|
| |
Aug. 15, 2001
Chief, Division of Scientific Authority
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 North Fairfax Drive
Room 750
Arlington, Virginia
22203-1610
Recommendations on Species To
Consider for Changes to the CITES
Appendices
Re: Tricholoma magnivelare
Based on my research (citation and summary results below) I do not think that
Tricholoma magnivelare needs to be listed in the CITES Appendices.
The American matsutake can be sustainable harvested with proper management
practices.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Daniel L. Luoma
Assistant Professor
Department of Forest Science
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331
--------------------
Reference
Eberhart, J.L., Luoma, D.L., Pilz, D., Amaranthus, M.P., Abbott, R., and
Segotta, D. 1999. Effects of harvest techniques on American
Matsutake
(Tricholoma magnivelare) production. Abstract Book. IXth
International
Congress of Mycology. Sydney, Australia.
Summary
The following treatments were implemented (one time), each on a matsutake
fruiting in each of the three blocks at two sites:
1) NH - No matsutake harvest (control)
2) BMP - Best management practice - harvest with minimal disturbance (gentle
rocking and pulling)
3) SR-R - Shallow raking of litter layers to the interface with the mineral soil
surface, sporocarp removal, and careful replacement of the litter
4) SR-NR - Shallow raking of litter layers, sporocarp removal and NO replacement
of the litter
5) DR-R - Deep raking of the litter layers and 10 cm of mineral soil, sporocarp
removal and replacement of litter and mineral soil
6) DR-NR - Deep raking of the litter layers and 10 cm of mineral soil,
sporocarp removal and NO replacement of litter and mineral soil
Results showed that careful picking had no impact on sporocarp production. The
one-time shallow raking with the litter layer carefully replaced did not differ
from the control. When expected numbers of sporocarps were calculated,
the actual production of matsutake on deep rake treatments and the shallow rake
without litter replacement treatment were significantly reduced (p ² 0.05).
Results were consistent across the two sites with regard to the lack of effect
of the BMP and a one-time SR-R treatment as compared to the control. At Diamond
Lake, the more severe treatments (SR-NR, DR-R, DR-NR) showed dramatic decreases
in sporocarp numbers. We expect that the effects of repeated raking would
be more severe than those reported here for a one-time raking.
Given that one-time, shallow raking with careful replacement of the litter layer
is not a viable management option to implement, raking is a prohibited
commercial harvesting technique.
| |
|
