NEWT ON BOARD: The coastal California newt is going to need a helping hand to migrate as its habitat shifts with climate change
Image: DAWN ENDICO/FLICKR
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
As temperatures rise over the next century, three California amphibian species could be pushed to the cusp of extinction because the warming climate will effectively block their migration to more suitable habitats. Interventions by humans who physically relocate the animals may be the only way to help them survive.
Managed relocation, or assisted migration, for climate change is a controversial topic because of the challenges of moving an endangered species and the potential harm it may cause in a new ecosystem.
The Torreya Guardians, a self-organized group of naturalists, botanists, ecologists and others, are the most well-known proponents of assisted migration. Last July, the group planted endangered Torreya taxifolia seedlings in new habitat patches north of their customary domain in Florida, where it is becoming too hot for the conifers to survive. More recently, the British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range launched an Assisted Migration Adaptation Trial, testing out nine tree populations from the U.S. in that Canadian province, to ensure that the latter nation's timber production stays strong as the climate warms.
One practical issue pertaining to managed relocation is deciding which species need to be moved and when to move them. To study the problem, Regan Early and Dov Sax at Brown University created a detailed simulation of how suitable habitat for 16 well-studied—and mostly common—frogs and salamanders will expand and contract over the next century in response to climate-induced changes in precipitation and temperature. Although some species' current and future ranges overlap, a decade-by-decade analysis shows that corridors to new habitats may appear too late or vanish at the wrong moment. Left to their own devices, the amphibians would then have nowhere to go and wink out.
"That was an unexpected result," Early said at the Ecological Society of America meeting in Albuquerque this week. "Species might have no apparent barriers between their current and future ranges, but climate variability and species traits interact to prevent a range shift."
Early used a moderate climate change scenario of 2 degrees Celsius warming by the end of the century. Then the team assumed that animals could expand their ranges by about 12 kilometers per decade, and also could persist in an unsuitable habitat for 10 years.
Early first described two well-known scenarios for how different California amphibians could be affected by climate change. The black-bellied slender salamander, for instance, would have no problem spreading from its home range around Santa Barbara to the more northern central coast region. But for other species, like the black salamander, a changing climate produces new pockets of habitat to the north, but they don't ever overlap the salamander's current or future range in the San Francisco Bay Area, leaving the animals stranded.
Early's step-by-step simulations revealed a third scenario that is not apparent, simply by comparing current and future habitats. In coastal California newts the current and future ranges appear to overlap, but by the time that future habitat becomes available late in the century, her simulation indicates that the current range will have contracted so much that the animals have no route to get there.
Overall, these findings mean that the three California amphibian species will become critically endangered—defined as inhabiting less than 100 square kilometers—by 2100. Other amphibian species also will become vulnerable or threatened, lacking a way to reach a more suitable habitat. The good news, Early explained, is that managers may only have to move species very short distances to give them access to suitable habitat.
"This is something we've definitely been concerned about," says ecologist Lee Hannah of Conservation International, who has studied climate paths in South Africa and Mexico and is part of the managed relocation working group. "Ten years ago it was good enough to do a century or a half-century snapshot...but now we see we have to look more closely."
"Inevitably," Hannah says, "we are going to have to rescue, captive breed, and move some species."
See what we're tweeting about
10 Comments
Add Commenti think
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi think assisted migration isnot feasible ,because some animals only Living in the particular environment. to leave the particular environment ,they cannot survival.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter years of hysterical warnings about the danger of invasive species (Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't ALL species invasive at one time or another?) those very same Chicken Littles are actually advocating the importation of invasive species.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat has become of critical thinking?
"What has become of critical thinking?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIndeed. This whole climate change business has caused that concept to be thrown out. The arrogance with which these people live their lives is beyond astonishing. There was another article in a different publication asking which species were "worth saving." If we humans are such a parasite on the planet how can we justify making these sort of decisions?
You are correct, James!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook at all the effort put into "saving" the panda. By all rights, this animal seems to be an evolutionary dead end. There was also the story about an otter that was rescued from an oil spill, rehabilitated at an enormous expense, and then released, with much fanfare and media attention into the bay. This otter swam out a few hundred yards and -- in front of the gathered media and crowds of cheering school children -- was promptly eaten by a passing orca.
So what good did all that effort do? What more worthy cause was shortchanged to provide a quick lunch for an orca?
This is all the result of fuzzy thinking caused by a combination of guilt (that humans, as a species, are doing so well) and hubris -- that humans might actually know how to "fix" the "problems" caused by our existence.
These are toxic emotions that will lead to far more harm than the "problems" they seek to solve.
They are also the two main driving emotions of the Modern Liberal/Progressive mindset. As such, all their prescriptions are doomed to abject failure!
@Montag, "what has become of critical thinking?" People like you never learned how to use it. Have you heard the term, "straw man?" It essentially means the misrepresentation of an opponent's position in order to make it easier to refute. You have misrepresented the term "invasive species" to mean the movement of an organism from one area into another and then implied that the "chicken littles" actually held that belief and then contradicted it. The term invasive species is poorly defined in ecology but generally refers to non-indigenous species that overwhelm the environment in which they are introduced. This is usually caused by a lack of predators in the new environment. This is certainly not the case here. We are talking about species that are endangered so hardly in a position to overwhelm their environments. The reason these organisms can't move to new areas on their own is not because of natural boundaries but because people have fragmented these biotopes with roads and urban sprawl. By the way, the label "chicken littles" is an ad hominem attack and is simply childish. Furthermore, the statement, "but aren"t ALL species invasive?" seems to be a naturalist fallacy. The implication is that because it is natural for species to move from one region to another that it should be ok for people to do it. This is not the same thing. When species move naturally, other species that prey on them generally move with them. But when humans move species around like in the bilge water of ships, or by intentionally introducing species for agriculture, predators are not brought in to keep things in check. In this same way an indigenous species can become invasive by reducing its predators. This has happened with deer when wolf populations have been wiped out. So, Champion of Logic, in one paragraph you employed three fallacies. If you truly lament the death of critical thought, try it yourself. As they say, think globally but act locally.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Montag & JofK. The driving "emotions" of the right wing mindset seem to be; greed, ignorance, intolerance, fear and irresponsibility. Somehow you believe that we can act without consequence, that we owe nothing to the other species that share this planet and on whom we depend. The arrogance of the radical right who think our wellbeing is somehow separate from the rest of the planet defies explanation. We breath the air, we drink the water and we eat the plants and animals. Do you really believe we can do anything we want and those resources will just keep on flowing, that nothing will change? Arrogance and ignorance are a bad combination.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn our efforts to undo or even slow our damage to the environment there will be times where we fail, or where we actually do more harm than good. What matters is that we keep trying and that the preponderance of our efforts lead us to a more sustainable future. The true path to abject failure is what you and JofK propose; do nothing, business as usual.
Robert:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's look at things critically.
1. Perhaps the term "invasive species" should never have been coined. The fact is, every species that ever appeared on this earth changed the environment, wiped out previously existing species, made new homes for other new species, and then moved about ( by itself, or with the aid of another species ) replicating the procedure. No species, not even mankind, is exempt from this simple law of nature. To believe otherwise is a lack of critical thinking.
2. I did not, in my posts, advocate "greed, ignorance, intolerance, fear and irresponsibility." Nor have I ever advocated such hateful emotions in any other essay I have written. What I have advocated may be a sort of species chauvinism, but what species wouldn't be chauvinistic were it capable of thought? I do not advocate soiling the nest, so to speak. Nor do I advocate wanton destruction of the environment. But you can't tell me anybody knows enough about the world and its interlocking systems to decide what should be right for either you or me. What I do advocate, is Liberty, which will ultimately free the Third World from poverty. Unless of course, "sustainable living" becomes the law of the world. Then we're all dumped into squalor while your heroes like James Hansen and Algore flit about in their private jets.
3. The only "straw man" I've seen in these posts was where you falsely accused me of advocating "greed, ignorance, intolerance, fear and irresponsibility." You don't even know me, Robert. And besides, wasn't your false accusation a perfect example of "fuzzy thinking"?
4. No, I do not believe that we can act with no thought for the consequences. As I illustrated with the example of the otter and the orca, we must think through our actions. This would apply equally to our Friends on the Left, since most of their "cures" for our "ills" actually reduce Liberty and further the assault on the individual. Such consequences, in my mind, are far worse than anything the "cures" purport to solve. Hence, the schemes of the Left are doomed to failure, as the evidence of the 20th Century attests.
So, please, Robert! Before you point the finger, remember that there are three pointing right back at you!
@Montag
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Again, the naturalist fallacy. What other species have done within the context of the natural world has nothing to do with what we should do. Animals do all sorts of things that we would consider morally abhorrent for humans to do. Yes, animals have wiped out other animals, and yes they have changed their environments and yes, they have gone extinct. To not learn from that would be foolish.
2. First, I did not directly say YOU were advocating the things I mentioned; I said they were traits of the right wing. But if you want to call greed - "Species Chauvinism" or "Liberty", then go for it. Whatever lets you sleep at night. My feeling is that since this major economic meltdown, not to mention the ecological meltdown, the world has had enough of US style liberty and would like to see a little more responsibility.
Do we know everything about the complex systems that make up our world? No. Do we know enough to make sound policy? Yes. It is not too complex to understand that if you take more fish out of the ocean than the ocean can replenish, you will run out of fish; or that if you take carbon that has been buried for hundreds of millions of years and release it within a couple of centuries, you are going to have much more CO2 in the atmosphere. Whenever society has been on the brink of change there have been those who claim that it will destroy us all. They are frightened of what they don't understand. But, so far, we have bounced back stronger than ever. Perhaps you should have more faith in your fellow man and less concern about how fixing the world will affect you personally.
3. If I had accused you of greed, etc, it wouldn't be a "straw man fallacy", it would be an "ad hominem fallacy" and only if the accusation were baseless, but I accused the right wing of that and I stand by it...
4. The otter and the orca is an idiotic example. Do you seriously think that because we can’t guarantee the animals we save from our own irresponsibility and then release back into the wild will live rich and full lives that we should not try? I can’t guarantee that the next person to receive an organ transplant won’t get hit by a bus the day he’s released from hospital either. I guess we should stop organ transplants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"reduce Liberty and further the assault on the individual" I think I am going to puke! We are a social species. We live in groups. We must compromise to survive! It is so sickening to hear right wing fanatics talking about liberty as though they themselves got by with no help from anyone. Tell you what. I’ll give you all the liberty you want and everyone else who wants it. No laws. No protection. Everyman for himself! How long would you last? How much ammo do you have? We all depend on a system of laws and other institutions to co-exist. That goes for the rich as well as the poor, even more so, a wealthy man has more to protect. The US needs to get over its wild-west days and realize, the open frontiers are gone and resources are disappearing. The days of mindless exploitation are over. We now must manage what is left. So, we can do as you suggest, sit and think about it until we are sure we have absolutely all the answers, in other words, "death by committee", or we can act on what we know. We might not always be absolutely correct but we can always fine tune things as more data comes in. If you were laying, bleeding out on a gurney, would you want your doctor to wait until he had a complete diagnosis before doing anything or would you prefer he start immediately and try and stop the bleeding?
"Hence, the schemes of the Left are doomed to failure, as the evidence of the 20th Century attests." What the heck are you talking about? Are you talking about the Russians? If you are, you have no idea of what you are talking about. Stalin wasn't a communist; he was a totalitarian and he and his legacy have nothing to do with modern social democracies. Politics and economics are tools that we use to structure society in ways that hopefully maximize utility. They are not religions. If you think that modern societies can only survive through slavish adherence to concepts conceived over two centuries ago then you are a fanatic and have lost all perspective. Get over it. The world is a different place. We have new problems and we need new solutions not more of the same. And that is all the ring has to offer.