Here Are the Winners of the 2025 Wildlife Photos of the Year Contest
Biologists, zoologists, and paleontologists from across the world sent in submissions to this year's contest. The photos were sorted into four categories: 'Collective Social Behavior,' 'Life in Motion,' 'Colorful Strategies,' and 'Research in Action.' But the overall winner (seen in the headline image above) was a snapshot taken by Andrey Giljov, showing two male saiga antelopes in a sparring match as part of their preparation for the mating season; this naturally involves butting heads with potential rivals.
'Saiga fights in spring, outside of the tournament season, are quieter and more about training than determining status. However, the males take every opportunity to practice,' said Giljov, a vertebrate zoologist and senior lecturer at Saint Petersburg State University in Russia, in an editorial detailing the contest winners.
The annual photo competition, now in its second year, is a joint venture from the journals BMC Ecology and Evolution and BMC Zoology; it's the successor to contests that were separately run by the two journals. The photos are judged by the journals' editors and senior members of the editorial board. This year's winning entries and close seconds featured some of the biggest creatures on Earth as well as its smallest.
Case in point, Alwin Hardenbol's incredible photo of a breaching humpback whale that he captured from a rigid inflatable boat in Varanger, Norway.
'Breaching is a fascinating behavior from a scientific perspective, as it is still inconclusive what purpose it serves,' said Hardenbol, a researcher at the Natural Resources Institute Finland whose photo was a runner-up in the Life in Motion category. 'It's unbelievable to imagine how such an animal can even jump out of the water like that.'
Sritam Kumar Sethy, a student at Berhampur University in India, won the Collective Social Behavior category for his photograph of newly hatched Acanthocoris scaber (a species of leaf-footed bug) nymphs gathering together on the underside of a leaf—a survival strategy of having strength in numbers. 'By coming together, they enhance their protection against predators, reducing the chances of any individual becoming prey,' said Sethy.
The entries also captured the never-ending struggle for resources between animals, such as Delip K. Das's photo of a Haliastur indus (a medium-sized bird of prey also called a Brahminy Kite) having to go the extra mile for its dinner.
'A Brahminy Kite had just caught an eel—a large and still-struggling fish. As the Kite wrestled to secure its catch in flight, another challenger appeared, attempting to hijack the meal,' said Das, whose entry didn't win but was singled out as highly commended. 'The dramatic moment unfolded above the mangrove-fringed waters, reflecting the intensity and agility of raptors in the wild.'
Some images didn't highlight the present state of the natural world but its distant past. Digital artist Natalia Jagielsk won the Life in Motion category for her illustration of pterosaurs flying over the Jurassic Hebridean Basin, covering what's now called Scotland. Jagielsk, a postdoctoral fellow at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, based her work on the recent discovery of two pterosaur skeletons belonging to different species in the region.
'Despite their differing cranial anatomies, teeth morphology, and wing shapes, these pterosaurs could interact and compete for food during periods of environmental stress,' said Jagielsk, who was part of a team that described one of these species, Dearc sgiathanach. 'Set 170 million years ago in the Middle Jurassic, this image portrays these flying reptiles as they hunt along the shoreline.'
My personal favorite selection is either endearing, gross, or both, depending on your tolerance for bugs and regurgitating. Nick Royle, a runner-up in the Collective and Social Behavior category, took a photo of a mother Nicrophorus vespilloides (a species of burying beetle) feeding her young—by which I mean, spitting back up the remnants of a buried mouse carcass. In addition to this unique feeding strategy, burying beetles are also one of the few insects that often share custody of their offspring, with both parents helping out with the rearing.
'This behavior normally occurs underground, so is not usually visible to us, but is here pictured in the lab, where these burying beetles are used as a model to understand the evolution of social behaviors such as parental care,' said Royle, a behavioral ecologist and conservation biologist at the University of Exeter in the UK. 'These beetles work together to bury carcasses to avoid competition from other users of carrion and, once safely underground, process the carcass, removing the fur, rolling it into a ball, and smearing it with antimicrobial secretions to combat the bacteria and fungi that would otherwise consume this precious resource.'
Well, I'm certainly going to appreciate my parents' home-cooked meals more from now on.
There are plenty more breathtaking images from this year's contest that can be seen here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Fossils show two types of ancient human ancestors lived at the same place and time. One was possibly an unknown species
Ancient, fossilized teeth, uncovered during a decades-long archaeology project in northeastern Ethiopia, indicate that two different kinds of hominins, or human ancestors, lived in the same place between 2.6 million and 2.8 million years ago — and one of them may be a previously unknown species. The discovery provides a new glimpse into the complex web of human evolution. Ten of the teeth, found between 2018 and 2020, belong to the genus Australopithecus, an ancient human relative. Meanwhile, three teeth, found in 2015, belong to the genus Homo, which includes modern humans, or Homo sapiens. The results were published Wednesday in the journal Nature. Such an overlapping of two hominins in the fossil record is rare, which had previously led scientists to believe that Homo appeared after Australopithecus, rather than the two being contemporaries. Australopithecus species walked upright much like modern humans, but had relatively small brains, closer in size to those of apes. The emergence of Homo species, with their larger brains, is easy for people today to view as some sort of evolutionary upgrade on a path to modern humanity. But the coexistence of the two demonstrates that hominins developed, and lived, in multiple varieties at once. 'This new research shows that the image many of us have in our minds of an ape to a Neanderthal to a modern human is not correct — evolution doesn't work like that,' said study coauthor Kaye Reed, research scientist and president's professor emerita at the Institute of Human Origins and emeritus professor at the School of Human Evolution and Social Change at Arizona State University, via email. 'Here we have two hominin species that are together. And human evolution is not linear, it's a bushy tree, there are life forms that go extinct.' Since 2002, Reed has been a codirector of the Ledi-Geraru Research Project, which is focused, in part, on searching for evidence of early Homo species. In 2015, the team announced the discovery of the oldest known Homo jawbone at 2.8 million years old. It has also searched for later evidence of Australopithecus afarensis, which first appeared 3.9 million years ago, but there is no sign of these ancient human relatives in the fossil record after 2.95 million years ago — suggesting they went extinct before Homo's first appearance. Australopithecus afarensis is best represented by the famed fossilized remains of Lucy, discovered in 1974 in Ethiopia. Lucy was shorter than an average human, reaching about 3.3 feet (1 meter) in height, had an apelike face and a brain about one-third the size of a human brain. Her fossil showcased a mixture of humanlike and apelike traits and provided proof that ancient human relatives walked upright 3.2 million years ago. When the team discovered the Australopithecus teeth during two separate digs in 2018 and 2020, it compared them with species such as afarensis and another hominin group known as garhi, but they didn't match up. Instead, the scientists believe the teeth belong to a previously unknown species of Australopithecus that walked the Earth after Lucy — and alongside an early Homo species. 'Once we found Homo, I thought that was all we would find, and then one day on survey, we found the Australopithecus teeth,' Reed said. 'What is most important, is that it shows again, that human evolution is not linear. There were species that went extinct; some were better adapted than others, and others interbred with us — we know this for Neanderthals for sure. So anytime that we have another piece to the puzzle of where we came from, it is important.' Cracks in Earth's surface The teeth were found in Ethiopia's Afar region, a key place for researchers seeking answers about human evolution. A variety of preserved fossils have been found there as well as some of the earliest stone tools, Reed said. The Afar region is an active rifting environment — the tectonic plates beneath its earth are actively pulling apart and exposing older layers of sediment that shed light on almost 5 million years of evolution, Reed said. 'The continent is quite literally unzipping there, which creates a lot of volcanism and tectonics,' said study coauthor Christopher Campisano, associate director and associate professor at the Institute of Human Origins and associate professor at the School of Human Evolution and Social Change at Arizona State, in a video the school released. 'At 2 1⁄2, 3 million years ago, these volcanoes spewed out ash that contain crystals called feldspars that allow us to date the eruptions that were happening on the landscape when they're deposited.' The Australopithecus teeth documented in the new study were dated to 2.63 million years ago, while the Homo teeth are from 2.59 million and 2.78 million years ago. But the team is cautious about identifying a species for any of the teeth until it has more data and more fossils. 'We know what the teeth and mandible of the earliest Homo look like, but that's it,' said Brian Villmoare, lead study author and associate professor in the department of anthropology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, in a statement. 'This emphasizes the critical importance of finding additional fossils to understand the differences between Australopithecus and Homo, and potentially how they were able to overlap in the fossil record at the same location.' The Australopithecus teeth broadly resembled those of the afarensis species in contour and the size of the molars, but features of the cusps and canine teeth had not been previously seen in afarensis or garhi teeth, Villmoare said. The teeth were also different in shape than those of any Homo species, or of the ancient human relative Paranthropus, known for its large teeth and chewing muscles. 'Obviously these are only teeth,' Villmoare said, 'but we are continuing field work in the hopes of recovering other parts of the anatomy that might increase resolution on the taxonomy.' Even just finding the teeth was a complicated task, according to Campisano. 'You're looking at little teeth, quite literally, individual teeth that look just like a lot of other of the little pebbles spread on the landscape,' he said in the video. 'And so, we have a great team of local Afars that are excellent fossil hunters. They've seen these things their entire lives walking around the landscape.' A blip for evolution The new study is important because it provides insight into a time frame from 3 million to 2 million years ago, a mysterious period in human evolutionary studies, said Dr. Stephanie Melillo, paleoanthropologist and assistant professor at Mercyhurst University in Pennsylvania. Melillo was not involved in this research, but she has participated in the Woranso-Mille Paleontological Research Project in the Afar Triangle of Ethiopia. Part of the problem in learning about this stretch of prehistory is how ancient layers of dirt were deposited over the course of history in eastern Africa. 'Erosion in rivers and lakes were at a low level and only a little bit of dirt was deposited in the Afar,' Melillo wrote in an email. 'That deposited dirt contains the fossils — of our ancestors and all the animals that lived with us. When there is little deposition, there are few fossils.' A key feature helping archaeologists to understand humanity's evolution are structural basins, or 'bowls' on Earth's surface that naturally collect layers of sediment better than the surrounding landscape does — like the Turkana Basin stretching across southern Ethiopia and northern Kenya, Melillo said. Previous research has found evidence to suggest that Homo and Paranthropus coexisted there 1.5 million years ago. The new study focuses on the Afar Depression, a basin to the north of the Turkana. 'This contribution by Villmoare and colleagues demonstrates that in the Afar there was also some other species around with Homo — but it isn't Paranthropus,' Melillo said. 'Instead, they identify this 'non-Homo' genus as Australopithecus. They do a very convincing job of demonstrating why the new fossils are not Paranthropus.' The study adds to growing evidence that Australopithecus was not roaming the Afar Depression alone, she said. A mysterious coexistence When Australopithecus and Homo were alive, the Afar Region, now mostly a semidesert, had much more seasonal variation in rainfall than it does today, Reed said. Millions of years ago, the environment there was still dominated by a dry season, but it was interrupted by a brief wet season. Rivers that carried water across the landscape existed for only part of the year. Few trees grew near the river, and the environment nearby was largely wetlands and grasslands. 'We have a fossil giraffe species that was eating grass, which probably indicates they were stressed as they eat trees and bushes almost every place else,' Reed said. 'Were the hominins eating the same thing? We are trying to find out by examining isotopes in their teeth and microscopic scratches on their teeth.' Understanding whether or not Homo and Australopithecus had the same food sources could paint a portrait of how our ancient ancestors shared or competed for resources, Reed said. The team also wants to try to identify which hominin made the stone tools found at the site. At the moment it's impossible to tell exactly how the two hominins coexisted, but Reed said she is hoping that future findings will provide more answers. 'Whenever you have an exciting discovery, if you're a paleontologist, you always know that you need more information,' Reed said. 'You need more fossils. More fossils will help us tell the story of what happened to our ancestors a long time ago — but because we're the survivors we know that it happened to us.' Sign up for CNN's Wonder Theory science newsletter. Explore the universe with news on fascinating discoveries, scientific advancements and more. Solve the daily Crossword
Digital Trends
13 hours ago
- Digital Trends
Blindsided by brutal AI chess bots? This one thinks like a human
For years, the game of chess has been seen as a litmus test for how far AI can go against the human intellect. When IBM's Deep Blue supercomputer beat reigning Chess world champion Garry Kasparov in 1997, it was deemed a pivotal moment. The Wall Street Journal called it 'one giant leap backward for mankind.' It hasn't been a total route for humanity, however. Just a month ago, Norwegian chess grandmaster Magnus Carlsen beat ChatGPT in a chess game without losing a single piece. Interestingly, the AI bots are fighting, too. Earlier this month, ChatGPT (backed by OpenAI's GPT-o3 reasoning model) beat Grok, an AI chatbot developed by Elon Musk-led xAI, in a chess tournament. Recommended Videos But how does an average chess-loving person fare against AI bots at chess? Well, it's frustrating. One of the most recurring themes you will see on chess forums is that bots play 'differently from humans.' Of course, when you're playing against a chess computing bot like Stockfish 16 that can assess over ten million positions per second, not many players stand a chance. On the other hand, some seasoned players say beating chess bots is easier because they follow a pattern, and that one must know how to survive the initial assault to beat them. But at the end of the day, AI bots don't play by conventions. A researcher at Carnegie Mellon University has now come up with a less alien solution – an AI chess bot that plays like a human. Say hello to Allie The bot named Allie is the brainchild of Yiming Zhang, a PhD candidate at the Language Technologies Institute (LTI) in CMU's School of Computer Science. Interestingly, Zhang found himself eager to play chess after watching Netflix's popular series, 'The Queen's Gambit.' But soon after dipping into the world of online chess, he found himself frustrated by chess bots. After playing against them, he realized that these bots play unnaturally. Moreover, the underlying tactics behind a chess engine often make it nearly impossible to beat them, thanks to their training, which involves winning at all costs by doing increasingly complex calculations. That's where Allie differs from your average chess-acing bot. It has been trained on 91 million transcripts of chess games played between humans. As a result, the way it contemplates moves, makes attacking advances, and defends positions feels like an average human player. 'Allie is trained on log sequences of real chess games to model the behaviors of human chess players across the skill spectrum, including non-move behaviors such as pondering times and resignations,' says the research paper. During evaluations, researchers found that Allie actually 'ponders' at critical situations in the game. Go ahead and test your mettle The fact that Allie has been trained to think like a human doesn't mean it's a weak player. Far from it, actually. It can hold its fort against everyone from amateurs to grandmasters. 'Against grandmaster-level (2500 Elo) opponents, Allie with adaptive search exhibits the strength of a fellow grandmaster, all while learning exclusively from humans.' Since being deployed publicly, it has amassed more than 11,500 online chess games on the online platform Lichess, where you can also try your skills against it. So far, it has over 6,500 victories against human players, lost just over 4,000 games, and more than 500 battles have ended in a draw. 'For beginners, it's not interesting or instructive to play against chess bots because the moves they make are often bizarre and incomprehensible to humans,' Zhang explains. Interestingly, Allie is completely free and open-source, which means other researchers can build atop it. Do keep in mind it's only accepting invites for Blitz games. Moreover, if you want to learn how the human-like AI chess bot makes its moves before going against Allie, you can watch it in action versus other human players at Lichess. And if you want to take a peek at the code, head over to the GitHub repository.
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
New Genetic Test Predicts Children With Future Risk of High BMI
A new test helps predict which kids face the largest genetic risk of a high body mass index (BMI) later in life. That could help parents establish healthy habits early on. The new test, put together by a large team of international researchers, is what's known as a polygenic score or PGS. These scores are used to group genetic variations to predict a certain characteristic, which in this case is BMI. Related: "What makes the score so powerful is its ability to predict, before the age of five, whether a child is likely to develop obesity in adulthood, well before other risk factors start to shape their weight later in childhood," says genetic epidemiologist Roelof Smit, from the University of Copenhagen in Denmark. "Intervening at this point can have a huge impact." It's important to note that the test isn't quite as straightforward as it might sound. For one, genetics only accounts for a relatively small proportion of risk for high BMI. And secondly, a growing body of research is suggesting we move away from BMI as a measure of obesity and health in general. Still, the researchers claim the new PGS test is up to twice as accurate as others of its type. It was built from a database of genetic information collected from more than 5.1 million people. After compiling the test, the researchers then tried it out on several separate health databases, covering hundreds of thousands of individuals. In these datasets, both genetic data and BMI over time had been recorded. The researchers added the PGS to other predictors of BMI, and found that higher PGS scores were associated with greater adult weight gain. The accuracy of the PGS at predicting BMI variation depended on age and ancestry. PGS scores at the age of 5 explained 35 percent of the BMI variation at age 18. For middle-aged Europeans, it accounted for 17.6 percent of the variation. In other groups it was much lower: just 2.2 percent for rural Ugandans, for example. This is probably down to underrepresentation in the training data, and the greater genetic diversity in African populations, the researchers say. Another interesting finding from the study: those with stronger genetic predisposition towards having a higher BMI actually lost more weight during the first year of weight loss programs, although they were also more likely to regain weight later. "Our findings emphasize that individuals with a high genetic predisposition to obesity may respond more to lifestyle changes and, thus, contrast with the determinist view that genetic predisposition is unmodifiable," write the researchers in their published paper. The thinking is that if BMI can be predicted more accurately at an early age, that gives those kids and their parents a bigger window of time to instill healthier habits regarding diet or activity levels, which have the potential to influence BMI. "This new polygenic score is a dramatic improvement in predictive power and a leap forward in the genetic prediction of obesity risk, which brings us much closer to clinically useful genetic testing," says geneticist Ruth Loos, from the University of Copenhagen. The research has been published in Nature Medicine. Related News This Diet Helps Lower Dementia Risk, And We May Finally Know Why A Signal of Future Alzheimer's Could Hide in The Way You Speak Something Inside Your Gut Could Be Like a Natural Ozempic Solve the daily Crossword
