<h2>THE BIRDS AND THE B52S</h2>
Each year <a href="https://wildlife.faa.gov/downloads/Wildlife-Strike-Report-1990-2015.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">thousands of birds</a> collide with airplanes, dying in the process. Unfortunately, we haven&#8217;t been able to figure out an effective way to help the animals survive alongside humans in the not-so-friendly skies.
That may be changing, though. A team from Purdue University has uncovered a simple solution to the problem of bird collisions, at least for one species: <a href="https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2018/Q3/millions-of-birds-die-in-collisions-each-year,-but-lights-could-change-that.html">adding red or blue LEDs to planes</a>.
<h2>BIRD&#8217;S EYE</h2>
The Purdue team described their experiment in a <a href="https://peerj.com/articles/5404/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">study</a> published this week in the journal PeerJ. They cut two holes in a large board, one on the left side and one on the right, and positioned a large LED light next to each. Each LED could shine in five different wavelengths of light: ultraviolet, blue, green, red, and white.
Then they let a brown-headed cowbird go and observed which hole it chose to fly through, given various choices of LED lights. They chose the species because it is commonly involved in plane collisions and has a visual system well-suited to this kind of experimentation.
They found that the birds consistently avoided a hole if it was lit by an LED that appears blue or red to the human eye — a clue that those colors could be used to deter birds from flying toward airplanes.
<h2>FLOCK TOGETHER</h2>
Planes aren&#8217;t the only man-made objects birds collide with while flying — they also slam into buildings, wind turbines, power lines, cars, and more.
As our urban areas sprawl to encroach on areas inhabited by wildlife, placing more of these animals in harm&#8217;s way. If we want to ensure our structures don&#8217;t diminish bird populations, we&#8217;ll need a better way to deter the animals from approaching them, and LEDs look like they could be a viable option.
READ MORE: <a href="https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2018/Q3/millions-of-birds-die-in-collisions-each-year,-but-lights-could-change-that.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Millions of Birds Die in Collisions Each Year, but Lights Could Change That</a> [Purdue University]
More on bird collisions: <a href="https://futurism.com/videos/these-robots-chase-birds-away-from-airports/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">These Robots Chase Birds Away From Airports</a>

Researchers identify the two colors of light that could best keep birds away from planes.

Planes kill huge numbers of birds. LEDs could save their lives.

Hard Science

Preventing bird collisions with planes and other manmade objects could be as simply as adding red or blue LEDs to our creations.

Planes Kill Huge Numbers of Birds. LEDs Could Save Their Lives.

This simple solution could help our feathered friends survive the skies.

Despite how much they know about the natural world, ecologists and wildlife experts sit atop a treasure trove of unexamined information. They&#8217;re collecting a ton or data about the natural world, but it&#8217;s incredibly daunting (and, often, very tedious) to go through it all and figure out what it means.
One way they&#8217;re collecting data: Motion-capture cameras. They&#8217;re set up in the wild and are taking millions of photos of animals doing, well, animal things in their natural habitats. Once analyzed, they could reveal undiscovered patterns of behavior, or show us how to better protect the environment. But for the most part, we can&#8217;t be more specific about what those &#8220;animal things&#8221; are, because it takes people thousands of mind-numbing hours to sort through and analyze all of these photos.
Now, though, we might find out the lessons from those snapshots. Using an artificial intelligence system, scientists found a way to automate the whole process — their algorithm can recognize 48 different animal species and determine what that animal is doing in each photo, <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/06/04/1719367115">according to new research</a> published in PNAS.
Those mind-numbing hours of sifting through photos? Scientists wouldn&#8217;t usually do it themselves. Often, they would rely on science-curious volunteers who agreed to look through and tag pictures. One group with a network of cameras, <a href="https://www.zooniverse.org/projects/zooniverse/snapshot-serengeti">Snapshot Serengeti</a>, that relies on citizen scientists to tag them, provided the millions of animal photos and their descriptions. The AI system went through those previously tagged photos and learned to identify species such as wildebeest and gazelle, and their actions, such as resting, eating, or interacting with each other. After sifting through all those photos, the AI system was practically as good as a person at tagging new photos recorded in the wild.
More specifically, the new classification tool is right 99.3 percent of the time. Human volunteers generally perform about 0.3 percent better. But the AI system&#8217;s lowered performance came from particularly difficult photos, like the close up of an impala&#8217;s leg that the AI mistook for a zebra. If those photos are left to the humans, the AI handles the rest just as well as the crowd-sourcing volunteers do. And even with that little bit of human assistance, the AI can classify the Snapshot Serengeti photoset in 17,000 fewer hours than it would take a team of humans to do the whole thing, according to the researchers’ calculations.
This new algorithm and other time-saving tools could completely change the game for biologists and ecologists. Lots of scientific discoveries happen when researchers dig back through the archives, and problems with wildlife observation leave gaps in our knowledge of the world. For instance, scientists only confirmed last year that <a href="https://www.inverse.com/article/32512-aardvark-drinking-water-spotted">wild aardvarks drink water</a>, because no one had seen it happen.
Taking a big data approach to wildlife conservation might give us new strategies for how to better protect ecosystems that modern industrialization and development have been slowly killing. By using artificial intelligence to learn as much as we can — and more quickly than we could have only with a team of human volunteers — about how these animals act and interact, ecologists may find new ways to keep them alive as the world changes around them.

The algorithm can do menial tasks that would take humans thousands of work hours.

AI that counts and identifies wildlife could be a game-changer for ecologists

Earth & Energy

A deep-learning artificial intelligence algorithm is practically as good at classifying wildlife photos as people and may improve conservation projects.

AI That Counts And Identifies Wildlife Could Be A Game-changer For Ecologists

Letting an algorithm monitor motion-sensor cameras could change how we handle conservation.

Facial recognition tech doesn&#8217;t have to be <a href="https://futurism.com/smart-eye-china-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">creepy or dystopian</a>. We can actually use it for good.
Case in point: Researchers at Michigan State University (MSU) developed a facial recognition software program that could help save the lives of endangered primates. They published <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.08790.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">their research via arXiv</a>.
Tracking is an essential part of <a href="https://wildlifeact.com/about-wildlife-act/wildlife-tracking-and-monitoring/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wildlife conservation efforts</a>. Traditionally, conservationists capture and tag animals with tracking devices in order to keep tabs on them. This approach can be costly — devices range in price from $400 to $4,000, <a href="https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2018/msu-technology-and-app-could-help-endangered-primates-slow-illegal-trafficking/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according to the MSU researchers</a>. They say it can also harm the animals, causing stress, physical injuries, or even death.
The MSU team&#8217;s software, which they call PrimNet, avoids these drawbacks of traditional tracking.
<figure id="attachment_131828" style="width: 1200px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img class="size-large wp-image-131828" src="https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2018/05/Lemur-1200x800.jpg" alt="PrimNet" width="1200" height="800" /><figcaption class="wp-caption-text">Image Credit: MSU</figcaption></figure>
To create PrimNet, the researchers started by generating an image dataset for three species of primate — golden monkeys, lemurs, and chimpanzees — taking thousands of photos of the animals in the wild. Next, they used this dataset to train a neural network to recognize the individual animals.
The researchers built a corresponding app, PrimID, to make their PrimNet system easy to use. Wildlife researchers or conservationists simply snap a photo of an animal and drop it into the app. Then, the system either produces a match — which the MSU team claim is 90 percent accurate — or, if it can&#8217;t find an exact match, it narrows the field down to five likely candidates.
The MSU team is already looking toward the future of PrimNet. &#8220;Moving forward, we plan to enlarge our primate datasets, develop a primate face detector, and share our efforts through open-source websites,” Anil Jain, senior author on the study, said in a press release.
With more than 60 percent of endangered primates on the brink of extinction, we don&#8217;t have time to waste if we want to save these animals. Not only could PrimNet help prevent future losses, it does so with the added bonus of being non-invasive. Nothing creepy or dystopian about that.

It's far less invasive than traditional tracking methods.

New facial recognition software tracks and protects endangered primates

Red Colobuse Monkey

Artificial Intelligence

Researchers from MSU created PrimNet, a software program that uses facial recognition technology to identify endangered primates for conservation efforts.

New Facial Recognition Software Tracks and Protects Endangered Primates

Snap a pic, and this app can ID the individual animal.

Good news: About fifteen percent of the planet’s landmass is designated as a protected area where threatened wildlife should be able to live free of disruption. Bad news: Humanity seems to have missed the memo.
Over a third of the land officially designated as protected is facing “intensive human activity,” according to research <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6390/788">published today in Science</a>. That means that allegedly-preserved areas — so designated for their crucial role as habitats for endangered or threatened species — are being damaged. By tourists, loggers, developers, miners, farmers, and all other sorts of people who have decided to leave their mark.
In fact, the only protected areas that aren’t facing human-induced devastation are those far from human habitation, according to the new research and <a href="https://www.nature.com/news/biodiversity-the-ravages-of-guns-nets-and-bulldozers-1.20381">existing work</a> to analyze ecosystem health.
So, congratulations everyone — we haven’t screwed up northeastern Greenland (yet).
In an article that they wrote for <a href="https://theconversation.com/one-third-of-the-worlds-nature-reserves-are-under-threat-from-humans-96721">The Conversation</a>, the researchers call for conservationists to hold national governments accountable, while also demanding transparent, honest assessments of areas crucial for biodiversity and a functioning ecosystem (but subject to the whims of political and economic leaders).
The protected areas that face the worst human-related damage are the ones given their &#8220;protected&#8221; designations before the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. Those regions were likely to be smaller pockets — ecological “islands” — of preserved space that don’t accurately reflect and meet the needs of the plants and animals who live there and may be cut off from nearby populations as a result. Also, the areas that were protected before 1992 were subject to weaker and more lenient rules.
Over half of these areas have faced growing pressure from human activity, according to the new research. Meanwhile, areas protected after the Convention on Biological Diversity was ratified have fared somewhat better. Of note: Many of those areas encompass larger expanses of land than the ones to receive protection before them.
What&#8217;s all this mean? Above all else, it means we need to impose stricter rules on ourselves, because we just can’t seem to keep ourselves from screwing up the planet at every turn. Calling something &#8220;protected&#8221; isn&#8217;t enough — we have to enforce laws around it. If we viewed damage to the planet&#8217;s protected areas the same way we viewed damage to one&#8217;s property or home, people might be more reluctant to engage in environmentally-damaging behaviors. And after all, what&#8217;s the planet — for now — if it isn&#8217;t our home?

New research shows that over a third of protected areas are at risk from human activity all the same.

As it turns out, environmentally 'protected' lands really aren't

Over a third of global protected lands are facing intense human activity, such as logging and development. To preserve them, we need stricter protections.

As It Turns Out, Environmentally ‘Protected’ Lands Really Aren’t

Over a third of global protected lands are facing "intensive human activity."

Around the world, large predators at the top of their respective food chains are on the move. Recently, animals like alligators, otters, killer whales, mountain lions, and wolves have turned up in new, surprising places.
These new habitats, as it turns out, are a lot like their old ones — well, they are their old ones, the ones they occupied before humans dramatically reduced their populations. And that shows that humans have done something right for the environment for once.
&nbsp;
Large predators may be expanding into their previously-occupied habitats thanks to successful conservation programs, according to new research <a href="https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(18)30430-5?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982218304305%3Fshowall%3Dtrue">published in Current Biology</a>. Predators been found in habitats we don&#8217;t usually associate with them — mountain lions have turned up in grasslands, sea otters  in areas without kelp forests — but these were the environments these species used to inhabit, when their populations were larger. If individuals are now hanging out there, it&#8217;s a sign that there are enough of the animals for them to spread out and repopulate those areas.
We did it, right? Conservation efforts can cease and we can all go about our lives. Well, maybe we ought to hold off, especially since we live in a world where people look for any excuse to <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/dinograndoni/alaska-hunting-bear-wolf-airplanes?utm_term=.lfxOmoGeb#.tymaV9jw2">shoot wolves from airplanes</a> and recently stoned a kangaroo to death <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2018/04/20/a-kangaroo-wouldnt-hop-so-zoo-visitors-stoned-it-to-death/?noredirect=on&amp;utm_term=.c9d109bb3d44">for not hopping enough</a>.
So we can celebrate that previously-threatened animals are returning to pre-human-interference population levels, but let&#8217;s also keep the ball rolling. There’s no sign, at least not yet, that apex predators living in broader habitats poses any threat to people, though Quartz mentioned that more people have been <a href="https://qz.com/1273747/alligators-otters-and-killer-whales-are-repopulating-old-hunting-grounds-research-shows/">bitten by alligators</a> lately.
The best part? Letting these animals stay in their new (or original, depending how you look at it) habitats will actually make things easier for the conservationists of the future. The researchers found that many of the ecosystems that animals repopulated became more robust as a result. For example, sea otters who moved to estuaries without any kelp forests feed on crabs that, in turn, feed on slugs that eat algae. Without any otters, crabs had been eating too many of the slugs which let the algae grow rampant and <a href="https://nicholas.duke.edu/about/news/alligators-beach-killer-whales-rivers-get-used-it">smother local plant life</a>.
Solving a problem like that left with our own, blunt, human tools would cost time and money, not to mention the <a href="https://www.popsci.com/new-zealand-needs-to-kill-those-adorable-rabbits-on-its-sheep">virtual certainty of possibly catastrophic</a> unintended consequences. With predators like the sea otter back in place, some conservation problems are actually taking care of themselves.

We protected a lot of animals. Now we should make room for them.

Animals that used to be threatened are expanding back into their old habitats

Future Society

Large predators have been spreading out lately. New research suggests they're returning to the areas they lived before people drove them off.

Predators That Used To Be Threatened Are Expanding Back Into Their Old Habitats

That's good news. But it doesn’t mean we should stop protecting them.

We don&#8217;t appreciate what we have until it&#8217;s gone. Or, sometimes, until it&#8217;s almost gone. So consider this fair warning: it&#8217;s just about time to start appreciating the Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Australia, which is once again the subject of some doom-and-gloom findings.
Half of the Great Barrier Reef has bleached (read: died) due to global warming (read: our fault) since 2016, according to <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0041-2">research published yesterday</a> in Nature. The damage was greater than what would have been if it were just local weather or other short-term events, the researchers found.
This puts a serious dent in scientists&#8217; forecast of the reef&#8217;s long-term stability.
If you&#8217;re <a href="http://www.qm.qld.gov.au/microsites/biodiscovery/05human-impact/importance-of-coral-reefs.html">a fan of things like</a> less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, biodiversity, and coasts that aren&#8217;t rapidly eroded, this is bad news.
Which is why the researchers behind the study are calling for regulators to give the reef the same kinds of protections as they would to a species on the verge of extinction.
Often, when a plant or animal is on the verge of extinction, it is granted the legal protections of the Endangered Species Act. It&#8217;s intended to protect the organism itself, plus a bit of the habitat. This happens regardless of whether the forces pushing the species to die off are natural (why can’t we get pandas to bone?) or if it’s entirely our fault as we alter the climate too dramatically or the organisms to keep up (hang in there, polar bears!).
Over the past few years, researchers at the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has begun <a href="https://www.iucn.org/theme/ecosystem-management/our-work/red-list-ecosystemshttps://www.iucn.org/theme/ecosystem-management/our-work/red-list-ecosystems">ranking </a><a href="https://www.iucn.org/theme/ecosystem-management/our-work/red-list-ecosystems">entire ecosystems</a> the way we would species. Their Red List of Ecosystems, which they hope to complete by 2025, notes specific ecosystems of interest from “Least Concern” to “Endangered” all the way to “Collapsed” — the ecosystem equivalent of going extinct.
Listing ecosystems this way could help conservation groups prioritize their money and other resources. But one thing it doesn&#8217;t do? Actually protect a precarious ecosystem.
There&#8217;s no law to keep people from driving their boats over a reef, or logging a rainforest. Even if countries do pass a law, it only applies within a country&#8217;s borders; ecosystems often don&#8217;t fit quite so neatly within those. International treaties intended to <a href="https://unfccc.int/process/the-kyoto-protocol">mitigate climate change</a> exist, but participation is voluntary.
The International Union for Conservation of Nature can provide evidence-based recommendations. These are valuable, no question. But scientists have been providing legislators with recommendations for decades. And compared to the endless piles of cash from fossil fuel lobbyists, those recommendations haven’t gotten us too far.
In order to truly bring about change, conservation groups will need to lobby for legal protections to conserve large ecosystems in the same way they do individual species. This study shows they may have to work more loudly and quickly than they previously thought.

A recent study shows we've gotta work faster to protect the Great Barrier Reef.

To protect endangered coral reefs, researchers need legal recourse

Researchers who classify entire ecosystems as "endangered" should fight to get them the same legal backing granted to endangered species.

To Protect Endangered Coral Reefs, Researchers Need Legal Recourse

The Great Barrier Reef is dying way faster than researchers expected. That should make you scared — and hopping mad.

Pretty much any beautiful, unique element of an animal&#8217;s physiology only evolved to help that animal get laid. Peacocks and birds-of-paradise sport impressive feather displays, elephant seals have growths so they can roar louder during mating season, and dude-bros endlessly bench press in the hope that someone is watching.
But those unique developments might not be so great for the species as a whole. Researchers discovered that some species of crustaceans that had evolved traits to better attract mates went extinct ten times faster than species with fewer physical differences between males and females. An article about the research was published today in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0020-7">Nature.</a> If more experiments confirm these findings, it could mean that conservationists have to rethink which species they&#8217;re working to save.
Evolution is often summed up as “survival of the fittest,” but that&#8217;s a bit glib. It’s really the organisms that are able to reproduce — not necessarily those that are stronger or more successful predators — that get to pass on their genetic code to the next generation. For years, conservationists have debated whether or not animals with greater sexual dimorphism (those physical differences between males and females) were better-equipped to adapt and survive in the wild.
Until now, that debate has been restricted to studies of living organisms, because it can be difficult to tell an animal’s sex from fossil records. But the authors of the Nature study were able to find such differences in the fossils of cytheroid ostracods, a group of ancient crustaceans. In some species of these ostracods, the males and females looked very similar, but in other, particularly attractive species, the males had longer and larger shells.
It turns out that bigger isn’t always better. The researchers found that the species in which the males looked more different tended to go extinct after just a few thousand years — the blink of an eye, in evolutionary terms — while the other species lasted millions of years.
What gives? The researchers think that the species that survived longer had traits and physical that were were better suited to the challenges of their environment, instead of some comparably useless stuff to attracting a mate. That’s what allowed those species to be more successful at reproduction in the long run. Because what good is attracting a mate if you don&#8217;t survive long enough to get there?
That&#8217;s important because the researchers say that sexual selection is now a &#8220;substantial risk factor for extinction.&#8221;
It&#8217;s risky to change policy or practice on a single study. But if other studies come to similar conclusions, this may suggest that conservationists should readjust their priorities. Because even though an animal with gaudy male-female differences might not be endangered, these new findings suggest that it could still be at risk in the future, especially as many of the planet&#8217;s ecosystems change dramatically due to climate change.
And it could come down to us to save them from their sexy, sexy selves.

Animals that evolved traits explicitly for attracting a mate went extinct ten times faster.

Sexy species died off quicker. That has conservationists worried.

Conservationists may need to adjust their priorities because modern animals with gaudy male-female differences could be in similar danger.

Sexy Species Died Off Quicker. That Has Conservationists Worried.

A new study suggests that dramatic physical features might look cool, but less-sexy species survive.

<h2>A Family of Three</h2>
In Kenya, the world&#8217;s last male northern white rhino continues to <a href="https://www.apnews.com/ddfafdfe8ff24b7c9aaa2658fcfa1244" target="_blank" rel="noopener">battle health problems</a>. The fate of the species rests on this rhino, Sudan, and his two surviving family members, daughter Najin and granddaughter Fatu. Now, an international collaboration of scientists and conservationists is looking for ways to prevent the extinction of the species using <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/scientists-hope-save-northern-white-rhino-extinction-53546400" target="_blank" rel="noopener">in vitro fertilization (IVF)</a>.
The rhinos cannot reproduce naturally as Sudan has been infertile for years. This collaborative effort, which includes experts from the San Diego Zoo Global, the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, and South African company Embryo Plus, hopes to combine semen collected from dead northern white rhinos while they were still alive with the eggs of the last two surviving female rhinos to continue the species.
A female of a different subspecies, the southern white rhino, would serve as a surrogate mother to carry the child as both Najia and Fatu have physical ailments preventing them from carrying a pregnancy.
<figure style="width: 360px" class="wp-caption alignright"><a href="https://futurism.com/images/animals-that-went-extinct-in-the-21st-century-infographic/"><img src="https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2016/07/Homepage-Thumbnail-13-900x600.jpg" alt="Animals That Went Extinct In The 21st Century [Infographic]" ></a><figcaption class="wp-caption-text center"><a href="https://futurism.com/images/animals-that-went-extinct-in-the-21st-century-infographic/" target="_blank">Click to View Full Infographic</a></figcaption></figure>
Because of his infertility, Sudan&#8217;s death wouldn&#8217;t prevent the recovery of the northern white rhino species, Richard Vigne, CEO of the Ol Pejeta Conservancy where Sudan lives, told The Associated Press.
However, in vitro fertilization with the species will be difficult and could fail, so it is of the utmost importance that Najin and Fatu survive at least &#8220;until such time when the protocol or technique for in vitro fertilization has been perfected so that we can begin that process,&#8221; Vigne said.
In 2016, a cape buffalo gave birth to a calf conceived via IVF for the first time, and the technique is routinely used in the cattle industry. However, with limited genetic material, the stakes for the northern white rhino are higher. If the IVF fails, conservationists could be out of options.
<h2>Split Opinions</h2>
Those who support the northern white rhino IVF plan hope it <a href="https://futurism.com/videos/crisprs-gene-drive-could-revive-extinct-species-or-create-new-ones/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">could be used with other endangered species.</a> However, some conservationists think researchers should focus on saving species that are critically endangered due to poaching and humans moving into their native habitats.
Some groups, such at the London-based <a href="https://www.savetherhino.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Save the Rhino</a>, think the northern white rhino subspecies is too endangered to save.
&#8220;With small chance of healthy new calves, and limited place in their historic range to go, Save the Rhino believes that the best outcome will be to put our efforts and funding &#8211; including research into IVF &#8211; into saving the species which do still have a chance,&#8221; according to the group&#8217;s website.
<iframe width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rqReHUfVQKE?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Jo Shaw, an African rhino expert with the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) conservation group, echoed those concerns.
&#8220;The real fight for the survival of northern white rhinos in their natural habitat was lost over a decade ago,&#8221; she told The Associated Press. &#8220;Large mammals, like rhinos, should be seen as symbols of large functioning ecosystems, and we must focus our efforts and energy on their protection and ongoing survival within these vital landscapes around the globe.&#8221;
Those sentiments do not mean that continuing the northern white rhino species through IVF is impossible. Researchers just face an uphill battle due to the shortage of genetic material and high risk of failure.
Though it&#8217;s heavily poached and still considered a threatened species, the <a href="http://www.allaboutwildlife.com/white-rhino-saved-from-extinction" target="_blank" rel="noopener">southern white rhino species</a> survived near-extinction in the 19th century. Perhaps future conservation efforts will focus more heavily on prevention and protection, but it is still possible to save the northern white rhino.

It's a long shot, but it could save the species.

With IVF, the northern white rhino may not go extinct

Scientists think they might be able to use IVF, along with a surrogate from a similar subspecies, to save the northern white rhino from extinction.

With IVF, the Northern White Rhino May Not Go Extinct

There are three northern white rhinos left, and one is on his deathbed. 

<h2>More Than Honeybees</h2>
The importance of honeybees to agriculture and the pollination process is well known, and in recent years, a number of plans to <a href="https://futurism.com/videos/bees-dying-worldwide-way-save-them/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">save the declining honeybee population</a> and <a href="https://futurism.com/accidental-discovery-wipe-out-bees-worst-enemies/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">protect them from their foes</a> have emerged. However, based on a new study from a group of Cambridge researchers, we may want to think twice before stepping up to save this threatened species.
In a study <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.aar2269" target="_blank" rel="noopener">published in the journal </a><a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.aar2269" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Science</a>, the Cambridge group suggests that honeybees are actually contributing to the ever-increasing decline of other wild pollinator species. They say the public&#8217;s perception of the situation has been skewed by charity campaigns and media reports, which mistakenly conflate the plight of the honeybee with that of other wild pollinator species.
&#8220;Levels of wild pollinators, such as species of solitary bumblebee, moth, and hoverfly, continue to decline at an alarming rate. Currently, up to 50 percent of all European bee species are threatened with extinction,&#8221; said Jonas Geldmann, co-author of the study, <a href="https://www.eurekalert.org/emb_releases/2018-01/uoc-toh012318.php" target="_blank" rel="noopener">in a press release</a>.
<iframe width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ptha7rcrHQI?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<a href="https://futurism.com/strong-evidence-really-killing-bees/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Neonicotinoids</a>, a type of pesticide, are hurting both domesticated honeybees and wild pollinators. <a href="https://futurism.com/insects-flying-declined-75-percent/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Climate change</a> is also a factor in their overall decline, as it could lead to pollinators coming out earlier in the year, only to starve due to a scarcity of food. But that&#8217;s all pollinators that are in danger. Not just honeybees.
&#8220;Honeybee colony die-offs are likely to be a &#8216;canary in the coalmine&#8217; that is mirrored by many wild pollinator species. The attention on honeybees may help raise awareness, but action must also be directed towards our threatened species,&#8221; said Geldmann.
<h2>Required Regulations</h2>
According to Geldmann, saving honeybees doesn&#8217;t help preserve wildlife. In fact, their continued breeding in large numbers is actually having a negative impact on pollinators as a whole. Farming has decreased the effectiveness of honeybees&#8217; immune systems, and feeding from the same flowers as wild species can spread diseases into those populations.
Additionally, honeybees are, in a way, almost too good at pollination in terms of how long they&#8217;re active and how far they can travel.
To illustrate this point, the Cambridge team points to how flowering crops such as fruits and oilseed rape/rapeseeds only bloom for several days or weeks. Honeybees, however, are active between nine and 12 months and can travel nearly 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) away from their hives. This means that once honeybees are done with whatever crops they were bred to pollinate, they will end up pollinating crops usually taken care of by wild pollinators.
<figure style="width: 360px" class="wp-caption alignright"><a href="https://futurism.com/images/animals-that-went-extinct-in-the-21st-century-infographic/"><img src="https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2016/07/Homepage-Thumbnail-13-900x600.jpg" alt="Animals That Went Extinct In The 21st Century [Infographic]" ></a><figcaption class="wp-caption-text center"><a href="https://futurism.com/images/animals-that-went-extinct-in-the-21st-century-infographic/" target="_blank">Click to View Full Infographic</a></figcaption></figure>
Juan P. González-Varo, a co-author of this study, saw this situation unfold firsthand. During a previous study, he reported that the number of honeybees in the woodlands of southern Spain had increased eight-fold after orange tree crops fully bloomed.
&#8220;Keeping honeybees is an extractive activity. It removes pollen and nectar from the environment, which are natural resources needed by many wild species of bee and other pollinators,&#8221; said González-Varo in the press release. &#8220;Honeybees are artificially-bred agricultural animals similar to livestock such as pigs and cows. Except this livestock can roam beyond any enclosures to disrupt local ecosystems through competition and disease.&#8221;
González-Varo suggests we categorize honeybees as livestock that have a specific use, just as pigs and cows do. This shift in perception could lead to policies governing the size of honeybee colonies, where honeybees are kept, and the areas in which they&#8217;re able to operate. Regulating honeybees in these ways could enable other wild pollinators to thrive and return to pollinating their own territories without competition from honeybees.
<iframe width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GqA42M4RtxE?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-19137-5" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A recent study</a> by scientists at the University of Hohenheim estimated that honeybees contribute between $235 billion and $285 billion annually to the food production economy. Perhaps finding a way to make other pollinators equally as profitable as honeybees could help their plight.
For now, though, ensuring that people understand the conservation crisis involves more than just honeybees is a good first step. This can be achieved through additional research looking into ways to promote the longevity of other species, and by charities and media outlets shifting the spotlight from honeybees to other pollinators.

We need to shift our focus to include all pollinator species.

Even if we save the honeybee, other wild pollinator species will still be in trouble

Efforts to save the domesticated honeybee are misguided and actually doing harm to wild pollinator species, according to Cambridge researchers.

Even if We Save the Honeybee, Other Wild Pollinator Species Will Still Be in Trouble

"Levels of wild pollinators, such as species of solitary bumblebee, moth, and hoverfly, continue to decline at an alarming rate."

<h2>Bee Population Decline</h2>
It&#8217;s a well-known fact that global bee populations are on the decline. Scientists have been struggling to better understand the alarming trend for years, and a new study appears to have shed some light on a key contributing factor. The new study, published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, has shown that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/29/alarming-link-between-fungicides-and-bee-declines-revealed">f</a><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/29/alarming-link-between-fungicides-and-bee-declines-revealed" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ungicides are a leading factor linked to bee population declines.</a>
In a presentation at the<a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/new-map-highlights-bee-population-declines-across-us-180962268/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual </a><a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/new-map-highlights-bee-population-declines-across-us-180962268/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">meeting</a>, it was revealed that from 2008 to 2013, populations declined about 23 percent across the contiguous U.S., and in 139 counties throughout the U.S., wild bee populations are considered to be in serious danger.
The worrisome trend is not only a threat to native bee populations but to many industries, humans rely on, in which pollinators (bees in particular) play a critical role in, <a href="https://futurism.com/strong-evidence-really-killing-bees/">such as agriculture</a> and the continued success of plant species. According to a<a href="http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140502-what-if-bees-went-extinct" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> 2014 piece published by </a><a href="http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140502-what-if-bees-went-extinct" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the BBC</a>, bees &#8220;pollinate 70 of the around 100 crop species that feed 90% of the world. Honey bees are responsible for $30 billion a year in crops.&#8221;
<figure style="width: 781px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img class="wp-image-117307 size-large aligncenter" src="https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2017/12/PNAS.jpg" alt="Dwindling U.S. bee populations. Image Credit: University of Vermont / PNAS" width="781" height="380" /><figcaption class="wp-caption-text">Dwindling U.S. bee populations. Image Credit: University of Vermont / PNAS</figcaption></figure>
<h2>Fungicides</h2>
The recent study showed fungicides may well be the strongest contributing factor to bee decline. These findings came as a surprise to scientists, as fungicides are used to target molds and mildews, not insects. In fact, according to  Scott McArt, at Cornell University in the U.S. and who led the new study, up until now “Fungicides have been largely overlooked.”
Researchers are not positive about why they pose such a distinct threat to bees, but the present conclusion is that they make bees more susceptible to the deadly <a href="https://www.ars.usda.gov/northeast-area/beltsville-md/beltsville-agricultural-research-center/bee-research-laboratory/docs/nosema-disease/">nosema parasite</a> and/or increase the toxicity of other pesticides. What scientists do know is that whatever the mechanism is that makes fungicides so deadly to bees, it needs to be addressed for the sake of these populations.
McArt expanded, saying that “There needs to be much more work on fungicides and their role in bee declines. People are not looking in all the places they probably should.”
Matt Shardlow, at conservation charity Buglife, said that “The way we humans are managing the landscape is putting bees are under enormous pressure, and just as we seem to be making progress towards a complete ban [in the EU] on a proven factor – neonicotinoid insecticides – it appears a very common fungicide could also be a driver of wild bee decline. Scientists and regulators must respond with urgent new studies.”
Professor David Goulson, at the University of Sussex, UK added that “This research suggests the regulatory system for pesticides may have let us down once again, perhaps because regulatory tests don’t expose bees to the pesticide and a disease at the same time.&#8221;

Honey bees are the real MVPs (most valuable pollinators) and "are responsible for $30 billion a year in crops."

Surprising study shows fungicides may be a major threat to bees

Bee populations are declining at an alarming rate, and researchers are racing to figure out why. A new study yields surprising results.

/Conservation

Hard Science

Planes Kill Huge Numbers of Birds. LEDs Could Save Their Lives.

Earth & Energy

AI That Counts And Identifies Wildlife Could Be A Game-changer For Ecologists

Artificial Intelligence

New Facial Recognition Software Tracks and Protects Endangered Primates

Earth & Energy

As It Turns Out, Environmentally ‘Protected’ Lands Really Aren’t

Future Society

Predators That Used To Be Threatened Are Expanding Back Into Their Old Habitats

Future Society

To Protect Endangered Coral Reefs, Researchers Need Legal Recourse

Earth & Energy

Sexy Species Died Off Quicker. That Has Conservationists Worried.

Earth & Energy

With IVF, the Northern White Rhino May Not Go Extinct

Earth & Energy

Even if We Save the Honeybee, Other Wild Pollinator Species Will Still Be in Trouble

Earth & Energy

Surprising Study Shows Fungicides May Be a Major Threat to Bees

Load More