#restoration ecoloy

[rebeccathenaturalist]

Regarding this reply from @bakehebi, you're very welcome! I mean, bots gonna bot, and I think the deniers just follow climate change-related tags so they can make a fuss on posts there. I'm not writing for them, though; I'm writing for anyone who actually wants to do something, or at least learn about the issue even if they're not in a place to act right now.

The thing is, when you have a big, complex problem like climate change, there isn't just one go-to solution, but there are a lot of ways to chip in. We're all stuck in a situation where we're still largely dependent on fossil fuels and other sources of greenhouse gases so it's not like the average person in the West can just instantly shrink their carbon footprint to zero.

We can, however, choose to do things within our power to try to help the problem. Yes, some of that can be personal choices like walking or biking or taking transit instead of driving if possible, or working on habitat restoration projects to create havens for biodiversity. We can also share ideas and information with other people; I'm not a professional restoration ecologist, but I AM a professional writer and have been for two decades in varying arenas, and so writing is one way I can disseminate those ideas.

But the main sources of greenhouse gases (and, for that matter, the bulk of environmental destruction in general) are major corporations and governments. Putting pressure on them from a variety of angles is really hard work and takes a LOT of concerted effort from both organizations and individuals, but over time it can work. The fear, of course, is that change won't happen quickly enough, but that's why we keep pushing as hard as we can. I am well aware of the massive forces who have an invested interest in the status quo; I've been fighting this battle for decades at this point. But in my view, any chance is better than no chance at all, so I think it's important to take it.

The decision to allow the transplantation of endangered species in ways that were previously prohibited isn't a very big thing in the grand scheme of it all, but it is a sign of change nonetheless. And while assisted migration is still a controversial topic, at least we have a little more leeway to try last-ditch efforts to save species that are a heartbeat away from extinction.

This ties into one of the big conundrums of restoration ecology. When trying to decide what plants to add to a restoration site, should we add those that are there now, even if some of those species are increasingly stressed by the effects of climate change? Or do we start importing native species in adjacent ecoregions that are more tolerant of heat?

Animals can migrate relatively quickly, but plants take longer to expand their range, and the animals that they have mutual relationships with may be moving to cooler areas faster than the plants can follow. Whether the animals will be able to survive in their new range without their plant partners is another question, and that is an argument in favor of trying to help the plants keep up with them. We're not just having to think about what effects climate change will have next summer, but also predict what it's going to look like here in fifty years, a hundred, or beyond. It's an especially important question in regards to slow-growing trees which may not reproduce until they are several years old, and which can take decades to really be a significant support of their local ecosystem.

For example, here in the Pacific Northwest west of the Cascades, western red cedar (Thuja plicata) is experiencing increased die-off due to longer, hotter summer droughts. Do we continue to plant western red cedar, in the hopes that some of them may display greater tolerance to drought and heat? Or do we instead plant Port Orford cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana), which is found in red cedar's southern range, and which may be more drought-tolerant, even though it's not found this far north yet?

Planting something from an adjacent ecoregion isn't the same as grabbing a plant from halfway around the world and establishing it as an invasive species. But there is the question as to whether the established native would have been able to survive if we hadn't introduced a competing "neighbor" species. Would the Port Orford cedars and western red cedars be able to coexist as they do in northern California and southern Oregon, or would the introduced Port Orfords be enough to push the already stressed red cedars over the edge to extirpation?

There's no simple answer. But I am glad to see the government at least allowing some leeway for those ecologists who are desperately trying any tactic they can to save rare species from extinction.