Latest news with #FrontiersinConservationScience
International Business Times
2 days ago
- Science
- International Business Times
Tourism Sector Alert! World-First Footage Shows Antarctic Seafloor at Risk as Ship Anchors Destroy Unique Marine Ecosystem
A latest study, published in Frontiers in Conservation Science, revealed on Monday, June 9, that ship anchors are causing significant damage to the fragile Antarctic seafloor. This action is eventually crushing the unique marine life and leaving long-lasting scars. According to scientists from New Zealand, Canada, and the United States, video footage from 36 Antarctic Peninsula and South Georgia Island sites revealed that ship anchoring leaves areas almost lifeless, with crushed sponges and scarred seafloor, while surrounding undisturbed zones remain biodiverse. Sally Watson, a marine geophysicist at New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research and the study's co-author said, "Anchoring impacts are understudied and underestimated globally. It's so important to recognize and mitigate the impacts across all industries and limit planned anchoring." Using underwater cameras, the researchers discovered that the problem is worsening as shrinking sea ice makes more of Antarctica available for cruise, research, fishing, and private vessels, adding that anchor damage is almost entirely unregulated in Antarctica, despite strict conservation rules for other activities. During the 2022-2023 Antarctic summer, at least 195 ships anchored in Antarctic seas, most certainly underestimating the total number, according to the study. In disturbed regions, footage showed crushed ancient sponges and a paucity of benthic creatures, whereas undisturbed places were rich in unusual, slow-growing species that were particularly vulnerable to such impacts. While research on anchor impacts is expanding in tropical reefs, Watson identified a significant knowledge gap in Antarctica. Each vessel that anchors in 30-40 meters of water might disturb at least 1,600 meters of seafloor, not counting further damage from chains dragging if ships move, she said. Scientists warn that recovery from seafloor damage in Antarctica might take decades, although similar damage in warmer places has persisted for over ten years. Matthew Mulrennan, who founded the California-based ocean exploration and conservation nonprofit KOLOSSAL, and the study's lead author said that the loss of sponges and other seafloor life disturbs essential ecological services including water filtration, carbon storage, and habitat provision, jeopardizing the broader Antarctic food chain, which includes species such as penguins and seals that attract tourists. Mulrennan concluded, "Anchoring is likely the most overlooked ocean conservation issue in terms of global seafloor disruption; it is on par with the damages from bottom trawling."
Miami Herald
2 days ago
- Science
- Miami Herald
Ships in Antarctica destroying planet's oldest living animals
By Stephen Beech Antarctic sea life - including the oldest living creatures on the planet - are at risk from increasing number of ships dropping anchor there, warns a new report. Underwater video footage has revealed for the first time the impact of anchor and chain damage caused by cruise, research, fishing and other vessels on the Antarctic sea floor. Species at risk include giant volcano sponges which may live up to 15,000 years, say scientists. Global shipping activity is becoming more widespread, even in the most remote regions of the planet. Now, an international research team has gathered the first video evidence of anchoring and chain damage in Antarctic waters. Study first author Matthew Mulrennan said: "This is the first time the impacts of ship anchoring and chain damage are documented in Antarctic waters. "Activities in Antarctica have a lot of strict rules around conservation, yet ship anchoring is almost completely unregulated." Co-author Dr. Sally Watson, of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in New Zealand, said: "Documentation is way overdue, given the importance of these ecosystems and the protections we place on them. "Anchoring impacts are understudied and underestimated globally. "It's so important to recognize and mitigate the impacts across all industries and limit planned anchoring." At least 195 tourism, research, and fishing vessels, as well as private yachts were recorded in anchorable depths in Antarctica during the 2022-23 season. But it is likely that more ships operate there without licenses, according to the research team. During the austral summer of that year, the team used underwater cameras to observe the seafloor at 36 sites across the Antarctic Peninsula and South Georgia Island. Footage, published by the journal Frontiers in Conservation Science, was captured close to the surface, midwater, and one metre above the sea floor. It showed disturbances to the seafloor and marine life where ships had anchored. Grooves, striations and mud deposits from anchor retrieval were visible in the substrate of the ocean floor. At the disturbed sites, little to no marine life was present. Instead, the researchers observed crushed sponge colonies and a lack of benthic biomass. Dr. Watson said: "We know that anchor impacts in tropical reefs can last a decade. "In muddy sediment the scours can still be visible over a decade later. "Ecological recovery is really site specific. Things in cold waters are much slower growing than in warmer temperatures so I expect that recovery would take longer the higher the latitude." The researchers say future research should look at the short- and long-term impacts of anchoring on the seabed, recovery periods, and the impacts on the broader ecosystem. Mulrennan added: "Anchoring is likely the most overlooked ocean conservation issue in terms of global seafloor disruption; it is on par with the damages from bottom trawling. "It's a pressing environmental issue, but it's out of sight, out of mind." The post Ships in Antarctica destroying planet's oldest living animals appeared first on Talker. Copyright Talker News. All Rights Reserved.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Science
- Time of India
'Ideologically biased, scientifically unfounded': New paper rejects criticism of Project Cheetah
A new paper published on Monday described the criticism of Project Cheetah , which seeks to reintroduce the big cat to India more than 70 years after its extinction in the country, as "ideologically biased, scientifically unfounded and rooted in misinformation". Published in Frontiers in Conservation Science, the paper titled 'Beyond rhetoric: debunking myths and misinformation on India's Project Cheetah' addressed concerns ranging from animal welfare to scientific validity and community impact. The paper, written by environment ministry officials, including National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) Member Secretary G S Bhardwaj, said that while "constructive criticism is essential", the discourse around Project Cheetah has been "characterized by self-referential arguments, selective use of literature and a disproportionate emphasis on negative outcomes". by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Villas Prices In Dubai Might Be More Affordable Than You Think Villas In Dubai | Search Ads Get Quote Undo It said that "critics have misrepresented key aspects, such as the use of soft-release bomas, ethical concerns and veterinary interventions, while ignoring the project's adaptive management strategies and measurable progress". One of the most frequent criticisms has been that the cheetahs are being kept in captivity. Live Events The paper said the cheetahs in Kuno (Madhya Pradesh) are neither held in artificial structures nor dependent on human provisioning. Instead, they were initially held in soft-release bomas, fenced natural enclosures, which are internationally recognised in carnivore re-introductions. It added that the bomas allows cheetahs "to hunt independently and exhibit natural behaviours while acclimatizing to their new environment". The authors cited international studies showing that this model can "increase the odds of reintroduction success by 2.5-fold". Some critics have described cheetah births at Kuno as captive breeding. However, the paper strongly rejected this claim. "Cheetahs cannot be forced to breed, even in controlled environments," the paper said, citing how it took Western zoos more than four decades to achieve successful breeding. In contrast, "the fact that translocated cheetahs in Kuno have produced 25 cubs from six successful litters in 2.5 that these animals are in a stress-free, near-natural environment", it said. The paper also said that the cubs born in Kuno are nurtured and raised entirely by their mothers without any form of human intervention. Responding to questions around cheetah deaths, the NTCA said mortality is a natural and expected part of any translocation effort. The paper said, "The cheetah mortality rate in Kuno has remained well below the anticipated threshold of 50 per cent." In fact, "adult cheetah survival rates in Kuno were 70 per cent in the first year and reached 85.71 per cent in the second year". For cubs, the survival rate over 2.5 years stood at 66.67 per cent, which officials called a "significant figure", given the species' tendency for high infant mortality in the wild. The officials, however, said that unforeseen challenges, including an unseasonal winter coat, tick infestations, and associated infections, resulted in multiple mortalities in free ranging settings. They also refuted the notion that Project Cheetah was launched hastily or without scientific basis. "The decision to introduce cheetahs in India was not made impulsively," they wrote, referring to a consultative meeting held as early as 2009 with IUCN experts, NGOs and academic institutions. Subsequent assessments, including site evaluations and disease risk analyses, followed international protocols. Critics have also questioned whether India's landscape is suitable for cheetahs. The officials cited global research and early data from Kuno suggesting that cheetahs are far more adaptable than previously assumed. "Contrary to the assumption that cheetahs are savanna specialists, several studies reveal their adaptability to diverse habitats and prey types," the paper said. The authors said that while critics cite the number of medical interventions (90 immobilizations), this "equates to around two immobilizations per cheetah per year, a reasonable figure given the range of necessary management interventions". Critics have also argued that the project harmed local communities. The paper clarified that "only one village has been relocated" since the project's start and that too with full consent of the village Gram Sabha under legal provisions. The paper added that the project has brought benefits to local people, including "employment as forest watchers or cheetah trackers, guides and drivers, and improved infrastructure". Seventy years after cheetahs went extinct in India, the government launched the Project Cheetah to establish a sustainable population of the big cat in the country. As part of the reintroduction effort, 20 African cheetahs have been brought to the Kuno National Park -- eight from Namibia in September 2022 and 12 from South Africa in February 2023. Since then, 26 cheetah cubs have been born in India, of which 19 have survived. Eleven cubs are roaming free in the wild, while the rest are in enclosures at Kuno. PTI
Indian Express
2 days ago
- General
- Indian Express
‘Misplaced concerns', ‘misconceptions': In paper countering Project Cheetah criticism, officials say animals are now well-adapted
Amid continuing criticism of various aspects of Project Cheetah, wildlife officials and field scientists from the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) have authored a paper seeking to counter what they termed 'persistent criticism' and 'sensationalised media narratives' against the project, and defended its progress. The officials and scientists said some of the criticism against the project was 'rooted in ideological biases'. Published in Frontiers in Conservation Science journal, the paper said that cheetahs imported to India have adapted ecologically and that the project had demonstrated significant progress in 2.5 years. It added that the project was on a promising trajectory, even as cheetah reintroduction was a 'gradual and risky process, with inevitable and adaptive learning'. NTCA's assistant veterinary officer Sanath Krishna Muliya is the paper's lead author, and Project Tiger head Gobind Sagar Bharadwaj is among the co-authors. Project Cheetah was launched in September 2022 and introduced African cheetahs into India from Namibia and South Africa. Initially, 20 cheetahs were imported from the two countries. The paper delved into issues such as the project's scientific merits, 'misplaced concerns about cheetahs in captivity', 'misinformed ethical and justice concerns', and 'misconceptions about veterinary capabilities and field interventions.' It sought to rebut criticism that the cheetahs were held in enclosures for a long duration, as well as questions raised on what criteria were followed for the same. The government officials said in the paper that the cheetahs were held in 'soft-release bomas' or large enclosures, where they hunted locally available prey, and no prey was provided. They added that the soft-release practice was internationally recognised for carnivore reintroductions. The cheetahs, the paper said, are now well adapted to the landscape after the phased release process resumed in early 2025 after setbacks such as deaths during May-June 2023 due to what it called 'unforeseen challenges' of tick infestations due to unseasonal winter coats. As per the paper, six introduced cheetahs and 18 cubs are currently free-ranging in Kuno's wilderness and others await release. The government is also negotiating with the governments of Namibia, Botswana, and South Africa, for more cheetah translocations, the paper said. However, the paper did not touch upon the death of male cheetah Pawan, who died due to drowning in August 2024, as per the Madhya Pradesh forest department. The paper also cited the birth of 25 cubs in 2.5 years as a sign of a stress-free environment. On criticism regarding the project's social impacts, the paper claimed that there was no unjustified displacement or coerced relocation of local communities, and much of the relocation had happened long before. On the stress faced by the wild cats due to recurring immobilisation, the paper said that zero deaths were recorded due to immobilisation. Since the project began, there have been 90 immobilisations of over 20 cheetahs in a span of 2.5 years, for preventive care, medical treatment, and radio-collar deployment.
Yahoo
03-05-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
Influencers are being blamed for a rise in shark attacks
Influencers get a lot of stick these days. The latest thing they're being blamed for: shark attacks. Big Lots stores reopening update: Here's the full list of locations that will open this week This is how it feels at the beginning of the end of the world The kerning on the pope's tomb is a travesty Scientists have noted a recent rise in shark attacks, and according to new research published in the journal Frontiers in Conservation Science, of the 74 recorded bites in the seas around French Polynesia, 5% were assessed as acts of self-defense. Professor Eric Clua of PSL University in France, who led the research, holds social media responsible. 'I don't encourage, as many influencers do on social networks, [people] to cling to a shark's dorsal fin or stroke it, under the pretext of proving that they are harmless,' Clua told The Times. 'The sharks here feel like family,' one such influencer with 111,000 followers wrote in the caption of an Instagram post. In one picture, she is seen grabbing the nose of a shark; in another, she reaches out and gently pushes its nose as it swims toward her. 'Don't get it twisted, the sharks don't give a f*** about me,' she adds in the caption. 'Which absolutely makes me a crazy shark lady.' While they might feel like family, that doesn't mean the sharks consent to being used as props in a social media post—a lesson some people have unfortunately learned the hard way. Earlier this year, a tourist vacationing in the Caribbean was allegedly trying to take a photo of a bull shark swimming in shallow waters when it bit off both her hands. Although sharks are not naturally inclined to bite humans, they are wild predators that will act in self-defense. Researchers examined a global database known as the Shark Attack Files and found more than 300 incidents fitting the same defensive pattern, dating back to the 1800s. Most of these bites involved small and medium-size sharks, including gray reef sharks, blacktip reef sharks, and nurse sharks. When it comes to great whites, which are more dangerous, humans are generally wise enough to steer clear. 'People know the difference between a [Yorkshire terrier] and a pit bull, whereas they don't know the difference between a blacktip reef shark and a bull shark, which are their marine equivalents,' Clua said. 'They are responsible for fewer than 10 human deaths a year worldwide. Whereas dogs are responsible for more than 10,000 deaths and are perceived positively by the public.' Even using the term 'shark attack' is misleading, researchers argue, as it creates the perception of sharks as aggressors and undermines conservation efforts that rely on public support. Around 100 million sharks are killed annually (about 274,000 per day), targeted for their fins, meat, and as bycatch. As it stands, they have more reason to be scared of you than you have of them. So, if you find yourself swimming alongside a shark, the scientific advice is simple: Look, don't touch. This post originally appeared at to get the Fast Company newsletter: Sign in to access your portfolio
