Stunningly stupid study touts the need for plants and animals to have "climate connectivity corridors" to escape climate change

From the GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY and the Department of the “galactically stupid” comes this new spin coupled with a new buzzword – “climate connectivity”. Authors of the study claim a need for creating “climate corridors” for plants and animals to use to flee to cooler areas.“We studied what could happen if we were to provide additional connectivity that would allow species to move across the landscape through climate corridors…” . Riiiight. I’m sure the deer, chipmunks, salamanders, and pine trees can read signs and access these “corridors” assuming of course, whatever fool that tried to build them could secure all the land rights, permits, etc. And, as we all know, animals just don’t like warmer environments, like UHI infested cities, so we have to build corridors around them. Oh, wait.

Of course, it’s all built on a model, as they say: “We see a lot of species’ distributions really start to wink out after about 50 years, but it is tricky to look at future predictions because we will have a lot of habitat loss predicted using our models…”. Yes, Yogi Berra said it best: “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”

The stupid, it burns.

Map shows the regions of the United States from which plants and animals will be able to escape predicted climate change. Blue areas are where they will be able to succeed given current conditions, orange areas are where they will be able to succeed only if they are able to cross over human disturbed areas, and gray areas are areas where they cannot succeed by following climate gradients. Credit: Jenny McGuire, Georgia Tech
Map shows the regions of the United States from which plants and animals will be able to escape predicted climate change. Blue areas are where they will be able to succeed given current conditions, orange areas are where they will be able to succeed only if they are able to cross over human disturbed areas, and gray areas are areas where they cannot succeed by following climate gradients. Credit: Jenny McGuire, Georgia Tech

Eastern US needs ‘connectivity’ to help species escape climate change

For plants and animals fleeing rising temperatures, varying precipitation patterns and other effects of climate change, the eastern United States will need improved “climate connectivity” for these species to have a better shot at survival.

Western areas of the U.S. provide greater temperature ranges and fewer human interruptions than eastern landscapes, allowing plants and animals there to move toward more hospitable climates with fewer obstacles. A new study has found that only 2 percent of the eastern U.S. provides the kind of climate connectivity required by species that will likely need to migrate, compared to 51 percent of the western United States.

The research, reported June 13 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, for the first time quantifies the concept of climate connectivity in the United States. The paper suggests that creating climate-specific corridors between natural areas could improve that connectivity to as much as 65 percent nationwide, boosting the chances of survival by more species. The issue is especially critical in the Southeast, which could provide routes to cooler northern climates as temperatures rise.

“Species are going to have to move in response to climate change, and we can act to both facilitate movement and create an environment that will prevent loss of biodiversity without a lot of pain to ourselves,” said Jenny McGuire, a research scientist in the School of Biology at the Georgia Institute of Technology. “If we really start to be strategic about planning to prevent biodiversity loss, we can help species adjust effectively to climate change.”

Creating and maintaining connections between natural areas has long been thought critical to allowing plants and animals to move in search of suitable climate conditions, she explained. Some species will have to move hundreds of kilometers over the course of a half-century.

McGuire and her collaborators set out to determine the practicality of that kind of travel and test whether these human initiatives could improve migration to cooler areas. Using detailed maps of human impact created by David Theobald at Conservation Partners in Fort Collins, Colorado, they distinguished natural areas from areas disturbed by human activity across the United States. They then calculated the coolest temperatures that could be found by moving within neighboring natural areas.

Co-authors Tristan Nuñez from the University of California Berkeley, Joshua Lawler from the University of Washington, Brad McRae from the Nature Conservancy and others created a program called Climate Linkage Mapper. They then used this program to find the easiest pathways across climate gradients and human-disturbed regions to connect natural areas.

“A lot of these land areas are very fragmented and broken up,” McGuire said. “We studied what could happen if we were to provide additional connectivity that would allow species to move across the landscape through climate corridors. We asked how far they could actually go and what would be the coolest temperatures they could find.”

With its relatively dense human population and smaller mountains, the eastern part of the United States fell short on climate connectivity. The western part of the country – with its tall mountains, substantial undisturbed natural areas and strict conservation policies – provided much better climate connectivity.

Improving connectivity would require rehabilitating forests and planting natural habitats adjacent to interruptions such as large agricultural fields or other areas where natural foliage has been destroyed. It could also mean building natural overpasses that would allow animals to cross highways, helping them avoid collisions with vehicles.

Not only will animals have to move, but they’ll also need to track changes in the environment and food, such as specific prey for carnivores and the right plants for herbivores. Some birds and large animals may be able to make that adjustment, but many smaller creatures may struggle to track the food and climate they need.

“A lot of them are going to have a hard time,” said McGuire. “For plants and animals in the East, there is a higher potential for extinction due to an inability to adapt to climate change. We have a high diversity of amphibians and other species that are going to struggle.”

The negative impacts of climate change won’t affect all species equally, McGuire said. Species with small ranges or those with specialist diets or habitats will struggle the most.

“Not all plants and animals will have to move,” she explained. “There is a subset of them that will be able to hunker down where they are. There will be some species that are really widespread and will end up just having some population losses. But especially for species that have smaller ranges, there will be some loss of biodiversity as they are unable to jump across agricultural fields or major roadways.”

The Southeast, especially the coastal plains from Louisiana through Virginia, could create a bottleneck for species trying to move north away from rising temperatures and sea levels. “The Southeast ends up being a really important area for a lot of vertebrate species that we know are going to have to move into the Appalachian area and even potentially farther north,” she added.

In future work, the researchers hope to examine individual species to determine which ones are most likely to struggle with the changing climate, and which areas of the country are likely to be most impacted by conflicts between humans and relocating animals.

“We see a lot of species’ distributions really start to wink out after about 50 years, but it is tricky to look at future predictions because we will have a lot of habitat loss predicted using our models,” McGuire said. “Change is perpetual, but we are going to have to scramble to prepare for this.”

###

The research was supported by the U.S. National Park Service and by the Packard Foundation.

CITATION: Jenny L. McGuire, Joshua J. Lawler, Brad H. McRae, Tristan Nuñez, and David Theobald, “Achieving climate connectivity in a fragmented landscape,” (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2016).

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

170 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Marcus
June 15, 2016 3:11 am

“Some species will have to move hundreds of kilometers over the course of a half-century.”
Oh FFS..
Do these “scientists” know anything about nature, adaptation and natural migration ??

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Marcus
June 15, 2016 4:13 am

This is all you need to know about those “scientists” ……

McGuire and her collaborators set out to determine

Hugs
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
June 15, 2016 6:24 am

Sure, it is a gender thing, proven by madams Hansen and Mann. /sarc

Asmilwho
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
June 15, 2016 9:14 am

Would you include Dr Judith Curry, also at Georgia Tech, in your prejudice?

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
June 16, 2016 3:31 am

Asmilwho asks:

Would you include Dr Judith Curry, also at Georgia Tech, in your prejudice?

And SamC replies:
“NO”, nor would I include Marie Skłodowska Curie in my prejudice.
But iffen you had asked if I would have included yourself, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer or a few dozen other miseducated lefty “liberalized” females or girlymen that I am familiar with ….. then I would have responded with a resounding “YES”.

Chuck Bradley
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
June 18, 2016 8:47 pm

I thought the key words were “set out to determine.

PiperPaul
Reply to  Marcus
June 15, 2016 7:58 am

No, they don’t. They are all myopic hyperspecialists whose only commonality with other like-minded “scientists” is their belief in, commitment to, and reliance on #Climate$Change™ funding providers.
Confronted with any serious questions (and of course, The Media never asks because they are compliant morons, hungry for yet more compelling, drama-filled narratives to snag more clicks’n’eyeballs) they’d just cite “The Data”, “Everybody Knows” and “Shut up, that’s why!”. Or maybe, “That’s Not My Department” or “That’s Above My Pay Grade”.

Editor
June 15, 2016 3:13 am

I’ve just looked out my window, and there’s a herd of wildebeest heading north to the Arctic!

Reply to  Paul Homewood
June 15, 2016 4:12 am

The good news is that they don’t taste like chicken.

emsnews
Reply to  Matthew W
June 15, 2016 7:54 am

And elephants are growing fur coats, too. Soon they will trample Paris into the earth and rule once again.

afonzarelli
June 15, 2016 3:17 am

Sheesh…

June 15, 2016 3:23 am

thankfully, the whole of the climate science enterprise is run by people like this
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2794991

Jeff
June 15, 2016 3:25 am

In way one I guess corridors for wildlife could be a good idea.
Imagine the climate is warming very gradually, for whatever reason.
For example a species temperature range may move south by 5km per year.
Corridors would allow the range to slowly move.
No intelligence needed, just deaths and births.

AndyG55
Reply to  Jeff
June 15, 2016 4:05 am

“For example a species temperature range may move south by 5km per year.”
Or North.. or East… or even… West !!!
WOW !!!

Bill Marsh
Editor
Reply to  Jeff
June 15, 2016 4:41 am

Wait, you mean the corridors should be able to support two way traffic? That’s good news because now I can get funding for another set of studies exploring the complexities of directing traffic with the various species heading in different directions through the corridors. That should set me up for at least ten years of solid income. Excellent!

emsnews
Reply to  Bill Marsh
June 15, 2016 7:55 am

Yes, set up sonar towers to direct bat traffic! Like human airports.

Reply to  Bill Marsh
June 15, 2016 9:02 am

Won’t work Bill ’cause they’ll be waiting there for the idiot traffic lights until they die off .

bill johnston
Reply to  Jeff
June 15, 2016 7:04 am

“corridors for wildlife”? Would that be the same as migration routes????

emsnews
Reply to  bill johnston
June 15, 2016 7:56 am

Coyotes have no difficulty moving across the planet colonizing new lands.

TA
Reply to  bill johnston
June 15, 2016 9:00 am

bill johnston wrote: ““corridors for wildlife”?”
That’s another name for rivers, creeks and streams.

AllyKat
Reply to  bill johnston
June 15, 2016 1:33 pm

Really, “connectivity corridors” are needed more to preserve genetic diversity than to “save” the animals from climate change. Wildlife bridges always make me think of the West Wing episode where an environmentalist group try to convince a staffer that spending a billion dollars (literally) on a bridge for wolves is a good investment. The staffer asks how the wolves are going to know to use the bridge.
There are good reasons to connect natural spaces, but supposed climate change is not one of them. The East Coast has poor connectivity because it is so populated, not because of small mountains. Actually, shouldn’t small mountains make migration easier? I could hike over the Blue Ridge mountains much more easily than I could hike over the Rockies. Also, it is not so much stricter policies in the West as it is land ownership. Western states’ lands are largely owned by the federal government, whereas Eastern states’ public lands are state owned. Much more of the East Coast and even the Midwest was privately owned by the time the federal government came into being. For the time being, private property owners still have some say over their land use. The massive land tracts owned by the feds out west are easier to control, and the constant lawsuits by environmentalists make any and all change rather difficult.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Jeff
June 15, 2016 8:23 am

Except it doesn’t happen that way, Jeff. Animals don’t have a very narrow range of optimum temperatures that they prefer. They have huge, broad swaths of temperatures that they can live in, and there’s no strict cut-off. Look at any map and you will see the ranges of animals. Those that are limited are not limited by temperature, but by biome. Unless there are massive shifts in rainfall patterns (a claim for which I have seen no backing in science), the forests will just be slightly warmer forests and plains will be slightly warmer plains. This is supported by the fact that daily shifts in temperature are an order of magnitude greater than the warming due to CO2.
The best way to observe this is to compare it to the adiabatic lapse rate. When you go up 100 meters, the air drops by about 1 degree C (approximately, but good enough for comparison). Now, climb a hill. 100 meters isn’t really that much. You won’t see any change in wildlife from the top of that hill to the bottom of the hill. Now, that trip from the bottom to the top of the hill was the entirety of 20th century warming. You can do this with larger and larger hills until you actually go up mountains, and you will still observe the vast majority of animals are the same in the lowlands and highlands

MarkW
Reply to  Jeff
June 15, 2016 8:41 am

I’ve been hearing about wildlife corridors for decades. Generally the idea to allow different pockets of wildlife a chance to contact and inter-breed in order to avoid genetic isolation and inbreeding.
On the other hand I’ve seen deer wandering through the downtown areas of small towns. They seem to find their way through man’s constructions without much assistance.

South River Independent
Reply to  MarkW
June 15, 2016 9:50 am

MarkW, speaking of deer, maybe we can include safe deer crossing locations in these efforts. I am reminded of the woman who called a local radio station in PA or OH to complain that the deer crossing signs were posted in areas where it was not safe for deer to cross the roads. She wanted someone to move the signs to safer locations.

Javert Chip
Reply to  MarkW
June 15, 2016 11:53 am

Poor dear (sorry; couldn’t resist).

Auto
Reply to  MarkW
June 15, 2016 2:51 pm

Mark W
Yes – even here in London we have deer – last saw one [Roe?] about three weeks ago – early start, and off to France for a booze-run.
Foxes are a given – and a deuced nuisance.
Badgers [so no hedgehogs]; yes. Some live, some as roadkill.
Rats – of course.
Squirrels, mice, etc. Indeed.
A biggish [3-4 inch long] common frog under our recycling about ten days ago, too.
Birds – shedloads, from storks to wrens, parakeets to robins.
Auto – within the M25 [London’s orbital motorway].

John M. Ware
Reply to  MarkW
June 15, 2016 4:51 pm

My neighbor, Stuart, used to put up signs in his yard to keep the deer out. The sign was a picture of a deer with a big circle containing a slash mark partly covering the deer. The signs worked in daylight; he never saw any deer. However, at night, after a snowfall, the deer would cross, ignoring the sign, and Stuart and I could see the hoofprints in the morning. So I think signs could be very useful, but they would have to be lit up at night. [true, but not serious]

jclarke341
Reply to  Jeff
June 15, 2016 9:08 am

The average annual temperature for St. Louis is 56.1 F. About 450 km to the south is Memphis, TN, where the average annual temperature is 62.3 F. That is a natural difference of 6.2 F over 450 km. Nearly every species of plants and animals found in and around St. Louis, is already found in and around Memphis. To most life, it is pretty much the same climate. At the current, likely exaggerated warming rate, it would take 200 years for St. Louis to be as warm as Memphis. Try as I might, I just can’t imagine any way this is going to be a problem.
But there is more. Think back 200 years and the ability that we humans had to respond to the varieties of nature. We heated our drafty homes with firewood or coal. We traveled literally by horsepower or on foot. Goods were moved on steamboats and wagons. Information took months to cross the continent. Our collective ability to solve problems was far less and far slower than it is today. What will it be like in 200 years? Will the people 100 and 200 years in the future have a far greater capacity to solve any issues that may arrive than we do today? If we don’t bomb or legislate ourselves back into the stone age, they most certainly will. What was difficult 200 years ago is relatively easy now. What we find difficult now, will be relatively easy 200 years from know.
Imagine James Madison spending his presidency trying to solve the problems of congested interstate highway systems around major US Cities that won’t exist for 150 years, instead of dealing with the British. He would have been locked up in the asylum. Yet, today, half the population believes we should be solving the hypothetical problems of 2116, instead of dealing with the problems we have today.

WK
Reply to  jclarke341
June 15, 2016 4:10 pm

jclarke, I love you. Do you think out like this often? Tell me where, please

Climate Dissident
June 15, 2016 3:27 am

Not only deny earlier climate changes, or so it seems; they clearly cannot believe in any form of evolution..

Auto
Reply to  Climate Dissident
June 15, 2016 2:55 pm

But they must have some concept of their own origins – not like common folk, I dare say – but probably formed absolutely perfect – from a God’s sweat.
[PS ‘God’ may be of any sex or none, and thus incorporates ‘god’, ‘goddess’, ‘god-hood’, ‘godlike’ etc.].
Auto, of common origin

tony mcleod
June 15, 2016 3:38 am

Here on the east coast of Australia we have a similar situation where the wildlife corridors that many species used have been fragmented by roads and urban sprawl.
Oceanic fish can move easily and they are already, but mammals, reptiles, insects, etc could find themselves isolated, unable to adapt and nowhere near enough time to evolve.

Marcus
Reply to  tony mcleod
June 15, 2016 3:41 am

Why would they be unable to adapt to 1.5 degree of warming over 100 years ?

AndyG55
Reply to  tony mcleod
June 15, 2016 4:09 am

At a meagre 0.8C per century… seriously !!!
All the animals I know get in cars and head north for the summer vacation
(for the uninitiated… down here, North is towards the equator, and generally warmer than going south)

Bill Marsh
Editor
Reply to  tony mcleod
June 15, 2016 4:44 am

Because a Wallaby can’t cross a road

Owen in GA
Reply to  Bill Marsh
June 15, 2016 5:51 am

Well, not without some of the poor things getting pancaked…it would be a travesty that they didn’t all make it don’t you know. (Now where is that sarcasm font?…)

emsnews
Reply to  Bill Marsh
June 15, 2016 7:57 am

Hitting a large kangaroo is like hitting a large buck here in upstate NY: the driver can be killed. The car most certainly will need major repairs.

Marty
Reply to  Bill Marsh
June 15, 2016 11:24 am

Why did the chicken cross the road? She wanted to show the raccoons that it could be done.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  tony mcleod
June 15, 2016 8:37 am

How would an animal find itself isolated? Unless it’s in an actual park in the middle of a city, or all of a forest is destroyed. However, that’s a different matter entirely. Habitat loss is a real environmental problem that calls for real solutions. If you want to work on that, you have my best wishes, and I will defend and support your cause as best I can.
However, this nonsense deserves to be mocked. The problem comes when you think that animals need to move quickly to escape warming that’s within a thermometer’s standard error over time scales spanning multiple generations of even long-lived animals. (literally, the rate of warming is less than 1C per century, an it is not expected to rise much faster in any physically plausible model). You either must think that animals are extremely sensitive to temperature or that evolution happens extremely slowly (both of which are wrong).

AllyKat
Reply to  Ben of Houston
June 15, 2016 1:41 pm

What is especially stupid is that most animals that are super temperature/climate sensitive (as far as I know) are reptiles, amphibians, and insects. Probably some fish as well, particularly in terms of spawning. These animals are not going to migrate the way that mammals and birds will. I do not think that the salamander living on three mountain tops in the Shenandoah mountains (it actually does exist) is going to migrate up down the mountains and up to the mountains in West Virginia, Maryland or Pennsylvania. Humans flipping over logs and rocks looking for said salamander will likely do more damage than a tenth or hundredth of a degree.

MarkW
Reply to  tony mcleod
June 15, 2016 8:45 am

The idea that roads present an insurmountable barrier to animal migrations is one of those ideas that seems logical on the surface but in reality is quite absurd.
Scattered houses present even less of an obstacle.

tony mcleod
Reply to  MarkW
June 15, 2016 11:34 pm

Scattered houses might not pose much of a barrier but where I live large swaths of natural forest are being cleared for tract housing. Chunks of species rich habitat is being raised with barely a blade of grass is left standing. Even ignoring climate induced migration, fragmentation of habitat leaves fewer and fewer individuals able to mix and interbreed. At some point there are just to few to remain a viable population.
Hence the importance of wildlife corridors. The rate of species extinction is concerning.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  MarkW
June 16, 2016 4:27 am

tony mcleod, ….. getta clue, …… large swaths of natural forest do not provide a “species rich habitat” for anything other than the trees growing therein ……. simply because mature trees provide little to no food source to sustain animal life therein ….. and lack of sufficient Sunshine reaching the forest floor prevents any new growth of other plant life,
Iffen ya wanna see a large swath of natural forest converted to a “species rich habitat” then send the “loggers” in to hack n’ gash n’ slash their way through it, …. opening it up so the Sunshine can stimulate new growth on the forest floor. And that new plant growth will attract new animal life like it was a biological “magnet”.
Just like the European immigrants of the 17th to 19th Centuries ….. hacked n’ gashed n’ slashed their way across the Appalachians thus creating a “species rich habitat” that still exists till this day.

tony mcleod
Reply to  MarkW
June 18, 2016 5:31 am

large swaths of natural forest do not provide a “species rich habitat”
Hogwash.
Reef habitats are the most bio-diverse on the planet closely followed by rainforest. Habitat loss/destruction, almost entirely caused by human activity, continues to be the primary driver of extinction. Are you a population biologist? I didn’t think so.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  tony mcleod
June 18, 2016 7:30 am

tony mcleod

Reef habitats are the most bio-diverse on the planet closely followed by rainforest. Habitat loss/destruction, almost entirely caused by human activity, continues to be the primary driver of extinction. Are you a population biologist? I didn’t think so.

The dodo (and only a few dozen other species killed in past centuries) were lost due to man’s activities.
More species have been killed – BUT ALMOST ALL of them on isolated islands BY NATURAL predators introduced with the ships men brought. Rats, for example, kill the eggs and the nests.
Now. Exactly how many species have been killed out the past 35 years by so-called climate change – when today’s temperatures have been routinely exceeded many times in the past 12,000 years of this glacial cycle?

tony mcleod
Reply to  MarkW
June 18, 2016 6:10 pm

In the context we were discussing, Australia has lost 27 mammal species since European settlement. Not all of those to habitat loss alone, but that often plays a part.

tony mcleod
Reply to  MarkW
June 18, 2016 6:38 pm

BTW it not just the change, it the speed of that change that is more important.

June 15, 2016 3:43 am

Gave me a hearty laugh to start the day. And just the thought that the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences would publish such drivel made the laugh even deeper.

June 15, 2016 3:46 am

The “deer crossing” signs are already installed.

lee
Reply to  firetoice2014
June 15, 2016 4:30 am

Yeah. it is a pity about the no-eyed deer. 😉

Paul
Reply to  firetoice2014
June 15, 2016 5:28 am

“The “deer crossing” signs are already installed.”
Silly that they put them along the divided highways. That gets a lot of deer killed, they forget to look both ways before crossing at the signs.

mjh10
Reply to  Paul
June 15, 2016 6:41 am

ORIGINAL – Please Move The Deer Crossing Sign. HILARIOUS STUPIDITY. Must Hear!!

Tom in Florida
Reply to  firetoice2014
June 15, 2016 5:46 am

How are the deer supposed to know where to cross? They can’t read (or can they!!)
Here in the south end of Sarasota County they built a Scrub Jay preserve to help protect this annoying species. There are wonderful signs all around indicating such. My neighbor’s Italian mother simply asked, “How do the birds know they are supposed to go their, they can’t read.”

Joe - the climate scientiest
Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 15, 2016 5:54 am

Of course Deer can read – the same way positive feedbacks know to only manifest themselves if the global warming is caused by man’s release of extra co2 vs the positive feedbacks knowing to remain dormant during periods of natural warming.

South River Independent
Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 15, 2016 9:55 am

See my comment above about the woman who wanted the deer crossing signs moved to safer locations.

AllyKat
Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 15, 2016 1:45 pm

Clearly we need funding for Common Core reading classes for the birds. I believe many people have already complained about the curriculum being tailor-made for birds. If someone wants to give me a grant, I will get right on that.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 17, 2016 4:33 am

I am reminded of the lady who called her local radio station to complain about the new deer crossing signs she passed on the way to work. She thought they should be relocated to areas with less traffic. 😉

philincalifornia
June 15, 2016 3:51 am

Didn’t the Paris conference already solve all the problems and there will be no more climate change ??

Gamecock
June 15, 2016 3:54 am

Another ‘Given global warming, . . . .” study.
With some environmentalist demands on property thrown in.
And plenty of ignorance on the distribution of plants and animals.

Steve (Paris)
June 15, 2016 4:00 am

So Darwin was wrong all along. Nature needs man’s help.

Brett Keane
Reply to  Steve (Paris)
June 15, 2016 5:02 am

No, nature is about to (continue) the pruning process. Next are the CCC Cagw activists…..

David Smith
June 15, 2016 4:13 am

This sounds like a repackaging of the Wildlands project.

Rhoda R
Reply to  David Smith
June 15, 2016 7:44 pm

I think you are correct. Agenda 21 anyone?
[let’s leave discussions of Agenda 21 .mod]

Notanist
June 15, 2016 4:20 am

Interesting study, looks like its basic theme could be applied to any environmental changes including a next ice age, a far more dire possibility than a little more warmth. In either case, “…we are going to have to scramble to prepare for this”, meaning humanity will have its hands full helping other species survive, is a very healthy sentiment. Some might suggest we just let evolution work its magic, species rise and fall over time and life has no problem adapting to Mother Nature’s (and each other’s) changes to their surroundings. There is hardly a corner or niche on this planet that isn’t occupied by some form of life. However I personally think its great that one species (humanity) regularly makes extraordinary efforts to preserve species whose evolutionary expiration date might otherwise have passed.

Bruce Cobb
June 15, 2016 4:26 am

Ecoloony Land is a strange land indeed. My only question is, do they dress themselves in the morning or do they need help?

PiperPaul
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 15, 2016 8:36 am

I’m imagining free-range idiots a la Monty Python’s ‘Upper Class Twit of the Year’ race participants memorizing their daily affirmations and eco-propaganda in preparation for the day.

David Chappell
June 15, 2016 4:29 am

Excellent business opportunity for someone who can crack the communication problem with plants and animals – Climate Change Trucking Company, book ahead and beat the rush.

Bloke down the pub
June 15, 2016 4:37 am

Apart from the invocation of the cagw threat, I don’t see there’s much wrong with this theory. Smaller habitats are obviously more at risk from changes than are larger ones as you pointed out in your earlier post, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/14/claim-global-warming-killed-a-species-of-rat/ . In my neck of the woods there is a canal restoration project underway, see http://cotswoldcanals.com/, and one of the benefits of it will be the creation of a wildlife corridor. If a bit of thought is put in at early stages in infrastructure development, nature can benefit without undue expense.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
June 15, 2016 5:22 am

The idea of wildlife corridors is to give creatures whose habitat has been nibbled away at by development a chance to move to other, less-developed areas. But they aren’t talking about that. For these bozoz “climate change” is now the threat. Furthermore, with the possible exception of the case you mention with the canal, the instances where this would be feasible would very much localized ones, and they’d be few and far between. I think they have much grander, fantasy-land ideas.

commieBob
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
June 15, 2016 6:24 am

If a bit of thought is put in at early stages in infrastructure development, nature can benefit without undue expense.

Exactly so. This is the approach suggested by Judith Curry.

Robust policy options that can be justified by associated policy reasons whether or not human caused climate change is dangerous avoids the hubris of pretending to know what will happen with the 21st century climate.

In other words, no regrets when everyone finally realizes that CAGW is bull crap.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
June 15, 2016 8:42 am

For protection of small areas threatened by habitat loss, yes, that it a good thing. However, that’s not what they are talking about here.
Something that works quite well on the small scale becomes ludicrous when you are talking hundreds of miles of corridors.

tadchem
June 15, 2016 4:42 am

I’m guessing that the wild black bear recently captured in the DC suburbs didn’t read the study.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2016/06/13/nine-bear-sightings-reported-in-montgomery-and-prince-georges-counties/

Groty
Reply to  tadchem
June 15, 2016 8:28 am

I started developing an interest in tracking bear populations after New Jersey re-introduced a very limited public bear hunt in 2003. NJ stopped having public bear hunts in the 1960s because the bear population had been wiped out. But by 2003, bear were beginning to encroach on humans: scavenging for food in garbage cans; threatening pets and potentially small children; collisions with cars and planes; etc. That caused calls to government to escalate. Biologists concluded the bear population had grown larger than the state’s wild areas could support. So they carefully designed a “one time” bear hunt. After the hunt the number of bears culled hit their target with amazing precision. Except the bear population continued to grow. So they did another “one time” hunt in 2005. And the bear population continued to grow. So in 2010 they gave up on the idea of a “one time” hunt and made it an annual hunt. The bear population continued to grow. So in 2014, they expanded the hunting season. All told, there have been several thousand bears killed since 2003 and the population is still larger than it was when the first hunt began in 2003. It is not unique to NJ. All throughout New England the bear population is exploding.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/06/20/bears/4iQHkreqivLLYBjLvtudDK/story.html
I figure if an apex predator like black bears are thriving, then most “lesser” plants and animals that make it possible for them to expand their populations must also be thriving.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Groty
June 16, 2016 4:44 am

So sayith: Groty

All told, there have been several thousand bears killed since 2003 and the population is still larger than it was when the first hunt began in 2003.

YUP, and I am sure that the current bear population in the NE US …. is far larger now than it was when the Pilgrims first landed on Cape Cod or at any time during the past 200 years.

South River Independent
Reply to  tadchem
June 15, 2016 10:05 am

They have been slowly expanding the bear hunting season in Maryland after they recently allowed bears to be hunted because of increased bear sightings in populated areas. There is an area that extends from PA Ino the northwest corner of MD and into WVA that is a natural bear habitat. Of course, the anti-hunting crowd is opposed to the bear hunts.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  South River Independent
June 16, 2016 5:01 am

Yup, Black Bear sightings and “kills” are now quite common in central WVA.
And yup, when the I-79 Corridor from Charleston, WV to Erie, Pennsylvania was completed in 77′, it immediately became famous as a Whitetail Deer Corridor because of the hundreds n’ hundreds of deer that are killed each year … while attempting to migrate to “greener pastures”.

Griff
June 15, 2016 4:51 am

The ‘wildlife corridor’ concept is widely used in current efforts to preserve habitats and species… there is plenty of evidence to back it up as a useful technique.
An outline here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife_corridor
google ‘wildlife corridor’ for more

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
June 15, 2016 8:50 am

If wildlife corridors are a good idea(and I happen to think they are), then you don’t need such absurd examples to support them in.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
June 15, 2016 11:33 am

I should add that this is not an unlimited endorsement.
In most places there is little to no need for explicit “corridors” as the wildlife has little trouble passing through and by the constructions of man.
In those few places where the works of man provide an impermeable barrier, small changes are usually sufficient to provide wildlife passages.

Tom in Texas
June 15, 2016 5:00 am

If you would like to see these corridors being created, read about the history of environmental easements. The amazing thing that gets me is that so very few read about these issues. I promote this site often, when attempting to pass information on In a very simple phrase, “If you want the truth, read about it on a site that deals with facts” WUWT. As far a amphibians, I could collect an old metal garbage can full of frogs in a short time, of course we would pour them on a porch and ring the door bell. “What fun being a kid”. I also noticed that most of the native Houston frogs all but disappeared. Then about 20+ years ago these species started a come back. Now I have 4 different species, and my wife gets all giddy when she sees the little ones hopping along in groups of about 20 or so. Amphibian’s are these not warm blooded creatures?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Tom in Texas
June 15, 2016 10:45 am

I just wish they wouldn’t play their music so loud. I hate hippity-hoppity music.

FJ Shepherd
June 15, 2016 5:05 am

There is a corridor from Canada to Florida already well established, and it is used quite heavily in the winter months by flocks of Canadians going south.

HocusLocus
June 15, 2016 5:12 am

This fits comfortably into this discussion (because it fits in anywhere)

WK
Reply to  HocusLocus
June 15, 2016 5:45 pm

Not anywhere there is belief in good v evil and humans have the right of liberty, life and happiness.

Tom in Texas
June 15, 2016 5:12 am

Create corridors, 1st stop dredging rivers. make sure all reservoirs for flood control are dammed. People will then be more adapt to move. Brazos river flooding.

Griff
Reply to  Tom in Texas
June 15, 2016 7:16 am

In the UK people say NOT dredging rivers causes floods ??

Marcus
Reply to  Griff
June 15, 2016 7:57 am

..A little slow today Griff ?…D’oh !

Tom in Texas
Reply to  Griff
June 15, 2016 9:16 am

You are correct, as in the link below you will see that all mitigation toward alleviating flooding, The reservoirs were removed from the flood plan by encroaching cities for their own water supply. During the Richmond Texas flood 3 of the reservoirs were open to release more water into the Brazos.
The Texas drought from 2006 through early 2015 created sand bars and excess increase in silt to build up. Between closed flood reservoirs and increase height in the river bottom, Well there ya go.

Reply to  Griff
June 16, 2016 9:41 am

Tom in Texas,
You referred to the Texas drought.
I finally located an expert who can explain why droughts happen:
http://oi49.tinypic.com/2mnj2fn.jpg

Tom in Texas
June 15, 2016 5:14 am
John
June 15, 2016 5:20 am

Why did the chicken cross the road? Because he couldn’t find a “climate corridor”. And Col. Sanders was chasing him.
Mule deer and elk move up and down mountains based on the season – they have no need of a corridor. Sadly, some do get hit by cars. Just as I was moving out of Washington state, they were building something for the deer to go under (or was it over) I-90. Do the deer use it? I never heard. Do the deer even care?

ECB
Reply to  John
June 15, 2016 5:41 am

Yes. Lots of tracks on the animal overpass I go walking over. They do it at night.
I am totally on board with underpasses or overpasses. There are hills in Wisconsin that deer travel on. They get to the highway and get killed. I saw a pickup truck loaded with dear deer from just one night’s road kill. Pathetic.

ECB
Reply to  ECB
June 15, 2016 5:42 am

dear=dead

MarkW
Reply to  ECB
June 15, 2016 8:52 am

dear deer. Oh dear.

Reply to  ECB
June 15, 2016 2:47 pm

All the animals use the overpasses and tunnels. Predators have learned to hang about the ends of the “corridors” for meal delivery (although the attached link says that there is no difference in kills along the fence and the overpasses/tunnels Both prey and predators use the overpasses. In Banff, they plant bushes on the overpasses to provide screening which increases their use. The first underpasses were like the cattle runs under freeways. They were not great but new ones with natural lighting or a break in the middle of a divided highway work well but the overpasses appear to work the best from the studies I have seen, particularly for ungulates, although the link shows considerable use of the tunnels by some predators.
http://www.dialogdesign.ca/open-dialog/animal-overpasses-in-banff-national-park-proven-to-work/
http://digitalnomad.nationalgeographic.com/2013/08/23/the-alberta-story-wildlife-crossing-in-banff/

1 2 3
Verified by MonsterInsights