Happy New Year,
How better to celebrate the new year than with old science?!
As usual, here are my favorite 15 reruns (article summaries) from 2024, plus a few of my favorite bits about AI since I keep getting requests for more of that:
Upset at the articles I missed? Please email me your own favorites from 2024 and I'll do what I can to include them in upcoming summaries.
As always people can sign up to receive these summaries at http://bit.ly/sciencejon (no need to email me). On with the reruns!
CLIMATE CHANGE
OK, for years people have been hyping the potential of a kind of seaweed (Asparagopsis) to reduce methane emissions in cattle. But the in vitro evidence was mixed - with potential toxicity and downsides a concern if the dose wasn't just right. George et al 2024 is a live trial with good news! They found methane emissions from cattle given an Asparagopsis additive were cut roughly in half compared to control, with 6.6% higher weight gain per unit of feed and no substantial impacts on quality or health (fat color maybe a bit better, tenderness maybe a bit worse). The methane reduction peaked at day 21 and declined afterwards, but since most cattle are in feedlots only ~3 months (ranging from 1.5-4) the decline after day 100 is pretty moot. That's a lot of potential! The only potential downsides were ~50% higher bromine residues in kidney and muscle (I couldn't quickly find guidance on safe levels). Caveats: 1) there were no conflicts declared but the authors appear to almost all work as feedlot consultants and it's single rather than double-blinded, 2) in the US the feedlot phase is only about 15% of the lifecycle emissions of a cow (and of that, some is from growing crops and nitrous oxide) so TOTAL impact on CO2e / kg beef is not as dramatic. Overall my take is 1) this should absolutely be tested and replicated more - anything that reduces the very high carbon of beef is worth pursuing. BUT 2) if this is marketed as "green beef" or license to avoid reductions, it could be net harmful for the climate. and 3) IF spraying this solution on grass worked similarly and didn't inhibit development of calves, the impact could be much higher (since ~80%ish of a cow's life is grazing prior to feedlot, and methane emissions are higher on grass than feed). So let's test that too (note: there’s a new study claiming a ~1/3 reduction in methane during grazing via seaweed supplements that I haven’t reviewed yet). There's a blog about this at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/aug/18/feeding-seaweed-supplement-to-cattle-halved-methane-emissions-in-australian-feedlot-study-finds
Trencher et al, 2024 is an analysis of the quality of carbon credits on the voluntary market. They focus on the 20 companies retiring the most credits between 2020-2023 (134 million metric tons CO2e), which is 20% of all global retirements on the three registries (see Fig 1 for company list). They found 87% of credits have a high risk of not providing real additional reductions (6% were low risk, most of the rest was medium), and 97% of credits focused on avoiding emissions rather than removal. Note that they classified all REDD+ (reducing deforestation and/or degradation) as high risk given that they have often 1) overestimated additionality, 2) not stopped deforestation, and/or 3) displaced deforestation elsewhere (aka 'leakage'). They also classify large-scale renewable energy as high-risk, since the price of credits is not typically the decisive factor in those projects (they are often built w/ or w/o credits) and they are often build in countries w strong government support for renewable energy. They also found that companies strongly prefer the cheapest credits (which creates demand for lower-quality offsets) often from older projects, although some companies have paid a lot more for REDD projects. The authors call for more regulation of the voluntary market, and for companies not using voluntary credits to support claims of offsetting emissions.
CONSERVATION IMPACT:
Langhammer et al. 2024 is the big splashy new Science paper looking at the global impact of conservation. It's a meta-analysis of trials comparing interventions to counterfactuals (similar areas w/o action). They found conservation helps 2/3 of the time (45% of trials led to absolute improvement in biodiversity, 21% reduced biodiversity loss), but is harmful 1/3 of the time (in 21% of trials biodiversity declined more due to conservation, in 12% it improved less due to conservation), and only 2% of trials showed no difference). That's not a great track record - I'd hoped net harm would be rare (1/3 is very high!), and just over half the time we're losing biodiversity despite trying to stop it. Fig 2 helpfully shows how impact varies by type of intervention: protected areas show the smallest positive effect on average, and invasive species removal shows the largest positive effect. I'd ignore "sustainable use of species" b/c it's a weirdly broad category that somehow only included 4 papers on wildlife hunting and 1 on fishing, although a few fishing papers are included under protected areas (details in the supplement - this makes me think their sample is not representative of conservation broadly). While the authors conclude conservation is working and we should do more of it, I bet if this was a paper on medical efficacy we'd consider interventions that are 2/3 helpful and 1/3 harmful an urgent cry to improve efficacy BEFORE we try to scale work that is so often ineffective or harmful. Would you send your kids to a school where 1/3 of students learned less than kids not in school at all?
EVIDENCE ASSESSMENTS / SCIENTIFIC REPRODUCIBILITY:
Scientists often complain policy makers don't follow our recommendations (or even read them). But Brisco et al. 2023 finds that recommendations from meta-analyses tend to change over time as research continues. They looked at 79 papers (121 meta-analyses) and found that over time 93% of analyses either had a big change in effect size (+- 50% or more, see Fig 2 for examples) or change in statistical significance (see Fig 3). The key results are in Fig 5, which I find pretty confusing. Results staying consistently statistically significant w/ each study is rare, and ~25% of analyses showed a reversal in effect (from positive to negative or vice versa). Those reversals are the change we care the most about since it means action can backfire. BUT if you ignore the studies that were never statistically significant (seems safe) it's only 12% of analyses that flip, and if you also ignore the ones that lost significance (meaning the reversal is less meaningful) it goes down to 11%. That's still pretty bad though - 1 time out of 9 the scientific recommendation might lead to the opposite outcome we intend. They recommend scientists use cumulative meta-analyses to look for trends, and the reminder that we're often wrong reinforces the need for adaptive management and an empirical approach to seeing what works in a given context.
FIRE:
Pivello et al. 2021 is a good comprehensive overview of wildfire across Brazil. It's long and dense so hard to summarize! Natural fires are most common at the beginning of the wet season when lightning ignites accumulated dry vegetation. Fig 1 has an overview of fire by biome: the Amazon followed by Cerrado have the most fires; the Pantanal and Cerrado typically have the highest % burned (they are both fire-dependent, as is the Pampas, see Fig 2), and in 2020 the Pantanal had roughly triple the % burned and fire density as others. Pollen evidence (from a different study, Power et al. 2016) indicates fire activity in the Pantanal peaked about 12,000 years ago (people have only lived there for about 8,000 years, and grazed cattle for ~250). Introducing cattle has caused a shift from burning every 3-6 years (mostly in the beginning or sometimes end of the wet season) to burning every year or two during a relatively dry part of the wet season (see Fig 6). Conversely, fire suppression in the Cerrado has also driven woody encroachment of savannas. In the Amazon and Atlantic Forest, natural fire is rare and very infrequent, making fire especially harmful as species are not adapted to it. The combination of deforestation and drought make it much easier for fire to spread (and Amazonian deforestation means more drought in the Pantanal). 1/3 of the forest in the Amazon from 2003-2019 were associated w/ deforestation. Indigenous people mostly used fires in small areas, but since European colonization it's used at larger scales to clear land permanently (or alternately suppressed, see Fig 7 for a nice timeline of fire landmarks). Integrated fire management (IFM) is uncommon (except a few federal protected areas, mostly in the Cerrado). Only Minas Gerais and Roraima states have IFM laws. The authors recommend: 1) fire management policy should include climate mitigation and poverty reduction to reduce fire risk; 2) better fire monitoring and management systems; 3) filling knowledge gaps around drivers of fire, how fire impacts wetlands, human dimensions of fire, impacts of different fire regimes on grazing productivity and carbon; 4) better enforcement of illegal fire use (including more resources); 5) including local communities in developing fire management plans, and 6) national and state level fire policies with adequate resources for implementation (including data collection and sharing, and clear and simple rules about fire use).
Balch et al. 2024 found that over the last 20 years fires in the US have been spreading faster. In the Western US over 20 years the average peak daily growth rate (the average of the fastest each fire grew on a given day) increased 2.5 times (in California they increased by 4 times). The fastest 3% of fires nationally (spreading more than 1,620 ha in a day) destroyed between 78-89% of the buildings lost to fire (the paper lists each number in different section for the same stat). I’ve heard a lot more about severity and frequency and extent of fire, but thinking about speed is also important as faster fires are harder to respond do, and may make really smooth coordination increasingly important. Increases in drought conditions and potential increases in high winds could make this worse over time.
FRESHWATER:
Flitcroft et al. 2023 notes that counting effective freshwater protection globally is really hard (as is getting effective protection to happen). Fig 1 has a nice summary of how restrictive different protection mechanisms are. They also call for both better management of existing protected areas (PAs) to include freshwater conservation needs, and protections for freshwater in new places. While issues around data resolution and data availability continue to pose challenges to freshwater conservation, they argue that more explicit consideration of both freshwater and terrestrial objectives in any area-based protection is a good start.
Jasechko et al. 2024 is a global assessment of groundwater levels since 2000 (using 170,000 wells and 1,700 aquifers) and comparing them to earlier trends for ~1/3 of those aquifers. They found 36% of aquifers were drying up (water level dropping deeper by 0.1 m / yr or more), and 6% of aquifers were improving (water level rising 0.1 m / yr or more), w/ 58% of aquifers not changing quickly in this century. 30% of the aquifers where they had 40 years of data declined faster in the 21st century than the 20 years prior (see Fig 3), but in 49% of those aquifers declines slowed or reversed. Unsurprisingly the trend is worst in drylands w/ farmland, and groundwater deepening is globally correlated w/ low precipitation, high evapotranspiration, and extent of agriculture. See Fig 1 and 2 for global map of trends, highlighting hotspots of decline in CA, the US high plains, Iran, India, central Chile, and a few others. There's a news article about the study at https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/24/climate/groundwater-global-study-scn/index.html
Wang et al. 2024 looks at how climate change has changed the seasonality of river flow (how much it varies month to month, including frequency of droughts and floods). They found that ~14% of long-term river gauges show changes in seasonality over the last 50 years that isn't driven by changing annual precipitation. The surprise is that seasonality is mostly DECREASING counter to the narrative of more floods and droughts (see Fig 1 for a map of results, and Fig 2 which adds detail). In their figures brown means less seasonality (more even flow): "L+" means low flows become higher flows (NOT higher frequency of drought) while "H-" means floods see lower flood volume (again NOT lower frequency of flood events). You'll see most of North America, most of Europe, and some of Russia have seen reduced seasonality in recent decades. Blue means MORE seasonality, focused in: SE Brazil, some European countries, and in the US the SE and some of the Rocky Mountains. The explanation is worth reading in full, but in brief: 1) snow melting earlier means less runoff from snow at the same time as spring rains, 2) early spring greening means more water gets transpired, 3) it's more complicated in places not dominated by snowmelt.
HORIZON SCANNING / EMERGING ISSUES:
I realized I've only rarely reviewed Bill Sutherland's annual "horizon scan" article listing 15 emerging conservation issues that potentially deserve to be better-known. Last year (I just read the 2024 version a year late) they used artificial intelligence to generate some of the ideas but none made the cut. Here's the final list so you can decide if any are worth looking up (and here’s the brand new 2025 paper if you want to catch up):
1. New sources of hydrogen for energy (mining or electrolysis instead of natural gas),
2. Decarbonized ammonia (making fertilizer w/ lower carbon emissions but could increase fertilizer wasted),
3. Feeding people and/or animals w/ cultivated bacteria,
4. Light-free artificial photosynthesis (yes, it's as weird as it sounds) for indoor ag,
5. Enhanced rock weathering at scale (putting rock dust on croplands to sequester carbon),
6. Potential global declines in earthworm populations (more data is needed to see if UK decline is representative),
7. Ecoacoustics to monitor soil ecology (testing how meaningful soil sounds are for estimating things like biodiversity and water flow),
8. Wildfire affecting El Niño and La Niña phase (aerosols leading to the La Niña phase),
9. Benchtop DNA printers (potential to eventually allow guerilla genetic engineering),
10. Better predicting chemical toxicity from early data,
11. a skyscraper city planned in Saudi Arabia that birds could crash into when migrating from Europe to Africa.,
12. Sea urchin die-offs (possibly from disease) leading to algal overgrowth on corals and other marine ecosystems,
13. Ocean-based carbon removal (from the air or dissolved in water to stable forms),
14. Warming "twilight zones" (200-1000m below sea surface) affecting global nutrient and carbon cycles, and
15. Melting Antarctic ice changing deep sea currents.
MAMMALS:
Greenspoon et. al 2023 is an attempt to estimate the biomass of all wild mammals on earth (combined), arriving at 60 Mt total: 20 Mt (million metric tons) on land (half from "even-hoofed" mammals, see FIg 2), and 40 Mt in oceans (23 Mt of which comes from baleen whales). But the kicker is that they estimate human biomass at 390 Mt, and livestock biomass at 630 Mt (420 Mt from cattle: which is more than all humans plus all wild land mammals). Fig 4 awkwardly tries to compare all mammal biomass on earth, showing how wild species have been squeezed. The wild mammal estimates mostly come from the IUCN red list which skews towards expert assessments of more threatened spp., and the numbers won't be "right" for several reasons (these estimates are hard, and the data are highly limiting). But it seems solid that humans and livestock substantially outweigh wild mammals.
There's a good critique of the paper (arguing that Greenspoon et al. underestimate biomass by a factor of 5.5) by Santini et al. here https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2308958121 and a reply from the Greenspoon authors pointing out why the methods used in the critique are also (differently) flawed: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2316314121
MIGRATORY SPECIES / WILDLIFE CONNECTIVITY:
The new State of the World's Migratory Species report (UNEP-WCMC 2024) has an update on how the 1,189 migratory species in CMS are doing. Almost half (44%) are in decline (with 22% at risk of extinction, including 97% of listed fish spp), 1/3 are stable, and the rest are split between improving and unknown. The report also notes that 399 spp not even listed in CMS (including ~200 fish spp, ~150 bird spp, and ) are at risk (from critically endangered to near threatened). See Fig 2.10b for an overview of which migratory species CMS leaves out (including horseshoe crabs!) and 2.10c for the subset at risk. Unsurprisingly the main threats are habitat loss (along w/ degradation and fragmentation) and overexploitation (hunting and fishing). Recommendations on page ix-xi are familiar and unsurprising (albeit important). There's a blog about this paper with key highlights at: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/landmark-un-report-worlds-migratory-species-animals-are-decline-and
Littlefield et al. 2024 (I'm a minor author) examines how wildlife road crossings can be beneficial to help species adapt to climate change. We recommend that when siting crossings we should consider a) current wildlife movements, AND expected short-term and long-term shifts in species range and migrations due to b) climate change AND c) human land use change (expansion of housing, ag, etc.). We show how doing this was accomplished for elk in Colorado.
For this to work well, diversion fencing is important to channel wildlife to crossings, and avoiding future fragmentation is key. The paper is open access. There's a press release for the paper here: https://fish.freeshell.org/publications/Littlefield2024-PressRelease.pdf
POLLINATORS:
Li et al. 2024 is a methods paper about using land cover data to predict floral resource availability for pollinators. I'm an author despite minimal input; the lead author based this on work by the last author, who I provided some guidance to when he was a postdoc. There are a few potentially interesting things in here. 1) Most pollinators don't make much honey, so their populations are limited by the time of year w/ the least food available (pollen and nectar). The methods here help you figure out those bottlenecks if you want to target habitat restoration to boost pollinator populations. 2) Plants vary a lot in how much nectar and pollen they make. Not every crop makes flowers that feed pollinators (likely obvious, but some crops and cover crops are harvested or terminated before flowering, and wind-pollinated plants don't have nectar). Trees produce a ton of nectar and pollen. 3) The paper looked at two different ways to map land cover, and surprisingly the simpler approach worked as well (similar error levels)! It's a good reminder to always question whether you need more complexity and accuracy. If you just have a garden and want more bees and other pollinators, this blog post I wrote may help: https://sciencejon.blogspot.com/2024/05/new-paper-on-mapping-pollinator.html
WETLANDS:
The latest report on the status of wetlands in the US (excluding AK and HI) is a bummer but has some useful info. Key summaries are in Fig 9 and Table 2, but in short on net 221,000 acres of wetlands were converted, mostly to ag and tree plantations followed by housing developments. But that net change hides that fact that we actually lost 670,000 acres of vegetated wetlands, with non-vegetated wetlands like ponds, sandbars, and mudflats increasing (but NOT providing nearly as much ecological value). The report calls for more coordination to achieve no net loss of wetlands, to update and improve the National Wetlands Inventory, develop and implement better wetland conservation and management (duh), and commit to long-term monitoring and adaptive management.
REFERENCES:
Balch, J. K., Iglesias, V., Mahood, A. L., Cook, M. C., Amaral, C., DeCastro, A., Leyk, S., McIntosh, T. L., Nagy, R. C., St. Denis, L., Tuff, T., Verleye, E., Williams, A. P., & Kolden, C. A. (2024). The fastest-growing and most destructive fires in the US (2001 to 2020). Science, 386(6720), 425–431. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adk5737
Brisco, E., Kulinskaya, E., & Koricheva, J. (2023). Assessment of temporal instability in the applied ecology and conservation evidence base. Research Synthesis Methods, November, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1691
Flitcroft, R. L., Abell, R., Harrison, I., Arismendi, I., & Penaluna, B. E. (2023). Making global targets local for freshwater protection. Nature Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01193-7
George, M. M., Platts, S. V., Berry, B. A., Miller, M. F., Carlock, A. M., Horton, T. M., & George, M. H. (2024). Effect of SeaFeed, a canola oil infused with Asparagopsis armata , on methane emissions, animal health, performance, and carcass characteristics of Angus feedlot cattle. Translational Animal Science, 8(August). https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txae116
Greenspoon, L., Krieger, E., Sender, R., Rosenberg, Y., Bar-On, Y. M., Moran, U., Antman, T., Meiri, S., Roll, U., Noor, E., & Milo, R. (2023). The global biomass of wild mammals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(10), 2017. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2204892120
REPLY AND COUNTER-REPLY TO GREENSPOON:
- Santini, L., Berzaghi, F., & Benítez-López, A. (2024). Total population reports are ill-suited for global biomass estimation of wild animals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(4), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2308958121
- Greenspoon, L., Rosenberg, Y., Meiri, S., Roll, U., Noor, E., & Milo, R. (2024). Reply to Santini et al.: Total population reports are necessary for global biomass estimation of wild mammals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 121(4), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2316314121
Jasechko, S., Seybold, H., Perrone, D., Fan, Y., Shamsudduha, M., Taylor, R. G., Fallatah, O., & Kirchner, J. W. (2024). Rapid groundwater decline and some cases of recovery in aquifers globally. Nature, 625(7996), 715–721. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06879-8
Lang, M. W., Ingebritsen, J. C., & Griffin, R. K. (2024). Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 2009 to 2019. U.S. Department of the Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 43 pp. https://www.fws.gov/project/2019-wetlands-status-and-trends-report
Langhammer, P. F., Bull, J. W., Bicknell, J. E., Oakley, J. L., Brown, M. H., Bruford, M. W., Butchart, S. H. M., Carr, J. A., Church, D., Cooney, R., Cutajar, S., Foden, W., Foster, M. N., Gascon, C., Geldmann, J., Genovesi, P., Hoffmann, M., Howard-McCombe, J., Lewis, T., … Brooks, T. M. (2024). The positive impact of conservation action. Science, 384(6694), 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adj6598
Li, K., Fisher, J., Power, A., & Iverson, A. (2024). A map of pollinator floral resource habitats in the agricultural landscape of Central New York. One Ecosystem, 9. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.9.e118634
Littlefield, C. E., Suraci, J. P., Kintsch, J., Callahan, R., Cramer, P., Cross, M. S., Dickson, B. G., Duncan, L. A., Fisher, J. R., Freeman, P. T., Seidler, R., Wearn, A., Andrews, K. M., Brocki, M., Dodd, N., Gagnon, J., Johnson, A., Krosby, M., Skroch, M., & Sutherland, R. (2024). Evaluating and elevating the role of wildlife road crossings in climate adaptation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2816
Pivello, V. R., Vieira, I., Christianini, A. V., Ribeiro, D. B., da Silva Menezes, L., Berlinck, C. N., Melo, F. P. L., Marengo, J. A., Tornquist, C. G., Tomas, W. M., & Overbeck, G. E. (2021). Understanding Brazil’s catastrophic fires: Causes, consequences and policy needed to prevent future tragedies. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, 19(3), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2021.06.005
Sutherland, W. J., Bennett, C., Brotherton, P. N. M., Butchart, S. H. M., Butterworth, H. M., Clarke, S. J., Esmail, N., Fleishman, E., Gaston, K. J., Herbert-Read, J. E., Hughes, A. C., James, J., Kaartokallio, H., Le Roux, X., Lickorish, F. A., Newport, S., Palardy, J. E., Pearce-Higgins, J. W., Peck, L. S., … Thornton, A. (2024). A horizon scan of global biological conservation issues for 2024. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 39(1), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2023.11.001
Trencher, G., Nick, S., Carlson, J., & Johnson, M. (2024). Demand for low-quality offsets by major companies undermines climate integrity of the voluntary carbon market. Nature Communications, 15(1), 6863. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-51151-w
UNEP-WCMC, 2024. State of the World’s Migratory Species. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
https://www.cms.int/en/publication/state-worlds-migratory-species-report
Wang, H., Liu, J., Klaar, M., Chen, A., Gudmundsson, L., & Holden, J. (2024). Anthropogenic climate change has influenced global river flow seasonality. Science, 383(6686), 1009–1014. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adi9501
Sincerely,
Jon
p.s. I inherited that Christmas sweater from my dad, and typically only pull it out once a year for a Christmas sing-along
