Trees can snitch on illegal gold miners in the Amazon
Humans have coveted the Amazon's natural resources for generations, particularly its gold. But with most of the region's easily accessible precious metals long gone, illegal mining operations now focus on extracting the soil's hidden gold particles. To do this, the miners use a method that requires adding toxic mercury into the ground and allowing it to bind to any surrounding gold. Because the resulting amalgams have a much lower melting point than gold alone, miners then burn the mercury away to collect the residual lucrative metal. Meanwhile, the mercury-laden smoke disperses into the atmosphere where it can harm the surrounding environment and local populations.
The annual rings inside certain trees near these mines don't just tell their age—they also store important environmental biomarkers over time. Recently, an international team led by researchers at Cornell University wondered if those biomarkers could indicate excess atmospheric mercury levels. To test their theory, experts traveled to the Peruvian Amazon and documented their findings in a study published on April 8 in Frontiers in Environmental Science.
Researchers first took core samples from fig trees at five sites. Two locations were far removed from mining activity, but three were within roughly 3.1 miles of mining towns previously known to rely on amalgam burning. One site was also adjacent to protected forest lands.
The subsequent analysis results were clear: mercury levels were highest in wood sampled from mining-adjacent sites and lower at those further removed from mines. Additionally, higher mercury levels in mining-adjacent fig trees also coincided with the historical rise in amalgam burning that began after the year 2000.
'We show[ed] that Ficus insipda tree cores can be used as a biomonitor for characterizing the spatial and potentially the temporal footprint of mercury emissions from artisanal gold mining in the neotropics,' Jacqueline Gerson, a Cornell University biological and environmental engineering associate professor and study first author, said in a statement.
Although annual tree rings can tell researchers when mercury levels began rising, they can't necessarily offer precise locational directions to the illegal miners. At the same time, higher concentrations may at least serve as reference points indicating a closer proximity. Regardless, the literal spy rings of fig trees may soon offer a cheap, powerful means for regional monitoring and conservation work in the Amazon.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
11 hours ago
- Newsweek
Parents Warned Against Deadly Bacteria in Infant Formula
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Parents of newborns are being urged to take extra care when preparing powdered infant formula after new research revealed that the ambiguity of many current instructions may leave babies vulnerable to a deadly foodborne bacteria. The study, published in the Journal of Food Protection by Cornell University researchers, highlights dangerous gaps in the guidelines printed on formula packaging. According to the team, ambiguous instructions—such as "boil water and wait five minutes"—do not provide the precision needed to kill Cronobacter, a rare but life-threatening pathogen. Woman preparing infant formula at table indoors, closeup. Woman preparing infant formula at table indoors, closeup. Liudmila Chernetska Cronobacter infections are uncommon, with only about 18 cases reported annually in the U.S. But for high-risk infants—including babies under two months, premature infants and those who are immunocompromised—contracting the bacteria can be extremely risky. Contaminated powdered formula can cause septicemia, meningitis and even death. Previous studies have shown that water heated to at least 158 degrees Fahrenheit (70 degrees Celsius) can kill Cronobacter. "We assessed what instructions would help ensure caregivers following a series of preparation steps would use water that measured at least 158 degrees Fahrenheit," Abigail Snyder, associate professor of microbial food safety and corresponding author on the paper, said in a statement. The new research refines this guidance, recommending a step-by-step approach that leaves far less room for error: Boil water and pour it directly into the baby bottle. Use a thermometer to monitor the cooling water until it reaches about 165°F. Add powdered formula, shake well and let the mixture sit for one minute. Actively cool the bottle—such as under running water—until it reaches body temperature. This extra heat step allows the water to kill any Cronobacter that may be present before the formula is fed to the baby. Researchers acknowledged that asking sleep-deprived parents to measure temperatures and wait precise times can feel overwhelming. However, the period of highest risk is relatively short: infections are most dangerous in the first eight weeks of life. After that, the risk of Cronobacter decreases sharply. "It's important to protect our most vulnerable infants and this is an instance where caregivers have agency to make sure formula is safe," Snyder said. The research was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and could inform future changes to formula preparation guidelines. "We're asking people to do this extra work but then the preparation protocols that are provided can result in practices that are insufficient to inactivate Cronobacter, despite all the additional effort," Snyder said. "That's the circumstance that we're trying to prevent." Do you have a tip on a health story that Newsweek should be covering? Let us know via health@ Reference Beary, M. A., Daly, S. E., Baker, J., & Snyder, A. B. (2025). Assessing Hot Water Reconstitution Instructions and Labeling of Powdered Infant Formula to Ensure Cronobacter spp. Reduction. Journal of Food Protection, 88(9), 100571.
The Onion
a day ago
- The Onion
Study: Elephants Only Other Species Capable Of Leveraging Synergies In Brand Portfolio
ITHACA, NY—In a groundbreaking study published in the journal Animal Behaviour , researchers at Cornell University revealed Monday that elephants are the only known nonhuman species capable of leveraging synergies across a diversified brand portfolio. 'Conventional wisdom has long held that leveraging omnibrand fluidity to unlock cross-platform capital efficiencies was a behavior unique to humans, but in the wild we have observed multiple African elephant groups with a highly evolved capacity for optimizing cross-vertical integration through holistic brand harmonization at scale,' said Professor Mia Sherin, who noted that elephant corporate structures are matriarchal, and females consistently serve as project managers across multiplatform activations, seamlessly executing cross-functional touchpoints and asynchronous ideation cycles. 'This marks one of the most advanced examples of nonhuman tool use ever recorded. We've observed elephants utilizing Microsoft Excel for longitudinal KPI tracking, assembling low-fidelity mood boards to map brand essence, and creating rudimentary LinkedIn profiles to strengthen B2B positioning. In one case, a juvenile even led a rapid-fire ideation sprint that resulted in a fully actualized multichannel activation plan. This study brings us one step closer to the dream of true interspecies communication, should we ever manage to put some time down on their calendars to connect over a coffee.' At press time, Sherin's team traveled back to Tanzania to study how different elephant groups mourn, as they are thought to be the only other animals known to grieve their profit losses.
Fast Company
13-08-2025
- Fast Company
Sorry, lefties: New research shows left-handers aren't more creative after all
A new study from Cornell University goes against the grain of popular thought, arguing that left-handed people aren't necessarily more creative than their right-handed counterparts after all. It's research that hits close to home for this writer. From an early age, I've worn my left-handedness as a badge of pride. As a kid, I always felt different from the other students in class, because I had to use a left-handed desk. Back then, I also had to use special scissors in home economics, bat on the 'wrong' side of the plate at softball . . . the list goes on. But despite the minor inconveniences, it was a label I readily embraced because I was told I was 'special' (only 10% of the population is left-handed) and, perhaps most of all, because I knew I was in good company. Who wouldn't want to be a member of a club that includes Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Aristotle, one of the Beatles, Bill Gates, Nikola Tesla, Marie Curie, Babe Ruth, Bart Simpson, Oprah, and Jerry Seinfeld? In fact, five out of the last eight presidents have been left-handed: Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. (President Trump is a rightie.) To this day, I still make a mental note of who is and is not a lefty. Picasso and John Lennon aren't, but Paul McCartney is. So is my best friend, Gaby, my editor, Connie, and my boss, Christopher. It's a secret club we lefties share, believing there is something just a little special, a little more creative about us. That's why the new research from Cornell stopped me in my tracks. The science of creativity In ' Handedness and Creativity: Facts and Fictions,' published in the Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, researchers argue that while there's a plausible link between creativity and handedness based on theories that look at the neural basis of creativity, they found no evidence that left- or mixed-handed individuals are more creative than right-handers. In fact, they even found right-handers scored statistically higher on one standard test of divergent thinking (the alternate-uses test). 'The data do not support any advantage in creative thinking for lefties,' said the study's senior author, Daniel Casasanto, associate professor of psychology at Cornell. And while the Cornell researchers acknowledge that left- and mixed-handers may be overrepresented in art and music, they argue that southpaws are underrepresented in other creative professions, like architecture. When determining which professions constitute creative fields, researchers drew on data from nearly 12,000 individuals in more than 770 professions, which were ranked by the creativity each requires. By combining 'originality' and 'inductive reasoning,' they concluded that physicists and mathematicians rank alongside fine artists as having the most creative jobs. Using this criteria—and considering the full range of professions—the researchers found that left-handers are underrepresented in fields that require the most creativity. 'The focus on these two creative professions where lefties are overrepresented, art and music, is a really common and tempting statistical error that humans make all the time,' Casasanto said. 'People generalized that there are all these left-handed artists and musicians, so lefties must be more creative. But if you do an unbiased survey of lots of professions, then this apparent lefty superiority disappears.' Casasanto did agree, however, that there are scientific reasons to believe that left-handed people would have an edge in creativity when it comes to 'divergent thinking'—the ability to explore many possible solutions to a problem in a short time and make unexpected connections—which is supported more by the brain's right hemisphere. But again, the study revealed that handedness makes little difference in the three most common laboratory tests of its link to divergent thinking; if anything, righties have a small advantage on some tests. Finally, researchers conducted their meta-analysis by crunching the data from nearly 1,000 relevant scientific papers published since 1900. Most were weeded out because they did not report data in a standardized way, or included only righties (the norm in studies seeking homogeneous samples), leaving just 17 studies reporting nearly 50 effect sizes. This may be why the newest study came to a different conclusion than what is held in popular belief or prior scientific literature.
