Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

GoGreenNation News

Learn more about the issues presented in our films
Show Filters

Archaeologists Are Unraveling the Mysteries Behind Deep Pits Found Near Stonehenge

Based on a comprehensive study, researchers are now convinced the shafts were human-made, likely dug during the Late Neolithic period roughly 4,000 years ago

Archaeologists Are Unraveling the Mysteries Behind Deep Pits Found Near Stonehenge Based on a comprehensive study, researchers are now convinced the shafts were human-made, likely dug during the Late Neolithic period roughly 4,000 years ago Sarah Kuta - Daily Correspondent December 10, 2025 9:59 a.m. The pits are evenly spaced around a large circle. University of Bradford In 2020, archaeologists in the United Kingdom made a surprising discovery. At Durrington Walls, a large Neolithic henge not far from Stonehenge, they found more than a dozen large, deep pits buried under layers of loose clay. The pits are mysterious. Each one measures roughly 30 feet wide by 15 feet deep, and together they form a mile-wide circle around Durrington Walls and neighboring Woodhenge. They also appear to be linked with the much older Larkhill causewayed enclosure, built more than 1,000 years before Durrington Walls. For the last few years, archaeologists have been puzzling over their origins: Were they dug intentionally by human hands? Were they naturally occurring structures, like sinkholes? Or is there some other possible explanation for the existence of these colossal shafts? Quick fact: The purpose of Durrington Walls While Stonehenge is thought to have been a sacred place for ceremonies, Durrington Walls was a place where people actually lived. In a new paper published in the journal Internet Archaeology, archaeologists report that they have a much better understanding of the pits’ purpose, chronology and environmental setting. And, now, they are confident the shafts were made by humans. “They can’t be occurring naturally,” says lead author Vincent Gaffney, an archaeologist at the University of Bradford, to the Guardian’s Steven Morris. “It just can’t happen. We think we’ve nailed it.” Chris Gaffney, an archaeologist at the at the University of Bradford, surveys the ground near Durrington Walls. University of Bradford For the study, researchers returned to the site in southern England and used several different methods to further analyze the unusual structures. They used a technique known as electrical resistance tomography to calculate the pits’ depths, and radar and magnetometry to suss out their shapes. They also took core samples of the sediment, then ran the soil through a variety of tests. For instance, they used optically stimulated luminescence to determine the last time each layer of soil had been exposed to the sun. They also looked for traces of animal or plant DNA. Astonishing' Stonehenge discovery offers new insights into Neolithic ancestors. Together, the results of these analyses indicate humans must have been involved, which suggests the pits could be “one of the largest prehistoric structures in Britain, if not the largest,” Gaffney tells the BBC’s Sophie Parker. Researchers suspect the circle pits were created by people living at the site over a short period of time during the Late Neolithic period roughly 4,000 years ago. They were not “simply dug and abandoned” but, rather, appear to have been part of a “structured, monumental landscape that speaks to the complexity and sophistication of Neolithic society,” Gaffney says in a statement. For example, the pits are fairly evenly spaced around the circle, which suggests their Neolithic creators were measuring the distances between them somehow. “The skill and effort that must have been required to not only dig the pits, but also to place them so precisely within the landscape is a marvel,” says study co-author Richard Bates, a geophysicist at the University of St Andrews, in a statement. “When you consider that the pits are spread over such a large distance, the fact they are located in a near perfect circular pattern is quite remarkable.” Researchers used multiple methods to investigate the pits at Durrington Walls. University of Bradford But who dug the pits? And, perhaps more importantly, why? Archaeologists are still trying to definitively answer those questions, but they suspect the shafts were created to serve as some sort of sacred boundary around Durrington Walls. Their creators may also have been trying to connect with the underworld, per the Guardian. “They’re inscribing something about their cosmology, their belief systems, into the earth itself in a very dramatic way,” Gaddney tells the BBC. Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

When Elephants Trample Your Farm, Who Do You Call?

By reconnecting fragmented habitats, researcher Krithi Karanth is pioneering ways to reduce conflict between people and wildlife.

When Krithi Karanth walks into a forest village in the shadow of India’s Bandipur National Park, she is often greeted by farmers with cell phones in hand — ready to report video of a night-time encounter with an elephant herd, or the fresh tracks of a leopard that passed behind their homes. They are dispatches from the frontlines of some of the world’s most intense wildlife interactions. In the rolling green hills of India’s Western Ghats, survival depends on co-existing with high-density populations of some of the planet’s most imperiled species. That can come at a cost: Wild elephant herds can damage valuable banana plants, and tigers can turn up unexpectedly in sugarcane fields — threatening livestock and sometimes lives.  For farmers like Shankarappa in the region’s Naganapura village, these interactions often prompted fear. His family’s land lies just over half a mile away from Bandipur National Park, one of the last harbors of Asian elephants. “They’ve created a lot of issues,” he said.  Though global biodiversity is rapidly diminishing, many of the communities who live closest to nature are often left out of solutions. In many rural Indian regions, animals’ habitats are shrinking due to expanding agriculture and logging in forests. That’s forced villagers into closer contact with wildlife, often with devastating results. Karanth says the way forward is transforming how farmers perceive wildlife and empowering them to cope with the animals moving through their fields. The CEO at the Centre for Wildlife Studies, a nonprofit research organization based in India, Karanth grew up among the same forests where she now conducts research and implements conservation programs. Her father is wildlife ecologist Ullas Karanth, one of the world’s leading tiger biologists. “I spent much of my childhood outdoors, watching wildlife and exploring forests,” she recalled. That early connection with nature has shaped her approach to conservation. Krithi Karanth and her team show what coexistence looks like on the ground, from forest villages to farmers’ fields. To help communities struggling with wildlife interactions, Karanth launched a program in 2015 to make it easier to respond to wildlife encounters in real time. After a conflict occurs, farmers can call a toll-free number and leave a voice message with details of the incident. Within hours, a trained field assistant rides out to the area to document evidence of the losses and help the farmer file for government compensation.  Most cases reported pertain to crop losses, property damage, and livestock predation. But there are also occasional cases of human injuries or deaths. By making it easier for families to get quick responses, the Wild Seve program helps protect their safety and food security. Before Wild Seve, this was an expensive process that required time, travel, and endless forms. “It helps a lot with the time and the money,” says Shankarappa, who has now filed 59 claims and received nearly 96,000 rupees (around $1,082 dollars) in compensation. So far, Wild Seve has assisted more than 14,600 families across 3,495 settlements. Each report adds to a growing database of incidents, which researchers can use to study who is most affected by wildlife, and where repeat conflicts are most common. Its trained field staff are able to answer questions about both the encounters and the process, helping people gain trust in the program and its concrete solutions.  Paul Robbins, director of the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, who has conducted extensive fieldwork in India with CWS, explained that by turning the reporting process over to communities, “you finally get a realistic count of what’s happening — which is good for science, and even better for trust.” Crop damage from wildlife can wipe out half a year’s income for a farming family, according to Karanth. To further farmers’ financial stability, she launched an initiative with farmers around Nagarahole and Bandipur National Parks. More than 10,000 people have signed up to plant and maintain fruit, timber, and medicinal trees. Wild Carbon then uses drone technology to monitor tree growth and survival.  By transitioning away from vulnerable monocrops like bananas, the program is helping farmers create new sources of income, while also building green corridors that reconnect fragmented wildlife habitats. As an added benefit, the trees also sequester carbon, helping adapt to climate change as they restore the landscape.  Robbins says that input from local communities is integral to Wild Carbon’s success. The project reflects residents’ input, recognizing that people may value different trees based on how they help support livelihoods or provide food. “Giving people as much choice as possible is really important,” Robbins said. Mohan, a farmer in the Kalanahundi village along the southern edge of Bandipura National Park, has planted more than 300 saplings with Wild Carbon’s support. He says these newly planted trees have improved soil quality, and wild pigs, which are often the main cause of crop loss in his fields, don’t eat them. “The trees will also help me build a machan,” a type of raised platform that allows him to guard his crops from tigers, he added.  Both of these programs are staffed by locals, and have earned trust with rural farmers. “They understand the culture and speak the language, and are personally invested in the well-being of their neighbors and the wildlife around them,” Karanth added.  These innovative interventions have earned Karanth’s team the prestigious John P. McNulty Prize, which recognizes leaders for their courage and impact on critical global challenges. It was the first wildlife conservation organization among the prize’s 60 recipients. “It is an incredible honor, both personally and for the Centre for Wildlife Studies,” Karanth says. “For me, the award recognizes the unique space we occupy, one that bridges rigorous science with tangible impact for people and wildlife.” While these approaches have already shown their worth in India, Karanth believes that they are adaptable and scalable to other biodiverse regions. Whether it’s elephants and lions in Africa, or tigers and leopards in Asia, she says the goal is to “help communities prevent and recover from wildlife-related losses rather than expecting them to tolerate these losses.” In a country where 1.5 billion people compete with endangered species for land and resources, those living closest to these animals, she says, will be a primary part of the solution. Looking ahead, Karanth and her team hope to expand these solutions to address the urgent challenges wildlife face. She sees her work as a test case for the rest of the world: As climate change compresses habitats and pushes wildlife into closer contact with people, India’s response will shape conservation far beyond its borders. Visit Centre for Wildlife Studies’ website for news and insights on innovative rewilding efforts, or to support their vital work. The McNulty Foundation inspires, develops, and drives leaders to solve the critical challenges of our time. Created in 2008 by Anne Welsh McNulty in honor of her late husband, the John P. McNulty Prize is awarded in partnership with the Aspen Institute and has now recognized over 60 visionary leaders for their courage and lasting impact. The McNulty Prize strategically invests at the critical point between proof of concept and global scale, where few other supporters operate, to position leaders and mid-stage ventures for greater impact. LEARN MORE This story was originally published by Grist with the headline When Elephants Trample Your Farm, Who Do You Call? on Dec 10, 2025.

Is red meat bad for you? Limited research robs us of a clear answer.

We’d all appreciate more definitive guidance. Eating a varied diet is a wise move while we wait.

Over and over, we ask the question: Is Food X good or bad for you? And, over and over, belief in the answer — whether it’s yes or no — is held with conviction totally out of proportion with the strength of the evidence.Today’s illustration: red meat. It has become one of the most-disputed issues in food. It’s so polarizing that some people decide to eat no meat at all, while others decide to eat only meat. It’s poison, or it’s the only true fuel.The latest salvo in the Meat Wars was kicked off by a new report that outlines the optimal diet for both people and planet. The EAT-Lancet Report comes down hard on red meat; its recommended daily intake is a mere 14 grams — that’s half an ounce.Read on, and the news gets worse: “Because intake of red meat is not essential and appears to be linearly related to higher total mortality and risks of other health outcomes in populations that have consumed it for many years, the optimal intake may be zero.”Note that word: “related.” It’s the source of the problem with the report and its recommendation.The EAT-Lancet report, by researchers from 17 countries, bases its recommendation solely on observational data. When you do that, meat comes out looking pretty bad. In study after study, people who report eating a lot of meat have worse health outcomes than people who eat little. Meat-eating correlates with increased risk of heart disease, some cancers and all-cause mortality.But, as always with observational research that attempts to connect the dots between diet and health, the key question is whether the meat itself, or something else associated with a meat-heavy lifestyle, is actually causing the bad outcomes.That’s a hard question to answer, but there are clues that people who eat a lot of meat are very different from people who eat a little.Let’s look at a study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, cited by the EAT-Lancet report; it has a convenient demographic summary. According to it, people in the top one-fifth of meat eaters are different from people in the bottom fifth in a lot of important ways: They weigh more, they’re more likely to smoke, they’re not as well-educated, they get less exercise, and they report lower intakes of fruit, vegetables and fiber. On the plus side, they report drinking less alcohol. But other than that, we’re looking at a litany of markers for a lifestyle that’s not particularly health-conscious.So, to suss out whether it’s the meat that’s raising disease risk, you have to somehow correct for any of the differences on that list — and most of that information also comes from observational research, so even the confounders are confounded.Then there are the things you can’t correct for. Sleep quality, depression and screen time, for example, all correlate with some of the same diseases meat correlates with, but most studies have no information on those.All this confounding explains one of my all-time favorite findings from observational research. It comes from the same study the demographics came from (analyzed in a 2015 paper). Sure enough, the people who ate the most meat were more likely to die of cancer and heart disease, but they were also more likely to die in accidents. And the biggest difference came from the catchall category “all others,” which invariably includes causes of death that have nothing to do with meat.Basically, there’s a very simple problem with relying on observational research: People who eat a lot of meat are very different from people who eat less of it. The meat definitely isn’t causing the accidental deaths (unless, perhaps, they’re tragic backyard grill mishaps), and it isn’t causing at least some of the “all others” deaths, so we know that heavy and light meat-eaters are different in all kinds of ways.That’s where controlled trials come in.In a perfect world, we could figure this out by keeping a large group of people captive for a lifetime, feeding half of them meat, and seeing what happens. Okay, maybe that’s not a perfect world, but it would be the best solution to this particular problem.Instead, we have trials that are short-term (because of logistics and cost), and necessarily rely on markers for disease, rather than the disease itself. For that to be useful, you need a marker that’s a reliable indicator. For a lot of diseases — including cancer — those are hard to come by. For heart disease, we have a good one: low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. So, most of the controlled trials of meat-eating focus on heart disease.If you spend some time reading those trials (and I did, so you don’t have to), you find that most of them show some increase in LDL cholesterol, although it’s generally small.A 2025 analysis of 44 controlled trials on meat found that the only ones showing positive cardiovascular outcomes had links to the meat industry, and even then, only about one in five came out positive. Of the independent studies, about three-quarters showed negative outcomes, and the remaining one-quarter was neutral.This isn’t surprising. Red meat contains saturated fat, and we have countless trials that demonstrate sat fat’s ability to raise LDL. But if the meat you eat is relatively lean, that effect is going to be small.The lesson here is that we don’t have a lot of good evidence on meat and health. The observational evidence is hopelessly confounded, and the evidence from clinical trials is woefully limited. There’s so much we simply don’t know. There may be other ways meat raises risk (leading to over-absorption of heme iron and stimulating the production of TMAO, or trimethylamine N-oxide), but there’s little definitive evidence for them. And, of course, there’s the question of what you eat instead. If you’re eating red meat instead of, say, instant ramen, that may be an improvement. If, instead, you’re cutting back on your lentils, not so much.As always, the single-most important thing to remember about nutrition is that what we know is absolutely dwarfed by what we don’t know. Which means that, if you’re making decisions based on what we do know, you could very well be wrong.So what’s an eater to do? Meat is a nutritious food. In fact, animal foods are the only natural sources of a vitamin we need — B12 — which is an indication that we evolved with meat and dairy as part of our diet. It’s very hard to know whether eating some lean meat leads to better outcomes than eating no meat, but I think some meat is a good hedge against all that uncertainty. (The ethical and environmental concerns are also important, but for today let’s focus on health.)But plant foods are also nutritious. And eating a wide variety of them is also a good hedge against uncertainty. Which means the carnivore diet — all meat, all the time! — is a pretty bad bet.Unfortunately, “uncertainty” is not a word that features prominently in the Meat Wars. Instead, we have an unappetizing combination of nastiness and sanctimony, with each camp convinced that the truth and the light are on their side.Not that this is a metaphor for our times or anything.

California wildlife officials quietly shift on killing a high-profile predator

California wildlife officials are now allowing mountain lions to be killed to protect endangered bighorn sheep, changing a nearly decade-long practice of just moving them.

In a move that reverses nearly a decade of practice, California wildlife officials have quietly begun to allow killing mountain lions in order to protect another iconic native — bighorn sheep.Though limited to the Eastern Sierra — the steep, rugged home of a rare type of the wild sheep — it marks a sea change for California, where legislators and voters have heaped protections on the big, charismatic cats that suffered decades of persecution.It’s a complex story — a lesson in ecosystems that involves three linked species and efforts to do right by all of them.While some are thrilled, many are dismayed. Some think it’s the wrong tack while others say it doesn’t go far enough to safeguard yet another beloved animal: deer. The policy change came into relief recently. In the craggy Sierra Nevada mountains, late last year, a male lion hunted down several bighorn. They GPS-collared him and he killed another sheep.He was young enough that he hadn’t started breeding or fully established a home range, so wildlife officials caught him and hauled him to what was supposed to be his new home.But about six months later, he wandered back to sheep country and killed again.So this summer they put him down by lethal injection, according to Tom Stephenson, who leads the Sierra Nevada bighorn recovery program for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.How we got hereThe moment lies at the intersection of politics and biology. And it wouldn’t have happened without an important Eastern Sierra contingent — hunters.In February of last year, Brian Tillemans submitted a petition to the California Fish and Game Commission spotlighting concerns about dwindling numbers of Eastern Sierra mule deer, as well as bighorn sheep. The local hunter, who is also a former watershed resource manager for the L.A. Department of Water and Power, told commissioners the mountain lion population had “exploded” in the region. Hundreds of area residents signed the petition. Brian Tillemans, a hunter and former watershed resource manager for the L.A. Department of Water and Power, sits outside the town of Bishop, near Mt. Tom, in an area where Sierra Nevada bighorn visit. (Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times) “The emotional biopolitics of protecting mountain lions is leading to the demise of two iconic species,” Tillemans told commissioners. His plea hit a nerve. It sparked a series of discussions that led the state to revise its approach to managing lions.Mountain lions in California are a “specially protected species” and it’s illegal to hunt them for sport. But they can be lawfully killed in limited situations. One is when the hefty cats are threatening Sierra Nevada bighorn, one of two subspecies of the sheep that live in the Golden State. (The other type, desert bighorn, prefer the arid Mojave Desert and mountains of Southern California over snowy Sierra peaks.) California lawmakers gave that right to state wildlife officials in 1999, the same year Sierra Nevada bighorn landed on the federal endangered species list.In 2017 though, wildlife officials stopped killing lions preying on sheep and began relocating them instead, Stephenson said. That has turned out to be successful for female lions and young ones. But males that have already established a home range proved tougher. They try their darndest to return to their mates. In what would become a highly publicized fail, two male lions from the Eastern Sierra died after being trucked more than 200 miles to a remote area of the desert.Bighorn, it seemed, were left vulnerable. Sierra Nevada bighorn began to recover after being listed as federally endangered in the late 1990s, but recent severe winters knocked the population down. At such low numbers, lions can take a heavy toll on them. (Stephen Osman / Los Angeles Times ) By the time bighorn sheep were listed under the Endangered Species Act, they had been driven to the brink of extinction by decades of hunting and diseases spread by domestic sheep. Once protected, they began to make gains. But several severe winters starting in 2016 knocked the fragile population down. At such low numbers, hungry lions can devastate herds. Their total population was about 400 last year. The lions in the Eastern Sierra area, meanwhile, are doing well for themselves. There are about 70 to 80 roaming the craggy mountains, which Stephenson described as a “relatively large” number. They feed on wild horses that roam the region, which may boost their ranks. Moving lions will still be the primary protection tool when feasible. But with bighorn in a precarious way, “we just recognize that we need to do everything we can to try to get this animal recovered,” Stephenson said. So lethal removal was put back on the table.John Wehausen, an applied population ecologist who has studied bighorn for more than half a century, is thrilled by the recent policy changes. He expects the bighorn to start to bounce back. Data support the effectiveness of removing lions to help the sheep, he said.He said it’s key for the agency to act quickly to move or euthanize a lion that’s feeding on sheep, to prevent it from harming more. He believes the agency was previously sluggish, but is now moving efficiently.“I’ve as much as said to them, ‘I don’t really care how you get [the lions] out of there. You just need to get them out of there in a timely way to protect these sheep because that’s what your job is,’” he said.But Beth Pratt, California regional executive director for the National Wildlife Federation, questions whether killing lions to protect sheep makes sense. Beth Pratt, of the National Wildlife Federation, hikes just outside the eastern entrance of Yosemite National Park, near the town of Lee Vining. (Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times) “Do you keep blowing away an animal for being an animal, when it’s clearly just not working?” she said. Many people “understand that predators have a place in healthy ecosystems.”Pratt wonders if there are creative solutions, such as bolstering the sheep population by bringing in animals raised elsewhere or stationing guard dogs around the herds.Disappearing deerFor Eastern Sierra natives such as Danny McIntosh, of Bishop, a small community about a four-hour drive north of Los Angeles beloved by hunters, climbers and hikers, deer represent a way of life.McIntosh has watched mule deer since he was a kid. He’s “infatuated” with bucks, which battle each other during mating season. Around his teen years, he started photographing the animals, named for their large, mule-like ears. He’s an avid hunter and also enjoys collecting “sheds,” antlers dropped annually by deer and elk.After the severe winter of 2018, he noticed a marked decline in the deer population that he said has only worsened.That observation largely tracks with state Department of Fish and Wildlife findings. According to a 2023 paper, what’s known as the Round Valley herd dropped 33% from 2016 to 2022. “What disheartens me the most is that my children will never get to experience, on the same level as I did, flourishing deer herds and the numerous traditional activities that surround them,” McIntosh told state wildlife commissioners during a meeting in June 2024.He largely blames lions and black bears, and isn’t satisfied with the state’s willingness to kill the big cats on behalf of bighorn. Though he acknowledged it will help the sheep, it’s not expected to have a meaningful impact on deer. “It’s still not enough,” McIntosh said. “Our deer were the healthiest and the herds were the strongest when there was trapping going on and there were no restrictions.”State wildlife officials don’t have the authority to control lions for the benefit of deer. Hunters want more deer, “and if someone can’t snap their fingers and make that happen, it’s frustrating” for them, said Stephenson, the state Department of Fish and Wildlife bighorn recovery leader. “There’s a limit to how many knobs we can turn to effect any sort of rapid change. It’s a long, slow process.”According to Stephenson, it’s complicated. Yes, bears and lions snack on deer. But fires can wipe out vegetation they rely on for food, too. Harsh winters, punctuated by drought, also take a toll.When there are so many factors, it’s hard to know which are most important in influencing the population, he said.Mule deer are dwindling not just here but across the West. In September, animal tracks dot the mud in a wildlife crossing installed under Highway 395 near the Eastern Sierra community of Bridgeport. (Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times) “We’re not concerned that the deer population is going to disappear over here,” Stephenson said. “I think it’s a concern from the perspective of a hunter who wants hunting opportunities, and who has seen that hunting opportunity change over the decades.”The promise of crossingsThere may be one solution everyone can get behind — something that could offer a lifeline to mule deer without the need to knock out lions. Hunters and conservationists alike support building a wildlife crossing in the top roadkill hot spot in the Eastern Sierra — a deadly stretch of Highway 395 that runs past the Mammoth Yosemite Airport. Car collisions are the second highest cause of death for deer, not counting unknown causes. On a sunny morning in September, a dead doe lay on the side of a small road just off 395, as cars whizzed by on the artery that connects communities along the Eastern Sierra.Scavengers had so far only ripped into her backside. Tillemans, the hunter from Bishop, who provided a tour of the area, said it meant she hadn’t been dead long.From 2002 to 2018, about 675 vehicles collided with deer in less than nine miles of roadway. It’s smack dab in the middle of the migration routes for the Round Valley and Casa Diablo herds, according to a recent study.A project is underway to build safe passage for fauna here. As envisioned, two overcrossings and two undercrossings would function as bridges across four lanes of traffic. But its future depends on lining up money — a lot of it. Additional planning and construction is estimated to cost more than $65 million, according to the California Department of Transportation, which is leading the effort. Ben Carter, a senior environmental scientist with the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, looks at animal tracks at a recently completed wildlife crossing in Bridgeport called the Sonora Junction Shoulders Project. (Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times) It could save the lives of untold deer. And it may be more plausible than allowing a lion hunting season, as some would like. That would require a change in state law.“If there’s ever a spot for a deer crossing, it’s up here,” Tillemans said while driving to the proposed project area.A recently completed crossing about 70 miles to the north may offer an example of what the other one could provide.In early fall, Ben Carter checked a camera positioned to capture the goings-on in a corrugated metal tunnel installed beneath a breathtaking stretch of the 395 north of the town of Bridgeport.Carter, a senior environmental scientist with the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, had pulled the SD card for the first time to see what critters might have been early adopters of the new wildlife undercrossing — one of two constructed as part of a shoulder-widening project.Tracks told their own tale. Cloven hooves had pressed into the soft mud. Deer had been there.

Why Is That Woodpecker White?

For years, the author has gathered photographs of local leucistic birds: white (or whitish) woodpeckers, hummingbirds, sparrows, turkeys, bald eagles, and more.  The post Why Is That Woodpecker White? appeared first on Bay Nature.

For several years in my garden, one of the harbingers of spring would be the arrival of the white-headed girl. This bird was a female house sparrow, normal except for her bright white cap. She stood out: field guides describe these birds’ caps as “drab,” meaning grayish-brown. Not white. So the first time I saw her, I wasn’t quite sure what was going on.  That became clear about a month later on a trip to the Sierras. As the sun was setting, the trip leader spotted two red-tailed hawks perched on top of a distant barn. At first glance, they didn’t look like a pair—one’s head seemed encircled by a saintly halo. A look through a spotting scope and a word from the trip leader clarified that the bird was leucistic. Now that I knew what I was seeing, I started noticing leucistic birds elsewhere, and I began collecting photographs of them from local Bay Area bird photographers. Photographer Alan Krakauer captured this partially leucistic white-crowned sparrow at his home in Richmond. Like my white-headed girl, he says that this bird returned annually for several years: “This bird was the VIB [very important bird] of our backyard and we always particularly loved finding it in with the other white-crowned and golden-crowned sparrows.”Photographer Marty Lycan took this photo in January 2023 at Shadow Cliffs Regional Park in Pleasanton. This particular bald eagle had been reported at several other hot spots continuing in 2024, and then into the new year.Mark Rauzon describes these photographs: “Bishop Ranch, San Ramon is a steep hill of super sticky mud, pockmarked by cattle hooves, that make for a challenge as you listen for the ‘haha’ laughing acorn woodpecker, hoping to see a white blur fly by. With patience, especially sitting quietly by the acorn granary, soon a normal and a white bird with a vermilion cap will drop by. Pretty much every bird photographer has made the pilgrimage to see them and take their best shot.” These birds were first reported in the summer of 2023. As of October 1, 2026, Mark thinks there might be as many as five. I love this particular photograph for showing both a typical acorn woodpecker and a leucistic one.Leucism is a rare condition in which a bird’s plumage has white feathers that aren’t normally white. Data from the Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s Feederwatch Program estimates that one in 30,000 birds has leucistic or albinistic plumage. Among those, most are leucistic, as opposed to albino. The difference is often—but not always—clear-cut: albino birds have no melanin, the pigment responsible for color, turning their plumage pure white, their eyes pink or red, and their legs and bills pale. Leucistic birds, instead, have normal eyes, bills, and legs for their species. And their whiteness comes in varying degrees.  Some leucistic birds—like my white-headed girl—have white patches where they shouldn’t have them. Others will have plumage that looks faded—half way between its normal color and white. And in the most extreme cases, the bird’s feathers are completely white.  This Anna’s hummingbird appeared in photographer Alan Bade’s garden for a few weeks in the springtime, but avoided his hummingbird feeders, perhaps avoiding competition with other birds, Alan speculates. He added that it seemed “a little timid and more delicate than our normal hummers. It goes away for a few days and then shows up again, like a ghost.” When Alan sent a picture of the bird—which he thought was leucistic—to expert Sherri Williamson, she replied that its “‘washed-out’ appearance” is “suggestive of one of the less extreme forms of albinism.” Her prognosis for the bird, however, was hopeful: “Though severe pigment abnormalities can make a bird more vulnerable to excessive plumage wear, sunburn, disease, and predation, there are some cases of ‘pigment-challenged’ Anna’s hummingbirds living to adulthood and breeding successfully. Here’s hoping that this will be one of those success stories.”Photographer Keith Malley is part of a regular crew at the Presidio’s Battery Godfrey who watch for seabirds and birds on migration. They observed this turkey vulture recently as it rose up behind their position at the ocean’s edge, then coursed along the bluff for about an hour before crossing north into Marin.Photographer Marty Lycan captured this almost completely leucistic white-crowned sparrow in winter several years ago while walking his dogs near a baseball field adjacent to Sycamore Valley Park. Was the location coincidental? The bird is about the size and color of a baseball showing a few scuff marks. It had been reported there the previous year, too, and then reappeared the following two winters. Sparrows seem to do this.Photographer Mark Rauzon found these finches in Panoche Valley, San Benito Co. where large flocks of house finches and various kinds of sparrows congregate in winter. Mark notes, “Obviously one stood out as it perched on the farming equipment.” Most often, a genetic defect causes leucism, by preventing pigment from moving into the feathers during development. Genetic leucism can result in birds that have patches of white (sometimes called piebald) or that are completely white. But various environmental factors can also contribute to leucism. Poor diet can lead to a loss of pigments, producing gray, pale, or white feathers. So can exposure to pollutants or radiation. Birds that lose feathers through injury sometimes replace the lost ones with new ones that lack pigment, regaining normal color only after the next molt’s feathers come in. And, like humans, birds can experience “progressive graying,”  in which cells lose pigment as they age. Mark Rauzon seems to attract leucistic birds. He described this yellow-rumped warbler, at the Las Gallinas Sanitation Ponds in San Rafael, as “a butterbutt with mayo” or, alternately, “an Audubon warbler piebald with splotches of white and yellow, gray and gray.” (Audubon is a subspecies of yellow-rumped warbler). Photographer Becky Matsubara took this picture of this bird at Marta’s Marsh in Corte Madera a couple of summers ago; it was among 12 other northern mockingbirds. It had first been reported in April and stayed around until at least August. It reminds me of the mockingbird fledglings that descend on my backyard each summer, eating all of my blueberries. While leucistic birds can be a source of wonder for us humans, the abnormal coloration can cause problems for the birds themselves. A bird’s appearance is often critical in its ability to find a mate, and a bird that looks like a snowball instead of a rainbow might have problems getting a date. A bird’s color can camouflage it from predators, but, again, all of that white can be like a painted target. Melanin not only provides color in feathers but it also provides structural integrity, making feathers more durable. And finally, a lack of melanin can affect a bird’s ability to thermoregulate—lighter feathers may absorb less light and heat, so birds might struggle to stay warm in cold temperatures. I heard about this turkey from some friends who had said it had been hanging out with three “normal” turkeys (is there such a thing?) in the grassy center divider of Sacramento Avenue in Berkeley for a few days. When I went to find it, the three turkeys were about four blocks away from the leucistic bird. The leucistic turkey disappeared a few days after I photographed it. The others, six months later, are still hanging around (I had to chase them out of my driveway last month!) (Eric Schroeder)At the Merced National Wildlife Refuge, photographer Rick Lewis remembers: “It was early morning, the sun was rising, no other vehicles in sight; I was driving solo and immediately recognized the silhouette as a black phoebe. Very exciting as I focused my binoculars and realized that it was leucistic.”Although there have been no large studies that show leucism is on the rise, human activity leads me to believe there are more odd-colored birds around.Some of that increase is intentional: Hummingbird expert Sherri Williamson points out that humans sometimes selectively breed for rare qualities like albinism, meaning we’ve created “hundreds of fancy varieties of poultry, pigeons, and cage birds.” But other increases in leucistic birds are accidental: One study done in the wake of the Chernobyl disaster revealed that there was a tenfold increase in the number of leucistic barn swallows locally. With habitat loss (and degraded avian diets resulting from this), human influences, and other environmental factors, the numbers of leucistic birds are bound to increase. That might not always be a good thing, as we’ve seen.  A bird hotline—in the pre-listserv and eBird days—alerted photographer Bob Lewis to this American robin about a decade ago, on a garage roof in a Berkeley neighborhood.  It hung around the neighborhood for several days before disappearing. When I asked him what he thought happened to it, he said he suspected “something ate it.”Photographer Torgil Zethson found this western sandpiper on the Newark Slough Trail at the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge in the South Bay. Because this almost pure-white bird was so striking, he suspected that it might be the same one photographed a week earlier in Monterey County or even a bird seen in Coos Bay, Oregon ten days before that. (Torgil Zethson)But of course, the other explanation is that perhaps what’s increasing isn’t leucistic bird numbers, but rather the number of people watching and photographing birds. And I’m encouraged—as are the other Bay Area birders who’ve watched them—by those individual birds that keep showing up year after year, like my white-headed girl once did. After four years of backyard visits, she disappeared. Still, eight years later, when spring rolls around, I keep an eye open for her—or perhaps her offspring. Leucistic acorn woodpeckers. (Mark Rauzon)

With Dams Removed, Spawning Salmon Are Heading Up Alameda Creek

These chinooks are likely hatchery strays. But they are still an ecosystem boon—and flaming-bright symbols of restoration at work. The post With Dams Removed, Spawning Salmon Are Heading Up Alameda Creek appeared first on Bay Nature.

Nearly a dozen chinook salmon have swum the 12 miles upstream from the San Francisco Bay through Alameda Creek into Niles Canyon—likely the first salmon to spawn there in 30 years, according to Jeff Miller, founder of the Alameda Creek Alliance.  From its mouth in the East Bay, between the San Mateo and Dumbarton bridges, Alameda Creek leads forty miles east into the Sunol Wilderness through abundant potential spawning grounds. But dams, pipelines, bridges, and other human structures in the creek blocked fish from that potential paradise in 1967. Since 1998, the Alameda Creek Alliance, a grassroots advocacy group, has worked alongside agencies, nonprofits, and community members to take down these barriers one by one. Two multimillion-dollar fish ladders opened the route to Niles Canyon in 2022. This September, the mainstem creek’s last remaining barrier, a concrete mat over a PG&E gas pipeline, was removed. Bay Nature featured the watershed moment—and the decades of advocacy that led up to it—in a May 2025 story, “After 28 Years, Alameda Creek Opens Up to Fish.”  Claire Buchanan, CalTrout’s central California regional director, says that on Wednesday environmental consultants spotted two chinooks that went even farther—they were crossing the former pipeline, some 20 miles upstream from the mouth.  These chinooks are likely hatchery strays, says Miller. But they are still an ecosystem boon, bringing nutrients into the stream. They also serve as flaming-bright symbols of restoration-at-work to the public—proof that salmon can find their way to new spawning grounds. Chinook salmon males redden as they prepare to spawn and develop a characteristic hooked jaw. Volunteers spotted both males and (hopefully egg-laden) females crossing the former barriers on the lower creek last week. Volunteers with the Alameda Creek Alliance as well as agency staff are watching the creek for salmon and trout—and now looking for where they might have spawned. (Left, David Young; right, Dan Sarka) As the fish now swim up through Niles Canyon, the females will search for quiet spots to lay their eggs, which males will then fertilize. This part, Miller doesn’t worry about helping along. “They’re pretty good at what they do,” he says. 

Rising Temperatures Disturbing Americans' Slumber, Study Says

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Dec. 10, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Climate change is costing people some shut-eye, and a new study...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Dec. 10, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Climate change is costing people some shut-eye, and a new study says it’s only going to get worse.Higher daytime or nighttime temperatures slightly lower the amount of sleep a person gets, researchers reported in the December issue of the journal Environment International.By 2099, people could be losing up to 24 hours of sleep each year due to rising heat, researchers projected.“This work is an important step toward understanding how sleep is affected by environmental stressors like heat, which can increase the risk of disease and even death,” said lead researcher Jiawen Liao, a postdoctoral research associate in population and public health sciences at the Keck School of Medicine of USC.“If we can help people sleep better, we may be able to reduce illness and save lives,” Liao said in a news release.Hot weather can disturb sleep in several ways, researchers said in background notes. Heat prevents the body from cooling down, can trigger a stress response and reduces the time a person spends in deep sleep and REM sleep.In turn, poor sleep increases the risk of many different health problems, including heart disease, breathing issues and mental health disorders, researchers said.“We already know that when there are extreme heat events, more people die from cardiovascular disease and pulmonary disease,” Liao said. “What will this mean for population health as global temperatures continue to rise?”For the new study, researchers analyzed sleep data collected for more than 14,000 adults, amounting to more than 12 million nights of sleep. The team compared people’s sleep against weather data for their area to see how temperature affects sleep.Results showed that an 18-degree Fahrenheit difference in daytime temperature was associated with about 2.2 minutes of lost sleep, while the same increase at night was linked to more than 2.6 lost minutes of sleep.“This may seem like a small amount, but when it adds up across millions of people, the total impact is enormous,” Liao said.As one might expect, sleep loss is highest during the hot summer days from June to September, researchers said.There also are geographic differences, with folks on the West Coast losing nearly three times as much sleep as people in other regions.All told, U.S. adults could lose between 9 and 24 hours of sleep each year by 2099, depending on where they live, researchers projected.Rising temperatures also were associated with more disrupted sleep throughout the night, and more time spent awake in bed, researchers said.Researchers next plan to investigate whether indoor cooling, green roofs or better sleep hygiene can counter the effects of heat and help people get a good night’s sleep. They also plan to see whether improving sleep can reduce heat-related health problems.SOURCE: Keck School of Medicine of USC, news release, Dec. 5, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Scientists Thought Parkinson’s Was in Our Genes. It Might Be in the Water

Parkinson’s disease has environmental toxic factors, not just genetic.

Skip to main contentScientists Thought Parkinson’s Was in Our Genes. It Might Be in the WaterNew ideas about chronic illness could revolutionize treatment, if we take the research seriously.Photograph: Rachel JessenThe Big Story is exclusive to subscribers.Start your free trial to access The Big Story and all premium newsletters.—cancel anytime.START FREE TRIALAlready a subscriber? Sign InThe Big Story is exclusive to subscribers. START FREE TRIALword word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word wordmmMwWLliI0fiflO&1mmMwWLliI0fiflO&1mmMwWLliI0fiflO&1mmMwWLliI0fiflO&1mmMwWLliI0fiflO&1mmMwWLliI0fiflO&1mmMwWLliI0fiflO&1

No Results today.

Our news is updated constantly with the latest environmental stories from around the world. Reset or change your filters to find the most active current topics.

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.