The Trump Wall could be devastating for wildlife and endangered species along the Mexican border

The fight continues on Donald Trump's request to extend the border wall between the United States and Mexico: one thing is clear: whatever effect the wall has on immigration, it would have an impact on the environment of the border areas.

About 650 miles of boundary wall already exist along the 2,000-mile border between the two countries. Most of it was built on federal lands where the land is not a natural barrier. Mr. Trump called for a 1,000-mile wall, which would extend further to lands with important wildlife habitats.

A customs and border protection policy states that the agency will "integrate environmental management and sustainability practices into operations and activities". But Congress gave him the power to lift environmental protections such as the Endangered Species Act. Such laws could require the government to produce a thorough badysis of the environmental impact of a new project, develop less damaging alternatives and conduct post-construction environmental monitoring.

A customs and border protection spokesperson was not available due to the partial closure of the government following the political stalemate surrounding the financing of the wall.

An article published last year in the journal Bioscience, which was signed by more than 2,900 scientists, said the administration's plan "would threaten some of the continent's most biologically rich regions" by blocking the free flow of many species and contributing to floods. According to the newspaper, more than 1,500 native animal and plant species are affected by the wall, 62 of which are listed as endangered or vulnerable.

Here are some of the possible effects of a long boundary wall on wildlife.

The animals would be cut

An extended boundary wall would hinder the movement of many species and endanger creatures already under pressure.

Aaron D. Flesch, a researcher at the University of Arizona, said he was undoubtedly convinced that endless human inventors could climb a wall. But it would block many creatures on all fours, he said.

Even some birds flying at low altitude, such as the Ferruginous Pygmy Owl, could have problems. "You think a bird will fly over a wall, but that's not necessarily the case," said Flesch.

Animals must be able to move, find food and partners, among others. An outbreak of fire or disease, or the pressures of climate change, can force them to look for new housing. And the pockets of the landscape that suit them can be widely dispersed.

Small endangered animal populations – such as the gray wolf of Mexico or the lobo and Sonoran plum – can be stranded on either side of the border, leaving some species more likely to s & d. # 39; extinguished. "For a creature that has almost disappeared in the United States, you need to promote connectivity, not reduce it," said Flesch.

Even insects and plants could be affected

A curb wall can also affect insects flying at low altitude. Researchers at the University of Texas have named the endangered wildflower Zapata fleabane, the endangered cactus, the whiskerbush, as particularly endangered, and the National Wildlife Federation, among others, the National Wildlife Federation. Wildlife Federation.

Many pollinators are already declining due to habitat loss, said Scott Hoffman Black, executive director of the Xerces Society, a conservation organization focused on invertebrates. "This is another problem that will stress bees and butterflies, they are already stressed by many problems," he said. Long and new sections of walls, with well-defined "control zones" to the south, could be an obstacle for many small travelers.

Another expert expressed doubts that the wall itself would be a major obstacle to flying insects, but added that the wall would nevertheless be a huge problem for some of them.

The expert, David L. Wagner, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Connecticut, noted that most insects can fly high enough to overcome a wall. But the range of lights that would be part of such a construction, he said, would disrupt the life of nocturnal creatures like moths and even vertebrates that depend on darkness.

"Light pollution is proving to be a real problem for nocturnal animals," he said. "You pull on the fabric of these ecosystems."

Of course, there are illuminated buildings in many places. But Mr Wagner said there was little difference between a border wall and a Walmart. Anyway, he said, "It's a mbadacre."

Wildlife refuges can be divided

The construction would disrupt several lands designated as part of the national wildlife sanctuary system, as well as other treasures such as the National Butterfly Center, a private nature reserve located along the Rio Grande in Mission, Texas. Construction of the 100-acre sanctuary could begin as early as next month, dividing approximately 70 acres of the US portion of the site.

After protests from environmentalists and local officials, Congress voted last year to protect an environmental jewel, the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge, an "ecological hub" for migratory birds near McAllen, Texas, by refusing the money needed for the wall through it.

But environmentalists say the areas that will not be protected will be vast and the biodiversity loss will go well beyond the thin line of the border. As Texas Monthly Express it, "Funding through the federal border wall saves wildlife refuge, but not much else".

Tourism money could be lost

Due to the richness of the environment along many stretches of the border, the region attracts tourists for hunting and fishing and, to a great extent, for ecotourism.

Ornithologists have spotted more than 500 species in the four counties of the lower Rio Grande Valley. A 2011 study by Texas A & M University estimated that birdwatching and other forms of environmental tourism accounted for more than $ 344 million (£ 263 million) in activity region and about 4,400 jobs.

The authors of the article Bioscience, including Mr Flesch, said the government should protect the "cultural value" of border areas. "National security can and must be pursued with an approach that preserves our natural heritage," they wrote.

The New York Times