A small herd of 170 bison, released into a 20 square miles area of Tarcu mountains in Romania, are estimated to allow the land to capture 59,000 tones of carbon each year.
Big animals like this, stimulate the soil and plant growth, allowing the soil and plant growth to take up far more carbon than without them. Although Romania is one of the wildest countries in Europe, the European Bison was lost around 200 years ago. Between 2014 and 2021, 100 bison were reintroduced into the area, and that population has naturally grown such that there are now 170.
Scientists estimate that the lands carbon storing potential is as much as 10 times greater with the bison (they suggest that it is between 5 and 15 times more carbon.
Large parts of Australia look like the above photo, beautiful in a rugged way, but quite useless for the survival of many of Australia species. Australia has a wide range of habitats, which means that there are many areas which need to be protected.
The problem is, according to this study, declaring an area protected appears to be having little change on what is happened.
1/3 of all land that is set aside for restoration and conservation, has got worse rather than better. Given the fact that so many species are just hanging on to existence, this could be very bad news.
In one area that was studied, the majority of the area was cleared paddock – a serious problem for the koala and grey-headed flying fox which called the area home.
In particular, the idea of this scheme is so called biodiversity offsetting – if you are to clear wildlife habitat, you protect a similar sized area elsewhere.
Around the world, there are invasive species – from grey squirrels in the UK, to Macaques on Gibraltar, however, all these pale on comparison to having to live with wild elephants.
The elephants were bought to the Andaman islands in the late 19th century, to work in the timber operation, which continued until the last few decades. Thankfully, much of the forest in the islands survives – with some islands retaining almost 90% forest cover. This means that the elephants might well be able to thrive into the future.
The islands lie 850 miles from the coast of India, which means that while elephants would not have existed natively on the islands, there are many species which would be found in the same area.
Interview Island and North Andaman hosts these elephants – though they need to be watched, as a population of 100 elephants is already small, but if split between 2 islands, humans may well have to be helped to remain genetically varied enough to survive long-term.
While some have suggested that the elephants have damaged biodiversity, with some species having become less common, this ignores the impact of the timber extraction – it is far more likely that this is an impact of the many decades of pulling specific trees out of the forest.
Given the endangered status of the Indian elephant, this population is precious, but whether it can be left where it is long-term is something we do not know. There are still roughly 30,000 elephants in India, but the Andaman island elephants are going to need to be watch, long-term, to make sure that they do not damage species only found in their new home.
Back in march, there was plans for the EU to put into laws, that would require 20% of land and sea areas in the EU to be restored by 2030. This was postponed indefinitely, after it became clear that it would not pass.
More than 50% of Romanias ancient forests have been lost in the last 20 years
In the main, two groups withdrew their support. The first group (often touted as pro-wildlife) was farmers, and the second was the country of Hungary.
Firstly: Farmers are often talked about as being pro-wildlife but this is often not the case. Laws on usstainable farm practices (such as crop rotation and reduced use of pesticides have been weakened or abandoned as a result of opposition – despite the vast majority of consumers being for these laws).
Secondly: Hungary – why is Hungary so against recovery of wildlife? This is an important question, though it should be noted, that Hungary is one of around 5 countries in central Europe, that is almost a complete block for wildlife to migrate from Eastern Europe into the little (wildlife) populated areas of western Europe. This can be a problem, as the few populations that hold on, in western Europe, are often small meaning that in order for the wolves/bears/lynx or other species to survive and thrive long-term, they need new members of their species to arrive, in order to widen the genetic base.
If such a small group of people can block this sort of project, it is a problem, as we do not vote to destroy areas.
West antarctic ice sheet from high up NASA image by Jeff Schmaltz CC by 2.0
So, if the melting of this ice sheet is now unaviodable what would its impacts be? Well this ice sheet has enough volume of water, to raise global water levels by 5m. While this might not sound like much, there are 16 countries around the world who would loose more than 10% of their area, and the country at the top – the Netherlands, would loose roughly 55% of its landmass. It is estimated that by 2030 5.4% of the worlds population or 460 million people will live in this zone that will cease to exist.
Unfortunately, there is little positive to write, as the author suggests that this is now inevitable. Drastic cutting now, is all that can stop this damage at 5m raise in sea levels. Without it, what are we going to see? 100m rise in sea levels? This would require us finding space for 1/3 or the human population, on the remaining land, as their land will disappear beneath the seas.
Declared extinct in the wild back in 2000, this species is now not only re-established in the wild, but has a big enough population to now only be listed as endangered (down from critically endangered).
Apart from supplying individuals for the reintroduction, Marwell zoo also helped with strategy.
The video below is just 2 minutes long. While it talks about Marwells other work as well, it shows a number of these animals living wild back in Africa.
This has got to become the reason for zoos. What ever else they do, there are many species at risk of extinction in the wild, these need to have enough captive individuals to re-establish wild populations, should the current conservation fail.
Of course, zoos have many other roles, from education, to fostering a love of wildlife in the next generation.
One thing that they should not be, is a curio house- many zoos are far to worried about displaying albino or melanistic individuals. Now while these individuals are fascinating and can be used as ambassadors for the species, their genetic health should be looked after (all white tigers are descended from one female, and closely related individuals are regularly bred togerther to ensure this trait is passed down. Indeed, as a result of this, white tigers are often not of good health.
The majority of zoos are now like Marwell – while like many, it started as the private zoo of wealthy owners it has turned into an important place of conservation and science. Another of their successes, is the cooperative breeding that occurs as standard in current times, across Europe. Regular loaning of animals is essential, so that we can treat all of the zoo animals in Europe as one single population, thereby making sure that all animals in the system are healthy.
There are many hundreds of zoos across Europe (some claim as many as 2000, though around 1500 is the estimated worldwide number suggesting that this is a rather large exaggeration. It is likely that around half of the worlds zoos are in Europe, and by cooperative breeding, we can make sure that healthy populations remain in captivity, so that should a population be lost from the wild, it can be returned, when the wild situation improves.
Almost all predictions about human population are expected to peak in the coming decades, and then decline after that. If this pattern is followed, it should be expected that we will need to re-establish wilderness in the future.Â
Scimitar-horned oryx have been returned to the wild in Tunisia, and Chad and there are plans to return them to the wild in Niger, in the near future.
Extinction was caused by a variety of features, but the primary one was over-hunting. This has virtually been eliminated, after a ban on hunting of this species was put into effect in 2013. Should this species be allowed to fully recover. In 1985, there was a population of at least 500 of this species living in the wild, so it took only 15 years for it to disappear, as such what is clearly essential is a regular assessment on how this species is faring, allowing earlier interventions.
Saving the natural world, may require this kind of success to be a regular feature.
Amazon river dolphin by Oceancetaceen sometimes known as the Orinoco
Amazon Dolphin
The Amazon river dolphin, (other names include boto, bufeo or pink river dolphin), is a species of toothed whale endemic to South America and is classified in the family Iniidae. Three subspecies are currently recognized: Amazon river dolphin,, Bolivian river dolphin and the Orinoco river dolphin while position of Araguaian river dolphin  within the clade is still unclear The three subspecies are each found in a separate river basin (in order) the Amazon basin, the upper Madeira River in Bolivia, and the Orinoco basin.
The Amazon river dolphin is the largest species of river dolphin, with adult males reaching 185 kilograms (408 lb) in weight, and 2.5 metres (8.2 ft) in length. Adults acquire a pink colour, more prominent in males, giving it its nickname “pink river dolphin”. Sexual dimorphism is very evident, with males measuring 16% longer and weighing 55% more than females.
Like other toothed whales, they have a melon, an organ that is used for bio sonar. The dorsal fin, although short in height, is regarded as long, and the pectoral fins are also large. The fin size, unfused vertebrae, and its relative size allow for improved manoeuvrability when navigating flooded forests and capturing prey.
They have one of the widest ranging diets among toothed whales, and feed on up to 53 different species of fish, such as croakers, catfish, tetras and piranhas. They also consume other animals such as river turtles, aquatic frogs, and freshwater crabs. However, this is not particularly surprising, as there are so many forms of life in the Amazon rainforest, and plenty is likely to occasionally find themselves in the river.
In 2018, this species was classed as endangered, by the IUCN with a declining population. Threats include incidental catch in fishing lines, direct hunting for use as fish bait or predator control, damming, and pollution; as with many species, habitat loss and continued human development is becoming a greater threat.
While it is the only species of river dolphin kept in captivity, almost exclusively in Venezuela and Europe, it is difficult to train and often die very young, when kept in captivity..
Life expectancy of the Amazon river dolphin in the wild is unknown, but in captivity, the longevity of healthy individuals has been recorded at between 10 and 30 years. However, a 1986 study of the average longevity of this species in captivity in the United States is only 33 months. An individual named Baby at the Duisburg Zoo, Germany, lived at least 46 years, spending 45 years, 9 months at the zoo.
Below you will find any news articles on Amazon dolphin (though articles with both words also get sucked in). Also we will add any information on where you can go to see these in the wild, beneath both of these.
The referendum on Yasuni reserve will benefit a huge range of species, along with several groups of uncontacted tribes of indigenous people. The vote was not close, with 90% of votes counted protection won by around 20%. It will also keep around 726 million barrels of oil in the ground. Given that one barrel is 158 litres, that is 114 billion liters of oil, and as each one emits at least 3 kg of carbon dioxide, this is going to save 350 billion kg of carbon dioxide released into the air. This is a huge win for the environment, but also for the wildlife of the Yasuni reserve.
In most countries, if a dam was to cause so much destruction to the last habitat of a species, the dam would likely not get permission to be built.
It is true that the dam will only take about 20% of the land in question, directly. It will also split the population in half.
It is not surprising that the Norwegian sovereign fund has pulled out of this dam
Given that only around 800 Tapanuli Orangutans survive in the wild, the loss of just a handful is bad. A loss of 20% of the remaining population could quite rapidly push the population towards extinction, particularly as it will split the few remaining Orangutans into separate populations which cannot interbreed.
Norway has a huge sovereign fund, into which it pours the countries earnings from fossil fuel extraction. Perhaps recognizing that this has a shelf life which is not far from ending, Norway has made sure that for the most part its sovereign fund is good for the natural world (alongside giving good returns)
Generally rules on financing should have ruled this project out in the past, so it is good that this decision has been eventually made.
Will the dam still get built? We will have to wait and see.
The treaty in question is called the Energy Charter Treaty, and apparently if changes are not made by November we will look at exiting.
Under this charter, any coal power plant forced to shut could require the government responsible to continue paying the company for the lifetime that the power station could last.
What is in this egregious rules? Well, it would be run with a system of secrets of courts, and it would allow a company to sue any signature country should they bring an a law that might cut their profits in the future.
Given that any cuts in coal use, oil use, wood or many other things would impact many companies bottom line. Given that coal and oil use must cease within the next couple of decades, and only wood from land that would be replanted, the vast majority of companies would have their profits hit.
This foolish treaty would either lead to governments abandoning all carbon reduction targets, or paying large companies billions for all time.
This treaty is not centuries old, rather, it came into being back in 1998, at a time where we knew about climate change. France is similarly talking about quitting. Other countries are also looking at leaving, and it is thankfully likely to collapse.
It is strange how this possible became a treaty, as this plan is insane.
