Herb is becoming less visibile to humans when harvested at higher rates

[FfFfFfFF 58,066]

In southwest China, high in the Hengduan Mountains, a small herb is getting harder to find.

Called Fritillaria delavayi, it grows three to five bright green leaves and a short stem; once a year, it produces a bright, tulip-shaped, yellow-hued flower.

But that eye-catching yellow flower and those vibrant green leaves have started to grow gray and brown in this Fritillaria species. Scientists suspect the plant is genetically evolving drabber parts to hide from its main predator—humans.

In a study published in the journal Current Biology, scientists from China and the U.K. found that in areas where Fritillaria delavayi was being harvested at high rates, the herb was more likely to camouflage.

Fritillaria delavayi has been picked and used medicinally for at least 2,000 years, but steadily increasing demand and insufficient supply has triggered a treasure hunt for more.

The price for one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of the plant’s bulbs—the part of the plant used medicinally—is around $480. Each tiny bulb is about the size of a thumbnail; to harvest one kilogram requires more than 3,500 individual plants.

Some species of Fritillaria can be farmed, but delavayi grows naturally in high elevations in cold, dry air, conditions difficult for farmers to replicate, and consumers think the wild varieties are better, though there’s no evidence to show that’s true, according to Yang Niu, one of the study’s authors.

Source

[RahrahWitch 6,985]

That's both fascinating and so sad  

[Economy 52,839]

I'm confused. How would harvesting the plants make the ones that aren't harvested genetically change?

[JazzGa 14,652]

Just now, Economy said:

I'm confused. How would harvesting the plants make the ones that aren't harvested genetically change?

The ones that aren't harvested are the only ones that get the chance to reproduce and pass their genes on to the next generation 

[DelusionalGaga 29,717]

1 minute ago, Economy said:

I'm confused. How would harvesting the plants make the ones that aren't harvested genetically change?

That's how evolution works over long periods of time. The flowers that are bright colored are more likely to be harvested, meanwhile the ones that are gray fly under the radar and thus survive. 

[Economy 52,839]

8 minutes ago, JazzGa said:

The ones that aren't harvested are the only ones that get the chance to reproduce and pass their genes on to the next generation 

So we're talking about genes that are already there and are the ones surviving? Aka natural selection of plants already containing this trait?

 

That makes sense. But the way it was worded it made it sound like it was causing a new mutation/change in unharvested plants which made no sense

 

"Scientists suspect the plant is genetically evolving drabber parts to hide from its main predator—humans."

[Economy 52,839]

7 minutes ago, DelusionalGaga said:

That's how evolution works over long periods of time. The flowers that are bright colored are more likely to be harvested, meanwhile the ones that are gray fly under the radar and thus survive. 

Yeah I get the natural selection part. As I said to the other use, the way it was worded sounded like something else to me at first

 

I didn't realize they were talking about natural selection for traits that already existed, the wording made it sound like harvesting some plants are causing mutations to other plants to change directly. And that to me made no sense

 

"Scientists suspect the plant is genetically evolving drabber parts to hide from its main predator—humans."

 

According to many theories direct environmental stress can also trigger mutations which is a little seperate from natural selection and it sounded to me like they were suggesting that was the case here but I don't see how that could happen to the unharvested ones if they aren't touched

 

[voltron92 2,575]

50 minutes ago, Economy said:

I'm confused. How would harvesting the plants make the ones that aren't harvested genetically change?

aren't you older than evolution itself? Had your chance to ask Darwin directly no?

Joking aside - I agree. The article is worded weirdly.

[Economy 52,839]

4 minutes ago, voltron92 said:

aren't you older than evolution itself? Had your chance to ask Darwin directly no?

Joking aside - I agree. The article is worded weirdly.

I'm too old to remember

[Meta Mart 352]

Is it fractals?