Resprouting of Echinacea angustifolia1 Augments Sustainability of Wild Medicinal Plant Populations 3 4 KELLY KINDSCHER*' 2, DANA M. PRICE , AND LISA CASTLE 2 Kansas Biological Survey, University of Kansas, 2101 Constant Avenue, Lawrence, KS 66047-3729, 3 USA Environmental Resources Section, US Army Corps of Engineers Albuquerque District, 4101 Jefferson Plaza NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87109, USA "zDepartment of Science and Mathematics, Glenville State College, Glenville, West Virginia 26351, USA *Corresponding author; e-mail: [email protected] Resprouting of Echinaceaangustifolia Augments Sustainability of Wild Medicinal Plant Populations. Overharvest of wild Echinacea species root has been a significant concern to the herbal industry. Harvesters of wild Echinacea angustifolia showed us that even after harvesting the top 15 to 20 cm of root, some plants resprout. We marked locations of harvested plants at sites in Kansas and Montana and reexamined them two years later to see if they resprouted from remaining root reserves. Approximately 50% of the roots resprouted at both Kansas and Montana sampling sites, despite droughty weather conditions in Montana. The length of root harvested significantly affected the ability of the plant to resprout. Those plants that were more shallowly harvested and had less root length removed were more likely to resprout. These data indicate that echinacea stands can recover over time from intensive harvest if periods of non- harvest occur. Our echinacea harvest study emphasizes that the entire biology of medicinal plants must be considered when evaluating their conservation status. Key Words: Wild harvest, medicinal plants, roots, dormancy, resprouting, overharvesting, echinacea. Introduction wild only in North America. The taxonomy is The greatest concern for overharvest of medic- confusing, with nine species recognized (McGregor inal plants in North America is for species that 1968). Recent attempts to lump echinacea into have high demand and a significant amount of four species (Binns et al. 2002) have not been wild harvest (Cech 2002), including echinacea accepted due to insufficient molecular support for (Echinacea species), goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis this classification (Blumenthal and Urbatsch L.), and American ginseng (Panax quinquejblius 2006). Echinacea angustifolia and E purpurea (L.) L.). These plants are slow-growing, long-lived Moench make up the bulk of the herbal product perennials of specialized habitats, whose roots are trade, with small amounts of E. pal/ida (Nutt.) also the primary medicinal plant part used in the being marketed. Echinacea angustfo/ia is the only commercial trade (Klein 2000). species with a significant quantity of wild harvested Echinacea is one of the most popular, and most plant material (American Herbal Products Associ- researched, plants in the herbal product industry. A ation 2000, 2003.) This species is native to the sizable portion of the demand for echinacea is for Great Plains of the U.S. and Canada (Fig. 1). wild-harvested plant material, especially roots of ECHINACEA PRODUCTION Echinacea angustifolia DC. Echinacea species grow Echinacea purpurea is relatively easy to culti- vate. There is a potential market for cultivated E. 'Received 27 April 2007; accepted 9 September angustifolia, but it is difficult to grow due to 2007; published online 13 June 2008. fungus and disease in humid areas with moist Economic Botany, 62(2), 2008, pp. 139-147 © 2008, by The New York Botanical Garden Press, Bronx, NY 10458-5126 U.S.A. 140 ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL 62 Fig. 1. Location of study sites in Montana and Kansas within range from known and verified herbarium records of Echinacea angustifolia (Kindscher 2006). soils, such as in central and northern Europe. In of echinacea products has repeatedly risen and addition, the crop requires two to three years fallen in recent history, cyclically renewing con- growth before it is harvestable, concerns have cerns that unregulated harvesting will decimate been raised about its quality, and the lag time wild populations (Price and Kindscher 2007). In between demand and harvest can create unantic- addition to harvest pressures, wild echinacea ipated surpluses, or unpredictable prices. For all stands are threatened by overgrazing, herbicide these reasons, E angustifolia is primarily obtained use, and conversion of habitat to other uses. through the harvest of native wild stands. When the price of wild E. angustifolia roots is high, harvesters can decimate a stand in a relatively Concerns of Overharvest of Wild Echinacea Species short amount of time. Echinacea har- vesting has been likened to a "gold rush" Echinacea angustifolia roots were used by many (Crawford 1999) that begins abruptly, occurs Native American tribes, but the quantity used was intensely, and spreads to other potential root relatively small (Kindscher 1991). The popularity mining districts once resources become depleted. 2008] KINDSCHER, ET AL.: RESPROUTING AUGMENTS ECHINACEA SUSTAINABILITY 141 Harvesting of Echinacea angustifolia root in- office, Ouachita National Forest, personal com- creased considerably in the mid-1990s, spreading munication, 2002). Well outside the range of E. northward from historical harvesting areas in angustifolia, the harvested roots in this area were Kansas to the essentially untouched large native sold to buyers as "snakeroot" and then most likely stands on rangeland in eastern Montana and sold to some broker in the area as E. angustifolia. western North Dakota. Harvesting increased even The threat of wild harvest was one factor in the more when the market demand doubled from listing of Echinacea tennesseensis (Beadle) Small 1997 to 1998. The Fort Peck Reservation in and E laevigata (Boynton & Beadle) Blake under northeast Montana was one focal point of this the U.S. Endangered Species Act (U.S. Fish and expansion of commercial markets. In 1995, Wildlife Service 1989, 1995). herbal brokerage companies approached the tribes on the Turtle Mountain and Fort Berthold The Effects of Wild Harvest on Echinacea Reservations in North Dakota and the Fort Peck Populations Reservation in northeast Montana, offering mon- ey for echinacea roots (Kolster 1998). Echinacea The demand for echinacea reached its highest root digging was encouraged by contests promot- level in 1998 has since declined, but the market ed by local root buyers, and the Fort Peck tribal activity of the past decade suggests that the boom- newspaper, Wotanin Wowapi, published a picture and-bust harvesting of E. angustifolia is likely to of the winner of one such contest, a 96.5 cm long continue (Price and Kindscher 2007). echinacea root (Kolster 1998; Stewart 1999). The initial threat of wild harvest to echinacea Kolster (1998) estimated that 350 to 400 people populations is caused by the sheer number of lost were harvesting E angustifolia on native prairie plants. Owing to the substantial number of lands in the Fort Peck Reservation area in the harvesters across the region, the remote location spring of 1998. One local company bought as of wild E. angustifolia populations, and variation much as 545 kg of root per day and paid out over in root size and weight, it is difficult to quantify $1.1 million to echinacea harvesters in 1998 the number of E. angustifolia roots extracted from (Solberg 1999). Some tribal leaders on the native stands annually. reservation initially endorsed harvesting but sub- The American Herbal Products Association sequently became concerned over the greediness (AHPA 2000, 2003) surveyed regional buyers of of some harvesters and the observed decline in wild-harvested E. angustifolia, E. purpurea, and E. stands over several years of harvesting. At the pallida and found that over 145,000 kg of dried height of the harvest, one elder described pickup roots of E angustifolia were wild-harvested during trucks being used at night so that the last the four years from 1998 to 2001 inclusive We remaining elevated seed heads could be seen with have calculated that it takes over 220 E. the truck lights, and then the roots were angustifolia plants to make 1 kg of dried echinacea harvested. root (determined from weighing commercial Harvesters from Texas who had applied for but wild-harvested roots in north-central Kansas). had not received a commercial permit were We therefore believe that over thirty million E. arrested in 1998 in the Ashland District of the angustifolia plants were harvested during this Custer National Forest with 38 kg of fresh roots time. in gunny sacks that they said were for "personal Beyond the actual loss of plants, an additional use" (Stewart 1999; Scott Studiner, personal threat to wild echinacea populations is that the communication 2002). By 1999, wild harvest of largest plants are harvested, and these plants are E. angustifolia was reported in 14 counties in the most successful at reproduction. Harvesters North Dakota, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife believe that the largest roots come from old Service workers reported cases of poaching in plants. They select plants by observing multiple both Wells and Stutsman Counties (Torkelson seed heads in the air or lying on the ground, or 1999). There were also at least two or three cases seeing large and numerous basal leaves. Based on of poaching in the Ouachita National Forest in three years of field data gathered from population Arkansas in 1997 and 1998, where harvesters monitoring and modeling in Kansas, Hurlburt were charged for illegal harvest and Echinacea (1999) calculated that wild E. angustifolia plants species roots were confiscated (J. Hicks, patrol can reach 18 to 44 years of age. 142 ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL 62 Skilled harvesters in north-central Kansas visit For all of these reasons, we needed to determine favorite areas about once every three years and the percent of E. angustifolia plants that would harvest moderately to ensure future opportunity. resprout after harvest. We also wanted to collect Hurlburt (1999) projected that populations can data relating resprouring of plants to the sustain- sustain a harvest of 4-5% of medium- to large- ability of its harvest. sized roots per year.