5 ms·
There is some interesting thinking to be done on "native" versus "adapted" when it comes to planning new forest. It's a reality that the climate is changing a
by howlin 6y ago
There is some interesting thinking to be done on "native" versus "adapted" when it comes to planning new forest. It's a reality that the climate is changing and there are many introduced pest species that are all drastically changing the landscapes. On the Pacific coast, the combination of drought, sudden oak death disease and pine beetles are rapidly changing the flora and also the fauna when food and shelter disappears.
When you plant a new forest today, do you try to preserve the native species or do you anticipate what species will thrive in the area 20-50 years from now?
- abraae 6y agoThat's a fascinating question. We hear a lot of talk about planting forests to combat climate change. But it seems very feasible that just planting whatever is thriving today will backfire in 20 years time when that species becomes unviable due to temperature rise, reduced rainfall or arrival of some exotic bio pest.
- 786caeefb13016 6y ago"Assisted migration" provides ongoing ethical dilemmas, but things seem to be moving in that direction. See, for example, https://www.climatehubs.usda.gov/hubs/northern-forests/topic/assisted-migration-forests https://www.climatehubs.usda.gov/hubs/northern-forests/topic... So I think the current consensus is something like: help forests migrate faster than their natural rate, but don't wormhole species across the planet.
- reportingsjr 6y agoYes, this is something larger groups are starting to realize and try to work with. Look up the Nature Conservancy's climate change corridors. They are trying to preserve/conserve land in strips as a priority. This way as climate changes, plants and animals will have a path to migrate unimpeded (or at least impeded less than if there were large roads/developments in the way!).