 |
| Source click here |
As I mentioned in my previous post, the idea of cryptic Northern refugia, or even the refugial hypothesis, was completely new to me when I began this blog. I hope the fact that I, too, was learning and developing my understanding as I went along made my blog more accessible – I’ve tried to explain any challenging phrases and concepts, inserting links to detailed definitions wherever possible. One thing I found particularly challenging was that many of the papers used a lot of terminology specifically related to genetics (as I haven’t done biology since A-level) but luckily I was able to find simplified explanations on the internet and in many cases, Wikipedia came to the rescue! This, however, proved to be one of the things that I found most interesting about the concept of refugia; scientists from a range of disciplines are collecting and analysing different types of data in different ways but the findings they present can all be used as evidence for the same hypothesis. It truly is a multi-disciplinary topic with implications that are incredibly far reaching. I also found it enjoyable (and relatively satisfying) that, due to the concept of cryptic Northern refugia being a relatively recent hypothesis, I have been able to trace it from its origins in the 1990s to the present day developments that can potentially have direct consequences on policy decisions being made in today’s changing world.
As you may have guessed, I particularly enjoyed the fact that I was able to relate this body of academic work to something really relevant (and something that I am passionate about); climate change and wildlife conservation. There is no doubt about it, our climate is changing and if we are to have any hope of conserving the wildlife that we share our planet with for future generations to enjoy then we must take drastic action. It goes without saying that we need to take measures to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, but when it comes to preserving wildlife threatened by climate change more specifically, the palaeoecology has a lot to offer. If we can take detailed understandings of species distributions and responses to climatic change in the past and combine this to predictions of future climatic change then we might be able to identify possible trends. If species responded to climate change by contracting into and persisting in refugia in the past (as we know they did based on the research findings discussed in this blog), then they may respond in this way in the future. Therefore, possible refugial areas should be identified as conservation priorities. Refugial areas are also thought to have created genetic diversity and populations with the highest degree of genetic diversity should be the focus of conservation efforts as diversity is vital for the future survival of a viable population. If natural refugial areas do not exist then artificial ones could potentially be created for certain species, both in-situ and ex-situ, and man-made wildlife corridors could be created to join up artificial and natural refugial areas. I just hope that all this fascinating scientific research does not go to waste and it is used to inform environmental policy decisions before it is too late.
