Many conservation biologists in southern Arizona are wondering how to mitigate the rapid effects of global climate change on species for which there is still time to "help." Shall scientists move species to a more amenable climate with a concept called "assisted migration"? Or is the better strategy to let human-induced changes take their course on Mother Nature?
Thanks to Congressional forethought, a conservation tool can be applied that will provide public lands the highest level of protection humans can bestow on land and its inhabitants: the Wilderness Act. By preserving tracts of at least 5,000 acres, wilderness designation encourages maintenance of critical ecosystem processes that will help species survive under the duress of global climate change, including the warming of the planet that likely will prove lethal to our own species. Southern Arizona’s Tumacacori Highlands offers one area for protection under the Wilderness Act.
Designated wilderness prevents the intrusion of humans with motorized vehicles and therefore prevents unnecessary roads. Thus, wilderness designation preserves a strong natural barrier against non-native species while also offering wildlife a sanctuary from biological pressures such as disease, habitat loss and inbreeding. Designated wilderness areas comprise some of America's most beautiful attractions.
Roads and other disruptions to core wild areas are among the greatest causes of species extinctions because they impair migration, reduce species reproductive rates and diminish the availability of forage, prey, and water sources.
While the consequences of global climate change are grim and undeniable, the Wilderness Act provides an option that, if used prudently, can help mitigate the worst effects of climate change on many species of wild organisms. The Wilderness Act allows our species to leave a positive legacy for the myriad species with which we share the planet.
________
If you like this article, please subscribe to receive email notification of future articles by this writer: click the blue "Subscribe" button above, between the title and text.
Comments
"assisted migration" could also be a useful option for some species. For example, some yuccas from the mountains of Arizona and NM will survive in the NorthEast but will not reproduce without the pronuba moth. The common fig has a similar dependency. Species have been moving north (slowly) for 1000's of years. The north has relatively little biodiversity, so is it really harmful to "bomb" it with diversity and see what sticks around? If climate change really is happening (I am mostly, but not completely, convinced about the rates) as fast as most scientists are saying, all ecosystems are in for re-shuffling anyway.
It does seem past time to worry about in situ species preservation. Given the flux climate change promises, migrators will move farther in search of fewer sources of food. Micro-climates may preserve some local ecologies more or less intact, for a time, but they'd become islands like your AZ mountain ranges. Given time, they may expand. Seed forests, isn't that the term?
I've come to favor spreading similar species to other locales, accelerating the 11 miles a century forest tree species migrate. It's too late to worry about invasives...
besides; who are we humans to judge species as "invasive"?
When we are the ones who, in most all cases, acted as vectors?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!