Musa nagensium

In areas of northeast India, deforestation and degradation of forest habitat is ongoing (Chatterjee 2008). Major drivers of land use change across the native range are shifting cultivation (jhum), encroachment for grazing and timber extraction, and an increase in commercial agricultural plantations (Chatterjee 2008). From 2001 to 2018, Myanmar and Thailand lost 7.9% and 9.6% of forest cover, respectively, although most of this loss is from areas in which the species has not been recorded. Within its suspected range in Myanmar and Thailand, forestry and shifting agriculture appear to be the dominant drivers of tree cover loss (GFW 2019). Although the species has predominantly been recorded from forest habitats, the specific impact of deforestation on members of the Musa genus is somewhat difficult to quantify: while clear-felling or land conversion is likely to be detrimental to the species, wild bananas spring up in transient, often man-made, habitats and thus may benefit from human disturbance to some extent (Simmonds 1962). Further research into threats to the species may beneficial to better understand how the species responds to disturbance and to identify whether any threats, named or unidentified, pose a more significant risk.

The genus Musa is listed in Annex I of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) which aims to guarantee sustainable agriculture and food security through the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, as well as ensuring the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of their use (FAO 2009). Four botanical gardens are listed as sites of ex situ conservation for this species, with a further site conserving the hongii variety, specifically (BGCI 2019), but no germplasm accessions are held (Ruas et al. 2017, Genesys Global Portal on Plant Genetic Resources 2019). The species has been collected from the Namdapha National Park in Arunachal Pradesh, so passive conservation is presumed here (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2019); it is unclear whether active management is practised. Joe et al. (2014) recommended that the species be categorised as Least Concern using IUCN Red List Criteria, based on several years of field experience.