Latest news with #RoyalSociety
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- General
- RNZ News
Sydney's sulphur-crested cockatoos spotted using drinking fountains
By Peter de Kruijff for ABC Sulphur-crested cockatoos line up to take a drink from a public fountain at a Sydney sporting reserve. Photo: Supplied / Royal Society Biology Letters First they opened bins, now crackles of Sydney's sulphur-crested cockatoos (Cacatua galerita) have been recorded by scientists waiting their turn to use drinking fountains. The birds, which roost around the Western Sydney Parklands, have figured out how to operate twist-handled fountains, according to a new study. The behaviour was observed in a group of up to 200 birds, scientists report in The Royal Society Biology Letters . Study co-author Lucy Aplin, a behavioural and cognitive ecologist from the Australian National University, said it took coordinated actions for the birds to access water from the spring-loaded fountains. "It's just one of your bog-standard old-fashioned drinking fountains that you find all across sports fields in Australia," she said. "They [cockatoos] hold on to the stem and they twist with their foot but then they have to lean their weight while they twist as well. "They don't have the amount of strength that we have in our hand or the weight so they have to lean their whole body weight to keep it twisted." Dr Aplin said the whole process looked a "bit funny". "It's a bit of an awkward body position they have to hold, but it's pretty impressive," she said. Researchers captured cockatoos on video taking turns to use a drinking fountain. Photo: Supplied / Royal Society Biology Letters Sulphur-crested cockatoos are well known for their urban antics causing havoc on bin night in more than 60 suburbs in Sydney's south. But the population in Western Sydney is a different mob. After the study's lead author, the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior's Barbara Klump, saw the drinking behaviour first-hand, she set up a study to track the behaviour of cockatoos around a well-used drinking fountain. First, the researchers identified 24 individual birds by painting them with dots, then they used wildlife cameras to monitor attempts to use the fountains by these and other birds in the local area. Over 44 days, the cameras recorded 525 attempts and collectively the birds were successful 41 per cent of the time they tried to drink, with the marked birds being slightly more successful. Dr Aplin said about 70 percent of the local birds, which roosted close by, were using the drinking fountain. "They use them as a preferred place to drink no matter whether it's hot or if there's other water sources available," she said. All ages and sexes participated too, unlike with the bin-opening behaviour, which is mostly done by males. "Something about the bin opening requires strength, and that's why it's male-biased," Dr Aplin said. "[Drinking from fountains is] a very complex behaviour that requires lots of different fine scale motor actions, but not brute force." Sulphur-crested cockatoos have been documented opening bins in Sydney. Photo: Supplied / Barbara Klump/Max Planck Institute of Animal Behaviour Cockatoos are able to work out something tricky like turning a handle because they have brains that are relatively large for their bodies. Their forebrain, which deals with advanced cognitive abilities like tool use, is packed full of neurons, like chimpanzees, which also excel at complex problems. Alex Taylor, who studies biological intelligence at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, said it was clearly tricky to get a tap to work when you had the body of a bird. "Which explains why birds are only successful 50 per cent of the time when trying to use the tap," Dr Taylor, who was not involved with the research, said. "Still this is a pretty good success rate on a hot day when you are thirsty." Dr Taylor said the study raised the question of why only a single species was exploiting human water taps and not others. The exact reason the cockatoos use the fountain instead of other water sources like a lake or creek is not understood. But there are several hypotheses that researchers want to test. "One possibility is the water just tastes better," Dr Aplin said. That is a theory Irene Pepperberg, an animal behaviourist from Boston University who was not involved in the study, also thought was possible. "The birds are probably attracted to fountains as being a source of cleaner water than available ponds," she said. "The resource is unlimited, so it is probably worth it to keep trying until they figure out the successful behaviour and, if they fail, they seem to have other water sources. "The birds do seem to learn about the source from one another; whether they learn the specific technique from each other is a bit less clear." Photo: Supplied / Staglands Wildlife Reserve Another idea is the birds like how the fountains sit about one metre off the ground. Alice Auersperg, a cognitive biologist from the University of Veterinary Medicine who was not part of the study, said this was because drinking from a ground source was risky and left them exposed to predators. But she said another reason they might use the fountains was because the birds liked to undertake an activity even if there was no food reward. Dr Pepperberg said she recently did a study with umbrella cockatoos where 40 per cent of the time they chose to shell nuts rather than eat ones that were already shelled. The team behind the new research hopes to drill down into the reasons behind the behaviour as well as other cockatoo innovations in future studies. Dr Aplin said she had received other reports of cockatoos using water fountains with levers and unzipping bags to access lunch boxes. She encouraged people who saw these kinds of behaviour to report it through the Big City Birds App. Gisela Kaplan, an emeritus professor of animal behaviour from the University of New England, said several bird species seemed to exploit taps in the outback in different ways to cockatoos. "The moment [the taps] are used, the birds now fly in and take the drops that fall down and then, once the person has left, also lick out the last drops that are in the tap," Professor Kaplan, who was not involved with the study, said. She said she had witnessed a great bowerbird in Larrimah, Northern Territory, work with its beak at a tap nozzle attachment until water drops were generated. Dr Aplin said ultimately, there was an important message behind all these observed behaviours beyond just funny anecdotes. "Urban animals that are adaptable and have expressed behavioural flexibility and have large brains are going to try and use the habitats that we provide them with," she said. "So if we want to increase biodiversity in cities, we need to think about increasing the sort of habitat requirements for species that might not be so adaptable." On the other hand, Dr Aplin added, we could also use urban design to manage those species that are more adaptable. - ABC
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Aliens, asteroid mining … and Mars births? Royal Society envisions next 50 years in space
Humanity must prepare for a sweeping revolution as nations and companies gear up to build moon bases, space stations and orbiting factories, and uncover evidence – if evidence is out there – that we are not alone in the universe. A horizon-scanning report from the Royal Society envisions a new era of space activities that will reshape the world, including clean energy beamed to Earth, robots that mine asteroids or recycle dead satellites, and manufacturing plants that circle the planet churning out products labelled 'Made in Space'. Prediction is difficult, especially about the future, but the report anticipates radical developments that will generate some of the most important technological and economic opportunities of the century. While some countries are well-placed to benefit, Britain lacks a clear plan and is at risk of missing out, the authors warn. Related: How space exploration can improve life on Earth | Leigh Phillips 'We're not trying to predict the future, but these are the sorts of things that could happen,' said Sir Martin Sweeting, the report's co-chair and professor of space engineering at the University of Surrey. 'And if we think about them sooner rather than later, we'll be better off.' The Space: 2075 report aims to kickstart discussions on the possibilities and consequences of space science and technology over the next 50 years, so governments, regulators, businesses and the public can prepare. The implications are as consequential to today's industry, society and culture as the Industrial Revolution was in the 18th century, the authors write. Future advances in reusable rockets and spaceplanes may pave the way for factories that make products feasible only in microgravity and larger-scale facilities for constructing spacecraft that could never launch from Earth, the report says. Interplanetary space stations could be built in orbit and deployed across the solar system as desired. Existing industries may relocate into orbit. Power-hungry data-farms, for example, would benefit from plentiful solar energy and free cooling in space. Meanwhile, radical new technologies may emerge, such as satellites that capture solar energy and beam it efficiently through the atmosphere to ground-based receiving stations by converting it into microwaves or laser beams. The ever-increasing volume of space debris from spent rockets, defunct satellites and fragments from collisions and explosions is driving ambitions to recycle the junk. This would reduce collision risks and prevent the materials from polluting the atmosphere when they burn up on re-entry. As space becomes more congested, conflict becomes more likely, the authors warn, with nations and companies clashing over prime spots on planetary bodies, valuable orbits and critical radiofrequency bands. Related: Universe's mysteries may never be solved because of Trump's Nasa cuts, experts say While the UK is strong on a handful of technologies such as Earth observation, communications and small satellites, it needs a 'clear national ambition' to keep up with the pace of change, the report finds. 'The UK government, the international community, and society at large need to comprehend, anticipate and be prepared,' it states. Ethical challenges are expected, too. Extremophile bugs that endure harsh environments on Earth could be engineered to make 'living tools' on Mars that convert natural resources into useful compounds. But what if those bugs colonise the planet and crowd out yet-to-be-discovered native microbes? Terraforming trials, in which patches of planets are engineered to be more hospitable to humans, raise similar concerns. And if humans move to the red planet? 'What happens if we end up with humans being born on Mars?' asks Sweeting. At several public workshops convened for the report, questions arose about alien life and how it should be handled should proof arise. One participant at a workshop in Wrexham marvelled at the number of galaxies in the cosmos. 'In all those galaxies, there has to be one planet to have something similar to a caterpillar,' they asserted. If aliens, caterpillar-like or otherwise, live nearby, we will probably know in the next 50 years, the authors write. 'I would hope that would bring nations together and say: let's forget about our petty arguments and think about the bigger issues,' said Sweeting, 'but that may be wishful thinking.'
The Guardian
a day ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Aliens, asteroid mining … and Mars births? Royal Society envisions next 50 years in space
Humanity must prepare for a sweeping revolution as nations and companies gear up to build moon bases, space stations and orbiting factories, and uncover evidence – if evidence is out there – that we are not alone in the universe. A horizon-scanning report from the Royal Society envisions a new era of space activities that will reshape the world, including clean energy beamed to Earth, robots that mine asteroids or recycle dead satellites, and manufacturing plants that circle the planet churning out products labelled 'Made in Space'. Prediction is difficult, especially about the future, but the report anticipates radical developments that will generate some of the most important technological and economic opportunities of the century. While some countries are well-placed to benefit, Britain lacks a clear plan and is at risk of missing out, the authors warn. 'We're not trying to predict the future, but these are the sorts of things that could happen,' said Sir Martin Sweeting, the report's co-chair and professor of space engineering at the University of Surrey. 'And if we think about them sooner rather than later, we'll be better off.' The Space: 2075 report aims to kickstart discussions on the possibilities and consequences of space science and technology over the next 50 years, so governments, regulators, businesses and the public can prepare. The implications are as consequential to today's industry, society and culture as the Industrial Revolution was in the 18th century, the authors write. Future advances in reusable rockets and spaceplanes may pave the way for factories that make products feasible only in microgravity and larger-scale facilities for constructing spacecraft that could never launch from Earth, the report says. Interplanetary space stations could be built in orbit and deployed across the solar system as desired. Existing industries may relocate into orbit. Power-hungry data-farms, for example, would benefit from plentiful solar energy and free cooling in space. Meanwhile, radical new technologies may emerge, such as satellites that capture solar energy and beam it efficiently through the atmosphere to ground-based receiving stations by converting it into microwaves or laser beams. The ever-increasing volume of space debris from spent rockets, defunct satellites and fragments from collisions and explosions is driving ambitions to recycle the junk. This would reduce collision risks and prevent the materials from polluting the atmosphere when they burn up on re-entry. As space becomes more congested, conflict becomes more likely, the authors warn, with nations and companies clashing over prime spots on planetary bodies, valuable orbits and critical radiofrequency bands. While the UK is strong on a handful of technologies such as Earth observation, communications and small satellites, it needs a 'clear national ambition' to keep up with the pace of change, the report finds. 'The UK government, the international community, and society at large need to comprehend, anticipate and be prepared,' it states. Ethical challenges are expected, too. Extremophile bugs that endure harsh environments on Earth could be engineered to make 'living tools' on Mars that convert natural resources into useful compounds. But what if those bugs colonise the planet and crowd out yet-to-be-discovered native microbes? Terraforming trials, in which patches of planets are engineered to be more hospitable to humans, raise similar concerns. And if humans move to the red planet? 'What happens if we end up with humans being born on Mars?' asks Sweeting. At several public workshops convened for the report, questions arose about alien life and how it should be handled should proof arise. One participant at a workshop in Wrexham marvelled at the number of galaxies in the cosmos. 'In all those galaxies, there has to be one planet to have something similar to a caterpillar,' they asserted. If aliens, caterpillar-like or otherwise, live nearby, we will probably know in the next 50 years, the authors write. 'I would hope that would bring nations together and say: let's forget about our petty arguments and think about the bigger issues,' said Sweeting, 'but that may be wishful thinking.'
Winnipeg Free Press
2 days ago
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
Carney, premiers must see through climate change-denial smoke
Opinion More than 350 years after the discovery of gravity, nearly 150 years since Thomas Edison fired up a light bulb and close to a century after a Scottish bacteriologist's accidental observation of penicillin's superpower, scientists are being forced to come to the defence of science itself. This past weekend, representatives of the leading science academies from G7 nations released something called the 'Ottawa Declaration of the Science Academies of the G7,' a one-page document that serves as a prelude to a summit meeting to be held later this month in Alberta. This gathering is being hosted by the Royal Society of Canada, a non-partisan, non-governmental organization that advises the federal government on policies impacting science, academics and the arts. 'Especially in times of uncertainty, it is essential that our Academies commit to strengthening our efforts in defence of the integrity of science and the science advice systems that are critical elements of free and democratic societies,' Royal Society president Dr. Alain-G. Gagnon said in a news release accompanying the declaration. Why would these non-partisan scientific organizations feel the need to defend science? In large part because the government of the United States, the nation that invests the most money in scientific research and development, has launched an all-out war on science and scientists. With little more than the stroke of a pen, U.S. President Donald Trump has cancelled research projects, eliminated funding for research and for the institutions of higher learning that conduct the scientific exploration. Meanwhile, Trump has put the Department of Health and Human Services into the hands of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a self-described skeptic of long-established, evidence-based medicine who has not met an unfounded health conspiracy theory that he could not embrace. Recently, Kennedy announced intentions to stop federally funded scientists from publishing in peer-review journals. At the same time, the Trump administration has waged an equally furious war against climate science, eliminating programs to promote clean-energy generation, rolling back subsidies to help the automotive industry transition into EVs and cutting funding for climate research. Given the important role that the U.S. plays in global science, Trump's decisions have triggered shock waves that are undermining science all over the world. What is most frustrating is the fact that the war on science is so counter-intuitive. Right now, there are millions of people questioning the efficacy of vaccines, even though they have been protected from fatal diseases for most of their adult lives. Fights continue to erupt over whether to wear masks in public to slow the spread of airborne viruses, even though most of us would never allow a surgeon to operate on us without a mask. We question whether carbon is ruining our climate even as we head into what experts believe will be the warmest year on record. The war on science is a pandemic of irrationality, fuelled by ignorance and sustained by misinformation. It's also highly contagious. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith leads the war on science — particularly climate science — in this country. Smith has never explicitly denied that climate change is real, but her actions demonstrate her contempt for the idea that burning fossil fuel is ruining the planet. When asked last summer about the devastating wildfires that ravaged the tourist mecca of Jasper, Smith blamed 'arsonists' and not the drought and extreme heat brought on by climate change. Meanwhile, she has pursued a range of policy demands that clearly show she does not believe climate change is an existential threat. She wants guaranteed access to the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic coasts for her province's oil and gas, elimination of carbon emission caps and the abandonment of net-zero requirements for new power generation. Like most oil and gas advocates, Smith canters ahead with policies to sell and burn more fossil fuels without any consideration of the net cost. There is no doubt that Alberta's government would become much wealthier if it were easier to get the province's oil and gas to more markets. It's also equally true that, at the same time, Alberta would incur considerably more costs to deal with the carnage of floods and fires that are directly caused by climate change. More worrisome is the fact that Prime Minister Mark Carney's government may be willing to give in to some of Smith's demands in a futile effort to cultivate more political support in Alberta. Tuesdays A weekly look at politics close to home and around the world. Monday's first ministers meeting in Saskatoon included discussions on fast-tracking infrastructure projects of national significance. The list of projects has not been publicly released, but there is little doubt that new pipelines are the main priorities for provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan. Carney is faced with a choice: accept the science and growing anecdotal evidence of the impact of climate change; or join Smith in kicking the climate-change can down the road until we can no longer see it through the smoke. When it comes to energy infrastructure, there is no sane argument for investing now in anything that is not zero-emission, or that helps connect the electricity grid in Canada so provinces can help each other meet their power needs. As the authors of the Ottawa declaration in the defence of science have made abundantly clear, to do anything else would be indefensible. Dan LettColumnist Dan Lett is a columnist for the Free Press, providing opinion and commentary on politics in Winnipeg and beyond. Born and raised in Toronto, Dan joined the Free Press in 1986. Read more about Dan. Dan's columns are built on facts and reactions, but offer his personal views through arguments and analysis. The Free Press' editing team reviews Dan's columns before they are posted online or published in print — part of the our tradition, since 1872, of producing reliable independent journalism. Read more about Free Press's history and mandate, and learn how our newsroom operates. Our newsroom depends on a growing audience of readers to power our journalism. If you are not a paid reader, please consider becoming a subscriber. Our newsroom depends on its audience of readers to power our journalism. Thank you for your support.
Winnipeg Free Press
2 days ago
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
Carney, premiers must fight through blinding climate change-denial smoke to see blackened forests through the burning trees
Opinion More than 350 years after the discovery of gravity, nearly 150 years since Thomas Edison fired up a light bulb and close to a century after a Scottish bacteriologist's accidental observation of penicillin's superpower, scientists are being forced to come to the defence of science itself. This past weekend, representatives of the leading science academies from G7 nations released something called the 'Ottawa Declaration of the Science Academies of the G7,' a one-page document that serves as a prelude to a summit meeting to be held later this month in Alberta. This gathering is being hosted by the Royal Society of Canada, a non-partisan, non-governmental organization that advises the federal government on policies impacting science, academics and the arts. 'Especially in times of uncertainty, it is essential that our Academies commit to strengthening our efforts in defence of the integrity of science and the science advice systems that are critical elements of free and democratic societies,' Royal Society president Dr. Alain-G. Gagnon said in a news release accompanying the declaration. Why would these non-partisan scientific organizations feel the need to defend science? In large part because the government of the United States, the nation that invests the most money in scientific research and development, has launched an all-out war on science and scientists. With little more than the stroke of a pen, U.S. President Donald Trump has cancelled research projects, eliminated funding for research and for the institutions of higher learning that conduct the scientific exploration. Meanwhile, Trump has put the Department of Health and Human Services into the hands of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a self-described skeptic of long-established, evidence-based medicine who has not met an unfounded health conspiracy theory that he could not embrace. Recently, Kennedy announced intentions to stop federally funded scientists from publishing in peer-review journals. At the same time, the Trump administration has waged an equally furious war against climate science, eliminating programs to promote clean-energy generation, rolling back subsidies to help the automotive industry transition into EVs and cutting funding for climate research. Given the important role that the U.S. plays in global science, Trump's decisions have triggered shock waves that are undermining science all over the world. What is most frustrating is the fact that the war on science is so counter-intuitive. Right now, there are millions of people questioning the efficacy of vaccines, even though they have been protected from fatal diseases for most of their adult lives. Fights continue to erupt over whether to wear masks in public to slow the spread of airborne viruses, even though most of us would never allow a surgeon to operate on us without a mask. We question whether carbon is ruining our climate even as we head into what experts believe will be the warmest year on record. The war on science is a pandemic of irrationality, fuelled by ignorance and sustained by misinformation. It's also highly contagious. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith leads the war on science — particularly climate science — in this country. Smith has never explicitly denied that climate change is real, but her actions demonstrate her contempt for the idea that burning fossil fuel is ruining the planet. When asked last summer about the devastating wildfires that ravaged the tourist mecca of Jasper, Smith blamed 'arsonists' and not the drought and extreme heat brought on by climate change. Meanwhile, she has pursued a range of policy demands that clearly show she does not believe climate change is an existential threat. She wants guaranteed access to the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic coasts for her province's oil and gas, elimination of carbon emission caps and the abandonment of net-zero requirements for new power generation. Like most oil and gas advocates, Smith canters ahead with policies to sell and burn more fossil fuels without any consideration of the net cost. There is no doubt that Alberta's government would become much wealthier if it were easier to get the province's oil and gas to more markets. It's also equally true that, at the same time, Alberta would incur considerably more costs to deal with the carnage of floods and fires that are directly caused by climate change. More worrisome is the fact that Prime Minister Mark Carney's government may be willing to give in to some of Smith's demands in a futile effort to cultivate more political support in Alberta. Monday's first ministers meeting in Saskatoon included discussions on fast-tracking infrastructure projects of national significance. The list of projects has not been publicly released, but there is little doubt that new pipelines are the main priorities for provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan. Carney is faced with a choice: accept the science and growing anecdotal evidence of the impact of climate change; or join Smith in kicking the climate-change can down the road until we can no longer see it through the smoke. When it comes to energy infrastructure, there is no sane argument for investing now in anything that is not zero-emission, or that helps connect the electricity grid in Canada so provinces can help each other meet their power needs. As the authors of the Ottawa declaration in the defence of science have made abundantly clear, to do anything else would be indefensible. Dan LettColumnist Dan Lett is a columnist for the Free Press, providing opinion and commentary on politics in Winnipeg and beyond. Born and raised in Toronto, Dan joined the Free Press in 1986. Read more about Dan. Dan's columns are built on facts and reactions, but offer his personal views through arguments and analysis. The Free Press' editing team reviews Dan's columns before they are posted online or published in print — part of the our tradition, since 1872, of producing reliable independent journalism. Read more about Free Press's history and mandate, and learn how our newsroom operates. Our newsroom depends on a growing audience of readers to power our journalism. If you are not a paid reader, please consider becoming a subscriber. Our newsroom depends on its audience of readers to power our journalism. Thank you for your support.
