Taxonomy
Scientific Name
Lithops lesliei (N.E.Br.) N.E.Br. subsp. lesliei
Higher Classification
Dicotyledons
Family
AIZOACEAE
Synonyms
Lithops lesliei (N.E.Br.) N.E.Br. forma minor (de Boer) B.Fearn, Lithops lesliei (N.E.Br.) N.E.Br. subsp. lesliei var. hornii de Boer, Lithops lesliei (N.E.Br.) N.E.Br. subsp. lesliei var. mariae D.T.Cole, Lithops lesliei (N.E.Br.) N.E.Br. subsp. lesliei var. minor (de Boer) D.T.Cole, Lithops lesliei (N.E.Br.) N.E.Br. subsp. lesliei var. rubrobrunnea de Boer, Lithops lesliei (N.E.Br.) N.E.Br. subsp. lesliei var. venteri (Nel) de Boer & Boom, Lithops lesliei (N.E.Br.) N.E.Br. var. applanata de Boer, Lithops lesliei (N.E.Br.) N.E.Br. var. lesliei, Lithops lesliei (N.E.Br.) N.E.Br. var. lesliei cv. "albiflora" D.T.Cole, Lithops lesliei (N.E.Br.) N.E.Br. var. lesliei cv. "albinica" D.T.Cole, Lithops lesliei (N.E.Br.) N.E.Br. var. luteoviridis de Boer, Lithops lesliei (N.E.Br.) N.E.Br. var. maraisii de Boer, Lithops lesliei (N.E.Br.) N.E.Br. var. minor de Boer, Lithops orpenii L.Bolus, Lithops venteri Nel, Mesembryanthemum ferrugineum Schwantes, Mesembryanthemum lesliei N.E.Br.
National Status
Status and Criteria
Vulnerable A4acd; C1
Assessment Date
2023/11/26
Assessor(s)
H. Mtshali, L. Mills, V.L. Williams, N.R. Crouch, A.B. Cunningham, C.R. Scott-Shaw, M. Lötter & A.M. Ngwenya
Justification
A population reduction of 25-30% is inferred due to persistent and destructive harvesting for the medicinal plant trade and as a result of urban expansion and agriculture in the past 40 years (generation length 40-50 years). A further decline of at least 10% is expected in the next five years if the current rates of harvesting continue. This taxon has a wide distribution range in the central and northern provinces of South Africa, including Botswana, but local extirpations are being observed within urban areas. No data are available for populations outside South Africa. Therefore, the national status is not adjusted following the IUCN regional assessment guidelines. This species is listed as Vulnerable under criteria A and C.
Distribution
Endemism
Not endemic to South Africa
Provincial distribution
Free State, Gauteng, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, North West
Range
This species has a wide distribution range in South Africa, where it occurs in Douglas in the Northern Cape Province to central Limpopo Province, and south-eastern Botswana.
Habitat and Ecology
Major system
Terrestrial
Major habitats
Kimberley Thornveld, Gold Reef Mountain Bushveld, Marikana Thornveld, Gauteng Shale Mountain Bushveld, Tsakane Clay Grassland, Soweto Highveld Grassland, Rand Highveld Grassland, Carletonville Dolomite Grassland, Klerksdorp Thornveld
Description
This species occurs primarily in arid grasslands, usually in rocky places, growing under the protection of forbs and grasses. It is short-lived and has a generation length of 5 years.
Threats
In the early 1990s, the species was very rarely seen (if at all) in Johannesburg's muthi shops and markets. The harvesting of the species was thought to have been speculative initially, following which the demand increased dramatically. Smith and Crouch (1999) recorded seeing the species for sale in Durban's Warwick market in February 1999; there were approximately 120 individual plants. During visits to Warwick conducted in the early 2000s, there was one trader selling L. lesliei, and the stock was reportedly harvested from Gauteng. Smith and Crouch (1999) stated that it appeared as if L. lesliei had then been recently adopted by the Zulu healing culture because it was being sold outside of its distribution range and was not reported for sale in the early KwaZulu-Natal surveys by Cunningham (1988). It was reported that it was a common species in the Durban markets, sold by the sack full 20% of the time one goes to the Warwick market. At the Medicinal Plant Red List Workshop held by SANBI in Durban in 2008, the participants discussed observations of L. lesliei, threats, decline, and prevalence in the markets. The following points were raised: a) the plants have a very specific habitat and clumped distribution, hence many individuals can be exploited at one time; b) most, if not all, plants in the Klipriviersberg Nature Reserve subpopulation south of Johannesburg had been removed; c) a 'small' patch of two to three thousand individuals were observed at one locality in Gauteng. However, on the other side of the road, the land had been bulldozed and ploughed, and assuming that the subpopulation had originally been continuous across the road, it was assumed that the many thousands of individuals had been removed during the habitat destruction; d) succulent collectors were also a threat, but muthi harvesting had become the biggest threat to its persistence. Based on the evidence presented at the workshop, ongoing habitat loss and degradation, as well as destructive harvesting of this species, had resulted in its continuing decline. Recent field surveys confirm that this species has been increasingly targeted by illegal collection, and it is in demand for traditional medicine. It has since become very common within the markets and many thousands are estimated to be harvested annually.
Population

Plants are found in clumps and have a very specific habitat; hence, many individuals can be exploited at one time. In South Africa, the remaining subpopulations are fairly large fragments that are relatively close to one another. Gauteng has the most known subpopulations, with the largest consisting of 3620 individuals, followed by Northern Cape-Free State, with none consisting of more than 250 mature individuals. In Mpumalanga and the North West provinces, subpopulations are very few and small. Local extirpations have been observed in all provinces, and the population is declining rapidly as a result of illegal harvesting for traditional medicine and the succulent trade. It is unknown how the population is doing in Botswana. However, it is suspected that the species is declining due to illegal harvesting to meet the increasing demand for succulents. This long-lived taxon (generation length 40-50 years) is not easy to cultivate and has already lost 25% of its population due to habitat loss and exploitation. A further 10% loss is projected in the next five years if the current rate of harvesting continues.


Population trend
Decreasing
Notes
This species is not easily cultivated.
Assessment History
Taxon assessed
Status and Criteria
Citation/Red List version
Lithops lesliei (N.E.Br.) N.E.Br. subsp. lesliei NT A4acdRaimondo et al. (2009)
Lithops lesliei (N.E.Br.) N.E.Br. subsp. lesliei var. rubrobrunnea de BoerData Deficient Pfab and Victor (2002)
Lithops lesliei (N.E.Br.) N.E.Br. subsp. lesliei var. hornii de BoerInsufficiently Known Hilton-Taylor (1996)
Lithops lesliei (N.E.Br.) N.E.Br. subsp. lesliei var. mariae D.T.ColeInsufficiently Known Hilton-Taylor (1996)
Bibliography

Cunningham, A.B. 1988. An investigation of the herbal medicine trade in Natal/KwaZulu. Investigational Report No. 29. Institute of Natural Resources, Pietermaritzburg.


Hilton-Taylor, C. 1996. Red data list of southern African plants. Strelitzia 4. South African National Botanical Institute, Pretoria.


Pfab, M.F. and Victor, J.E. 2002. Threatened plants of Gauteng, South Africa. South African Journal of Botany 68:370-375.


Raimondo, D., von Staden, L., Foden, W., Victor, J.E., Helme, N.A., Turner, R.C., Kamundi, D.A. and Manyama, P.A. 2009. Red List of South African Plants. Strelitzia 25. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.


Smith, G.F. and Crouch, N.R. 1999. Mesembs in the muthi market: Lithops lesliei as an ethnomedicinal plant. British Cactus and Succulent Journal 17(3):133-137.


Citation
Mtshali, H., Mills, L., Williams, V.L., Crouch, N.R., Cunningham, A.B., Scott-Shaw, C.R., Lötter, M. & Ngwenya, A.M. 2023. Lithops lesliei (N.E.Br.) N.E.Br. subsp. lesliei. National Assessment: Red List of South African Plants version . Accessed on 2024/10/08

Comment on this assessment Comment on this assessment
Distribution map


Search for images of Lithops lesliei subsp. lesliei on iNaturalist