August 10, 2017

In June 2017, the state of California classified glyphosate, the most widely used herbicidal chemical in the world, as a known carcinogen (cancer-causing substance). In the early 1970’s, organic chemist John E. Franz discovered the plant-killing chemical compound while working for the Monsanto Company, a leading chemical maker in the United States. Glyphosate was patented in 1971, and in 1974 it hit stores as the herbicide Roundup, which became a top-selling Monsanto product.

A farmer sprays herbicide on a soybean field. The safety of herbicide use has come under sharp scrutiny in recent months. Credit: © Shutterstock

In the beginning, glyphosate was used only to remove weeds from gardens and other small-scale plantings. Glyphosate is a nonselective herbicide, meaning that it kills most any plant it touches. Its broad toxicity meant that farmers could not use it to kill weeds in their fields without also killing their crops. In the 1990’s, however, Monsanto began altering the genes of crop plants to resist the effects of glyphosate. Worldwide Roundup sales then skyrocketed, as did sales for Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds. Today, glyphosate is the most-used agricultural chemical in the world. Each year, hundreds of millions of pounds of the chemical are applied to cultivated land in the United States alone.

Glyphosate’s widespread use led to concerns regarding its safety. People worried about the chemical’s ability to degrade native plant communities and wondered if it might harm pollinators (such as bees) and other ecological keystone species. People also worried about humans eating crops treated with glyphosate.

In order to determine the consequences of human consumption of the herbicide, scientists tested glyphosate on animals. The scientists looked for harmful reproductive, developmental, or carcinogenic results. Some tests found little or no harmful effects, but others suggested a greater risk potential from long-term exposure. Scientists then determined that further study was needed. In March 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) stated that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Since then, many people with cancer have sued Monsanto, claiming that extensive use of Roundup had caused their illnesses.

In response, Monsanto called attention to the research that demonstrated glyphosate’s safe qualities. The company steadfastly adheres to the claim that the weedkiller does not cause cancer. Roundup is a key product for Monsanto, and a drop in sales could be disastrous for the company. Since the IARC warning in 2015, Monsanto has been petitioning U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials to declare Roundup safe once and for all.

In labeling glyphosate a carcinogen, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment resisted pressure from current EPA head Scott Pruitt. Pruitt, an appointee of President Donald Trump, has pushed to erase or reverse many EPA regulations. In June 2017—the same month as California’s glyphosate listing—Pruitt reversed a proposed ban on chlorpyrifos, a widely used pesticide that health studies showed can harm children’s brains.

And now, in August, a new herbicide crisis has been caused by dicamba, a newer weedkiller in the Monsanto product XtendiMax. Like glyphosate, dicamba was produced along with plants modified to withstand its herbicidal effects. However, clouds of dicamba—after being sprayed on modified crops—have drifted over unmodified crops and gardens nearby, severely damaging or destroying the plants.

July 12, 2017

Last month, in June, an international team of researchers and scientists braved heavy snows, freezing winds, and thin air to extract ice core samples from the Illimani glacier high in the Andes Mountains of Bolivia. The samples were the latest collected by teams from Ice Memory, a project aiming to gather ice samples from endangered glaciers around the world. The archive—which will be stored in a sanctuary in Antarctica—will allow future studies of glaciers that will soon fall victim to global warming. Ice Memory is managed by the University of Grenoble Alps Foundation in France and supported by the French and Italian national commissions for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

On June 6, 2017, the Ice Memory team drills near their camp on the Illimani glacier in the Andes Mountains of Bolivia. Credit: © Sarah Del Ben, Wiltouch/Fondation UGA

At 21,004 feet (6,402 meters), Illimani is the highest mountain in the Cordillera Real range of western Bolivia. Glaciers on Illimani have existed for many thousands of years, but they are rapidly melting and retreating as climate change increases Earth’s temperatures. Glacier ice reads like a historical record of climate and environment, preserving ancient animal, plant, and mineral samples as well as showing glacial growth over millennia. They also show variations in temperatures and more recent concentrations of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Saving Illimani cores will allow scientists to study the ice long after the host glaciers have disappeared.

Scientists remove ice from the drilling core on the Illimani glacier in Bolivia on June 9, 2017. Credit: © Sarah Del Ben, Wiltouch/Fondation UGA

It took several weeks for the Illimani team to drill through the ice and extract the core samples, both of which were more than 440 feet (135 meters) long. Dangerous weather forced the team to abandon the planned retrieval of a third sample. The glacier cores were then cut into smaller pieces, stored in tubes, and catalogued. The samples will eventually make their way to the archive at Concordia Station in Antarctica, where they will join the first core samples extracted from France’s Mont Blanc in 2016. The Concordia glacier archive is meant to store hundreds of ice core samples in a protected snow cave at -65° Fahrenheit (-54° Celsius).

An Ice Memory researcher stacks tubed sections of ice core in an improvised snow cave on the Illimani glacier on June 5, 2017. The samples will eventually be stored in Antarctica. Credit: © Sarah Del Ben, Wiltouch/Fondation UGA

Future core extractions are planned for such threatened glacier areas as Mera Peak in Nepal, Mount Elbrus in Russia, Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania, and sites in the Swiss Alps and the Altai Mountains in Asia. Ideally, three glacier samples from each area will provide one sample for immediate analysis and two for storage and archiving. Aside from providing clues about the past, the samples help scientists understand the current effects of climate change and predict future environmental events.

June 29, 2017

The Bay of Bengal forms the northernmost part of the Indian Ocean. Bordered in an arc by the populous nations of Sri Lanka, India, Bangladesh, and Myanmar (also called Burma), the bay plays an important role in the lives of hundreds of millions of people. For thousands of years, people have subsisted on the bay’s rich marine life. With its waters dirtied and its sea populations dwindling, however, the bay’s fruitful abundance is lessening and may soon come to an end.

Traditional fishing boats crowd the harbor at Visakhapatnam, India, on the Bay of Bengal. Larger trawling vessels can be seen in the background. Credit: © Shutterstock

Covering an area of some 840,000 square miles (2.2 million square kilometers), the Bay of Bengal is one of the world’s largest marine ecosystems. The bay’s deep waters, coral reefs, estuaries, and mangroves provide a remarkable diversity of life. The rare Irrawaddy dolphin, which lives in fresh and brackish (slightly salty) waters, lurks in the muddy river mouths along the coasts. The bay’s salty and swampy mangrove forests provide a key habitat for Bengal tigers in India and Bangladesh, and for saltwater crocodiles, river terrapins, and other endangered species throughout the region. The dynamic mix of salt and freshwater habitats makes the coasts hotspots of fish biodiversity as well. At least 24 species of shrimp, 50 species of crab, and hundreds of different types of mollusks live in the bay’s shallower waters. These waters also host an abundance of squid and octopus species.

Click to view larger image
The Bay of Bengal is the northern part of the Indian Ocean. The bay borders on India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka. Credit: WORLD BOOK map

The Bay of Bengal is best known, however, for its rich fishing. Seemingly endless populations of tuna, mackerel, sharks, reef fish, prawns, oysters, and other marine animals have long provided people with food and a steady income. For centuries, people fished the bay with pole and line, they trolled from light boats, or they practiced beach seining (hauling in nets anchored to the beach). These methods—which are still common today—produced ample results for both home and market, yet they did little harm to the bay’s overall fish stocks. Over the past 50 years or so, however, industrial fishing—which leans heavily on the use of trawlers—has largely supplanted the traditional sustainable fishing techniques, and the results have been disastrous.

Even such small stern trawlers as the one above catch large amounts of fish, including non-commercial marine species known as bycatch. Credit: © Colin Munro, Alamy Images

Trawlers use funnel-shaped nets called trawls to trap sea life. Trawls are very effective at corralling huge quantities of sea life, particularly valuable shrimp and prawns (often referred to as “pink gold” in the Bay of Bengal). A single trawler can catch many more fish in a day than a dozen or more traditional fishing craft. But trawling is a destructive fishing practice that can devastate marine ecosystems. The heavy trawls, usually weighed down and dragged along the sea floor, do not discriminate. They catch everything too big to slip through the net, including dolphins, rays, sea turtles, and many types of other non-commercial fish. These accidental catches are swept up in the nets, hauled on board the ship, and dismissed as bycatch. Some animals caught as bycatch are returned to the sea alive, but most die and are either discarded or sold to produce farm animal feed. Bycatch can constitute as much as 90 percent of a trawler’s haul—a devastatingly inefficient and wasteful percentage. Trawlers can leave a swath of lifeless sea in their wake, and they also hurt the sea floor itself. The heavy nets mow down sensitive corals and plant life.

In the Bay of Bengal, the switch from local to corporate and industrial fishing—to unsustainable and destructive trawling—has largely depleted the waters’ once-rich fish stocks. As fish hauls have decreased over the years, many traditional fishing families have had to find other ways of life. At the same time, trawling fleets—pushing ever further to find their elusive catch—have caused international disputes as they encroach upon foreign nations’ territorial waters.

Overfishing has done great harm to the Bay of Bengal, but ocean pollution may be the bay’s greatest enemy. Pollution has killed large amounts of marine life, poisoned or otherwise contaminated the bay’s waters, and even drained the life-giving abilities of the water itself. In some areas—including a massive “dead zone” in the middle of the bay—the once organically rich marine environment has become a tangled web of plastic garbage floating on oxygen-poor waters nearly incapable of supporting life.

Water pollution in the Bay of Bengal comes from many sources. Deep-water gas and oil drilling can cause great harm, as can ever-running boat engines and acid rain falling from the polluted air of the “brown cloud” drifting from the Asian mainland. The largest amounts of pollutants, however, come from the bay’s feeding rivers. Many major rivers empty into the Bay of Bengal, including the Meghna, the Ganges, and the Mahanadi. These mighty rivers carry fresh water into the salty bay, but they also bring pesticides and fertilizers from farming lands as well as massive amounts of trash and untreated sewage from urban areas.

Aside from the obvious harm from toxins, fertilizer runoff provides the bay’s plankton with an excess of nutrients. This causes the plankton population to rise sharply. The plankton then use up much of the water’s oxygen supply, leading to areas of hypoxic (low oxygen) waters. Few marine species can exist in hypoxic waters, so most animals either die or go elsewhere. In the center of the bay, a 37,000-square mile (60,000-square kilometer) area devoid of fish has appeared—a massive hypoxic zone often referred to as “dead.” Without action to reverse the bay’s decline, this dead zone may grow until, one day, it takes over the entire bay.

Anthropogenic (human caused) climate change, too, is threatening the Bay of Bengal. Climate change affects southern Asia’s seasonal monsoons, causing erratic, stronger, and unpredictable storms and flooding, increasing freshwater runoff and pollution and further deoxygenating the bay’s waters. Global warming leads to warmer ocean water temperatures and encourages the expansion of low-oxygen or even anaerobic (oxygen free) dead zones. Warmer ocean waters also melt polar ice at an increased rate, which causes sea levels to rise. As water inches up the Bay of Bengal’s coastline, it will displace millions of people. It will also take away land badly needed for agriculture, forcing humans to rely still further on fish from the bay—fish that soon may be nearly impossible to find.

As food security in Bay of Bengal countries becomes increasingly threatened and marine species become harder to find, slowing—or, if possible, reversing—the demise of the Bay of Bengal will become increasingly urgent. Bay communities and governments must choose more sustainable methods of fishing as well as more responsible methods of agriculture and commerce. At the same time, they must do their best to reduce pollution and waste. Many scientists see the plight of the Bay of Bengal as a warning signal to the rest of Earth. The bay is an example of a global trend in which unsustainable fishing methods, pollution, and climate change are slowly killing the world’s oceans. The Bay of Bengal is at a breaking point, but it is not too late to save it. Swift immediate and long-term action is needed, and the area’s people must make a genuine commitment to environmental responsibility.

June 2, 2017

Yesterday, June 1, United States President Donald Trump announced that the United States would formally withdraw from the Paris Agreement, an international treaty designed to combat global warming. The decision to withdraw from the treaty represented a sharp break with leaders of nearly all nations and went against the wishes of thousands of corporate executives, economists, environmentalists, other U.S. politicians, scientists, and even members of the president’s own Cabinet. Trump’s decision to withdraw from the treaty met with immediate international and domestic scorn and spurred numerous protests.

On June 1, 2017, protesters gather outside the White House in Washington, D.C., moments after President Donald Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. Credit: Kellybdc (licensed under CC BY 2.0)

By joining the Paris Agreement in 2015 and ratifying it in 2016, the United States had voluntarily committed to cut back on the use of polluting fossil fuels, develop more green (environmentally friendly) technology, and raise funds to help poorer countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Trump, who has previously called climate change a “hoax,” sees these commitments as an unfair economic burden on the United States. Most evidence, however, shows that climate change is real and that moving to green technology actually stimulates economic growth.

The goal of the Paris Agreement is to slow and eventually cease the rise in global temperatures that has sharply increased in the last few decades. Scientists predict that, if global warming continues unchecked, it will damage human society and the environment. For example, global warming could melt enough of the ice near Earth’s poles to raise sea levels, flooding many coastal cities. Global warming could lead to more widespread droughts. It could also raise the risk of extinction for many plant and animal species. Already, global warming has greatly reduced glaciers at the North and South poles, harmed the world’s coral reefs, and created ever more erratic and extreme weather patterns.

Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement is a lengthy process that will take until November 2020 to complete, leaving time for the United States to rejoin the treaty. A number of U.S. cities and states have already announced they will continue to comply with the provisions of the Paris Agreement whether the federal government does or not.

May 3, 2017

In Andy Weir’s 2011 book The Martian and its 2015 film adaptation,  botanist-astronaut Mark Watney manages to grow potatoes while marooned on Mars. Watney hauls Martian soil into a pressurized, climate-controlled base and harvests a crop that provides food while his other supplies run out. Today, a group of Peruvian scientists are working on transferring this fiction to reality. Agricultural researchers from the International Potato Center (called the Centro Internacional de la Papa in Spanish, or CIP) in Lima, the Peruvian capital, have grown some rather hardy potatoes in an even worse environment than Watney’s Martian garden. The scientists’ research, carried out in the Andes Mountains of South America (where potatoes originated), might make farming on Mars or other barren places possible.

Scientists at the International Potato Center in Lima, Peru, grew a “Unique” potato in simulated Martian conditions within the container at left, called the “CubeSat.” Credit: © International Potato Center

Human exploration of Mars is one of the primary long-term goals of such space agencies as the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the European Space Agency (ESA). But before people get there, scientists must solve a host of problems. First among them will be how to feed astronauts during an extended stay in the harsh environment of the Red Planet.

Potatoes originated in the often harsh environment of the Andean Highlands of South America. Credit: © Roux Frederic, Shutterstock

The ability to grow food during a space journey or while on the Martian surface has a number of benefits. Space could be saved in the spacecraft, allowing for other needed supplies, and instead of freeze-dried or tubular “astronaut food,” space explorers could eat a variety of freshly grown produce. But growing food on Mars—an extremely cold, dry, and nearly airless planet—will not be easy. Life as we know it cannot survive on its surface—yet.

The ability to grow food on Mars will greatly help in the planet’s exploration and possible settlement. Credit: NASA/JPL/Malin Space Science Systems

In Peru, the CIP scientists wanted to see if certain hardy potatoes could be grown in conditions similar to those found on Mars. To do this, the scientists built a sealed growing chamber (a garden in a box they called a “CubeSat”) and layered it with nutrient-weak, sandy soil similar to that found on Mars. They installed low-powered lights on a longer-than-Earth day-night cycle, and created a low-temperature and low-atmospheric pressure environment. They then tried growing dozens of varieties of potatoes in the simulator, irrigating them with nutrient-rich water. Of all the tested varieties, one called “Unique” grew best under the extreme conditions.

The Unique potato is exceptionally hardy, but it could not possibly grow on the surface of Mars without human intervention. The scientists grew the potatoes at temperatures around freezing, but surface temperatures on Mars can dip below -150 °F (-100 °C) at night. They were able to achieve growth with somewhat reduced atmospheric pressure (like the thin air at the top of the Andes Mountains), but Mars’s atmospheric pressure is a mere 0.7 percent of the atmospheric pressure on Earth. And, as far as we know, there is no nutrient-rich water on Mars. Liquid water near the Martian surface is only present during the planet’s summer, and it is extremely salty.

Potatoes are one of the world’s most important crops. The ability to grow potatoes and other crops in harsh conditions could prove vastly important as climate change alters the global environment. Credit: © David R. Frazier

The CIS experiment provided scientists and engineers with useful information on the extreme limits of vegetable cultivation. With the use of extremely hardy plants like the Unique potato, astronaut greenhouses could be kept cooler than Earth spaces, saving valuable electricity for purposes other than heating. Because plants can survive on carbon dioxide concentrations, excess carbon dioxide exhaled by astronauts could help provide the space garden’s protected atmosphere. If Martian soil could be manipulated for vegetable growth, it would negate the need to send bundles of Earth soil to the Red Planet.

Beyond its applications to space travel or Martian living, the CIS potato research has a more practical use here on Earth. As the climate changes from global warming, environmental conditions will become harsher in many places around the world. By studying how crops survive in extreme conditions, agricultural scientists may be able to discover and breed crops more resistant to the worst effects of climate change.

May 2, 2017

In Canada’s Yukon territory, increased melting of the vast Kaskawulsh Glacier has caused the nearby Slims River to run dry. The Slims, once a gushing channel of glacial melt water, is now a waterless expanse of mud and dust. In recent decades, increased temperatures caused by global warming shrank the Kaskawulsh Glacier to the point that its melt water found an alternate route out of the Saint Elias Mountains, cutting off water to the Slims.

Parts of Kluane Lake, which received much of its water from the disappeared Slims River, have dried up, leaving behind these small pinnacles of hardened sediment. Credit: Jim Best, University of Illinois/University of Washington (licensed under CC BY 2.0)

For centuries, Kaskawulsh melt water fed the Slims River (as well as the Kaskawulsh River), which in turn fed Kluane Lake as well as the Kluane River. In 2016, however, a scientific expedition into the remote area found that the Slims had changed dramatically. In place of the river’s wide, rushing waters, the expedition found a narrow stream running down a path of mucky and treacherous sediment. The scientists learned that melt water from the shrinking Kaskawulsh Glacier had shifted outlets and was now feeding only the Kaskawulsh River—which had grown in size. In geology, the diversion of water from one river to another is called river piracy. River piracy occurred in ancient times—such as during and after the last ice age—but the theft of Kaskawulsh waters is the first modern case known to science.

Kluane National Park and Reserve is in southwestern Yukon, a territory of Canada. Global warming has reduced the park’s Kaskawulsh Glacier, shown here, and shifted the flow of its melt water. Credit: © Parks Canada

Between 1956 and 2007, the Kaskawulsh Glacier retreated some 2,300 feet (700 meters). In recent years, however, the retreat greatly accelerated, ultimately resulting in a sudden and radical water diversion in 2016. New melt water channels were carved in a matter of days, and the glacial waters found their way only to the Kaskawulsh River—leaving the Slims River high and dry.

Yukon is a northern Canadian territory known for its magnificent scenery. Kluane National Park, shown here, features the Wrangell and Saint Elias mountain ranges. Credit: © Thinkstock

The sudden shift in geological landscape altered much more than the view: fish and other wildlife populations either moved, migrated, or died, and entire plant populations withered and died. A statistical analysis, published in the journal Nature Geoscience in April 2017, blamed the Kaskawulsh river piracy squarely on anthropogenic (human caused) climate change. The analysis warned that river piracy could become a common event as glaciers retreat around the world. Few people live in the Kaskawulsh area, but sudden river piracy in heavily populated regions dependent on glacial melt for water—such as the Himalaya in Asia or the Andes in South America—could have catastrophic effects on human populations.

March 10, 2017

Hard gunk stuck in the teeth of fossil Neandertal jaws shows that the prehistoric human beings had a widely varied diet and a sophisticated knowledge of medicinal plants. Scientists analyzing dental calculus (a hard, yellowish substance formed by the buildup of plaque between teeth) from three Neandertal fossils found dramatic differences in diet and evidence that Neandertals likely used some foods as medicine. The scientists’ findings were published in the March 8 issue of the journal Nature.

The teeth of this fossilized Neandertal jaw revealed traces of poplar bark, a source of aspirin. The individual had also consumed Penicillium mold, source of the natural antibiotic penicillin. Credit: © Paleoanthropology Group MNCN-CSIC

Neandertals were prehistoric human beings who lived in Europe and central Asia from about 150,000 to 39,000 years ago. They looked quite different from modern humans. Neandertal skulls were huge compared to ours, with a projecting face; no chin; a low, sloping forehead; and a thick browridge (raised strip of bone across the lower forehead). Because Neandertals had such a brutish appearance, people long assumed the these prehistoric humans possessed only a crude and simple culture. However, new evidence shows they were perhaps smarter than we previously thought.

An international team of scientists examined three fossil Neandertal skulls dating from 42,000 to 50,000 years ago. Two of the skulls were from El Sidrón, a cave in Spain, and one was from Spy Cave in Belgium. The teeth of these fossils were coated with thick layers of hardened dental calculus. The scientists knew that this material preserves DNA from microbes and food debris that pass through an individual’s mouth during their lifetime. The dental calculus of the Spy Neandertal contained traces of meat from wooly rhinoceros and wild sheep, while evidence of plant foods was largely absent. In contrast, the two Spanish Neandertal fossils appeared to have survived on a vegetarian diet of edible moss, mushrooms, tree bark, and pine nuts.

Neandertals lived in Europe and Central Asia from about 150,000 to 39,000 years ago. Credit: © Jay H. Matternes

Other evidence showed that the El Sidrón Neandertals probably also used plants for medicine. The scientists recovered DNA from poplar trees in the dental calculus. While not eaten for food, these trees contain salicylic acid, the pain-relieving ingredient in aspirin. Preserved spores of the Penicillium mold, from which the life-saving antibiotic penicillin is produced, were also recovered. The scientists think the Neandertals ate the plant sources for their medicinal properties. One fossil skull showed evidence of a painful tooth infection, and DNA from a microbe known to cause stomach problems was also recovered from the calculus. Aspirin and penicillin would have helped.

Neandertals died out about 39,000 years ago, when physically modern human beings migrated into Europe. However, Neandertals did not disappear completely. Genetic evidence shows at least some Neandertals interbred with modern-looking populations that settled Europe, Asia, and the Pacific Islands. Neandertals are extinct, but they remain part of the ancestry of some modern peoples today.

March 7, 2017

Off the coast of Brazil, where the Amazon River spills into the Atlantic Ocean, scientists are taking the first up-close and personal look at the recently discovered Amazon Reef. Existence of the large coral reef was not confirmed until an oceanographic survey of the area in 2012. The survey’s findings were published in 2016, and in late January 2017, scientists began exploring the reef two-by-two in a small submarine, the exploration craft of the Greenpeace ship Esperanza.

The Greenpeace ship Esperanza recovers its two-person research submarine from a dive to the Amazon Reef in February 2017. Scientists are just beginning to explore the recently discovered reef off the coast of Brazil. Credit: © Marizilda Cruppe, Greenpeace

In the late 1950’s, a ship collected sponges—animals that often inhabit coral reefs—from the floor of the Amazon Delta. Because of the area’s oxygen-poor, murky-brown mix of freshwater and ocean saltwater, however, the possibility of a reef there was largely discounted. Coral reefs typically grow in clear saltwater that allows enough sunlight to support photosynthesis in their algae and plants. Photosynthesis is the process in which organisms use energy from sunlight to make food. In the following decades, colorful reef fish were spotted in the same part of the Amazon Delta, and speculation grew that a reef existed beneath the waves.

Fish swim above the corals and sponges of the Amazon Reef off the coast of Brazil. This photograph is one of the first taken from a submarine launched by the Greenpeace ship Esperanza. Credit: © Greenpeace

Finally, in 2012, a team of oceanographers led by Rodrigo Moura of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, began studying the Amazon Delta’s sea floor. Using acoustic sampling, the researchers mapped the area, and subsequent dredging brought corals, sponges, and other reef species to the surface, proving the reef’s existence. After further study, the team published its findings in the journal Science Advances in April 2016.

The Amazon Reef stretches 600 miles (970 kilometers) along the Brazilian coast and covers an area of 3,600 square miles (9,300 square kilometers) with a depth range of 100 to 400 feet (30 to 120 meters). Since their first dive in late January 2017, oceanographers have turned the submarine’s lights on a wide variety of sea life, including three new fish species, rare manatees, yellow-spotted river turtles, and giant river otters. Given the Amazon Reef’s singular nature as the only known reef at the mouth of a major river, it may harbor many more undiscovered animals or plants as well. Further dives will help scientists learn how the reef functions and further define the ecology of the vast Amazon River Basin.

At a time when most reef systems are rapidly declining because of overfishing, pollution, and climate change, the discovery of a thriving reef in an unlikely place is encouraging. The reef is likely already in trouble, however, as oil companies are scouting the area and preparing to drill for oil. Drilling could severely harm the reef, as could any oil leaked into the delta waters.

January 27, 2017

Last week, the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced that 2016 was the hottest year on record, setting a new record for the third consecutive year. The average land and ocean surface temperature was 58.69 ˚F (14.83 ˚C), 1.69 Fahrenheit (0.94 Celsius) degrees warmer than the global average during the 1900’s. Sixteen out of the 17 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, one of many clear indicators that the planet is warming.

This global heat map covering 2012 through 2016 shows areas with the sharpest temperature increases in red. White areas indicate Earth’s few remaining “cool” spots.  Credit: NASA

Global warming is an increase in the average temperature at Earth’s surface. People often use the term global warming to refer specifically to the warming observed since the mid-1800’s. Scientists estimate that Earth’s average surface temperature has risen by about 1.4 Fahrenheit (0.78 Celsius) degrees since 1880. Researchers have also found that most of the temperature increase occurred from the mid-1900’s to the 2000’s.

This chart clearly shows the sharp rise in global temperatures since 1980. Note the temperature spike coinciding with World War II (1939-1945). Credit: NOAA/NESDIS/NCEI

The record heat of 2014 topped the previous high by just 0.07 Fahrenheit (0.4 Celsius) degrees. Since then, however, record temperatures jumped by 0.29 Fahrenheit (0.16 Celsius) degrees in 2015 and 0.36 Fahrenheit (0.20 Celsius) degrees in 2016. The recent strong El Niño event, which began in mid-2014, contributed to the record-shattering heat. An El Niño is a part of the interaction between Earth’s atmosphere and the tropical waters of the Pacific Ocean. An El Niño occurs about every two to seven years, and it can affect the climate throughout the world.

El Niño was not the primary cause for the record heat, however. Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, estimated that the El Niño effect contributed just 0.09 Fahrenheit (0.05 Celsius) degrees to 2015′s record 1.62 Fahrenheit (0.90 Celsius) degrees increase and only 0.22 Fahrenheit (0.12 Celsius) degrees of 2016′s 1.69 Fahrenheit (0.94 Celsius) degrees record. Climate scientists agree that human activities, such as the release of carbon dioxide and other gases into the atmosphere, are responsible for the warming trend seen over the last several decades.

The recent El Niño ended in in the spring of 2016, and a La Niña cooling event emerged at the end of the year. Because of this development, almost all climate scientists agree that 2017 will not be as hot as 2016. But La Niña conditions are already declining, and some models predict another El Niño could begin as early as the middle of 2017.

The 2016 election of Donald Trump as president of the United States created new problems for climate scientists and environmentalists trying to slow global warming. Much of the momentum gained by last year’s Paris Climate Agreement has been halted by Trump, who has claimed that climate change is a hoax and has vowed to back out of the agreement. Working with Trump, the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress is preparing to dismantle many of the environmental regulations put in place or strengthened by former President Barack Obama. China and the other signatories of the Paris Agreement may have to act without the United States to try to prevent the direst effects of global warming. Trump’s administration has already removed climate change websites from numerous government agencies, and on Jan. 24, 2017, Trump banned government agencies from mentioning climate change on press releases and social media posts and from discussing the issue with other public officials.

January 18, 2017

For the first time in the continental United States, a wild bee has been designated as an endangered species. What was once a thriving bee in 28 states and 2 Canadian provinces, the rusty patched bumble bee is now weakly carrying on in scattered populations in just 13 states and the province of Ontario. In the past 20 years, the insect’s population has dropped 87 percent because of habitat loss, disease, pesticides, and climate change. In 2013, the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation filed a petition for the rusty patched bumble bee to be listed as an endangered species, but it took until last week to make it happen.

The rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis) was listed as an endangered species in January 2017. Credit: © Rich Hatfield, The Xerces Society

The bumble bee is a large, burly bee that often has mostly black-and-yellow coloring. Bumble bees may be seen flying among flower blossoms during spring, summer, and fall. The rusty patched bumble bee lives only in the upper Midwest and northeastern United States and in Ontario. Like most bumble bees, rusty patched bumble bees have black heads, but workers and males have a rusty reddish patch on their backs.

Bumble bees are among farmers’ best friends, and protecting them is important. They pollinate (help fertilize) numerous wild plants and such food crops as blueberries, cranberries, clover, and tomatoes. The agriculture industry leans heavily on such native pollinators as bumble bees.

Now that the rusty patched bumble bee is listed under the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service must assess, protect, and help restore the insect’s population and habitat.

By protecting the environment, people can help save the rusty patched bumble bee. On an individual level, you can help simply by growing a garden. A garden of plants native to your region will attract and nurture native pollinators. Bumble bees love lupines (such as peas), colorful asters, and, as its name implies, bee balm (flowers that also attract nectar-loving butterflies and hummingbirds). Choose a variety of colorful plants that flower at different times, providing nectar and pollen throughout the growing season. Limiting or avoiding the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers also helps, because they can kill or seriously harm bumble bees.