our advances, extinction is still forever. Another very important reason why ex situ work is still shunned to some extent, is the the high cost of these strategies. It is very labour intensive and costly to provide adequate housing and care for fauna, and even the cost of propagating plants or preserving seeds is manifestly greater than trying to conserve them in the wild. This has to be a huge consideration in these times of economic uncertainty, and with so many conservation priorities, the somewhat controversial nature of ex situ work makes it less likely to be funded in the first place. Perhaps economic concerns are now the primary reason for low uptake of ex situ strategies?

While I certainly support the integration of in situ and ex situ conservation efforts, here are some additional thoughts supporting ex situ work.

1. While the present cost of ex situ is usually far greater than in situ as Aleksandra points out, political stability can be much higher. In situ work can be destroyed overnight by political instability and corruption.

2. Climate change will make some "island populations'" (mountain tops, sea islands and populations isolated by human development) unable to support many indigenes species.

3. Climate change human refugees and new resource wars may overwhelm local government authority and overrun national parks and preserves.

4. Climate change induced economic chaos may make financial support for all conservation efforts difficult, but especially difficult for remote sites.

The earlier discussion, while useful, seems to assume conservation challenges tomorrow will be much like those today, if more server. But the near future will be fare more challenging in both type and degree.

My money is in gene banks, seed banks and frozen zoos.

Hi All

Apologies for being a severe latecomer, but I'm interested in the relative costs of in situ vs ex situ conservation and am trying to find papers where this has been quantified to some degree (for plants, animals, whatever). If you could point me to any examples that you know of I'd be very appreciative.

Just to cause some trouble, my come-back to Jon is I'd say that ex situ efforts (including gene banks, seed banks and frozen zoos) are likely just as vulnerable to political instability, strikes, power outages, etc. The plus side is that within one area suffering the same pressures it may manifest in different ways for in situ vs ex situ conservation efforts, backing Francesco's call for implementing both in unison ;)

Many thanks!

Jasper

Hi Jasper,

Have a look at the attached paper (which seems to contradict what I said in my earlier answer about costs) - there are some good references within which might help you out with the relative cost issue.

I think someone should point out that ex situ techniques are not as reliable as was originally thought. Seeds still die in gene banks, and gene banks are not appropriate for all species - eg. recalcitrant-seeded plant species which pose a special set of problems.

Hope the paper helps.

Aleks

Brilliant, thank you!

Don't see how that didn't turn up in my google scholar searches!

Hi Jasper and Aleksandra,

Thank you for your interest. This is still a controversial matter among conservationists despite it is among the priorities. There is no silver bullet to save species from extinction but well coordinated approaches. Costs of conservation, whatever they are, are negligible compared to the billions wasted in "priority" products, practices, not to mention arms, drugs, etc. It is the real will lacking.

Great question, Francesco!  I am grateful for Jon Charles Coe's list above, as I agree with his points.  Three points I would add, given my experience as founder of Torreya Guardians, are these:

1. LANDSCAPERS. Plants can benefit from free ex situ actions by concerned citizens and by landscapers.  Go to this internal link on one of my assisted migration webpages and see a superb 2014 article on this point in Landscape Architecture Magazine: http://www.torreyaguardians.org/assisted-migration.html#urban  Right now I am urging a university in the Puget Sound Area of USA to begin a multi-disciplinary network of student projects to seek out and assess examples of redwood and sequoia trees already thriving in the Puget Sound region -- planted decades ago by adventurous landscapers and now serving as superb evidence of exactly the locales and conditions for beginning assisted migration of these California species in anticipation of climate change. Note: We Torreya Guardians not only got our seed stock from landscaped plantings of this endangered species (ESA has loophole for such) but in 2015 I posted a video of our quantification of successful naturalization (sans invasiveness) of a 90 year old untended grove of Florida Torreya in North Carolina.  The farthest naturalized self-planted seedling was about 40 yards away: https://youtu.be/9__U91BS2aM

2. REWILDING. For plants, seed banking makes sense, but not to the exclusion of ex situ plantings in supportive wild (and politically safe) habitats. Hence my personal emphasis during the last 4 years in using some of annual Torreya seed harvests for "free planting" directly into wild forests -- with no additional help after seed placement. Results thus far (in Alabama and s. Ohio for this "Florida" species) look very promising. I have yet to edit and post the video footage, but will get around to that this fall. Meanwhile, go to this internal page link to see some captioned photos of what we have learned thus far about rewilding and free planting of endangered Torreya: http://www.torreyaguardians.org/propagate.html#rock

3. PLANTS EX SITU WITH NO FUNDING.  Part of my reason for the poleward rewilding assisted migration experiments is that I have no faith that the USA economy will ever improve enough for there to be sufficient money for academic and NGO conservationists to do the kind of massive ex situ plantings that climate change will require -- even of common trees. Torreya Guardians does everything with zero external funding: just a bit of gasoline, postal fees, and the cost of my own video camera for doing our seed collecting, distribution, planting, and documentation — all ex situ, and some rewilded.  Note: I have extended my assisted migration action symbolically this year to a "common" slow-to-move tree species in the southwestern USA: Alligator Juniper. A 22 minute video is my monologue on why I initiated this — and it includes my point about citizens needing to step up to direct and undertake massive poleward seed-moving work for noncommercial tree species in the decades ahead: https://youtu.be/hmM3juDxUsY As I was quoted in a December 2015 issue of The Economist magazine, "We are the radical edge of what is going to become a mainstream action." http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21678964-save-endangered-species-move-them-more-congenial-places-modern-ark

Thanks for your information Connie. Regarding redwoods in Washington state, I planted over a hundred Sierra redwoods about 36 years ago in a park I designed along Lake Washington in Renton. They are already magnificent. Also both types of redwood grow well here outside Melbourne Australia and an arc of 150 year old redwoods can be enjoyed in a park in Christchurch NZ. For more information and opinion you can reach me at [email protected]. Cheers,

To Jon Charles Coe: The info on your redwood plantings is timely!  Two days ago I sent a topic discussion proposal to University of Washington's new "Center for Creative Conservation." My point was to suggest that an army of students be assigned to do projects whereby existing Sequoia plantings in the Seattle area are fully inventoried and evaluated -- an obvious, non-controversial step absolutely essential to undertake before any "assisted migration" (ex-situ plantings) of redwoods/sequoia should begin. If you are aware of any other sequoia plantings in the Puget Sound area, please let me know and I will pass those on the the UW folks.

Probably not of interest, but Californian redwoods (Coastal I think) grow quite happily in South Africa too http://www.capenature.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Grootvadersbosch-Map-and-Brochure.pdf 

Thank you Connie! 

Though I agree with Jon that reproductive technologies should also be applied as an important ex situ conservation tool, I am afraid that they are still at an initial stage for saving species which have reached the "tipping point". Besides, they could give the impression to no-laymen decision takers that we can create individuals, hence there is plenty of time, morphologically, ecologically and genetically perfect as the original ones. San Diego Zoo via its major frozen zoo bank has just started to try in producing Northern White rhinos (from only three left) and their estimate is, if this attempt will be successful, 10 to 15 years more to produce Sumatran and Javan rhinos, two species down to few dozens remaining in situ. To use Jo's words: I would put my money on zoos and on gene banks, seed banks and frozen zoos. Time is of the essence for some species.

Francesco; Interesting little chat group we've formed. Fifty years ago when I was in university design school I considered applying for work with IUCN, but I wasn't a scientist and back then IUCN didn't need landscape architects/environmental planners. Since then I've done ecologically based planning (in situ and ex situ) in 13 countries on 6 continents including substantial work in Afghanistan lately. And now I'm enjoying informally talking conservation strategy with a scientist at IUCN. Very nice,

Regarding reintroduction of zoo bred species into native habitats here are a few additional thoughts: 1) California condor seems to be one of the most successful attempts (from 13 founders at LA and San Diego Zoos I believe). 2) I visited a large Arabian Oryx reserve in UAE just across the boarder from Saudi Arabia. Although it was marketed as a success, the animals still relied on occasional food and water supplements and couldn't survive alone in this vast desert sanctuary. 3) Perth Zoo has successfully reintroduced three zoo bred Sumatran orangutans. One later died from snake bite and one is successfully raising an offspring from a wild male. Also here in Australia, Zoos Victoria is reintroducing endangered bandicoots using guard dogs to keep foxes and cats away and this same Marama (?) dog breed is protecting several thriving colonies of little penguin. Zoos Vic is now having success reintroducing helmeted honeyeaters after successfully training them to fear hawks. This is all great stuff, but in no way compares to losses occurring every day in in situ environments. So as Francesco said, we do need both in situ and ex situ and excellent coordination between both approaches.

A few bits of USA experience on ex situ re rhinos and oryx.  A college friend of mine from New Mexico got a hunting permit to hunt Arabian Oryx in the White Sand Dunes area by Los Alamos NM. As I recall, the oryx had escaped and reproduced wildly beyond their ex situ location -- so hunting permits were necessary so they wouldn't devastate the plant life, as something as huge as an oryx can't be killed by our largest extant predator.  I don't know what the situation is today.

Also, chapter 8 of my Ghosts of Evolution book (2001, Basic Books) is titled "Let Them Eat Clay".  I was stunned to learn how ex situ wildlife planners had assumed that herbivores needed minerals -- so put out mineral supplements. Only recently it had be retranslated as, Yikes!  What they are getting from a mineral lick is clay!  Clay is absolutely vital to keep pregnant and nursing animals from "poisoning" their offspring via natural plant toxins (think of human "mornign sickness", same thing.  So many reports of female elephants and gorillas risking hunters during dry season when they have to eat more of the toxic plants.  Anyway, while I was working on that book, I advocated to several zoos to ensure their charges got clay.  So make sure there is a superb clay lick in all the herbivore ex situ refuges.  Also: I was testing a USA anachronistic pod (gymnocladus) on the rhinos at the huge ex situ reserve in Ohio used by 3 regional zoos.  None of the white rhinos had any interest in it, nor in honey locust pods: as, expected, as they are grazers. But the male one-horned Indian black rhino emerged from his mud hold, came over to the truck when called and then proceeded to take from my hand all 30 of the gymnocladus local pods I offered -- without any hesitation. those rhinos are, of course, broswers not grazers.  I have not followed up to see if those recalictrant seeds ever got "planted" in the rhino poop, but staff was hoping that would be the case as the old strip-mined vast acreage needed extra help in getting more plants and variety.

Interesting Connie. I've visited the clay cliffs in the Puerto Maldonado area in Amazonian Peru where hundreds of macaws gather for a daily clay ration to help deal with plant toxins in their diet. I'll send your note above about clay supplements to a friend and top zoo nutritionist, Dr Ellen Dierenfeld and ask about her experience with them. I'm familiar with the Zanesville open range reserve, having been around when it was formed. I also always admired Kentucky coffee trees and also Robinia, which while considered toxic is used as a browse species...and is great for strip mine reclamation. I've seen Robinia widely planted by Chinese authorities in Sichuan on hillsides where they wanted to discourage local cattle growing and know Robinia was widely and successfully used to reforest large degraded rural areas in South Korea.  I'm encouraging its use much more widely in Afghanistan as well, where it is naturally reforesting disturbed urban sites. I don't think it will spread far from irrigated areas there. You can see I'm not a big fan of maintaining strict indigenous plant purity in heavily disturbed sites.

Very  pleased to see that you have resurrected this topic.  We are sadly living the sixth mass extinction era, entirely caused by anthropogenic various causes. My view point is that conservationists and genuine animal lovers should not be consciously bias in considering one action the only one to be effective (hence my question). In this time of emergency we need to "pull species by the hair" firstly to increase their numbers. The final end of ex situ conservation is indeed reintroduction and the success stories are more than enough to prove that it is possible if done professionally. In conclusion we are going through the time to build up viable populations in ex situ facilities. This seems to me grossly underestimated by decision takers.                                                        

P. S.There is some confusion on which rhino species is a browser, grazer, folivore. Pls. look at some of my latest papers. 

Cheers ' 

I believe ex situ populations can indeed be "insurance populations" as well. As in situ habitats become more and more insular, political strife as well as climate change (likely related) can wipe them out in a heart beat. So ex situ work isn't done with reintroductions and may always be needed. And there is the increasing need of "wildlife climate refugees". After climate change enhanced bushfires here zoos and sanctuaries were flooded with injured koalas and roos. The same problems must follow the widespread wildfires in the North American west. So we need a variety of interlinked approaches as you say.

Jon - Four things:

1. CLAY AND PARROTS: Plants that pack a lot of effort and energy into each seed and/or put a lot of energy and effort into packaging them into attractive fruits tend to load their seeds with poisons to preclude seed predation.  Think of the cyanide-forming substances in apple and apricot seeds, the strychnine in avocado seeds. Since parrots have beaks that can crack into seeds like no others can, and since they specialize in seed-eating, a refuge for them that neglects to include safe daily passage to a clay cliff would be impoverished.  Ditto for elephants and gorillas (both often have to use (volcanic?) caves, where chemical weathering produces clays and the cave prevents the clay from being washed away by rains). Note: There is an abundance of anthropological literature on how women in non-dairying, non-modernized African cultures depend on clay during pregnancies -- including folk stories that when you see a woman eating the mud from the walls of her hut, or seeking out termite mounds, that means she is pregnant.

2. FUN FACT ABOUT THE RHINOS AT ZANESVILLE:  Three days after I test-fed gymnocladus pods to the black rhino there, I was sent a photo of a just-born white rhino there!  Our keeper-host had told us that none of the whites had reproduced yet and the thought was that, if a female goes too long without access to a male, her system just stops becoming receptive for pregnancy.  So, not only was one of them in the group I saw pregnant, but she was full-term pregnant and none of the staff knew -- because they were trying to give them as much wildness and non-intervention as possible, in hopes of having reproduction happen naturally.

3. GYMNOCLADUS AND RHINO WEBPAGE:  When I found a wild group of Gymnocladus along the Arkansas River, I made a photo-essay and posted it, titled "Arkansas River Pleistocene Dreamtime". Scroll to the bottom of that page and see where I included the photos of my feeding the pods to the black rhino. Url: http://thegreatstory.org/arkansas-river.html

4. NEED PARK NAME OF YOUR PLANTING OF REDWOODS IN RENTON.  I will be in Seattle area for 4 months and want to find the grove of redwoods you planted. What is the name of the park -- and where in it should I look? Note: on our drive from Port Angeles to Portland yesterday, we stopped by Seabeck (where I had seen a huge redwood 7 years ago) and I tracked down the director who told me the story.  That now-huge redwood was one of 3 planted on the grounds in 1949. Two were eaten by deer the first winter, but this one survived and glory is it huge! More, he told me that later 1,000 redwoods were planted out in the site's forest. I had just a bit of time to explore back there, didn't see any big specimens, but I found one 8-foot tall specimen, which is even more important, because it is proof they are naturalizing in that climate already. Also, I spotted 2 large Sequoias from our car window while driving through Tacoma. Sequoia and Sequoiadendron have been planted all over the area!

Gene Coulin Park, with my overall design including a long double line of Sierra redwoods is in Renton WA on the south east corner of lake Washington just east of a giant old Boeing hanger. This YouTube link clearly shows the redwoods in the distance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F96PP7oChmg   Look on Google Earth and check Lat 47-30 -24.16 N, Long 122 - 12 - 02.76W. I counted over 100 redwoods in that aerial photo. I also did a lot of planning and design work at Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle. The car park along Phinney Ave has a row of tall Sequoiadendron, two of which I transplanted there from elsewhere in the zoo in about 1975 when they were already 0.75 metres  in base diameter (the two shortest trees in the row today). The northern car park on 59th St has 20 more large Sequoiadendron. Here in Healesville, Victoria a large Sequoiadendron had to be cut down to make way for a resort and I managed to salvage the lumber and had some milled into timbers I used in a local park I designed.

Thank you, Jon, for the details. I watched the vid and the trees look huge. Really important will be for someone to see if there is any evidence that the trees have "naturalized" by yielding well established seedlings in untended nearby areas. I will add all your details into my notes, as I ultimately hope to give them to a faculty member at a Pacific NW university so that students can embark on projects to do a complete inventory of redwoods and sequoias around here.  In this time of rapid and frightening climate change, surely students will be thrilled to undertake research projects that have direct application for acquiring the knowledge to ultimately undertake forest climate adaptation.

All good questions William.And thanks for the links. In order to contribute to both in-situ and ex-situ conservation zoo must first be profitable. Most publicly funded zoos must make up the difference between funds they receive and their operating costs, including well paid, well-trained professional staffs , improving welfare/well-being of animal in their care, investment in sustainable infrastructure (Melbourne and Wellington Zoos are now "net carbon neutral") and such, all globally uncommon. For privately owned zoos the financial incentive is even greater without public finding. This means paying the bills by attracting people with crowd pleasers. As you know, there is a huge qualitative range among the world's zoos. Some zoo donate 10% of their income to in-suit programs and are very active in field work, supporting research, reintroduction programs, game wardens and guard programs and such. Others are clearly net consumers of wildlife. So zoos funding far more in-situ programs is challenging.

In-situ conservation also has huge challenges. In addition to traditional problems like weak regional government control and corruption, population and per-capita consumption increase, expanding rural development, we now add climate change. El Yankee National Park in Puerto Rico was recently blown away and I hear 50% of the Great Barrier Reef is now badly damaged by coral bleaching. Where will alpine and polar creatures go in a warmer globe? All this is only to say that it is wise to

invest in in-situ, ex-situ and frozen zoos/seed banks.

To another of your points, ignorance of detailed knowledge of both conservation status and life strategies of many species also limits zoo planners like me when trying to design near-ideal ex-situ habitats and management programs for 'uncommon' species.

Thanks for your comments.

In 1996 there was an influential paper by Snyder et al on Conservation Biology claiming that ex situ efforts should be restricted to one-species facilities owing to disease transmission threat. With my great surprise, no one of the zoo community replied to this paper. I'm proud to say that I was the only one to reply asking for 'good sense' in this issue. The result is that two decades has been lost working in situ (that obviosly is very important) but the Earth is now in much worse conditions than ever, while zoos declined responsability with captive breeding (sorry for the not politically correct terminology).

Zoos have the responsibility of breeding in captivity species in their care with the ultimate goal of reintroducing them in situ, not to protect species in situ?

According to a 2019 paper by Godinez and Fernandes https://www.researchgate.net/deref/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.frontiersin.org%2Farticles%2F10.3389%2Ffpsyg.2019.01746%2Ffull "Approximately 700 million people visit zoos and aquariums worldwide annually (Moss et  al., 2014), with a 2011 survey indicating that participating zoos and aquariums spent at least $350 million on wildlife conservation internationally (Gusset and Dick, 2011). In a 2012 report by the AZA, 2,700 conservation programs spent approximately $160 million on field conservation for 650 individual species, in addition to ecosystems (Association of Zoos and Aquariums, 2012). It is these high attendance levels and their associated income that gives accredited zoos the ability to fulfill their mission statements."

Not having charismatic species would limit zoo's ability to attract high attendance and thus would likely reduce their ability to provide financial support for in-situ conservation.

There is a problem with this question. Conservation does not need to be binary and by having these terms in-situ and ex-situ can limit ones thinking. A fertile area of conservation is the area at the interface of these terms. Many free-living populations of animals are now managed using techniques that would typically be used to manage captive animals. Hence Kakapo are managed on islands that they have been put on and many species are given additional food or provided with safe nesting sites, such as nest-boxes.

Ozodbek, what a thorough and interesting answer with some interesting examples. An issue we have is not only the binary nature of thinking about in-situ and ex-situ management, but the use of these terms is an example of ugly jargon when there are far more descriptive terms that can be used. What is wrong with using captive, cultivated, wild, free-living, semi-wild....... These give you far more information that the awful binary terms In-situ and ex-situ that limit and channel thinking. Let's embrace plain English and use more descriptive language and highlight the fertile area for conservation that sits between captive/cultivated and wild populations..

Okay, I have to chime in. The endangered conifer tree species I work with, Torreya taxifolia, is a well-known glacial relict. It was climate-challenged in its tiny native range in Florida already by the 1960s, since it could not float back upstream the river system that had apparently delivered it south from Appalachian mountains when Pleistocene cooling began. Obviously, in situ simply cannot work for it anymore. So the institutions officially in charge of its recovery plan have established ex situ plantings northward — but they are still trying to figure out how to get it back into Florida, even considering genetic engineering. Meanwhile, our group of citizens have visited old horticultural plantings northward of Florida and Georgia, where we obtain seeds (legally) and then plant those seeds ("rewild") in northward forests. Ours is a well-known early example of "assisted migration." Do visit the webpage on the Torreya Guardians website (I am founder) and see how crucial those horticultural plantings have been for ascertaining tolerance and naturalized latitudes and habitats: http://www.torreyaguardians.org/historic-groves.html Near the top of that page you will see the abstract and its link to a paper crucial for all to read: Garden Plants Get a Head Start on Climate Change, by Sebastiann Van der Veken et al., May 2008, in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environmnent. Also, consider that some plants (Torreya taxifolia is one) have recalcitrant seeds and therefore cannot be dried or cryo. They must be planted right away. Hence, for plants with recalcitrant seeds, "rewilding" into suitable natural habitat is the only option. See the new subsection I just added to the wikipedia page on "Rewilding (conservation biology)". The new subsection is "Rewilding Plants" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rewilding_(conservation_biology)#Rewilding_Plants

Notice that because the official ex situ and in situ focus in conservation biology is so constrained for the critically endangered Torreya taxifolia that I even endorse (and have engaged in) "guerilla rewilding" of it. So you professionals need to catch up! Climate is changing too fast for business as usual in ex situ / in situ conservation for plants. Wollemia in Australia crucially needs this kind of help, too. BTW: I am right now in the midst of distributing to northward states in USA 1,000 seeds of Torreya taxifolia for rewilding directly into suitable forest habitats. One of our volunteers collected more than 2,000 from 2 private garden sites in North Carolina on Oct 31, and we have to get them all into the ground (or pots) fast.

Conservation of any species is following only one approach either in situ or exsitu. Conservation practices both in situ and exsitu is really good thing to increase the populations as well as to decrease the problem of threat facing species. There are certain limitations for practicing the binary method of conservation.

1. Lack of funding or resources

2. Timely assessment of population and the degree of threat

3.lack of interest, due to species that much is not important for exploitation by humans for monetary benefits .

My experience, and that of my colleagues working for the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, is that conservation does not have to be "in-situ" or "ex-situ" but you can be very effective in that fertile area in between these two extremes. For example managing wild populations of animals by supplemental feeding, controlling predators, providing breeding sites and the like. Managed free-living populations have a great advantage over captive management in that the animals are still under some natural selection and fulfilling their ecological roles. The same can be applied to plants with protection, watering and controlling competing plants....

This is a very interesting discussion. I cannot agree more with Carl. We really need to take a more holistic view of conservation that integrates both in situ and ex situ conservation. There are pros and cons with both strategies and both are needed, as well as 'fertile area' between them.

Салом Абдуманнон яхшимисиз.Саволингизга жавоб, айни пайтда бир вактнинг узида богимизда хамда табиатда айнан бир хил усимлик турлари усиб турибти параллел равишда, яъни Сиз ва бизнинг саъйи харакатимиз натижасида бунедга келган рееинтродукциянинг дастлабки натижалари

Many thanks Ehsan, It is so good to have your views from a pioneer of conserving plants at the interface between the wild and in cultivation. We have to move away from binary thought on this subject.