Blog

In 1989, the United Nations created a day to recognize the damage done to humanity by natural disasters and to exhort nations to reduce the risk associated with those disasters.  The day also recognizes that natural disasters, “many of which are exacerbated by climate change, have a negative impact on investment in sustainable development and the desired outcomes.”  In 2009, the UN chose October 13 as its permanent annual recognition of the need for disaster risk reduction.

            A twenty-year review of natural disasters by the UN demonstrated the rising costs, both economic and human, of disasters.  Compared to the early two decades, the period from 1998 to 2017 experienced a 151% increase in the economic losses from disasters, rising from $1.3 billion to $2.9 billion, Climate-related disasters accounted for 77% of the total loss (earthquakes and the resultant tsunamis were most of the rest).  The vast majority of climate-related events were floods (43.4%) and storms (28.2%).

            While the human costs of these disasters get the most attention, of course, the costs to biodiversity are similarly terrible.  A 2019 report by the National Wildlife Federation described the consequences of several recent events to wildlife.  Record July temperatures in Alaska caused die-offs of pink, sockeye and chum salmon.  Hurricane Irma in 2017 devastated southern Florida, including killing up to 22% of the remaining population of the endangered key deer.  Massive fires in the western U.S., including the 2016 Soberanes Fire, choked streams with sediment and other debris, affecting fish and amphibian species with nowhere else to go.  Floods associated with Hurricane Harvey in 2017 killed almost all of the remaining wild population of the endangered Attwater’s Prairie Chicken (only 12 birds remained alive after the floods).

            Natural disasters always cause losses, of course, but climate change is making these disasters worse.  More water in the atmosphere and warmer temperatures in both the air and water make storms larger, more frequent and more violent.  Weather events are getting more episodic, with higher rainfalls during storms causing bigger floods and longer droughts between storms causing habitat degradation and extreme wildfires.

            Which brings us back to the United Nations resolve to manage the risks of natural disasters better.  Communities and nations need to make their infrastructure and neighborhoods more resilient in the face of these increasingly violent episodes—that’s what is called climate adaptation.  But, more fundamental to our overall sustainability, is the other needed response:  mitigating climate change.  Mitigation means reducing the amount of greenhouse gases building up in the atmosphere by reducing fossil fuel burning.  Let’s just do it!

References:

NASA Earth Observatory.  2005.  The Impact of Climate Change on Natural Disasters.  Available at:  https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/RisingCost/rising_cost5.php. Accessed February 6, 2020.

National Wildlife Federation.  2019.  Climate Change, Natural Disasters, and Wildlife.  Available at:  https://www.nwf.org/-/media/Documents/PDFs/Environmental-Threats/Climate-Change-Natural-Disasters-fact-sheet.ashx.  Accessed February 6, 2020.

UN Office of Disaster Risk Reduction.  2018.  UN 20-year review:  earthquakes and tsunamis kill more people while climate change is driving up economic losses.  Available at:  https://www.undrr.org/news/un-20-year-review-earthquakes-and-tsunamis-kill-more-people-while-climate-change-driving. Accessed February 6, 2020.

One of the world’s most prominent conservation biologists, Bill Laurance, was born this day in 1957.  Among the many voices heard today for saving our planet, his may be the most respected—and the most grounded in science.

            William F. Laurance grew up on a ranch in the American west, where he immersed himself in nature.  In an interview, he said, “And I just loved animals, I raised mountain lions and bear cubs and I was a falconer, I had birds of prey and owls and ferrets and flying squirrels, just a whole menagerie that my long suffering parents put up with.”  He initially wanted to work in zoos, but became convinced that zoos were only a temporary answer to conservation—habitat protection was the sustainable answer.

            He received his undergraduate degree at Boise State University in Idaho, and was awarded a doctorate from the University of California-Berkeley in 1989.  Since then he has performed research throughout the tropics, including Central and South America, Australia, Africa and Asia.  His research focuses on the relationships between biodiversity and habitat characteristics, particularly habitat fragmentation.  He told an interviewer, “As you probably know, about forty million acres of tropical forest are being destroyed every year. That is about eighty football fields a minute. And as a consequence we are seeing vast landscapes being denuded of forest. We are also seeing the original rain forest being chopped up into isolated islands or parcels.” (the interview doesn’t have a date, so his stated figure on acres lost may not be accurate today)

            Laurance now holds a distinguished faculty position at James Cook University in Cairns, Australia.  He has published many books and hundreds of scientific and popular articles about the tropics and habitat conservation in particular.  Along the way, he has received a long list of awards and honors for his work, including receiving Australia’s Best Science Writing Award four times. 

            He believes that ecological scientists today must also be advocates for the resources they study.  To help that process, in 2013 he founded (and still directs) an organization called ALERT—the Alliance of Leading Environmental Researchers & thinkers.  ALERT helps scientists get their message to journalists, decision-makers and the general public through various outlets, both written and electronic.  ALERT is designed to “help world-class researchers have a concerted, highly credible voice on key environmental issues.”

            Laurance finds it hard to be too optimistic about the state of our environment because human population continues to grow and habitat continues to be lost and fragmented.  “There have been some successes, there have been some new parks and new reserves that have been designated, but I think we have to be very vigilant. Right now, I feel like we have our fingers in the dike, and we are trying to stave off a potentially catastrophic flood of extinctions….It is going to take a lot of effort, a lot of dedication, and I think more resources than what we are currently seeing in order to really try and stave off a catastrophic situation in tropical ecosystems.”

References:

Alliance of Leading Environmental Researchers & Thinkers.  About Us.  Available at:  http://alert-conservation.org/about-us.  Accessed February 5, 2020.

Annenberg Learner.  Interview with William F. Laurance.  Available at:  https://www.learner.org/series/the-habitable-planet-a-systems-approach-to-environmental-science/biodiversity-decline/interview-with-william-f-laurance/. Accessed February 5, 2020.

James Cook University.  Research Profile, Prof Bill Laurance.  Available at:  https://research.jcu.edu.au/portfolio/bill.laurance. Accessed February 5, 2020.

Dnieper.  Dnipro.  Dnepr.  Dnyapro.  No matter how you spell it, the name of this river is a tongue-twister.  It can get worse, though.  The Dnieper Dam (we’ll use the predominant English spelling, if you don’t mind) impounds the Dnieper River just upstream from the town of Zaporizhzhya!  Spelling aside, the river and dam are among the most important in Europe.

            The Dnieper River is the fourth largest in Europe (behind the Volga, Danube and Ural; maybe third if you consider the Ural River in Asia).  It flows more than 1,350 miles, from headwaters in Belarus and Russia, through the Ukraine (it bisects the capital, Kiev), and emptying into the Black Sea.  The watershed includes 80% of Ukrainian water resources, making the river essential to the economy of that nation.  The river is also an important cultural symbol for Ukrainians.

            A set of rapids just upstream of Zaporizhzhya had always made the river un-navigable.  Plans to dam the river go back to the 1800s, but they got serious during communist rule when the Ukraine was part of the USSR.  Leon Trotsky, famous (or perhaps infamous) Soviet leader, said, “In the south, the Dnieper runs its course through the wealthiest industrial lands; and it is wasting the prodigious weight of its pressure, playing over age-old rapids and waiting until we harness its stream, curb it with dams, and compel it to give lights to cities, to drive factories, and to enrich ploughland.  We shall compel it!”  Damming the Dnieper River became a central focus of the utilitarian communist philosophy.

            Construction of the dam began in 1927 and was completed in 1932.  The US government provided expertise, and General Electric built the electric-generating turbines.  On October 10, 1932, the dam began operation. The dam was nearly 2500 feet long and 200 feet high, and it flooded the upstream rapids. The power-generating capacity was the largest in Europe until the 1950s when larger facilities were built on the Volga River.  The dam included a series of locks that made almost the entire Dnieper River navigable.

            All of this, you might think, is rather ho-hum today.  Big dams that generate electricity and allow river transportation are commonplace.  And, like the Dnieper Dam, big dams often hold great cultural importance to the nations that build them (Hoover Dam, remember, was considered the epitome of American can-do personality in the 1930s).  But what happened to the Dnieper Dam got pretty spectacular during World War II.

            Early in the war, the Soviet Union was getting badly beaten by Nazi Germany.  German troops were advancing through the Ukraine, headed toward Kiev.  The forerunners of the Soviet KGB, on orders from Joseph Stalin, blew up Dnieper Dam on August 18, 1941.  Rather than let the Germans take over the hydro-electric facility and the city of Kiev, the USSR destroyed their great work.  An American journalist at the time reported, “I know what that dam meant to the Bolsheviks…It was the largest, most spectacular, and most popular of all the immense projects of the First Five-Year Plan…. Its destruction demonstrates a will to resist, which surpasses anything we had imagined.”

            That will to resist also created an enormous human tragedy.  A film of the dam’s destruction shows the central portion of the dam erupting, and water from the reservoir behind the dam flowing through the gap like a raging river.  People living downstream had no warning as village after village was ripped apart.  No official count of the dead is available, but estimates range from 20,000 to 100,000 human casualties.  Dam tragedies are bad enough when the result of weather, but they are unspeakable when done on purpose.

            The Germans took over the area and partially rebuilt the dam.  But two years later, the course of the war had reversed, and Soviet troops were now pushing the Germans back out of the Ukraine.  As they retreated, the German forces blew up the dam for a second time!  This time, the dam was virtually obliterated. 

            But this is a dam that wouldn’t die.  At the end of the war, the Soviets rebuilt the dam for a third time, again with the help of the U.S. and General Electric.  After five years of construction, in, 1950, the dam again began producing electricity.

            The Dnieper Dam remains in operation today, producing electricity and impounding a large reservoir that allows river transportation through its system of locks.  It is less significant than before, now serving as just one element in a network of dams and fuel-burning electric plants.  But it remains a symbol of the resilience and sustainability, not only of the Ukraine, but also nature.

References:

Andrews, Stefan.  2017.  The Red Army troops dynamited the strategically important Dneprostroi Dam during WWI, as Germany invaded the Soviet Union.  The Vintage News, Jan 13, 2017.  Available at:  https://www.thevintagenews.com/2017/01/13/the-red-army-troops-dynamited-the-strategically-important-dneprostroi-dam-during-wwii-as-germany-invaded-the-soviet-union/.  Accessed February 4, 2020.

Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine.  Dnipro Hydroelectric Station.  Available at:  http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CD%5CN%5CDniproHydroelectricStation.htm.  Accessed February 4, 2020.

Micklin, Philip P., and Anatoly Petrovich Domanitsky.  Dnieper River.  Encyclopedia Britannica.  Available at:  https://www.britannica.com/place/Dnieper-River/Hydrology. Accessed February 4, 2020.

Moroz, Dmytro.  2013.  Ukrainian Activist Draw Attention To Little-Known WWII Tragedy.  Radio Free Europe, August 23, 2013.  Available at:  https://www.rferl.org/a/european-remembrance-day-ukraine-little-known-ww2-tragedy/25083847.html. Accessed February 4, 2020.

In early summer, 1975, I was driving by myself from Syracuse, New York, to Sullivan, Illinois.  It was a long drive, and I stayed awake by switching radio channels, seeing how often I could hear John Denver’s latest hit, “Thank God I’m a Country Boy.”  I don’t remember the details now, but my impression is still that I could just about hear that song continuously as I crossed the country!  In those days, John Denver was everyone’s best friend—and that includes the environment.

            Although his song claims he was “born in the summer of his twenty-seen year,” he was actually born on the last day of 1943 (died 1997).  And not in Colorado, but in Roswell, New Mexico.  He moved often growing up, following the military career of his father.  He dropped out of art school at Texas Tech in 1964 to become a song-writer and folk singer.  He changed his name from John Deutschendorf, Jr. to John Denver (yes, for the capital of his adopted state). In 1967, he wrote “Leaving on a Jet Plane,” which became a number-one hit for Peter, Paul and Mary.

            Just as “sunshine on my shoulder makes me happy,” John Denver’s music made American happy.  His musical star rose with hit after hit, with heart-warming songs that made us all yearn for simple pleasures like “grandma’s feather bed.”  He was the biggest singing star of the 1970s, turning sentiments like “take me home, country road” into pure gold.

            But along with the music, John Denver had another message.  He loved nature, and he worked tirelessly for conservation and sustainability.  He established two non-profit organizations on behalf of the environment.  The first was the Windstar Foundation, set on a 1,000-acre property near his home in Aspen, Colorado.  The Foundation worked to enhance education about sustainability across the world (it closed in 2012).  The second was Plant-It 2020, a tree-planting organization that still operates today, re-establishing degraded forests and planting new ones.  He also co-founded The Hunger Project, dedicated then to education and awareness about world hunger and still today performing valuable active grassroots programs to build local food security.  For two decades, he represented UNICEF.

            These organizations are important, of course, but it was the larger-than-life presence of John Denver that was his biggest contribution.  A close friend said, “You just have to find something you love and live al ife that shows it.  John found music.  He turned it into a vehicle to make a huge difference.”  John Denver wrote songs about the environment; perhaps the most famous was “Calypso,” honoring the work of Jacques Cousteau.  He was a leading spokesperson for the environment, going wherever he was needed—Congress, television, radio, public events.  He supported many other organizations, most notably the National Wildlife Federation; he dropped a special album, “Earth Songs,” with proceeds going to support the Federation’s programs.  He said, “I want to inspire people to make a better world and a healthier environment.  My songs…have to do with taking responsibility for the world we want to create.”

            He was an avid pilot and used this skill also to support conservation.  His friend said, “John and I did an aerial educational tour of the forests of the Pacific Northwest….We did it in his Learjet.  We put the flaps down and flew very slowly with some notable dignitaries, which enlightened everyone to how rampant the clear-cutting was.  The aerial perspective puts it all together.  It lets the land speak for itself.”

            Tragically, his love of flying cut his life short.  John Denver died at age 53, when his experimental plane crashed in the sea near Monterey, California, on October 10, 1997.  His message, however, is eternal—and simple:  “Commit yourself to do whatever it is you can contribute in order to create a healthy and sustainable future—the world needs you desperately.  Find that in yourself and make a commitment—that is what will change the world.”

References:

Encyclopedia Britannica.  Joh Denver.  Available at:  https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Denver.  Accessed January 20, 2020.

Plantit2020.  Plant-It 2020 Overview.  Available at:  https://plantit2020.org/about.html.  Accessed January 20, 2020.

Pryweller, Joseph.  1990.  John Denver Still High on Being a Good Global Citizen.  Daily Press, July 3, 1990.  Available at:  https://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-xpm-19900703-1990-07-03-9006290344-story.html. Accessed January 20, 2020.

Stunda, Hilary.  2011.  John Denver:  An environmental legacy remembered.  The Aspen Times, October 7, 2011.  Available at:  https://www.aspentimes.com/news/john-denver-an-environmental-legacy-remembered/. Accessed January 20, 2020.

December 30 is the sixth day of Christmas.  In the song, “The Twelve Days of Christmas,” the sixth day is reserved for bird reproduction—six geese a-laying.  So, let’s talk today about the extremes that birds go to when they are a-laying.

            Let’s start with the Bee Hummingbird of Cuba.  This is the world’s smallest bird, about two and one-half inches long, half the size of the common Ruby-throated Hummingbird.  It looks more like a real bee than a bird, flitting around from flower to flower, hence the name.  So, it isn’t surprising that the Bee Hummingbird also holds the record for the world’s smallest egg,  It measures about one-third of an inch in diameter and weighs about .02 grams (right, basically nothing). 

            At the other end of the spectrum is the Ostrich, native to Africa (and earlier to Asia).  The Ostrich is the world’s largest bird, standing up to 9 feet tall and weighing up to 250 pounds.  So, it isn’t surprising that it also lays the world’s largest egg.  Ostrich eggs are 6 inches long and weigh about 3 pounds.  The shells are so strong that an adult human can stand on the eggs without damaging them—a good trait since their incubating parents weigh in at about the size of a football linebacker.  Historically, however, the Ostrich comes in second to the fossil Elephant Birds, a group of species that lived in Madagascar as recently as 3,000 years ago.  With eggs twice the size of Ostrich eggs, the Elephant Bird produced the biggest eggs ever known.

            Another way to look at size, however, is relative.  When egg size is expressed in terms of a bird’s overall size, the accomplishment of the Ostrich or Elephant Bird isn’t so impressive.  Ostrich eggs are about 2% of the weight on an adult, hardly worth an honorable mention  The champion is New Zealand’s national symbol–the Kiwi.  The Kiwi is a small (about 1.5 feet tall and weighing 2.5 pounds); it doesn’t fly and its feathers look more like hair, prompting some to call it an “honorary mammal.” But it is all bird when it comes to its egg.  The Kiwi lays a gigantic egg for its size, up to 25% of its body weight.  Imagine this in human terms—a 120-pound woman would be giving birth to a 30-pound baby!

            Well, maybe we need to look at the egg championship from even one more perspective.  The Kiwi lays a big egg, but it produces only one at a time.  So, perhaps we should think about egg-laying records in terms of the total amount of egg-stuff produced.  Which bird lays the most eggs?  That award goes to a series of Australian species (comprising the family Megapodes) collectively known as “mound builders.”  These ground-nesting birds excavate shallow depressions which they fill with decaying vegetation and cover with sand.  The decomposition produces heat that incubates the eggs, so the adults don’t have to mind the nest.  They don’t take care of the chick either.  I guess the mound builders figure they do enough by making the nest and filling it with eggs.  Lots of eggs.  World-record numbers of eggs.  One female can lay up to 35 eggs in a single brood.  When this mass of eggs is considered together, the Megapodes surpass all other bird groups in the relative amount of material—eggs and their contents—devoted to reproduction. 

            From big to small, few to many, egg-laying is one big job for our feathered friends.  Next time you make an omelet, pause to recognize the miracle you are about to crack into the frying pan!

References:

Bradford, Alina.  2014.  Ostrich Facts:  The World’s Largest Bird.  LiveScience, September 17, 2014.  Available at:  https://www.livescience.com/27433-ostriches.html. Accessed January 19, 2020.

Bryce, Emma.  2015.  The Champion Egg-Layers of the Bird World.  Audubon, February 6, 2015.  Available at:  https://www.audubon.org/news/the-champion-egg-layers-bird-world. Accessed January 19, 2020.

Dean, Sam.  2015.  Why Is the Kiwi’s Egg So Big?  Audubon Science, February 25, 2015.  Available at:  https://www.audubon.org/news/why-kiwis-egg-so-big. Accessed January 19, 2020.

Encyclopedia Britannica.  Elephant bird.  Available at:  https://www.britannica.com/animal/elephant-bird.  Accessed January 19, 2020.

Encyclopedia Britannica.  Megapode.  Available at:  https://www.britannica.com/animal/megapode. Accessed January 19, 2020.

McCann, Mary.  2018.  Get to Know the Bee Hummingbird, the World’s Smallest Bird.  BirdNote, September 17, 2018.  Available at:  https://www.audubon.org/news/get-know-bee-hummingbird-worlds-smallest-bird.  Accessed January 19, 2020.

Science Epic.  2015.  Which Bird Lays the Smallest Egg?  May 25, 2015.  Available at:  http://www.sciencepic.com/which-bird-lays-the-smallest-egg/. Accessed January 19, 2020.

The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, spawned many developments in the journey for global sustainability.  One of those is the Convention on Biological Diversity, which came into force on December 29, 1993, ninety days after the 30^th country ratified the treaty.

            And that is what it is—a treaty.  The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has 196 national parties, each of which has agreed, by law, to abide by the convention’s requirements.  Only one major nation is not party to the CBD—the United States.  By all accounts, the way the U.S. addresses biodiversity conservation was the basis for the convention, and U.S. representatives to the Rio conference were prime negotiators on its content.  President George H. W. Bush, however, declined to endorse the convention.  Later, President Clinton did sign the convention, but the Senate, which is required to approve all treaties, has never acted to ratify it.  Therefore, the U.S. participates as an “observer” in CBD activities, unable to negotiate on its implementation or amendment.  Nonetheless, the conservation laws and management practices of the U.S. meet the CBD requirements.

            The CBD has three main objectives, as stated in Article 1 of the Convention itself:  “The objectives … are the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources….”  So, the convention recognizes not only that biodiversity should be preserved, but also that its benefits should be used sustainably and justly among developed and developing economies.

            That is a tall order, and the CBD has served more as a global conscience for protecting biodiversity than as a set of specific objectives or the mechanisms to achieve them.  A ten-year strategic plan set in 2001 was largely aspirational, and the results were disappointing—biodiversity had continued to decline since the start of the millennium. 

            A new strategic plan was crafted, covering the decade from 2011-2020.  It included five strategic goals and twenty targets, known as the “Aichi Biodiversity Targets.”  Most of those targets are still qualitative rather than quantitative; Target 1, for example, states that by 2020 “people are aware of the values of biodiversity” and how to use and conserve it.  Some targets, however, are more specific and measurable, like Target 5, which asks that “the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forests, is at least halved.”

            The element of the CBD which has garnered the most international attention seems to be its work on the international movement of “living modified organisms,” or LMOs.  LMOs are a more inclusive label that includes GMOs. The convention approved the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in 2000 (entered into force in 2003).  The Protocol sets conditions for the export and import of living organisms that were produced by modern genetic biotechnology, specifically as they relate to impacts on native biological diversity.  The U.S. is not party to this protocol, but it does act in accordance with its requirements.

            Now that 2020 has begun, the CBD Secretariat (which operates from offices in Montreal, Canada) is working on the strategic plan for the next decade.  Let’s hope that this plan can move from being our conscience on biodiversity protection to become our roadmap for achieving a sustainable world.

References:

Convention on Biological Diversity.  Aichi Biodiversity Targets.  Available at:  https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/.  Accessed January 17, 2020. 

Convention on Biological Diversity.  History of the Convention.  Available at:  https://www.cbd.int/history/. Accessed January 17, 2020. 

Defenders of Wildlife.  The United States and the Convention on Biological Diversity.  Available at:  https://defenders.org/sites/default/files/publications/the_u.s._and_the_convention_on_biological_diversity.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2020. 

UN Food and Agriculture Organization.  2004.  Living modified organisms:  new guidelines for risk assessment.   Available at:  http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2004/43684/index.html Accessed January 17, 2020.

All our environmental and conservational laws are important, but one that would make the playoffs for the super bowl of greatest laws would be the one enacted on this day in 1973.  Two years after President Richard Nixon made his case to Congress for stronger protection of endangered species, he was able to sign into law the “Endangered Species Act of 1973.”

            Protection of endangered species had begun much earlier.  In 1940, a law was passed to protect Bald and Golden Eagles because the national symbol had declined to the brink of extinction in the continental U.S.  A more general endangered species act took effect in 1966 and was strengthened in 1969.  But the protections were still insufficient to curtail the decline of many species.  President Nixon addressed Congress on February 8, 1972, stressing “that even the most recent act to protect endangered species … simply does not provide the kind of management tools needed to act early enough to save a vanishing species.”  He asked congress for a stronger law.  Then, in early 1973, an international conference in Washington, DC, established the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), a global commitment to protecting biodiversity (learn more about CITES here).

            Congress listened to Nixon and responded to the CITES challenge in the summer of 1973.  They drafted the law that put in place a broad mechanism for protecting endangered species.  Despite several later amendments, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) contained all the basic aspects of today’s law:

• Assigned responsibility for administering the ESA to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (for terrestrial and freshwater organisms) and the US Marine Fisheries Service (for marine and anadromous organisms)
• Defined the meaning of “endangered” and “threatened” and the mechanism for “listing” species
• Extended protection to plants as well as animals
• Added protection for “critical habitat”
• Defined “taking” of endangered species to include a broad set of actions well beyond actually killing individual plants or animals
• Required federal agencies to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service before undertaking new projects that could harm listed species
• Implemented CITES for the United States

Unlike today, support for environmental laws was bi-partisan and broadly popular.  The draft bill passed the Senate unanimously (92-0) and the House of Representatives by a 390-12 margin. 

            The Center for Biological Diversity calls the ESA “the strongest law for protecting biodiversity passed by any nation.”  The list of protected species now includes about 1600 species.  Although fewer than 100 species have been removed from the list over time (a fact often cited by critics of the law), 99% of listed species have avoided extinction and most are recovering substantially from their lows.  The Bald Eagle, for example, has rebounded from a low of about 400 breeding pairs in the 1960s to over 7,000 today, and the national symbol has been de-listed.

            And protection for endangered species remains wildly popular.  The Center for Biological Diversity reports that in a 2013 poll, two-thirds of Americans wanted the ESA strengthened or kept the same.  They also report that more recent polls show 90% of Americans want the ESA to remain strong.

References:

Ballotpedia.  History of the Endangered Species Act.  Available at:  https://ballotpedia.org/History_of_the_Endangered_Species_Act.  Accessed January 16, 2020.

Center for Biological Diversity.  The Endangered Species Act:  A Wild Success.  Available at:  https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/esa_wild_success/. Accessed January 16, 2020.

US Fish and Wildlife Service.  Endangered Species Act—A History of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.  Available at:  https://www.fws.gov/endangered/laws-policies/esa-history.html. Accessed January 16, 2020.

It’s a few days after Christmas, and some of the fortunate among us are escaping the winter for cruises to the Caribbean.  On this date—December 27—a different sort of cruise began in 1831.  That cruise lasted 1742 days, and the results changed the entire way civilization viewed the world.

            The vessel conducting the cruise was His Majesty’s Ship Beagle.  HMS Beagle was one of more than 100 built in the design of a “10-gun brig-sloop.”  It was relatively small (90 feet 4 inches long), with two masts.  Launched in 1820, Beagle’s task was to scout for larger ships and convoys and to transport letters and other light materials from place to place (learn more about the ship here) .  A few years later, Beagle was refitted with a small third mast (making it a “bark”), a small cabin and some additional features for more extensive journeys. 

            And so, in 1826, HMS Beagle embarked on its first major journey.  The task was to survey the coasts of South America, taking hydrologic and cartographic measurements. Two years into the voyage, the original captain became depressed and shot himself.  The second-in-command, Lieutenant Robert Fitzroy, took over as captain.  The voyage ended in 1930, after four years exploring the South American coast.

            The first voyage just whetted England’s appetite for information about South America and the lands and waters of the Pacific Ocean.  So, Beagle was given another make-over—the deck was raised one foot, the hull was made two inches thicker, 22 chronometers and much scientific equipment were put on board—in readiness for its second major voyage.  Fitzroy was re-appointed the captain with a similar but larger challenge—resurvey all the coasts of South America, then traverse the entire southern ocean to survey the complete latitude of the earth. 

            There was also a secondary task of “collecting, observing, and noting, anything worthy to be noted in Natural History.”  At the time, natural history meant not only living plants and animals, but also geologic materials and fossils.  Fitzroy realized he needed help—and that he needed a gentleman peer to accompany him as an equal, to provide companionship (he didn’t want to end up like Beagle’s previous captain).  After some false starts, he eventually settled on a 22-year-old graduate of Cambridge who planned to be a clergyman but was also an amateur naturalist eager for an adventure.  That man was Charles Darwin.

            After several months of delays, HMS Beagle left Portsmouth, England, on December 27, 1831, commencing a five-year voyage that covered nearly 40,000 miles. The early voyage wasn’t pleasant for Darwin.  He wrote, “The misery I endured from sea-sickness is far beyond what I ever guessed at.”  The ship was so crowded that he slept in a hammock suspended over the small table in the main cabin.  But things got much better after the ship reached South American.  In February, 1832, he caught his first glimpse of the rainforest in Brazil, noting, “Here I first saw a tropical forest in all its sublime grandeur…I never experienced such intense delight.”

            Darwin’s job was to explore the lands the ship encountered.  He understood that this was an extraordinary opportunity, noting that “[N]othing can be more improving to a young naturalist, than a journey in a distant country.” So, he went off on expeditions for much of the voyage, tramping some 2,000 miles in all.  He spent only 18 months aboard Beagle during its five years at sea.  He made good use of his time onshore, collecting 5,000 specimens of plants, animals, minerals and fossils and filling dozens of notebooks with his observations.  Throughout the journey, he sent his specimens back to England where they could be examined by experts.  Most of the specimens were new to science, and, consequently, Darwin’s reputation as a naturalist grew while he was on the voyage, and he returned home in 1836 as a well-established scientist. 

            Darwin kept working on his specimens and his theories, eventually bringing us natural selection, evolution and, really, ecology (learn more about Darwin’s work here). The Beagle, however, wasn’t so fortunate. It took one more significant voyage, to survey the entire coast of Australia.  By 1845, however, the ship had outlived its usefulness.  The masts were removed and it was moored in the estuary at Essex, England, as a lookout for smugglers.  The ship’s name changed to Watch Vessel 7.  And in 1870, it was sold for scrap. 

References:

American Museum of Natural History.  A Trip Around the World (Part of the Darwin exhibition).  Available at:  https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/a-trip-around-the-world.  Accessed January 15, 2020.

The HMS Beagle Project.  HMS Beagle’s Second Voyage.  Available at:  Accessed January 15, 2020.https://hmsbeagleproject.org/the-timeline/hms-beagles-second-voyage/.

Thomson, Keith S.  Beagle.  Encyclopedia Britannica.  Available at:  https://www.britannica.com/topic/Beagle-ship. Accessed January 15, 2020.

Tietz, Tabea.  2015.  The second Voyage of the HMS Beagle.  SciHi Blog, 27 December 2015.  Available at:  http://scihi.org/second-voyage-beagle/ Accessed January 15, 2020.

Tripline.  The Second Voyage of the HMS Beagle.  Available at:  https://www.tripline.net/trip/The_Second_Voyage_of_the_HMS_Beagle-5024671157051002B40CB47E6691EAB3. Accessed January 15, 2020.

On this date in 1996, the world’s nations began implementing the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification.  We all grew up learning about the southward spread of Africa’s Sahara Desert, but that “poster-child” representation of desertification is insufficient, at best, and misleading, at worst.

            The world’s concern about desertification began long before 1996.  The UN first developed a plan to fight desertification in 1977, but a later analysis showed that conditions had only gotten worse since then.  So, at the 1992 Rio Conference on Environment and Development, participants ordered the UN to get serious about fighting unsustainable land-use changes, and in 1994 the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) was passed, to take effect when the 50^th country ratified it.  That occurred on December 26, 1996.

            The UNCCD defines desertification as the degradation of drylands.  The spread of deserts is one dimension of the problem, but loss of productivity in a range of other drylands is the real culprit—and target.  Drylands are defined as deserts (6.6% of global land coverage), arid lands (10.6%), semi-arid lands (15.2%) and dry sub-humid lands (8.7%).  Altogether, these lands comprise 41.3% of the earth’s surface (without deserts, that’s about one-third of the earth).  Dryland covers about two-thirds of Africa and 70% of India.

            And big chunks of the world’s dryland are suffering, about 25 million new acres annually.  The causes are many.  Drought, made worse by climate change, is a primary cause of desertification in the driest regions of the world (much of northern Africa).  Irrigation is used on a majority of dryland crops, but inappropriate irrigation (too much or using salt-laden water) can cause salt to build up in soils, thereby reducing productivity.  This is a major issue in India, which today is experiencing the most dramatic degradation of its cropland productivity.

            Overgrazing and overharvest of fuel wood also spur land degradation, as soil looses plant cover that once slowed erosion.  Vast dryland areas that once grew perennial grasslands have been turned into agricultural lands growing annual crops.  The loss of year-round ground cover increases erosion, reduces soil moisture and generally reduces production.  Because these trends occur largely in the world’s poorest countries, nearly one billion people are at risk of early death from famine, infant mortality and other factors.  Biodiversity loss is also a concern, but little is known about the overall biodiversity in dryland ecosystems.

            The UNCCD is the world’s strongest tool with which to fight desertification.  It is a legal treaty, signed by 197 parties (including the U.S.).  The approach to fighting the problem is a commitment to “land-degradation neutrality” by 2030, as prescribed in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (specifically, goal 15.3).  This means that any losses in dryland productivity will be balanced by gains on other lands.  So, fighting desertification means stopping loss, but also improving the conditions of all lands.  More than 120 countries have committed to setting targets to achieve land-degradation neutrality so far (the U.S. is not one). This approach requires developing and implementing technical improvements to combat all the specific causes, but more importantly connecting people with the landscape to develop community-based solutions that pay attention to local conditions and opportunities.

            So, when you think about desertification in the future, don’t just think about encroaching deserts.  Think about—and act to reverse—the degradation of nearly one-third of the earth’s dryland surface.  And, for that matter, productivity losses wherever they occur.

References:

DownToEarth.com.  2019.  Desertification setting in across a quarter of India.  Available at: https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/environment/desertification-setting-in-across-a-quarter-of-india-66407. Accessed January 13, 2020.

Physics.org. 2018. New World Atlas of Desertification shows unprecedented pressure on planet’s resources.  Available at:  https://phys.org/news/2018-06-world-atlas-desertification-unprecedented-pressure.html. Accessed January 13, 2020.

Rafferty, John P. and Stuart L. Pimm.  Desertification.  Encyclopedia Britannica.  Available at:  https://www.britannica.com/science/desertification/Rain-fed-croplands. Accessed January 13, 2020.

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification.  About the Convention.  Available at:  https://www.unccd.int/convention/about-convention.  Accessed January 13, 2020.

United Nations.  United Nations Decade for Deserts and the Fight Against Desertification.  Available at:  https://www.un.org/en/events/desertification_decade/whynow.shtml. Accessed January 13, 2020.

Now here’s a Christmas present that we wish the Grinch would steal and never return—the bunny rabbit.  At least that’s the way Australia feels about rabbits.  The European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) is not native to Australia, but they may be the most abundant mammal in the country today and certainly the most tragic.

            It’s all because of a wealthy English immigrant, Thomas Austin.  Austin lived in a rural town in the Australian state of Victoria (in the southeastern corner of the country, where Melbourne is).  He missed his native England, including his hobby of hunting small game.  He had a good idea, and wrote to his brother asking him to send some rabbits, hares and partridges to release on his property.  Austin reasoned that “[t]he introduction of a few rabbits could do little harm and might provide a touch of home, in addition to a spot of hunting.”  His shipment arrived, and Austin released his rabbits on December 25, 1859.

            He was right about one thing—they sure did provide some hunting.  The few rabbits he released (12-24, reports vary) reproduced like, well, rabbits.  In 1866, just 7 years after the release, Austin and his friends were harvested 14,000 rabbits, just from his property!

            And the population kept on growing and spreading.  Australia was perfect habitat for rabbits.  The loose soil allowed easy burrowing of underground dens, called warrens.  Sparse tree cover allowed ample growth of ground plants and seedlings, all of which the rabbits devoured with enthusiasm.  The rabbits had few native predators, and the mild climate allowed them to breed several times each year.  By 1900, rabbits lived up to 3000 miles beyond the release point, and by the 1940s, the total population had reached 600 million (that’s the most conservative estimate; some say the peak was 2 to 10 billion!).  Today, rabbits live in all but the most desert-like parts of the country.  The invasion of Australia by rabbits is the fastest colonization by any mammal in history.

            But Austin was wrong about another thing.  Rabbits could cause harm—and have, lots of it.  Overgrazing by dense rabbit populations has reduced vegetation on the land, as the voracious herbivores ate virtually all shoots and seedlings of grasses, shrubs and trees, putting several native species on the path to extinction.  With the vegetation gone, soil erosion increased.  Other herbivores couldn’t compete with the huge rabbit population, causing several native bird and mammal species to decline precipitously.  All of these changes, along with direct grazing by rabbits on agricultural crops, is said to cost Australia about $200 million annually.

            Australia has tried about everything to control rabbits.  Hunters tried, but they couldn’t keep up with the rabbit’s ability to reproduce.  Next came fencing.  In the late 1800s, building rabbit-proof fences was a national priority.  The longest fence ran about 2,000 miles, north to south, to protect Western Australia from invasion (it didn’t work).  At one time, there were nearly 200,000 miles of rabbit fences in Australia.  Fences, however, are imperfect barriers, expensive to build and requiring constant maintenance.  Another physical attack has been digging up active warrens, destroying the nesting and sheltering ability of rabbits

            Next came biological control.  Scientists introduced myxomatosis, a virus that targets rabbits, in the 1950s.  It worked well, but rabbits quickly developed immunity (about half of the population remains immune).  A second virus—rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus, or calicivirus—took over in the late 1990s.  It has been highly effective, but resistance has cropped up in recent years.

            Altogether, these tactics have reduced the rabbit population to about 200 million individuals.  That’s still a lot of rabbits, but Australia is a big place.  The reduction has allowed several species of small mammals to resurge, especially in the driest regions.  With fewer rabbits, introduced feral predators such as cats and foxes are also declining.  The dusky hopping mouse, plains mouse and crest-tailed mulgara—all sensitive species that had declined—are now thriving.

            Nevertheless, the lesson is clear:  just because a species is tasty, cuddly or pretty back home doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to take it along when you move.  Better to let nature, not nostalgia, make those judgments.

References:

Australian Government.  Feral European Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus).  Available at:  https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/7ba1c152-7eba-4dc0-a635-2a2c17bcd794/files/rabbit.pdf.  Accessed January 9, 2020.

Goldfarb, Ben.  2016.  A virus is taming Australia’s bunny menace, and giving endangered species new life.  AAAS Science, Feb 17, 2016.  Available at:  https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/virus-taming-australia-s-bunny-menace-and-giving-endangered-species-new-life.  Accessed January 9, 2020.

National Museum of Australia.  Rabbits introduced.  Available at:  https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/rabbits-introduced.  Accessed January 9, 2020.

Oster, Grant.  2014.  Thomas Austin and His Rascally Rabbits.  Hankering for History.  Available at:  https://hankeringforhistory.com/thomas-austin-and-his-rascally-rabbits/.  Accessed January 9, 2020.

Rabbit Free Australia.  Controlling Rabbits.  Available at:  http://www.rabbitfreeaustralia.com.au/rabbits/controlling-rabbits/.  Accessed January 9, 2020.