Nature’s pharmacy

Nabhan G. Gathering the desert. Arizona, AZ: University of Arizona Press; 2-19p.
Photo source: http://www.denimandtweed.com/2008_01_01_archive.html

Plant: Creosote bush (Larrea tridentate)

Not everything is, as it seems. Deserts may be limited to quantity, but not quality, of biodiversity. Gary Nabham, in “The Cresosote Bush Is Our Drugstore", seems to raise the question of why some plants have persisted as long as they have, while others have been lost, and why some people, of variable ethnicities, seem to be attracted to particular plants. The creosote bush history is unraveled. Explaining how a touch down in the Chihuan Desert, around 4500 years ago, could have led to the some 30 million hectares that the plant now covers in Mexico, and the 18 million hectares in the USA.

For this reason, six plants out of “the 2500 vascular plants in the Sonoran Desert”, although chosen arbitrarily, were to be studied because “each exemplifies either a symbolic or an ecological relationship which Sonoran Desert dwellers had with numerous plants”.  Nabhan and colleagues wanted to explore the possibility of a spiritual connection between plants and people, like those often found between people and other animals (something commonly associated with many first nations people).

Although I suppose I understand the want to find such a connection, I found it very interesting, on pg. 6, that Nabham soon after explains that “plants are used symbolically in ways which sometimes link people with their homeland and past, serving as a conservative element to slow change”. Ok, so we live in a world full of ever budding equality but why must we pretend as if all of life is served out equal? After all, life is not equal. Life is not fair. Although similarities exist because of similar environmental stressors (creating layers of cells for gas exchange like lungs etc.), there is something fundamentally different about a plant from an animal. Yes change is inevitable, and I do think it should be embraced, but some change seems a little bit ridiculous - needless. I guess in my opinion, I don’t want to pretend millions of years of divergent evolution has left plants a hand for me to hold because it hasn’t. I think that the fabric of our DNA has been woven to interpret this world in a biased manner. I truly think, for the most part, our interpretation of this world is skewed because of our want to see what we see in ourselves, as animals, in other species and in the environment.

“Anyway, I am getting sidetracked…”

I think our species relationship with plants, symbolically or ecologically, is true one, a natural one. This being said, I feel we should appreciate, perfect, and refine the relationship we have, and have had. I am in no disagreement that importance should further be put upon evaluating native desert plants as potential economic resources. I like that the idea that there is knowledge “waiting” to be discovered, that could have a positive impact on mankind. It's endearing.

“Anyway, one of the plants Nabham chose to study, the creosote bush, is actually really interesting”

It is hard to believe, on pg. 13, that whole plant populations of creosote bush may simply consist of clones, and that there is a “king clone” possibly older than “the most ancient bristlecone pine known to human kind”. Undoubtedly creosotes secondary metabolites are immense in number and have the potential for many useful applications. The plants seem very well adapted. Unfortunately, with little scientific research being done on the secondary metabolites, and even less proven to be beneficial, I see another biased opinion forming. I really would like to see more of a fight for doing things the right way, not the easiest. How are we going to ever understand our relationship with plants if we try to view them like we do animals? How are we going to progress as a species unless we let go of the many guidelines that exist simply because of tradition, and not necessity?