British Columbia's forests to be 'marched' north?
Unless they're starring in the closing scenes of Macbeth, groves aren't famous for moving. But entire forests may be 'marched' to cooler climes to protect them from climate change if the government of British Columbia gets its way, writes Emma Marris in the journal Nature.
Scientists worry that British Columbia's rapidly warming climate (the region has already warmed 0.7C in the decade leading up to 2006 - nearly as much as the world has warmed in the last century) will trigger outbreaks of heat-loving pests and drought, wiping out the province's lucrative forests.
With so much at stake (stuff made of wood accounts for about half of the province's exports), it's no surprise that the British Columbia Ministry of Forests has already launched a project to see how seedlings fare after they've been dug up and transplanted to cooler environments in the north.
The 'Assisted Migration Adaptation Trial,' is uprooting seedlings from 40 spots in British Columbia, Washington State, Oregon and Idaho and replanting them in new environments to see if they flourish or fail.
It's an audacious, aggressive experiment yet it has been derided as 'a waste of time' by Daniel Simberloff, an ecologist at the University of Tennessee. Why?
Firstly, because trees don't adapt well to new environments. ('Douglas fir grows from Mexico City to central British Columbia, but move it 700-metres elevation downhill at any location, and you will be growing toothpicks,' says Greg O' Neill, a research scientist working on the transplantation project.)
And what's more, some conservationists worry that the transplanted trees will make themselves too at home: 'there is just too great a chance that the translocated trees, or the diseases they host, will become invasive', warns Dr Simberloff.
And then there's the possibility that Greg O' Neill is worrying needlessly about the fate of British Columbia's forests: according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could create bigger trees and boost the forestry industry in some regions.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~43~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Let's also not forget that a massive transplantation of seedlings will obviously result in a thinning of those very same "lucrative forests"
Complain about this comment
Hi Shanta ! Hi Bloggers !
"It's an audacious, aggressive experiment..."
What is 'aggressive' about this experiment, please, Shanta ? Come to think of it what is audacious about it ?
Complain about this comment
"What is 'aggressive' about this experiment, please, Shanta ? Come to think of it what is audacious about it ?"
Well, do you think that they are going to plant these trees in places with no current life inhabiting it?
If the government decided to solve the problem of immigrants by kicking you out of your home and putting the immigrants in there, would you think this kindhearted or an agressive abuse of the power of the state?
Complain about this comment
Good to see that the "environmentalist" movement is so keen to prevent catastrophe, or even scientific investigation of the chances of catastrophe, even if they completely disagree what sort of catastrophe they are protecting us from.
Complain about this comment
Hi Jack. It's 'aggressive' in the sense that British Columbia is actively seeking to adapt to climate change. It's also 'aggressive' in a biological sense: the experiment is forcing organisms, much to the horror of many conservationists, to colonise new habitats.
Complain about this comment
neil, the conservationist HAVE to express their concern. Or do we only allow *certain* concerns and a select set of voices?
And with their concern, one hopes, the people making this experiment will pick the best places to minimise the risk.
Complain about this comment
Shanta, thank you for the insightful article. Cheers for that.
I would also agree with your posting number 3 - in my view, it is also quite reckless. The trees will migrate northward if the climate continues to warm - they will do this on their own. Conversly, if the climate cools, they will migrate southward. As has been the way of the world for as long as life has existed, some will adapt, some will die out.
I see too many (misguided) "programs" proposed for dealing with climate change. I must disagree with your statement that they are "adapting to climate change". THEY are not adapting, they are forcing adaption upon the TREES. As a consevationist, I am outraged.
Let me get this right: Because of possible changes to the environment due to climate change (and really don't know what those changes will be in the future), they would conduct this grand experiement and introduce non-native species into various eco-systems - some of the most pristine eco-systems in the world today. Hmmm...Ever been to Canada? Some of the most beautiful and unspoiled lands on the planet...
The concerns are well founded. Does no one today read widely or even have a memory that stretches beyond the last election or research grant? There are dozens of examples where introduction of non-native species into eco-systems has caused great harm (as you briefly pointed out). I believe the BBC just ran a story about the eradication of rats from Rat Island in Alaska. The rats were inadvertantly introduced by a Japanese freighter that wrecked on the island, and in a manner of a few short years, erradicated bird life from an island that was essentially a safe haven for the birds. Well, the rats are gone now, and the birds returning - but at a huge cost. How about crawfish in Scotland from America? (another recent story). What about rabbits in australia? The mongoose in Puerto Rico? The zebra mussles in the US Great Lakes? Cudzu in the South Eastern US. Those are just a few examples of intentional and unintentional introductions of non-native species which caused massive disruption to the local eco-systems.
If you have ever been to the US, upon trying to enter California, you will be stopped on the roadway and asked if you have ANY plants or vegetable matter. Anything which is considered non-native or could contain parasites will be confiscated - there is a reason they do this. They have learned some important lessons, the hard way...
No, this is just yet another really bad idea, taking drastic action without knowing the consequences on the basis of "could, might, possibly"...and "we have to act NOW"...whatever the cost - poppycock.
Complain about this comment
"I see too many (misguided) "programs" proposed for dealing with climate change."
Well in this case, you aren't seeing anything of the sort.
What you're seeing here is a program to deal with the FACT that pest species in the area are becoming a worse problem and that these pests are controlled by winter cold killing them or making them hibernate.
Your paranoid. You're seeing things. This isn't a program for dealing with climate change, this is a program to deal with the invasion of pests.
Or do you think that the Florida evacuation is a program to deal with climate change too?
Complain about this comment
Er, hasn't the Western Seaboard of Canada warmed due to the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) being in its warm phase. As it shifts to cool phase most of that warming will miraculously disappear.
Also the Douglas Fir is not at all sensitive to increased temperatures - so isn't this all a little bit pointless anyway?
Rather than an "aggressive" experiment this is simply a waste of taxpayer's money.
Complain about this comment
" 9. At 02:53am on 25 Jun 2009, Boring_username wrote:
Er, hasn't the Western Seaboard of Canada warmed due to the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) being in its warm phase. "
I dunno? Has it?
It would seem to be that if this cyclic oscillation was the reasons that the problem would not be occurring now, it would have occurred regularly before (each time the PDO warmed Canada). Like several times in the last few decades.
Given that this is only now becoming a problem, it seems HIGHLY unlikely that this very simplistic answer can possibly be correct.
Complain about this comment
"Also the Douglas Fir is not at all sensitive to increased temperatures - so isn't this all a little bit pointless anyway?"
But its parasites are.
This is why you can move the Douglas Fir north to colder climes AND IT DOESN'T DIE.
But if the parasites cannot, then the parasites WILL die if they go with the pines. So they don't and the Douglas Fir does BETTER because it isn't being parasitised.
par·a·site (pr-st)
n.
1. Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
Sheesh, can't you think straight?
Complain about this comment
Re: Yeah_Whatever
Canada has warmed and cooled many times in the millions of years since the Douglas Fir evolved. Not all that long ago the area was covered in ice more than a mile thick. So we can probably assumed that warming and cooling isn't going to kill off the Douglas Fir - it will simply move accordingly.
The PDO is a current oscillation every 20 to 30 years. It was only discovered in 1997 and work is still continuing on its magnitude and climatic effect. It has only just (2008) shifted into cool phase. Since the only reliable temperature record that we have is only for 30 years (satellite records - surface temps and sea temps have too much man-made noise to see any signal correctly and are too adjusted to be reliable) they cover pretty much the growth in warm phase and the recent gradual decrease into cool phase.
In terms of whether it has been an issue in the past I would continue to say that it isn't an issue now - so wouldn't have been noticed in the past. The only difference now is that lots of people believe (or want others to believe) that the sky is falling on their heads and are therefore making up scare stories which the media pick up on; and due to a general lack of "hard" scientific training find it difficult to see just how shoddy the data is (if it is ever released).
Parasites can not be a problem as the Douglas Fir lives in climatic zones as varied as the South of the US to half-way up Canada. If there was a climatic zone that was suitable for the parasites then they would have found it by now and this wouldn't be the case.
Complain about this comment
Boring, yes. It has.
And oddly enough, it has warmed more often than it cooled in recent decades. This "more often than not" is called a *trend*.
Look it up in a maths book.
You see, if it were the same as before, then the PDO (what does the D stand for? Decadal) then they would have done this experiment before.
Or do you think that they're doing it this time for kicks?
"Parasites can not be a problem as the Douglas Fir lives in climatic zones as varied as the South of the US to half-way up Canada."
I'm afraid that woodsmen who actually plant nurture and reap the rewards of healthy growth of Douglas Fir trees disagree.
Which is why they are moving them to colder places.
Or do you know better than lumberjacks what their job is and what their trees are doing?
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever:
We have seen this problem before. But now, due to climate change fever, we feel the need to act in irrational ways.
Parasite: Alternate definition: "See yeah_whatever" - Just look it up in a "Maths" book...LOL (just kidding, hope you can take the jest as well as you dish out...)
Parasites in trees are not a new phenomonen. Oubreaks occur in North America on a regular basis. You can blame everything on climate change if you wish - but it doesn't make it so. More than likely, this is the result of a decrease in the ability of the parasite's natural preditors ability to control the parasites population. Populations of species vary for a variety of factors (aside from "climate change").
Introduction of new species into non-native areas is a really bad idea - for a lot of reasons, but mainly because of unintended consequences. Even if you believe in "Catastrophic Man-Made Climate Change" - basically, you are saying: "We meddled with Nature and it turned out really bad - so we should meddle more with Nature"...hmmm, well I for one, find your logic to be flawless (please note the scarcasm).
Oh and with regards to your (sarcastic) comment: "Or do you know better than lumberjacks what their job is and what their trees are doing?" - No, I really don't - except that I spent two winters in the 70's as a lumberjack, cutting trees for firewood during the oil embargo. But I digress. The article states that the BC Ministry of Forests is conducting the program - not the lumberjacks. It is not the woodsmen who are moving the trees to colder places, but the government - which scares me even more...
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever:
"parasitised" - can't seem to find that one in my dictionary...LOL
Complain about this comment
Well, if you'd exercised your brain, Larry, you may be able to work it out...
Complain about this comment
Yeah_whatever writes:
"Well, if you'd exercised your brain, Larry, you may be able to work it out..."
Um, excuse me, but I do exercise my brain. And exactly what is it that I "may be able to work it out..."??
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@yeah_whatever
Please let me know when you have something thoughful and insightful to state. I know my name quite well - it is posted with every comment. Where is your name by chance? I also have no brother named "Moe".
Just because I say it, doesn't make it so...quite true. The same applies to you - just because you say it, doesn't make it true. I find it interesting that the bulk of your posts are defamatory attacks on other posters rather than intelligent discourse on the subject at hand. The "deniers" defense: You can't attack the science, so You attack the scientist. (Yes, there ARE "deniers" on both sides of the debate - with us skeptics stuck in the middle)
Until you have something intelligent to say, I shall "put you on ignore" and will not further respond to your posts. Although I have given "my excuse" for spending time here on the blogs, I notice time and time again that you do not provide yours. I am here because I am bedridden and limited in physical activity. Otherwise, I would probably be out skydiving or enjoying a pint at the pub right now. So, please, I ask once again - what is your excuse?
I shall iterate: the Canadian governments plan to "move the douglass firs" into areas in which they do not currently reside is a really bad idea - for a great many reasons. What impact will this action have upon the ecology of those environments (which the douglass fir is not indiginous). History is full of examples of non-native species thriving in ecosystems at the detriment of native species, resulting in severe damamge to the local ecology.
Cheers.
Complain about this comment
Larry asks:
"Um, excuse me, but I do exercise my brain. And exactly what is it that I "may be able to work it out..."??"
If you'd exercised your brain, you'd be able to answer that yourself.
Complain about this comment
"The same applies to you - just because you say it, doesn't make it true."
True.
But then you go to the people who do this:
http://nsidc.org/
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
http://www.ipcc.ch/
and look at the peer reviewed papers on the subject (94% of which support AGW).
And they say that AGW is correct and that we are warming dramatically because of it.
But you don't do you.
You go to blogs. Where it's just "I say this"/"I say that".
"I shall iterate: the Canadian governments plan to "move the douglass firs" into areas in which they do not currently reside is a really bad idea"
But they are moving them. And they aren't doing it so they can get more grant money. they aren't doing it so they use more land. They aren't doing it because they don't like that other land.
They are doing it because it's getting warmer.
The pests don't get grants. They don't know that there's a conspiracy for proving AGW and want in on the scheme.
They are moving in to the areas the douglas pines are sitting in at the moment and making a happy home there because it isn't cold enough in winter to kill them off, making them have to start infesting all over again.
And the Douglas pines aren't part of the Great Global Warming Swindle. They aren't looking for grand money from climate studies. They are dying because the pests are surviving.
The lumberjacks aren't part of the GGWS either. They don't get grant money to study climate change. they want strong healthy trees uninfested with parasites that ruin the price of the trees they are cutting.
They are moving to colder lands.
If they are moving to colder lands, the problem must be the lands they currently work is getting warmer.
Evidence that the warming is real.
They haven't done this in the past so it isn't a 50-year cycle or shorter. And there's nothing forcing the climate that is longer than a 50 year cycle yet less than thousands of years that is changing.
Apart from CO2 from human fossil fuel burning and other ANTHROPOGENIC sources.
So it's Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS