Scientists wary of bird flu pandemic ‘unfolding in slow motion’
Reply
Category Archives: Uncategorized
How a group of butterflies flew 2,600 miles across the Atlantic Ocean without stopping
https://www.aol.com/group-butterflies-flew-2-600-153115900.html?guccounter=1
TAYLOR NICIOLI, CNN
July 1, 2024 at 8:31 AM
Sign up for CNN’s Wonder Theory science newsletter. Explore the universe with news on fascinating discoveries, scientific advancements and more.
Painted lady butterflies venture far and wide with their impressive migratory patterns that stretch for thousands of miles — but they often travel across land, so they can stop to rest.
Scientists have now found evidence that a group of the winged travelers flew over 2,600 miles (about 4,200 kilometers) across the Atlantic Ocean without stopping, according to a new study published June 25 in the journal Nature Communications.
The finding ends a decade-long mystery that began when entomologist and lead study author Dr. Gerard Talavera came across around 10 painted lady butterflies, known by the scientific name Vanessa cardui, on a beach in French Guiana in October 2013. The insects, which are not usually found in South America, were worn out with holes and tears in their wings.
“They looked exhausted. They even couldn’t fly very much — they kind of jumped instead of flying,” said Talavera, a Spanish National Research Council senior researcher at the Botanical Institute of Barcelona. “The only explanation that came to my mind was that these were long-distance migrants.”
But crossing an entire ocean was unheard of for butterflies, even ones as worldly as the painted ladies. Talavera, along with his colleagues, had to rule out a few factors before concluding that these butterflies accomplished what was previously thought impossible.
How far a butterfly can fly
An October 2016 study that Talavera coauthored found that painted ladies from Europe migrate in great distances of around 2,500 miles (about 4,000 kilometers) to sub-Saharan Africa, facing obstacles such as the Mediterranean Sea and Sahara Desert. But even so, the butterflies remain mostly over land where they can “stop and refuel, feed on flowers and then get energy to keep going,” Talavera said.
Crossing the Atlantic would take a painted lady butterfly five to eight days, depending on different variables, according to the new study.
Based on analyses of the energy constraints, researchers concluded that the butterflies could fly a maximum of 485 miles (780 kilometers) or so without stopping, but favorable wind conditions are what allowed them to complete the lengthy journey, Talavera said.
“This is actually kind of a record for an insect, especially for a butterfly, to perform such a long flight without possibilities to stop,” said Talavera, who also leads the Worldwide Painted Lady Migration Project, a global citizen science project that tracks the migratory routes of the insects.
There have been other instances in which experts suspect butterflies and other migratory insects of traveling longer distances than usual, turning up on boats, remote islands or countries where they are not usually found, Talavera said.
The researchers believe that these butterflies took part in their annual migration south from Europe but got lost when the wind blew them into the ocean, he added. The butterflies then likely rode out the trade winds, which blow east to west near the equator, until they reached land in South America.
“Getting suspended in the air column at just the right height to take advantage of the trade winds is nothing short of remarkable,” said Dr. Floyd Shockley, collections manager for the department of entomology at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington, DC, who was not part of the new study. “It kind of begs the question, have they been doing this for a long time, and we just never documented it because we weren’t looking for it in South America?”
The discovery of around 10 out-of-place butterflies, versus the occasional discovered singleton that was likely caught up in storms, could be sufficient evidence that this was a coordinated migratory event for the group of insects, Shockley said.
Tracking a butterfly
Researchers took a few crucial steps to confirm these out-of-place butterflies really did travel across the ocean.
First, to rule out that the insects did not travel over land from North America, the researchers analyzed their DNA, finding it to match with that of European-African populations. Next, the team used a technique known as isotope tracing that looks at the composition of the butterflies’ wings for evidence of the types of plants they ate as caterpillars, said study coauthor Dr. Megan Reich, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Ottawa in Ontario. By this method, the scientists concluded the butterflies’ birthplace to be in either Western Europe, North Africa or West Africa, she added.
But the real key to finding the route the butterflies took was a method first described in a September 2018 study led by Talavera that found that pollen clinging to butterflies can be telling of their migratory journey through the plants on which they fed. The butterflies spotted in October 2013 had the pollen of two West African plants, Guiera senegalensis and Ziziphus spina-christi. The tropical shrubs flower through August and November, according to the study, and this blooming season lines up with the timeline of the butterflies that Talavera discovered in South America.
Additionally, an analysis of weather data from 48 hours before the discovery of the beached butterflies had shown to be “exceptionally favorable for the butterflies to disperse across the Atlantic from West Africa,” the authors noted in the study.
If the insects traveled from their likely birthplace of Europe, then to Africa and South America, the butterflies’ journey could have consisted of 4,350 miles (7,000 kilometers) or more.
“A lot of people think of butterflies as really fragile creatures. I think this really shows how strong and resilient they are and these amazing journeys that they take — they really shouldn’t be underestimated,” Reich said.
The researchers hope to use the same techniques to investigate the migration patterns of other species of butterflies, she added.
“This is just the first step in sort of a long process of trying to understand why this happened and how this happened,” Shockley said.
If future research finds that the butterflies’ journey is likely a regular migration pattern, it’s among the longest insect migrations in the world, he added.
For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com
Bird Flu Can Stay Active on Hard Surfaces for Hours, Study Says
‘Lab-grown’ meat maker hosts Miami tasting party as Florida ban goes into effect
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.647.0_en.html#goog_236794145
0 seconds of 1 minute, 52 secondsVolume 90%
https://apnews.com/article/florida-lab-grown-meat-ban-1613765b1750119ff265fb3c5c56e2aa
As Florida’s ban on “lab-grown” meat is set to go into effect, manufacturer Upside Foods hosted a last hurrah — at least for now — with a cultivated chicken-tasting party in Miami. (AP video by Daniel Kozin)Photos
12
BY DAVID FISCHERUpdated 1:25 AM PDT, June 30, 2024Share
MIAMI (AP) — As Florida’s ban on “lab-grown” meat is set to go into effect next week, one manufacturer hosted a last hurrah — at least for now — with a cultivated meat-tasting party in Miami.
California-based Upside Foods hosted dozens of guests Thursday evening at a rooftop reception in the city’s Wynwood neighborhood, known for its street art, breweries, nightclubs and trendy restaurants.
“This is delicious meat,” Upside Foods CEO and founder Uma Valeti said. “And we just fundamentally believe that people should have a choice to choose what they want to put on their plate.”
The U.S. approved the sale of what’s now being called “cell-cultivated” or “cell-cultured” meat for the first time in June 2023, allowing Upside Foods and another California company, Good Meat, to sell cultivated chicken.
Earlier this year, Florida and Alabama banned the sale of cultivated meat and seafood, which is grown from animal cells. Other states and federal lawmakers also are looking to restrict it, arguing the product could hurt farmers and pose a safety risk to the public.
ADVERTISEMENT
While Florida cattle ranchers joined Gov. Ron DeSantis when he signed the ban into law in May, Valeti said Florida officials never reached out to his company before passing the legislation.
Federal judge in Montana quizzes lawyers on coyote trapping and grizzly bears
A federal lawsuit over whether wolf and coyote traps should be limited because they also ensnare endangered grizzlies will go to trial
Photo by: MTN News file
A federal lawsuit over whether wolf and coyote traps should be limited because they also ensnare endangered grizzlies will go to trial.
By: Keila Szpaller – Daily Montanan
Posted at 6:00 PM, Jun 29, 2024
A federal lawsuit over whether wolf and coyote traps should be limited because they also ensnare endangered grizzlies will go to trial, possibly the first week of December.
The Daily Montanan reports that at a hearing Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Missoula, Judge Donald Molloy said he would not grant either party summary judgment. He directed the lawyers to propose trial dates.
Molloy also told the lawyers that it would be helpful for them to discuss coyote traps.
00:00
02:00
Read More
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.647.0_en.html#goog_1936577472
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.647.0_en.html#goog_1936577473
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.647.0_en.html#goog_1936577474
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.647.0_en.html#goog_1936577475
In November 2023, the judge temporarily limited Montana’s wolf trapping season in response to a request for a preliminary injunction from conservation groups.
The judge agreed that wolf and coyote traps injure grizzlies, and that any capture is an illegal “take” under the Endangered Species Act.
However, the judge did not stop coyote trapping in his earlier order. He said coyote trapping is regulated differently, and the groups hadn’t tied their arguments closely enough to coyote trapping regulations.
Previously, the judge limited the wolf trapping season this year from Jan. 1 to Feb. 15, when bears are mostly in their dens. The order covered more than half of the state from the western border, or Regions 1-5.
The wolf trapping season had been roughly after Thanksgiving through March 15.
In April, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the timeframe the judge set but said the lower court order should apply only to areas where bears are known to live.
In September 2023, the Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizens Task Force and WildEarth Guardians had sued the state of Montana as well as Fish and Wildlife Commission Chairwoman Lesley Robinson and Gov. Greg Gianforte.
The conservation groups alleged an expanded trapping season and doubling the number of wolves that could be trapped increased the potential harm already facing endangered grizzly bears.
They also argued Montana officials are violating the law by permitting activities that are “reasonably certain” to result in the accidental killing or a “taking” of a threatened species.
(To “take” is defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,” according to the ESA.)
The state argued Montana’s trapping regulations minimize the capture of grizzly bears, and a “floating start date” for trapping based on real-world conditions helps avoid the accidental trapping of bears. They also said the plaintiffs exaggerate harms to grizzlies.
Other parties have intervened in the case. The Montana Stockgrowers Association, Montana Wool Growers Association, and Montana Farm Bureau Federation, Montana Trappers Association and Outdoor Heritage Foundation also are participating.
Wednesday, lawyer Lawson Fite, representing the Montana Stockgrowers Association, told the court he believes the conservation groups still haven’t connected their allegations of harm to grizzlies with the coyote trapping regulations at issue — as the judge earlier found.
Fite, with Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt of Portland, Oregon, also said the record has “scant evidence” of injuries to grizzly bears from coyote trapping. He said just three incidents have been recorded in the last decade.
However, Fite also said an appropriately set trap is not a threat to a grizzly bear.
But Molloy had questions: “What is a properly set trap, and who determines if it’s properly set?”
As an aside, the judge said regulations exist about shooting grizzly bears too, but bears seem to end up getting shot anyway.
Coyotes aren’t part of the updated wolf trapping rules the Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted in its 2023 Wolf and Furbearer Trapping and Hunting Regulations.
However, Fite said state statute governs coyote trapping. He said the law provides criminal penalties for violators who illegally trap and snare coyote.
He also noted the law says traps can’t unduly endanger “livestock,” but Molloy had another question.
“What about bears?”
Fite said the traps won’t unduly endanger grizzly bears either. By comparison, he said adult sheep can break free from traps.
He argued bears that have been caught have been released, and records indicate onsite releases show a lack of injury to them.
Molloy also asked the lawyers about an “incidental take” allowance. Agencies that want to take actions that might buck the Endangered Species Act need to check in with federal officers for approval of unintended harms or kills.
“Isn’t that sort of the resolution of the whole darn thing?” Molloy said.
The plaintiffs also had alleged an “incidental take statement” is required under the Endangered Species Act. In those statements, federal authorities specify impacts and mitigations on threatened species, but the state hasn’t applied for one.
Gary Leistico, representing the Montana Trappers Association, also argued coyote traps weren’t a problem. For one thing, he said, they’re much smaller than wolf traps.
“It’s not reasonably likely that a grizzly bear is going to be trapped in a coyote trap,” said Leistico, of Leistico & Esch of Clear Lake, Minnesota.
But it has, in fact, happened, said Tim Bechtold, representing the conservation groups.
The complaint said since 2010, the state of Montana reported three grizzlies captured in traps set for wolves and four in traps set for coyotes. The state also has found severed grizzly bear toes in a trap.
“There are instances of ‘take’ resulting from a coyote trap,” said Bechtold, of the Bechtold Law Firm in Missoula.
In his preliminary injunction, the judge agreed that widespread coyote trapping “likely presents a significant risk” of grizzly bear “take” in violation of the Endangered Species Act, as the conservation groups argued.
The order also noted coyotes are “predatory” animals under Montana law, which means they can be trapped without a license all year.
After their arguments, Molloy said lawyers had raised some “significant issues,” although he still believes an “incidental take” allowance from federal authorities would solve the problem.
