Feed aggregator

Dingoes can help manage devastating red fox and feral cat numbers, but only if we let enough of them live in key areas. Bobby Tamayo, Author provided

Dingoes could be the key to controlling red foxes and other invasive predators, but only if we encourage them in large enough numbers over a wide enough area, our research shows.

Interest in re-introducing or restoring top predators, like dingoes and wolves, has been fuelled by recent studies demonstrating their important roles in their ecosystems. They can especially be vital in suppressing the abundance of lower-order competitors or “mesopredators”, like red foxes and possibly feral cats (which can have devastating effects on native species).

But researchers have found top predators aren’t always successful in reducing mesopredator numbers. Until now, such variation has been linked to human presence, land-use changes and environmental factors such as landscape productivity.

However, our research, published yesterday in Nature Communications, found that a key factor for success is high numbers of dingoes and wolves across their natural range.

The density effect

If you look at how species are typically distributed across a landscape – their range – ecological theory predicts there’ll be lower numbers at the outer edges of their range.

If you do need large numbers of top predators to effectively suppress mesopredators, the core of their range is potentially the best place to look.

We tested this idea, looking at the dingo in Australia and the grey wolf in North America and Europe. The mesopredators included the red fox in Australia, the coyote in North America and the golden jackal in Europe.

We looked at three regions in our study. Predator distribution is shown for: a) coyotes (hashed) and grey wolves (orange) in Saskatchewan, North America (present day); b) golden jackals (hashed) and grey wolves (orange) in Bulgaria and Serbia (present day); and c) red foxes (hashed) and dingoes (orange) in Queensland, Australia (in the 1950s). Predator images: Doug McLaughlin; Bobby Tamayo, Harley Kingston/flickr, Larry Lamsa/flickr

We used information from bounty hunting programs, as these provide data on predator numbers across a wide geographical area. In the case of Australia we used historic data from the 1950s, as this is the most recent reliable information about red fox and dingo distribution. The actual population numbers of red foxes and dingoes have changed substantially since then, but the nature of their interactions – which is what we were investigating – has not.

We determined that top predators exist in higher numbers at the core of their ranges in comparison to the edges. We then looked at mesopredator numbers across the range edges of their respective top predator.

Predator bounties and top predator range edges in each continent. The number of bounties (representing the number of animals killed) are given for each hunting unit in North America (collated from 1982 to 2011) and Europe (collated from 2000 to 2009), whereas each square in Australia represents the number of bounties in a 100-by-100km area (collated from 1951 to 1952). Top predators are in a–c. Mesopredators are in d–f. Darker colours within each hunting unit indicate greater bounty return numbers and, by inference, a higher abundance for the respective predator. Dashed black lines indicate top predator range edges. Australia was divided into two sections for the analysis (east and west) as shown.

The results, which were consistent across the three continents, suggest that top predators can suppress mesopredators effectively (even completely) but only in the core of their geographic range, where their numbers are highest.

In other words, abundant top predators can exert disproportionate mesopredator control once their numbers increase past a certain point.

Example of the results from Australia (western side of Queensland). The blue lines indicate the abundance of each predator (note that the values on the y-axis are scaled so do not reflect actual numbers). The black dashed line indicates where there is a sharp change in predator abundance (the breakpoint). The red dashed lines indicate 95% confidence intervals (a measure of uncertainty) either side of the breakpoint. Distance values less than zero relate to areas outside the dingoes’ range, while distance values greater than zero relate to areas within the range. In summary, abundances of the red fox decline sharply as you move further into the range of the dingo. The ‘enemy constraint hypothesis’

The relationship we uncovered is now formalised as the “Enemy Constraint Hypothesis”. It could apply to other predator dyads, where two animals compete for similar resources – even relationships involving parasites and pathogens.

Our findings are important for understanding species interactions and niches, as well as the ecological role of top predators. It could explain why other studies have found top predators have little influence on mesopredators: they were looking at the edge, not the core, of the top predators’ range.

This is a conceptual model of the Enemy Constraint Hypothesis. On the edge of a top predator’s range, mesopredator abundance should decline as top predator numbers increase. The breakpoint for the mesopredator indicates where their population nears zero. The breakpoint for the top predator indicates where their abundance starts to decline sharply on the edge of the range. How many top predators do we need?

Dingoes can be vital for reducing red fox and possibly feral cat numbers. In our case studies the ranges of each top predator were limited primarily by human use of the land and intensive shooting, trapping and poisoning.

Killing pack animals like dingoes can fracture social groups, potentially altering their natural behaviour and interactions with other species. Future studies on predator interactions therefore need to consider the extent to which the animals are acting in response to human intervention.

If we want to benefit from the presence of top predators, we need to rethink our approach to management – especially where they are subjected to broad-scale control, as the dingo is in some parts of Australia.

Changing our relationship with top predators would not come without its challenges, but high extinction rates around the world (and especially in Australia) clearly indicate that we urgently need to change something. If this includes restoring top predators, then we need to think big.

Thomas Newsome receives funding from Deakin University, The University of Sydney, the National Geographic Society for Research and Exploration, Seattle City Lights, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Newmont Tanami Operations. He is Treasurer of the Australasian Wildlife Management Society and a member of the Australian Mammal Society and the Ecological Society of Australia.

• Study by UN and Columbia finds ‘proliferation’ of cases instigated by citizens
  
• Lion’s share of court cases are in US but number also growing around the world
  

Governments around the world are increasingly being challenged in court to do more to combat the threat of climate change, with litigation ranging from a group’s attempt to stop an airport runway in Austria to a Pakistani farmer suing his government over its failure to adapt to rising temperatures, a new study has found.

Related: Trump treading water over climate change deal, says deputy UN chief

Continue reading...

Plastic was the disruptive technology of its day but now we know the mess will never be cleared up, writes Professor John Holford. Plus letters from Chris Gee and Harold Forbes

Is anyone cheered by your report of the extent and intensity of plastic pollution (38 million pieces of plastic waste found on uninhabited South Pacific island, 16 May)? The plastics industry, perhaps? It is, after all, a sign of how much they have changed the world. I recall my first encounter with a transparent plastic bottle, 50 years ago this year. I also recall the “information” films, sponsored by firms such as BP and Shell, and widely shown in schools at the time, extolling the benefits that plastic brings. The industry put petroleum byproducts to good use. It was cheap. It was scientific. It was new. It was innovation. Today, the ideology of innovation is every bit as powerful. The future, we are told, belongs to the “disruptive innovators” – Uber and their ilk. They make billions, but neither political nor economic systems have evolved ways of dealing with or costing the havoc they cause. Plastic was the disruptive technology of its day: half a century later, we know the mess will never be cleared up. We also know that those – animal and vegetable – who pay the price will not be those who squirrelled away the profits. It is time society found a way of holding innovation and innovators to account.
Professor John Holford
Nottingham

• In your article, the plight of Henderson Island shows very visually the direct impact people are having on nature – even in the places that we consider to be most special. As a Unesco world heritage site, the island is considered to have outstanding universal value, but despite their protected status, nearly half of natural world heritage sites are facing serious threats, from poaching and illegal fishing to harmful industrial activity. Urgent action needs to be taken to protect these precious areas, which is why WWF has launched a global campaign, Together, Saving Our Shared Heritage, to safeguard these sites. The threats to our planet are now so great that wildlife populations are disappearing at an alarming rate. Current predictions are that wildlife numbers will have declined by 67% between the 1970s and the end of this decade unless urgent action is taken. We are all responsible for the future of our planet.
Chris Gee
Head of campaigns, WWF-UK

Continue reading...

City of Sydney backs study by local start-up, Wattblock, into how Australia’s apartment buildings will accommodate – and power – mass EV uptake.

Polish government is accused of pushing Białowieża forest ecosystem to point of no return with state-sanctioned logging in Unesco world heritage site

Scientists and environmental campaigners have accused the Polish government of bringing the ecosystem of the Białowieża forest in north-eastern Poland to the “brink of collapse”, one year after a revised forest management plan permitted the trebling of state logging activity and removed a ban on logging in old growth areas.

Large parts of the forest, which spans Poland’s eastern border with Belarus and contains some of Europe’s last remaining primeval woodland, are subject to natural processes not disturbed by direct human intervention.

Continue reading...

20 sites fail safe bathing criteria stoking fears UK will once more be ‘dirty man of Europe’ after Brexit

The UK is second bottom in a league table ranking EU countries on the quality of their bathing water, stoking fears that the “dirty man of Europe” could be on his way home after Brexit.

96.4% of British beaches were found safe to swim in last year, but 20 sites failed the assessment in the annual survey by the European Environmental Agency (EEA) released on Tuesday. Only Ireland had a higher percentage of poor quality bathing waters at 4%.

Continue reading...

Environmental group warns it will take legal action against Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility directors if funding granted for rail line

The Australian Conservation Foundation has warned it will pursue all avenues, including possible legal action, to stop a concessional loan being granted to a rail line associated with the controversial Adani coalmine.

The ACF’s president, prominent businessman Geoff Cousins, told Guardian Australia on Tuesday the environmental group would “pursue [directors of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (Naif)] through whatever means possible” in the event the Naif granted the rail project a loan.

Continue reading...

If Tour De France climbs without time pressure or panniers sounds appealing, investigate this bespoke cycling holiday in the French Pyrenees

What kind of cyclist are you? A superfit obsessive with high-end equipment, up for the toughest races? Or a potterer along county lanes, limiting yourself to 20 miles a day, treating cycling as a gentle route to the next pub? If you’re somewhere in between – but fitness can vary considerably, because you are time-poor – then this trip could be for you.

Perhaps you also want to taste Europe’s finest cycling, tackle the Tourmalet, or other classic cols, but don’t want to carry panniers, or worry about bike repairs, agonise over routes or scour websites for the best-value restaurants and hotels. You want to enjoy cycling as a pure, challenging experience, but go at your own pace, stop for lunch, take photographs, and feel that you can have that extra glass of wine at the end of the day.

Continue reading...

Up to 15,000 people took part in the 2016 Great British Bee Count, recording 383,759 bees, some of which are pictured here. This year’s annual count has begun and will run until 30 June 2017

• Download the free app to help monitor and learn more about the endangered bee population and get tips for bee-friendly planting

Continue reading...

Amina Mohammed says president seems to be avoiding making decision on whether US will renege on historic agreement

The UN’s deputy secretary general has accused President Donald Trump of “treading water” over a decision on the future of the Paris climate change agreement, on which the fate of millions of people depend.

Amina Mohammed told the Guardian she was hopeful the US would not renege on the deal signed last year, but that Trump appeared to be avoiding a public declaration after taking such a hard line during his campaign for the White House.

Continue reading...

Tritium has announced it has started trials of its award-winning Veefil-RT 50kW DC charger in China.

Two recent EU renewable energy auctions in Germany and Spain have yielded not only significant interest in onshore wind power, but record low prices.

Allendale, Northumberland I linger, hoping to see a flicker of wings before leaving the trap to work its magic

The night garden is brilliantly lit by the full moon of the moth trap’s bulb. Shadows are thrown deep into the drystone walls and the hawthorn branches show bright against the dark fields. Shading my eyes against the UV light, I linger, hoping to see a flicker of wings before shutting the door and leaving the trap to work its magic.

Once a week I record which species are drawn to the light, my first year of contributing data to the Garden Moth Scheme. This became a national project in 2007 and the fluctuations it shows are a valuable indicator of environmental change. The colour-coded Field Guide to the Moths of Great Britain and Ireland by Waring, Townsend and Lewington, covers 896 species, illustrated in their natural resting positions. These are the macro moths – there are a further 1,550 or so micro moths, which sometimes makes identification a challenge.

Continue reading...

Pacific Hydro looks to fund new wind, solar and hydro developments with multi-currency fund raising.

ARENA switches focus of solar PV support back to R&D, in bid to achieve more cost savings and ensure solar can provide nearly one third of Australia's electricity within 15 years.

Denmark says tax on self-consumed PV will reduce budget expense and will slow down faster than expected development of solar.

Supporters of Adani mine says coal crucial to solving poverty, but new report suggests new coal mines will only worsen climate change and drive poor nations deeper into poverty.

Swiss voters back plans to provide subsidies for renewable energy, ban new nuclear plants and help bail out struggling utilities.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has argued the US should stay in the Paris climate agreement. But for the rest of the world, a US exit is better than staying reluctantly. Carlos Barria/Reuters

The conventional wisdom that the United States should remain under the Paris Agreement is wrong. A US withdrawal would be the best outcome for international climate action.

With Trump set to decide on the matter after this week’s G7 meeting, his aides are split on the issue. Chief strategist Steve Bannon heads the faction pushing for an exit. Secretary of State and former ExxonMobil chief executive Rex Tillerson has argued for the US to retain a “seat at the table”.

It is within the president’s power to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and perhaps even the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which has overseen global climate diplomacy for some 25 years.

In a commentary published in Nature Climate Change today, I argue that a US withdrawal would minimise risks and maximise opportunities for the climate community. Simply put: the US and the Trump administration can do more damage inside the agreement than outside it.

There are four key, interconnected risks related to US participation in the Paris Agreement: that the US will miss its emissions target; that it will cut climate finance; that it will cause a “domino” effect among other nations; and that it will impede the UN negotiations.

Money and emissions are all that matter

The first two risks are unaffected by withdrawal. The Paris Agreement doesn’t require the US to meet its current emissions reduction pledge, or to provide further climate finance to developing countries. The agreement is procedural, rather than binding; it requires a new, tougher climate pledge every five years, but actually hitting these targets isn’t mandatory.

The US will probably miss its climate target regardless. It would need more than just Obama’s Clean Power Plan to hit its goal of reducing emissions by 26-28% on 2005 levels by 2025. And now that Trump has decided to roll back those policies too, US emissions are set to increase through to 2025, rather than decrease.

The same goes for international climate funding, which will be cut under the “America First” budget plan. That includes funds previously earmarked for the Green Climate Fund, which has so far raised US$10 billion in climate aid. The US was to provide US$3 billion but has donated just US$1 billion so far. The remaining money is almost certainly not coming.

Domino effect?

The third risk is the domino effect: that US actions could inspire others to delay climate action, renege on their targets, or withdraw. But there is little evidence to suggest that the US dropping out will trigger other nations to follow suit.

The closest historical parallel is the Kyoto Protocol, which the US signed but never ratified. When President George W. Bush announced that the US would not ratify the treaty, others rallied to the protocol’s aid and pushed through the Marrakech Accords in 2001, to strengthen Kyoto’s rules.

What’s more likely to cause a domino effect is US domestic behaviour, rather than any potential withdrawal from the Paris deal. Other countries are more likely to delay or free-ride on their pledges if they see the US miss its target, revealing how weak the Paris Agreement really is.

Paris has little aside from inspiring public pressure and long-term low-carbon investment patterns. Neither pressure nor the “investment signal” is likely to work if a renegade US shows that Paris is an empty global show-and-tell regime. Investors and the public are likely to lose faith in an agreement that can visibly do nothing to constrain a climate laggard.

The fourth risk is that the US will act as a spoiler in international climate talks. This requires membership. If the US remains in the agreement it will retain a veto in the negotiations.

The negotiations are at a crucial juncture. The so-called “Paris Rulebook”, which details how exactly the agreement will be fulfilled, is being negotiated, with plans for it to be adopted in 2018.

The US could use its voice and veto to water down the rules. It might even stall and overload negotiations by demanding amendments to the Paris Agreement, as Energy Secretary Rick Perry has suggested. A US that has credibly threatened to withdraw may have even more diplomatic clout going forward.

Considered in this light, giving the former head of ExxonMobil a “seat at the table” is a terrible idea.

New opportunities

A US withdrawal, on the other hand, could create new opportunities, such as renewed European and Chinese leadership. In the wake of the 2016 US election, former French presidential nominee Nicholas Sarkozy raised the idea of applying a carbon tax of 1-3% on US imports. In a time of rising protectionist policies, particularly in the US, carbon border tariffs may become more politically palatable.

A US dropout would also be an ideal opportunity for a rising China to stamp its mark on an international issue. It would give both China and the European Union a chance to jump even further ahead of the US in the renewable energy markets of the future.

The EU previously showed leadership in the absence of the US to revive the Kyoto Protocol and forge ahead with renewable energy. This time Europe could do so with the support of another great power.

Such cooperation could take numerous forms. One simple way would be for the two to put forward a stronger joint climate pledge. This could be strengthened by uniting their respective carbon trading schemes and applying a common border carbon tariff.

Trade measures and an EU-China climate bloc will be far more effective than Paris ever could have been. Yet none of these possibilities is likely to become reality without the diplomatically drastic move of US withdrawal. On balance, it is clear that a US climate exit is preferable to remaining.

It is worth stressing here the difference between pulling out of the Paris Agreement and withdrawing from the UNFCCC. The latter is far more dramatic, and more likely to trigger a domino effect. It would also mean the US would no longer be legally bound to report on its emissions and actions to the international community. It would become a complete climate pariah.

A future president could easily rejoin Paris through an executive agreement. In contrast, re-ratifying the UNFCCC might require a vote in the US Senate, which has become more partisan and divided since the convention was first ratified in 1992. However, withdrawal from the UNFCCC would lessen the threat of US obstruction, as it would lose its veto in the wider negotiations and be even more politically ostracised.

Despite this, the same basic risk-opportunity calculus applies. The domino effect may be more likely, but overall a withdrawal is still preferable.

Participation is a red herring

Wanting the US to remain is a short-sighted, knee-jerk reaction. The international community should be much more worried about the real domestic actions of the US, rather than whether it is symbolically cooperating internationally.

The international community appears to be mortally afraid that the US will make the largely symbolic gesture of quitting Paris. Yet there was less concern when Trump rolled back domestic climate measures.

EU Climate Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete recently stated that Paris allows for the continued use of fossil fuels and provides the flexibility for a “new US administration to chart its own path”.

Is this really a worthwhile message to send to the White House: that blatantly violating the purpose and spirit of the Paris Agreement is fine, as long as you are still cooperating on paper? It is disturbing that symbolism has apparently become more important than action.

Policy, not participation, needs to be the focus of criticism. Otherwise Paris will prove itself to be nothing more than a diplomatic fig leaf.

While Paris may be weak, international climate action can still be strong. The shock of Trump’s withdrawal could make international action stronger by allowing emboldened leadership to blossom elsewhere.

Luke Kemp has received research funding from the Australian and German governments.

As a warming climate threatens traditional food supplies in the Arctic, one rural Alaskan village is flying in hundreds of reindeer by cargo plane. James Cook went to find out why.