The El Nino of 2026 has brought a lot of heat and drought to Europe especially France has been hit. So this is on top of climate change moving warmth north so quick that nature has trouble adapting.. Many alarms have rung and even government seems to be reacting. The plan is to tap into the groundwater and create megabassins. Those are giant agricultural open air swimming pools with outrageous evaporation levels and anti-algae chemicals to help out big industrial farmers spray their continuous monocrops. They’re known for drying up all the natural springs and lowering groundwater to levels where forests can’t keep up and die off. But… Money can be made, so lucky go happy for the happy few and bad luck for communities already struggling.
Instead of being angry at the bad guys we’re planning ahead and our idea is to grow Mediterranean species of oaks, have them cross with local trees and create hybrid swarms of the future to be resistant to heat and drought, but cold as well. Because as some predict, the changing gulf streams might bring cold winters back to Europe and some speak of solar activity diminishing. I guess nobody knows the future really. But we’re preparing.
I hope people here reading this might chime in with whatever comments to have their say. Or just read and spread the word to who needs to hear.Or maybe you are from around the mediterranean or similar climate and we can get some communication going in private about shipping seeds. I’m all ears.
The traits you are looking for in the hybrids already exist in many species.
The climate/weather many places have been experiencing is very normal weather in other places (like Texas, and much of the South/Central United States)
Bur Oak (Quercus macrocarpa) would be a great species to consider.
It’s cold hardy, heat/drought tolerant, and there are even already selections for low tannins and improved edible acorns.
Re the insane water projects: this is the era for bad ideas to come to fruition. I really begin to think that we truly are in the Kaliyuga Age of Destruction.
It’s quite likely that humans have been assisting the migration of plant species since before we were human. It’s quite natural to plant the seeds of things that you like. Squirrels do it, and we diverged from our common ancestor a very long time ago. Squirrels can wander considerable distances to plant a nut, so they are very effective helpers.
I myself spend a lot of time collecting nuts that are native here, and planting them. On occasions when i travel and have the opportunity to gather nuts, I do that too. Sometimes when I get overwhelmed with the quantity I’ve gathered, i start tossing them in likely places rather than planting them.
Times when I’ve too busy for even that, I have just left the nuts where I know squirrels will find them. They plant a lot of them, and my observation is that they are very good at identifying good spots to plant them.
Working-with, rather than against, nature is my preference. I think that bringing in genetic diversity from other regions is a valid strategy but it’s not a major focus for me. I also think that it’s largely a numbers game. The more seeds you plant, the more likely something will grow that is adaptive. You can boost the success of germination pretty dramatically with fairly minimal efforts, so that’s probably worthwhile.
some parts of north america already have this large contrast of temperature between summer and winter , this is why I was recommended to sow species of trees from these regions. I have grow many young trees of the CARYA species for example.
It will take them 15 years to come to maturity and start flowering and by that time, the climate might be ok for them… they need heat in the summer.
and if they don’t produce nuts, they will still produce an excellent wood…
just an example.
and since you mentionned el nino, just note that el nino 2026 has not yet reached europe. This summer was not influenced by el nino. next year maybe…
Quercus macrocarpa was doing well until about 10 years ago… Today, the oaks that perform well in France are wizlizeni, agrifolia, miquihuanensis… and all oaks native to drier regions.
I notice a discrepancy between what grows in the United States and Europe under similar current climatic conditions. So we need species adapted to drier conditions.
I can’t really explain it: perhaps it’s related to the geographic origins of the first trees introduced? Or to their genetics, which may have become depleted on our continent due to insufficient genetic diversity (are the trees being propagated from just a few individuals derived from those introductions and are they degenerating as a result?)? Or could it be due to our different soil microorganisms?
In any case, I’m working here in France on oaks and their hybridization because the possibilities and ease of crossbreeding are simply magnificent for these trees of the future.
I’m linking to a study on the topic of assisted migration by an American team
and also to the concept of “syngameon” in oaks, which is a fascinating new idea that challenges the traditional concept of botanical species classification. landrace the oaks !
That is interesting. It is one of the more drought tolerant species used here in Texas and I’ve seen it preferred for the same in New Mexico.
It does have a very wide range across the U.S.
Maybe the trees came from a more Northern/Eastern ecotype.
This species does indeed have a vast natural range stretching from Canada to southern Texas… It’s possible that we’ve introduced a northern ecotype into Europe, given its response to drought.
That’s why we need to genetically diversify and import new seeds from drier locations than our current one.
I am currently studying promising oak species, cross-referencing their natural ranges with climate data. This is very informative because some species have a wide distribution but occur in areas with low range of rainfall variation(Quercus canbyi, 450–600 mm), while others are found in areas with extremely high range of rainfall variation (Quercus crassifolia, 280–1500 mm).
Therefore, some species are much more resilient than others.
I’m looking for someone who lives in and explores the remote areas of the following states:
USA: California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas
MEXICO: Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila
I’m interested in the wild plants (trees, shrub,…) that grow there and am looking for some seeds.
Please contact me via private message. 
What I do in western Illinois zone 6a, is collect acorns and nuts from native trees in the region. I don’t travel great distances, but I figure that a population of trees that is several miles away, up to maybe 50 miles away, is going to have some genetic diversity compared to my neighborhood population. So I collect those and plant them.
I’m not bringing in species that aren’t native to my region. I’m trying to mix up the genetics of the ones that are already here. I figure that the ones that are already here have weathered extremes in the past. They probably have genes that they can call upon in order to adapt. Boosting the genetic diversity can’t hurt.
A lot of environmental problems have been caused around here by past, well intended introductions of non native species “to improve habitat” or “prevent erosion.” So now we have species like Japanese honeysuckle, kudzu, buckthorn, autumn olive, tree of heaven, Bradford/Callary Pear, and multiflora rose that are extremely invasive. There are also numerous invasive forbs and grasses that were introduced at some point to “improve” outcomes. These invasive species are indeed very well adapted to current circumstances. They outcompete the natives.
However, the problem is that the native ecosystem didn’t coevolve with these newcomers. That means that the newcomers provide very few ecological services compared to the native plants.
This in turn has created a cascading and disastrous effect of severely reducing habitat and populations of native fauna and native plants. Songbird and wildflower populations have plummeted, etc.
In my opinion these well-intended but disastrous introductions of non native species stand as a stark warning about the perils of a lack of self-awareness of our own ignorance, our cultural predisposition toward hubris, and the unfortunate fact that we can make situations a lot worse by acting impulsively.
I completely understand this kind of comment that tends to favor native plants . I hear them all the time in professional circles, but I’ll try to shed some light on the subject.
First of all, if we were to stop there, we wouldn’t eat anything in Europe—or on any other continent. Almost all vegetables are domesticated plants originating from other continents.
As for wild plants, for centuries, explorers have brought back thousands of plants from their travels to test them in botanical gardens. Many have disappeared; some have provided us with food and medicine; and yes, a few have become invasive (less than 1%) after contributing to human development (Ailanthus altissima = silkworm farming, Fallopia japonica = food packaging…).
Due to a lack of knowledge about flora and climate history, many people imagine that what we call “native plants” have always existed as they do today. But this is a major misconception: when we analyze fossil pollen, we see that Europe was once home to tree ferns, and at another time, a tundra with nothing but mosses… In short, natural vegetation evolves in response to climate changes, but also to the movement of tectonic plates.
Today, for the first time in history, the climate is changing faster than plants can naturally disperse. For example, right now in Europe, the southern climate is shifting 8 km northward, while plants can naturally migrate only a few hundred meters.
If you’re thinking of going a little further to collect seeds and planting them to establish them in your area, that’s a good strategy.
Let’s imagine you’re very young and have children who will always stay in the same place. Early in your life, you’ll use seeds that have arrived through natural migration from Kentucky to Illinois; then, in a few decades, from Tennessee to Illinois; then, a few decades later, from Mississippi and Louisiana to Illinois… and your children’s seeds will come from Texas, Nuevo León, Tamaulipas… to Illinois.
At what point will you decide whether you’re still working with local or “exotic” species?
In a world that’s constantly changing and evolving, it’s impossible to remain static.
Let’s take France as an example. The flora is blocked to the south by the Pyrenees and the Alps (mountains with very high peaks), which prevent natural migration from Spain and Italy. Then there’s the Mediterranean Sea, which prevents natural migration from North Africa.
Solution 1: We do nothing; we prevent any new introductions. And when all the plants have arrived from the south and continue to spread northward… we’ll end up with a desert like the Sahara.
Solution 2: We seek out plants from southern Spain, southern Italy, Morocco… we plant them in our gardens and monitor them. We remove any that become invasive.
We let nature take its course if it decides to integrate genes into local species that want to survive here, if it decides that these species are now better adapted than the original ones…
I agree with you that this work shouldn’t be done without careful consideration, without supervision, or by just anyone. Foresters, scientists, botanists, and ecologists must be involved.
Yesterday, ecologists were up in arms over assisted migration… But today, observations suggest that assisted migration will help save species.
When a new species of butterfly arrives from the south to survive (its habitat in the south has changed too much), and its caterpillars don’t yet have the right plants to survive… the species goes extinct.
On the other hand, when a few gardeners have the right plants in their gardens… the species survives.
We’re even seeing new species of birds and insects migrating north from the south and adapting by feeding on plant species from other continents, since that’s the only food available.
So yes, I’m taking the risk of bringing in plants from the southern U.S. and Mexico simply because, based on my observations, they’re currently thriving and adapting better than local species to a climate that’s changing very rapidly here—faster than in some other parts of the world.
In our DNA, we carry remnants of several hominid species that interbred over the course of migrations. It is this genetic diversity that makes humanity so powerful.
So if tomorrow the Burgundy oaks could continue to thrive here by incorporating drought-resistant genes from Mexican oaks, if they could have more resilient leaves like those of Texas scrub oaks…
maybe they could even become so resilient that they would come to dominate humanity—and that would be the most wonderful thing that could ever happen to life on Earth! 
Another important point is that, as with any topic, it’s never simply YES or NO.
Everything I’ve said so far would be wrong if I lived on an island, or in a place on Earth with a high rate of species endemism, or in a nature reserve with rare, endangered species…
The risk of causing vulnerable species to go extinct would be too great.
It’s also a matter of perspective.
In Europe, it might seem questionable to go to Mexico—a country with incredible plant diversity—to collect seeds.
But from Mexico’s perspective—where many of its species are listed on the IUCN Red List and are endangered—scientists are fighting to create ex situ conservation programs (which means exporting these species in the hope of saving them). This seems like an incredible opportunity to send them to more favorable climates, to areas unaffected by deforestation or urbanization… simply to areas where we can safeguard them, with the possibility of reintroducing them later.
So we must not act like plunderers of nature… let’s observe, experiment on a small scale, document… and above all, share our opinions! 
I don’t believe that is accurate even within our recorded history, but especially not in all of history.
This planet has been through some pretty extreme and rapid events.
If you are talking about maintaining a healthy balance of useful plants for survival of societies, such as crop species, I could see that being a potential risk under relatively extreme change.
Let me correct that—sorry: for the first time in human history.
You’re right—before humans, yes, there were extreme and rapid events (asteroid collisions, volcanic eruptions, etc.), but all of that led to a decline in biodiversity (the extinction of the dinosaurs, etc.).
But throughout human history, all scientists agree that global warming is accelerating so fast.
But here again, we need to qualify this by location on Earth, since we’re talking about averages.
In your area, things may be going well for flora and fauna, with perhaps a stable situation in the southeastern U.S., while in other areas, a rise of +2.5°C is catastrophic.
It’s also a matter of timing: on this map, we’re at +1.5/+1.75°C between 1901 and 2012, but in the summer of 2026, we are experiencing a warming of +3.6°C compared to the normal climate!
If, as humans, we can prevent the loss of biodiversity by relocating it, I think we should do so. Especially since the current situation is our fault—we have a responsibility to limit our mistakes.
I know very little about Europe… or most of the world for that matter. Certainly, people have the right to do what they need to do in order to survive. However, I find that often people are oblivious to solutions that are literally right under their nose, favoring instead complicated, laborious, fragile solutions.
For example in the region where i live, even now we have a wealth of indigenous trees such as oak, hickory, walnut, hazelnut, persimmon, etc that generate huge amounts of high quality food with practically no human intervention. Yet the humans here expend tremendous resources growing crops like corn and soybeans which aren’t well adapted for here. These crops require staggering amounts of all sorts of inputs, and even then they are subject to frequent crop failures that have given rise to elaborate, government subsidized crop insurance schemes.
But the people complain about the mess from the bounty of indigenous food that is dropping at their feet. And they treat it like trash to be discarded. I could give many other examples of indigenous foods. Cattails, arrowroot, and many others that easily grow at scale. But if anything, people try to eradicate them with herbicide and other means, in favor of laboriously cultivating exotic crops at industrial scale, at huge environmental cost. This is the legacy of colonialism.
I think it likely that even in Europe there exist refugia of ecologically native food plants in isolated areas. I know for sure that’s the case in North America. Even in a worsening climate, one can create microclimates that are more favorable, plant into them, and expand the size of the oasis.
In other words I’m saying that people put an awful lot of effort into causing themselves problems, then they complain about the problems. Meanwhile, easy solutions are literally under their nose, but the people are actively trying to eradicate those solutions.
It’s frustrating to me how resistant people are to absorbing information. I think a lot of them are destined to experience very hard times. But it didn’t need to be that way.
I think we each hold a part of the solution!
1/ Make do with what we have available locally as long as possible
2/ Have a Plan B and plan for the future with resources from elsewhere that will be adapted tomorrow and require no effort (even if adapting them today takes effort).
Your observation is valid—until the day a crisis strikes, and when a crisis strikes, it’s too late or the resources are no longer available to implement Plan B.
I spent the first summer of my life (at age 45) without harvesting anything from my garden—not a single piece of food—amid a tense international climate regarding diplomacy and energy. So I’d like to ensure a secure food supply in the future not only for my household and my community, but also for all the living creatures around me (insects, birds, etc.).
Clearly, making do with what’s right in front of me is no longer enough and is no longer feasible (no wild fruit or plants to harvest, since everything has been scorched as I write these lines). You’re certainly right to say that we’ve overcomplicated things, since 90% of all the vegetables grown in Europe have come from other continents for centuries. But it was our ancestors’ choice to feed themselves with what came from afar rather than the few local wild roots.
Now we must move forward, develop the genetic diversity of these plants, and also seek to introduce new ones (This is a personal opinion, not a scientific fact).
Over the centuries and through various migrations, North America owes much of its food supply and flora to South America. I understand, however, that all of this might seem irrelevant or absurd to someone who lives in a part of the world rich in natural biodiversity, without major climate upheavals.
But if I may just offer a bit of advice and share my experience… Just last year, everything was still going well, and then the situation suddenly took a turn by climate on “OFF”. Even though I’d been keeping an eye on these issues, I was caught off guard.
I know there’s a lot of debate on the temperatures reached during the medieval warm period but we do know they were able to farm wheat and grapes at much higher latitudes than we are able to currently.
And as far as the speed of change, I think even in the chart you provided (MWP, LIA) there have been swings in temperature similar to recent rates of change.
I agree we should adapt. And it will be very dependant on location. I think water is a much more concerning issue, where the areas that become warmer and dryer will see the most loss. Other places may gain productivity and/or diversity of crops available to them depending on whatever changes may occur.
We see the same patterns around local climate and crop/societal failures. And we see migrations, invasions, and wars as a result.
With the global population size we have achieved it is probably people, and their reaction to systemic failure, which is more dangerous in any scenario rather than the initial failure itself.
Sudden widespread plant death is a very scary prospect to contemplate. I hope that your ecosystem can recover. You may be correct that in some extreme cases, the change will be so severe that entirely foreign plants will be needed. I hope i don’t have to experience something like that.
I think you’re absolutely right…
It will be much easier to deal with a single species that has become invasive on my property than to have to deal with half the residents going crazy because they didn’t anticipate the systemic failure. 
It’s a fascinating topic, and everyone has their own perspective to share.
Here are two great videos on the subject by European experts whom I sometimes have the opportunity to interact with when about plants in my job.
1/ speak (english) about : invasive/non invasive, assisted migration
2/ speak (french) about : invasive/non invasive, interaction between exotic plants and local wildlife
There are in my mind different ways people look at invasive species..
Being one of the most invasive species myself, i do have a lot to say about it, but i will keep it short before derailing the topic . In todays globalized world if we want it or not, species move all over. Collectors, gardeners, people bring seeds home from holiday and decide to dump them in the garden.
The main species we’re focused on now is the oak. That’s because it’s a keystone species in our forest systems. It’s a haven for biodiversity, be it in the canopy, it’s trunk or belowground with forming mycorrhizal fungi.
Despite being a dominant species, it hardly behaves in the way we as humans observe invasiveness (subjectly). It does not layer itself, it takes quite some years to become reproductive, their seeds do not disperse for miles regularly, they do not posses prickles or tangle themselves around other trees, they get browsed upon by herbivores of differing kinds, they take years to become of considerable size and when cut back mostly die, they rarely sucker unless you count the species of shrubby oaks that was discovered somewhere on this planet. It took a whopping 13thousand years to cover half a mile. Not impressing at all…
I’m not saying it’s impossible we happen to create that Franken-oak that covers the whole of Eurasian subcontinent in a fast growing thicket of impenetrable vining and prickly leafed suckering nightmare of a tree that rodents and birds cannot stop moving the seeds about hundreds of miles from the first infectious place of horror. Woman on the phone: ‘I can’t open the door to my vehicle boss, yesterday there was nothing growing , i swear, the car looks like it’s been swallowed alive! I’ve been hatching it all morning, it just grows back when i turn my back..’ It would just be my luck. But it’s highly unlikely.
Realisticly i think we should be able to create a species with a bit more rapid reproduction rate with a level of drought tolerance which highly exceeds present levels. Like Stephane says a tree of the forest of the future.