Nature | News

Trump’s border-wall pledge threatens delicate desert ecosystems

Ecologists fear plan to seal off the United States from Mexico would put wildlife at risk.

Article tools

Charles Ommanney/Getty Reportage

George W. Bush had barriers erected along nearly 1,100 kilometres of frontier during his presidency.

With Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump talking about walling off the United States from Mexico, ecologists fear for the future of the delicate and surprisingly diverse ecosystems that span Mexico’s border with the southwestern United States.

“The southwestern US and northwestern Mexico share their weather, rivers and wildlife,” says Sergio Avila-Villegas, a conservation scientist from the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum in Tucson. “The infrastructure on the border cuts through all that and divides a shared landscape in two.”

Trump’s policies tend to be short on detail, but he has talked about sealing off the entire 3,200-kilometre border with a wall that would be 10–20 metres high. “We will build a wall,” Trump says in a video on his campaign website. “It will be a great wall. It will do what it is supposed to do: keep illegal immigrants out.”

Constructing a wall “would be a huge loss”, says Clinton Epps, a wildlife biologist at Oregon State University in Corvallis. “We know how important the natural movement of wildlife is for the persistence of many species.”

Far from being a barren wasteland, the US–Mexico borderlands have some of the highest diversity of mammals, birds and plants in the continental United States and northern Mexico — including many threatened species.

A wall could divide species that make a home in both nations. Bighorn sheep, for example, live in small groups and rely on cross-border connections to survive, says Epps. Other species, such as jaguars, ocelots and bears, are concentrated in Mexico but have smaller, genetically linked US populations.

“Black bears were extirpated in West Texas, and it was a big deal when they re-established in the 1990s,” Epps says. Breaking their links with Mexican bears could put the animals at risk again. And birds that rarely fly, such as roadrunners, or those that swoop low to the ground, such as pygmy owls, could also have trouble surmounting the wall.

Such a physical barrier would worsen the habitat disruption caused by noise, bright lights and traffic near the border. And a wall would cut across rivers and streams that cross the border, severing a vital link. “When water crosses the border, it unites ecosystems,” says Avila-Villegas. “If we block the water, it affects nature on a much more fundamental level.”

Trump is not the first US politician to hit upon the idea of sealing the southern border. In 2006, President George W. Bush authorized the construction of a 1,126-kilometre border wall, of which nearly 1,100 kilometres were completed. The existing barriers are a mixture of 6-metre-high steel walls, ‘bollard fences’ made of steel pipes set upright in the ground about 5 centimetres apart, and lower vehicle barriers that Avila-Villegas says resemble the tank traps set on the beaches of Normandy during the Second World War.

Few studies have explored these barriers’ effects on animal populations, and there are not even any reliable baseline data on conditions before the barriers were built. Avila-Villegas has seen photos taken by border patrols of mountain lions running alongside the barriers or trying to climb over them, so he knows that the walls are causing the animals stress. But he has no real way of measuring it. A 2014 study found that the fencing in Arizona seemed to harm native wildlife, but had little impact on human movement (J. W. McCallum et al. PLoS ONE 9, e93679; 2014).

In 2009, Epps published a paper setting out some of the potential threats to animal populations posed by Bush’s wall, but he lacked the money to follow up with field studies (A. D. Flesch et al. Conserv. Biol. 24, 171–181; 2009). Now he is not sure such research would be possible, even with sufficient funds. “The border is not a friendly place any more,” Epps says. “I would be hesitant to send a grad student there.”

Avila-Villegas has first-hand experience of the difficulties that researchers face there. Ten years ago, he tried to collect some baseline data before Bush’s barriers were built, but gave up for his own safety. “It’s easy to ask why the research hasn’t been done, but that ignores the fact that the border is a war zone,” he says. “I had to stop my field work because of law enforcement and the ­Minutemen” — groups of armed private citizens who have taken it upon themselves to ‘defend’ the border against illegal crossings.

And it has not got any easier. “Every time I — a Hispanic male with dark skin and long hair — am in the field, I get patrols, helicopters and ATVs [all-terrain vehicles] coming to check on what I’m doing,” Avila-Villegas says. He spends much of his time trying to promote conservation issues that affect Mexico and the United States by forging links between researchers and ­policymakers in both countries. But his dedication to an open border has also prompted him to take a more personal stand. After a dozen years in the United States, Avila-Villegas has finally applied for citizenship — so that, come November, he can vote against Trump and his wall.

Journal name:
Nature
Volume:
536,
Pages:
260–261
Date published:
()
DOI:
doi:10.1038/536260a

For the best commenting experience, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will see comments updating in real-time and have the ability to recommend comments to other users.

Comments

13 comments Subscribe to comments

  1. Avatar for P W
    P W
    Trump wrinkles his nose and is said to be anti-science, harmful to the environment, xenophobic, a "hater," etc., yet, even with all of his bluster and buffoonery, has Donald Trump undermined science (or language or the very lives of human beings) as much as Hillary Clinton has with her mantra of "safe abortion?" I do not believe that unicorns and leprechauns exist (apart from fiction), but I can imagine their existence, whereas a "safe abortion" is a self-contradiction and unimaginable; it is not just oxymoronic but also moronic to speak of "safe abortion," yet Secretary Clinton has spoken thus for decades. The raison d'être of direct abortion is to deliberately kill an innocent human being. Lest you think the has relevance only to linguistics, consider the following and its implications for science, health care, public policy, etc. Direct abortion (A) is a risk factor for infertility; (B) is a risk factor for ectopic (tubal) pregnancy; (C) is a risk factor for cerebral palsy in babies conceived later; (D) is a suspected risk factor for breast cancer (the majority of published studies on this have identified abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer and there seems to be a dose effect: the greater the number of abortions a woman has, the greater the risk) and (E) is deliberately fatal to the fetus targeted by the abortion, for a few examples. I cannot think of another pairing of "safe" with the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. Can you? Has the linguistic absurdity "safe abortion" affected science, health care and public policy? A recently published paper ("Induced Abortion, Mortality, and the Conduct of Science," _Open Journal of Preventive Medicine_, 2016, 6, 170-177) remarks that "there is no country which considers induced abortion as a reportable death" though "abortion is similar to capital punishment [deaths from which are included in reports of vital statistics] and subject to the same clash of varying religious, political and ideological values." "The exclusion of abortion as a cause of death... may be the ultimate example of science denial." "Nature" is far from alone in alleging "xenophobia" of Mr. Trump while batting not an eyelash at Secretary Clinton, yet Clinton's hostility to living unborn human beings strikes me as an immensely more virulent and consequential expression of inhospitality to newcomers and one, further, that deceptively harms women and the children they conceive following an abortion. NOTE: This is a considerable reproduction of what I posted elsewhere recently on "Nature," yet I think in both cases the posting is quite relevant: http://www.nature.com/news/donald-trump-s-appeal-should-be-a-call-to-arms-1.20356
  2. Avatar for SRB
    SRB
    Abortions are nothing to do with this article, classic misdirection - but "direct" abortion is a phrase made up by the pro-life lobby, and I for one have never heard Clinton use it. All those risks you claim from abortion have been debunked time and time again - there is no evidence that abortion causes infertility, any form of cancer, or ectopic prganancy. The cerebal palsy one is a new one on me I'll admit, but sounds the usual bunkum from the pro-lifers who have a long standing record of cherry picking data and outright deciet. The quote you give from the Journal of Preventative Medicine is an opinion, it is not fact or evidence. It is their opinion that abortions should be counted as a cause of death. I would argue the patent foolishness of that - any miscarriage would also have to be counted and abortions would have a 100% fatality rate, both of these points would render the act of collecting health statistics for public health safety utterly pointless and would endanger women's lives (something I've found pro-lifers to not care very much about). The only reason to do it is more linguistic trickery so that the pro-life lobby can shout muderer all the louder.
  3. Avatar for P W
    P W
    What, no pining for dismantling the Great Wall of China and Hadrian's Wall?
  4. Avatar for Brian Sanderson
    Brian Sanderson
    Anthropogenic impact on ecosystems scales as human population. The wall is a second order matter. It's just bad science to ignore that which is first-order in favor of playing politics with that which is second-order. Indeed, Brian Owens and Nature have published an article that, to borrow a phrase from Wolfgang Pauli, is "not even wrong".
  5. Avatar for Barbara Miller
    Barbara Miller
    I doubt Trump means a solid wall because of the rough country it would more be a heavy metal fence with barbed wire across the top. That would discourage illegal aliens along with terrorist from sneaking into the country like they are doing now being escorted in by drug cartels that drop them off at spots inside the U.S. where they pick up their rides to the interior of the country. The Border Patrol only arrests half of the illegals that make it inside the country because they can't catch all of them. If you want to know just how bad things are ask some of the ranchers that live along any of the border states.
  6. Avatar for SRB
    SRB
    Well as with all his policies we can't be sure what he means because he never provides specifics, however fence or wall - it makes no difference for the animals trying to cross and the ecosystems disrupted by it. However, it, as all walls built for political reasons, will fail to stop people crossing. Trump is neither original in his thoughts or sophisticated his problem solving.
  7. Avatar for Nitin Gandhi
    Nitin Gandhi
    Unless "Nature" has strong conflict of Interest against Mr. Trump, I wonder how this kind of mediocre articles are published in such a reputed Journal Nature? This is the fourth article published in Nature in recent times, against Trump on flimsy grounds. I will not write more and waste my time, as I am sure Nature will keep on writing this kind of articles against Trump till the elections are over. (I do not favour either of Presidential candidate, but I write this as it is pain to see such stuff in Nature, and this is actually helping Mr.Trump)
  8. Avatar for SRB
    SRB
    You can't say a journal is anti-Trump and then say it's helping him. It's either swaying readers or it isn't. Saying someone is biased doesn't make it so (despite what Trump believes), saying an article is flimsy doesn't make it so (despite what Trump believes). The idea that politicians in both the US and increasingly the UK are allowed to propose stupid, dangerous and harmful policies and go unchecked by all media and journalists is patently ridiculous. The Republican party have disavowed facts and evidence - publically so - and Trump's policies are largely based on populism created by 20 years of GOP fear mongering, so by their very nature they tend to lack specifics, lack evidence for their benefit or their harm and it falls to others to point it out.
  9. Avatar for Dave McDave
    Dave McDave
    Scientific journal reports on the potential effects of the stated policies and thinking of a man who is potentially only a few months away from being in charge of one of the most scientifically dominant countries in the world? Shocker. Considering his dominance in world media right now, the number of articles on here about him is tiny. The fact you are so upset at one article per month suggests you are possibly not as unbaised as you say. Hardly seems like Nature are biased. Especially since Clinton saying “I believe in science. I believe that climate change is real.” Only got a footnote rather than a whole shiny article. Trump makes himself look bad to science and it gets reported on. Is there a single positive science based story that you can spin out of him?
  10. Avatar for Christian Appendini
    Christian Appendini
    Is this really a note for Nature? Shall we expect to read this type of stuff in the top journal of science? This is all speculation, not science. First that Trump will win, then that he will actually construct the wall. Can Nature News publish me a text saying how all the concrete used in Trump´s wall will accelerate global warming? Come on!
  11. Avatar for SRB
    SRB
    Wait you can't have a go at a journal for writing policy analysis before an election and then demand they produce you a policy analysis before an election on an issue you suddenly care about.
  12. Avatar for jj doent
    jj doent
    Any idea how tens of thousands of illegal immigrants randomly crossing the border threaten delicate desert ecosystems?
  13. Avatar for Dave McDave
    Dave McDave
    Almost certainly far less so than a wall. Especially as the wall would hardly stop people trying to sneak over anyway.

Internet winter is coming

bandwidth

The bandwidth bottleneck that is throttling the Internet

Researchers are scrambling to repair and expand data pipes worldwide — and to keep the information revolution from grinding to a halt.

Newsletter

The best science news from Nature and beyond, direct to your inbox every day.

Replications, ridicule and a recluse

Han

The controversy over NgAgo gene-editing intensifies

As failures to replicate results using the CRISPR alternative stack up, a quiet scientist stands by his claims.

Long in the tooth

shark

Near-blind shark is world’s longest-lived vertebrate

Greenland shark found to be at least 272 years old.

Expanded editing

beyond-crispr

Beyond CRISPR: A guide to the many other ways to edit a genome

The popular technique has limitations that have sparked searches for alternatives.

Exclusion zone

brexit

E-mails show how UK physicists were dumped over Brexit

Researchers dropped from EU grant proposal because UK inclusion would ‘compromise’ project.

Nature Podcast

new-pod-red

Listen

This week, the migration route of the first Americans, the bandwidth crisis, clever conductors, and the next CRISPR.