print
Concerned about trees’ slow migration patterns, some ecologists are spreading seeds themselves. Critics fear they are playing God
by buteos

    It’s the experimental nature of assisted migration that makes some scientists wary about the risks involved. In 2009, the ecologists Anthony Ricciardi and David Simberloff published an op-ed contending that the strategy was “likely to produce myriad unintended and unpredictable consequences” and could profoundly interrupt the established ecosystems and food webs where the new trees are planted. Assisted migration, they said, was tantamount to “ecological gambling”.

    Assisted migration can also be a hard sell for the public, especially in communities that have been warned for years about the dangers of non-native plants and invasive species. Guldin reiterates that ASCC’s introductions are done in “very small steps”, and Landau argues that trees like longleaf pine require such specific management –namely, regular burns of the surrounding area that eliminate competing vegetation, enrich the soil, and kill harmful insects – and are so slow-growing that they’re “highly unlikely to escape” the plots where they are grown.

    But this management isn’t cheap, and that’s another common criticism of assisted migration. Getting trees to grow outside of their normal habitat is labor-intensive work, and no amount of time or money can guarantee the trees will thrive in their new environment; half of the longleaf pine seedlings at the Plum Creek Preserve have died despite the best efforts of TNC staff.