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
