The mood among the team was happy, despite the fact that several of the climate sensors, which looked like oversize watch batteries, had gotten wet and were not recording properly, even though they were carefully duct-taped inside plastic pillboxes. Oaks that they had lugged up to the site were sitting in pots, so Hellmann could see how butterflies that feed on them would do if moved to the clearing. Of course, it would be more like a real migration if the oaks were planted in the ground rather than in pots; every gardener knows that potted plants are more affected by the cold. But Hellmann, despite having permission from the government to stick those oaks right into the ground, could not quite bring herself to personally move the Garry oak past its recorded range.
She's still ambivalent. "Philosophically we are entering an era of interventionism that I am not comfortable with," she says. But on the other hand, "I have not gotten comfortable with this idea of how many species are going to go extinct. There is less stuff than there used to be. That is one thing that we should care about. I am less concerned with how it is configured than that it exists."
While Hellmann and her ilk fret and study, a great uncoordinated, unofficial assisted migration is already underway. A group of citizen scientists has moved north many seedlings of Torreya taxifolia, or Florida torreya, one of the world's rarest evergreen trees, which is currently roasting to death in its tiny range in the US South. Many conservationists predict an explosion of similar efforts by fans of particular species. And an analysis of about 350 native European plants sold at nurseries in Europe has revealed that 73 percent of them are now sold farther north than their native ranges, with a mean shift of about 600 miles. Pretty pink-flowered rock soapwort doesn't occur north of Germany, according to official ranges published by botanists. But you can buy it in Sweden and grow it in your garden. The researchers suggest that these commercial movements might help these species adapt as the climate changes. "While the debate on assisted migration continues," they write, "it is clear that, across the planet, we have already given many species an unintentional head start on climate change."
Undoubtedly true. But there are likely few mosses, lichens or invertebrates in those seed catalogs. People tend to care more about certain kinds of species. And thus, Hellmann says she doesn't think the approach is "a panacea for saving biodiversity under threat from climate change." "There are some species that are very important, and for the species that are really important, people will do it ... but I have a hard time imagining how we would apply it to all the beetles and the microbes, the vast majority of biodiversity. No one is going to pick them up and move them."
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.