“Animals such as polar bears, tigers and dolphins are tremendously important, but mostly because they help define how we think about our relationship with the natural world,” says Hellmann. “But when it comes to the functioning of ecosystems, insects are where it’s at.”
Why are insects so ecologically important? “They carry diseases, they pollinate and they have economic impacts on crops and timber,” says Hellmann, a biologist at the University of Notre Dame. In fact, almost 80 percent of the world’s crop plants require pollination, and the annual value of insect pollinated crops in the U.S. is about $20 billion. What’s more, most of the living organisms on Earth are insects.
They are also particularly sensitive to climate change — as invertebrates, they can’t regulate their own body temperatures — making them “great little thermometers,” Hellmann adds.
How will those “great little thermometers” respond when climate change makes their habitats too hot or too dry for them?
As climate change progresses, some insects may become trapped — like fish out of water — in habitats that can no longer support them. They may therefore go extinct or lose genetically important segments of their populations. But other species, and no one knows which ones yet, may be able to reach cooler climates by moving north on their own.
But the potential of some insect, plant and animal species to survive outside of their native habitats begs the question: should endangered species whose habitats are harmed by climate change be manually moved to more accommodating habitats? Hellmann warns that this idea, called “managed relocation” or “assisted migration,” remains highly controversial.
“Under some circumstances, managed relocation might be wildly successful and save a species from extinction,” says Hellmann. “But under other circumstances, relocated species may overpopulate their new habitats, cause extinctions of local species or clog water pipes as invasive zebra muscles have done in the Great Lakes.” Such risks have traditionally compelled most scientists to reject managed relocation.
“Ten years ago, we would have said, ‘No way. Managed relocation is a stupid idea.’ And that’s because the best strategy is to reduce greenhouse gases. But we are not reducing greenhouse gases fast enough.”
What do you think? Should we relocate creatures that are potentially victims of climate change?
Why are insects so ecologically important? “They carry diseases, they pollinate and they have economic impacts on crops and timber,” says Hellmann, a biologist at the University of Notre Dame. In fact, almost 80 percent of the world’s crop plants require pollination, and the annual value of insect pollinated crops in the U.S. is about $20 billion. What’s more, most of the living organisms on Earth are insects.
They are also particularly sensitive to climate change — as invertebrates, they can’t regulate their own body temperatures — making them “great little thermometers,” Hellmann adds.
How will those “great little thermometers” respond when climate change makes their habitats too hot or too dry for them?
As climate change progresses, some insects may become trapped — like fish out of water — in habitats that can no longer support them. They may therefore go extinct or lose genetically important segments of their populations. But other species, and no one knows which ones yet, may be able to reach cooler climates by moving north on their own.
But the potential of some insect, plant and animal species to survive outside of their native habitats begs the question: should endangered species whose habitats are harmed by climate change be manually moved to more accommodating habitats? Hellmann warns that this idea, called “managed relocation” or “assisted migration,” remains highly controversial.
“Under some circumstances, managed relocation might be wildly successful and save a species from extinction,” says Hellmann. “But under other circumstances, relocated species may overpopulate their new habitats, cause extinctions of local species or clog water pipes as invasive zebra muscles have done in the Great Lakes.” Such risks have traditionally compelled most scientists to reject managed relocation.
“Ten years ago, we would have said, ‘No way. Managed relocation is a stupid idea.’ And that’s because the best strategy is to reduce greenhouse gases. But we are not reducing greenhouse gases fast enough.”
What do you think? Should we relocate creatures that are potentially victims of climate change?
-
- groups:
- News, Green, US Politics
-
- tags:
- News, Green, Environment, US Politics, 3 more + add
-
-
-
-
- DeliaTheArtist
- added this
-
Yes, of course, they are too, living organsims of the world, it would only do good if every animal was returned to their respectable place....
-
-
-
-
- metalcookiesxy70
- 4 months ago
-
