Climate Change and Moving Species: Furthering the Debate on Assisted Colonization

Abstract

With global climate change looming large in the public psyche, the recent paper by McLachlan et al. (2007) and its popular accompaniment (Fox 2007) are timely indeed. Of course some conservation biologists will not wish to think about the prospect of actively moving species that are threatened with extinction by climate change. For them this would be almost analogous to handing out placebos in the midst of an epidemic and worse yet, these placebos may have serious unintended consequences if translocated species become invasive. They will probably argue that we should focus almost exclusively on two central roles for conservation biology: (1) facilitating natural range shifts by redoubling efforts to maintain or restore large-scale connectivity (Hunter et al. 1988; Hannah et al. 2002) and (2) working with our fellow environmental professionals to avoid carbon-management solutions that will have unacceptable consequences for biodiversity (e.g., by directing biofuel production away from sites that would involve the conversion of native vegetation into fuel farms; Cook & Beyea 2000). These two roles will be very demanding, but I believe we should allocate a small portion of our attention to the issue of assisted colonization that McLachlan et al. (2007) have brought to the fore. McLachlan et al. propose framing the debate around two considerations—perception of risk and confidence in ecological understanding—that can be construed to generate an axis or continuum from scientists who would strongly support assisted colonization to those who would oppose it. I think it is useful to advance this exercise by considering three issues that can also be construed as continua: species that are more or less acceptable to translocate, sites that are more or less acceptable for receiving translocations, and projects that are more or less acceptable because of their socioeconomic ramifications and feasibility. I have used the term assisted colonization in contrast to assisted migration used by McLachlan et al.