Six on History: Geography and Science
panaritisp
Welcome back to Six on History
PS: If you like what you find on the "Six on History" blog, please share w/your contacts.
Click here for Detailed Search Help Thanks John Elfrank
"In the early months of the pandemic, usage of Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s eBird app to record bird sightings soared. Not only did watching birds prove particularly well-suited to social-distancing protocols but it also provided much-needed solace and a welcome escape from the chaos that engulfed the rest of our lives. Along with the increase in casual birders came a surge in backyard bird paraphernalia sales—from seed to feeders, and even to luxurious bird baths.
And yet, the birds we’ve come to love—and the ones we’re now talking about and watching in our backyards with renewed vigor—are in serious trouble. Since 1970, wild bird populations in North America have declined 30 percent, and we’ve lost more than 2.9 billion birds. Put differently, the alarming waves of avian losses mean that birds need us more than ever. Most distressing is the fact that birds are indicator species—canaries in the coal mine—and their dramatic plunge in numbers is a prelude to a larger environmental collapse. Birds have disappeared in every single biome, with grassland birds showing the sharpest drop, declining by more than 50 percent, or more than 700 million birds. Even the population of red-winged blackbirds, harbingers of spring in the northeast, has shrunk by more than 400 million.
The stark numbers must not be downplayed, but as author and environmentalist Melissa Harrison says, “If the only way we encounter nature is through guilt and fear, the danger is we just stop listening.” So how do we ensure that novice birders not only keep listening but also keep caring and fighting for the avian creatures they’ve grown to love during the pandemic?
The answer might lie in making birding more accessible to people of all skill levels. Let’s be honest—birding can be an intimidating enterprise. The lingo can feel esoteric, the optics-talk can be off-putting, the acronyms can seem like code-speak for a members-only club. Not to mention the traditional image of the white-man-of-a-certain-age-wearing-a-multipocketed-vest birder. And that’s saying nothing of the challenge of contending with lightning-quick warblers, many of whom change their plumage when they’re not breeding and thus become unrecognizable in the fall, or with LBJs—little brown jobs—the sparrows that all look identical to the untrained eye. And bird-song recognition is a whole other conundrum that—unless you happen to be preternaturally gifted in mnemonics—is a lifelong pursuit.
Rutter is enthusiastic about the unbelievable aspects of bird behavior. What could be cooler than “seeing a woodpecker bang its head against the tree and not get a headache because of its tongue that’s wrapped around the back of its brain?” Which begs the question of how to make those “mind-boggling, impressive facts” more accessible to a lay audience.
Celebrating Birds, a new interactive field guide published by Natalia Rojas and Ana Maria Martinez, the artist-duo behind the stunning aesthetic of Wingspan, the award-winning, best-selling board game that has taken the world by storm, also aims to reach a broader audience. The field guide features 181 iconic illustrations from the board game, coupled with natural history text supplied by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. “It’s by no means a comprehensive, specialized field guide,” Martinez told Sierra. In the spirit of the beloved Wingspan, which brought together an unusual cross-section of board game enthusiasts and birders, Celebrating Birds encourages readers to participate in a “bird observation game where one competes to gain the most points in three specific habitat categories.” Using the birds in the book as a guide, readers can play indoor and outdoor versions of the interactive game. And the hope? “To ignite that spark of curiosity” and entice people to go out into nature, learn more about birds, and marvel that they’ve been there—right in front of us—all this time.
Inside the hit game that's making hobby ornithologists out of gamers
There exists a misconception that in order to call yourself a birder, you must be accomplished, in a position to confidently distinguish a fall plumage blackpoll warbler from a bay-breasted. (Reader: It takes years of practice, and even then, one errs.)
We’re using power developed for nuclear weapons to power our probes. What happens when they run out?
"WITHIN MINUTES OF receiving a complaint from four Environmental Protection Agency whistleblowers in late June, an agency official shared the document with six EPA staffers, including at least one who was named in it, according to records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. The records — more than 1,000 pages of internal emails — also show that within 24 hours EPA officials sent the whistleblowers’ complaint to other staff members who had been named in it. Two days later, the named employees met to discuss it. The releases were not in keeping with the best practices of handling whistleblower complaints, according to several experts contacted by The Intercept, and may have undermined the goals of the staff scientists who filed it.
The scientists’ disclosure laid out allegations of corruption within the EPA’s New Chemicals Division and provided detailed evidence that managers and high-level agency officials had deliberately tampered with numerous chemical assessments, sometimes deleting hazards from them and altering their conclusions. The environmental group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, or PEER, which is representing the whistleblowers, submitted the complaint to Michal Freedhoff, the assistant administrator of the EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, the office that contains the New Chemicals Division, as well as to the EPA inspector general, Rep. Ro Khanna, and The Intercept. ... "
"In 1969, an undergrad working a summer job in Oregon's Willamette National Forest heard a strange hooting coming from the woods—sort of like a dog's bark. He made the same sound back. The creature responded. After a few nights of this back-and-forth, a pair of owls flew down and landed in front of his cabin.
The student, Eric Forsman, learned that Strix occidentalis—the spotted owl—was an enigma. There was no scientific record of where it nested, what it ate, or really anything about it. He began driving down old logging roads, calling into the forest. Sometimes he would look up and see one following him through the woods as though it was checking up on him. His 1975 master's thesis noted that he found the owls almost exclusively in old-growth coniferous forests.
A 1981 US Forest Service report concluded that if logging on Forest Service land continued at its current rate, most of the old-growth national forest in the Pacific Northwest would be gone by 2020. Not everyone saw that as a bad thing. The Forest Service was, after all, part of the Department of Agriculture; many forest managers saw trees as a crop and felt that their job was to harvest as much wood as possible.
If the temperate rainforests of the Pacific Northwest were replaced with tree plantations, many species other than spotted owls—including salmon, elk, woodpeckers, and bats—would be devastated. But because of the research done by Forsman and other scientists, the data for the spotted owl was the most conclusive: If the old-growth forest disappeared, or even if it became fragmented, the owl would become extinct.
Since the Forest Service's own rules required it to manage the forests in ways that didn't lead to vertebrate extinctions, the spotted owl in 1989 began starring in legal challenges to agency logging plans. Ultimately, a judge threatened to bring logging in Pacific Northwest old-growth forests to an abrupt halt unless the Forest Service came up with a management plan that would not lead to the spotted owl's demise. The old growth got protected, and the spotted owl with it.
Despite this, the spotted owl's numbers are declining, possibly because of the salvage logging that is allowed in the wake of wildfires and definitely as a result of barred owls muscling into their territory. (Spotted owls may prove better at protecting the forest than the forest is at protecting them.) But, while a lot of terrible things happened in 2020, the future laid out in a report 40 years earlier did not come to pass, in part because an owl heard a stranger call in the woods and answered."
This article appeared in the Fall quarterly edition with the headline "The Phantom Hoot."
Did You Know?
Spotted owls do not build nests. They prefer old raptor or squirrel nests, or a nice hole in a tree.
Wildfires are not a factor in the spotted owl's decline, which suggests that the owls evolved with (and are still adapted to) forest fires.
"This year marks the 100th anniversary of the Second International Eugenics Congress—one of a series that took place between the years of 1912 and 1932 where global leaders in academia, policy, and medicine came together to advance their view of humanity. At this time, eugenics was a new branch of scientific inquiry that advanced the notion that some human groups are superior to others and that, ultimately, the inferior groups ought to be eliminated from the population through various means. It was at this second gathering—held at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City—that a political program centered around “eliminating the unfit” and encouraging reproduction only amongst particular populations was articulated on the global stage and operationalized in policy. Eugenics would be leveraged to give a host of oppressive policies like anti-miscegenation and forced sterilization laws a veneer of scientific legitimacy. In connection with these events, a number of parallel practices surrounding immigration and even intelligence testing gained increasing currency, leaving an enduring mark on a wide variety of peoples and societies around the world.
Despite the emphasis of this particular conference on New England’s history, its content will be relevant to people who live and teach beyond the six New England states. Among the themes that will be addressed are the role of eugenic thinking in research at Harvard and Yale Universities, including Harvard’s medical school and museums. Due to the roles of elite institutions like Harvard and Yale in shaping prevailing understandings of scientific truth beyond their respective campuses, this New England-focused conference has implications for people around the world.
Alongside this three-part conference in New England, members of this network are also offering a free virtual conference titled Dismantling Eugenics: A Convening from September 26th through October 2nd. Sponsored by NYC-adjacent Rutgers University, this event is meant to act as a “counter-centennial” to the Second International Eugenics Congress that took place in New York City one hundred years ago. Additional events are also planned in countries including England, France, Poland, and Japan later this fall."
Facing History and Ourselves invites educators to dive into these free educational opportunities this year and then use our case study Race and Membership in American History: The Eugenics Movement to bring this important history into the classroom.
"In the summer of 1942, Ed Wilson, age thirteen, decided that it was time to get serious about research. He had already determined that he wanted to be an entomologist, a choice made partly out of interest and partly out of injury. As a child, he’d been fascinated with marine life. One day, he jerked too hard on a fish he caught, and one of its needlelike spines lodged in his right eye. The lens had to be removed, and, following the surgery, to see something clearly he needed to hold it up near his face. Insects were just about the only animals that submitted to this treatment.
That summer, Wilson was living with his parents in Mobile, Alabama, in a run-down house that had been built by his great-grandfather. He resolved to survey every species of ant that lived in an overgrown lot next door. This proved to be quick work, as there were only four species. But one of them turned out to be, as Wilson put it nearly eighty years later, “the find of a lifetime—or at least of a boyhood.” It was a species that Wilson had never seen before; nor, it seems, had anyone else north of Brazil.
That species is now known formally as Solenopsis invicta and informally as the red imported fire ant. Native to South America, the creature has, from a human perspective, many undesirable characteristics. Its sting produces first a burning sensation—hence the name—and then a smallpox-like pustule. It has a voracious appetite and will consume anything from tree bark to termites to the seeds of crops like wheat and sorghum. Red imported fire ants have been known to kill fledgling birds, young sea turtles, and even, on occasion, baby deer. They construct rigid mounds that damage harvesting equipment. When a colony is disturbed, hundreds, even thousands of ants are dispatched, more or less instantaneously, to attack the intruder. Wilson once stuck his arm into one of these mounds and described the pain as “immediate and unbearable.” As he observed to his companions, “It was as though I had poured kerosene on my hand and lit it.”
Red imported fire ants were, almost certainly, introduced into the United States in cargo unloaded at the port of Mobile. When Wilson conducted his survey of the vacant lot, they had probably been in the city for several years but hadn’t ventured very far. This soon changed. The ants began to spread in a classic bull’s-eye pattern. In 1949, while Wilson was an undergraduate at the University of Alabama, he was hired by the state’s Department of Conservation to conduct a study of Solenopsis invicta. Since no one knew much about the species, the teen-age enthusiast counted as an expert. Wilson found that the ants had already pushed west into Mississippi and east into Florida. He was, he later recalled, “exhilarated” by his first professional gig, which gave him the self-confidence to pursue his insect-driven dreams.
By 1953, the red imported fire ant had spread as far north as Tennessee and as far west as Texas, and the so-called Fire Ant Wars had begun. In an early skirmish, the state of Mississippi provided farmers with chlordane, an indiscriminate, organochlorine pesticide long since banned. It made little difference. Next, the U.S. Department of Agriculture embarked on a campaign to spray heptachlor and dieldrin—two similar insecticides that are also now banned—over millions of acres of farmland. The campaign killed countless wild birds, along with vast numbers of fish, cows, cats, and dogs. The ants kept marching on. (“The research basis of this plan was minimal, to put it mildly,” Walter R. Tschinkel, an entomologist at Florida State University, has observed.) Undaunted, the U.S.D.A. launched itself into a new battle, this time claiming that it was going to eliminate the ants entirely, using Mirex, yet another since-banned organochlorine. In the late nineteen-sixties, more than fourteen million acres were sprayed with Mirex, which is a potent endocrine disrupter. The effort appears to have had the perverse effect of helping Solenopsis invicta spread, by exterminating any native ants that might have stood in its way.
As the U.S.D.A. was raining down destruction, Wilson’s career was taking off. He received a Ph.D. from Harvard and was offered a position on the university’s biology faculty. The job was supposed to be temporary, but by the time he was twenty-nine he had been granted tenure.
Wilson thought of himself as a naturalist in the venerable tradition of Joseph Banks, the English botanist who sailed with Captain Cook in 1768. Wilson loved to explore places no entomologist had surveyed before, and once spent ten months collecting ants from New Caledonia to Sri Lanka. But he was fated to follow a different path. Wilson became a professional biologist just as it was becoming clear that the biosphere was unravelling. Though he resisted the knowledge at first, later he would become perhaps the most important chronicler of this crisis—the nation’s first great post-naturalist.
Wilson is now ninety-two and lives in a retirement community in Lexington, Massachusetts. He’s the subject of a new biography, “Scientist: E. O. Wilson: A Life in Nature” (Doubleday), by the journalist Richard Rhodes. Rhodes, who’s the author of more than twenty books, including “The Making of the Atomic Bomb,” interviewed his subject several times before covid hit and they had to switch to the phone. During one of Rhodes’s visits, he ran into an old friend, Victor McElheny, a journalist who lives in the same retirement community and, as it happened, had written a biography of Wilson’s nemesis, James Watson. “Small world,” Rhodes observes.
Wilson continued to collect ants. He spent a sabbatical conducting field work on Trinidad and Tobago and in Suriname. But he was, by his own description, fiercely ambitious, and he yearned to make a bigger contribution to science—a contribution more like Watson’s. One of the obstacles, he decided, was math; he had never even taken an upper-level course in the subject. At the age of thirty-two, he enrolled in calculus and sat awkwardly in the lecture room with some of the same undergraduates he was teaching.
Around this time, Wilson began collaborating with a Princeton professor named Robert MacArthur, who possessed all the mathematical skills he lacked. In 1967, the two published “The Theory of Island Biogeography.” The book was an effort to explain how island ecosystems come into being, a puzzle that had fascinated both Charles Darwin and his rival, Alfred Russel Wallace. It combined field observations with a tangle of equations to account for why larger islands harbor more species than smaller ones, and also why distant islands host fewer species than similar-sized islands situated near a mainland. Wilson and MacArthur proposed that the keys to understanding island biogeography are the rate at which new species immigrate to an island (or evolve there) and the rate at which established species wink out. “There’s nothing more romantic than biogeography,” Wilson once told the author David Quammen.
Though Wilson and MacArthur boldly labelled their work on island biogeography the theory, it was still just a theory. Wilson, the field biologist, was eager to test it on the ground. The difficulty lay in finding the right islands; for a rigorous experiment, these would have to be empty. Wilson hit on the idea of using clumps of mangrove north of Key West. The cays were so small—about forty feet in diameter—that the only breeding animals on them were insects, spiders, and, occasionally, wood lice. Wilson persuaded the National Park Service to let him fumigate six of them. Then one of his graduate students, Daniel Simberloff, who’s now a professor at the University of Tennessee, spent a year monitoring the “defaunated” cays. It was painstaking, mud-splattered work, but, at least as far as Wilson was concerned, it paid off. Those cays closest to the shore were quickly recolonized. Species diversity rose, and then levelled off, just as Wilson and MacArthur’s theory had predicted. On the sixth, more distant islet, recolonization took longer, and the eventual number of resident species was lower—more confirmation. Though some of the details of “The Theory of Island Biogeography” have since been discarded, it’s still considered a classic. A paper that appeared on the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary noted that it remains one of the world’s “most influential texts on ecology and evolution.”
As many of Wilson’s colleagues soon realized, the significance of the theory extended well beyond actual islands. Through logging and mining and generalized sprawl, the world was increasingly being cut up into “islands” of habitat. The smaller and more isolated these islands, be they patches of forest or tundra or grassland, the fewer species they would ultimately contain. Wilson had moved on to new research questions, and initially didn’t concern himself much with the implications of his own work. When the first surveys of deforestation in the Amazon appeared, though, he was, in his words, “tipped into active engagement.” In an article in Scientific American, in 1989, he combined data on deforestation with the predictions of his and MacArthur’s theory to estimate that as many as six thousand species a year were being consigned to oblivion. “That in turn is on the order of 10,000 times greater than the naturally occurring background extinction rate that existed prior to the appearance of human beings,” he wrote.
The same year that Wilson published his article in Scientific American, a group of insect fanciers installed what are known as malaise traps in several nature reserves in Germany. Malaise traps look like tents that have blown over on their sides, and they’re designed to capture virtually anything that flies into them. The group, the Krefeld Entomological Society, was interested in how insects were faring in different types of parks and protected areas. Every summer from then on, society members set out new traps, usually in different preserves. In 2013, they resampled some of the sites they’d originally sampled back in 1989. The contents of the traps were a fraction of what they’d been the first time around.
Over the next three summers, the group members resampled more sites. The results were similar. In 2017, with the help of some outside experts, they published a paper documenting a seventy-five-per-cent decline in “total flying insect biomass” in the areas surveyed. These areas were exactly the sort of habitat fragments that, according to Wilson’s theory, were destined to lose species. Nevertheless, the findings were shocking. In 2019, a second group of researchers published a more rigorous and extensive study, and its findings were even more dire. In the course of just the previous decade, grasslands in Germany had, on average, lost a third of their arthropod species and two-thirds of their arthropod biomass. (Terrestrial arthropods include spiders and centipedes in addition to insects.) In woodlands, the number of arthropod species had dropped by more than a third, and biomass by forty per cent. “This is frightening” is how one of the paper’s authors, Wolfgang Weisser, a biologist at the Technical University of Munich, put it.
In the years since, many more papers have appeared with comparable findings. Significant drops have been found in mayfly populations in the American Midwest, butterfly numbers in the Sierra Nevadas, and caterpillar diversity in northern Costa Rica. While many species appear to be doing just fine—for instance, the spotted lanternfly, an invasive species from Asia, which was first detected in Pennsylvania around 2014, and has since spread to at least ten other states, including New York—there is, as was noted in the introduction to a recent special issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences devoted to the state of the insect world, “ample cause for concern.”
Dave Goulson, an entomologist at the University of Sussex, is one of the experts the Krefeld group contacted to help make sense of its data. Like Wilson, Goulson could be described as a naturalist turned post-naturalist; he decided to study insects because he found them enthralling, and now he studies why they’re in trouble.
“I have watched clouds of birdwing butterflies sipping minerals from the muddy banks of a river in Borneo, and thousands of fireflies flashing their luminous bottoms in synchrony at night in the swamps of Thailand,” he writes in “Silent Earth: Averting the Insect Apocalypse” (Vintage). “I have had enormous fun. But I have been haunted by the knowledge that these creatures are in decline.”
Goulson bemoans the fact that many people consider insects to be pests. He wants readers to appreciate just how amazing they really are, and sets off his chapters with profiles of six-legged creatures. Males of many species of earwigs have two penises; if disturbed during mating, they snap off the one they’re using and beat a quick escape. Female jewel wasps sting their prey—large cockroaches—to induce a zombielike trance. Then they chew off the tips of the roaches’ antennae, use the stumps to guide the stupefied creatures back to their burrows, and lay their eggs inside them. Aging termites of the species Neocapritermes taracua develop pouches around their abdomens that are filled with copper-rich proteins. If an intruder is gaining the upper hand—or leg—in a fight, the elderly termites, in effect, blow themselves up to protect the colony, a practice known as suicidal altruism. The proteins react with chemicals stored in their salivary glands to become highly toxic compounds.
Insects are, of course, also vital. They’re by far the largest class of animals on Earth, with roughly a million named species and probably four times that many awaiting identification. (Robert May, an Australian scientist who helped develop the field of theoretical ecology, once noted, “To a first approximation, all species are insects.”) They support most terrestrial food chains, serve as the planet’s chief pollinators, and act as crucial decomposers. Goulson quotes Wilson’s observation: “If all mankind were to disappear, the world would regenerate back to the rich state of equilibrium that existed 10,000 years ago. If insects were to vanish, the environment would collapse into chaos.”
Like insects themselves, the threats to them are numerous and diverse. First, there’s habitat loss. Since Wilson’s article in Scientific American appeared, in 1989, South America has lost at least another three hundred million acres of tropical forest, and Southeast Asia has experienced similar losses. In places like the U.S. and Britain, which were deforested generations ago, the hedgerows and weedy patches that once provided refuge for insects are disappearing, owing to ever more intense agricultural practices. From an insect’s perspective, Goulson points out, even fertilizer use constitutes a form of habitat destruction. Fertilizer leaching out of fields fosters the growth of certain plants over others, and it’s these others that many insects depend on.
Climate change, light pollution, and introduced species present further dangers. The Varroa destructor mite evolved to live on (and consume the body fat of) Asian honeybees, which are smaller than their European counterparts. When European honeybees were imported to East Asia, the mites jumped hosts, and when European bees were taken to new places the mites hitched a ride. Varroa mites carry diseases like deformed-wing virus, and they’ve had a devastating effect on European honeybees, probably causing the loss of hundreds of thousands of colonies. In the U.S. (and in many other countries), European honeybees are treated as tiny livestock. They’re carted around to pollinate crops like apples and almonds, and their health is carefully monitored. But what’s been the impact of imported parasites and pathogens on other bees, not to mention ants, beetles, crickets, dragonflies, moths, thrips, and wasps? “For 99.9 per cent of insect species, we know simply nothing,” Goulson laments.
Then, there are pesticides. Since the Fire Ant Wars, which were prominently featured in Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring,” a great many have been taken off the market. New ones, however, have replaced them. Goulson is particularly concerned about a class of chemicals known as neonicotinoids. Neonics, as they’re often called, are, in some respects, even more toxic than Mirex and chlordane. They were first marketed in the nineteen-nineties; by 2010, more than three million pounds a year were being applied to crops in the U.S., and almost two hundred thousand pounds to crops in Great Britain. Neonics are water-soluble, which means they can leak into soils and ponds and potentially be taken up by other plants. There’s a good deal of controversy over the dangers they pose to non-target insects, especially bees; in 2018, the European Union found the evidence of harm compelling enough to ban three key neonics from outdoor use. (The chemicals continue to be applied in many European countries under “emergency authorizations.”) Meanwhile, in the rest of the world, including the U.S., their use continues apace. “Carson may have won a battle, but not the war,” Goulson observes.
In the last chapter of “Silent Earth,” Goulson offers dozens of actions we can take to “change our relationship with the small creatures that live all around us.” Some involve tending one’s own garden—for instance, trying “to reimagine ‘weeds’ such as dandelion as ‘wildflowers.’ ” Others are regional or national in scope: “plant streets and parks with flowering, native trees” or “introduce pesticide and fertilizer taxes.” The list is long enough that nearly everyone who wants to can find some recommendation to follow, but it’s heavily tilted toward reducing the use of pesticides, which, as “Silent Earth” makes clear, is just one of the many hazards insects are facing.
Wilson, who’s been called the “father of biodiversity,” has a bigger idea. In “Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life” (2016), he argues that the only way to preserve the world’s insects—and, for that matter, everything else—is to set aside fifty per cent of it in “inviolable reserves.” He arrived at the figure, he explains, using the principles of island biogeography; on fifty per cent of the globe, he calculates, roughly eighty-five per cent of the planet’s species could be saved. The task of preserving—or, in many places, restoring—half the world’s habitat is, he acknowledges, daunting. The alternative, though, is to grow dandelions while the world burns: “The only hope for the species still living is a human effort commensurate with the magnitude of the problem.” ♦
