The questions posed by the conference entitled Is Climate Changing Where the Wild Things Are? can be interpreted in at least two ways and the answer to both seems to be "Yes." A dozen wildlife scientists studying a range of organisms made presentations focused on these concerns at a conference sponsored by the US EPA and co-sponsored by 19 groups interested in the outdoors, which was held at the National Zoo in Washington, DC, Oct. 7-8, 1990. Most of what they presented suggests that the locations where the wild things are are indeed changing.

According to Professor Camille Parmesan of the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, the home territories of butterflies like the North American Edith's Checkerspot and 9 of 14 species of European butterflies have shifted north by 92 km and 200 km, respectively. Professor Terry Root, of the University of Michigan, has found that, of the 27 species of migratory birds that she studied, all (but one) seem to be arriving in Michigan earlier (8 species arrived 1-2 months earlier) in the spring than representatives of those species from some 30 years ago. Additionally, earlier egg-laying dates for birds in England have been documented as well as an observed upslope migration of some mountain dwelling birds in Costa Rica.

Even changes in the abundance of invertebrate species documented in a rocky intertidal community are believed to be due to changes in water temperature, likely as a result of climate changes. Mr. Sagarin, of Hopkins Marine Station, Pacific Grove, CA, compared surveys taken in Monterey Bay between 1931-33 and 1993-96, which show that 10 of 11 southern species of invertebrates increased in abundance, while 6 of 8 northern species decreased in abundance. Professor Magnuson, of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, expects similar changes in fresh water fishes; it is likely that warm water fishes will expand their ranges while cool and cold water fishes "will do more poorly or be lost."

While these changes in ranges and schedules of wildlife arrivals may seem insignificant, they could have serious ecological consequences due to the complex interdependencies of many ecosystems. Dr. Jeff Price of the American Bird Conservancy presented sensitivity analyses which suggested that breeding distributions of some North American birds will undergo range shifts and, unless all the components of an ecosystem shift at the same rate, there could be impacts on, for example, forest health. The example he used was "a loss of insectivorous birds that feed on spruce budworms could lead to insect outbreaks of increased severity and frequency."

Other potentially serious concerns related to changes in species distribution and other components of the ecosystem include the potential for a loss of coordination between the timing of food availability and need. For example, the maturation of the food source (plant, insect) may become out of sync with an organism's life history (e.g. egg-laying and hatching of birds and feeding of young). These secondary effects demonstrate just how interconnected biological systems are.

For the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of the Northern Great Plains, the concern of Professor Lisa Sorenson of Boston University is "how anticipated changes in the hydrologic regimes of wetlands. . . will affect populations of prairie-nesting waterfowl, birds that are dependent on shallow wetlands for breeding." While the potholes produce only 10% of the North American breeding habitat, they produce 50-80% of the continent's ducks. Because the size of breeding duck populations has historically correlated with the number of ponds counted in May, if the projected warming/drying shown by many of the climate models occurs, then it is possible that the mean duck population could be reduced by nearly 50%.

Other issues discussed at the meeting include the following:

• How can the science community help planners and managers who need information, knowledge, and assistance? In what ways can support for study of specific/local issues (e.g. greenway development) be increased?
• Planners and managers need to understand that not all local problems are caused locally and that some problems have an origin that is outside of the local area.
• The prescription cannot be the same for all sorts of problems (for example, connections can be a problem that leads to lake invasions by non-native species, but greenways are important as migration corridors for many species that shift homes with the seasons). Some approaches for dealing with particular problems are transferable, while others are inappropriate.
• Research programs should include study of physiological stresses that are not immediately lethal but slowly decimating to a population/community.
• The effect of temperature on toxins can be a potential time bomb because toxicity levels of some toxins increase with temperature.
• There are likely thousands of studies of long-term changes being carried out, but which are not being collected, summarized, published, or related to the well-known studies that frequently form the only basis for assessment.

At least two important themes emerged from this gathering of wildlife scientists. One is that there may be reasons to be critical of particular studies of one species, but the collection of studies (and their findings) conducted on many different species in many different habitats around the globe provides important collective evidence of the effects of climate change. The other theme relates to our means for addressing issues of scientific uncertainty and the necessity to "think outside the box" of the 90% confidence interval, particularly when discussing these issues and their possible consequences in terms of public policy analysis and decision-making.

Norman Meyers noted that while the scientific community needs to be careful about sounding the alarm regarding climate change, undue caution can be reckless behavior. In light of the often resulting policy paralysis, he suggested that it is "better to be roughly right than to be exactly wrong," especially because the stakes are potentially so high.

- Lynne Carter, USGCRP