Rocío Acuña - Trimestre 1

                    

                 El ecoturismo llega a China en auxilio del oso panda

   

El oso panda o panda gigante está en peligro de extinción. China es el único país del mundo donde hay osos panda en libertad en su hábitat natural, unos 1.600 ejemplares. Se calcula que hay otros 328 viviendo en cautiverio en el resto del mundo.

China empezó en 1953 a rescatar pandas salvajes para protegerlos, criarlos en cautividad y reinsertarlos en su hábitat natural. Así, se ha conseguido que su número aumente en los últimos años. Si hace unas décadas llegó a haber apenas un millar de osos panda en el planeta, el último censo chino de osos en libertad es de 1.596, aunque se elaboró en el año 2004, por lo que se confía en que el número actual sea un poco mayor.

Pese a ser un animal localizado solo en China, el panda es una especie reconocida a nivel mundial. Por eso su supervivencia es de interés en todas partes. A su conservación puede ayudar un fenómeno turístico que llega a China, como todo, el ecoturismo. 

El fundador de la ONG estadounidense WildAid, Peter Knights, asegura que están viendo las posibilidades del ecoturismo en torno a los pandas, que permitiría utilizar los ingresos obtenidos en su conservación y además generar dinero para las comunidades locales, que serían así las primeras interesadas en su cuidado.

En China la idea apenas está comenzando, pero en muchos lugares del mundo ha funcionado, como en las islas Galápagos, en Ecuador, donde el turismo genera millones de dólares para la conservación" de la biodiversidad, y donde WildAid tiene también programas.

"China tiene en los pandas un activo único que no tiene nadie más en el mundo: es el único país donde puedes ver pandas en libertad, y creo que en el futuro la gente estará dispuesta a pagar cada vez más por disfrutar de esta experiencia aquí en China", explica Knights.

Según cálculos del doctor Zhang Zhihe, director de la Base de Pandas de Chengdu (provincia central de Sichuan), en China hay 62 reservas naturales de pandas de nivel nacional, de las cuales 37 están en Sichuan. Esta base tiene 19 ejemplares alojados actualmente en el extranjero, incluidos los cuatro que hay actualmente en el Zoo de Madrid.

http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/1596472/0/ecoturismo/ayuda-conservacion-china/oso-panda/

***

Actualmente, en China es el único país afortunado de poseer unos 1.600 osos panda viviendo en libertad, los demás están repartidos por diferentes zoológicos del mundo, aunque estos no llegan a los 400 ejemplares, dado que su mantenimiento es uno de lo más caros del mundo.

China es el país que más importancia le da al bienestar de estos animales y por ello busca métodos para generar dinero y así seguir manteniendo a los osos panda en su hábitat natural. El fundador de la ONG WildAid ve una gran fuente de ingresos en el ecoturismo. Esto significa que China, al ser el único país que posee osos panda, promovería el turismo en donde la gente podría disfrutar de ver a estos solitarios y cariñosos animales, en libertad. No solo generaría dinero para su mantenimiento, sino que además a las diferentes comunidades que los poseen en semi-cautividad.

En mi opinión, sería beneficioso promover el ecoturismo no solo a esta especie, si no a todas aquellas que están en peligro de extinción. Es importante cuidar y proteger  a estos animales lo mejor posible, porque como se puede ver, quedan apenas 2.000 ejemplares, y de esta forma, no solo se aportaría dinero sino que además la gente podría disfrutar de otro tipo de turismo más novedoso y cercano a la naturaleza.

               El lado oscuro del zoo de Barcelona

         

El zoo de Barcelona tiene dos caras. Una, la que día a día se encuentran los cientos de visitantes que lo recorren —1.164.027 el año pasado— y la otra, la del subsuelo, donde duermen los animales, lejos de los ojos curiosos de los niños de colegios y las familias. La ONG defensora de los animales Libera! y la Fundación Franz Weber presentaron ayer un retrato inédito de esa otra faz, gracias a la colaboración de un fotógrafo anónimo. Allí, según la entidad, los animales malviven en condiciones infrahumanas, valga el término. Desde el Ayuntamiento aseguran: “Estas instalaciones interiores cumplen con las normativas”.

Las imágenes y vídeos presentados por Libera! fueron tomados el año pasado y muestran jaulas pequeñas, oscuras, húmedas, con rejas y literas oxidadas. En ellas se puede ver a tres jirafas que comparten un espacio mínimo y que sacan el cuello por encima de sus barrotes y a un primate y un canguro que reposan sobre un suelo de cemento.

“Los animales pasan hasta 17 horas en un espacio similar a mazmorras medievales. Denunciaremos esta situación ante la Comisión de Medio Ambiente en Bruselas”, aseguró Alejandra García, portavoz de Libera! Según las entidades, allí también se mantiene a animales enfermos que no son exhibidos.

Estas instalaciones, ubicadas bajo la superficie del zoo, son el sitio donde permanecen los animales enfermos o donde se resguardan algunas especies cuando las condiciones meteorológicas les son adversas, explicaron desde el Consistorio. “Los animales no están allí la mayoría del tiempo”, aseguró una portavoz.

La semana pasada el Ayuntamiento anunció un plan estratégico para el zoo, con un horizonte en 2020. El total de la inversión asciende a 25 millones de euros —12 este mandato— y estará orientada a reorganizar el centro en nueve grandes biomas y una gran pasarela elevada. El Consistorio no explicó ayer cuánto de este dinero corresponderá a mejoras en las instalaciones interiores y reivindicó trabajos como la del dormitorio de las elefantas.

http://ccaa.elpais.com/ccaa/2012/05/15/catalunya/1337110239_033319.html

Desde hace mucho existen zoológicos por todas partes del mundo, mucha gente esta a favor de éstos ya que de desempeñan valores educativos, pero otras ONG y fundaciones en contra del maltrato animal, defiende que muchos de los zoológicos no cumplen con las condiciones mínimas de mantenimiento.

Esto sucedió hace poco, más concretamente en Mayo de 2012, en el zoológico de Barcelona. La ONG Libera! y la Fundación Franz Weber sacó a la luz fotos y videos de animales en mal estado y en condiciones deprimentes. Además estas instalaciones, las cuales el Ayuntamiento declaró que si cumplían las condiciones mínimas, no eran lo suficientemente grandes, eran oscuras y húmedas y los animales apenas podían moverse.

Habría que decir también, que los animales que viven en estas jaulas subterráneas, son animales enfermos y que pasan más de 17 horas en un entorno poco saludable para su estado.

Para concluir, si se decide establecer un zoológico, ya que se separa a los animales de su hábitat natural, deberían tener unas condiciones óptimas para que sea lo más similar a su medio. No solo tener un espacio amplio para poder realizar su vida  con normalidad, si no que además deberían tener cuidados específicos con cada especie animal.

         Revista 'Pelo, Pico, Pata': nº86 - 2012

                   Perros de asistencia, ¡UN TESORO! 

Actualmente, muchas personas son las que necesitan de la ayuda de perros para poder, simplemente, salir a la calle. 

Son las entidades las que se encargan de adiestras a estos perros especiales, los cuales van a aportar un gran servicio a la comunidad.

El cachorro es entregado a una Fundación para que pueda socializarse con otros cachorros y así llevar una vida normal, pero pasado un año o año y medio, es recogido para ser entrenado.

Hay dos tipos de perros, están los perros guías, más conocidos como ''perros lazarillo'' y son utilizados por personas con discapacidades visuales.

Y los perros de servicio, que son utilizados por personas con movilidad reducida.

A mi parecer, el trabajo tanto de las fundaciones que cuidan de los cachorros como las entidades que se encargan de entrenarlos, hacen una labor fundamental para personas con discapacidades. 

Con el simple hecho de tener un perro que les guíe o que realizan trabajos de su vida diaria, ya es una gran ayuda, y por lo tanto llevan una vida mucho más amena. 

        Revista 'Pelo, Pico, Pata' : nº86 - 2012

                       El perro que ama a las ballenas 

Tucker, es un perro vagabundo, el cual se ha convertido en un estrella debido a que es capaz de encontrar rastros de excremento de orca a varios metros de distancia. 

El trabajo que realiza Tucker es, según los biólogos marinos, un importante trabajo. Gracias a este encantador labrador es posible vigilar la salud de las orcas de las Islas San Juan, una población que está en peligro de extinción. 

Tucker es el único perro capaz de llevar a cabo este trabajo, y su adiestración fue todo un éxito.

En mi opinión es interesante que un perro pueda encontrar a orcas de esta manera; pero su trabajo es muy importante debido a que gracias a él se pueden salvar muchas orcas que están en peligro de extinción. 

        Revista 'Pelo, Pico, Pata': nº86 - 2012

            Subida del IVA: Los animales pagan el pato. 

Con la subida del IVA, las clínicas veterinarias también suben sus precios, y como se puede esperar, los veterinarios están preocupados no el descenso de la clientela y porque esto va a llevar al abandono de mascotas y que los dueños no puedan permitirse tratamientos médicos para su animal. 

El Ministro de Interior anuncia que el se mantendrá el IVA reducido para los animales del sector ganadero, pero no para las mascotas.

Como consecuencia, no solo se producirá un aumento del abandono, si no que también un descenso de las adopciones de mascotas.

                                                    

No creo que sea justo que se mantenga el IVA reducido solo para el sector ganadero, ya que todo lo que se había conseguido con campañas de abandono animal será en vano.

Ellos, igual que nosotros, también deberían poder disfrutar de la salud sin tener que pagar. 

Cosmetics companies quietly ending animal test 

Several leading cosmetics companies have quietly stopped testing products on animals. The moves are in response to years of pressure by animal-rights groups and reflect growing confidence in the reliability of alternative testing methods.

Avon, Revlon and the cosmetics and toiletries businesses of Faberge have abandoned animal testing, and two other companies, Mary Kay Cosmetics and Amway, have declared a moratorium on the practice.

In addition, Noxell, which makes Noxzema skin creams and Cover Girl cosmetics, said a new non-animal test for eye irritancy that it began using in January with the goal of ending animal testing has been 100 percent effective. Thus, the company said, it has used no animals in safety tests this year, although it will not commit itself to refraining from animal testing in the future.

''It's been a domino effect,'' said Allan Mottus, publisher of the Informationist, a cosmetics and health-care industry newsletter. Mr. Mottus said concern about treatment of animals was related to a growing environmental consciousness in general among consumers. ''The industry trend is that if you don't play the game and get out of animal testing, you're going to be targeted, boycotted and left out in the cold,'' he said.

Avon, Revlon and Faberge rank first, second and fourth among United States cosmetics companies, with 1988 sales of $2.1 billion, $1.79 billion and $1.2 billion, respectively, according to Household and Personal Products Industry, a trade magazine.

Far from resolving the conflicts over animal testing, however, their moves have provoked new rancor between animal-rights groups and the companies, which have long been among the prime targets of the protest groups, even though they account for a small percentage of overall testing. The cosmetics companies are seen as particularly vulnerable because they make products that are nonessential.

There are a number of ways of establishing the safety of products. The methods gaining favor as replacements for animal testing include more extensive reliance on past data and experiments on cell cultures in test tubes, known as ''in vitro'' testing.

The most controversial of the tests they are replacing is the Draize test, in which substances are injected into the eyes of rabbits to determine how irritating they are.

There is ongoing debate in scientific circles about when the alternatives are more reliable than animal tests and even over what procedures are needed to compare animal and non-animal tests.

One reason the battles continue between the industry and the animal-rights groups is that several large companies that make household products as well as personal-care products - including Procter & Gamble and Colgate-Palmolive - have sharply cut their use of animals but have given no sign that they plan to join Avon and Revlon in ending animal testing altogether. Many of their household products include more dangerous chemicals than cosmetics.

In addition, several leading cosmetics companies, including Estee Lauder, the third largest in the United States, and Cosmair, which markets L'Oreal and L'ancome products, continue the practice. Both companies have reduced animal tests in recent years and are researching alternatives. Relying on Suppliers

A more fundamental problem, though, is that leading cosmetics companies that have ended animal testing still rely on the manufacturers of the raw ingredients widely used in the industry - suppliers like Dow Chemical, Du Pont and Monsanto, which will continue to use animals to test some of those ingredients.

''It's the responsibility of a company like Avon or Revlon to say to their suppliers, 'We're not using animal testing and we're asking you not to use animal tests,' '' said Susan Rich, a spokesman for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, a Washington-based animal-rights group that has been among the most militant campaigners against cosmetics companies. She warned that protests will continue until animal tests are eliminated at the supplier level as well.

Incensed by advocacy-group tactics, some industry leaders have already lashed back at animal-rights groups, arguing that some animal testing will always be required for science and safety reasons.

''We are not dealing with rational opponents,'' wrote E. Edward Kavanaugh, president of the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, in a letter to the trade group's members last month. ''We are dealing with zealots who cannot comprehend that a child's life is more important than a dog's, who see nothing wrong with making a child the ultimate guinea pig instead of an animal.'' Lobbying Campaign

Mr. Kavanaugh's letter appealed to cosmetics companies to help raise $1 million to finance a media and lobbying campaign to fight a rising number of state laws proposed by animal-rights groups that would end or limit animal testing by cosmetics and household product companies. The campaign has the support of Avon and other members of the trade group, who argue that animal testing policies should not be legislated.

Mr. Kavanaugh will not get unanimous support. Many smaller entrepreneurial companies have in recent years hitched their entire marketing strategies to the environmental bandwagon. They advertise that their products are ''not animal tested'' or are ''cruelty-free.''

''There is a groundswell change going on,'' said Anita Roddick, the managing director of Body Shop International, a British retailer that has 400 stores worldwide. ''There is a vocabulary of caring that is emerging, and consumers want products that don't harm anything. They want a value system, they want knowledge and education and companies that are ethical.''

Body Shop outlets carry, in addition to cosmetics and toiletries, leaflets describing animal testing and a wide variety of environmental issues to emphasize the company's views. Not Advertised Widely

So far, industry leaders see the world very differently. Those that have stopped animal testing have generally issued press releases but have not advertised the change widely. Faberge Inc. said yesterday in response to a reporter's inquiry that it had quit animal testing three months ago without announcing the change.

The main reason for such reticence, most industry experts say, is that the large companies fear the legal consequences of ending animal testing. These experts say that consumers who suffer adverse reactions to a product may have an easier time proving corporate negligence if the product has not been tested on animals before reaching the market.

Even if juries reject that argument, the companies might have to endure a flood of costly litigation before it is widely accepted that alternative testing methods are as good or better. 'Unprecedented Legal Territory'

''They are embarking on unprecedented legal territory,'' said Gary Flamm, a toxicology consultant and the former chief of the Food and Drug Administration's toxicology department.

Some in the industry believe that the companies, fearing further boycotts and bad publicity, have acted too hastily.

''A very vocal minority is forcing companies to possibly abdicate their responsibility to their own business, to the stockholders and to the public,'' said John Horvitz of Horvitz & Appel, a consulting firm to the cosmetics industry.

Experts at the companies that have ended animal testing say that when combined with extensive data from earlier animal tests, in vitro methods can be used to test 99 percent of new products. They say that animal test data provided by the raw ingredient suppliers cover the other 1 percent.

''We don't think it brings any substantial risk either to ourselves or to our customers,'' said James Conroy, special counsel for the Revlon Group. Cost of Switching

The companies differ in estimates of the cost of switching to non-animal tests. Avon Products Inc. says it has spent millions of dollars over the years for research on new methods. It says, however, that once the new methods are in place, non-animal testing will cost about the same as animal tests. But Richard Bednarz, director of research services at the Amway Corporation, estimates that the cost of non-animal testing will be about three times that of animal testing.

The more immediate battleground, however, is expected to be a number of state legislatures where animal-rights advocates are pushing for state laws that would end or severely limit animal testing by cosmetics companies. In 1987, when the first such law was proposed by animal-rights groups in Maryland, it came close to passing. It was soundly defeated last year after heavy lobbying by the industry. Today, the battle has expanded to seven other states -California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

The rise in animal-rights advocacy is part of a general increase in public concern about environmental issues. While a number of smaller companies have tailored their marketing strategy to their belief that such issues will become increasingly important to consumers, the leading companies disagree.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/08/02/business/cosmetics-companies-quietly-ending-animal-tests.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

For a long time, several leading cosmetics companies have used as an object of experimentation animal for new products.

But thanks to the persistence and pressure from groups against experimentation has achieved a great advance. Although not all cosmetic companies share this idea of alternative experiments, many of them have accepted and implemented it.

 Others however, such as L’Oreal and Estee Lauder have decided to stop this practice partly because it is cheaper and easier. Besides, these companies depend to others that produce raw materials such as DuPont and Monsanto, who have stated that they stopped using animal testing.

I think this practice which brings into play the life of living creatures is very sad, because no one can maltreat an animal having alternative practices. Nevertheless, these companies still use animal testing perhaps because it cheaper and faster, so do not spend money on unnecessary things they believe.

          

           Threat Seen To Plants In Medicine

AS many as 60,000 plants with valuable medical properties are likely to become extinct by 2050, according to one of organizers of a recent conference sponsored by the World Wildlife Fund, the World Health Organization and the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

''This means one in every four of the world's medicinal plants is threatened,'' said the organizer, Hugh Synge. Mr. Synge, a British botanist, is affiliated with the wildlife fund. He said that 80 percent of the world's people rely on medicinal plants, which are important in industrial countries as well as developing nations.

Peter P. Principe, an American researcher, said, ''In the United States, 25 percent of the prescriptions that are being filled are filled by drugs derived from plants.'' He added, ''The percentage is higher in terms of anti-cancer drugs; 35 to 40 percent of anti-cancer drugs are derived from plants.''

He attended the conference, in the northern Thai city of Chiang Mai, as an international expert and not as a Government offical.

One substance that is already endangered is reserpine, an ingredient in certain tranquilizers that is derived from the Rauwolfia serpentina plant, found in India. Other plants like cinchona, whose bark produces quinine, and foxglove varieties, which are used in the heart medications digitoxin and acetyldigitoxin, could also run out, the experts said.

''These shortages are intimately linked with the decline of forests and vegetation,'' Mr. Synge said, adding that most of the tropical forests were in developing nations that needed help with conservation.

Many plants that have proved useful in modern medicines have long been used by traditional healers in developing countries. In recent years, scientists have begun to study traditional herbal medicines to discover which of them might have medically important compounds.

In a declaration, the experts at the conference expressed concern about the loss of medicinal plants and traditional formulas before their uses become widely known. The conference also called for increased conservation of natural areas.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/12/science/threat-seen-to-plants-in-medicine.html

It is thought that around 60,000 medicinal plants will disappear in 2050 due to environmental changes.

This means that more than half of plants with which drugs are prepared will be threatened.

For example, in the United States 25% of the drug is prepared with medicinal plants, and a 35/40% of anticancer drugs derived from these plants.

I believe that caring for these plants should be more intensive than the other, because not only are part of our environment, but are also necessary to cure many of our most common diseases, and even other more aggressive as cancer.

    To Birds, Storm Survival Is Only Natural

    

In the wake of Hurricane Sandy and the spiteful me-too northeaster, much of the East Coast looked so battered and flooded, so strewed with toppled trees and stripped of dunes and beaches, that many observers feared the worst. Any day now, surely, the wildlife corpses would start showing up — especially birds, for who likelier to pay when a sky turns rogue than the ones who act as if they own it?

Yet biologists studying the hurricane’s aftermath say there is remarkably little evidence that birds, or any other countable, charismatic fauna for that matter, have suffered the sort of mass casualties seen in environmental disasters like the BP oil spill of 2010, when thousands of oil-slicked seabirds washed ashore, unable to fly, feed or stay warm.

“With an oil spill, the mortality is way more direct and evident,” said Andrew Farnsworth, a scientist at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. “And though it’s possible that thousands of birds were slammed into the ocean by this storm and we’ll never know about it, my gut tells me that didn’t happen.”

To the contrary, scientists said, powerful new satellite tracking studies of birds on the wing — including one that coincided with the height of Hurricane Sandy’s fury — reveal birds as the supreme masters of extreme weather management, able to skirt deftly around gale-force winds, correct course after being blown horribly astray, or even use a hurricane as a kind of slingshot to propel themselves forward at hyperspeed.

“We must remind ourselves that 40 to 50 percent of birds are migratory, often traveling thousands of miles a year between their summer and winter grounds,” said Gary Langham, chief scientist of the National Audubon Society in Washington. “The only way they can accomplish that is to have amazing abilities that are far beyond anything we can do.”

Humans may complain about climate change. Birds do something about it. “Migration, in its most basic sense, is a response to a changing climate,” Dr. Farnsworth said. “It’s finding some way to deal with a changing regime of temperature and food availability.” For birds, cyclones, squalls and other meteorological wild cards have always been a part of the itinerant’s package, and they have evolved stable strategies for dealing with instability.

Given the likelihood that extreme weather events will only become more common as the planet heats up, Dr. Farnsworth said, “the fact that birds can respond to severe storms is to some extent a good sign.” Nevertheless, he added, “how many times they can do it, and how severe is too severe, are open questions.”

Among a bird’s weather management skills is the power to detect the air pressure changes that signal a coming storm, and with enough advance notice to prepare for adversity. Scientists are not certain how this avian barometer works, yet the evidence of its existence is clear.

As just one example, Dr. Langham cited the behavior of the birds in his backyard in Washington on the days before Hurricane Sandy arrived. “They were going crazy, eating food in a driving rain and wind when normally they would never have been out in that kind of weather,” he said. “They knew a bigger storm was coming, and they were trying to get food while they could.”

Songbirds and their so-called passerine kin may be notorious lightweights — if a sparrow were a letter, it could travel on a single stamp — but that doesn’t mean they’re as helpless as loose feathers in the wind. Passerine means perching, and the members of this broad taxonomic fraternity all take their perching seriously.

When a storm hits, a passerine bird can alight on the nearest available branch or wire with talons that will reflexively close upon contact and remain closed by default, without added expenditure of energy, until the bird chooses to open them again. If you’ve ever watched a perched bird in a high wind and worried, “Poor squinting thing — could it be blown away and smashed to bits down the road?,” the answer is not unless the perch is blown away with it.

Scientists have found that many migratory birds, especially the passerines, seek to hug the coast and its potential perches as long as possible, leaving the jump over open water to the last possible moment. But for birds over the open ocean, hurricanes pose a real challenge, and they can be blown off course by hundreds of miles. In fact, ornithologists and serious bird-watchers admit they look forward to big storms that might blow their way exotic species they’d otherwise never see in their lifetime.

Hurricane Sandy did not disappoint them. As an enormous hybrid of winter and tropical storm fronts with a huge reach, it pulled in a far more diverse group of birds than the average hurricane, and Web sites like ebird.org and birdcast.info were alive with thrilled reports of exceptional sightings — of the European shorebird called the northern lapwing showing up in Massachusetts; of Eastern wood-pewees that should have been in Central and South America suddenly appearing again in New York and Ontario; of trindade petrels, which normally spend their entire lives over the open ocean off Brazil, popping up in western Pennsylvania; and of flocks of Leach’s storm-petrels and pomarine jaegers, arctic relatives of gulls, making unheard-of tours far inland and through Manhattan.

(At least a couple of these visitors fell prey to New York City’s resident peregrine falcons, which either mistook the seabirds for pigeons or were in the mood to try a new ethnic cuisine.)

Most of the visitors didn’t linger, and once the storm had passed they took off, presumably heading back to where they wanted to be. “Birds have tremendous situational awareness,” said Bryan D. Watts, director of the Center for Conservation Biology at the College of William and Mary in Virginia. “They know where they are and where they’re going, they’re able to fly back repeatedly, and they’ve shown an amazing ability to compensate for being pushed off track.”

Researchers have begun tagging individual birds with GPS devices and tracking them by satellite to gain detailed insights into how birds accomplish their migratory marathons and what exactly they do when confronting a storm.

In preparation for a possible offshore wind development project, Caleb Spiegel, a wildlife biologist with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and his colleagues at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management have attached transmitters to the tail feathers of several types of migratory birds, including the northern gannet, a big waterfowl with a spectacular fishing style of falling straight down from the sky like a missile dropped from a plane.

As it happened, one of the gannets was approaching the southern shore of New Jersey at just the moment Hurricane Sandy made landfall there, and Mr. Spiegel could catch the bird’s honker of a reaction. Making a sharp U-turn, it headed back north toward Long Island and then cut out to sea along the continental shelf, where it waited out the storm while refueling with a few divebombs for fish.

“The bird has since returned to New Jersey,” Mr. Spiegel said. “It’s pretty much back where it started.”

In a renowned tracking study that began in 2008, Dr. Watts and his colleagues have followed the peregrinations of whimbrels, speckled brown shorebirds with long curved beaks that breed in the subarctic Hudson Bay and winter as far south as Brazil. Because whimbrels regularly pass through the “hurricane alley” of the Caribbean and other meteorological hot spots, Dr. Watts said, “we’ve tracked many birds into major storms.”

In August 2011, the researchers marveled at the derring-do of a whimbrel named Hope as it encountered Tropical Storm Gert off the coast of Nova Scotia, diving straight into the tempest at 7 miles per hour and emerging from the other side at a pace of 90 m.p.h. Not long after, the scientists cheered as four other whimbrels successfully navigated their way through Hurricane Irene.

The joy was short-lived. In September 2011, two of the four Irene survivors sought refuge from another storm by landing on the island of Guadeloupe, where they were shot by sport hunters. Dr. Watts has since discovered to his dismay that throughout the Caribbean islands, hurricane season is considered hunting season, as enthusiasts target the many migratory birds grounded by bad weather.

“There are 3,000 permanent hunters on Guadeloupe alone,” he said. “The annual take in the West Indies may be 200,000 birds.”

Even the hardiest hurricane wrangler is helpless in the face of a gun.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/science/birds-have-natural-ability-to-survive-storms.html?pagewanted=all

After Hurricane Sundy were many animals that did not survive this terrible hurricane.
But several biologists study little evidence of bird deaths after Hurricane Sundy.
Many biologists are those who argue that birds are capazaces manage climate, being capazaces to survive even the strongest winds.
This is seen in migration movements of thousands of kilometers.
Birds may predict a storm hours before due to the pressure change.

In my opinion, I think it is important to act before climate change, because most affected beings are animals, they are not guilty of human disasters. Furthermore, if climate change was not real, they would not have to migrate birds thousands of miles in search of food.

Fukushima vs. Chernobyl: How Have Animals Fared?

               


For a little bird, bee or butterfly trying to make it in the world, which is the worse place to land: Fukushima or Chernobyl? On the one hand, there’s the risk from the release of radioactive materials that occurred in Japan just over a year ago. On the other, there’s the threat of mutations from accumulated environmental contamination over the past quarter-century from the Chernobyl accident in Ukraine.Researchers set out to see whether these radionuclide-laden zones are equally detrimental to local animal populations, or whether one disaster site is more lethal.“The two events are similar in the sense that there’s lots of radioactive material in the environment,” said Timothy Mousseau, a biologist at the University of South Carolina at Columbia. “But they’re different in that right now Fukushima has the effects of the initial explosion and release of highly radioactive, short-lived isotopes, whereas in Chernobyl it’s been 26 years so presumably those initial effects long since disappeared and what we’re seeing now is primarily the effects of chronic multigenerational exposure.”Although past studies have tracked the genetic or developmental impacts on individual animals or plants from exposure to radiation, few have examined what happens to entire species populations in an area contaminated with materials from a radioactive disaster. Dr. Mousseau and his colleagues decided to investigate and compare the number of birds, insects and spiders in the two areas to see whether the immediate impacts or the long-term mutational effects are more problematic for species.For their study, published in the journal Ecological Indicators, they conducted 1,198 censuses of spiders, grasshoppers, dragonflies, butterflies, bumblebees, cicadas and birds in Chernobyl and Fukushima. They then statistically analyzed their results to control for other variables that may cause the populations to differ like climate, rainfall and soil type.In Fukushima, they found that the abundance of birds, butterflies and cicadas had decreased significantly as the level of radiation increased. Bumblebees, dragonflies and grasshoppers were not affected by the release of radioactive materials, however. Surprisingly, spiders actually increased in abundance with the rise in radiation.Dr. Mousseau speculates that perhaps the insect prey that spiders normally feed on are weaker and easier to catch in the radioactive zones, and that spiders are possibly not particularly sensitive to the immediate contaminants. He predicts that over the long term, the spiders, bees, dragonflies and grasshoppers will eventually begin to drop off.In Chernobyl, all of the animals decreased with increasing levels of background radiation. (Cicadas do not live in Chernobyl, however, so were not sampled.) “We think this is because of a combination of both direct radiotoxicity and mutation accumulation,” Dr. Mousseau saidIn Fukushima, animals have only cycled through a few generations at most since the disaster, so any mutations have probably not begun to manifest themselves. For short-lived species like insects, however, mutations could soon start to appear.Initial surveys that Dr. Mousseau’s team conducted in Chernobyl indicate that numbers of small mammals, reptiles and amphibians follow similar patterns in relation to contamination. Clean areas of the exclusion zone may attract more animals, he said, but their populations remain quite low in highly contaminated sections.“Over all, it’s a myth to suggest that animal abundances are higher in the Chernobyl exclusion zones,” he said, referring to the assertion that Chernobyl’s radioactive exclusion zone is in effect one big wildlife reserve. “There’s evidence that some species perhaps evolved better genetic repair mechanism in the face of mutagens in the environment, but clearly others have not.”Contaminated areas of Chernobyl and Fukushima are unlikely to be hospitable habitats for years to come. In Chernobyl, for example, the amount of americium-241, a highly radiotoxic isotope if ingested, is actually increasing as its parent nuclide, plutonium, decays. Radioactive materials like cesium are brought back to the surface soil each year by plant growth and pollination.And some plutonium isotopes have half-lives of 24,000 years. “These radioactive materials are going to be around for quite a while,” Dr. Mousseau said. “We’re looking at hundreds of years before many of the forested areas get better.”He and his colleagues plan to continue their surveys at the same time and place each year to see how the populations change.Dr. Mousseau suggested that more rigorous scientific studies are needed to assess the impacts of nuclear power plant disasters. Such information could help decision makers weigh the hazards of potential accidents, he said.

“What’s important now is that we continue to monitor how populations and individuals react to exposure to help predict long-term ecological effects in the future,” he said.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/12/fukushima-vs-chernobyl-how-have-animals-fared/


The worst place in the world for an animal is Fukushima or Chernobyl? That's the question asked by biologists worldwide.
Both places were the same radiative effects, but the difference is that Fukushima suffered the damage firsthand, and Chernobyl have been more than 26 years, so that the initial effects have passed.
There have been many studies on biological impacts on the animals in the area, but little data have been collected.
In Fukushima was found that the birth of birds and insects had decreased considerably. But not less radioactive Chernobyl.
In my opinion, little can be done to the mutations produced in the animals that live and have lived in these two areas of the world.
Although I think it might take more drastic measures such as evacuating the animals that live there.

A Whale With a Distinctly Human-Like Voice

                             

For the first time, researchers have been able to show by acoustic analysis that whales -- or at least one very special white whale -- can imitate the voices of humans. That's a surprise, because whales typically produce sounds in a manner that is wholly different from humans, say researchers who report their findings in the October 23 issue of Current Biology, a Cell Press publication.

"Our observations suggest that the whale had to modify its vocal mechanics in order to make the speech-like sounds," said Sam Ridgway of the National Marine Mammal Foundation. "Such obvious effort suggests motivation for contact."

It all started in 1984 when Ridgway and others began to notice some unusual sounds in the vicinity of the whale and dolphin enclosure. As they describe it, it sounded as though two people were conversing in the distance, just out of range of their understanding.

Those unusually familiar sounds were traced back to one white whale in particular only some time later when a diver surfaced from the whale enclosure to ask his colleagues an odd question: "Who told me to get out?"

They deduced that those utterances came from a most surprising source: a white whale by the name of NOC. That whale had lived among dolphins and other white whales and had often been in the presence of humans.

In fact, there had been other anecdotal reports of whales sounding like humans before, but in this case Ridgway's team wanted to capture some real evidence. They recorded the whale's sounds to reveal a rhythm similar to human speech and fundamental frequencies several octaves lower than typical whale sounds, much closer to that of the human voice.

"Whale voice prints were similar to human voice and unlike the whale's usual sounds," Ridgway said. "The sounds we heard were clearly an example of vocal learning by the white whale."

That's all the more remarkable because whales make sounds via their nasal tract, not in the larynx as humans do. To make those human-like sounds, NOC had to vary the pressure in his nasal tract while making other muscular adjustments and inflating the vestibular sac in his blowhole, the researchers found. In other words, it wasn't easy.

Sadly, after 30 years at the National Marine Mammal Foundation, NOC passed away five years ago. But the sound of his voice lives on.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121022122052.htm

Marine researchers have been able to demonstrate for the whale acoustic analysis of the image is able to mimic human sounds. This is all new, because whales make sounds completely different from that of humans.This began in 1984 when he recorded whale sounds unusual, especially this whale called NOC.It's a shame that you can not investigate further, due to the death of this just 5 years ago.I think it's a great discovery both for science and for animal evolution.