Monarch butterflies have started their journey to the groves where they'll spend the winter. Monarchs west of the Rocky Mountains have a long trip to the California coast before them, while eastern monarchs have a hefty 3,000-mile trek to the forests of Mexico.
Despite their hardy nature, monarchs have suffered severe population losses. In the past several decades the eastern population has declined 80%, while its western counterpart has fared even more poorly. In the West, monarchs are at less than 0.1% of the population they had in the 1980s. Last year's winter count fell short of just 2,000 butterflies. These numbers reflect a very real threat of extinction for this iconic species.
But there's hope, and it comes from an unexpected place: the Biden administration's infrastructure agenda.
In addition to supporting traditional infrastructure such as roads and bridges, the current version of the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act in Congress contains funding for pollinator-friendly roadsides, as well as provisions to revegetate areas devastated by invasive species.
Throughout the United States, there are 10 million acres of prime space for habitat along roadsides. Why not use it to rebuild populations for butterflies and bees? That's the opportunity before us, and the infrastructure bill would provide $2 million annually to relevant agencies for pollinator-friendly plantings. Grants of up to $150,000 would go toward much-needed projects for "planting and seeding of native, locally appropriate grasses and wildflowers, including milkweed." Other techniques to protect pollinators detailed in the bill — yes, it's that thorough — are as simple as reducing mowing frequency, timing mowing to avoid disturbing pollinators, and using pesticides more judiciously.
Roadside milkweed. Katie McVey / USFWS
None of these concepts are new. Earlier this year, similar language appeared in the Monarch and Pollinator Highway Act of 2021, a bill introduced by Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.) and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore). Several years before that, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued best management practices for this type of roadside habitat. On a more local level, nine state departments of transportation — including those in California, Iowa and Florida — have led the way on these common-sense projects.
Another piece of the infrastructure bill would provide $50 million annually in grants to eliminate, control and prevent invasive plants, which throw native ecosystems out of balance. The Invasive Plant Elimination Program would prioritize funding to revegetation programs utilizing native plants and wildflowers, including pollinator-friendly species. This strategy offers a boon to pollinators and other wildlife in these healing ecosystems.
And they need the help. America's pollinators face an imperiled future due to decades of exposure to toxic pesticides, disappearing habitat and a changing climate. In addition to monarchs, one report found that more than half of native bee species in North America are in decline, including the rusty patched bumblebee. We need infrastructure that prioritizes these creatures.
Smooth coneflower growing under transmission lines. Caroline S. Krom, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NC Sandhills Safe Harbor Coordinator
If we're wise, we'll invest in pollinator habitats for several reasons. First, given that insect pollinators contribute tens of billions of dollars of value to our agriculture, it makes economic sense to ensure they're abundant and healthy themselves. Roadside habitats near farms can increase pollination services and boost crop yields while reducing crop pests in the process.
Second, losing pollinators — especially native species — can have permanent ecological repercussions. Tremors in the web of life caused by the extinction of our pollinators affect animals that depend on them for food and nearly 90% of all flowering plants, including those that have co-evolved with these pollinators.
Third, losing monarch butterflies and other pollinators would make our lives less rich and less beautiful.
Endangered mission blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides missionensis). Stuart Weiss / USFWS
Congress can help. While building roads and a more robust infrastructure system, Congress should also vote for the bill so we can build roadside habitats and increase the resiliency of pollinator populations. Providing diverse, healthy habitat will meet a long-neglected need for the thousands of native pollinators in the country. Along the way, it will help put these vital insects to work — for nature's benefit and for our own.
The work to save our pollinators will not end with the infrastructure bill, but with this added to the protections already in place, we can halt the monarch's flutter toward extinction.
The opinions expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Revelator, the Center for Biological Diversity or its employees.
Reposted with permission from The Revelator.
- 8 Cities Rewilding Their Urban Spaces - EcoWatch ›
- Biodiversity: Everything You Need to Know - EcoWatch ›
This one doesn't draw tourists, but instead scientists who calculate how large an area has become low enough in oxygen that it can kill fish and other marine life like shrimp.
This hypoxia stems from activities on land. When it rains, excess nutrients — mostly nitrogen and phosphorus from Midwest farm and livestock operations — wash into the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers. Those nutrients make their way to the Gulf, fueling an overgrowth of algae which deprive the waters of oxygen, driving away or killing marine life.
Over the past five years the average size of the Gulf of Mexico's dead zone has stretched to more than 5,400 square miles. But these hypoxic areas are also found in other parts of the United States and across the world. And climate change, experts predict, will cause them to get bigger and persist for longer.
Map of the measured Gulf of Mexico hypoxia zone, July-August 2020. LUMCON / NOAA
Efforts to curb excess nutrients in waterways have so far included reducing the use of fertilizers or animal waste applied to agricultural fields and planting cover crops to limit runoff.
Protecting wetlands can also help. They slow the flow of water running off fields, and the roots of the plants absorb nutrient pollutants.
But do these types of efforts work? In a recent study published in Nature, researchers from the University of Waterloo and the University of Illinois Chicago found that efforts to restore wetlands in the United States "are often carried out in an ad hoc manner," meaning they lack comprehensive strategy.
Most notably, they found that the areas where wetland restoration has been undertaken don't necessarily coincide with nitrogen hotspots.
That means we're not making the best use of these natural water purifiers.
If we were to target restoration efforts in these heavily farmed areas, however, we could greatly maximize the water quality benefits of wetlands. The researchers calculated that a 10% increase in wetlands in the United States focused in heavily farmed areas could remove up to 40 times more nitrogen.
That could go a long way in helping to achieve water quality goals. It would be especially helpful for areas that have high amounts of nitrogen, which they advise should get preferential placement. So, while they recommend a 10% increase across the country, some areas would see more wetlands restored. Under one their models, the Mississippi Basin, where nitrogen runoff is high, would actually see a 22% increase in wetlands, which in turn would provide about a "54% decrease in nitrogen loading to the Gulf of Mexico," the researchers found.
They estimate this nationwide 10% bump in targeted restoration would cost $3.3 billion annually, twice as much as restoration of non-agricultural lands, but the costs "are in line with current expenditures to achieve water quality goals," they wrote.
It could also go a long way to helping coastal economies. A report from the Union of Concerned Scientists found that nitrogen loading from upstream agriculture has caused between $552 million and $2.4 billion annually in damages to Gulf of Mexico fisheries and the marine habitat.
There are other benefits, too. Wetlands provide ecosystem services such as flood prevention, carbon sequestration and critical habitat. And, after environmental rollbacks by the Trump administration, water quality is likely to be an even bigger concern.
As the researchers concluded, "These results provide critical context to discussions of wetland restoration and water quality that are especially important today when a new Clean Water Act rule is reducing protections offered to existing wetlands."
Reposted with permission from The Revelator.
- Dead Zones Are a Global Water Pollution Challenge — But With ... ›
- A Few Heavy Storms Cause a Big Chunk of Nitrogen Pollution From ... ›
- Fossil Fuels Add to World's Marine Dead Zones - EcoWatch ›
This is my first wildfire season — also known as summer — in my new home state of Oregon. I'm learning the geography by way of (potential) catastrophe.
After nearly two decades in San Francisco, my wife and I moved to central Oregon in May. We had been plotting our escape to a more rural location for years. While climate change wasn't our reason for leaving the Bay Area, it was a consideration in where to go next.
We first looked at towns along the east and west flanks of California's Sierra Nevada. But our searches mostly ended in frustration... and a bit of fear. We'd hear from locals about getting dropped from their fire insurance or the skyrocketing costs of keeping their policies. And then there were the actual wildfires — like the ones that reduced large swathes of Paradise, and now Greenville, to ash.
When we eventually settled on central Oregon as our next home, we were under no illusion that it would be free from wildfires: I'm an environmental journalist who covers fires and climate change as part of my beat. Wildfire risk, we knew, would come with our new territory.
And it has. As I write this, ash from multiple fires burning in the region dusts my patio furniture. Cascade peaks, usually visible on the horizon, have been smudged by smoke. The air quality has once again reached unhealthy levels.
Still, there are numerous reasons we're glad to be here, even if we do have occasional pangs of doubt and wonder why we didn't move out of the West entirely — out of the path of increasingly longer fire seasons.
Around the country, other families find themselves in similar situations, or may soon. As this summer so cruelly illuminates, climate change will present a barrage of challenges — including droughts, floods and hurricanes — no matter where you live.
Louisiana National Guard members in high-water vehicles work with St. John the Baptist Parish officials to rescue citizens stranded in their homes in the wake of Hurricane Ida. Louisiana National Guard / CC BY 2.0
Understanding the risks of different places isn't easy. As we contemplated our move, I dug through state climate assessments and read scientific reports. But it was hard to match general findings with specific places, even for someone like me who gets paid to do that kind of stuff. Most people don't have hours to read journal articles and try to decipher scientific lingo.
That got me thinking: Whether moving or staying put, how do we assess risk in a climate change world?
Where to?
Last summer the San Francisco Bay Area had a day when the sun never seemed to rise. The sky remained a darkened, calamitous gray-orange from morning till night as the August Complex fire burned, eventually scorching a record-breaking 1 million acres. I received more than a few texts from friends asking if it was time to move somewhere less "apocalyptic." Was there a safer place to live in the coming years and decades as the planet continues to heat up?
It's a question on a lot of people's minds. The real estate website Redfin reports that the increasing frequency and intensity of natural disasters and extreme heat are factors in plans for about half of people considering moves in the next year.
Where to go may be a popular question, but it's also a hard one to answer for a number of reasons, says Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at UCLA who gets asked that question multiple times a day.
"I don't know what people's motivations are, what their priorities are and what their lives are like," he says. "It's so personalized and individualized."
The scientific factors, he says, are equally complex. For example, the difference between living somewhere with an extreme fire risk and a place with very little could be just a few miles in places like Los Angeles, he says.
And this summer has already shown that climate change is going to bring surprises.
"Most folks would have thought that Seattle or Portland would have been great places to escape extreme heat waves," he says. "Well, clearly, that's not always going to be the case. Seeing Death Valley-like temperatures in British Columbia in June, I think, really gave people pause. Climate projections suggest that all of these things and more are possible in the future, but I think it's a particularly visceral recent example of how things are changing pretty fast."
Climate change is likely to throw us other curveballs, too.
While most people are concerned with drought and fire in California, Swain says he's more worried about how the state will handle the extreme flood risks that will also come with a warming climate.
"A lot of the risks, the physical hazards that are relevant in a changing climate, are not going to be obvious, and they're not often going to be the ones that people are really hyper-focused on in a particular region," he says. "What comes out of the woodwork in 10 or 20 years won't necessarily be the same problems in the same places that we're facing right now."
Understanding the Science
So given what we know — and don't — how do we go about figuring out where might be safe?
Historically, there haven't been a lot of great resources to tap. Most climate models aren't accessible to the general public. Or their raw data is taken out of context by others when trying to convey more localized impacts, which can be misleading, says Swain.
"I think a good example of this is California, where most of the state, according to climate models, is expected to see neither more nor less mean precipitation in the future with a few degrees of mean warming," he explains. "And if you look at all of these downscaled products, it'll say 'great news, your water availability isn't going to change,' which of course is completely wrong for a variety of reasons."
One reason is that rising temperatures will ensure that even if total precipitation doesn't change, there will still be less available water supply because there'll be more evaporation and thirstier soil, diminishing runoff.
But even a small change in annual average precipitation doesn't catch the variability that California's likely to experience with more extreme storm events and more droughts.
"So you get more really wet periods, but also more really dry periods," says Swain. "In practical terms, it's a really dramatic change. And so you might get a very inaccurate picture of what the future holds if you look at the wrong variables in the wrong context, even if the information is technically correct."
Emerging Tools
So how do we find the right information in the right context? There are some new efforts attempting just that.
Redfin, for example, recently partnered with ClimateCheck to add a feature to their listings that provides the future climate risk of a particular property. It assesses the change in the risk of heat, fire, drought and storms over the next 30 years.
First Street Foundation has been doing something similar focused on floods.
Getting down to the address level makes sense because risk itself can be hyper-local. Whether your house survives a disaster may depend not on what state or town you live in, but on what side of the street.
But can these tools really be precise at such a fine scale?
Swain, who has done some consulting for ClimateCheck, says it's possible to take regional climate data and combine that with very high-resolution spatial data at the parcel level. But he cautions, "I think it's more important to get it right than to be first to put something out there." After having seen it implemented poorly in the past, he says he now sees people today "who are trying to do a more thorough job of vetting and contextualizing everything."
Do Everything
Having better resources to find places that may have less risk is great... for the people who can afford to move there. Or move anywhere.
I'm among those lucky enough to get to pick a place on the map and point the moving truck in that direction. But that's not going to be a reality for a lot of other folks, as we saw last month before Hurricane Ida, when many people didn't even have enough cash on hand to temporarily flee the impending disaster, let alone permanently uproot their lives.
"It's a pretty extreme privilege in a global and even a national context to be able to choose where you want to live on the basis of your perceived comfort or safety from a climate perspective," says Swain. "That's not a choice the vast majority of people on Earth even get to make, even if there is good information to use for making that decision."
And while some places may seem like the proverbial higher ground, climate change is not a problem we can move away from — even for those with more resources. If it's not directly threatening our homes, it may endanger our food supply, water, jobs, health, neighbors, or the wildlife and wild places we hold dear.
That means making every place safer is a better bet — especially considering that the ground we're starting from isn't level. Many communities of color and low-income communities already face greater climate risks and climate-related health threats.
As far as I can tell, our best bet is to do everything — big and small. First and foremost, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and speed up the energy transition — equitably. At the same time, we'll need to protect and restore critical habitats, green urban areas and increase resilience wherever we are — including curbing new developments in areas we know will flood and burn.
When I started this article, I wanted to ask what resources people could use to pick new places to live. I also wanted to ask: Who has access to them? But maybe, instead of focusing on where we should go, it would be better to ask, "What more can we do to stay in the homes and communities we already love?"
Reposted with permission from The Revelator.
Conventional wastewater treatment can remove some, but not all, of the many chemical compounds we excrete from our bodies — or those we improperly dispose of — says Diana Aga, director of the RENEW (Research and Education in Energy, Environment and Water) Institute at the University at Buffalo.
One of the worst offenders, she says, are antidepressants, which are a real downer for wildlife health.
"Because [these chemicals] are persistent, they also tend to accumulate in fish," she says. A study she co-authored in 2017 examined fish from the Niagara River and found the highest bioaccumulation of antidepressants occurred in the fishes' brains, followed by their livers, muscles and gonads.
It's not just fish at risk, either. Other aquatic species face the same contaminants, and new research shows it can influence their behavior. Spinycheek crayfish, for example, became bolder after being exposed to the common antidepressant citalopram. Bold isn't a great trait for an animal low on the food chain.
That wasn't the only side effect. "The accumulation of pharmaceuticals in aquatic invertebrates poses a range of potential impacts to the invertebrates themselves and their predators, including altered growth, reproduction and behavior," the researchers wrote. Crayfish and other invertebrates play important roles in their ecosystems, so anything affecting them can cascade throughout a habitat.
Plants, too, can take up these chemicals. A study from False Bay, in Cape Town, South Africa found the anti-inflammatory drug diclofenac in sea lettuce, an edible seaweed. The researchers also found traces of the drug, although in lower quantities, in marine invertebrates including starfish, mussels and sea urchins.
Learning Curve
Despites these studies, and another two decades of research that has identified more than 600 pharmaceutical residues in rivers and streams, there's still a lot we don't know about how the compounds affect biodiversity, says Aga. Part of the problem is that many studies have been done in the lab where animals are usually exposed to a single drug.
Outside the lab, there are a lot more variables.
"A lot of these pharmaceuticals may have either synergistic or additive or maybe even antagonistic effects when combined," she says. The same thing can happen in humans taking multiple prescribed or over-the-counter medications, but the scope of drugs in the wild complicates the problem. "It's very difficult to predict what happens in the wild when they're exposed to hundreds of these pharmaceutical residues at once."
There's another obstacle. "A lot of times people only act when they think something is toxic or carcinogenic," she says. That's measured by tracking mortality or tumors. There's less focus on how the compounds could affect animal behavior, which is more subtle, but also important.
"These are things that might affect biodiversity in the wild," she says. "A population might decline because there's less mating. Or if they don't recognize predators, they more easily become prey."'
Water is discharged from a treatment plant into the environment. MPCA / CC BY-NC 2.0
Potential Fixes
We might not know all there is to know how drugs in our surface waters affect plants and animals yet, but we do know how to tackle the problem.
"In our study from 2020 we found that advanced treatment systems, like ozonation, can remove a lot of these pharmaceuticals," she explains. Since using ozone to disinfect water can also lead to the formation of potentially harmful by-products, Aga says it's best to use another method — granular activated carbon — or both in combination.
"Together they could completely remove these pharmaceuticals," she says.
Granular activated carbon systems for wastewater treatment are like large Brita filters commonly used for purifying water at home. Both technologies, though, will bump up the cost of treatment. For smaller water systems that lack economies of scale, that can be cost-prohibitive.
But it might not be long before such treatment systems become the norm anyway.
Other emerging contaminants in water like per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) also pose threats to human health and potentially wildlife. As we learn more about these so-called "forever chemicals," we may see regulations to curb their use and to treat contaminated water.
"There have been a lot of discussions from the EPA and some of the regulatory agencies that might require regulation of those PFAS, which would be a good driving force to update wastewater treatment systems," says Aga.
Climate change could also help push along better wastewater-treatment systems, she says, especially in areas with declining freshwater resources and as the need develops in some places to reuse wastewater for drinking, irrigation or other uses.
Those changes could benefit wildlife by removing more chemical compounds and other contaminants before treated water is discharged back into the environment.
While that would be good news, it's already long overdue.
"There have been discussions about pharmaceuticals in water for a long time, but the response has been slow," says Aga. "When I started looking at this awhile back, I'd hear people say that pharmaceuticals can't be toxic or that bad because we take them. But we need to broaden our minds — it's not just the people we should be thinking about, we should think about biodiversity."
Reposted with permission from The Revelator.
They won't be the only ones.
The study looked at two areas with high drought risk — western North America and the Western Palaearctic, which stretches across North Africa and Europe. They studied 43 species using three climate models and three emissions scenarios to determine where bats could move to "climate refugia" to find more suitable habitat, and which species are at the greatest risk of population decline if that journey isn't possible or easy.
The news isn't great. "All future emissions scenarios led to an overall reduction in predicted bat richness in both continents by 2080," the researchers found. "Areas projected to support high species richness in the current climate coincided with greatest predicted species loss and greatest future drought risk."
Already numerous bat species face threats to their habitat from development and degradation. In North America things are particularly dire. White-nose syndrome, a fatal disease caused by the fungus Pseudogymnoascus destructans, has decimated cave-dwelling bats there, including killing more than 90% of some populations in less than a decade.
Now climate change and changes to water resources pose a risk, too. All bats need water for basic survival, but some rely on aquatic prey or forage near the surface of water. Many species also roost or select foraging sites near water. And previous research has shown that reproduction declines dramatically during drought.
Scientists conduct bat surveys in Arizona's Kaibab National Forest. USFS
"While many species have evolved to survive in water-limited landscapes, an increase in the frequency, duration and severity of drought conditions may result in conditions too harsh for bat populations to persist, and is a threat to the long-term survival of many bat species," the researchers wrote.
For about half the species studied, the area with a suitable climate would shrink, they found.
Coastal Europe and North Africa currently support the greatest amount of species richness, but are likely to see the highest number of species needing to leave. In Western North America, the low-elevation regions of the southwest U.S. and Mexico were predicted to lose the most species.
Those that may be able to extend their range to find more suitable climates will need to move fast to keep up with the changing climate. Not surprisingly, bats that are adept at traveling long distances are apt to do better in finding new habitat.
The factors driving these relocations vary by region, too, with temperature being the biggest factor for the Western Palaearctic populations and precipitation changes driving changes for bats in Western North America.
As the planet warms, mountain and coastal areas where things will be cooler are likely to see an influx of species.
Higher-elevation areas are predicted to retain the most species, including the mountains of Portugal, northern Spain, northern Italy, Mexico's Sierra Madre, and mountainous areas of Arizona and New Mexico. Populations in some coastal areas were also expected to remain suitable, including coastal California and Mexico, and western France and southern England.
But those places could see additional climatic changes, too.
"While our models predict montane and coastal areas in both regions to remain climatically suitable for the majority of bat species it should be noted that these 'refugia' may be influenced by additional climate effects such as sea level rise (coastal areas) and increased incidence and severity of wildfires (montane areas)," the researchers wrote. "At the highest emissions scenarios, very few lower latitude areas retained their full complement of species."
When it comes to shifting ranges, the researchers found that on average, bat species in the Western Palaearctic will have to move farther and faster than those in western North America.
For some species, there won't be a lot of options.
The study found that 4-6 species in the Western Palaearctic are likely to have little overlap between current and future suitable areas, which could lead to population declines or extinction. Two of them, Mehely's horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus mehelyi) and the greater noctule bat (Nyctalus lasiopterus), are already identified as vulnerable on the IUCN Red List. In Western North American, 1-3 species face similar concerns, including Myotis thysanodes, which is likely to lose 44% of its range and for which models show population declines of more than 90% by 2086.
Specialized bats that feed on nectar may also face additional threats in a changing climate, including landscape changes from wildfire.
"Additional factors that may determine the ability of bats to remain in landscapes with changing climates or colonize new areas include dispersal barriers, competition between species, prey and food plant availability, roost requirements, habitat fragmentation, disruption of migration phenology and influence of pathogens," the study showed.
There are some things that can help ensure greater bat conservation success. Areas of refugia and water sources need to be identified — and protected. We also need to continue to strengthen global efforts to protect biodiversity and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers say.
"Land managers can prioritize conservation and management activities to enhance existing protected areas and promote connectivity between current and future bat habitats," the authors wrote. "Therefore, a commitment by world governments to significantly reduce carbon emissions should be urgently sought in order to avoid further deterioration of bat communities and the important ecosystem services that they provide."
Tara Lohan is deputy editor of The Revelator and has worked for more than a decade as a digital editor and environmental journalist focused on the intersections of energy, water and climate. Her work has been published by The Nation, American Prospect, High Country News, Grist, Pacific Standard and others. She is the editor of two books on the global water crisis.
Reposted with permission from The Revelator.
- Vampire Bat Adopts Best Friend's Baby - EcoWatch ›
- Flying Foxes: Australia's Love-Hate Relationship With Fruit Bats ... ›
The hotels — which look like cages but have bars spaced out enough for the 5-inch seahorses to swim through — are sorely needed. Recent research indicates that some White's seahorse populations have fallen by as much as 95% due to commercial destruction of their marine habitats. The manmade domiciles — up to 100 of which will be deployed — will replace some of that lost habitat for both seahorses and their food. "A lot of marine growth such as sponges and coral will accumulate, and that provides a lot of food and shelter for the seahorses," David Harasti, a marine scientist with the Port Stephens Fisheries Institute, told Australia's 9News.
White's seahorses are not alone in their plight. Research published this May in the journal Oryx serves as the first comprehensive assessment of the extinction risk for syngnathiform fishes, which include seahorses, pipefishes, seadragons, trumpetfishes, shrimpfishes, cornetfishes and ghost pipefishes. (A few related groups, such as goatfishes and seamoths, weren't assessed for the paper because recent research shows they belong to a different taxonomic order.)
Collectively, the news for these varied and colorful species isn't good, nor is it complete. The researchers — including two members of the IUCN SSC Seahorse, Pipefish & Seadragon Specialist Group — found that seahorses and their relatives face persistent threats from industrial trawl fisheries and habitat destruction, and to a lesser extent from pollution and trade. The 300 or so species often have limited ranges in coastal regions and freshwater lakes and rivers around the world, and many require specialized habitats, making them susceptible to disturbance.
USFWS
As a result, researchers found, at least 6% of these species and up to 38% are threatened and at some risk of extinction.
Why the wide range? Despite seahorses' popularity and charismatic qualities — like their prehensile tales and egg-carrying males — many of the 300-plus syngnathiform species remain cryptic. No one knows how well they're doing or if they're at risk. The researchers labeled 97 species "data deficient," meaning they "could potentially be threatened."
Of the species that could be assessed, the researchers found that 14 out of 42 seahorse species were at risk, including one endangered species and 12 considered "vulnerable to extinction." Four additional seahorse species were discovered after the paper was submitted and aren't included in that count. Pipefishes — which look like seahorses but have straighter bodies — have five species at risk, including one that's critically endangered.
Pipefish. Jayvee Fernandez / CC BY 2.0
Luckily, the researchers evaluated 61% of these fishes as being of "least concern," meaning they're doing okay for now, but they still caution that this entire group of species needs targeted conservation efforts, especially in the estuaries of East and Southeast Asia and South Africa, where they face the most threat. The paper recommends "robust long-term monitoring programs … to evaluate population dynamics, fisheries, trade and habitat quality." The researchers also call for dedicated coastal surveys, potentially using community science efforts such as iSeahorse.
All of this, the researchers wrote, would not only help seahorses and their relatives but also neighboring species: "Limiting fishing mortality, in particular by constraining bottom trawling and other nonselective fisheries, and ensuring healthy habitats is important both for the syngnathids and for other aquatic species. Given that the order is nearly global, there is potential for syngnathiformes, many of which are highly charismatic, to act as flagship species for ocean conservation."
That's a tall order for these tiny fish, but perhaps this research can serve to round up the support necessary to conserve both the species and their coastal habitats — or at least to fill the knowledge gap so we can learn how those 97 data-deficient species fare around the world, and then protect them before it's too late.
John R. Platt is the editor of The Revelator. An award-winning environmental journalist, his work has appeared in Scientific American, Audubon, Motherboard, and numerous other magazines and publications. His "Extinction Countdown" column has run continuously since 2004 and has covered news and science related to more than 1,000 endangered species. He is a member of the Society of Environmental Journalists and the National Association of Science Writers. John lives on the outskirts of Portland, Ore., where he finds himself surrounded by animals and cartoonists.
Reposted with permission from The Revelator.
- Seagrass Could Play a Major Role in Slowing Climate Change ... ›
- Sydney's Endangered Seahorses Find Protection in Underwater ... ›
1. Deadly Numbers
Heatwaves may seem to lack the drama of other weather events with named storms and categorized wind speeds, but they're actually the most deadly severe weather event.
Last week's heat dome that locked the Pacific Northwest in a sweltering vice is an apt reminder. The prolonged stretch of record-high temperatures in British Columbia is estimated to have claimed around 300 lives. Another 76 deaths were reported in Washington and Oregon.
Across the world, things have been heating up — with deadly results. Between 1998 and 2017, heatwaves killed 166,000 people, the World Health Organization reports. That includes 70,000 who perished in Europe's 2003 heatwave.
2. Yep, Climate Change
Not surprisingly, climate change is making things worse. An increase in global temperatures has resulted in a rise in the frequency of heatwaves. In the years to come, climate change is expected to also make heatwaves more severe and longer lasting.
As people pump up the air conditioning and stay indoors, that also puts increased pressure on the electrical grid. New research found that these extreme weather events are triggering more failures of critical infrastructure.
Power failures, for example, have jumped 60% since 2015. The combination of excessive heat and blackouts in major U.S. cities would have calamitous results. In Detroit, the researchers found in their modeling, that could mean 450,000 exposed to dangerous temperatures and a whopping 1.7 million in air conditioning-reliant Phoenix.
3. The Dangers of Humidity
The most recent deadly heatwave hit the arid West, increasing concerns about wildfires.
An aerial image of the McKay Creek fire in British Columbia acquired by the Operational Land Imager on Landsat 8 on June 30, 2021 during the region's record-breaking heatwave. NASA
Our bodies sweat to help keep us cool. But when the relative humidity is too high that moisture from our skin can't evaporate as well and we don't cool down. Scientists have identified the related wet bulb temperature of 95° F as the upper limit of what we can tolerate when conditions are both hot and extremely humid.
By midcentury, models predict, climate change will make wet bulb temperatures near 95° F a reality. But new research shows that areas in South Asia, the coastal Middle East and the coastal southwest of North America are already hitting that critical point.
4. Inequity Makes It Hotter
Not all people will face the same risks — even if they live in the same cities. Neighborhoods that lack tree canopy and green space, and have more road surfaces and large buildings, could be as much as 20° F hotter.
A 2020 study of 108 cities published in the journal Climate found that areas with higher temperatures are almost always the same neighborhoods that have experienced historic racist housing policies such as "redlining."
"This study reveals that historical housing policies may, in fact, be directly responsible for disproportionate exposure to current heat events," the researchers wrote. Another recent study in Nature Communications found that people of color have a higher risk than whites of high heat exposure in all but six of the largest 175 cities in the United States.
5. Wildlife at Risk
People aren't the only ones feeling the heat. The Pacific Northwest's recent heatwave also threatens cold-water-loving salmon. The Columbia and Snake rivers this year are seeing temperatures within two degrees of the "slaughter zone" that killed 250,000 sockeye in 2015, The Seattle Times reported.
The heatwave hit at the peak of the sockeye run, and also when spring and summer chinook and steelhead are migrating. Some fish are being pulled out of the river and trucked to hatcheries for spawning.
"We are crossing the line to temperatures that can be disastrous for fish," Michele DeHart, manager of the Fish Passage Center, told The Seattle Times. "I would say the outlook is pretty grim."
6. Vicious Circle
The hotter it gets, the more fortunate people who have air conditioning crank up the dial and the longer they'll need to leave it running. In a fossil-fuel driven world, that means even more emissions that will continue heating the planet.
Already 10% of global electrical use is from people trying to stay cool with air conditioning and electric fans, according to the International Energy Agency. Expect that number to climb as temperatures get hotter and more people become able to afford A/C.
The International Energy Agency reports that over the next 30 years, air conditioning may be one of the top drivers of electricity demand. "Without action to address energy efficiency, energy demand for space cooling will more than triple by 2050 — consuming as much electricity as all of China and India today," the agency reports.
That makes the need for high-efficiency cooling extremely vital. Not to mention more widespread use of renewable energy and, of course, drastically curbing climate emissions.
Reposted with permission from The Revelator.
- Extreme Heat Wave Melts Cables, Buckles Roads in Northwest ... ›
- Heat Waves Cook Bird Eggs - EcoWatch ›
- 17 States Under Heat Alerts as Fifth Summer Heat Wave in the U.S. Begins ›