The link below is to an article that looks at how to read trail maps.
Australia roared into 2020 as a land on fire. The human and property loss was staggering, but the damage to nature was equally hard to fathom. By the end of the fire season 18.6 million hectares of land was destroyed.
So what’s become of animal and plant survivors in the months since?
Click through below to explore the impact Australia’s summer of fires had on an already drought-ravaged landscape and the work being done to rescue and recover habitats.
The biggest killers of wildlife globally are unsustainable hunting and harvesting, and the conversion of huge swathes of natural habitat into farms, housing estates, roads and other industrial activities. There is little doubt that these threats are driving the current mass extinction crisis.
Yet our understanding of where these threats overlap with the locations of sensitive species has been poor. This limits our ability to target conservation efforts to the most important places.
In our new study, published today in Plos Biology, we mapped 15 of the most harmful human threats – including hunting and land clearing – within the locations of 5,457 threatened mammals, birds and amphibians globally.
We found that 1,237 species – a quarter of those assessed – are impacted by threats that cover more than 90% of their distributions. These species include many large, charismatic mammals such as lions and elephants. Most concerningly of all, we identified 395 species that are impacted by threats across 100% of their range.
Mapping the risks
We only mapped threats within a species location if those threats are known to specifically endanger that species. For example, the African lion is threatened by urbanisation, hunting and trapping, so we only quantified the overlap of those specific hazards for this species.
This allowed us to determine the parts of a species’ home range that are impacted by threats and, conversely, the parts that are free of threats and therefore serve as refuges.
We could then identify global hotspots of human impacts on threatened species, as well as “coolspots” where species are largely threat-free.
The fact that so many species face threats across almost all of their range has grave consequences. These species are likely to continue to decline and possibly die out in the impacted parts of their ranges. Completely impacted species certainly face extinction without targeted conservation action.
Conversely, we found more than 1,000 species that were not impacted by human threats at all. Although this is positive news, it is important to note that we have not mapped every possible threat, so our results likely underestimate the true impact. For example, we didn’t account for diseases, which are a major threat to amphibians, or climate change, which is a major threat to virtually all species.
Hotspots and coolspots
We produced the first global map of human impacts on threatened species by combining the parts of each species range that are exposed to threats.
The overwhelmingly dominant global hotspot for human impacts on threatened species is Southeast Asia.
This region contains the top five countries with the most threats to species.
These include Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, Indonesia and Myanmar.
The most impacted ecosystems include mangroves and tropical forests, which concerningly are home to the greatest diversity of life on Earth.
We also created a global map of coolspots by combining the parts of species ranges that are free from human threats. This map identifies the last vestiges of wild places where threatened species have shelter from the ravages of guns, snares and bulldozers. As such, these are crucial conservation strongholds.
Coolspots include parts of the Amazon rainforest, the Andes, the eastern Himalayas, and the forests of Liberia in West Africa.
In many places, coolspots are located near hotspots. This makes sense because in species-rich areas it is likely that many animals are impacted whereas many others are not, due to their varying sensitivity to different threats.
There is room for optimism because all the threats we map can be stopped by conservation action. But we need to make sure this action is directed to priority areas, and that it has enough financial and political support.
An obvious first step is to secure threat-free refuges for particular species, via actions such as protected areas, which are paramount for their survival.
To ensure the survival of highly impacted species with little or no access to refuges, “active threat management” is needed to open enough viable habitat for them to survive. For example, tiger numbers in Nepal have doubled since 2009, mainly as a result of targeted anti-poaching efforts.
Tackling threats and protecting refuges are complementary approaches that will be most effective if carried out simultaneously. Our study provides information that can help guide these efforts and help to make national and global conservation plans as successful as possible.
James Allan, Postdoctoral research fellow, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland; Christopher O’Bryan, PhD Candidate, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, and James Watson, Professor, The University of Queensland
What sort of life do you associate with Antarctica? Penguins? Seals? Whales?
Actually, life in Antarctic waters is much broader than this, and surprisingly diverse. Hidden under the cover of sea-ice for most of the year, and living in cold water near the seafloor, are thousands of unique and colourful species.
Our research has generated new techniques to map where these species live, and predict how this might change in the future.
Biodiversity is nature’s most valuable resource, and mapping how it is distributed is a crucial step in conserving life and ecosystems in Antarctica.
Surprises on the seafloor
The ocean surrounding the Antarctic continent is an unusual place. Here, water temperatures reach below freezing-point, and the ocean is covered in ice for most of the year.
While commonly known for its massive icebergs and iconic penguins, Antarctica’s best-kept secret lies on the seafloor far below the ocean surface. In this remote and isolated environment, a unique and diverse community of animals has evolved, half of which aren’t found anywhere else on the planet.
Colourful corals and sponges cover the seafloor, where rocks provide hard substrate for attachment. These creatures filter the water for microscopic algae that sink from the ocean surface during the highly productive summer season between December and March.
In turn, these habitat-forming animals provide the structure for all sorts of mobile animals, such as featherstars, seastars, crustaceans, sea spiders and giant isopods (marine equivalents of “slaters” or “woodlice”).
The Antarctic seafloor is also home to a unique group of fish that have evolved proteins to stop their blood from freezing.
Mapping biodiversity is hard
Biodiversity is a term that describes the variety of all life forms on Earth. The unprecedented rate of biodiversity loss is one of the biggest challenges of our time. And despite its remoteness, Antarctica’s biodiversity is not protected from human impact through climate change, pollution and fisheries.
Although scientists have broadly known about Antarctica’s unique marine biodiversity for some time, we still lack knowledge of where each species lives and where important hotspots of biodiversity are located. This is an issue because it hinders us from understanding how the ecosystem functions – and makes it hard to assess potential threats.
Why don’t we know more about the distribution of Antarctic marine species? Primarily, because sampling at the seafloor a few thousand metres below the surface is difficult and expensive, and the Antarctic continental shelf is vast and remote. It usually takes the Australian Icebreaker Aurora Australis ten days to reach the icy continent.
To make the most of the sparse and patchy biological data that we do have, in our research we take advantage of the fact that species usually have a set of preferred environmental conditions. We use the species’ relationship with their environment to build statistical models that predict where species are most likely to occur.
This allows us to map their distribution in places where we have no biological samples and only environmental data. Critically, until now important environmental factors that influence the distribution of seafloor species have been missing.
Using predictions to make a map
In a recent study, we were able to predictively map how much food from the ocean-surface was available for consumption by corals, sponges and other suspension feeders at the seafloor.
Although biological samples are still scarce, this allowed us to map the distribution of seafloor biodiversity in a region in East Antarctica with high accuracy.
Further, estimates of how and where the supply of food increased after the tip of a massive glacier broke off and changed ocean conditions in the region allowed us to predict where abundances of habitat forming fauna such as corals and sponges will increase in the future.
Antarctica is one of the few regions where the total biomass of seafloor animals is likely to increase in the future. Retreating ice-shelves increase the amount of suitable habitat available and allow more food to reach the seafloor.
For the first time in history, we now have the information, computational power and research capacity to map the distribution of life on the entire continental shelf around Antarctica, identify previously unknown hotspots of biodiversity, and assess how the unique biodiversity of the Antarctic will change into the future.
Kendall Jones, The University of Queensland; Alan Friedlander, University of Hawaii; Benjamin Halpern, University of California, Santa Barbara; Caitlin Kuempel, The University of Queensland; Carissa Klein, The University of Queensland; Hedley Grantham, The University of Queensland; Hugh Possingham, The University of Queensland; James Watson, The University of Queensland; Nicole Shumway, and Oscar Venter, University of Northern British Columbia
Just 13% of the world’s oceans are now free from intense human activities such as fishing, according to a new map of ocean wilderness areas.
Our research, published in the journal Current Biology, shows that only 55 million square km of the global ocean can still be classified as “wilderness”, out of a total of 500 million square km.
There is almost no wilderness left in coastal seas, where human activities are most intense. Much of the remaining marine wilderness is clustered around the poles or near remote Pacific island nations with low populations.
Humans rely on the ocean for food, livelihoods, and almost three-quarters of atmospheric oxygen. We use the ocean for the vast majority of global trade, and more than 2.8 billion people rely on seafood as an important protein source. It’s little wonder that more than eight in ten Australians live within 50km of the coast.
Earth’s ocean wilderness areas are home to unparalleled levels of marine life and are some of the only places where large predators are still found in historical numbers. Top predators such as sharks and tuna depend on these areas, as their slow reproduction rates make them particularly susceptible to decline even at mild levels of fishing.
Even the strictest, best-managed marine reserves cannot sustain the same levels of wildlife diversity as wilderness areas. This is either because reserves are too small, or because human activities in neighbouring areas impact wildlife as soon as they swim outside of reserve boundaries. According to our research, only 4.9% of marine wilderness is currently within marine protected areas.
There is evidence that wilderness areas are more resilient to rising sea temperatures and coral bleaching – stressors that cannot be halted without globally coordinated efforts to reduce emissions. These areas also give scientists a true baseline for system health, providing important information for restoring degraded marine ecosystems.
Threats to wilderness
Human impacts on marine ecosystems are becoming more intense and widespread
each year, threatening wilderness areas across the planet. Fishing is
now one of the most widespread activities by which humans harvest natural
resources. Industrial fishing covers 55% of the ocean, an area four times larger than is used for terrestrial agriculture. In many places, fishing has become so intense that large predators and charismatic species such as sea turtles have almost been wiped out.
Technological improvements have allowed humans to fish in the
farthest reaches of international waters. In the high Arctic, places that were once safe because of year-round ice cover are now open to fishing and shipping as warming seas melt the ice.
Even in nations with world-class fisheries management, such as Australia and the
United States, marine environments are being severely impacted by sediment and
nutrient runoff due to poor land management and deforestation. Sediment runoff onto the once pristine Great Barrier Reef is now five to ten times higher than historical levels, contributing to declining coral diversity and more frequent crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks, and reducing the resilience of reefs against climate change.
Can we save the last of the wild?
Marine wilderness is overlooked in both global and national conservation strategies, as these areas are often assumed to be free from threatening processes and are therefore not a priority for conservation efforts. Our results show that this is a myth – wilderness areas in the ocean and on land are being rapidly lost, and protecting what remains is crucial. The Arctic, once thought of as untouched, is now likely to see new shipping channels, fisheries, and mining operations as sea ice disappears.
Protecting wilderness will require a combination of national and international efforts, but the fundamental goal must be to curb the impacts of current threats such as commercial fishing, shipping, resource extraction, and land-based runoff.
In nations like Australia and Canada, which still have substantial wilderness remaining within their national waters, using marine protected areas or fishery management regulations to protect wilderness will be crucial. Because even low levels of human activity can severely impact vulnerable species such as sharks and tuna, these areas should be strictly protected and cannot allow activities like commercial fishing.
However, current government plans to almost halve the area of strict protection in the Australian marine reserve system do not bode well for the future of wilderness protection.
While protecting wilderness within national waters is legally straightforward,
preserving wilderness on the high seas will likely prove much more challenging, as no country has jurisdiction over these areas. One option may be to harness existing international and regional agreements, such as Regional Fisheries Management Organisations – international agencies formed by countries to manage shared fishing interests in a certain area. These organisations are already accustomed to set fishing limits, and have been used to close large areas of the high seas to damaging bottom-trawl fishing. An extension of their powers to create high seas conservation areas is certainly feasible, but this is likely to require substantial lobbying from member nations.
The need for improved high-seas management is also now being recognised by the international community, with the UN currently negotiating a “Paris Agreement for the Ocean” – a legally binding high-seas conservation treaty to be established under the existing Law of the Sea Convention. Australia, as a wealthy nation and a signatory to fishing agreements in the Pacific, Indian and Southern Oceans, has the potential to be a world leader in marine wilderness conservation if it so chooses.
Just like wilderness on land, pristine oceans are difficult to restore once lost. Our research should be a clarion call for immediate action to protect the world’s remaining wild oceans so that future generations can see the sea as it once was.
Kendall Jones, PhD candidate, Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, The University of Queensland; Alan Friedlander, Researcher, University of Hawaii; Benjamin Halpern, Professor, University of California, Santa Barbara; Caitlin Kuempel, PhD Candidate in Conservation Science, The University of Queensland; Carissa Klein, Postdoctoral research fellow in conservation biology, The University of Queensland; Hedley Grantham, Research Associate, The University of Queensland; Hugh Possingham, Professor, The University of Queensland; James Watson, Professor, The University of Queensland; Nicole Shumway, PhD Candidate, The University of Queensland, and Oscar Venter, Associate Professor and FRBC/West Fraser research chair, Ecosystem Science and Management Progam, University of Northern British Columbia
Scientists at the World Agroforestry Centre in Nairobi, Kenya, recently pioneered a new approach which uses satellite images and maps to show patterns linked to land use and cover change on a yearly basis. Though the technique was developed in Kenya, it can be used regionally and potentially across the world.
“Land use and cover change” are terms used by scientists to define changes to the earth’s surface. This can be due to natural causes or because of the way in which land is put to use by people. Land use refers to what’s being done on it, for example mechanised farming, while land cover refers to what is physically on the land, for example what crops are being grown.
What’s important about the new approach is that the maps consist of an array of both physical and human geographic data to explain changes. It can also be used in combination with large-scale climate models, for example to understand how changes in vegetation in East Africa might be affecting climate in other regions of Africa.
In Kenya’s case, the system mapped changes in agriculture and natural vegetation with information from over a 30-year period. Using a series of aerial photographic surveys – which could be used to distinguish specific crops or natural vegetation – and freely-available spatial data such as rainfall, and population density, interpreters were able to classify Kenya’s land use and cover change. They were then able to construct maps of this change on a yearly basis without extensive and costly field visits typically used when mapping change.
Understanding land use and cover change is important because they both affect how land responds to the environment. Many of the changes are human-induced – for example the way that people use the land can lead to habitat loss, increase the stress of life that the land supports, affect greenhouse gas emissions and storage, modify runoff and ground water storage, or alter the climate.
Deforestation, perhaps the most well-known type of land use and cover change, comes about primarily from agriculture and logging. It has an impact on the world’s climate because trees store huge amounts of carbon that would otherwise be in the air trapping heat. The absence of trees therefore contributes to global warming.
Deforestation also affects people locally, particularly in the global south. Forests help regulate rainfall and water storage, and the help maintain a high level of biodiversity.
Much of the global north has seen an increase in tree cover in recent years. But much of the global south continues to show declines due to population growth, weak institutions and other social and ecological factors.
To understand the drivers as well as the effects of deforestation, geographers use various tools that map the extent and density of tree cover. These include aerial photos, satellite images and other spatial data through time.
The World Agroforestry Centre’s approach takes this a number of steps further. It also uses demographic data, such as population density, which is often bypassed by scientists when mapping change.
The new approach suggests that physical drivers, like rainfall, may not be as important as previously thought.
Finally, the new technique provides a way forward for scientists interested in understanding what drives land use and cover change. It allows them to look at how this process interacts with processes like climate change over large areas and long periods of time.
From a scientific perspective, this helps us better to understand the environment and how humans may be modifying it. This in turn will help those designing land management strategies.
Our research in Kenya shows that the most important predictor of land use and cover change was population density. Kenya is part of the East African Horn region. Like many other countries in Africa, its population is growing rapidly and is largely devoted to rain-fed subsistence agriculture and pastoralism.
Population growth occurred more rapidly in fertile areas, so the conversion of natural vegetation to agriculture was much higher. In less fertile areas, population growth was much slower, so the conversion was less.
Kenyan farmers and pastoralists are largely unable to acquire new land and are instead forced to intensify their practices on subdivided land.
We were able to detect that as the number of people per square kilometre increased, the amount of natural vegetation declined, because it was being replaced by farm or grazing land.
Climate predictors, such as rainfall and air temperature, were also correlated with the conversion of natural vegetation to agriculture, but less so compared to population density.
As seen in the Kenya case, the growing demand for food in Africa must be met with effective land tenure reform. By mapping changes in our environment continuously over long time periods, farmers and policymakers can understand underlying mechanisms and explore opportunities for reform.
The link below is to a useful map featuring Australia’s World Heritage sites.
The ‘Waterfall Tour 2010’ is the name of the latest holiday/trip that I’m currently on. It’s not as well organised as my previous holiday around the state which came with a Google Map, Blog updates and photos, etc. However, this one will end up being fairly well represented. Already I have some content on the web and more will follow tonight – more photos and videos. I doubt that I will get everything ‘up to the minute’ as I did last time, as I expect most to be done in the aftermath of the actual trip.
I only decided this morning that I would go on this trip and then left half an hour later – forming the route of the trip as I went along. It is now fairly well formed in my head – I think.
When I finally get everything together, there should be content on Flickr (photos), YouTube (videos), Google Maps (map of the route), Blog posts on Kevin’s Walk on the Wild Side (my wilderness and travel Blog) and Kevin’s Daily (a Blog on which I post either a photo, video, link or quote each day), as well as content on my website at kevinswilderness.com . For Facebook and Twitter followers, you would already be getting updates from both Flickr and YouTube I think, as these sites are getting the photos and videos fairly quickly after they are ready. However, video preparation may take me a little longer now as well – I have a bit to edit and piece together.
Anyhow, as it comes together and is ready to share you can catch it all here on the Wild Side Blog and/or updates on progress in both Facebook and Twitter.
To keep you interested (perhaps), tomorrow I am probably going to see something like 4 or 5 waterfalls, if not more. I saw two today and 1 yesterday.
I am constantly looking at ways to improve the kevinswilderness.com website and add new content to it. With the success of the Google Map that was added to the page dealing with my recent road trip, I have decided to add Google Maps wherever they would prove useful – such as for locations, track routes, etc.
The first part of the site getting an overhaul with Google Maps in mind, is the Barrington Tops page. I am also adding new content to the page as I go. The Barrington Tops page is one of the biggest pages on my site, so the process is taking a bit of time. You will also find the planned itinerary for my backpacking camping holiday here as well as I move along with it.
Visit the page at: