species

We fill the field with solar panels to stop climate change. We have unintentionally saved 122 species of bees

by

There’s a hum under Minnesota solar panels that engineers didn’t put in the plans. It is a biological, dense, ancient hum. Beneath the photovoltaic panels that convert sunlight into electricity, 122 species of native bees have found something that has been disappearing from the fields of half the world for decades: flowers. It’s not a coincidence. It is the result of a management decision that costs money, requires planning and that, according to the latest science, is producing results that no one expected when the first solar panel was installed in a meadow. The bees are disappearing. A study published in Nature Ecology & Evolutionwith data from 681 agricultural fields on three continents and more than 19,500 specimens of 910 species of wild bees, reached an uncomfortable conclusion: pesticides and habitat loss are reducing bee populations in an additive, independent way, without one factor compensating for the other. That is, having more natural habitat around a field does not neutralize the damage from pesticides. And reducing pesticides is not enough if the habitat has disappeared. They are two different problems that require two different solutions. The work, led by Anina Knauer and researchers from Agroscope among other institutions, found that pesticides not only reduce the number of bees: they also reduce their functional and phylogenetic diversity. Communities not only become smaller, they become simpler, less resilient, less able to cope with future shocks. A desert with seasonal flowers. In Iowa, in the heart of the American Corn Belt, 72% of the territory is covered in corn and soybean monocultures. Less than 0.01% of the original prairie remains standing. This is what researchers at Iowa State University publish in BioScience described as “an extreme example of landscape simplification”. Bees literally have very little to go to. And when the soybeans stop flowering at the end of summer, there is nothing. The colonies enter what science calls the feast-famine dynamic: the festival of flowering followed by famine that kills hives before winter. This is the background scenario. An agricultural world that urgently needs more pollinator habitat, free of pesticides or with minimal exposure. And in that desert, solar panels are doing something no one expected. 14 floors. 122 species. And an unexpected star. A team of researchers led by Bethanne Bruninga-Socolar of Western EcoSystems Technology and James McCall of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory asked a very specific question: Of all the plants that can be grown under and around solar panels, which ones actually establish? And how many bees can they hold? The work, published in Environmental Research Communicationstested 101 plant species in eight different seed mixtures at three solar farms in the tallgrass prairie region of Minnesota. After three years of monitoring, 14 species of flowering herbaceous plants had successfully established themselves. With those 14 species as a starting point, the researchers cross-referenced the data with an exhaustive catalog of plant-bee interactions from the same region. The result is that those 14 plants can support 122 unique species of native bees, 24% of all bee diversity in the state of Minnesota, which has 508 documented species. The star of the system is Zizia aureathe golden Alexander, a yellow flowering plant that blooms early in the season. Alone, it supports 67 species of bees. And 36 of those species—30% of the total study—only visited Zizia aurea among all the plants studied. If it is not in the seed mix of the solar park, those 36 species have nothing. Not all flowers are worth the same. The study also documents an important nuance: bumblebees, the group of pollinators with the most species in decline—three of the eleven species of Bombus of the study are classified as vulnerable by the IUCN: B. pensylvanicus, B. terrestrial and B. fervidus—they don’t get along with Zizia aurea. Only one species of bumblebee visited that plant. Bumblebees prefer Monarda fistulosathe wild bergamot, visited by nine of the eleven species of Bombus of the study. The practical lesson: there is no universal mix. The design of what is planted must respond to what is to be conserved. And what if there are pesticides in the surrounding fields? He study by Toth and colleagues in BioSciencewith more than a decade of data on strips of native prairie embedded in corn and soybean fields in Iowa, systematically reviewed chemical contamination in that type of habitat. Pesticides arrive—neonicotinoids, pyrethroids, fungicides—but in concentrations that, for the best studied species, are below the damage thresholds. And most importantly: the concentrations are no higher than in the rest of the surrounding agricultural landscape. They are not an ecological trap; They are an island of resources in a sea of ​​fields that already have pesticides on them anyway. In addition, a diet rich in quality pollen—exactly what these plants provide—makes bees better tolerate chemical exposure. Nutrition acts as a shield. The authors of that work themselves explicitly point out that their conclusions are applicable to “other types of landscape improvements for pollinators such as hedgerows, pollinator gardens, solar installations with pollinator habitat.” It is not a journalistic extrapolation. It’s in the text of the paper. If there are flowers inside there are bumblebees. If field studies answer the “does it work now?” published in Global Change Biology by Hollie Blaydes and colleagues at Lancaster University answers “will it still work in 2050?” The team modeled the 1,042 operational solar farms in Britain under three socio-economic scenarios for mid-century: a sustainability scenario, an intermediate scenario and a fossil development scenario with maximum agricultural intensification. The main finding is compelling: the management of the solar park is the main determining factor of bumblebee density within the park, above land use changes in the surrounding landscape. Solar parks last between 25 and 40 years. That means decades of stable habitat in landscapes that are going to change and possibly get worse for pollinators. And there is an economic angle that is not minor either. Colonies located near diverse native vegetation avoid feast-famine dynamic which in monocultures weakens … Read more

More and more people are looking at invasive species as the new big culinary goldmine. Science has something to say

by

Honolulu, Hawaii, is famous for its beaches and the kind of paradise landscapes you dream of when planning your vacation. A few weeks ago, however, one of its most picturesque beaches hosted a contest that sounded like anything but paradise: “Eat the Invaders” (“Eat the invaders”). Although the title may be shocking macabre, in reality it was a fishing tournament in which participants had to capture three invasive species. Then a chef was in charge of preparing them to demonstrate that, in addition to being a huge environmental problem, fish ta’ape, to‘ouch either roi They can be a delicacy. It seems like an anecdote, but that Honolulu tournament is just part of a much bigger problem: the ‘invasivorism‘. What the hell is ‘invasiveness’? The word is confusing, but it refers to a very easy concept to understand: the ‘invasiveness’ It consists of neither more nor less than consuming invasive species. Exactly what encouraged to do a few weeks ago in Honolulu: stop seeing ta’ape or roi as simple invasive species and understand them as something more, an ingredient for delicious dishes. In theory, this does not mean that we give up eradicating them or ignore the damage they cause to local ecosystems. It is simply encouraged to go further and turn the problem into an opportunity. Does it only happen in Hawaii? Not at all. Honolulu residents haven’t invented anything new. Not even the slogan of “Eat the Invaders”, which is actually the title of a series from the ABC network that explores precisely the culinary potential of Australia’s invasive species. In 2025 even the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) used that same hook (“Eat the invaders”) to launch a campaign that encouraged taking advantage of species introduced by man and that now threaten native diversity. “Consumption of invasive species can help protect native fauna and flora. By trapping, trapping and consuming them we can reduce their population and the damage they cause,” claims an article signed by Erin Huggins, from the FWS communications area, which details half a dozen species that represent a problem in the US and “should be considered”: Myocastor coypus, Channa argus, iguana iguanasilver carp and Sus scrofacreatures from other areas of America, Asia or Europe. Sounds good, right? That’s the crux of the matter. At first glance it seems like squaring the circle: an invasive species is combated and in the process a benefit is easily transferred to the entire population. The idea is so powerful that in 2013 even the FAO encouraged fighting jellyfish plagues with a similar slogan: “If you can’t fight them, eat them.” The problem is that there are experts who believe that invasiveness is actually a trap that is tantalizingly easy to fall into. At first it seems like the perfect solution, but it often ends up aggravating the invasions. The issue is of sufficient concern that a group of scientists from several countries, led by the Doñana-CSIC Biological Station, has published an article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) in which he questions the basic argument of invasiveness: that the consumption of invasive species is an intelligent strategy, especially if it ends up turning the capture and exploitation of those same species into a lucrative business. “Encouraging commercialization can create incentives to maintain them instead of eradicating them.” What do they say exactly? That what at first seems like a solution can end up becoming a problem. “Invasivorism is usually presented as a strategy win-win (mutual benefit) based on the idea that the consumption of an invasive species generates wealth while minimizing its impacts”, recognize Fran Officialdegui, researcher at the Doñana-CSIC Biological Station and main author of the article. “But the reality is much more complex, and in many situations, when the problem becomes a business, a resistance to ending it arises.” “What is not often said is that the objectives of commercial exploitation and management of invasive species are, in most cases, opposite,” affects the researcher before warning of the greatest risk: that a market will be generated around foreign species. When this happens to the interest in eradicating them, another that pulls in the opposite direction can be added: the interest in conserving them. Can that really happen? It has already happened, in fact. In their article, the researchers recall the case of the Kamchatka crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus). Although it is a species native to the North Pacific, about 60 years ago the USSR decided to introduce it to the Barents Sea, in the Arctic. There these crustaceans found a place where they could easily expand and ended up becoming a pest. Also in something else: the engine of a prosperous business that over time led to overexploitation. What did the authorities do when fishing threatened to eliminate the theoretically invasive species? Catch limits were set to guarantee the business that had been created. Why are they issuing the warning now? Because, as they remember from the Doñana-CSIC Biological Station, the discourse of invasiveness seems to be settling little by little. And in part this expansion is due to campaigns promoted by companies, administrations and even conservation organizations that are carried away by the motto of “If you can’t beat them, eat them!” that already used years ago the FAO. Officialdegui also warns that what happened in his day with the Kamchatka crab could be replicated in Spain with the Callinectes sapidusor blue crab, a invasive species whose goodness culinary now they start promoting themselves. In fact it is easy to find recipes that explain how to prepare it with rice. “It is very likely that scenarios similar to that of the Kamchatka crab will occur on the peninsula when, once the commercial exploitation of the blue crab is established (Callinectes sapidus), there are declines in its population”, keep it up Officialdegui. In his opinion, invasiveness can help raise social awareness about the risk of exotic species, but that cannot mislead us. “Addressing biological invasions requires long-term commitment, scientific knowledge and coordinated … Read more

There have never been more salmon in the world. It’s time we declare them a threatened species

by

Last year, global production of farmed Atlantic salmon amounted to 3.12 million tonnes. That amount is 8,000 times the catch of wild salmon and it is logical: to the extent that aquaculture has become the “pretty girl” of the fishing industry, these are not good times for wild salmon. And no, it is not something that only affects the cold waters of the Norwegian fjords. In Spain, in 2024, only 130 copies were sealed. He all-time low since control of the Asturian rivers began in 1949. And lthe situation is going to get worse. Why is it going to get worse? The reason it’s not obvious. When we talk about this problem, the first intuition is to think that it is a simple question of ‘attention’. Before we needed to take care of wild salmon habitats to ensure we could catch them. Now that aquaculture has made the wild supply dispensable, the incentives to maintain it have disappeared. But, in reality, it is worse. Because the truth is that the dynamics of aquaculture are actively working on the collapse of the wild population. We have well located the three big problems: 1) the hybrid salmon escapes (who have better farm fitness, but worse ocean survival) than They mix with wild animals and produce genetic problems.2) the spread of sea ​​louse because the concentration of fish in cages amplifies the parasite load and, finally, 3) the need for forage fish to feed the farms removes resources for other fish. And the consequences are visible to all. In Asturias it is not only that the season has started two weeks later than usual, it is that the first salmon (campanu) the latest day in history has arrived. But that’s only part of the story. In Norway, for example, only 323,000 wild salmon were observed in 2024. The previous year, the figures They amounted to 481,463 copies. In fact, last year fishing was prohibited in 42 rivers and three fjords. In Scotland, another of the great salmon-growing countries, the population of wild specimens has fallen by 80% since the 1970s. Is it only a problem related to aquaculture? No, it would be unfair to say this. The decline is global and has a lot to do with climate and food chain problems. But the evidence tells us that not even repopulating is of any use: we have been taking counterproductive initiatives for decades that reduce genetic diversity and make the species increasingly fragile. Image | Bruce Warrington In Xataka | We are drugging the salmon with cocaine and anxiolytics. And that’s causing them to behave strangely.

has unleashed an invasive species that drains its rivers

by

If historically there is a star tree species for reforestation and wood production, those are conifers. The pine of all life. We have seen it in the mountains of Galicia, in Euskadi and also in New Zealand. There are no shortage of reasons to choose them: they grow very quickly, they are cheap, they withstand adverse conditions well, they provide versatile wood and their seeds disperse very well. They fulfill their mission of reforestation. Maybe too well: its seeds have a kind of membranous wings that allows them to fly far with the wind, escaping from the plantations. So much so that in New Zealand the “wild conifers” or “wilding conifers” They are already a national problem. what’s happening. That conifers originally planted in managed plantations are escaping from those areas and their control, colonizing open landscapes. As details The New Zealand Ministry of Primary Industry, there are already more than 2 million hectares affected. Before they decided to launch a control program, it was even worse: they were expanding at a rate of 90,000 hectares a year. Why is it important. The fact that there is a pine forest where it shouldn’t brings serious problems: They drain the water. The conifer canopy intercepts water before it reaches the ground, so runoff is reduced, aquifers are recharged less, and there is less water in rivers and reservoirs. The estimated loss is up to 40%. And if there is less water in rivers and reservoirs, it can affect the production of electricity with hydroelectric plants. They affect biodiversity. The introduced species were not native and their rapid expansion displaces native vegetation in one of the most biodiverse countries on the planet. Fires and agricultural production. Its uncontrolled presence reduces the space for agriculture and favors the spread of fires. Why were they planted? This problem that is bringing the New Zealand government to its head began precisely with government programs of the 60s and 70s. At that time the administration massively planted Pinus radiata, Pseudotsuga menziesii and other exotic species with the aim of reforesting areas, avoiding deforestation and protect the inland highlands . In fact, The New Zealand Parliament recognized in 2023 how he had sprinkled with seeds by air. And as we have already seen, conifers are the perfect invader: productive, resistant and fast growing. What could go wrong. The difficult and expensive task of keeping the wild conifer at bay. The oceanic country has been trying to stop wild pines for more than a decade and almost 200 million dollars. In 2015 they approved the strategy against wild conifers with a vision of containment and eradication by 2030 (spoiler: it will not be like that), but the lack of financing has been its endemic evil. With specific injections like the one in 2020 100 million dollarsframed within a post-pandemic job creation project, then even the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) of New Zealand has had to write a letter to the president to complain about the lack of means. Without sufficient and sustained funding, the program takes one step forward, another step back: controlled areas are recolonized. Who should pay? The tricky issue about the matter, which touches on elements as critical as water or electricity production, is that it requires an ambitious and continuous plan over time to be effective. The PCE points out explicitly to the state, which promoted plantations and aerial seeding, but also points to the logging industry insofar as it has also benefited from these problematic species, posing a possible tax. On the other hand, and as affected are the energy companies, who are as interested as anyone in solving the problem. In fact, the prime minister has already entered into talks. In Xataka | The Mediterranean Sea is becoming tropicalized: the Balearic Islands welcome an invasive plant that until now was impossible in its waters In Xataka | The US has such a big problem with Asian carp in its rivers that it has decided something extreme: electrocute them Cover | Kerin Gedge

One of the 100 most harmful species in the world has settled in Spain. It’s a cute domestic turtle

by

These are not good times for Spanish tortoises. On the peninsula we only have two native species of freshwater turtle: the leprous ones (Mauremys leprosa) and the European ones (Emys orbicularis). Both are in decline and it is not (only) because of hunting and the destruction of their habitats; It is, above all, for something much more prosaic: the hundreds of turtles that are sold every year and that they end up abandoned in rivers, reservoirs or ponds. This is not new; we have been around since 97 prohibiting the sale of more and more exotic turtles. The problem is that the situation has gotten completely out of hand. The turtles have become a real plague in the interior provinces. Turtles are a terrible gift. And, as I say, we have known this for almost 30 years. The State (in 1997, in 2013 and in 2025) has successively prohibited the sale of more and more species of turtles. It hasn’t helped much: every time a species is banned, it is replaced by another. Especially between individuals. They all end up in the same way: in the natural environment. The best example is less than a year old: in May 2025, the Ministry expanded the Spanish Catalog of Invasive Exotic Species incorporating the two genera of turtles (Pseudemys and Mauremys) that the stores began to sell when the Trachemys in 2013. There is no systematic study of the problem, but the signs are clear. In Salamanca, for example there is confirmed presence of painted turtles and Florida red-bellied turtles. And in Extremadura, according to the Boardthere are eight exotic turtles for every native one in the Guadiana. In Catalonia, to finish the walk through the peninsular geography, 17 different species have been found in different natural areas. And it’s not nonsense. After all, the Florida turtle is one of the 100 most harmful invasive alien species in the world. Although They have been banned for more than 30 years throughout Europe, they continue to wreak havoc. These species represent the second cause of biodiversity loss in the world. What to do if we have a turtle at home? It is important to note that, one way or another, it is only legal to have banned turtles at home if they were purchased before the ban and were declared at the time to the relevant authority. But its transfer, sale or reproduction is prohibited; and, of course, release them into the natural environment. Image | Pedro Novales In Xataka | There are more and more turtles on the beaches of the Spanish Mediterranean. This is not good news for anyone involved.

the appearance of two new species of toxic puffer fish is the best proof

by

The cold Atlantic waters of the Rias Baixas in Galicia they are changing. Until now we were accustomed to a rich marine biodiversity dominated by native species from temperate and cold waters, but now researchers have found visitors as exotic as they are unwanted: puffer fish. Something is happening. Although this discovery may remain a biological anecdote to add to encyclopedias, the truth is that we are facing an indicator that the “tropicalization” of our seas is knocking at the door. This has been demonstrated by the research staff of the Oceanographic Center of Vigowhich set off alarm bells by documenting the presence of these exotic fish. We didn’t expect them. The published study in Fisher is a pioneer by analyzing for the first time globally the diversity of fish in the order of Tetraodontiformes, which is where puffer fish, sunfish and triggerfish are found in Spanish waters. In total, they have cataloged 26 different species, paying special attention to their distribution areas between the Peninsula and the Canary Islands. But the big surprise has come in Galicia with two unprecedented sightings that have been rigorously confirmed through morphological analysis, photographs and also with DNA itself. The two species. The first species that attracted attention was a green drum, captured for the first time in Galician waters off the Costa da Vela in 2021. The second specimen is a land drum, located in 2025 in the middle of the Pontevedra estuary. Tropicalization. Here the almost obligatory question is: What is a puffer fish doing swimming calmly through the Pontevedra estuary? The short answer is climate change. The long and scientific answer is the tropicalization of the sea. Just like the researcher points out Rafael Bañón, the progressive warming of ocean waters is blurring marine thermal boundaries and this allows species that originate from tropical and subtropical waters to now find temperatures in the Galician Atlantic comfortable enough not only to survive, but to expand their territory. They are a problem. In addition to the ecological challenge it poses and the movement of local species, we must also remember the risk to public health that it entails. And one of the best-known characteristics of puffer fish, especially due to Japanese gastronomy and its famous fuguis that they harbor tetrodotoxin inside. And it is nothing more than a powerful neurotoxin for which there is no known antidote and which can be lethal if ingested. Although in Spain there is no culture of consumption of these fish, the risk of amateur or commercial fishermen catching them by accident and ending up on someone’s plate without the necessary care may exist. In this way, monitoring is needed for these new species and others that may arrive due to the temperature changes that are recorded. Images | Brian Yurasits WINDENRIC In Xataka | Although it may seem impossible, there is a 12-millimeter fish that makes as much noise as an airplane turbine

The Ebro is filling with brown prawns, an invasive species that we are going to find more and more on our plates.

by

When a fisherman from Vinaròs arrives at the fish market with his catch of the day, he finds more and more specimens of a crustacean that should not be there: the brown shrimp. Four years ago there were barely one or two per boat. Today there are days when up to 40 kilos are caught. This invasive species has arrived in the Mediterranean, has reproduced, and has no intention of leaving. The presentations. Its scientific name is Penaeus aztecus and comes from the Gulf of Mexico and the east coast of the United States. Although for the non-expert eye, the one who finds a plate of prawns on the table on Christmas Day, at first glance there is not much aesthetic difference with the normal one, there is. Thus, it has a uniform brown color that tends to be yellowish, it lacks those bands characteristic of the native, its body is more stylized and its head is pointed, and its antennae have a characteristic reddish tone. BioInvasions Records. Authors from the Institute of Marine Sciences (CSIC, Barcelona) Chronology of an invasion. The first time They detected the brown shrimp in the Mediterranean It was in Turkish waters in 2009. It possibly arrived as a stowaway in the ballast water of large ships that load water in the Caribbean to stabilize and then release it in Mediterranean ports along with larvae of this invasive species. From there, it has expanded rapidly westward. In 2023 the CSIC confirmed with morphological and genetic analyzes its presence on the Catalan coast and in the area of ​​the Ebro delta. Later, it has been seen in other ports of the Valencian Community and in the Mar Menor (Murcia) in record time. A perfect invasion. But the clearest proof of its expansion is not geographical but biological: the discovery of mature females in the Ebro delta confirms that the species is capable of completing its reproductive cycle in Spanish waters. It is already an established population. The testimony of the fishermen’s brotherhood of the Vinaroz fish market It constitutes a good alarm thermometer, detailing that in just four years they have gone from encountering a unit to capturing 40 kilos and the curve does not stabilize: each campaign surpasses the previous one. The brown shrimp is a thermophilic species. If it has found an ideal new home in the Mediterranean, it is partly because the sea is warming and its waters are already more and more similar to its original habitat. What’s wrong with the shrimp here? At the moment there is no data that shows the collapse of the native shrimp, but there is a reality: it is competing with the brown shrimp for space and food. And there is a mirror in which to look: in the Gulf of Taranto in Italy, the presence of the native shrimp has already reversed. And a reminder: the one with the blue crab. Is it eaten? The “good news” is that brown shrimp is edible and, in fact, gastronomically speaking, it is tasty. However, its market price is noticeably lower: 12-13 euros per kilo compared to more than 40 euros per kilo for native shrimp. But there is an underlying problem: they can give you a hard time and pay for brown shrimp at the price of native shrimp, since it is sold mixed and unlabeled. This is a traceability problem for the consumer. What can be done. Converting the consumption of brown shrimp as a way to control its population is a possibility, either directly or with preparations, although it is imperative to establish regulation in the fish market to differentiate it. In Xataka | The US has such a big problem with Asian carp in its rivers that it has decided something extreme: electrocute them In Xataka | The Iberian Peninsula is being invaded: more than 1,200 exotic species have come to stay Cover | BioInvasions Records and Natural History Sciences

Spanish ants are using other species as “sexual livestock” to expand across Europe. And it’s working for them

by

Nature has given us many ways to reproduce. From the simplest mechanism (clonality) to really very elaborate systems of sexual reproduction: where some species generate males and females, others produce a huge number of ‘morphs’ depending on the season, population density or social caste. But in all these cases, even the most complex ones, “the phenotypes produced by a female invariably belong to the same species.” Or so we believed. Because the Spanish ants have done so by jumping that “apparently universal restriction” into the air and are taking advantage of it to domesticate other species at will. They are doing what? As it sounds: after examining more than 120 populations and sequences of almost 400 different individuals, researchers from the University of Montpellier they came to the conclusion that the queens of Messor ibericus they are cloning males Messor structor to create hybrid workers that allow them to progressively expand throughout Europe. Evidently, although these hybrid workers are used as the workforce of the anthill, we are not talking about a system of slavery of other species analogous to the human systems of ancient times. However, it is fun and very interesting. Juvé et al. (2025) Why is this happening? When we talk about cocial insects, colonies function almost as if they were factories: if there are no workers, there is no nest, no food, and no viable reproduction. What happens in this case is that (according to the researchers) the queens of the Messor ibericus They cannot produce viable workers without the genetic contribution of other species. And, without thinking twice, they do it. Why is it important? For many reasons, but above all because it opens up an incredible melon: it brings back to the debate table the real meaning of “being a species.” It also forces us to rethink what we know about sexual reproduction and allows us to understand colonies as ‘superorganisms’ that are much more complex than we believed until now. So… can we really talk about sexual domestication? In this context, ‘sexual domestication’ appears as a visual metaphor of a complex process. However, there is no doubt that the appearance of colonies with internal reproductive ‘livestock’ changes the rules of the game. And not only on a scientific level: the fact that they are gaining ground throughout the continent shows that the strategy is successful. Very successful. Towards a European hegemony of the Spanish ant… No no. We can hardly say that. Today, all the ants on the continent are experiencing a real invasion: that of the Argentine or red fire ants. This is a biological invasion linked to globalization. In this case, what is happening is that by freeing yourself from dependence on M. builder (because it can produce reserves of its genetic material without needing colonies of this species), the M. ibericus They can move with complete freedom and that means they are moving into new and unexplored territories. But the complete battle, facing the fire ant, is yet to come. And they are already losing it. Image | Phil Honle In Xataka | New species of insects are not discovered in exotic places: we have just found two new ants in Andalusia

A simple gadget is making a species evolve live and direct: hummingbirds

by

During the late 1820s, Rene Lesson visited many times the ornithological collection of François Victor Masséna. Every morning, he crossed the doors of the Parisian palace of the Dukes of Rivoli and immersed himself in the more than 12,000 species they had accumulated there. Some say he fell in love there. Sometimes, just before immersing himself in work, he would come across a very young woman Anna d’EsslingMasséna’s wife. Lesson, who was well aware of his social situation, never said anything; but in his papers he described Anna as “a woman of exceptional beauty, elegance and education.” I imagine that, for this reason, when he discovered the amethyst-headed hummingbird among the Duke’s specimens, he thought of her. I imagine that, for this reason, Lesson named it after him. What I can’t imagine is what the French ornithologist would think if we told him that we were “evolving” the hummingbird he gave to Anna until we changed it forever. But that’s how it is. The evolution live and direct. I came to this story (and Global Change Biology study which supports it) thanks to a bluit by Carlos Cabido. It is, as the evolutionary ecologist says, “another case of rapid evolution that has generated observable adaptive changes in a very short period.” The “smoking gun.” But let’s start at the beginning: researchers at the University of California Berkeley analyzed the population expansion and the morphological changes in the beaks of hummingbirds in relation to a very specific device: the feeders that, since the 1930s, have been used on the west coast of the United States. These are simple sugar water dispensers, but (always according to researchers) they have caused a series of very striking changes. What changes? On a regional and temporal scale, “the density/use of feeders appears as the best predictor of population expansion”; well above other variables analyzed. This means that the installation of these dispensers is the key to the expansion of hummingbirds. Linked to that, researchers they observed significant changes in the morphology of the beak: it has become longer (to better access the feeder) and sharper (in a context where territoriality is becoming more important because it is linked to a very concentrated resource). And all this in a couple of decades. That is, in about ten generations. Why is it important? Above all, because it is one more example that a cheap, massive and standardized device (if it creates a new food environment) can reconfigure body structures and behavioral repertoires. And, beyond all that, because it shows that, if environmental change is intense and sustained, natural selection works like a shot. However, all that glitters is not a hummingbird. In fact, Anna’s hummingbird is almost an exception. As far as we know, countless hummingbird species They are suffering (and big time) the changes linked to the Anthropocene: although the Anna is growing, its first cousins ​​are in clear decline. And yes, it is our fault. Yeah this study shows that we have great power to change nature, the overview reminds us that “with great power comes great responsibility.” Image | Robert Bottman In Xataka | The domestication of cats remains a mystery. But we are closer to knowing where and why it happened

In 2020, humanity was confined by covid. And that caused a species of bird to modify its beak to survive

by

During the COVID-19 pandemic the world stopped completely. Something that scientists have named ‘anthropause‘: a sudden silence of human activity that left many of us confined at home and that even affected nature. This effect was so extreme that even a species of bird changed its beak as science has now seen. The study. Although in the past we saw some disorders in nature, such as the appearance of wild boars in Barcelona or dolphins in Venetian ports, now a team from UCLA has gone further. a study published in PNAS indicates that a population of urban birds modified his physical anatomy in record time. The objective they had was to survive the absence of humans at that time. But the most surprising thing is that when everything returned to normal and humans began to go outside, the birds returned to their original beak. The dilemma. To understand the discovery, you first have to know the protagonists: the dark eyed juncos. Some small birds that are very common in the field of the University of California in Los Angeles. Before 2020, these birds had short, wide beaks. Something that makes perfect sense, since they were in an environment full of students and, therefore, His diet was based on leftovers. that were left This is why it needed to have a robust beak to handle these ‘artificial’ foods. In contrast, their relatives that live in wild forests have longer, thinner beaks, designed like precision tweezers to search for insects and seeds hidden in vegetation. The pandemic. When UCLA closed its doors in 2020 and the students disappeared, so did the easy food. And this was where the university researchers saw a unique opportunity to study what happens when you eliminate humans from the ecological equation. The results. What was seen in this case is the new generations of reeds that were born precisely in this time of ‘loneliness’ they developed longer and thinner beaks. All this because since there was no human garbage, they had to behave like wild birds again, foraging on the ground and looking for food alternatives. But what was most fascinating happened after the reopening. As soon as students (and their snacks) returned to campus in 2022, the morphology of the peaks quickly reverted to the urban form with a short, thick shape. This is ultimately an extremely rapid evolutionary change that is very rare to see. A change of mind. What makes this study so relevant to the scientific community is the speed of the field. Generally, we think of evolution as a process that takes thousands of years. However, what we observed here suggests that urban species have a much more elastic capacity for adaptation than we believed. Since it’s not just the peak. Previous studies by the same team had already noted behavioral changes: during the pandemic, these birds lost their fear of humans, becoming less aggressive and more curious, although that behavior also readjusted with our return. Its importance. This case is a brutal reminder of our ecological footprint. We don’t just alter the climate or the landscape; our mere presence and our waste acts as an evolutionary force that shapes the biology of the animals around us like these birds. The UCLA rushes have taught us that nature is not static; It is a dynamic system that reacts to our habits almost in real time. The question that remains in the air is: if a couple of years of silence changed the shape of a bird, what other invisible changes are we causing without realizing it? Images | Vincent van Zalinge David Mitran In Xataka | The insects of Antarctica had been living peacefully for thousands of years. Until microplastics arrived

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.