Climate Change Sends Species on the Move, Giving Invasives a Leg Up

Warmer temperatures and rising sea levels are already forcing migrations of animals and plants, and invasive species may be some of biggest winners as habitat are disrupted by climatic changes.
Whether species survive new conditions brought by a changing climate will depend on their ability to move with those changes, says a study in the current issue of the journal Nature. Plants and animals, on average, will have to be able to migrate at a rate of about a quarter mile (0.42 km) a year in order to stay within the ecological "envelope" to which they are adapted, it says.
But as some species' envelopes shrink, others' are expanding, particularly those of invasive species and often at significant economic and ecological cost.
The Nature study focuses on the velocity at which species will need to migrate. It deliberately steers clear of looking at the effects on specific species, says Scott Loarie, a co-author of the report. But he agrees that the disturbances in ecosystems pointed out in the study could open the door to expanded ranges for invasive species.
"We know invasive species can capitalize on these disturbances," Loarie says.
As ecosystems are transformed, he says, "weedy-type species might be able to adapt and expand better than the original species."
"In Australia, temperatures have risen the most at the highest altitudes, and these are the places where invasive species have multiplied the most," says Tim Low of the Australia-based Invasive Species Council. "In the Australian Alps, introduced foxes, rabbits, hares, house mice, horses and weeds have all increased either in numbers or in range."
"The foxes are a real concern," Low adds, explaining that the Bogong moths that used to be a major food source for foxes are migrating to the mountains later in the season due to changing temperatures. This means foxes are preying on other species, such as the endangered mountain pygmy possum (top photo), which also rely on the moths for food and are now forced to spend more time in the open searching for food.
"Often it will be the combination of climate change and [invasive] pests operating together that will wipe species out," says Low.
It is not just invasive species that are benefiting from a changing climate at the expense of humans and other species. Another recent study has found what many have predicted and seen elsewhere — temperatures have increased 2 degrees Celsius in the Kenyan Central Highlands over the last 20 years, allowing malaria-causing parasites to spread to higher altitudes on the slopes of Mount Kenya.
In the oceans, changing oxygen and temperature levels are forcing — or allowing — species to move into new waters. Giant Nomura's jellyfish in the Eastern Pacific, for instance, have expanded their range, spoiling fishing boats' hauls off Japan.
Humboldt squid (right), a large mollusk normally found off the coast of Baja California first moved north over a decade ago, but now appear to have taken up permanent residence in the traditionally colder waters off California and Oregon. Fishermen worry the squid will cut into fish stocks, though others welcome the calamari windfall.
Oceans and waterways are thought to be likely the first to experience the dramatic effects of climate change on their biological populations, and this contention is supported by another recent study.
Researchers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, in attempting to quantify warming trends in six Northern California and Nevada lakes, found that lake surface temperature is warming faster than that of the surrounding air. Their 18 years' worth of data from satellite sensors indicates that, on average, surface water has warmed at twice the rate of the air in the region.
One potential fallout of this trend is a more hospitable environment for invasive species, like the Asian clam that first appeared in California's Lake Tahoe at the beginning of this decade but which is now prevalent enough that its waste has caused algae blooms in the lake's tourist-drawing crystal waters.
On the other side of the globe, river flows are decreasing in West Africa due to less precipitation at their sources, a result of climate change. This has allowed the South American native water hyacinth to prosper. The hyacinth clogs rivers and water intakes, blocks sunlight, and crowds out native species.
Plants like serrated tussock have invaded grazing land in Australia and elsewhere, pushing out the native grasses livestock depend on with devastating speed.
And the mountain pine beetle, aided by milder winter temperatures, is devastating British Columbia forests. Changing temperatures have also allowed the beetle to move to higher latitudes. It is expected to kill almost 80 percent of pine in the province by 2015.
The list goes on.
Though climate change is only one factor in the spread of invasives, many of these intruders have been given a leg up by the disruptions caused by a changing climate since they are typically very hardy species and adept at capitalizing on opportunities to colonize areas.
“Climate change is creating some difficult conditions for a number of living organisms, and most of the invasive alien species are more resistant, more opportunistic than the organisms in a given place,” the UN Convention on Biological Diversity's Kalemani Mulongoy said.
"The ability of a species to keep pace [with climatic changes] speaks to the 'weediness' of a species," Loarie says, adding that historically those invasive, weed species have been those that have resiliently moved around on things like cattle and boats before colonizing an area.
The CBD says the spread of invasives — whether aided by climate change or other factors — costs $1.4 trillion a year globally in damages and control measures. The U.S. loses $138 billion a year in the fight. The Invasive Species Council says invasive plants alone cost Australia over A$3.9 billion in agriculture losses and control efforts.
See also:
Climate Change Will Challenge Farmers as Crop Pests Spread
Government Report Brings Climate Change to America's Backyard
America's National Parks: Canaries in the Climate Change Coal Mine
Could This Tiny Mountain Mammal Force the US to Fight Climate Change?
(Photos: Pygmy possum, Foundation for National Parks and Wildlife; Humboldt squid, kqedquest/CC BY-NC 2.0)














"invasives" and ecology 101
All of these so-called "invasives" are early successional species moving in where conditions suit them.
The author is suggesting that when climate change forces existing species to move on we should ensure that the vacated areas are not "invaded". Presumably we need to trap, poison, pull-up and burn -basically eradicate at all costs- anything living that might re-emerge within these newly vacated climatically changed zones.
What will this achieve?
It seems to be suggested that although nothing that used to be here can survive here anymore (because of climate change), we can't let anything else in. Is that right? Anything new that might arrive and could survive as an early succesional species has been branded "an invasive"; AND it gets the blame because it costs money to fruitlessly try to eradicate or control it.
I think the problem is that some people expect the natural world to stay the same but it just doesn't do that. It's not like all of the millenia of evolution was leading to this point in time and now everything should just stop. The natural world is loose and it's just doing what comes naturally. It responds to natural disturbances as well as human ones. Why brand natural system responses as "invasive" species and decide to fight to maintain what was only ever a temporary situation anyway?
I can understand when it occurs on farms. Most farming systems are "designed" to be at war with their natural surroundings at all times. What I don't understand -and what bothers me- is when this endless kind of 'war against natural system response and change' is dressed up as environmentalism and choked with self-righteousness and HATRED for these "weed" species. You'll give yourself a cancer with all that hatred! Learn to appreciate that the reality of nature is constant change.
All things bright and beautiful...
Don't Pour on Chemicals, Stop the Cause
You write that "The author is suggesting that when climate change forces existing species to move on we should ensure that the vacated areas are not "invaded"."
I don't think we read the same story. The author isn't telling you to pour on more pesticides and herbicides, he's saying here's another problem because we AREN'T being careful about how we treat the planet. The point is, there's a problem in the making. Don't just settle for reacting, stop the problem before it becomes really big.
"invasives" "invasion" etc...
"Invasives", "Invasion", "Weed species", "Alien", "Intruders".
This article targets these symptoms of change as if they were the problem.
MY point is that these innocent species are a natural and healthy reaction to change. Changed conditions and vacated ecological zones and niches are vacuums waiting to be filled by these well adapted species. Again I say this is natural. It may be uncomfortable for us and it is certainly out of our control but it is a natural adaptive response.
The human response is usually to try to avoid adaptation by attempting to eradicate whatever "invasive" species comes to hand by whatever means is most economical.
Nature's policeman.
"Invasives", "Invasion", "Weed species", "Alien", "Intruders".
Invasives and climate change
Whether invasive or native, the explosive growth of the world's aquatic weeds is more a cause than an effect of climate change. The huge infestation of Typha Australis in the Lake Chad Basin is the driving force in the desertification in Northern Africa. Water Hyacinth is the main problem in many other places.
Aquatic weeds drastically increase evaporative losses, keeping the water that arrives from accumulating. The weeds produce copious silt that clogs the beds of streams and lakes, breaking their connection with the groundwater, and converting them into swamps, seasonal marshes and then drylands. This natural process, called hydrosere, has been drastically accelerated by human use and abuse of the waterways. Water hyacinth and the like love pollution of various types. Their tendency to collect noxious stuff is useful. Typha and its ilk like changes in water levels, particularly repeated changes. Every dam, irrigation project, or virtually any other use of water creates places favorable for their takeover.
It will take time and huge labors, but the clearance of aquatic weeds and their silt will repair and restore earth's cooling system. Restore the lakes, and we'll again have "lake effect" rains. Dredge them, and replenish the aquifers. We can push back the desert and repair our climate by weed control in our wetlands.
The weeds are all biomass, waiting to be made into fuel and biochar. The silt is soil, to be used as such. The side benefits of clearance include reductions in flooding, malaria, bilharzia and many other problems.
Post new comment