1472495183000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fvoices.nationalgeographic.com%2F2016%2F08%2F29%2Fbotswana-prevailing-in-struggle-against-weeds-threatening-okavango%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Botswana “Prevailing” in Struggle Against Weeds Threatening Okavango

Click the image to download a PDF of the paper

Three decades after the first reports of the arrival in Botswana of Salvinia molestaa free-floating, mat-forming water fern native to Brazil scientists from the southern African country's Department of Water Affairs say they are at last prevailing in the struggle against a weed that has come to close to threatening the entire Okavango, Africa's largest wetlands that is a UNESCO World Heritage site and home to some of the world's most endangered species.

A research article by Dr. C. N. Kurugundla and others, published recently in The Open Plant Science Journal, describes how teams of scientists and laborers from the Department of Water Affairs undertook the decades-long challenge to combat invasive weeds in the Okavango Delta and also the wetlands off the Kwando-Linyanti-Chobe River and the Limpopo River that borders South Africa and Zimbabwe. “Continuous monthly surveys and monitoring of rivers, lagoons and other wetlands resulted in success and shall serve as inspiration in aquatic weeds management,” Bentham Science Publishing (publisher of the journal) said in a news statement.

The review paper “Alien Invasive Aquatic Plant Species in Botswana: Historical Perspective and Management” describes the species biology, distribution, historical spread, negative impacts, and control achieved right from their discovery in Botswana. (Download a pdf)

"TOPSJ-9-1_F4b"

The review presents success stories of control of salvinia, Salvinia molesta, by its biocontrol weevil, Cyrtobagous salviniae. (Photo above courtesy of Dr. C. N. Kurugundla)

"This — This one-tenth-inch-long South
American weevil, *Cyrtobagous*
*salviniae*, is highly effective
in reducing giant salvinia
infestations to acceptable levels.
(Image and caption courtesy of U.S. Department of Agriculture)

No fresh releases of the weevil were undertaken after mass releases in 1999 and 2000, which established the insect within three years of their introduction, the authors say.

The review also presents the successful eradication of water lettuce, Pistia stratiotes, in the transboundary Kwando River wetlands by 2005. Management of the growth of water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes, from 2012 in the transboundary Limpopo River jointly with neighboring South Africa is also discussed.

The researchers also looks at legislation regarding aquatic weeds. The Government of Botswana “regulates the movement and importation of boats and aquatic apparatus to prevent the importation and spread of aquatic weeds” by the strict implementation of “Aquatic Weed (Control) Act -1986,” the authors say.

“The efforts made by the department have benefited tourism, water resource use, and wildlife. Partly due to the achievement of aquatic weeds control, the tourism sector is now very stable and contributes ca. 25% to the country's GDP,” the news released adds.

“The authors Kurugundla et al. suggest that integrating biological and physical control with public awareness campaigns while working with conservation groups and NGOs would provide sustainable development of wetlands for ecological integrity and livelihoods.”

Reference: Kurugundla. C. N.; et al. (2016). Alien Invasive Aquatic Plant Species in Botswana: Historical Perspective and Management, Open Plant Sci. J., DOI: 10.2174/1874294701609010001

Post prepared from materials provided by Bentham Science Publishing.

gaia

1472495180000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fpeter-neill%2Fcitizens-of-the-ocean_b_11763602.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Citizens of the Ocean

The Sea Connects All Things...

How do we build a new global constituency for the ocean? That is, of course, the purpose of the not-for-profit World Ocean Observatory, to relate the ocean to other things that matter to us: fresh water, climate, food , energy, public health, trade, transportation, international finance, policy, planning, governance, economic development, and cultural traditions "all the human involvement inherent in ocean systems that have direct and indirect implication for our future.

Since 2006, the Observatory has done just that: advocated through information and science and provided educational services to an online audience that has doubled every year, a network of some 15,000 ocean-related organizations worldwide and more than 150,000 scientists, educators, policy makers, students, and interested individuals from over 165 countries around the world.

As exhilarating as it is to think that an organization with a tiny operating budget and three person, part-time staff, might effectively engage this growing audience of millions, it is not enough, particularly when I read of things going viral on YouTube and the social networks, things that I may think frivolous but which nonetheless connect and communicate with many, many millions more.

This world is connected, not divided, by the sea. Through the circulation of protein, goods, people, and ideas. Storm impact and sea level rise can threaten anytime, anywhere, in a tumultuous instant, making environmental refugees of us all. The ocean contains an enormous, unexplored inventory of medicinal cures, unlimited energy, and the desalinated drinking water that each of us needs in exactly the same amount each day, rich or poor, north or south, to survive. These are not frivolous things.

How, then, do we connect and unite citizens of the ocean worldwide, a global community whose collective awareness translates into the political will required to change how we understand and use the ocean s bounty? What do you think? What more can we do? Why not let us know with an email to director@thew2o.net? We ll start with one or two, and, who knows, maybe we ll go viral.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1472495173000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fdana-ellis-hunnes%2Fcherry-picking-science_b_11729146.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Cherry Picking Science

"2016-08-26-1472250319-6861234-cherry.jpg"

Image Credit: Huffington Post Images

If there is anything I have learned this past week, it is that anyone can cherry pick their science.

I presented a story last week, about fish. Since then I've been attacked by lobbyists from groups who are threatened by my message, while being lauded by conservationists who agree with my message.

Did I cherry pick my scientific references?

Not to my knowledge.

I investigated a wide range of sources from the United Nations Environment Programme, to the Food and Agriculture Organization, to the journal Nature to develop my thoughtful argument.

For the record:
It is always possible to find 100 papers on why XYZ is the right. Yet, a second person could find 100 different papers stating why XYZ is wrong.

This is the way science has always been argued; in an evidenced-based manner. With the advent of the internet, it is easy to pick the references from the scientific literature that support whatever argument you are trying to make.

In short, reporting on science should not be the artful manipulation of data that it has become, but instead a discussion of truth.

I am always open to rigorous scientific facts that serve to enlighten my knowledge, but all too often the "facts" that are presented to me by my dissenters, seem to either lack the solid scientific support, or are biased by the industry.

Believe me, I have no conflicts of interest. I receive no funding for what I write. I am therefore not beholden anyone.

I read the literature. I watch the TED conferences. I report on my findings. Nothing more, nothing less

To my supporters, thank you for your generous and thoughtful comments. To my critics, I always appreciate thoughtful discourse, but personal attacks are completely unnecessary and counterproductive to advancing your case.

To all, I promise to evaluate the facts and disseminate what I perceive as a scientific truth. That is all I have ever done, and all I set out to do.

Peace

Twitter: recipe4survival
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RecipeForSurvival/
PlanetExperts: http://www.planetexperts.com/author/danahunnes/

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1472490533000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fopensecrets-blog%2Fa-climate-of-cash-in-vote_b_11760204.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
A Climate Of Cash In Votes On Global Warming

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) has received the most money from the oil and gas and coal mining industries, over $1.6 million since 2010. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

By: Alec Goodwin

For years now, the scientific consensus has been that climate change is occurring and is caused mainly by the actions of human beings. So why, during the first month of the current Congress, did nearly half the Senate -- all Republicans -- vote against an amendment stating that human activities contribute significantly to climate change?

We don't know.

But we can say that those who voted for the amendment received less than one-fifth as much in campaign contributions from the oil and gas and coal industries as those who voted against it.

Senators who have publicly denied that humans have had a significant impact on climate change took in an average of $467,022 more from the coal mining and oil and gas industries since 2010 than those who have publicly accepted humans' role in the global rise in temperature.

In connection with a bill focused on the now-failed Keystone XL pipeline in Jan. 2015, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) introduced an amendment that read "climate change is real and human activity significantly contributes to climate change."

The first part of the amendment wasn't controversial; the Senate had passed an amendment earlier that day acknowledging the existence of climate change by a nearly unanimous margin; only Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) voted against it. The stumbling block was the addition of language acknowledging that climate change is caused by people's actions. Nearly half of the Senate opposed the amendment containing that text.

Senators who voted for the amendment received an average of $102,594 from individuals and PACs of the coal mining and oil and gas industries since 2010, while senators who voted against it received more than five times as much: $569,616.

Both the oil and gas and coal mining industries have significant incentives to halt efforts to stop climate change, which is caused in large part by gas-burning vehicles and coal-fueled power plants that produce greenhouse gases; any plans to tackle climate change would mean curbing the output of these gases, cutting into industry profits. Donating to lawmakers in the hope of preventing action on the issue would seem to be a good investment for them.

Much of the controversy that surrounds climate change has been fanned by organizations funded by the oil industry, including ExxonMobil and the billionaire industrialists David and Charles Koch. They've helped create the illusion of a debate when in reality few scientists dispute that climate change is real and is caused in large part by human actions.

The American Coal Council, the Independent Petroleum Association of America, the National Mining Association and the American Petroleum Institute did not respond to requests for comment.

Campaign contributions from fossil fuel industries are likely not the only incentive for senators to avoid acknowledging man's impact on the climate. Many of those who voted against the amendment, and who also received significant sums from oil and gas and/or coal mining, hail from states with heavy production of either crude oil or coal.

And there are anomalies, highlighting how economic interests, campaign contributions and personal beliefs are hard to tease apart in searching for what motivates a vote in Congress.

For instance, nine senators who voted against the amendment come from states that don't produce significant amounts of coal or oil. They're also not on the Senate Energy Committee. These senators received an average of $341,811 from coal mining and oil and gas between 2010 and mid-2016. (We considered significant production to be more than 5,000 short tons of coal per year, and more than 5,000 barrels of oil, as measured by the U.S. Energy Information Administration in 2014.)

Furthermore, there are 10 senators -- nine Democrats plus Republican Sen. Mark Kirk -- who voted for the amendment though their states produce both coal and oil in significant quantities. They've received an average of $153,176 from the industries between 2010 and June 30, 2016.

Twenty-five of the 51 senators who approved the measure were located in states where there was significant production of either coal or oil.

Besides Kirk, four other Republicans voted for the amendment -- Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Susan Collins (Maine) -- along with Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) plus all the Democrats. The Republicans voting aye received, on average, $276,232 from oil and gas and coal mining industries, which is $266,218 less than the average amount given to Republicans. Alexander is even on the Energy Committee, whose members usually receive much more cash from the oil and gas and coal industries than average.

A separate amendment proposed by Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said that human activities contributed to climate change, but lacked the "significantly" of the Schatz proposal. Hoeven's measure picked up 10 additional Republican votes, but still did not pass. The average amount for senators voting against that amendment was about the same, at $584,799.

Here's the breakdown of these senators, whose votes imply they believe climate change is caused in part by humans, but not significantly.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee that oversees climate legislation, once brought a snowball to the Senate floor as a way to demonstrate his view that climate change is "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated against the American people," though he later voted for an amendment stating that climate change is real. (Climate change refers to rising average global temperatures, not an absence of all sub-zero temperatures.) Inhofe has received $772,100 from the oil and gas and coal mining industries.

On average, current members of the Environment and Public Works Committee who voted for the amendment received just $39,717 from oil and gas and coal mining since 2010. Members who voted against it, like Inhofe, received an average $458,823.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) has received the most money from these interest groups -- over $1.6 million -- since 2010. At the low end is Sanders, with just $3,350 in the same time frame.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1472486658000

science

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fdaniela-quaglia%2Fthe-answer-to-antibiotic-_b_11711124.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dscience%26ir%3DScience&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
The Answer to Antibiotic Resistance Might Reside Within Us
At the beginning of my career I was involved in a study that aimed at the discovery of potential new antibiotics, and since then I have always had an interest in the subject.

Antibiotics are drugs that are commonly prescribed to treat bacterial infections. This class of compounds is naturally produced by microorganisms as a weapon against infection, as first observed by Alexander Fleming in 1929: the discovery and characterization of penicillin revolutionized the treatment of infectious diseases.

Penicillin was used for the first time to counteract pneumococcal infections among the military personnel during World War II. After the war, it became available for general use and so did other antibiotics. However, soon the optimism started to fade due to the appearance of bacterial strains with the acquired ability to grow in the presence of antibiotics to which they used to be susceptible. This phenomenon is known as antibiotic resistance.

Once resistance appears, the antibiotic loses its ability to cure the infection, and a different, more powerful antibiotic is needed.

Unfortunately, I believe that not many people not working in this sector understand the imminent threat that antibiotic resistance is to the entire world. As the World Health Organisation (WHO) states on their web page: antibiotic resistance is one of the biggest threats to global health today. It can affect anyone, of any age, in any country. This is very true.

Even though resistance is a natural phenomenon, the rate at which the current antibiotics available on the market become ineffective is increased by the misuse of these drugs in humans and animals.

It is, therefore, crucial that we continue the quest towards the discovery of new drugs able to treat these resistant pathogens.

A recent paper published in Nature gives us an intriguing hint of where we should be looking to individuate novel effective compounds. The answer is most captivating: apparently, we do not need to look far, because the answer could already be in our body!

Zipperer and co-workers remind us that the majority of systemic bacterial infections by multi-drug resistant bacteria (which means resistant to the majority of antibiotics available on the market) are caused by bacteria that generally colonise human body surfaces. These bacteria are naturally present in a percentage of the population (for nasal Staphylococcus aureus this percentage is, for example, around 30%), and remain quiescent and controlled by our body generally until the human carrier undergoes surgery or suffers from immunosuppression or trauma. In those instances, multi-drug resistant organisms are more likely to take over and give rise to invasive infections.

If this phenomenon is well recognised, it is not yet perfectly understood how our body prevents colonisation of the pathogen in healthy individuals. What scientists know is that factors involved are complex and related both to the genetics of the host and also to his microbiota (commensal microorganisms that share our body space). In their study, Zipperer and colleagues observed that the bacterium Staphylococcus lugdunensis (S. lugdunensis: a friendly bacterium belonging to our nasal microbiota) plays a crucial role in keeping the potentially multi resistant Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) from invading our nose. In fact, S. lugdunensis is able to produce a molecule (which was named lugdunin in the study) that acts as an antibiotic against S. aureus.

This discovery is invaluable for many reasons. Not only lugdonin is on the right path to becoming a novel potent antibiotic, but also and foremost this is the first reported case in which a probiotic bacterium not belonging to the gut is found to be fundamental for the prevention of systemic infections.
Indeed, the authors state: Our study suggests that the probiotics concept should be extended to body sites other than the gut, such as the nasal mucous membranes.

A good answer to the discovery of new potential antibiotic could be much closer than we thought: so close to be likely already within us. We just need to start looking.

References:

1. Zipperer, A. et al. Human commensals producing a novel antibiotic impair pathogen colonization. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 535, 511-516 (2016).
2. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/antibiotic-resistance/en/
3. Diggins, F. The true history of the discovery of penicillin. Biomedical Scientist, 246-249 (2003).
4. Madigan, M. & Martinko, J. Brock Biology of Microorganisms, 11th edn. (2005).
5. Levy, S. & Marshall, B. Antibacterial resistance worldwide: causes, challenges and responses. Nature Medicine 10, S122-129 (2004).
6. Hopwood, J., Levy, S., Wenzel, R. P. & Georgopapadakou, N. A call to arms. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 6, 9-12 (2007).

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

science

1472486652000

science

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fnadya-khoja%2Fis-it-better-to-give-or-r_b_11725480.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dscience%26ir%3DScience&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Is It Better To Give Or Receive A Gift?
Gift exchanges are a cultural icon that can be traced back as far as the ancient civilization of Mesopotamia. Ancient literature describes a Gilgamesh, a hero, giving gifts to peasants as a display of strength. Roman literature describes gifts given to a king as a symbol of loyalty.

Examples of using material exchange to symbolize emotions can be found in nearly every facet of society. Although the context of these actions is different from culture to culture, the principal of the act remains the same. Giving personalized gifts represent the social glue that make it possible for humans to maintain relationships with each other.

Every parent has once had to remind their children that the Christmas season is about giving, not receiving. But deep down, we can all recall our own childhood where we much preferred to receive gifts than to give them. Gandhi did claim that greed is basic human nature, so wouldn't it make sense if people inherently enjoy receiving gifts? Or is the pleasure of being kind to others able to overpower our desire to consume?

The Psychology of Gift Giving

Giving someone a gift is a way to show compassion, appreciation, and gratitude. Psychologists have identified gift giving as a powerful way to strengthen the emotional bond we have with another person. The psychological benefits of giving do not actually come from the act of handing over property, but from the process of selecting the gift. Identifying the needs of a loved one and selecting a product to address them requires you to mentally identify with them. When you select a gift for somebody, you're essentially protecting them by looking after their needs. The idea that others will look after you the way that you are looking after another satisfies our need for safety, and provides us with a source of pleasure.

Understanding our Need to Receive

Unlike giving gifts, the pleasure we get from receiving gifts does not stem from our basic human needs. For most people, the implication that you are loved is the biggest source of pleasure from receiving gifts. For some individuals, this feeling has strings attached. If they have not reciprocated the gift, the receiver can feel a sense of guilt. Others may feel as if there are conditions attached to the gift, and that they are somehow indebted to the giver. Because the pleasure derived from receiving gifts is a more complicated psychological process, the emotions attached to the event can differ from person to person.

In our capitalist society, we are constantly told how a product or service will improve our life. Instead of promoting the features of a product, we are often told that the product will make us happy. This is a very effective marketing strategy, as many people have a deep seeded need for consumer gratification. When opening a gift, these people experience both the excitement of anticipation and the expectation of future pleasure. Whether or not the gift actually improves our life, the simple expectation that it will make us happy is enough to trigger the reward pathways in our brains. This provides a powerful, but fleeting source of happiness.

Factors in Reciprocal Gift Giving

Many people who give gifts expect to receive one in return. You might be surprised to learn that this is not an act of greed. Although the process of searching for the right gift can be a bonding experience, actually transferring something out of our own possession is an act of submission. Additionally, expressing our feelings for another person can leave us feeling vulnerable and expectant of a reciprocal display of compassion. It's not actually the gift we are looking for, but the gift has been made to symbolize the emotional connection humans inherently desire. This exchange can be made even more complicated when we are able to mentally assign a value to the gift. If one person feels that the gift they received is of less financial value than the one they gave, they can subconsciously take this as an indicator that the other person values their emotional connection less than they do.

The Value of Altruism

Clearly, there are many psychological factors involved with gift giving. Attempting to symbolize our affection for another person with consumable goods can trigger many different reactions in different people. In spite of all these factors, the one thing that remains consistent is the importance of caring for others. Taking time to mentally identify with your family and friends while making a conscious effort to improve their lives triggers an emotional event that leaves us feeling safe, secure and happy.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

science

1472485714000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fcarl-safina%2Fpersonality-not-just-for-_1_b_11725796.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Personality; Not Just For People Anymore - Part II
This is Part II of a two-part story titled "Personality; Not Just for People Anymore."

Every wolf, every animal, is different. Credit: Carl Safina

It's easier to accept that elephants, dolphins, wolves, and dogs have personalities. What's surprising -- until you make individual acquaintances -- is how deep and widespread the phenomenon of personality is. When you work with hawks, say, you see that each responds a little differently, each hunts a bit differently.

I define personality as individually differing responses to the same stimuli. My friends the professors Peter and Judy Weis of Rutgers University watched researchers at a lab in Italy present a crab in a jar to each of two octopuses. The first octopus popped off the top and devoured part of its prize. "Then it replaced the cap on the jar as if to save the rest for later," say my friends. The second octopus had been hungrily slithering back and forth across the glass tank, so the scientists expected an instant pounce. But when the jar splashed in, Octopus Two, apparently frightened, darted behind a rock. "It didn't care what was in the jar." Peter said. Judy elaborated: "We really don't appreciate how much personality most animals have. Even as scientists, we've hardly ever thought about that."

I'm not going to tell you what creatures Darrel Frost is talking about. Try to guess. I'm in his office at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City and he's introducing me to his pets, saying, "Mud is the larger one with the undershot jaw. Hermes, with the broken back, has epilepsy. Before our secretary, Iris, retired a year ago, they would run down to her office to get goodies from her. She visited yesterday, and even though they hadn't seen her in months, they still get really excited when she comes into the room. When Mud is really excited, he will almost dance side to side. Likewise when our volunteer, Denny, visits to pamper them -- they just light up. I'm the one who feeds them, but I never get that kind of reaction. Iris and Denny lecture me that I don't talk to them enough.

"Mud is like a little kid, incredibly curious when people are in my office. He wants to come in to see if people are having fun without him. He will scrape at the door until he is let in. Hermes has always been more shy around strangers. Mud loves Mexican music; it gets him running around.

When Mud would start getting out of hand, Iris would just touch his nose with the eraser end of a pencil and he would get very upset, stop what he was doing, and sulk. A soft touch, but he knows who is in charge. He could easily have pushed her out of the room, but her disapproval was clearly hard on him.

"The funniest thing is that they know their names but if you catch them doing something they shouldn't do and you call their name, they will look away to avoid eye contact. One day Mud extremely quietly came in, and very quietly opened the door of the small refrigerator and was quietly working on a head of lettuce. After I noticed, I watched him for a moment. It was the quietest I had ever seen him. He knew that if he got busted he would have his lettuce taken away, so he was trying to keep from attracting my attention. And, jeez, when I closed the fridge door, was he mad! He had a little tantrum right there, jerking back and forth -- and then he ran back into Iris's office so he could be with her.

"Over and over again, both Mud and Hermes present jealousy, sneakiness, venality, excitement, wanting to belong -- behaviors that I associate with two- to three-year-old humans. They have dominance hierarchies and, like big dogs, they develop strong attachments to their 'masters.'"

I ask what they weigh. Regarding them with a look both affectionate and appraising, Darrel says, "Mud is right at one hundred pounds, and Hermes, because of his health problems I think, is at eighty-five pounds. They're still young." The species' maximum size is around two hundred and fifty pounds, making spur-thighed the largest mainland-dwelling tortoise.

People used to think turtles were deaf. I am beginning to realize how blind we've been.

Researchers have now found individual personality differences in monkeys, rats, mice, lemurs, songbirds, sunfish, stickleback fish, killifish, bighorn sheep, domestic goats, blue crabs, rainbow trout, jumping spiders, house crickets. In other words, pretty much everywhere they've looked, they've found that individuals differ in behavior. Some are more aggressive, bolder, shier, some more active; some fear the new, while others are explorers. Among our chickens, Zorro is the explorer. She's often alone, out standing in her field, away from cover and companions. Sometimes her independence make me worry like a mother hen.

Zorro the chicken. Credit: Erica Cirino

Dolphins have personality galore. And Killer whales, or orcas, are the largest dolphins; they have the biggest brains. Canadian researcher John Ford started out working in aquarium shows where killer whales impressed him as "incredibly perceptive," each responding differently to different people. Because they "make a game of changing things," he found them quite challenging. In subtle ways that he did not sense at first, he eventually realized that his own behavior "was being modified by them." Another thing he discovered: each whale's personality is "strikingly different."

The free-living killer whale known to researchers as L-87 is known for outsized personality. After his mother died a decade ago, L-87 became the only killer whale known to have switched pods. (Three pods -- designated J, K, and L -- make up the resident killer whales of the waters of Washington State.) He went with K pod for a few years and now usually swims with the Js.

Researcher Ken Balcomb says, "He's always spy-hopping to look around at the boats. Sometimes suddenly -- phoosh!- - here he is with his head up right alongside, obviously playing. He likes the reaction of the people. He has a sense of humor. They're not all like that."

A wild killer whale. Credit: Carl Safina

Two killer whales captured in British Columbia in 1968 and 1969 were shipped to a place called Marineland of the Pacific, near Los Angeles and named Orky and Corky. A young Alexandra Morton (who later became a noted conservationist) watched amazed as they invented complex swimming routines and a morning "ritual." In the hour or so before the sun finally burst over the stadium rim, they "diligently squirted water at a particular spot on the tank wall, right at the waterline." When the first shaft of sun struck the wall, it touched the waterline "at the exact spot" the whales had marked. "No one, I thought, is going to believe me." As the spot moved in response to the earth's rotation month to month, "the whales always knew just where the first shaft of light would hit the water." A killer whale Stonehenge? Early killer whale astronomers?

Sun observation was a morning activity, but "Orky was less of a morning whale" and often tried to resume resting. When this happened, Corky sometimes ran the tip of her pectoral fin from the tip of his jaw, down his belly, and over his genital slit. "If this didn't cause an immediate bulge in the smooth pocket that housed his penis, Corky escalated her tactics...what Corky wanted was sex, and whale sex is a turbulent affair." With Corky's genital area "flushed with rosy excitement," water splashed out of the tank as the whales entwined and spiraled. When Corky was pregnant, Orky would go through all the foreplay but not copulate. That, Morton says, "drove Corky wild."

But how did the Orky know? Had he been scanning her body with his sonar, his own ultrasound?

Corky's first baby died. In 1978, Corky gave birth again. The problem was that the small tank required tight circling, and with Corky trying to guide the baby away from hitting the wall, the baby was seldom following in the position that properly presented her mother's teats for nursing. When this baby too grew thin, Management decided to try force-feeding the baby in a shallower pool. Handlers put the baby in a sling; a crane pulled the sling into the air.

Alexandra Morton was there: "As her baby's voice left the water and entered the air, the mother threw her enormous body against the tank walls, again and again, causing the entire stadium to shake. I burst into tears. Corky slammed her body for about an hour."

Morton wrote that the night Corky's baby was taken, she kept repeating a new and different sound, "guttural, and urgent." After each breath, Corky returned to the bottom of the tank, resuming her lament. The baby's father, Orky, occasionally uttered gunshot-like echolocation sounds that might have located a lost baby miles away at sea but were useless in a concrete tank.

Over three days Corky's calls grew hoarse. At dawn on the fourth day, Corky grew silent, rose, took a breath, and called, Pituuuuuuuu. Her mate returned the same call, and the whales began moving and breathing in unison. Corky ate for the first time since her baby was removed. Grief, mourning, recovering -- but not forgetting. After that, Corky began lying by a window with a view of gift-shop merchandise. For hours she'd stay there -- viewing a stack of toy stuffed orcas. Did the toys remind her of her lost children? Did she think that somewhere in there were her babies?

Corky got pregnant again. Then one day, she -- whose exquisite sonar allowed her to avoid any obstacle -- shattered a three-quarters-of an-inch-thick glass window of her tank. The window that she burst was the one adjacent to the stacks of stuffed-toy killer whales. Was she trying to take her unborn baby out of the tank from which her babies disappeared? Toward the place where baby orcas rested undisturbed? The most certain thing we can say is: she knew the tank; she didn't shatter the glass by accident. A few weeks later her stillborn baby arrived, seven months premature.

Years after Corky shattered the window, a film crew at SeaWorld (where Corky and Orky had been moved after Marineland closed) let Corky hear a recording of free-living whales from her birth pod, her family members. "While her Icelandic pen mates ignored the sounds," wrote Alexandra Morton, "Corky's whole body began shuddering terribly. If she wasn't 'crying,' she was doing something terribly similar."

Wild killer whales, a male (with larger dorsal fin) and female. Credit: Carl Safina

Researcher Ken Balcomb says that after Keiko -- the famously captive Free Willy killer whale -- was moved to a facility in Oregon prior to his eventual release, one of the rehab exercises was to play him killer whale movies. "He'd watch them," Ken says, anticipating my obvious question. Ken's son Kelley -- an accomplished artist -- used to take drawings of killer whales to the Vancouver Aquarium and hold them up to the glass for a killer whale named Hyak. Hyak would come and just look the drawings over and over. And, Ken adds, "You could go and open up our ID guide of photos of killer whale fins, and he'd be like" -- Ken mimics a whale looking from one photo to another -- "just like that. For minutes on end, just looking from photo to photo." Ken emphasizes his amazement, saying, "They know that these little black-and-white photos of fins are depictions of whales. They have a self-aware concept of abstractions of themselves." Ken winds up to a point, and the point is: "These are characteristics of creatures who've reached the supreme-being stage, who have a lot of time and brainpower to spend beyond the requirements of mere survival."

Paul Spong, a psychologist who'd worked at the Vancouver Aquarium, has written, "Eventually my respect verged on awe. I concluded that Orcinus orca is an incredibly powerful and capable creature, exquisitely self-controlled and aware of the world around it, a being possessed of a zest for life and a healthy sense of humor and, moreover, a remarkable fondness for and interest in humans."

If that seems a little, well, anthropomorphic -- that's the point.

# # #

This piece is adapted from Carl Safina's most recent book, Beyond Words; What Animals Think and Feel, which is newly out in paperback.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1472485709000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fned-sullivan%2Fgov-andrew-cuomo-takes-up_b_11724766.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Gov. Andrew Cuomo Takes Up Torch For A Clean Hudson First Carried By His Father
At a press conference I participated in August 22 on the shore of the Hudson River in Albany, New York State came out with guns blazing regarding General Electric's PCB contamination of the river. Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Basil Seggos, the state's chief environmental officer, announced that New York is officially challenging the effectiveness of GE's cleanup, completed last fall and declared a success by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Commissioner Seggos called on the EPA, which is overseeing the cleanup, to ensure its ongoing review of the project will be objective and take into account the latest data, rather than rely on models. Scientific sampling of the river's fish, water and sediment indicate more cleanup is needed to achieve goals for this project set by the EPA and agreed to by GE -- a clean river whose fish are safe to eat.

U.S. Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney played a key role with Scenic Hudson in encouraging the state to challenge the adequacy of the cleanup and also spoke at the press conference.

In declaring "I think it's absolutely clear the job is not yet done," Commissioner Seggos decisively allied the administration of Gov. Andrew Cuomo with its two fellow trustees tasked with restoring the Hudson's natural resources once the EPA-mandated cleanup is officially deemed complete. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have previously cited significant volumes of PCBs still contaminating river sediment and flaws in General Electric's analysis of fish tissue that make the cleanup appear more successful than it actually has been.

All the trustees now agree that without further remediation, at least 136 acres of PCB-contaminated sediment pose a continued threat to the health of the river, its fish, wildlife and people living along it. Peer-reviewed studies by Dr. David Carpenter, a respected M.D. and public health scientist, document a range of illnesses -- including cancer, diabetes and cardiac disease -- experienced by residents of Hudson Valley communities chronically exposed to airborne PCBs from the river.

Without more dredging, the Hudson will remain the nation's largest Superfund site for the indefinite future, delaying restoration of the river and stifling economic development along it. The good news is that it would probably take only two more years of dredging to address this problem.

Commissioner Seggos boldly asserted that because the expected reduction in risks to human health and the environment have not occurred and so much contaminated sediment remains, the state will consider rescinding its concurrence with the agency's original remedy.

In another major victory, Commissioner Seggos explicitly said that New York is committed to dredging the Champlain Canal once permits are approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This once-profitable waterway, a major shipping link between New York Harbor and Lake Champlain (and eventually the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes), has been off-limits to deep-draft vessels for decades because GE's PCB contamination prevents the state Canal Corporation from undertaking navigational dredging. Dredging the canal -- including portions of its channel within the Hudson -- will make the river healthier and greatly enhance economic opportunity for communities along it. Offering potential relief for state taxpayers, Commissioner Seggos added that "all of our legal options are on the table" concerning who will pay for this project.

In challenging the EPA's conclusion that the PCB cleanup has been a success, Gov. Andrew Cuomo takes up the torch carried by his father and predecessor. During his administration, Gov. Mario Cuomo laid the groundwork for GE's Superfund cleanup.

Andrew Cuomo now stands proudly alongside his father as a champion for a healthy, prosperous Hudson River. The leadership he and Congressman Maloney provide will be critical as we seek to persuade the EPA and General Electric to finish the job all New Yorkers -- indeed, all Americans -- deserve.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1472480626000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fkanayo-f-nwanze%2Fwe-grow-enough-food-getti_b_11649318.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
We Grow Enough Food. Getting It On To People's Plates Is The Problem.

"2016-08-24-1472032052-8393946-43651.jpg"

©IFAD/Andrew Esiebo/Panos

World leaders have agreed to the ambitious goal of eradicating hunger by 2030. The scale of the problem is daunting. Every day 800 million people go to bed with empty stomachs and more than 8,000 children die needlessly from conditions linked to under-nutrition. And by the time we reach 2030, the global population is likely to include an additional 1.5 billion mouths to feed.

With these kinds of numbers, it is hard to believe we live in a world of plenty and we actually produce enough to feed every hungry person on earth. It is horrifying to think that one third of the food produced in the world is never consumed due to loss or waste.

When we think of food waste in the developed world, we think of consumable food thrown out of supermarkets, restaurants and homes. In the developing world, it is a different issue. Food is lost before it even gets to the market. Grain losses in sub-Saharan Africa alone are worth up to US$4 billion a year - enough to provide the minimum food requirements of at least 48 million people.

Food losses occur at every stage of the agricultural value chain

If fruit is not boxed properly during harvest, it can be ruined. If maize and beans are not dried sufficiently - all too common with the current climate variability - they may develop fungus or aflatoxins. If grains are not stored securely, they could become infested with rats or weevils. With unreliable transportation and lack of decent roads, perishable food that left the farm edible and sellable, can spoil en route to market.

The World Bank estimates that if these post-harvest losses were reduced by only one per cent just in sub-Saharan Africa, there would be economic gains of up to US$40 million each year.

This doesn't even take into account the limited natural resources that are being wasted in the production of food that will never be eaten. Annually up to 173 billion cubic meters of increasingly scarce water (almost a quarter of all water used for agriculture) and about 1.4 billion hectares of land (close to 30 per cent of available agricultural land) is used to grow food that is subsequently lost or wasted.

The magnitude of food loss is alarming. And yet, the solutions can be relatively simple.

In Timor-Leste, for example, almost half the population lives below the poverty line and up to 60 per cent of children are malnourished. The annual "hungry season", when food is hard to come by, lasts more than five months. Low crop productivity has long been a problem. Yet local farmers surprised scientists by resisting the adoption of higher yielding maize seeds. As farmers were already losing 30 per cent of their stored maize every year to rodents and weevils, increasing productivity was not their priority.

This problem of inadequate storage presented an enormous opportunity. It showed the potential for people to access almost a third more food - equivalent to about 360 kilograms of grain per farming household - without increasing their production.

"2016-08-24-1472031687-1836610-vXZYfO88UWbBaLUvw6UuZ6AhKzOoIKX5m5yzKN9Wn1Q.jpg"

A farmer in Timor-Leste receives a grain storage drum
©IFAD/Ron Hartman

A pilot project supported by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) tested the impact of low-cost storage equipment. The project distributed 42,000 airtight storage drums, paid in part by the farmers who received them. Farmers who used the drums to store their grains reduced their losses from 30 per cent to one per cent, potentially halving the duration of future "hungry seasons". The anticipated increase in their annual incomes is nearly 300 per cent.

Once the farmers were provided with better storage facilities, they also became more interested in adopting higher-yielding seeds because the storage allows them to sell their surplus for greater profit in the off-season.

That is just one simple example.

What can we do?

If the global community is serious about achieving a hunger-free world, we need to prioritize finding solutions to food loss along the entire agricultural value chain.

We need to increase investments in drying, storage and processing facilities for grains and perishable crops, and in decent roads and market access for people to sell their produce before it is lost.
We need to train engineers to design suitable facilities and equipment that are locally adapted, easily maintained and accessible by farmers.
We need to build more agricultural cooperatives and farmers groups so that farmers can collectively invest in and maintain equipment, lower the cost of threshing, drying, milling and storage facilities and aggregate their produce for secure transportation to market.
We need to ensure that farmers and farmer groups are able to access rural financial packages so that they can invest in food loss reduction.

Right now, many farmers are selling their produce as quickly as possible - even directly from the field - to minimize loss. But if they have the knowledge and equipment to avoid losses, they can store their crops until prices are higher and even start processing them to add value. When food losses are minimized, the world's 500 million small farms will produce enough excess yields to become sustainable businesses. And when that happens, we won't just eliminate extreme hunger by 2030 - we will be on our way to eliminating extreme poverty as well.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

Untitled by Shannon Adams

BLOWIN' by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa