Human-caused climate change is greatly affecting the animals that inhabit the Earth. Carbon dioxide, methane and emission of other gases have gradually but definitely warmed the planet over the many years. Not only is the Earth getting hotter, it’s climate patterns are getting more unpredictable. “…a world in which some places get more rain, others less (74).” And the impact of this antropogenic climate change is huge for the majority of the animals that thrive better in certain temperatures.

The first example Marris gives is the American Pika. Pikas are very sensitive to the temperature of the environment in which they live. Experiments have proven that Pikas will die in 78 degree Fahrenheit heat in just a few hours (73). As the planet is getting warmer, they are moving higher up the mountain escaping from the climate changes in their usual habitats. But they can only move up higher for so much longer. Pikas will eventually reach the peak of the mountain and even the highest will become too warm for them to survive in. So to help the animals that are suffering because of humans’ dominance over nature, ecologists have come up with assisted migration. It is simply moving species from one place to another that is better and preferred by the species. Humans caused the climate change that may result in extinctions of many different animals and assisted migration is our hopeful attempt at saving the innocent ones who are suffering because of us.

There are, however, many concerns that arises from assisted migration. The process is definitely not natural. It is clearly human interference and disturbance on the Earth’s ecosystem. Marris makes the point that, “after a lifetime studying the infinitely complex workings of existing ecosystem, the idea of taking a species from one into the other willy-nilly sounds like a terrible idea (77).” Similar to rewilding, no one knows how the migrated species will adapt to their new environment. Whether they will not only survive but thrive or become invasive species or just die out. Our knowledge of the species and what they need to survive is very limited. They can easily be detrimentally affected by something as small as “some specific soil microbes or microclimatic condition” (77). Another problem is that not all troubled species can be moved and saved. As Marris mentions, species with more sentimental value as well as “well-loved species with rich and leisured supporters” will probably be migrated to a better home. But for the majority of the others, they will just remain to deal with the climate change themselves, move on their own and find their new habitat on their own, or eventually die out completely. After all, assisted migration is not going to be cheap to complete.

I think assisted migration is going to work and help save many animals from being extinct from this planet forever. I do believe that we’ve come to a sad place, that our dominance have been and continues to harm other living species that are equally as deserving as we are to live on Earth and to enjoy the fullness of nature. Humans do not own the planet but we act like we do and have caused great harm to others that inhabit it. It seems like the least we can do is move them to a better environment .

Assisted migration is the process of relocating various species from an environment in which they are struggling to live to a more suitable habitat. This practice stems from the recent observations of different organisms finding it difficult to survive in their environments because of climate change. As global warming continues to raise temperatures across the globe, more and more species will be desperate to escape to cooler areas. For those who are not physically capable of doing so themselves, the act of assisted migration comes into play.

In the fifth chapter of Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World, Marris offers an example of a species that has fallen victim to climate change and cannot save itself: the American pika. These mammals cannot survive for more than a few hours in 78-degree-Fahrenheit weather, so they have been ascending mountains in search of cooler territory. That may solve the problem temporarily, but “on some mountains, they are already living at the peak [and there] is nowhere for them to go” (106). Even worse, migrating to another mountain on their own would be a futile and fatal journey. This predicament applies to a great deal of other species as well.

Upon hearing of this tragedy, our first instinct is to rescue these suffering species from a problem that humans caused in the first place. Although that sounds really nice and just, there are so many problems that arise from assisted migration. Much like the negative aspects of rewilding, there is no guarantee that the species that are moved will thrive in their new environments. There is always the possibility that they will fail to adapt and die out, which defeats the purpose entirely. On the other hand, they might adapt too well and become an invasive species, which solves one problem but brings forth a handful of other ones. Furthermore, it would be nearly impossible to cater to every species in need of rescue. These issues make assisted migration basically unachievable, for there would be no funding for a project with so many potential flaws.

Although the idea of practicing assisted migration is practically out the window, it would be incredibly useful for urban ecosystems. Despite the lack of species richness in the New York metropolitan region, as described by Linda M. Puth and Catherine E. Burns in “New York’s nature: a review of the status and trends and species richness across the metropolitan region,” these extra warm environments are probably among those areas whose inhabitants are suffering the most. For once, the prospect of saving nature may require removing it from its native environment. Usually, conservation involves returning species to their original ecosystems, but that is not the case when it comes to assisted migration and urban spaces. This time around, it would actually probably be better to relocate them.

Like many other conservation tactics, assisted migration sounds like a great plan. Humans caused these species’ demise in the first place, so we should be the ones to help them. Unfortunately, such actions are simply not plausible for the fear of too many possible mishaps. We will simply have to find another way to save these species, and soon.

Assisted Migration is another concept related to conservation mentioned by Emma Marris in the Rambunctious Garden. Assisted Migration is a fairly new idea in response to the global climate change and increasing concentration of green house gases.

Assisted migration aims to  provide a new habitat for species that are struggling to adapt or facing extinction due to human induced climate change. Its proponents argue that anthropogenic climate change is the reason why species are struggling to survive, therefore humans must intervene and help solve the problem. However, the opposition to the argument remains and there might be even more severe ecological consequences.

The support for assisted migration is primarily based on climate change and the negative consequences of human actions. Supporters argue that humans have made it difficult for these species to survice in their natural habitat, therefore assisting them in finding another suitable habitat should be an obligation for every individual. Marris points out that climate change is the biggest thumbprint humans have put on this planet. Ice caps are shrinking and the tundra-temperate zones are moving northward. Some species are naturally able to make the move north, while others are stuck and left to face extinction. Marris states that those who support the idea argue that assisted migration does not violate pristiness, the species who are assisted in migration would have survived if the climate did not face accelerated warming.  According to the ICPP, the average species moves 3.8 miles towards the pole every decade. Those species that are unable to move, eventually die.

The idea of assisted migration usually gains a fair amount of sympathy from the audience, however its consequences must also be considered. It may appear that we do in fact have an obligation of helping sweating pikas survive climate change, but the impact of such migrations on the local population, habitat and the migrant specie itself must be assessed. The positives as of now do not seem apparent besides a possibility that the migrant population may survive, but the chances of it succeeding remain unknown. Several species have been unable to extract essential nutrients in the climate and have faced unseen predators which has wiped their populations in the new area.

If the new species are in fact able to adapt and thrive in the new habitat, it is still unclear whether or not they’ll turn into invasives and ruin the existing biodiversity. The idea still seems undeveloped and must be researched and experimented more, before implementing it at a larger scale. I believe that instead of trying to deal with the consequences of climate change, we should leave it up to natural selection to do its job. Our role should be more focused on lowering our impact on the climate and significantly changing  our practices.

Human intervention in migration of species may just increase the problems.

Climate change is a real threat to current plant and animal species worldwide. Emma Marris emphasizes this in her book, Rambunctious Garden. An increase in global temperature worldwide forces animals to move closer to the poles to seek cooler temperatures.  Plants, on the other hand, have a much tougher task migrating to more desirable regions.  This is why the practice of “assisted migration” came about.  Essentially, conservationists transport these plants safely to newer climates in hopes that the population will survive.  The primary reason for these efforts is to save species.  However, scientists warn that moving these species to new ecosystems could disrupt their balance of nutrients, which would do more harm than good.  By the same token, a species could take so well to the environment that it could reproduce exponentially and become an invasive species.

Many scientists feel that assisted migration has the potential to be very useful for saving species.  Big name scientists such as Camille Parmesan and Hugh Possingham have cited various benefits.  If a specific population is highly endangered and easily able to transport then it should be done.  This, however, seems obvious.  The real question that many scientists have is, “How would assisted migration affect the current ecosystem in place?”  This is the million-dollar question that cannot simply be answered with proxies.  In order to really see the effects there has to be a series of trials.  One such trial was in North Carolina where the torreya, a tree native to Florida, was migrated.  Thirty-one seedlings were planted and the funding came from two private citizens.  The plant is not expected to be invasive.  Other scientists like Hellman worry about the safety of these transported species.  She says maybe the other species that made it thrive, like beetles or microbes, would be absent from the new location therefore harming the survival rate of the migrated species.  No one will ever transport those tiny critters.

Personally I do think assisted migration is a useful tool, especially if humans want to save plants that are beneficial in commercial and environmental ways.  The torreya was often chopped down as a Christmas tree.  Many other plants are used for ecological development of areas.  Americans today are more exposed to threats of global warming.  One way to help out species that are dying is to manually place them in more suitable regions.

The Puth and Burns study shows how ecological transformations in the NY Metropolitan area are impacting species richness and diversity.  The study focuses heavily on urban areas because by the year 2030, 60% of earth’s population will be residing in cities.  In 17 of 26 studies produced, the species richness was decreasing from 1984-2000.  The highest rate of decrease has been in mixed ecosystems.  This is a concern that the local governments will have to make.  How will they divide the land so that humans, plants and animals can live together?

Overall, assisted migration presents an answer to both arguments.  I think scientists should focus more on saving species, but this comes with many caveats.

-Chandrapaul Latchman

Alternative solutions to maintaining the pristine wilderness have been proposed by Marris such as rewilding and the expansion of rambunctious gardens, and in this chapter she introduces this concept of assisted migration. This concept is ultimately the human movement of species to locations that are more suitable for their growth than their current location because of the increase in climate change. Many conservationists are taking this radical approach to save these organisms because otherwise these species would go extinct. However while this approach is meant to be proactive, it is far too radical, expensive, risky that may cause more harm than benefit.

It is safe to say that the global temperature is increasing, and Marris accounts that as Anthropogenic climate change. She believes that climate change is the “biggest single thumbprint humans have put on this planet,” because of the “anthropogenic emissions of gasses including carbon dioxide… hydrofluorocarbons” (74.) This change in temperature has resulted in the movement of species further north, and potentially this could resulting in entire ecosystems shifting upward to sustain themselves, however the issue is that many of these species won’t be able to make it upward in time and in the process will go extinct. Ecologists feel that we need to take proactive action and help move these species move to more suitable locations so they can continue to exist.

In chapter 5, Marris brings up this interesting paradox of “the pristine myth and the myth of a correct baseline for each area” (77.) This brings up the point that if we want to maintain a pristine wilderness than with this climate change, species must be shifted, however if we are using baseline conservation then no species can be moved. Going a long with this paradox, even though assisted migration might be an alternative to the two theories mentioned above it doesn’t makes sense to “intervene on [natures] behalf,” (81) simply because “the benefits of translocation outweigh the biological and socioeconomic costs” (82.) When Marris explains how ecologist Hellmann would go about to preserve the Gary Oaks Ecosystem in California the process itself shows both how much work, time, money is put into it without much certainty if the project will be a success. In order for this process to follow through it would take “years of logical management,” Hellmann has to get “grant money” if she has the persuasion ability to “beat out her rivals, ” after which “she has to set up a local headquarters, “recruit a team” and then after that do all this research through “satellite photos and a tour of the island” (86.) After she collects and analyzes her data, then she may receive fruits for her labor upon moving the trees, or it may swing in another direction and be a complete failure. On top of that there is also a likelihood the Gary Oaks Ecosystem may transform in an invasive species and cause more harm when moved.

Ultimately this concept of assisted migration doesn’t seem feasible for every species, but perhaps is a likely solution to trees that are in danger and are of socioeconomic advantage such as timber. This conservation technique may also be used in the Urban Forest, by migrating some species to urban areas where the ecological conditions are suitable. However it is wrong for humans to intervene in saving ecosystems by completely shifting them based on predictions and forecasts, just so that aesthetically speaking our nature remains the same.

In chapter 5 of Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris discusses the idea of assisted migration—intentionally “guiding” certain species to new locations for a better chance of survival in their new environment. Because of the global climate change, many species are having, and will have, difficultly adjusting to their changing surroundings. This will surely cause some species to become endangered, or even extinct, since many species are unable to migrate to a safer environment because of certain barriers—like seas, cities, roads, and distance (75). One example of a species that has trouble migrating is the American Pika, which cannot move to another mountain peak to escape the warm climate. Therefore, humans guiding the transportation of specific species to more suitable and comfortable environments sound like an easy and amenable solution—sometimes even necessary.

However, with this possible solution, there are its own problems. Specific species may be unable to adapt to a new environment because of something small as the presence of “specific soil microbes” or the unobserved “microclimatic condition” (77). The species may pose as a threat to their new ecosystem as an invasive species. Transporting animals is also an expensive process. The relocated species may also die out in their new environment because of a lack of certain resources, rendering it extinct–a backfired result.

While assisted migration poses some solutions and problems, Marris points out that humankind has been involved with assisting migration for a very long time. Thus, it may be agreed that since humans have been interfering with ecosystems for thousands and thousands of years, it makes sense for people to help specific species that rely on assisted migration in order to survive. For some experts, assisting species sounds favorable in urban ecosystems like New York City because there is a gradual decline in “species richness”, especially of native species (Puth, Burns, 12). It sounds reasonable for humankind to try to restore depleting native species in an area with assisted migration, but the process must be advance with caution, for artificial help may produce undesirable results.

Personally, I feel like changes that occur in the environment should be natural and organic. However, humankind is the most unnatural and advanced species to exist, in terms of using resources and altering the environment. Since humans are a large part of the alteration of nature, it sounds reasonable for people wanting to help nurture back the environment with something like assisted migration.

Assisted migration is a fairly recent concept that attempts to relocate species that are struggling to survive by introducing them to ecosystems that are more conducive to their survival. However, while some scientists believe it is our responsibility to assist species that are on struggling to adapt, I believe the case against intervention is much more concrete. In chapter five of Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris discusses the reasoning behind both arguments.

To begin, the arguments supporting assisted migration hinge on the fact that we are responsible for creating environmental conditions that make it difficult for certain species to survive in their natural habitat. Hence, some scientists believe it is our responsibility to intervene in order to prevent these species from going extinct. Marris points out that the amount of carbon dioxide, methane, and industrial gases that humans have pumped into the atmosphere has severely altered our climate (107). Our world has become hotter and more extreme; some areas get more rain, others get less. Consequently, some species can no longer survive in their original habitat and are forced to migrate to environments that do not exceed their threshold of tolerance. According to the ICPP (International Panel on Climate Change), the average species moves 3.8 miles towards the pole every decade (111). Those species that are unable to move, eventually die (and if they are the last of their kind, become extinct). As a result, some scientists view assisted migration as our obligation because humans are largely responsible for altering the atmospheric conditions to begin with.

Although it might feel like our responsibility to assist nature in its survival, it is not very clear that our assistance will have a positive impact. Marris makes the case that scientists have traditionally approached conservation from the standpoint of nonintervention. If they suddenly abandon this idea for the sake of their conscience, then scientists will start changing the very baselines they have fought so hard to preserve (117). In addition, there is not enough research to predict the type of effect that introducing a new species to a new environment will have. There is legitimate fear among scientists that some species will become invasive and ravage their new home. On the other hand, some may not survive at all. More importantly, it is not feasible to relocate every species on the verge of extinction. To do so would require financial resources far greater than any citizen or country is willing to spend. Hence, assisted migration comes with a hefty price tag, many educated guesses, and the prospective of unforeseen consequences.

Altogether, we are responsible for creating the climate change that makes it difficult for some species to survive in their natural habitat, but it is not our responsibility to assist them in migration. Our intervention is likely to disrupt other ecosystems, reverse our principles on conservation, and create financial burdens. Hence, it is more acceptable for us to refrain from assisted migration until our research can provide more definitive outcomes.

As humans continue to urbanize, we further the negative consequences we are causing on our environment. As humans burn for agriculture and for other purposes, as well as deforestation, we are increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide, methane, and industrial chemicals in the atmosphere. As a result, we allow the Earth to retain more heat. In turn, we contributed to global warming, or the elevation of earth’s temperature. As a result of the elevation in temperature, some species cannot survive or successfully reproduce, and they would eventually extinct. As a result, species often migrate north or up in elevation. However, species that have less mobility might move too slow to outrun the climate change. Some might be too slow compared to their supplement species, species that they need help from in order to survive (like pollinators to many plants), and would therefore die before being able to migrate to an ideal location. Some might depend on species that are moving too slow, and they as a result die off before they could outrun the climate change. For example, butterflies can fly away faster than a lot of plants. However, they only like to lay their eggs on specific species of plants and would have to wait for those species of plants to migrate first (75). Some might even encounter migration barriers. It can be as simple as a crossing a road that makes it difficult for species to migrate. As a result, species on average move 3.8 miles toward the pole every decade, according to Camille Parmesan. She called it “poleward movement”. Therefore, assisted migration becomes a concept that emerged to move species to places where they can have a better future in response to climate changes and the difficulties they have when migrating on their own. Choosing the destination of migration cannot be a place where species will currently adapt to best at the moment or a place where they will adapt best when they harvest. It has to be in the middle of the two suggestions so that plants won’t just grow in the beginning and then die off, or not being able to make it to the harvest time initially.

The pros of assisted migration would be to save endangered species and other species of commercial importance by migrating them to an ideal location to sustain their population. The arguments for cons of assisted migration exist as well. First of all, it is almost impossible to accurately predict what kind of effects assisted migration can do to species. We don’t know what species need to have in order to survive, especially in terms of soil microbes or microclimatic condition (77). They might not be able to survive in the new location just because the temperature is more desired to them. They might also become invasive species in their new location, causing destructive problems to the ecosystem. They would also threaten baselines set up by conservation efforts in their new ecosystem because they do not exist in that ecosystem prior to the baseline. I think another possible problem of assisted migration is the need of constant management. As species are assisted to move north, climate would eventually catch up and species would have to move again. It is a constant process within decades, making such project unrealistic in the long term. As a result, assisted migration remains a heated debate for ecologists and environmentalists.

Assisted migration into urban forests is helpful for the urban areas, but might not be feasible. According to Puth in the article on species richness in New York metropolitan region, species richness is generally decreasing in the city. Migrating species into the urban forests can increase species richness. However, it is not feasible because there is not much space for species to migrate into with the concentration of human population and species in the urban ecosystem. It might cause problems of unfriendly competition for survival needs. The high price of real estate in urban areas might also increase the cost for assisted migration. Also, the migrated species might become invasive and hurt the urban ecosystem. Lastly, urban ecosystems should be warmer than other ecosystems surrounding it. As a result, it doesn’t make much sense to migrate animals into urban forests from ecosystems within the range of 200 kilometers.

Assisted migration from urban forests, is more feasible and is great for endangered species and species with commercial needs. They might be able to survive better in the new location and therefore sustain their population in the future. It would also be feasible because outside urban forests, there is more space and are cooler. However, the possibility of becoming invasive species and the possibility of not being able to adapt to the new environment has to be taken into consideration.

After reading about Pleistocene rewilding, another idea has been introduced that considers moving species: assisted migration. Assisted migration moves species in response to climate changes. Around the world, changes include the amount of rain pouring in areas (increasing or decreasing), the timing of flowers blooming. The effect of climate changes will cause species will have to move to different places at different times they are used to, meaning species will have to adapt to these changes. As always, some will die and some will survive through the process of natural selection.

The author stated the first species to be extinct would be mountain species because of poleward changes, there would be less area on the mountain to live on. Some people will think to move the species to another mountaintop but there’s come the argument that they are invasive and that unknown results will come from it.

The two viewpoints as to if assisted migration are the following: Humans caused the climate change so by moving species and saving them from extinction are doing good. However, to conservationists, it is important that if a species is not native then it can’t live in that area. Baselines can’t be changed easily.

In an urban ecology, I believe assisted migration would be a good idea depending on certain circumstances. If a species was on the risk of extinction, easy to transport, and brings benefits to the city or the area, I believe it is reasonable to do it. Biodiversity does seem to be lacking in cities. While adding aesthetic value to the city, it will awesome attract more people to the city. However, what species to include is most important.

The truth of the matter is we don’t always know if a certain species will be able to grow in an area. Experiments can be run to see what is suitable where but according the book, some studies take years or decades to show results. That means certainty over whether it will work or not can only be implemented years later. To only get the truth years or decades later is too long to wait. We must make a choice as to whether or not assisted migration should be a course of action to take.

Assisted migration seems to me to be a useful method for the biodiversity of urban ecology. Although people might argue these species are invasive, there many species in New York City that were invasive before adapting to the climate. If there are some benefits, why not try this method?

One of the biggest threats to many species caused by human is global warming. It is a result of human burning fossil fuel, thus increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Certain species can only survive under specific range of temperatures. However, as the climate continues to increase, many species are facing potential possibilities of extinction.

At the beginning of the chapter five of the book Rambunctious Garden, Marris gives an example of how global warming affects certain species. As the climate keep getting warmer, American pikas have to move to the top of the mountains to stay cooler. However, for some of them who are already at the top of the mountain, they have nowhere to go. “The animal could never migrate on its own; the trip down to the lowlands to get to the next mountain would kill it (Marris 106).” Scientists feel that human have the responsibility to clean up the mess that they produced; therefore, they came up with the idea of assisted migration, which is basically moving species to a place before it gets too warm. As human are burning more fossil fuels to become powerful, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere raises dramatically, as a result; the temperature increases every years. It becomes harder for plants and other animals to live in this heated world. According to scientist many plants and animals can only live within certain range of temperature and climate patterns, therefore a lot of them are expected to move to other places. Assisted migration seems like a very good idea, it is somewhat similar to the concept of rewilding, which is the idea of reintroducing similar species into an area, and to restore ecosystem back to 10,000 years ago, before human intervention. Marris talks about two different type of migration. The first one is upward migration, which is simply moving species up to the top of the mountain, to help them stay cooler. “Many range shifts for individual species have already been documented. University of Exeter biologist Robert Jon Wilson found that in the Sierra de Guadarramas in central Spain butterfly ranges have shifted, on average, 200 meters uphill in the last thirty-five years (Marris 109).” Although research shows that species are already moving upward, the problem with that is when all the species are moving up, then there will be a great competition of food, space and air at the top of the mountain. Eventually some of the species live at the top of the mountain are going to be extinct. Not only there is upward migration, scientists also recorded the pole-ward migration. Data from the studies of butterflies suggests that these butterflies didn’t just move up, approximately 63 percent of them also move 20 to 150 miles north since 1900 (Marris 110).

Although assisted migration may temporarily save some endangered species from getting extinct, its long-term effect is still unpredictable. I don’t think assisted migration is a good idea to save the species from getting extinct because we have no idea how these species are going to behave in the new area. As some people argue, these species may become invasive ones, which may resulted in losing even more native species.

The concept discussed in chapter 5 is assisted migration, which is exactly what it sounds like. It involves humans helping animals/plants migrate into lands better suited for their survival. Marris specifically focuses on those organisms that have been affected by man-driven climate change and need to find more suitable places to live. It is not a bad idea, to think of ourselves as superheroes and step in to help fix the problems we have caused.
The question I would like to ask most is, if this becomes an accepted practice, how much responsibility are we willing to take on? If climate change is to continue, weather will become more unpredictable and the world’s average temperature even warmer. Once we start assisted migration projects, would we not have to watch over them for years? And what happens to  those creatures that finally have no cooler place to go? Yes, it is true that humans have interrupted Nature’s ways and are only recently realizing a full load of regret. The idea that we should continue intervening to correct our past interventions seems off. They will only serve to further involve us in projects for which it will be difficult to take full responsibility. Trying to fix one thing will lead us to trying to fix another, and honestly the idea of widespread assisted migration reminded me of plastic surgery addicts and their horrific resulting faces.
Considering the fact that plants and animals alike have been moving on their own, inching into outer regions of their habitat, assisted migration would only be a “speeding up” of the same natural process. Or so Marris claims. The truth is, this is far from natural. It is physically impossible for us to pay attention to every species that needs moving. As a result, we will only focus on those that are of value to us. This is a guess on my part, but wouldn’t those who would have enough economic punch to easily carry out projects most likely be large companies and corporations? Corporations, which tend to favor short-term results and profit, are not likely to take care of preserving ecosystems or taking the care necessary in such intervention.
The problem with only moving specific species feels like another layer of trouble. Animals and plants don’t exist in isolated conditions. It simply isn’t enough to have the right abiotic conditions of temperature, precipitation, etc. to promise a healthy life (but not too thriving lest it become invasive). Natural wildlife is connected in a great web of interplay, some of which are not obvious to us.
Despite these arguments (among others…), I do think assisted migration may not be a bad idea under certain circumstances. It may not be feasible for some areas, but perhaps the NYmetro can benefit from the increased biodiversity. I am simply wary of the matters of who is taking the responsibility and making the decisions about the relocation of the organisms.

In chapter five of Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris introduces the idea of assisted migration to her readers. Assisted migration is the idea of moving a species from one area to another for new hopes that they would strive in that area. This idea, unlike rewilding, has to do with the preservation of a species rather than an environment. Such idea was brought to action due to the climate changes and global warming situation. In the book, an example of the American pika was given. Because the temperature have been rising, the American pikas are forced to climb higher and higher into the mountain for their survival. But what happens when they reach the top, and cannot go and higher? They must simply hope for the best to survive the heat because that possesses a less of a risk than them going down the mountain to migrate to a different area. This is why the idea of assisted migration was brought up.

Although this seems like a good idea, because it seems like this is the only way humans can help these species when they were the one who caused this change, it can actually do more harm than good. One problem is the survival rate. How can we be certain that these species will live successfully in their new environment? What if they die out quicker in their new environment than at their old one? A lot of research would have to go into this, and even if there is a small change of dying out, it will still pose as a risk. Another problem is the possibly of the new species taking over the already inhabited species of the environment. The new species could pose as a threat to the ones already there, and squeeze them out. This would completely lose the point of the assisted migration in the first place for although they are helping one species, they are harming one or more others.

For assisted migration to be successful, positives MUST exceed the negatives substantially, and should only be performed if the chance of extinction of a species is high. The time, research, investment, and workload that would have to go in completely moving a whole species in an environment is an immense amount of work that must be carefully thought through before implementing. And because of the lack of information that we have, or can acquire, it will be risky as to say that our statistics and sources are accurate. The information that we have on the target species and the environment would have to be accurate and extensive as well.

Overall, I think, if implemented correctly and carefully, assisted migration would be a very great plan. However, as humans, the chance of failure holds us back from completely supporting this idea. But with the information, time, investment, and help, this idea can bring about to a whole new way of conserving species.

In recent decades, climate change has become a dramatic problem that has scientists and ecologists in panic. Global temperatures are fluctuating and increasing in severity due to human activity. The results of the climate change on species and ecosystems are the primary source of concern for most ecologists; animals such as the American pika and several tree species are some examples of species that may die out due to changes in climate that they require to survive. The concept of “assisted migration” emerged in order to preserve such species. Assisted migration is basically the idea where animals and plants would be moved to places where they would continue to live as Earth’s climate grows warmer. By doing this, people can help plants and animals that are not mobile enough to migrate upwards towards a better climate.

The process itself is not a far-fetched idea. It is relatively easy to move animals (aside from transportation laws) and simple to plant tress further north, but costly to implement. I feel that it might be a useful scientific tool in terms of preserving life, but the process itself does not seem to have any other scientific merit. Assisted migration may actually be detrimental to the goals of several scientists, ecologists, and conservationists. The limitations of assisted migration are lack of support from the majority of the scientific community and that there is little data on how species will interact with the new ecosystems. Many people believe that it goes against conservationism and the idea of the baseline and this method promotes human intervention. Potentially, assisted migration can cause more harm to an ecosystem compared to its benefits. Also, if it fails, then money would be wasted.

Overall, I feel like assisted migration is not the best idea. Since Earth’s climate is rapidly changing, would the process of assisted migration have to be repeated several times for a single species? There is also the issue of animals becoming invasive species if they adapt too well into the new ecosystem. The main problem is that there is not enough data or tests to determine the results of assisted migration. If, in the future, assisted migration is throughly tested and researched for minimal negative consequences, then I think assisted migration would be a useful scientific tool.

It might be very useful in regards to urban cities/environments, such as New York City metro area, where species richness is declining in several habitats. Since urbanization is reducing species richness, it might be beneficial to assist in the migration of several city species. On the other hand, there is always possibility that some species (like the exotic species that have increased in species richness) could be migrated into urban areas if the conditions are optimal for its survival. Assisted migration is an interesting concept that needs to be further developed, but can be a useful tool in specific environments.

Emma Marris discusses the topic of assisted migration in Chapter 5 of her book, “Rambunctious Garden.” Because of problems with climate change, many species will have difficulty adapting to the changing environments around them. This may cause extinction of the species since many animals are unable to migrate or relocate to a new ecosystem. There may be “barriers in the way” preventing them from moving, including seas and cities to block an animal’s migration path and even a road could be a hindrance to small animals (75). Some species might also not be capable of moving large distances in order to move to an environment better suited for them. Assisted migration may be a solution to such problems, and it involves humans transporting a species into a new area for them to continue to survive. As Sally Aitken, professor of forestry genetics says, “Assisted migration is going to be necessary to save some species” (94). Whether or not ecologists are willing to undertake assisted migration is another question. It is impossible to transport every single species in an area and there are several other problems associated with assisted migration. The species being moved might not be able to adapt to the other environment, perhaps because of an unobserved element such as “specific soil microbes or microclimatic condition” (77). The results are unpredictable and an assisted migration might not save the species. The relocated species could also potentially harm the new ecosystem by becoming an invasive species and pushing out the native ones (77). Another problem encountered by assisted migration is the high cost of transporting the species.

While there may be some problems and difficulties with assisted migration, it can also be a useful tool for urban ecosystems. As Marris points out, “Surely assisted migration of these ecosystems would just be a continuation of the care our species has put into them for thousands of years” (87). Since humans have already been interfering with ecosystems, assisting the migration of several species in order to save them sounds reasonable, especially in urban ecosystems, where the number of species is declining.
“Most of those that did report data over time showed declines in species richness [in the Metropolitan New York area],” explained Linda Puth and Catherine Burns in their paper, “New York’s Nature: a review of the status and trends in species richness across the metropolitan region.” There is a large downtrend in the variety of species of many animals, most often in a native species (Puth, Burns 21). Assisted migration could help restore the species richness in an area by bringing a species to a certain area where it will prosper. Thus assisted migration may be a helpful tool in saving species by improving their living conditions, yet there are also several risks involved that should also be taken into consideration.

Following the concept of “rewilding,” Marris brings forth another controversial conservation idea: assisted migration. While rewilding attempts to recreate environments without human impact, assisted migration tries to help species shift to from rapidly warming places, mainly as a result of global warming, to more suitable climates. An argument for assisted migration is that global warming is changing the climate faster than species can migrate and adapt, thus causing them to die out quickly. Although assisted migration involves human inference, it seems like a plausible way to help prevent species from going extinct. In New York City and other cities, where there seems to be a loss of species diversity, assisted migration may be helpful in slowing or reversing this process.

The most appealing factor that distinguished assisted migration from rewilding is that in most cases, assisted migration is more like a guiding hand that is speeding up what is already occurring naturally. A prime example of this type of assisted migration is in British Columbia, where they are “systematically moving its trees” (Marris 91). A large population of pine beetles is decimating trees in an area the size of Greece in British Columbia. The large population is attributed to the milder winters that allow more of the beetle population to survive. Whereas rewilding might have simply began planting seeds far away from where the trees were originally, the assisted migration team here plants seeds within a certain range of its origin to help shift the population. As of right now, no tree species are planted “outside of that species’ historical range” (Marris 92). In this case, scientists are not transplanting species to unknown places, just encouraging species to grow in places where it might not have grown in for a while. Scientists are not changing how a species would behave, they are simply encouraging some behaviors over others.

Assisted migration would be quite useful in increasing species diversity in urban areas since species richness seems to be decreasing in cities. According to the article by Puth and Burns, only six studies with historical data showed species richness over time while seventeen showed a decrease in species richness out of a total of twenty-six studies with historical data. The decrease may be caused by native species in urban areas migrating away from the city and a lack of new species migrating into the city. Urban areas may not be an ideal place for a species to migrate to since it may be vastly different from its origin. Since “a single road will be an effective barrier to a little species,” it is possible that the high concentration of roads and buildings can act as a barrier to species (Marris 75). Cities may almost act like roadblocks to species in their migration. Assisted migration may be helpful in encouraging migrating species to stay in urban areas and increase species richness. Though assisted migration can be difficult in predicting the outcome of changing an ecosystem, it is positive since it is not trying to completely change nature.

Assisted migration is the moving of one species to another environment to ensure their survival as a species. Unlike rewilding, assisted migration saves the species rather than the location. Both of these methods have very different objectives. However, like any solution, there are always complications with executing these projects.

The goal of many of these projects involve saving something that was harmed by human interaction. In assisted migration, humans “guide” these animals to a better location to thrive. Migration is when a specie move to a different location due to climate changes. Sometimes species may not necessarily know when or where to migrate to because of all the damage that humans have caused. Many other problems can arise from assisted migration. Animals are not guaranteed survival at the location they are “guided” to. Since they are almost brought there, the environment may not contain all the necessities for this particular species to live. Some people believe that if a species were supposed to die out, then they should have rather than preserving them. The problem can also arise that the new species will alter the current environment that they are brought to.

Therefore, assisted migration is an extremely complicated issue. Ecologists believe that they should only help animals that are extremely close to extinction. Time, money, and effort is always an issue. Trying to save many species can result in a lot of time and money used. Most of these times, these projects are not always successful. Assisted migration can provide benefits. It would allow a particular species to survival when they would have otherwise perished. I still believe that such an idea is not going to be successful. Moving many animals at once may cause them to be confused. They may not recognize the environment introduced to them since they aren’t used being around species that may have not been there before. It is also difficult to decide and choose where to move these animals.

Many people believe that since humans have caused many changes in nature, that we should be the ones to try and save it. Assisted migration may not be the best idea for this. A lot of species would need to be migrated if they were drastic climate changes in an area. I believe that all animals should continue to live the way they do. Humans will always be changing the Earth. There can be no guarantees that the time, money and effort put into such a project would come out beneficial. Therefore, I think that there is no use in trying something that will only affect such a small part of nature.

Assisted migration is when species are moved from where they presently live to a new habitat in the hopes that the species will thrive there. This concept is similar to rewilding, but they both have different goals. I think that assisted migration would be a good tool to use for conservation if it were regulated, such as with the guide that Parmesan and Possingham provided, which was that “species should be moved if they are at high risk to extinction from climate change, if they can be feasibly transported, and if ‘the benefits of translocation outweigh the biological and socioeconomic costs and constraints.’” (82) It should only be used when it necessary to help save the species, and not just for experimentation.

Assisted migration sounds like a useful tool because it is intended to save species that are losing their homes due to climate change. Take for example, the American Pika. Pikas curl up and die after a few hours in 78 °F heat. As the global climate becomes warmer, pikas have move higher up in order to live, but as you move higher up on a mountain, there is less and less space. Some pikas already live at the top of some mountains, and have no nowhere to go. If pikas and other species in the same situation could possibly be saved by human transportation to another habitat, then it is worth a shot. Critics argue that because you would be moving the species to a completely different environment, there could be negative effects because you do not know, and cannot control what will happen. One possible effect is that the transported species could die because they do not have what they need to live. However, my thought is that if species are already being threatened by global climate change and may die anyways, it is better to try to do something to save them then to just watch and do nothing. A large part is because humans are the ones who caused the climate change, so we should not just sit back and do nothing.

As mentioned in the chapter, climate change pits two common assumptions against each other. One is that if humans caused climate change, then they should do whatever they could to ensure that species survive the climate change. The other assumption is that ecosystems have a correct baseline that they should be returned too, which means that species cannot be moved from one area to another, because it would violate the baseline. I agree with the first assumption, but not really the second one. I don’t really agree with idea that ecosystems have a correct baseline that it should be returned to. Ecosystems constantly change, so how can a “correct baseline” be determined? It is also more difficult and risky to try to recreate something from so long. I think that is it more important to focus on protecting the native species that we have left and ensuring that they do not become extinct rather than trying to create something of the past.

Assisted migration is essentially moving a species to a new environment in response to the climate changes happening all over the world. Many of these climate changes are caused by “anthropogenic emissions of gases including carbon dioxide and methane and of industrial gases like hydrofluorocarbons” (Marris, 74). With all of this emission happening, the world has become a much hotter place and some places even changed their rain patterns. This directly affects species that cannot survive in warm temperature. Through assisted migration, ecologists want to move these struggling species into a new environment where these species can survive. In other words, if the species can only survive in the cold, the ecologists can move it north.

It seems that assisted migration is a controversial topic to some people. People argue that the organisms could die upon moving to the new environment because the new environment could be lacking “some specific soil microbes or microclimatic condition” (77). Other people say it may create an invasive species and take over the native species. There are even people who say that these species can adapt to the new environment instead of continuing to live in the same environment. While many people do not want assisted migration, Marris actually points out that humans are already doing it unintentionally. According to the Marris’s researchers, the “commercial movements [of plants] may help these species adapts as the climate changes” (83). In addition, the species that we are moving may have been “moved” already. According to Marris, it is completely possible that Garry oak savannas in Canada are a human production. Despite it being a human production, “people are worried that it is unnatural to save them by having humans move them north” (87). In addition, people seem to be very picky with assisted migration. People only seem to assist those species that are considered important. It is very unlikely for people to move “all the beetles and microbes [which is] the vast majority of biodiversity” (89).

Assisted migration can be applied in urban ecology. According to Puth and Burns, there were fewer studies that report species richness in New York’s metropolitan region. They also described that“[most] studies that report trends in species richness [declined]” (17). Furthermore, some of the studies that report an “increasing or stable species richness reflected increases in exotic species” (18). Puth and Burns concluded that there was still an overall decrease in species richness in New York’s metropolitan region. This essentially means that there are fewer unique species in the area. Most of the declines were reported to be from anthropogenic causes including habitat loss and invasive species.  Assisted migration can prevent some of the extinction of these species. However, it is rather unpredictable how much assisted migration can save these species. People can also use assisted migration to move species into the urban environment. Perhaps some species are better adapted to the urban environment and they can live with humans in peace. Assisted migration definitely has potential, but it should not be overused since the effect of assisted migration is still rather unpredictable.

Assisted migration is a bit similar rewilding. In rewilding, species are moved to another environment to rebuild the nature that once used to be there. In assisted migration, organisms are moved to another area to ensure they survive and do not become extinct from climate change. The importance of rewilding is to save the environment, whereas the importance of assisted migration is to rescue species from extinction. To say one method is better than the other is difficult, as both methods have different goals. However, the two methods do aim to stop the ecosystem from deteriorating any further. Also, the two methods have similar concerns. For both methods, scientists worry that by moving species to a new area, they will turn into invasive species. If organisms turned into invasive species, then the method at hand would be too risky to implement as it puts the ecosystem in danger of becoming more out of balance. A concern raised in assisted migration, which may apply to rewilding, is that if species are moved to another environment, the new area may not have the necessities -“specific soil microbes or microclimatic conditions”- for the organisms to sruvive. Although research is done on the animals, there are so many variables out there that scientists can only do so much to identify what specific animals need to survive in a new environment.

According to research there are two types of migration. One type is migration towards peaks of mountains. Certain species can only handle certain temperatures, such as the American pika. This animal cannot survive in high temperatures, so as climate changes lean towards the heat the American pika will have to move up the mountain where it is cooler. Increasing heat from climate change means that animals from the bottom of the mountain will have to move up to live in comfort and survive. The more species climb up to the apex of the mountain, the less space there will be. Thus, there is more competition in the mountain, which would lead to extinction for some animals. To protect species from going extinct, some ecologists consider assisted migration because of the second type of migration: pole-wards migration. Pole-ward migration is the action of organisms to move towards the northern poles due to climate change. For example, beech trees are normally from the southern end of Canada to northern Florida; however, beech trees are now moving north into Canada because of the cool temperatures fit for beech trees. An ecologist, Parmesan, estimates that “the average species’s range…moves 3.8 miles towards the pole every decade.” Pole-ward migration is not as severe as mountain migration because there is a higher chance of extinction for mountain species due to mountain migration. Even if organisms move closer to the poles, mountain organisms are unable to move away from the mountains. For example, the American pika can only move up the mountain since it cannot survive in high temperatures and the temperature at the bottom of the mountain is too high for it to survive. Thus, it is trapped to stay on the mountain and climb up unless someone were help it migrate. Assisted migration does not seem like a bad idea as a method to prevent species from going extinct, even though there are chances of the species to go extinct in a new area or for the species to turn invasive.