Concerning data on regrowth involving multiple pups:
    1) There is not necessarily a direct 1:1 correspondence between sequential figures for individual pups within a single plant.
    2) It was not uncommon for some or all pups to be partly or entirely covered so some photos may reflect the pre-uncovery state.

    Images of the tags can be viewed via the links in the column for the tag numbers and images of the actual plants can be viewed using the links in the column headed "Number of crowns".

    A number of our tags and plants were completely buried and hence provided missing data in 2009. In the years since then, thanks to the use of a high powered metal detector we have  located all of our tags, stakes and plants except in the instances that are noted in the table below.

    Images and data concerning the control group can be found below.

 nd   – No data.
     —   – Missing data

Comments concerning control plant #151:

In March 2010 we discovered that plant number 151 had been decapitated by passing porcine traffic. Its two broken heads were replanted by us near their tag. In a late summer visit that same year we found that one of the heads had again been kicked out of the ground and was badly shriveled. It was once again replanted.
    In March of 2011 we found the head that had taken root in 2010 was quite healthy and growing whereas the shrivelled one was nowhere to be found. More interestingly the original plant #151 was located by virtue of it sending up new pups.
    On 13 March 2012, neither broken crown we had replanted could be located. The original plant was still present showing new growth.

On 10 March 2014, the broken crowns we had replanted could still not be located. The original plant was showing new growth.

2014 comments:

The study we had originally intended was completed in 2012, so our visit frequencies were reduced to every two years following that point.

It is our intention to track the recovery process as long as possible, in order to evaluate the mortality associated with two-year harvest cycles and also to learn at what age the total regrowth will be the equivalent of what was originally harvested. Specifically to establish how long is required between harvests in order for peyote harvesting to be sustainable based on the available biomass. Right now we only know that period it is greater than four years but shortly we will have the numbers crunched for 2014. There is also the secondary question of how many years it takes for the mescaline content of the harvested plants to recover to their preharvest levels. That too we only currently know is a period greater than four years and establishing the actual time required lies someplace in the future.

A new twist was added in 2014 in the form of unmistakable evidence, in the form of hoofprints and cow-pies, that cattle had been walking through the study site, primarily in the upper numbers of the control group.

2016 comments:

We were amazed at how challenging of a time period that 2015-2016 had been for the population.

An untouched specimen at the study site 15 March 2016

   

    If you would like to help support additional studies of this type, designed to answer basic questions that are critical to the optimal stewardship/management of vulnerable cactus species, please send a contribution, of $25 USD or whatever amount you can afford, to the Cactus Conservation Institute, 909 E. Sul Ross Ave., Alpine, TX 79830.
    We also now accept donations via PayPal.