“Assisted migration” is the idea of gradually moving species around in the response to climate change by artificial means. It is meant to save endangered species suffered from negative climate change by moving them from their native space where they are suffering to another place where the condition is more suitable for their survival. This idea proves to be controversial, receiving both praise and criticism from the scientific community and citizen naturalists.
At first sight, moving one specie from one place to another more favorable space seems simple and harmless enough, but according to deeper scientific research, it is not so. Ecosystems are “infinitely complex” (77). The new species might need a plethora of additional conditions besides those accounted for by the scientists to survive and even if it survive, how it might affect the neighboring species cannot be fathomed, ranging from its becoming an invasive species to its total annihilation of the ecosystem. Plus the work and finance required for the cause are unimaginably high. Many scientists claimed that the cost outweighs the benefit and the people advocating the cause should just drop the subject.
Yet it is one thing to be afraid of the un-expectable, it is another thing to abandone dying species of which means and values are important to human such as commercial trees like oaks or just trees in general since trees are a cardinal part of the ecosystem. There are advocates like Connie Barlow who supports the cause of relocating the T. taxifolia or Greg O’Neill who pioneers the Assisted Migration Adaptation Trial (AMAT) who work relentlessly and are achieving partial success toward their goals, minimizing the invasive effect of the newly introduced species or disregarding the effect altogether, to fight for the survival of them.
“Assisted migration” as a scientific tool is unrealistic for its consummation of time and resources and its unexpected consequences to the ecosystem yet it seems to be a last-ditch effort to fix a natural world full of negative human intervention that is beyond reverse. The efforts of both the scientific community and citizen naturalist are commendable, but they have yet to bring any substancial result, aside from the fact that they are already ignoring the consequences of their actions.
So far “assisted migration” can only be applied to trees for their mobility and minimal cause, but if in the future animals would need human assistance to move around and survive, then the whole budget of a whole countries would have to be implemented to complete such cause. Thus its utilization in the ecosystems can only be small scale research and science with no apparent application in reality.
“Assisted migration” is prevalent in an urban context since people have been actively moving plants and animals around for conservation and recreation. Yet many of these species have not survived and those that do became invasive to the ecosystem.
In conclusion, “assisted migration” is a well-meaning idea that has yet to produce meaningful result by now due to the possible destructiveness of it to the ecosystem and to its consummation of resources. Those for the idea will have a hard time ahead of them trying to convince the population as a whole to sympathize and support the cause.
