Lophophora williamsii harvesting; regrowth & mortality.

2019 Update.

17 May 2019; summary by Keeper Trout, Anya Ermakova & Martin Terry.

Lophophora williamsii growing amidst Bernardia ovata (back left), Prosopis glandulosa (wood visible upper right), Acalypha radians (blurred in front right), probable Opuntia engelmannii var. lindheimeri (two seedlings in front of peyote), Dolichothele (Mammillaria) sphaerica (to right) and Guaiacum angustifolia (back right). This is not at our study site; these plants have never seen harvesting.

The last two visits to the study group (15 March 2018 and 1, 2 & 4 May 2019) have provided us with an unexpected opportunity to study the effects of harvesting even further than we had planned.
CCI’s original goal was to perform a four-year study on mortality and survival rates following a legal peyote harvesting event, occurring on 3 March 2008 using the best known practices. Even before we had completed that 4-yr study and published the results (see 2011 & 2012), we decided to continue to monitor the population for a longer period of time; dropping the frequency of our visits to every 2 years. One additional element involved evaluating the effect of harvesting performed on a two-year schedule similar to what we had been informed was then being done by collectors working for the licensed distributors (see 2014). This was done using a very limited number of plants due to our concerns that it would show increased mortality rates. It did of course but we were also amazed by the incredible resilience of the plants. We were however thinking that our 10-yr visit in 2018 might be our last visit as we felt that we had pulled as much data as we possibly could out of so few individuals.
Fate provided the unexpected opportunity that was referred to earlier. When we reached the site in 2018, we soon discovered that the entire first section of our research group, which included all of the re-harvested individuals, had been largely harvested by poachers or at least was only partially intact. Since our area of interest was studying the impact of harvesting, including plants harvested too frequently, being given a chance to directly examine such a harvest was an amazing windfall and we decided to continue our visits.
The chance of poaching occurring was certainly no surprise to any of us; we were, in fact, all rather pleasantly surprised that it had taken so many years to finally happen.

There used to be some peyote growing here.

Our original hope was to be able to study commercial harvesting practices by following behind their collectors but we were unable to find anyone who was interested in our doing so. Instead, Blake was fortunate enough to meet Teodoso Herrera, a spiritual leader of one of the original indigenous peyote people of South Texas (the Tāp Pīlam Coahuiltecan Nation; which is recognized by the state of Texas but, sadly, not by the federal government). After discussing the benefits of this knowledge to both peyote and peyote people and obtaining his support, we were granted access to the population that Ted used for fulfilling his own small group’s Medicine requirements.
An area where he did not harvest was selected by Ted and, with permission both from him and from the land owner, it became the site chosen for this study.

Plants that are still growing near the control group section of the study site.

One significant element affecting peyote survival is harvesting, especially poaching, so the harvesting was an interesting bit of serendipity. It might on the surface seem like poaching and harvesting involve the same physical operation. The mechanics are the same but poachers are more likely to be in a hurry AND are more likely to be unaware of the date the field was last visited by harvesters. Repeated harvests can and do easily occur with no knowledge as to the dates of previous harvests on that same parcel; this can be true even for a person harvesting under a lease agreement. The harvester can only gauge appropriate choices based on size and condition of what is visible. The size of a crown at the surface may not necessarily reflect the compromised state of its underground parts if those have been repeatedly harvested toward exhaustion. This is due to harvesting removing the ability of the plant to photosynthesize and requiring it to rely on the resources stored in the underground stem until new green tissue can be produced. Repeated harvests that are too close together result in diminished regrowth as will be seen in the images that follow.

A repeatedly harvested plant from a peyote lease property.
Peyote stem from a peyote lease property showing a history of repeated commercial harvests . Photo by Martin Terry 2005.

The single most fortuitous element was the fact that we had records of not just where the plants in the study group were located. They also included how often they had been harvested and the date(s) of any time or times of being harvested during the previous decade of study. (The original individuals were chosen on the basis of never having been harvested.) 

While our efforts had attempted to minimize our impact on plants other than those seeing harvest, this unplanned harvesting by poachers provided a real-world look at the impact of a typical Tragedy-of-the-Commons peyote harvest. The harvesters did not simply harvest a few plants at the beginning of the study, they also removed almost all of the former abundance of peyote plants for some yards on either side of them leaving only a handful of plants. In doing so they also removed surprising amounts of the brush cover that protected the population, creating a few short trails that are clearly visible even from a satellite view.

A peyote site which has been harvested.
A site which has been harvested.
An intact peyote population which has never seen harvest.
An intact peyote population which has never seen harvest.
An intact peyote population which has never seen harvest.
An intact peyote population which has never seen harvest.
A peyote site which was harvested 2 or more years earlier still appears to be vacant.
A peyote site which was harvested 2 or so years earlier.

That last image showed the site of some peyote plants that were growing adjacent to the study group. It is obviously difficult to visualize plants that are not present, so a couple of pictures of those former residents are below.

Peyotes that were growing adjacent to the study site in 2016.
Peyotes that were growing adjacent to the study site in 2016.
Peyotes that were growing adjacent to the study site in 2016.
Peyotes that were growing adjacent to the study site in 2016.

It has been 2 or so years now since the first of the harvests done by poachers occurred. With the exception of one intact plant (#103), we were unable to find any sign of life on any members of the study group until some distance farther into the brush. We also found only occasional individual plants outside of the study group had been missed in that entire area and did not see any apparent regrowth. 

The sizes of stems and regrowth that we found on #127 indicated that it had experienced two harvests in between our visits in March 2016 and March 2018.
When it was first harvested in March 2008, it had a single 8-ribbed crown (4.3 cm in diameter) that weighed 28 grams.

Regrowth on #127 in 2018 after careful excavation.
Regrowth on #127 in 2018; shown after careful excavation.

Earlier views of #127

Specimen #129 nicely illustrates the adverse impact of repeated harvesting on the ability of the stem to produce new regrowth.
When #129 was first harvested in March 2008, it had a single 10-ribbed crown (5.3 cm in diameter) that weighed 34 grams.
Following that first harvest, four new crowns had appeared within the first eight months although no photographic record exists for that visit in November 2008. They can however clearly be seen in the image from March 2009 farther below.
It is very easy to see the effect of that most recent harvest by comparing the 2019 images to those of the original regrowth during 2009–2016.

The newest growth on #129 appears to be around two years old.
The newest growth on #129 appears to be around two years old.
Regrowth on #129 in May 2019
Regrowth on #129 in May 2019.
#129 in March 2016
#129 in March 2016; showing eight years of regrowth
#129 in March 2014
#129 in March 2014; showing six years of regrowth

At least one harvest of a plant with large crowns (#106) included the roots. (If this was a common practice employed by the poachers, it might help to explain what appears to a poor recovery of the plants that were not in the study group.)
Only a desiccating crown from a smaller plant that had been nearby was still detectable at the site of #106 in March 2018.

Site #106 in March 2018; with a cut and desiccating crown.
Site #106 in March 2018; with a cut and desiccating crown.
A harvester seems to have dropped something.
A better look at what was dropped.

In May of 2019, all that still remained was a bit of peyote stem bark that was discovered when digging to locate a root or a carcass. These can persist in soil for up to several years before decomposing.

Stem-bark from #106 in 2019
Subterranean stem-bark from #106 in May 2019

The next image is what healthy peyote populations can look like if given the right location and a chance. It is easy to appreciate why this part of Texas has been referred to as the Peyote Gardens.

It is perfectly reasonable to believe that good management practices and fully-informed, conscious harvesting could enable this resource to continue to exist for future generations.
The common harvesting practices that are presently at play (the broad acceptance of poached plants, harvesting through trespassing, harvesting small plants, harvesting so many plants as to compromise local seed production, and harvesting individuals too frequently) will continue to work against that being a possibility.

Healthy wild peyote plants that have never been harvested.
Healthy wild peyote plants that have never been harvested (May 2019).
Wild Lophophora williamsii
A closer view of what peyote CAN look like..
A peyote that was formerly near the study site. Shown in 2016.
A peyote that was formerly near the study site. Shown in March 2016.
Healthy wild peyote plants that have never been harvested.
Healthy wild peyote that has never been harvested (May 2019).
Healthy wild peyote plants that have never been harvested (May 2019).

Additional reading online:

A look at peyote harvesting & the peyote trade.

A closer look at peyote growing in the wild can be found in an article at Erowid.

 The Peyote Crisis & some Suggestions. Revisited. 2014

Related PDFs of potential interest:

Kevin Feeney. 2017. Peyote as Commodity: An Examination of Market Actors and Access Mechanisms. Human Organization 76(1): 59–72.   [1.5 mb PDF]

Garrett Hardin 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162(3859): 1243—1248. [free PDF at publisher

M. Abul Kalam, Molly T. Klein, Diana Hulsey, Keeper Trout, Paul Daley & Martin Terry. 2013. A preliminary report of mescaline concentrations in small regrowth crowns vs. mature crowns of Lophophora williamsii (Cactaceae); cultural, economic, and conservation implications. Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas, 7 (1): 435–440.
   [~1.8 Mb PDF]

 Molly T. Klein, M. Kalam, Keeper Trout, Norma Fowler & Martin Terry. 2015. Mescaline concentrations in three principal tissues of Lophophora williamsii (Cactaceae): Implications for sustainable harvesting practices.  Haseltonia 20: 34–42.    [~4 Mb PDF

Peyote Sales. 1986–2016. Peyote sales reported to Texas DPS by the licensed distributors.  [PDF]

Martin Terry & James D. Mauseth. 2006. Root-shoot anatomy and post-harvest vegetative clonal development in Lophophora williamsii (Cactaceae: Cactaeae): implications for conservation. Sida, 22: 565–592.
    [~ 3.02 Mb PDF

Martin Terry, Teodoso Herrera, Keeper Trout, Bennie Williams & Norma Fowler. 2011. Limitations to natural production of Lophophora williamsii (Cactaceae) I. Regrowth and survivorship two years post harvest in a South Texas population. Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas, 5 (2): 661–675. 
  [~8.7 Mb PDF]

Martin Terry, Teodoso Herrera, Keeper Trout, Bennie Williams & Norma Fowler. 2012. Limitations to natural production of Lophophora williamsii (Cactaceae) II. Effects of repeated harvesting at two-year intervals in a South Texas population. Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas, 6 (2): 567–577. 
  [~1.5 Mb PDF

Martin Terry, Teodoso Herrera, Keeper Trout, Bennie Williams & Norma Fowler. 2014. Limitations to natural production of Lophophora williamsii (Cactaceae) III. Effects of repeated harvesting at two-year intervals for six years in a South Texas population. Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas, 8 (2): 541–550. 
   [1.9 Mb PDF]