Animals Expend 76,000 Gigajoules of Energy Sculpting Our Planet Every Year
In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, researchers estimate that wild freshwater and terrestrial species, ranging from salmon to elephants, expend 76,000 gigajoules of energy to alter the land around them every year—the equivalent of thousands of extreme floods.
Beavers are, of course, famous for their engineering feats. But when it comes to other animals, no matter how extensive their nest building or den digging is, 'the perception has been that they're interesting curiosities but really not that important globally,' says the study's lead author, Gemma L. Harvey, a physical geographer at Queen Mary University of London. 'This paper challenges that.'
[Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter]
The study of landform evolution is called geomorphology, and when the changes are caused by animals, we tack on another prefix: zoogeomorphology. As early as 1881, Charles Darwin recognized earthworms' role in soil formation. But it wasn't until 1992 that physical geographer David Butler, now a professor emeritus at Texas State University, coined the term for the effect.
He debuted this scientific mouthful that year in a paper on 'the grizzly bear as an erosional agent,' in which he calculated that the bears in Glacier National Park had, over the course of 100 years, moved about 15,000 dump-truck loads of dirt downslope while foraging for food and excavating their dens. 'It made me suspect that if you did this worldwide for hundreds of species, you would come up with astonishing numbers,' he says.
The data needed for this kind of investigation weren't available then, but three decades later Harvey's team found enough to analyze 500 species. The researchers learned that trampling hippos create entirely new river channels, and burrowing crayfish widen the banks of existing ones. They found that hulking termite mounds cover an Iceland-size patch of Brazil. 'Those are huge areas,' Harvey says, 'huge amounts of soil being transformed.'
Brian Yanites, a geomorphologist at Indiana University Bloomington, who was not involved in this study, notes that such research is often hyperlocalized to 'one type of animal, one specific location or particular landform.' But he says the new work 'is a really elegant way to approach the problem from a macro level.'
If anything, the authors think 76,000 gigajoules is probably a wild underestimate; they excluded vast biodiversity hotspots in Africa, South America and Asia because there are few published studies on how living creatures reshape lands in those regions. Although many experts disregard animals as a source of profound landscape change, Butler says, 'I think this study could be a 'Holy crap!' moment for them.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
How China Made an Antarctic Station Run on Majority Clean Energy
Solar panels, wind turbines, a hydrogen energy system and lithium-ion batteries are powering China's newest polar research station Five years ago electrical engineer Sun Hongbin was given what many would consider an impossible task: build a full-fledged clean-energy system amid some of the coldest temperatures on Earth, screaming winds and half-year darkness. China was then building its fifth Antarctic research station, called Qinling, on Inexpressible Island in Terra Nova Bay. And the nation's government was pushing the concept of 'green expeditions' to protect Antarctica's uniquely fragile environment while studying and surveying the continent. 'So having a system that would provide the bulk of Qinling's energy with renewable power fit that goal,' Sun says. But conventional solar and wind installations are no match for temperatures that plummet below –40 degrees Celsius, winds of up to 300 kilometers per hour (kmh) and ferocious blizzards. Such conditions can snap wind turbine blades, sharply reduce the performance of solar panels, and prevent batteries from charging and discharging properly. And of course, there are the six months of polar night, when the sun never rises above the horizon. [Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter] 'It was a huge challenge' to build a system for the Earth's coldest, darkest and most remote continent, says Sun, now president of Taiyuan University of Technology in China and chief scientist for polar clean energy at the Polar Research Institute of China. But in late 2024 his team traveled to the station to install a system that took $14 million to develop. It consists of 10 wind turbines, 26 solar modules, a hydrogen energy system, a container full of frost-resistant lithium-ion batteries and a smart grid that can predict and balance supply and demand. The entire renewable system is now running and, according to Sun, should provide half of the base's average annual energy needs. 'The use of clean energy is a huge advancement to keep the continent clean,' says Kim Yeadong, chair of the Korean National Committee on Polar Research in South Korea, who was not involved with the project. 'Other stations will probably have to learn how they achieve that much clean energy. I think it's remarkable.' Where Diesel Power Is King A 2024 preprint analysis of 81 Antarctic research bases found that 37 had installed renewable-energy sources such as solar panels and wind turbines. But the proportion of renewable energy these bases used was 'often low,' the researchers wrote. An exception so far has been Belgium's Princess Elisabeth Station, which is only staffed during the Antarctic summer. It runs completely on wind and solar power, taking advantage of the almost 24-hour daylight. Even so, the vast majority of stations still depend on diesel-powered generators to keep their crews warm, fed and safe. The main reason this is the case is simply that 'they are used to using diesel,' says Daniel Kammen, a professor of energy at the University of California, Berkeley. But relying on diesel fuel has downsides: it is logistically difficult and expensive to transport bulky, liquid fossil fuels to such a remote location, often surrounded by sea ice. Highly specialized resources—typically including icebreakers and military personnel—are required to make the difficult refueling voyage, which usually takes place just once a year, under careful planning. And the stakes are high for Antarctica's relatively pristine and easily disrupted ecosystem. 'Every station that has oil or other fuels has had spills,' Kammen says. Although major oil spills have been rare, any contamination can have severe consequences on Antarctic soil and water because it takes a long time for oil to break down in subzero temperatures. That is not to mention the toll that burning fossil fuels is taking on the Antarctic ecosystem through climate change. So there is significant incentive to move away from diesel. Yet 'conventional wind turbines, solar panels, battery storage and hydrogen energy systems are designed to work above –30 degrees [C], but the conditions of Antarctic stations are often much worse,' Sun notes. 'In Qinling, for example, gales blow at 73 kmh or faster for more than 100 days every year. When this happens in cold temperatures, wind turbines become brittle and break easily.' Plus, battery and hydrogen technologies—which are used to store wind and solar power for later use—were 'not good enough' in the past to ensure that energy supplies for bases would be reliable around the clock and throughout the year, Kammen says. Come Clean To overcome those hurdles, Sun and his team built a 2,000-square-meter lab at Taiyuan University of Technology to simulate Antarctica's extreme weather conditions. It features controls that can drop the indoor temperature to –50 degrees C, a wind machine that can blast out gusts of up to 216 kmh and snow generators that can whip up instant blizzards. Over four years of testing, the team developed a number of Antarctic-ready renewable energy systems. One design is a turbine that eschews the pinwheel-like blades of a traditional windmill; instead it is shaped like an upended eggbeater, with both ends of each curved blade attached to a central pole. This design reduces the surface area of the blade being pushed on by the wind, minimizing stress on the structure while still capturing enough force to generate electricity. And it lowers the turbine's center of gravity to help prevent it from toppling in the wind, Sun says. His team also installed turbines that are conventionally shaped but use blades made with carbon fiber—a strong and lightweight material that can withstand temperatures as low as –50 degrees C, according to Wang Bin, one of the engineers who went to Antarctica to build the system. These blades are also shorter than standard ones so as to reduce contact with the winds and increase structural resilience, Wang says. For the solar power system, a special supporting frame was built to secure the panels to the ground so that they can better weather gales and heavy snow. And instead of the usual aluminum alloy, the frame is made of fiber-reinforced plastic. The latter has lower thermal conductivity, Sun's team explains, meaning the frame's temperature changes much more slowly when cold sets in and thus doesn't deform as easily. Instead of storing power in the most commonly employed types of lithium-ion batteries, which function poorly in subzero temperatures, the team used lithium-titanate batteries. Their chemistry makes it easier for lithium ions to move around inside the battery during the charging and discharging processes in extremely low temperatures. The scientists also built a thermal case around the batteries to keep them warm and designed a system to collect and store their waste heat—which can be directed back into the case when its internal temperature becomes too low, Wang adds. But perhaps the most significant step the team took was bringing hydrogen energy to Qinling to help power the station through the long and dark winter. To produce renewable hydrogen, an apparatus called an electrolyzer is powered by wind and solar energy to split water molecules into oxygen and hydrogen. The latter goes into high-pressure tanks that can store it for more than a year; when full, the tanks alone can keep the entire base running for around 48 hours, according to Sun's team. To do so, the hydrogen is directed into an electrochemical device called a fuel cell, where it reacts with oxygen from the air to produce electricity, with only water and heat as by-products. The former is recycled to use in further electrolysis, and the latter is stored to warm up the electrolyzer when it becomes too cold to run. The renewable system can currently produce 60 percent of the overall output of Qinling's energy system when it's running at full blast, with the remaining 40 percent coming from diesel. But Sun and his team are determined to raise that percentage—and to bring clean-energy systems to other Chinese polar bases as well. 'Sixty percent is a great start, but one needs to ramp up,' Kammen says. 'The goal really needs to be 100 percent renewable energy all year-round.' It's Time to Stand Up for Science Before you close the page, we need to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and we think right now is the most critical moment in that two-century history. We're not asking for charity. If you become a Digital, Print or Unlimited subscriber to Scientific American, you can help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both future and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself often goes unrecognized. Click here to subscribe. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Mathematicians Question AI Performance at International Math Olympiad
AI models supposedly did well on International Math Olympiad problems, but how they got their answers reminds us why we still need people doing math A defining memory from my senior year of high school was a nine-hour math exam with just six questions. Six of the top scorers won slots on the U.S. team for the International Math Olympiad (IMO), the world's longest running math competition for high school students. I didn't make the cut, but became a tenured mathematics professor anyway. This year's olympiad, held last month on Australia's Sunshine Coast, had an unusual sideshow. While 110 students from around the world went to work on complex math problems using pen and paper, several AI companies quietly tested new models in development on a computerized approximation of the exam. Right after the closing ceremonies, OpenAI and later Google DeepMind announced that their models earned (unofficial) gold medals for solving five of the six problems. Researchers like Sébastien Bubeck of OpenAI celebrated these models' successes as a 'moon landing moment' by industry. But are they? Is AI going to replace professional mathematicians? I'm still waiting for the proof. [Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter] The hype around this year's AI results is easy to understand because the olympiad is hard. To wit, in my senior year of high school, I set aside calculus and linear algebra to focus on olympiad-style problems, which were more of a challenge. Plus the cutting-edge models still in development did so much better at the exam than the commercial models already out there. In a parallel contest administered by Gemini 2.5 pro, Grok 4, o3 high, o4-mini high and DeepSeek R1 all failed to produce a single completely correct solution. It shows that AI models are getting smarter, their reasoning capabilities improving rather dramatically. Yet I'm still not worried. The latest models just got a good grade on a single test—as did many of the students—and a head-to-head comparison isn't entirely fair. The models often employ a 'best-of-n' strategy, generating multiple solutions and then grading themselves to select the strongest. This is akin to having several students work independently, then get together to pick the best solution and submit only that one. If the human contestants were allowed this option, their scores would likely improve too. Other mathematicians are similarly cautioning against the hype. IMO gold medalist Terence Tao (currently a mathematician at the University of California, Los Angeles) noted on Mastodon that what AI can do depends on what the testing methodology is. IMO president Gregor Dolinar said that the organization 'cannot validate the methods [used by the AI models], including the amount of compute used or whether there was any human involvement, or whether the results can be reproduced.' Besides, IMO exam questions don't compare to the kinds of questions professional mathematicians try to answer, where it can take nine years, rather than nine hours, to solve a problem at the frontier of mathematical research. As Kevin Buzzard, a mathematics professor at Imperial College London, said in an online forum, 'When I arrived in Cambridge UK as an undergraduate clutching my IMO gold medal I was in no position to help any of the research mathematicians there.' These days, mathematical research can take more than one lifespan to acquire the right expertise. Like many of my colleagues, I've been tempted to try 'vibe proving'—having a math chat with an LLM as one would with a colleague, asking 'Is it true that...' followed by a technical mathematical conjecture. The chatbot often then supplies a clearly articulated argument that, in my experience, tends to be correct when it comes to standard topics but subtly wrong at the cutting edge. For example, every model I've asked has made the same subtle mistake in assuming that the theory of idempotents behaves the same for weak infinite-dimensional categories as it does for ordinary ones, something that human experts (trust me on this) in my field know to be false. I'll never trust an LLM—which at its core is just predicting what text will come next in a string of words, based on what's in its dataset—to provide a mathematical proof that I can't verify myself. The good news is, we do have an automated mechanism for determining whether proofs can be trusted. Relatively recent tools called 'proof assistants' are software programs (they don't use AI) designed to check whether a logical argument proves the stated claim. They are increasingly attracting attention from mathematicians like Tao, Buzzard and myself who want more assurance that our own proofs are correct. And they offer the potential to help democratize mathematics and even improve AI safety. Suppose I received a letter, in unfamiliar handwriting, from Erode, a city in Tamil Nadu, India, purporting to contain a mathematical proof. Maybe its ideas are brilliant, or maybe they're nonsensical. I'd have to spend hours carefully studying every line, making sure the argument flowed step-by-step, before I'd be able to determine whether the conclusions are true or false. But if the mathematical text were written in an appropriate computer syntax instead of natural language, a proof assistant could check the logic for me. A human mathematician, such as I, would then only need to understand the meaning of the technical terms in the theorem statement. In the case of Srinivasa Ramanujan, a generational mathematical genius who did hail from Erode, an expert did take the time to carefully decipher his letter. In 1913 Ramanujan wrote to the British mathematician G. H. Hardy with his ideas. Luckily, Hardy recognized Ramanujan's brilliance and invited him to Cambridge to collaborate, launching the career of one of the all-time mathematical 'greats.' What's interesting is that some of the AI IMO contestants submitted their answers in the language of the Lean computer proof assistant so that the computer program could automatically check for errors in their reasoning. A start-up called Harmonic posted formal proofs generated by their model for five of the six problems, and ByteDance achieved a silver-medal level performance by solving four of the six problems. But the questions had to be written to accommodate the models' language limitations, and they still needed days to figure it out. Still, formal proofs are uniquely trustworthy. While so-called 'reasoning' models are prompted to break problems down into pieces and explain their 'thinking' step by step, the output is as likely to produce an argument that sounds logical but isn't, as to constitute a genuine proof. By contrast, a proof assistant will not accept a proof unless it is fully precise and fully rigorous, justifying every step in its chain-of-thought. In some circumstances, a hand-waving or approximate solution is good enough, but when mathematical accuracy matters, we should demand that AI-generated proofs are formally verifiable. Not every application of generative AI is so black and white, where humans with the right expertise can determine whether the results are correct or incorrect. In life, there is a lot of uncertainty and it's easy to make mistakes. As I learned in high school, one of the best things about math is the fact that you can prove definitively that some ideas are wrong. So I'm happy to have an AI try to solve my personal math problems, but only if the results are formally verifiable. And we aren't quite there, yet. This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American. It's Time to Stand Up for Science Before you close the page, we need to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and we think right now is the most critical moment in that two-century history. We're not asking for charity. If you become a Digital, Print or Unlimited subscriber to Scientific American, you can help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both future and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself often goes unrecognized. Click here to subscribe. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Deep-sea creatures are interconnected across globe via hidden ocean ‘superhighway'
Marine animals living in the cold, dark depths of the ocean are interconnected across the world by a hidden 'superhighway', a groundbreaking new study suggests. The research, published in the journal Nature, provides a detailed global map of marine creatures closely related to starfish called brittle stars. Researchers at Australia's Museums Victoria Research Institute assessed how these spiny creatures occupied every ocean, from tropical shallows to icy depths stretching from the equator to the polar regions. They analysed DNA from nearly 2,700 brittle star specimens taken during hundreds of research expeditions and housed in 48 natural history museums worldwide and found that these creatures had crossed entire oceans over millions of years. The gradual migration of these deep-sea creatures led to invisible links forming between ecosystems as far apart as Iceland and Tasmania, they found. Brittle stars have lived for over 480 million years and come to occupy all ocean floors, including at depths of over 3,500 meters. 'You might think of the deep sea as remote and isolated, but for many animals on the seafloor, it is actually a connected superhighway,' Tim O'Hara, lead author of the study, said. 'Over long timescales, deep-sea species have expanded their ranges by thousands of kilometres. This connectivity is a global phenomenon that's gone unnoticed, until now.' The study also examines the critical role played by these creatures in marine ecosystems across all the oceans. While life forms in shallow waters are restricted by temperature boundaries, the deep-sea environments are more stable, allowing species to disperse over vast distances. In such environments, brittle stars produce yolk-rich larvae that drift on currents for extended periods, giving them the ability to colonise far-flung regions. 'These animals don't have fins or wings, but they've still managed to span entire oceans. The secret lies in their biology,' according to Dr O'Hara, 'their larvae can survive for a long time in cold water, hitching a ride on slow-moving deep-sea currents.' Deep-sea ecosystems are more closely related across regions than their shallow-water counterparts. Marine animals off southern Australia, for instance, share close evolutionary links with species in the North Atlantic, on the other side of the planet. 'A close relationship exists between deep-sea faunas of the northern Atlantic and, on the opposite side of the globe, southern Australia,' researchers said. But extinction events, environmental change and geography have over the millennia created a patchwork of biodiversity across the seafloor. 'It's a paradox,' Dr O'Hara explained. 'The deep sea is highly connected, but also incredibly fragile. Understanding how life is distributed and moves through this vast environment is essential if we want to protect it, especially as threats from deep-sea mining and climate change increase.'
