Surfing Robot Tells Scientists Where the Sharks Are

Stanford University marine biologists are using a surfing robot to track the migratory patterns of great white sharks.

Surfers may unwillingly be the first to know when a great white shark approaches the shore, but it's now the full-time job of a robotic surfer to keep tabs on these aquatic predators. Researchers at Stanford University have enlisted a Wave Glider robot in their efforts to track the migratory patterns of great white sharks off the California coast, near San Francisco. They're bringing that data into the non-scientist's pocket with a shark-tracking iPhone app to raise awareness for their work.

Keep Reading Show less

How Crowdfunding Saved 722 Square Miles of Rainforest

Ecuador will choose rainforest preservation over oil exploitation, if the rest of the world can contribute enough money to make it worthwhile.

In 2007, Rafael Correa, president of Ecuador, made an offer to the rest of the world. Underneath his country’s Yasuni National Park, one of the most biodiverse areas on the planet, lie 846 million barrels of oil valued at $7.2 billion. If the rest of the world could provide Ecuador with half that sum, Correa proposed, the oil would stay in the ground and the rainforest above it would stay intact.

By August 2010, with the help of the United Nations Development Programme, Ecuador had set up a trust fund to receive whatever funds it could raise and set a deadline of Dec. 30, 2011. If donors, both public and private, gave $100 million by that date, the project would go forward. If not, the deal was off. And by the time the deadline passed last Thursday, the world had stepped up: A suite of business people, national governments, and celebrities from Al Gore to Leonardo DiCaprio had donated $116 million, The Guardian reported. That's enough to keep 722 square miles of the park’s most valuable rainforest free from oil exploitation, at least temporarily.

Keep Reading Show less

Animals Finding New Habitats, With a Helping Human Hand

Climate change means animals and plants will have to move to find the right conditions to thrive. Some scientists think we should help them migrate.

Humans hate change, and they hate moving to suit someone else’s agenda—that’s why politicians avoid projects that require eminent domain. Animals and plants don’t deal particularly well with change, either. They’ve adapted to live in a certain types of places, after all. But the massive amount of carbon pollution humans release into the atmosphere is going to fundamentally alter those animals' and plants' comfy niches, which means they're going to have to move to survive.

If they don't relocate, they’ll get new neighbors, as more aggressive species better suited to the climate move in. Their old food sources, whether animal or vegetable, will die off or move on.

So scientists are looking at how to help animals relocate on their own volition. Earlier this summer, the Wildlife Conservation Society recommended that 888,000 acres of public land in Montana be dedicated to species like grizzly bears, mountain goats, and bighorn sheep. The WCS recommended that these areas be federally protected from development so animals driven out of other areas could live there in peace.

Meanwhile, other scientists are considering how to speed up animals' move to a more suitable habitat. This strategy has a slew of creepy names—“managed relocation,” “assisted migration,” or “assisted colonization”—which make it sound like the scientists are part of a less-than-savory authoritarian regime. And not all scientists agree it’s a good idea. The goal is to increase biodiversity, after all, and moving species can have unintended impacts on the plants and animals already living in their new neighborhood.

As one group of researchers points out, though, these moves are already happening. An experiment in England, for instance, transplanted marbled white butterflies significantly north of where they’d been living to prove that it was possible. The researchers put aside the question of whether humans should be relocating animal and plant populations and looked at how they could best go about this task.

They developed a framework for making these decisions that takes into account the size of the population in question, how many individuals the new habitat could support, and how many might die as result of the transfer. They also suggested that some smaller populations should be given time to shore up their numbers before being moved. The clinical term “translocation losses” doesn’t do justice to what these decisions entail: choosing to potentially sacrifice some members of population for the greater good of the species, with no guarantee that moving would benefit the group long-term.

But the alternative is just as scary. Climate scientists predict that one in 10 species will be extinct by 2100 as a result of climate change. The more species that disappear, the greater the likelihood that basic natural processes like photosynthesis will stop functioning properly. And that’s exactly the opposite of what the planet needs.

Keep Reading Show less

Apples Need Activists Too: Slow Food USA Presents Apple Preservation Guide Slow Food USA Presents Apple Preservation Guide

Become an "apple activist": Check out Slow Food USA's new guide to apple preservation.

One hundred years ago, Americans munched on more than 15,000 domestically grown apple varieties. Fast forward a century, and today's supermarkets regularly stock just 11 types of the fruit.

The genetic diversity of America's apples has been in rapid decline, putting the species at serious risk in the case of pest or disease outbreak. That's why Slow Food USA just published Noble Fruits, A Guide to Conserving Heirloom Apples, available in PDF form on their website.

Keep Reading Show less