Climate change quickly forces scientists to evaluate conservation strategies

For the first time, scientists are objectively evaluating measures that can help organisms adapt to rapid climate change and other environmental threats through strategies considered too thorough to consider the practical application within the last 5-10 years. One of the radical strategies being considered is 'human-managed migration.' Managed migration, also called 'human-assisted migration' , is a manual move of living species that is more suitable to their current habitat.

A groundbreaking new tool can help policy makers decide whether, when, and how to use managed migration measures detailed in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) by a multidisciplinary team.

This is the result of a study funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). Leading the team is scientists: Jessica Hellmann and Jason McLachlan of Notre Dame University, Dov Sax of Brown University, and Notre Dame of the University of California at Davis. David Richardson of Stellenbosch University, South Africa, wrote the main report.

The tool that breakthrough researchers made because of managed migration has been classified as impossible because some scientists fear that the migrated species will overgrow in new, destructive habitats. breaking natural balance and extinction of species that live there, or cause harms like blocking the striped mussel plumbing that once worked in the Great LakesHowever, some groups of advocates of environmental protection have begun to implement or are planning to consider implementing this measure.

Do something or do nothing?

So why is managed migration, a measure once considered a taboo, and potentially dangerous, now considered seriously applied? ' Because,' Hellmann says, 'climate change is an increasingly obvious fact, it happens faster and faster with a broader scope. The consequences will be evident in the coming decades. ' Therefore, human action is much more urgent than the previous 5-10 years, when the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is lower. Now we are facing a higher level of climate change.

Moreover, the behavior of 'doing nothing' before climate change also contains many risks. Hellman said, 'Previously we could say' let nature respond '. But now that humans have changed the world, people cannot allow themselves to naturally manage themselves. Both action and inaction are implicit in it. 'Therefore, Richardson added, ' we must develop new tools and ways to balance the risks of action versus not acting. '

Managed migration is not the only controversial adaptation strategy currently being considered by scientists. Similar strategies include: adding nutrients to the oceans to enhance their ability to absorb greenhouse gases, thereby slowing down the process of climate change, conserving potentially expanding migration corridors thousands of kilometers, and preserve the genetic diversity of living organisms at breeding banks.

Concern about speed

In the past, many species have overcome periods of slower climate change by evolving or moving to more favorable habitats. But such existential strategies are often limited by: 1) urban and unnatural barriers to moving to new places, and 2) speed of climate change, with harms The average temperature of the Earth increased by 6 degrees Celsius in the next 100 years - a huge increase in nature.

When the temperature rises, a significant portion of the species on Earth may not be able to survive - like fish in a water-free environment - in habitats that have become too hot, too dry, too suitable for them in some way. Therefore, they are easily extinct or lose important gene segments of the species. These losses can disrupt large ecosystems and destroy agricultural, cultural and economic systems.

A turtle lives on the edge of Athens, Greece. (Photo: Dov Sax)

Venture

The research team's managed migration has not yet ended yet controversy surrounding the application of this strategy, sometimes even within the research members. Why has managed to move so much controversy? Because it concerns the question: Are we really knowledgeable enough to predict how organisms will react in the new environment, and whether they harm the environment?

'The results of accidentally or deliberately bringing a species to a new habitat have given us many valuable lessons,' Richardson said. Adaptation forecasts, as well as its effects on the new environment, cannot be ascertained. However, we can make forecasts with a certain range of certainty / uncertainty.

Therefore, researchers offer this tool to help calculate the risks, benefits and costs of moving - problems that many decisions related to natural environment often up to. Specifically, it provides stakeholders with a scoring system based on multidisciplinary criteria. These criteria include: the likelihood of success in moving, the level of risk that harms the receiving environment, the cost of implementation, the risk of infringement of the Law on Conservation of Rare and Rare Species, and the importance of social and cultural aspects of that species.

Comparing the points of stakeholders helps them identify the source of disagreements, thereby finding ways to unify and resolve.However, the tool itself does not provide management recommendations.

'This tool makes use of the fact: although science cannot say exactly what will happen in the future, but can tell us what the probability of successful outcomes - an information It's very useful for planners, 'said Nancy Huntly, NSF program director.

Not only useful for endangered species

Not only does it mention the managed movement of endangered species, the tools the newly created researchers can also apply to:

Managed migration of non-endangered species. For example, the study's PNAS paper applies this tool to resolve disputes over whether North American hardwood species should be planted to the area above the northern perimeter, spread to forests. spare parts or not. This application suggests that mobility can be supported by commercial planters who appreciate the potential economic value of these varieties to recognize the high feasibility and low risk of the ecosystem. receive.In contrast, natural environmental advocates, who appreciate the natural heritage of the receiving ecosystem, may find less benefits and more risks.

Controversial climate change adaptation strategies (in addition to managed migration) are currently being considered by scientists.