You can find more posts on climate change science, policy, and news on Climate 411.
What does "wildlife conservation" mean to you? Setting aside land? Restoring habitat? Reducing local stresses to species or ecosystems? These are the conventional methods. But because of rapid climate change, scientists in a recent paper say this may not be enough:
[T]he future for many species and ecosystems is so bleak that assisted colonization might be their best chance.
Assisted colonization - moving species to sites where they aren't native - is a high-risk suggestion. There are many cases where introduced species have become invasive and wreaked havoc on economies, human health, and native ecosystems.
So why would some of the world's leading biologists make such a suggestion?
First of all, they're not advocating wholesale resettlement of Earth's species. As they put it, "we are not recommending placing rhino herds in Arizona or polar bears in Antarctica."
Instead, they say that moving a species should be an option of last resort. As a first line of attack, traditional conservation efforts should be continued and improved.
Also, land managers should improve wildlife corridors to facilitate unassisted colonization. Long-term records show that plants and animals are already moving on their own to keep up with temperature changes, generally toward the poles or up in elevation. (In some cases, this can lead to some nasty surprises - for example, disease-carrying mosquitoes moving into areas they didn't previously inhabit.)
But unfortunately, many plants and animals can't move fast enough to survive. Routes to new habitat may be cut off by development, or species simply may have nowhere to go. A species living on a mountain, for example, can only move up so far before reaching the top.
It's in these situations that the scientists say assisted colonization should be considered. Here are their suggested criteria for identifying candidate species:
• High risk of decline or extinction due to climate change
• Move to new habitat is technically feasible
• Species cannot move to new habitats on their own
• Conservation benefits of moving outweigh potential costs
In some cases, there will be nowhere a species can go to survive. In that case, the scientists say, storing frozen eggs, sperm, or seeds until suitable habitat can be found may be the only way to prevent extinction.
The fact that such a drastic recommendation is coming from leading biologists underscores the level of scientific concern about extinctions due to global warming. On the plus side, they think it's possible to move some species safely. At the very least, they've opened the door for an interesting discussion.
What do you think?
You can find a lot more posts about climate change science, policy, and news on Environmental Defense Fund's climate blog, Climate 411.