Environmentalism and Wildlife Conservation Discussion

Nitrogen oxides are also greenhouse gases, at least NO₂ (hint: Almost all gases with more than 2 atoms in the molecule are capable of acting as greenhouse gases).

Algal blooms are really more the consequence of overuse of fertilizer. When their biomass falls to the ocean floor, its decomposition consumes all available oxygen thus generating anoxic zones.

Actually I just read that nitrogen oxide exhaust can become nitrogen dioxide in th atmosphere, which is largely responsible for th depletion of ozone in the upper atmosphere, as well as acid rain

Human impact has created a 'plastic planet': "Planet Earth's oceans and lands will be buried by increasing layers of plastic waste by the mid-century due to human activity, according to new research."

The Doomsday Clock is now "far too close" to midnight: "Believe it or not, the Doomsday Clock is very real, and right now it’s very close to midnight – just 3 minutes away to be exact. 'Three minutes is too close. Far too close,' the members of the Science and Security Board for The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced on Tuesday in a statement.

What happens at midnight? Global catastrophe. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists first debuted the Doomsday Clock in 1947 as a symbolic way to track how close humanity was to annihilating itself – mainly through nuclear war, due to the advent of nuclear weapons.

Today, nuclear war is just one of many risks the board weighs each year when it sets the clock’s time."

I swear they didn't move the clock this year, so why the new worry?

Because they have to move the attention to themselves. For they shall save the world.

Question for anyone who cares to answer, concerning this:

Despite the title, an elephant doesn't give birth to twins, it's about controlling their numbers in South Africa where they in endanger of getting out of control. What do you think about their methods and reasoning?

edited 28th Jan '16 5:52:35 PM by LSBK

Elephants are indeed problematic in several areas of Africa because of how dangerous they are. They aren't agressive, they just don't care if something valuable to humans is on their way - and since they don't live in the richest areas of the world, I can understand locals reacting harshly.

I have to say that I like their methods, they seem to be properly checking the long-term effects, and it is clearly better than culling. Since wildlife population size variation is one of the biggest concerns in conservation right now, any original initiative is really welcome.

Laboratory-bred corals reproduce in the wild: "Researchers have, for the first time, successfully raised laboratory-bred colonies of a threatened Caribbean coral species to sexual maturity. Due to its large size and branching shape, elkhorn corals created vast forests in shallow reef waters that protect shores from incoming storms and provide a critical habitat for a myriad of other reef organisms, including ecologically and economically important fish species. An estimated 80% of all Caribbean corals have disappeared over the last four decades and repopulating degraded reefs has since become a management priority throughout the Caribbean region. The elkhorn coral was one of the species whose decline was so severe that it was one of the first coral species to be listed as threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species act in 2006."

Nope. Too many elephants in too small an area = environmental devastation. Hence culls if you can't move the population (because they're not the only wildlife or flora you're trying to conserve). And, not all game reserves are big enough or connected enough to allow sufficient movement to allow the landscape to recover if a herd or two gets too big.

And, elephants tend to remember where they used to live and who they love. Have you tried moving a whole herd?

edited 1st Feb '16 3:45:07 AM by Euodiachloris

That's what I said. Culling however, on a species that is locally endangered in MANY areas of Africa, has to be questioned, you can't just automatically fall down to that whenever there is a problem somewhere. Such a method with proper preparation might predict population growth and solve the issue before it emerges.

I know at least one colleague of mine who finished his Ph D on elephant herd movements in Zimbabwe, so the way to force elephants to go where you want them to go is under study. If you can control access to water, for example, you might force the elephants to go somewhere else - as you say, elephants remember, so they can actually be "educated".

edited 1st Feb '16 5:42:19 AM by Julep

Eh? There's been lab bred corals seeded since the '70's (though mostly soft corals to my knowledge), unless they're talking about just that one specific species.

edited 1st Feb '16 6:31:44 AM by carbon-mantis

Tell that to Addo Elephant Park. They do their best, but shipping elephants is damn hard to do.

And, they do, rather more often than people like, try to get back. Which can be a bit problematic across most of the Eastern Cape. Seeing as it's not wildlife park, but farms.

As I said: not joined-up. Not all parks are in the north of South Africa.

Knysna also has issues...

edited 1st Feb '16 6:39:12 AM by Euodiachloris

Of course if you just relocate the elephants they will try to get back - they would have no reason not to. They had the same issue when they tried to move Eagles away from californian islands when they tried to save endangered foxes living there: the same female came back every year with a new mate (and being a protected species, you couldn't just "shoot her down"). However, when they deprived her of her main food source, she moved away and never came back.

I honestly don't know enough about African elephants to say that there is a perfect method, but I am sure you can somehow educate them. It's not easy, and obviously harder than just take a gun and shot them down, but a long-lived species such as the elephant is bound to be able to change its behavior.

edited 1st Feb '16 8:13:01 AM by Julep

Shocks based on GPS position? Not the most humane but it'd probably work.

That would be incredibly expensive to pull. I have seen the price for a "simple" GPS collar designed for a bear, so for elephants...

Humans speeding up evolution by causing extinction of ‘younger’ species: "Just three years after crayfish were introduced to a B.C. lake, two species of fish that had existed in the lake for thousands of years were suddenly extinct. But it's what took their place that has scientists fascinated.

New research from UBC shows that when humans speed up the usually slow process of evolution by introducing new species, it can result in a lasting impact on the ecosystem. The phenomenon is known as reverse speciation and researchers witnessed it in Enos Lake on Vancouver Island where two similar species of threespine stickleback fish disappeared within three years."

Consumers have huge environmental impact: "You won't make big cuts in your environmental impact by taking shorter showers or turning out the lights. The real environmental problem, a new analysis has shown, is embodied in the things you buy."

edited 25th Feb '16 1:50:09 AM by rmctagg09

More of a topic about research as a whole, but...once more, never trust the internet with an online poll.

TL;DR: People decided to put an online poll to choose the name of their new Antarctica research ship...and allowed suggestions.

The current leader of the polls is "Boaty McBoatface".

Sadly, Notthetitanic does not seem to be a serious contender.

People being the Natural Environment Research Council, and the ship will be the RRS^note  Royal Research Ship [name].

As for me, I'd choose Ascension.

Experts could overrule 'Boaty McBoatface' name choice for polar ship

James Hand, a former BBC Radio Jersey presenter, was behind the suggestion of Boaty Mc Boatface but says he has since apologised to the NERC.

"I've actually been speaking a bit to the people behind the website. I've apologised profusely. What I keep saying to people is, this is actually nothing to do with me. I made the suggestion but the storm that's been created, it's got legs of its own.

"I just feel it's a very British thing, which a lot of people have pointed out."

Julia Maddock, acting associate director of communications and engagement at the NERC, responded to Mr Hand's apology on Twitter, saying her organisation was "loving it". In another tweet, she wrote: "We wanted people to talk about our ship and get involved. We are delighted!"

Mr Hand said he was "still thoroughly rooting" for his idea to be chosen but understood the public's choices were only ever a suggestion.

In second place, with more than 3,000 votes, is RRS Henry Worsley. Worsley died trying to make the first unassisted solo crossing of the Antarctic in January. Another of the more serious suggestions is RRS David Attenborough. The 15,000-tonne, 128m-long vessel is being built at Cammell Laird on Merseyside.

That reminds me...◊

A pack of wolves killed an entire herd of elk for sport.

What do you do when one endangered species is threatening another endangered species? (For certain definitions of "endangered", as wolves may not deserve that label these days.)

Contrary to usual conceptions of the environment as all elements perpetually being in balance without human intervention, predators are perfectly capable of wiping out species in the natural course of things. That's one of the major drivers of evolution, along with major predators going extinct.

But rather than wolves per se, I'm interested in the recent resurgence of what some call a new hybrid species of wolf, coyote, and dog that's showing extraordinary success, as it is capable of filling all species former ranges, even human cities as with dogs.

Some see that as unnatural, but hybridization is actually a thing that happens extremely frequently in evolution.

Predators killing more prey than they actually need to eat or just for "sport" is nothing new. No one should really be surprised by it.

And are elk endangered?

The subspecies in question is probably Roosevelt elk, which I realized after looking into it isn't technically classified as endangered currently. However, it's expected to make the list in the next couple of decades due to loss of feeding habitat.

I honestly thought it was endangered. Sorry.

edited 27th Mar '16 11:28:51 AM by TotemicHero