File Name: difference between ex situ and in situ conservation .zip
Irus BravermanWhat is it that we want? Much of what conservation biology must do is confused by notions of animal "wildness," and "freedom," and even by the belief of a few that when a species' historical home is altered, that species is no longer worthy of interest. Population Management for Survival or Recovery, xix Strange as it may sound, the idea of nature is getting in the way of properly ecological forms of culture, philosophy, politics, and art.
One of the most important legal texts of the conservation movement to date, the Convention on Biological Diversity CBD , defines "In-situ conservation" as "the conservation of ecosystems and natural habitats and the maintenance and recovery of viable populations of species in their natural surroundings" my emphasis.
The term "Ex-situ conservation" is defined in the same text as "the conservation of components of biological diversity outside their natural habitats" my emphasis. TheInternational Union for the Conservation of Nature-one of the leading conservation organizations operating in the world today-adds that, "Ex situ collections include whole plant or animal collections, zoological parks and botanic gardens, wildlife research facilities, and germplasm collections of wild and domesticated taxa" IUCN, On one end, in situ is defined as on-site, conservation in a wild nature, while on the other end, ex situ is off-site, unnatural, or captive conservation.
This definition embodies and naturalizes a few central 2 assumptions: a that such wild nature actually exists; b that conservation in and of wild nature is always "in" place, while any other form of conservation is "out" of place; and c that "in" is normatively preferable to "out.
Indeed, traditional conservation narratives rest upon this schism between in and ex situ space; without it, it seems difficult, if not impossible, for many to imagine what conservation could mean. This article draws on more than fifty in-depth, semi-structured interviews with prominent conservationists from the zoo world and from wildlife organizations, identified through a snowball sampling method Biernacki and Waldorf, I began this project by reinterviewing a few contacts that I had already established in my previous study of zoos Braverman, b , and gradually expanded the circle of interviewees through contacting conservationists whom these initial people knew and suggested would be relevant to my project.
This sampling is not random; quite the contrary, most of my interviewees have one foot in the in situ world and the other foot in the ex situ world and have personally experienced some of the tensions and integrative processes they describe for a more detailed depiction of this project's methodology see Braverman, Quoting just a fraction of a much broader set of interviews, this article will expose, explore, and criticize the underlying assumptions of in situ versus ex situ conservation.
In particular, I will suggest that the prism offered by this terminology conveys a perception of wild nature that is anachronistic and romantic and that such views are incompatible with emerging critical understandings of naturecultures Haraway, and multinatures Latour, Latour, , Lorimer, , which question the simplistic division between wilderness and civilized culture by illuminating their interdependency and irrevocable fusion.
In the current paradigm, in situ and ex situ-wild nature and captivity-are conjoined in a system of meanings and symbols. Without a wild, free, and pristine nature in situ , captivity and ex situ conservation is meaningless; without the notion of captivity, nature as the very opposite of captivity cannot exist.
I will claim that such a bifurcated and essentialist view of nature and captivity does not account for the many situs, or sites, of human-affected natures. The idea that pristine nature will have to wither away in an ecological state of human society is not new Morton, 1;Latour, , nor is it a novel claim that our definition of nature will have to alter considerably to move away from notions of the pristine to include human natures Castree, ;Cronon, ;Marris, Nonetheless, this idea has received renewed attention in the form of the debate over renaming the current geological epoch as the Anthropocene Szerszynski, ;Latour, ;Lorimer, I would like to expand this idea into the realm of conservation biology-namely, to replace the discourse of nativity and indigineity with explorations of viability, vitality, and relationality that are self-reflective about the ethical and political issues at stake.
In essence, I am proposing conservation without nature, in the traditional sense of this word at least Braun, ;Lorimer, Such explorations will not be new to the readers of this journal. Indeed, the site or location of conservation practices and philosophies is a topic that is geographic at its core.
In particular, animal geographers have been very active in the area of human-wildlife studies. One of the main strands in this area has been to challenge consisting frameworks for approaching wildlife management.
In "Living Roods and Brownfield Wildlife," for example, Jamie Lorimer 4 employs a range of conceptual resources from relational geography, a tradition that is quite relevant for this project.
My view of nature focuses, similarly, on preserving processes rather than idealized nature and wild bodies. In other words, it promotes an understanding of conservation that moves away from purity and toward hybridity, in the rich and variant ways already explored by hybrid geography Whatmore, Such hybridity is not only of animal bodies, but also of regions and places.
Many of the spaces and bodies discussed in this article are, similarly, hybrid by nature. This hybridity paves the way for a shift in focus toward dynamic assemblages of human-nonhuman bodies and spaces. Such assemblages are similarly championed in the animal geography literature by Christopher Bear and Sally Eden in their work on marine fishery certification and the movements of "transient populations" across management borders Bear and Eden, , and in David Lulka's work on the attempts to curb the movement of bison bodies by Yellowstone National Park Lulka, Bruce Braun remarks similarly that landscapes should be understood as open-ended, rather than closed and natural, and that conservation must be directed at "the possibilities and consequences of a 'new earth' and 'new humanity' that is still to come" Braun, Recent scholarship in "multispecies ethnography" Kirksey and Helmreich, argues, similarly, for a fresh understanding of the material entanglements of humans with organisms that are not simply windows or mirrors into the symbolic concerns of humans but are rather themselves vital subjects who must be lived with, similar to "companion species" Haraway, or "unloved others" Rose and van Dooren, This genealogical account will travel in between the worlds of dead and live matter, artificilia and naturalia, and between the seemingly disconnected institutions of museums and zoos.
It will then move to focus on the uses of the terminology in the ex situ context of zoos, illustrating the various models that have evolved from the realization of the important connections, indeed the impossibility of the divide, between in situ and ex situ conservation.
In art, in situ refers to a work made specifically for a host site, or one that takes into account the site in which it is installed or exhibited, also referred to as "site-specific" art. In computer science, an in situ operation is one that occurs without interrupting the normal state of a system. For example, an in situ upgrade would allow an operating system, firmware, or application to be upgraded while the system was still running. Under public international law, in situ refers to a 6 government with effective control over a certain territory, in contrast to an exiled government.
And in architecture in situ refers to construction that is carried out at a building site using raw materials, and is contrasted with prefabricated construction, whereby building components are made elsewhere and then transported to the building site for assembly Wikipedia, "in situ".
Closest to nature conservation, in archeology in situ refers to an artifact that has not been newly moved from its original place of deposition, indicating that it is stationary or static. Such an artifact that is not discovered in situ is considered out of context and thus even meaningless Abungu, interview. For example, in situ often refers to ancient sculptures that were carved in place, such as the Sphinx or Petra-which are distinguished from statues that were carved and moved, such as the Colossi of Memnon Hamma, interview.
In situ is defined as the place where an item was first excavated:If talking from an archeological perspective, the country of origin is where the thing has been dug from [defines its status], not where it came from. Things move. Where you dug it from the ground is what is important, irrespective of where it was made.
That discovery moment-that is the place of origin. So it could have come five kilometers away, could have come kilometers away. But where you go and find it buried that is in situ and that is where it is. So if it is in Kenya and you discover it there and you dig it there, it belongs to that particular place.
The various definitions of in situ-although quite different from one another-all assert importance to the "place of origin" and to the "country of origin" in particular. Conservation biologists David and Lida Burney suggest, accordingly, that "Anyone who has taken a course in conservation biology, or even read a book on the subject, knows that there are fundamentally two kinds of conservation: in situ and ex situ" The ability to identify in situ is also intrinsically tied to the preferential treatment of plants and animals that have originated from the native environment, leading to a native-versus-alien species dichotomy in conservation, which many conservationists still consider to be a core guiding principle Fleishman et al.
The term in situ appears in many naturalist histories as a reference to a plant's original habitat, but its earliest use in the context of conservation appears to have been made during a Technical Conference on the Exploration, Utilization and Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources Scarascia-Mugnozza and Perrino, 5.
Seedbanks were originally developed to maintain the viability of seeds during travel, and thus the productivity of certain breeds.
Collecting seeds and storing them for future use became the predominant method of ex situ conservation of plants. In the United States, seedbanks that existed before were mostly part of breeding programs another method of ex situ conservation managed by the Office of Foreign Seed and Plant Introduction initiated in Until quite recently, most programs focusing on plant genetic diversity assumed that ex situ conservation of genebanks or botanical gardens is far preferable to in situ conservation methods, which often restrict human access to genetic resources.
Along these lines, scholars have 8 distinguished between "accumulation," which is thought of as characteristic of ex situ conservation and is based on the collection of genetic resources for human use, and "maintenance," characteristic of an in situ conservation that focuses on the survival of a habitat as it currently exists.
While ex situ conservation has been a way to store germplasm, in situ conservation was usually not allowed for storage or removal of plants from their native habitats.
Because of the predominance of ex situ conservation in the history of agriculture, conservation was initially characterized as a utilitarian practice Scarascia-Mugnozza and Perrino, On the other end of conservation trends driven by "use" and configured within the ex situ conservation framework, in situ conservation was generally configured within the paradigm of wilderness management.
The in situ practice was driven by what many critics suggest is an "Edenic narrative"-a desire to recreate or maintain an environment that recalls the biblical Eden Slater, This understanding of nature as Eden required a complete removal of human presence, the source of all pollution and destruction Cronon, ;Smith, In place of the negative associations of the term "captivity," the term ex situ highlights the scientific dimension of such conservation initiatives.
In the words of wildlife conservationist Evan Blumer, "the terminology began with this binary of 9 captive versus wild, and then got broadened and softened by bringing the Latin into it with in situ and ex situ" interview. Legal texts similarly rely on and reinforce the understanding of in situ and ex situ conservation as the foundational spatial division for nature conservation policies.
I have already mentioned the Convention on Biological Diversity's explicit bifurcation of conservation into two separate textual spaces: Section 8 for in situ and Section 9 for ex situ conservation. Whereas in situ nature conservation is the ultimate goal of conservation, ex situ is limited in that it must be executed "predominantly for the purpose of complementing in-situ measures" CBD, Article 9.
As I discuss elsewhere Braverman, , although the U. Such a hierarchical understanding of the relationship between in situ and ex situ conservation is not only the law "on the books," but also how many conservation biologists define and experience their work, as I have discovered in many of the interviews conducted for this project. Such a preferential treatment of situs is far from semantic; instead, it manifests in the everyday relationships between various conservation professionals and organizations around the world.
One of the manifestations of the schism embedded in this terminology is the tense professional relationship between field conservationists, on the one hand, and conservationists who work in captive settings, mostly zoo professionals, on the other hand. One of my interviewees, a conservationist who works in both worlds, points out that: "Traditionally, zoos have been disliked by many of the field people because they don't like to see those animals in a captive setting and they don't necessarily feel like [zoos] are contributing all that much to their conservation" Stoinski, interview.
Another conservationist says, similarly, that, "there are still tensions between captive and wild communities,. Arguably, in situ and ex situ conservationists hold similar understandings of the term "nature. This, based on their belief that the central object of conservation is a "first," pristine nature that exists outside of society. As mentioned, the very use of in situ and ex situ in the context of nature conservation assumes that there can, in fact, be a place that is "inside" nature, which can then be contrasted with a place that is "outside.
Although still "sold" to the public as a more or less fixed entity that needs to be preserved or restored, such conservationists are beginning to overcome the traditional non-dynamic definition of nature. For example, Michael Rosenzweig explores the possibilities for reconciliation ecology in a "New Pangaea" that reorganizes the connections in which life has and will evolve. Along similar lines, nineteen ecologists have recently declared that, "it is time for conservationists to focus much more on the functions of species, and much less on where they originated" Miller et al.
These scholars argue, further, that "[i]t is time for scientists, land managers and policy-makers to ditch this preoccupation with the native-alien dichotomy and embrace more dynamic and pragmatic approaches to the conservation and management of species-approaches better suited to our fastchanging planet" ibid. In his words,[T]he whole business of in situ and ex situ are artificial concepts as we look into the future.
Habitats are moving and changing, climate is changing. Animal populations in the past have been able to adapt to these changes, sometimes.
That's why we don't have giant sloths and mammoths. There used to be mammoths 11, years ago in the Bronx; 18, years ago there were polar bears in the South of France. That's not so long [ago]. So [the term] "original habitat" depends on how original you want to be.
Both these conservation methods include the protection of both endangered plants and animals. In situ conservation protects biodiversity onsite, while ex situ conservation delineates methods of offsite biodiversity conservation. This seminal difference in the meaning of the two concepts makes other dissimilarities more prominent and noteworthy. The difference between in situ and ex situ conservation is that In-situ conservation connotes the act of conserving wildlife species in their natural habitats of growth. On the other hand, ex situ conservation refers to the efforts of safeguarding wildlife species outside their natural habitats and environments.
It is a cheap and convenient method of conserving biological diversity. On the other hand, in-situ CP produced more aromatic hydrocarbons than ex-situ CP On the other hand, ex situ conservation refers to the efforts of safeguarding wildlife species outside their natural habitats and environments. In-situ and ex-situ conservation are two modes of species conservation. The species bred in captivity can be reintroduced in the wild. The main difference between in-situ and ex-situ conservation is that in-situ conservation performs inside the natural habitats while ex-situ conservation performs outside or exterior to the natural habitats.
Biodiversity possesses rich and diverse fauna and flora and unique natural beauty in its different ecosystems. The maintenance of species and ecosystems is a keystone to sustainable development. Therefore, the protection and efficient management of wild species and their environment is the prime objective of conservation.
Conservation is the protection, preservation, management, or restoration of wildlife and natural resources such as forests and water. Through the conservation of biodiversity and the survival of many species and habitats which are threatened due to human activities can be ensured. There is an urgent need, not only to manage and conserve the biotic wealth, but also restore the degraded ecosystems. Humans have been directly or indirectly dependent on biodiversity for sustenance to a considerable extent. However, increasing population pressure and developmental activities have led to large scale depletion of the natural resources. In-situ conservation is on site conservation or the conservation of genetic resources in natural populations of plant or animal species, such as forest genetic resources in natural populations of tree species. It is the process of protecting an endangered plant or animal species in its natural habitat, either by protecting or cleaning up the habitat itself, or by defending the species from predators.
Biodiversity possesses rich and diverse fauna and flora and unique natural beauty in its different ecosystems. The maintenance of species and ecosystems is a keystone to sustainable development. Therefore, the protection and efficient management of wild species and their environment is the prime objective of conservation. This conservation is usually carried out in two ways. We have discussed both the conservation methods in detail and the major differences between the two. What is In situ Conservation?
Conservation of biodiversity and genetic resources helps protect, maintain and recover endangered animal and plant species. There are mainly two strategies for the conservation of wildlife: In-situ conservation and Ex-situ conservation. Although, both the strategies aim to maintain and recover endangered species, they are different from each other. Let us see how they differ from each other! In-situ conservation, which is also known as "on-site conservation", refers to the conservation of wild species in their natural habitats and environment.
Ex situ conservation literally means, "off-site conservation ". It is the process of protecting an endangered species, variety or breed , of plant or animal outside its natural habitat; for example, by removing part of the population from a threatened habitat and placing it in a new location, an artificial environment which is similar to the natural habitat of the respective animal and within the care of humans, example are zoological parks and wildlife safaris. Ex situ management can occur within or outside a species' natural geographic range. Individuals maintained ex situ exist outside an ecological niche. This means that they are not under the same selection pressures as wild populations, and they may undergo artificial selection if maintained ex situ for multiple generations.
Biodiversity possesses rich and diverse fauna and flora and unique natural beauty in its different ecosystems.
In situ conservation means conservation which takes place onsite.Reply