As the climate changes, plants like the Garry oaks and animals are suddenly finding themselves outside of their comfort zones. Some are moving. Scientists are documenting range shifts up mountains and towards the poles in creatures from butterflies to trees. Some species will be able to keep up with the changing climate, but others will be too slow, or they will have their path blocked by a valley, a mountain, a city or even a single road. Trapped in their former home, which will, in fits and starts, change into something different, perhaps something hotter and dryer, they will perish.
Conservationists are increasingly considering moving plants and animals in advance of climate change to places where they might thrive in a warmer future. But they are hesitant and nervous; assisted migration is a long way from the conservation many grew up with.
After a lifetime studying the infinitely complex workings of existing ecosystems, the idea of taking a species from one into the other willy-nilly sounds like a terrible idea. The organisms could die, because you don't know exactly what they need to live— some specific soil microbes or microclimatic condition. Or, in a much worse scenario, they could do so well that they become a dreaded "invasive species" that takes over and pushes out native species. And it is one thing when humanity accidentally creates an invasive species. Humanity is dumb. But to do so these days, with all we know, on purpose? For many ecologists and conservation biologists, that is just insanity. But then…to do nothing and watch plants and animals go extinct because of climate change that we caused?
What is interesting about climate change is that it pits two common assumptions against each other: the myth of pristine nature and the myth of a correct baseline for each area. If humans are outside nature and humans caused climate change, then it follows that humans should make good— should make sure that species that would have survived without climate change survive, no matter what— even if it means moving stressed-out organisms to new places where they can thrive under the new climate. But if ecosystems have a correct baseline to which we must return— the second assumption— then we absolutely cannot move species from one area to another. To do so would violate the baseline and be tantamount to willfully creating invasive species. This conundrum has paralyzed many scientists.
Proponents of moving plants and animals threatened by rising temperatures to more hospitable locations are more concerned about the increasing rate of species extinction, while opponents are more worried about the integrity of coevolved ecosystems. But in general, scientists are pretty freaked out by the whole idea.
To find out more, I visited Hellman's northern site. The week I was there, Hellmann was also visiting the team to see that all was well, downloading data from the field, and checking on transplanted oaks. Together the four of us drove up and down the landward side of Vancouver Island, crossing and recrossing the range limit of the ecosystem and visiting sites on military bases, in public parks, on "Crown land" managed for forestry, and on privately owned nature reserves. From the car, the island seemed to be a blanket of conifers, with land carved out for roads and towns. The Garry oak sites were hidden treasures, tucked down winding roads, little patches of flowers, grasses and great gnarled oaks in a sea of Douglas-fir and hemlock. I could see why Canadians found them enchanting. I could also see why they might not be able to move north by themselves.
See what we're tweeting about
5 Comments
Add CommentNormally I would say that assisted migration is a dangerous thing but one has to consider that the rate of change is much faster than these systems are accustomed to and many ecosystems are now fragmented by human development so natural migration is difficult if not impossible. I would take a cue from the margin of the ecosystems as to how they transition from one biome to another but draw a new population from as wide a genetic base as possible. It is almost impossible to predict what traits will be off most benefit in a new system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that is a bit of a stretch. The fact that we share dna with all other living things on this planet kinda rules that out. Besides, one first has to prove that multiple universes exist, then, that it is possible for one to move between universes before one could even consider that possibility.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBesides, humanity's effects on the planet are very similar to the effects of cancer on the body. We have metastasised, we have move outside our original niche, we are consuming resources at a rate that is much higher than the planet's ability to create them and we are shutting down important ecological processes that are required in order for the earth to sustain life, just as cancer kills by destroying organ function. So, there is nothing other-universy about us. Sadly our place on this planet is nothing to be proud of.
Actually you were being an idiot and a totally believable one at that. You also revealed yourself to be one of the typical low life scumbags that troll this site. Kind of pathetic that you try to compensate for your intellectual disabilities with idiotic comments. Or perhaps you were just demonstrating what I said about humanity being a cancer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not clear what Hellman's quote in the final paragraph refers to. Is she saying that the horticultural trade isn't going to pick up and move things like beetles and soil organisms or that even concerted efforts at ecosystem relocation will fail to move everything? Well, whichever she actually did mean, it does seem unlikely to me that we would be able to successfully recreate an entire ecosystem in a new location. First, our understanding of the complexity of real ecosystems is miniscule compared their actual functioning. Beyond a small handful of intensively researched species like garry oaks or swallowtail butterflies, we don't know which of the millions of other organisms in an ecosystem are critically important, what their critical proportions are relative to other organisms, what kind of spatial distributions they need, etc. Second, the idea of moving an ecosystem into a new range oversimplifies the actual patterns climate change is bringing. It's not true that suitable climates for an entire ecosystem will simply move further north or further upslope. Climate change can be expected to alter some, but not all of the climate patterns in a region, many will still be based on large and small scale topographic features and so will nto change. The organisms in an ecosystem have different ranges of tolerance, even if some will be able to thrive in a new habitat, say further north, it's not certain that all of them will.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article rightly refers to soil bacteria which would need to be displaced. Soil feeds us, yet we know next to nothing about the diversity and interactions of soil bacteria. Fungi too would have to be dispaced to ensure that vegetation can feed itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo much remains to be learned and yet so much time needed study it all. Yet science will be our only salvation. Man has always studied nature but we are changing it recklessly.