By Laura Husband

Four of the 10 worst countries for environmental impact are from the American continent, a new study has found.

The study, carried out at the University of Adelaide, in Australia awarded Brazil and the US first and second place for being the least environmentally friendly.

Ecology expert Corey Bradshaw from Adelaide’s Environment Institute gave countries environmental rankings based on how much they had damaged the environment.

Fisheries were one of seven factors measured that made Brazil the least environmentally friendly country.

The countries were rated using seven factors: Natural forest loss, habitat conversion, fisheries, fertiliser use, water pollution, carbon emissions from land use and threat to species.

These indicators were chosen because there is a lot of evidence to support that they affect ecosystems and quality of life, explained Bradshaw.

From the American continent, Brazil, the US, Mexico and Peru were all listed in the 10 worst countries category along with China, Indonesia, Japan, India, Russia and Australia.

The total wealth of each country was found to be the most important driver of environmental impact.

The top 10 for being most environmentally friendly were, surprisingly, some of the least wealthy countries, mainly from the Caribbean and Africa: Antigua and Barbuda, St Lucia, Grenada, Djibouti, Barbados, Swaziland, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Gambia, St Kitts and Nevis and Tonga.

“There is a theory that as wealth increases, nations have more access to clean technology and become more environmentally aware so that the environmental impact starts to decline. This theory was not supported by our study,” explained Bradshaw.

Related posts:

1. Indira Zhakipova on the environment: it is up to journalists to make things happen
2. Biofuel deal worries environmentalists
3. Frogspawn levels under threat from changing temperatures

By Paul Rodgers

Most creatures that use sound do so for communication, to find a mate, warn off rivals or warn of predators. Bats, and a few other creatures, such as cetaceans, use it differently. Their calls are designed to locate obstacles, prey and each other in space. Or so scientists thought.

Bats can, it turns out, distinguish between calls made by members of their own species and others, even those that are closely related and inhabit similar ecological niches, according to research by scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology (previously part of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society, which was renamed in honour of the quantum physicist after the Second World War).

Horseshoe bats can hear foreign accents.

Bats living in similar environments tend to use similar echolocation calls to orient themselves and search for food. But in a paper in this month’s American Naturalist, Maike Schuchmann and Bjorn Siemers at the institute’s facility in Seewiesen, Austria, were able to prove that echolocation calls carry more information than assumed.

Horseshoe bat species in Bulgaria were used for the behavioural experiments, in which scientists played the calls of three different species through ultrasonic speakers and analysed the animal’s responses. Both the Bulgarian bat species showed signs of being able to distinguish the calls, although the effect was clearer with calls that were in a clearly separate frequency band from their own.

Siemers reasoned that it would be advantageous for bats to get out of the way of competitively superior species in hunting grounds. And if the other species roosted in similar roosting requirements, identifying them could help the bats find new shelters. The institute’s scientists hope to do follow-up experiments to see whether either of these hypotheses explains the new-found ability.

Related posts:

1. Want to discover a new species? Try your local pond
2. Environmental roundup
3. Is the truth out there?

By Grace Howe

Natural historian and filmmaker Keith Scholey is producing three full length wildlife documentaries that will examine the behaviour of cheetahs, tigers, and lions in their natural habitat.

The first film, due for release in America this autumn, is entitled ‘Big Cats’. Five years in the making, it was made primarily using the new Sony F23 camera, which is discreet and advanced enough to cause minimal interference in any animal’s environment. The camera can be left for days in the wild without needing attendance or interruption from human hands.

This technology provided a unique opportunity for capturing animals in a gathered community. The film is an attempt to view these creatures in an entirely new way, by allowing their natural behaviour and interaction with each other to create a storyline and give phrasing and drama to the piece, with little influence or explanatory commentary from the BBC editing team.

Cheetah with impala kill

I spoke to Keith, co-producer of the Blue Planet and Planet Earth series, about the idea behind this new film and how the production has developed since the final rushes were gathered.

“Keith, What inspired you to become a filmmaker instead of sticking to science on paper? You began this journey with a biology degree!”

“In a rather geek-ish way, the subject just obsessed me, I wanted everyone to be interested in what I was interested in, and excited by the same sights. During travelling and in my first jobs in wildlife documentary, I felt enormously privileged to view what I had done and intrigued by the possibilities of sharing it.”

“In this film, you have attempted to capture the essence of how the Masai-Mara lions and cheetahs interact with each other. It is based in Kenya, and offers a view a to how these big cats live and function in their own life journey, and to create a feature film instead of an ‘informative documentary’ Why did you decide to film with this new objective?”

“We wanted to show these beautiful animals in an entirely new way. It is an attempt to explore how they live and communicate. That animals are aware of their life and their own life span is left to the side of most documentary explanation. This film is shot over two generations of each species, so there is the family line to follow.

I wanted to show that cats are aware, as we are, of preference, sadness, meanness, and character. The looks, the mood-changes, the treatment they give each other and the way they strive to survive. After four years of observation we realised that what we were seeing was moving, in a new way, a story of life as well as wild scene. I wanted to communicate that.”

“Films that create an affinity with animals can help to ensure that we prioritise conserving them. Did you have this objective in mind when you made the film?”

“No! We want to take the viewers completely away from themselves. We will not have a voice-over commentary as yet, and we are undecided on where to put necessary explanation, but it is not about human intelligence. What we learnt from it was the clear and gruesome methods of survival. The ruthlessness, determination, affection, love, fear. That is how we found the story line, in the interaction, the strong and weak characters and how they live together.

Particularly fascinating to me was how the female cheetahs are driven to protect their young and fend for themselves in the treacherous environment with the lions. In other parts as with the blue whale young in Blue Planet, we see how and when the mother is driven to desert her young in her own effort to survive – how long it takes them to let the cub go. The film also compares the two challenges of living and breeding within a gang, and living as a solitary parent.”

“The things we expect to divide us from animals, the consciousness that they supposedly don’t have, the decision-making, liking and dislike, love and hatred, exists within any community.”

“All wildlife explanation is best when it increases compassion for animals. In many ways this film can teach human beings, not about their own lives or mind, but how most of what they do and respond to depends on survival and instinct, rather than intelligence. That is what I hope to achieve! We want to show that any animal community contains just as much of the complexities of human nature that we credit as being part of intellect and thought, and the human brain. Our study I believe showed similarities with the human relationships we form and the affiliations we value.”

“Since the earliest natural history documentary films, it has been very influential to include the human touch in some way, with music, commentary, or explanation. Natural scientists such as David Attenborough have set the example of always communicating not just the landscape, the place, the atmosphere, but their own affinity with the animals, which in turn moved people to understand the environment better and to understand animal similarities. Now you are moving away from this as a production team, what will be the biggest hurdle to promoting your film?”

“We specifically aim to reach audiences that would never dream of watching a documentary on television! The time constraints of people’s lives allow for entertainment to be allocated, and it must be a promise to be entertainment, and a break from the routine. We hope that for America in particular they will respond brilliantly to something presented as a full story, with a storyline, and the Disney sponsorship ensures the kind of publicity environmental issues need if we hope to help our wildlife and planet. We had to say yes! I hope it will mean that the next generation get involved in animal conservation as we are.”

‘Big Cats’ will be release across America in September of this year.

By Smitha Peter

Recent studies by Natural England and the European Red List reveal that biodiversity is facing serious threats due to loss of habitat.

According to the first study, 480 of the 492 observed species have gone extinct in the past two centuries. The second one says that almost one-third of butterfly species are in decline. Both reports view industrial agriculture as a major factor, along with hunting, pollution and climate change.

Golden eagle - one of the lost species. Image credit: J. Glover - Atlanta, Georgia

“Mixed farming or rotational farming is the way forward. Diversity is both a measure of increasing production and conservation of nature,” said environmentalist Dr Vandana Shiva in her speech ‘Perils of the industrial agricultural system’ at the Gaia Foundation in London.

She added that small-scale farming is the most sustainable way for agricultural production.
The European Red List report suggests that the shift from traditional farming methods have especially hit insect species like butterflies. “New agricultural techniques provide little or no space for wild plants and flowers to grow. Moreover, it is based on monoculture, where the plant varieties cultivated are often not butterfly friendly,” says Malcolm Bridge from Butterfly Conservation.

Forest cleared for soybean cultivation. Image credit: Marcelo R. Zak

A study by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) on soil organisms also had interesting results. It stated that although the number of soil bugs increased by 47 per cent in the past 10 years, diversity of bugs has decreased by 11 per cent.

However, scientists warn that further research is needed to be sure of the trend, as the effect of land management, pollution and climate change on soil bugs is not clearly known. The study also observed that there is no significant increase in the number of bugs in arable land, probably due to the regular disruption of their habitat. Diversity of organisms helps the soil cope with pollution and changing weather conditions.

Industrial agriculture is designed to obtain maximum output from minimum input by utilising technological advancements. Production of cheap and plentiful food is viewed as its main benefit.

Related posts:

1. Lost butterflies of England
2. Want to discover a new species? Try your local pond
3. Environmental roundup

By Louis Jagger

Over the last few months, an unusual website has attracted thousands of viewers to discover more about one of the world’s most beautiful birds – the barn owl.

The website, Sportsman’s Paradise Online, has set up a live internet feed inside a barn owl nesting box. Viewers have watched the chicks grow from indiscriminately cute bundles of open-mouthed hunger into their current, almost fully-fledged state.

A barn owl

Another section of the website offers information about barn owls and the testimony of those who set up the camera, in San Marcos, California. Given the 59.000 Facebook shares, 4,000+ comments and 1,195 retweets, it’s safe to say that these owls have touched internet viewers in a way that few organised nature documentaries could have done.

And this nest isn’t the only one being transmitted freely across the internet. The Franklin Institute Hawk Nest cam is currently broadcasting on Ustream with a very young brood of red-tailed hawk chicks, a live chatbox full of enthused bird-lovers, and that all-important link containing more information about The Franklin Institute and its nest-observing project.

Quite what it is about birds of prey which so captures the imagination is up for debate, but on cuteness alone these unwitting internet superstars could charm their way into anyone’s precious internet routine. One might argue that this is an invasion of privacy, but as the birds are unaware of the camera, and grow up normally, it ought to be seen as an opportunity for regular people with a passing ornithological interest to inform and educate themselves upon the mysteries of avian youth. The joy of watching a helpless ball of down grow into a powerful, ruthless winged predator, live on your laptop screen, is a unique experience to say in the least.

And if you’re especially interested in this on-demand nature-viewing, the Sportsman’s Paradise Online site has a link to several other live wildlife cameras you can explore…

By Grace Howe

A visit to your local duck-pond can present a few surprises now that new cross- breeds and non-domestic wildfowl have fully integrated themselves into British wetlands.

National Trust conservationists, who manage parks such as Osterley Park and the vast expanses of Hampstead Heath in London, are raising concerns about the number of species now vying for space and shelter within the diminishing lake and pond areas of Britain.

A mallard duck

Most commonly seen in wildfowl parks across London now is the large red South African mallard duck, a relation to our very common British mallard. Although the birds cause intrigue for onlookers, with their beautiful red, black and tawny markings, they are felt to cause a hazard when it comes to feeding time. The South African mallard is up to four times the size and three times the height of its British counterpart, with a neck and body length of a goose. It can also reach for food far quicker than any other species commonly seen and can move quickly on land – where our water-bound ducks have not yet adapted their waddling manner for, despite the competition. We are used to seeing and feeding the common African black duck and the Asian white–faced whistling duck, yet these birds have posed little threat as they require roughly the same space and maintenance as our domestic breed.

Conservationists believe that these new species have been breeding in Britain for nearly three years but have only recently produced a sustained population growth that enables them to infiltrate our local city parks and be seen by the public.

Anine Akhtar, head of nutrition at the Wildfowl and Wetlands centre in Barnes, commented that “the problem here is not about conserved areas, because here we can ensure that all species receive adequate care and food. But in unmanaged areas such as local ponds and council-owned parks, there is the threat that the larger birds will take over. They take over space, nutrition, and water space.”

When asked if these changes are attributable to global warming influences and changes to the British climate, he said: “It is more a result of travelling and smuggling birds unfortunately, although the warmer winters here have certainly changed how all species of plant and wildlife breed, even within the last ten years.”

If you see these birds around, make sure you’re looking out for their less glamorous cousins.

Related posts:

1. Want to discover a new species? Try your local pond
2. Industrial agriculture one of main causes for biodiversity loss
3. Environmental roundup

By Smitha Peter

According to United Nations Convention, every child has a right to not to go hungry and provision of free school meals is a way to address this problem. But how effective is the school meal program in UK at present? “More than one million children living in poverty don’t qualify for free school meals as per current policy and 39% of those who are eligible won’t take them,” said Professor Martin Caraher, Centre for Food Policy, City University in his lecture on the topic ‘Food Poverty and Inequality: The growth of hunger in the UK’.

Healthy school meals have the capacity to reduce dietary inequalities. Image credit: Henrique Dante de Almeida

Current policy excludes secondary school children from working house holds with a low income. This means around 60% of secondary students living in poor household are not eligible for free school meals. At the same time many children who are eligible won’t take it because of the issues related to stigma and availability of low priced unhealthy food.

The Low Income Diet and Nutrition Survey by Food Standard Agency reveal that children from low income families eat more fast food and processed meat than those from richer background. They often eat inadequate level of iron, folate and vitamin D.

The Survey also observed that 36% of low-income population cannot afford to eat balanced meals, 22% report reducing or skipping meals and 5% do not have enough money to eat for a full day. Local variation in food prices makes the existing situation worse.

Providing free school meals to all children from households earning below £20,000 a year would cost an extra £1.53 billion a year. However, it can reduce the cost of health related diseases and can increase work place productivity in long run. At present child poverty costs the health care system £2 billion a year.

Children currently eligible for free school meals:

1. Children whose parents are getting
   • Income support
   • Income-based jobseeker’s allowance
   • Income-related employment and supporters allowance
   • Support under part VI of immigration and asylum act
   • The guarantee credit of pension credit
2. Children whose parents are workless, with an annual income of £16,190 or less
3. Primary school children from working house hold with an income below £16,190

Children who are not eligible:

1. Secondary school children from working households with a low income
2. Primary school children whose parents have a household income over £16,190

Related posts:

1. Food additives: Interview with Prof. Martin Caraher
2. Organic Fairtrade: a jury on the double label

By Smitha Peter

Additives are used to improve the appearance and odour of processed food items. They also enhance shelf lives. Such additives include acids, antioxidants, flavour enhancers, preservatives and sweeteners. Their use has significantly increased alongside the popularity of processed produce in the past two centuries.

Food additives are often used to improve the taste and appearence of processed foods. Image credit: Valerio Capello

There has been significant controversy associated with the risk and benefits of additives. In this piece, Prof. Martin Caraher, of City University London’s Centre for Food Policy, express his views about food additives.

Related posts:

1. School meals in the UK

By Smitha Peter

A recent study by Natural England on threats to biodiversity revealed that the country is losing more than two animals and plants a year. A region-wise list of lost species of England published in the Guardian, based on the study; shows an interesting fact- six out of eight regions listed have lost a butterfly/moth species. This includes Marsh fritillary, Scotch argus and Chalkhill blue.

Marsh fritillary. Image credit: Julio Reis

The report warns that almost one third of the butterfly species across England is in decline. According to the European red list report for the European commission, intensive farming, climate change, forest fires and expansion of tourism are the major threats for the habitat.

“Many of the grass varieties cultivated for animal feeding are not butterfly friendly. The farming techniques based on monoculture with little plant diversity worsen the situation,” says Malcolm Bridge of Butterfly Conservation, one of the prominent insect conservation societies in Europe. Loss of grass land habitat has severely effected species like Marsh fritillary.

“It is difficult to reintroduce a butterfly species once its habitat is destroyed in a particular region. The butterfly colonies are usually located far apart. So even if the habitat is recreated, butterflies may not be able to travel back,” he added. Reintroduction of woodland butterflies like Pearl- bordered fritillary often faced this problem.

Wood white. Image credit: Clemens M. Brandstetter

Butterflies play an important role as pollinators in the ecosystem. They are often regarded as an indicator of a healthy environment. The population movement of butterflies are often analysed to get information about the changes in climatic conditions.

Here is some interesting information about the butterflies wiped out from different parts of England.

Yorkshire and Humberside/ East Anglia- Marsh fritillary butterfly

It is a charming butterfly with orange, brown and yellow chequered markings on wings. They live in colonies and occupy different types of habitat including hillsides, moor land, and meadows. The mating ritual of the Marsh fritillary is interesting. After mating, the male seals the genital opening of the female with a substance to prevent another male mating with her. They might be the first species discovered the use of ‘chastity belt’.

East midlands- Wood white butterfly

The Wood White is a delicate butterfly with a very slow flight. The males have a black spot at the tip of the forewings which is greatly reduced in the female. This butterfly lives in discrete colonies and can be found in wood lands and meadows.

West midlands- Chalkhill blue butterfly

Chalkhill blue. Image credit: www.entomart.be

The males are pale sky blue in colour, while females are chocolate brown. They live in groups and can found roosting communally in grass stems at hillsides. As the name suggest, they inhabit areas with chalk or lime rich soil. Food includes nectar from a variety of sources and minerals gathered from soil and animal droppings.

North West-Scarce crimson and gold moth

They are small in size with pink, yellow and grey shades in wings. The preferred habitat is costal dunes with plenty of wild thyme, the larval food plant. They are very active during warm weather, especially in June and August.

North East-Scotch argus butterfly

Scotch argus is a dark brown butterfly with a row of black eye spot on each wing. They are found in tall grass lands and are fond of sunshine. During sunny days males fly restlessly in search of a mate, while females spend their time basking. Their main food plant is blue moor grass.

Reference: http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk/index.php

Related posts:

1. Industrial agriculture one of main causes for biodiversity loss
2. Want to discover a new species? Try your local pond

By Jennifer Green

Marketed as a solution to environmental degradation and our dependence on peak oil, biofuels once appeared a promising ‘green’, renewable energy source. Research bodies worldwide published data supporting biofuel use, claiming they can reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

As a result, governments have subsidised a biofuel boom, providing tax incentives to drive a global expansion. The aim? To create thousands of jobs and reinvent the economy of the developing world. The Malaysian biofuel industry provides a model illustration of this, employing over 570,000 workers within its palm oil industry and racking up more than £12 billion export earnings last year.

Yet biofuels have become increasingly unpopular; with sceptics blaming the industry for jeopardising, what the Royal Society recently described as “one of this century’s key global challenges,” food security.

A bus that is powered by biofuel

It’s not surprising. Covering an eighth of Malaysia, oil-palm trees are cultivated on over 4.5 million hectares of land. But supply has grown slowly, while demand has soared. The result? A 70 per cent jump in oil prices last year, leaving locals unable to afford oil-based consumables.

The problem is not restricted to Malaysia. Few people dispute there is a global food crisis. In the three decades leading up to 2005, world food prices fell by three-quarters, according to the Economist food prices index. Yet from 2005 it took only three years for prices to rise by 75 per cent, with many crops reaching record highs in 2009.

As a result, violent protests have plagued many developing countries. In 2008, Haiti made headline news after food riots spread across the country. Most Haitians earn no more than $2 a day and struggled to feed themselves as the prices of rice and beans rose by 50 per cent.

And with the added concerns of climate change and a growing global demand for meat and dairy products, economists warn that prices are set to rise further.

As the situation deteriorates, the debate over what role biofuel expansion has played in accelerating price rises has intensified. In July 2009, the World Bank released a report blaming US and EU biofuel policies for causing between 70 and 75 per cent of food price escalation.

“Without the increase in biofuels, global wheat and maize stocks would not have declined appreciably and price increases due to other factors would have been moderate,” the report said.

However a paper titled ‘Evaluating biofuels’ written around the same time by Tim Searchinger, Princeton University’s agricultural specialist, criticised the degree to which biofuels are accused.

“Biofuel critics…have probably exaggerated,” he said. “Crop prices are a small fraction of the retail food prices paid in grocery stores, and an even smaller fraction in restaurants.”

Still, he accepts the increase has had a detrimental impact on developing countries, “particularly on the roughly one billion people who live on $1 per day or less and who are likely to be already chronically malnourished,” he said.

Biofuel demand has rocketed recently, with one third of US maize crops now grown to satisfy it. And this is set to rise further as the Government and transport sectors are pressured to reach ‘green energy’ targets and continue to finance the industry.

However at a ‘Food not Fuel’ demonstration held in London last year, protestors warned that biofuels made from food crops cannot provide a sustainable energy source as the world population grows and requires feeding.

They focused on the recent incorporation of bioenergy into transport sectors such as the aviation industry, deeming it an exploitation of the poor to support rich lifestyles.

“The aviation industry know they have their secret weapon growing somewhere in the poor world and that is biofuels,” says John Stewart, spokesperson for Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise. “Flying is largely a rich person’s game done at the expense of the poor. Land will be taken that is needed for food production in the poor world to grow biofuels.”

However the European Association for Bioindustries (EuropaBio) believes sceptics are concentrating on short-term disadvantages. As much of the developing world survives on agriculture, they defend biofuel production by taking into account the potential effects of climate change.

“Global warming could be considered more of a danger than biofuels,” it was stated in a report published by EuropaBio. “The development of biofuels will bring direct opportunities to developing countries because their production will create many local jobs,” it states.

Even though the biggest effects of biofuel expansion are felt in developing countries, the industry has also begun to revolutionise British farming. The National Farmers Union recognised the economic benefit of a UK farmer converting to biofuel production.

“The biofuels market allows farmers the opportunity to add value to crops that would otherwise be exported at minimum price,” they claim. “The additional production of high-protein feed also reduces the need for imports such as soya and maize from USA, Canada, Brazil and others.”

But the benefits of biofuel expansion could be limited to production. Food prices are now fuelling a rise in the average UK family’s shopping bill of £750 a year, taking its toll on low income families.

With an increasing proportion of land allocated to the production of biofuels it is easy to blame the industry for aggravating food insecurity. Yet biofuels have certainly served one purpose by revealing the fragility of our agricultural system.

The sheer number of farmers who have recently abandoned their crops and turned to biofuel production reveals the true extent of an economic hardship that may not have otherwise been exposed for years.

Whether or not biofuels have accelerated a food crisis, they have certainly highlighted the fact there is one. And now the correct treatment must be applied.

Related posts:

1. Biofuel deal worries environmentalists
2. Lack of climate change media coverage in Kyrgyzstan
3. COP15: a European challenge