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.

How the Outdoors Affects Our Nervous System and Changes Our Microbiome

News Feed
Wednesday, January 8, 2025

Rachel Feltman: Happy new year, listeners! For Scientific American’s Science Quickly, this is Rachel Feltman.Whether you’re an avid backpacker, an occasional park stroller or someone whose relationship with the great outdoors falls somewhere in the middle, you probably already know that spending time in nature is a great way to de-stress. But what if leaf peeping could do more than just help you unwind? Well, according to a recent book, the sights, sounds and smells of plant life can have serious impacts on our bodies.My guest today is Kathy Willis, a professor of biodiversity at the University of Oxford, where she also serves as principal of St Edmund Hall. She’s the author of Good Nature: Why Seeing, Smelling, Hearing, and Touching Plants is Good for Our Health.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Thank you so much for joining us today.Kathy Willis: It’s a pleasure, absolute pleasure.Feltman: So you’re a professor of biodiversity, and a lot of your work focuses on the well-being of plants and their ecosystems. How did you become interested in how plant life impacts human health and wellness as well?Willis: So that’s right: I’m very much someone who’s always worked at the sort of interface between looking at vegetation and climate change and—very academic. But then I was working on a big international project and they asked me to—part of my role was to pull together the information about the relationship between nature and human health.And as I was trawling through the literature I kept coming across this study published in 1984 in this journal, the top scientific journal, showing that people who looked out of hospital window beds onto trees recovered from gallbladder operations much faster and took less pain relief than those who didn’t. And I thought, “This is really strange.” So people looking on brick walls—how does that work? They’re in a chamber. They’re in a sort of a, you know, a hospital room, so it’s not anything to do with the environment of the room; it was to do with them looking on to something. Was it influencing their health?And so that started me on a very different pathway because I started to look at this paper and realizing that, very clearly, the action of looking at nature was triggering not just mental changes but physiological changes in the body that was improving these recovery rates and effects for human health. And that’s how I started the whole journey of really saying, “Well, what else is there out there? What are the senses, when you interact with nature, [that] have an impact on our health and well-being?”Feltman: That’s fascinating, and your new book, you know, examines how those senses connect us with nature. Can you tell us a little bit about what you found when you went exploring? What does the research say about how we connect to plants and the outdoors?Willis: So it’s both outdoors and indoors, but I’ll start—I can certainly start with outdoors. I mean, so the way I looked at it and the way I started to pull the literature together was looking at the different senses: so our sight, our sound, our smell, our touch, and then there’s a hidden sense, but we’ll talk about that later.But what I found, actually, is that—very much that each of these triggers these different actions in our body, and there are three sort of mechanisms that get triggered when we interact with nature: the three direct ones.But the first one is: it affects our nervous system. So it triggers changes in things like our breathing rate, our heartbeat goes down, our blood pressure goes down, our heart rate variability: it changes to a parasympathetic variability, which is—induces much more physiological calming. But it also affects our hormone system. So you can think about—I mean, I think, for me, it’s more obvious about the heart rate and the breathing, but for example, your adrenaline goes down.Feltman: Mm.Willis: Salivary amylase, which is a hormone that you get in your saliva, which is elevated when you’re stressed, that reduces. And then the—all these psychological experiments show that your psychological state is better when your senses interact with certain aspects of nature.And then there are two other aspects of nature. The first is that when we breathe in the scents, those scents that you get are molecules—they are volatile organic molecules—and they basically become, they become a gas when they come out into the air from the plant. Those molecules pass into our blood. And once across our lung membrane and once in our blood, they interact with certain biochemical pathways in the same way as if you’re taking a prescription drug.And then finally, the other things—and our body takes on those aspects of nature, and it comes inside our body. And actually, we shouldn’t be surprised about that; we know pollution gets into our blood—pollution in the air gets into our blood. But so, so do the good aspects of nature. And finally, what I also found out from looking at this research is that when you’re in a more biodiverse environment, that environment has a much more biodiverse bacterial assembly—the good microbes that we all need—and your body adopts and takes on the signature of that environmental microbiome, which I find, again, fascinating. And as a result of that it triggers all sorts of metabolic processes that are good for us.Feltman: Very cool. And I would love to hear more about that hidden sense you mentioned.Willis: So with the hidden sense, I mean, you know, with—we’re constantly being bombarded—I don’t know [if it’s] the same for you [laughs], but I, every time I open the newspaper here, I see another thing about how we must eat 30 plants a week and we should eat pickled vegetables and everything else to increase your gut microbiome. And that is true. I think there’s a lot of real very, very important science in there. But what I learnt from looking at this is, first of all, that up to 93 percent of our gut microbiome is not inherited; it’s to do with our environment and what we eat. Now, we think about what we eat, but we don’t think about our environment. But a lot of work started about 10 years ago where they started to show that people that live in a more biodiverse environment—where you’ve got greater diversity of plants, different heights of plants, etcetera, etcetera—and more organic environments, so not using whole loads of fertilizers, that those environments, if you measure the air in those environments, they’re full of all these bacteria that we’re busily [laughs] chomping our way on, you know, food to try and get into our gut. And once we’re in those environments or we’re touching that organic soil, we adopt the signature, so we adopt all those good microbes, and it gets into our guts.Now why is that important? Because then there’s a very—some beautiful study’s been carried out on kindergarten-age—so, you know, children go to nursery school, or play school, in Finland where they, basically, they, for 28 days, they—one group played in a sandpit [where] they poured in soil from the, the local pine forest, and the other group had sterile sand. And they measured their skin microbiota, they measured their gut—so through their poop—but then they also measured their bloods. And what they found was that after 28 days those that had played in the soil had this hugely elevated microbiome in their gut.But the really critical thing in there is they measured their inflammatory markers in their bloods, and their inflammatory markers were right down. And they found the same with adults, adults playing with soil or adults even sitting in a room with a green wall: after 28 days they’d adopted that microbiome. But also, it’s affecting their bloods in a really good way. In the same way as we’re being told our diet—we ought to, with our diet, you know, eat more plants because it will do this—you can do that with your environment as well.And I find that really, really fascinating. So as well as eating 30 plants a week we should be interacting with the plants daily in order to build up good bacteria in our gut.Feltman: That’s really striking research, and I think it’s a great segue to—you know, many of our listeners might not have easy access to soil to play in or lush green spaces. What does the research say about harnessing those positive powers of plants in the outdoors when we’re stuck indoors or in urban environments?Willis: You can absolutely do it indoors. And I—it’s transformed the way I—my offices and where I work and even my home because what it’s shown [is] if you have plants in your office, you get all the benefits. For example, having a, a vase of roses on your desk.But on top of that plants in the room will seed the air with the good microbiota. And so something as simple as a spider plant—it doesn’t have to be something exotic and large; it can be a—something that reproduces rapidly like the spider plants. They’ve shown that those actively seed the air with this good microbiome.But then again, indoors, there’s some beautiful studies showing that when you smell certain plant scents it affects how you are. So lavender makes you more relaxed because it—once it’s in your blood it interacts with the biochemical pathways as if you’re taking an antianxiety drug. So if you want to be more relaxed or want to go to sleep, you can diffuse lavender in your bedroom. If you want to be more awake, you should have rosemary.And if you want to really do something that’s good for you, what they’ve shown is that the Cupressaceae family, when you smell that, not only does it decrease your adrenaline hormone, but it also elevates the natural killer cells in your blood. And the natural killer cells are those cells that attack the cancers and viruses cells, so we all want elevated natural killer cells in our blood. And so in my study at home I have Japanese cypress oil in a diffuser. I just—few drops in there, and I, every couple of days, I just push it on for 20 minutes. It does me no harm, but it probably does a lot more good.So there’s so much you can do indoors, but the number of times I go into offices or houses and there’s—the only plant you see there is plastic, if you’re lucky. And so it’s really thinking, “What can I bring into the—my house or my office or where I live in order to bring about these well-being benefits?”Feltman: Yeah, you mentioned your own personal experiences with changing your environment and habits; could you tell us more about those changes? You know, which did you find most impactful?Willis: One of the things I’ve found most impactful is just changing my route to work. So up until now—up until, you know, I started writing this book I went the quickest route, and, you know, I’m on my bike, and I’m just going down the streets. And then I started looking, and there’s some beautiful studies that have been carried out, particularly, actually, in the U.S. and actually in Japan as well, where they had—and the Japanese experiment was beautiful—they had a group of participants: Japanese males all [around] the same age, didn’t smoke, hadn’t taken any alcohol or anything. And they walked for 15 minutes [on] the streets, and they did 15 minutes going through the local urban park. And they measured their physiological and psychological markers and there was a significant difference. So walking through the park they were much more physiologically and psychologically calmer than if they walked for 15 minutes, the same pace, on the streets.And that really got me thinking about: “Actually, can you tweak your route so that you spend more time on the way to work and back by going via the park?” which is what I now do. And it does make a difference. You just feel calmer. Now, part of me thinks, “Oh, well, I’m feeling calm because I know it should make me calmer,” but even if you’re stressed, what they’ve shown is that when you look on to green vegetation, you recover faster from stress—if you look on to nature and particularly on to green vegetation—then if you don’t.And as we know, huge percentage of global diseases now are not the communicatable ones; they’re ones that actually follow on from high levels of stress, so that, you know, we really, really need to think about this very, very seriously because all that high level of stress in the longer run is really bad for us and for our, our health.But the other thing, and maybe this is important for your listeners: you don’t have to be pounding the pavements running to get the benefits. There’s a lovely study where they measured the salivary amylase of people over an eight-week period and they could choose the exercise they did in the park. And what they found was that, actually, those people that went and walked to the park and sat down [laughs] had a greater reduction in the salivary amylase—i.e., less stressed—than those doing all the other things. I think that’s always worth remembering: you don’t have to be running to get these benefits; you just have to be looking and enjoying.And then the other thing that I do now—when I worked on the chapter on sound and the sounds of nature, it’s really clear that certain sounds, like tuneful birdsong or the wind rustling in the trees or trickling of a stream, those have a really significant health benefit; all sorts of things are reduced. But even pain: they found in hospitals that people are having sort of surgery where they’re still awake, like with an epidural, that they have much, much lower stress levels if they can hear the sounds of birds and trees. So when I walk now I don’t wear my headphones—unless I’m near traffic, and then I do.Feltman: That’s great advice.Now that you’ve finished this book and it’s out in the world, what do you see as some of the most important areas for future research in this field?Willis: So I think one of the big areas where the evidence is with nature is very much [that] we know that there are all these benefits that are triggered, but we need to be—now give the medical profession the details that they need to be able to prescribe properly. And we’re not there yet.So for example, if you think about a practitioner, a [general practitioner] or, you know, someone that you go to with ailments, and they’ll normally prescribe you a prescription drug because all those clinical trials have been done on that prescription drug to tell you what drug to take for the condition. So we sort of know that: we know anxiety, etcetera, etcetera, can be relieved by interacting with nature.But the second thing is: How much do you take? We also then need to set, you know, what the dosage iso for how long do you need to interact with nature in order to get the benefit?And finally, which is really important for governments, certainly in the U.K. for the National Health Service, is: What’s the cost-benefit? So how efficient is that drug—what’s [the] efficacy of being in nature compared to, let’s say, cognitive-behavioral therapy to deal with clinical levels of anxiety?But there are some really interesting studies coming out. There was one in Copenhagen where they took people who’d been off work because of anxiety, and they split them into two groups. And the first group did cognitive-behavioral therapy with a trained psychiatrist over 10 weeks, and they did two sessions a week. The other group did three sessions a week in the university gardens, and they could be doing stuff with the gardeners or they could be doing activities or just sitting. And after 10 weeks they looked at the number of visits back to the, the medical doctor and what they found was: actually, both were very successful.Feltman: Mm.Willis: But one of those—being in the garden—was much, much cheaper to deliver than the other.But the really interesting thing about this study was that a year later, they went back and resurveyed these people to see how many were still at work. Now I had assumed, cognitive-behavioral therapy, they would be the ones more at work because they’d been given the—trained with the techniques to cope. But it was the other way around: that you had a much higher percentage of people who’d spent the time in the garden than those doing the cognitive-behavioral therapy.So from that you can then start to work out what the cost-benefits are, and it’s that sort of experiment we need to be doing, along with these much bigger clinical trials. But even in Oxford, what we’ve been doing is: Instead of giving you this drug, how about going for a walk for 20 minutes three times a week? But where do you tell them to go walking? And so—especially in the winter. It’s all well and good in the summer—the birds are singing; it’s all sort of green and lush—but what about in the winter? So we’ve been looking in the botanic gardens and the glasshouses here. It’s that sort of approach that we need to be moving.And then the other thing I would say—and I sit in the second chamber of the government, the House of Lords, and the thing that we really need to be doing is making sure that nature doesn’t always come so far down the priority list, that the first thing when you’re building in a city is you get rid of the nature. Because the most important thing that comes through from all of this is that people need to be near nature. And we’ve all signed up to that internationally, but trying to persuade governments, when they’re looking at city plans, to ensure that nature is part of the infrastructure and not just an add-on is quite hard work.Feltman: Mm. Well, thank you so much for joining us. This has been a really interesting chat, and I know I’m definitely feeling extremely motivated to go spend more time in my local park, so I really appreciate your time.Willis: Oh, thank you very much. It’s been really nice to talk to you.Feltman: That’s all for today’s episode. We’ll be back with another one on Friday. And if you’ve been missing our weekly science news roundup, your wait is almost over: we’ll be rolling back into our regular publishing schedule on Monday.Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper, Madison Goldberg and Jeff DelViscio. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news.For Scientific American, this is Rachel Feltman. See you next time!

Nature can affect our nervous system and diversify our microbiome—and you don’t need to go on a hike to reap the benefits.

Rachel Feltman: Happy new year, listeners! For Scientific American’s Science Quickly, this is Rachel Feltman.

Whether you’re an avid backpacker, an occasional park stroller or someone whose relationship with the great outdoors falls somewhere in the middle, you probably already know that spending time in nature is a great way to de-stress. But what if leaf peeping could do more than just help you unwind? Well, according to a recent book, the sights, sounds and smells of plant life can have serious impacts on our bodies.

My guest today is Kathy Willis, a professor of biodiversity at the University of Oxford, where she also serves as principal of St Edmund Hall. She’s the author of Good Nature: Why Seeing, Smelling, Hearing, and Touching Plants is Good for Our Health.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Thank you so much for joining us today.

Kathy Willis: It’s a pleasure, absolute pleasure.

Feltman: So you’re a professor of biodiversity, and a lot of your work focuses on the well-being of plants and their ecosystems. How did you become interested in how plant life impacts human health and wellness as well?

Willis: So that’s right: I’m very much someone who’s always worked at the sort of interface between looking at vegetation and climate change and—very academic. But then I was working on a big international project and they asked me to—part of my role was to pull together the information about the relationship between nature and human health.

And as I was trawling through the literature I kept coming across this study published in 1984 in this journal, the top scientific journal, showing that people who looked out of hospital window beds onto trees recovered from gallbladder operations much faster and took less pain relief than those who didn’t. And I thought, “This is really strange.” So people looking on brick walls—how does that work? They’re in a chamber. They’re in a sort of a, you know, a hospital room, so it’s not anything to do with the environment of the room; it was to do with them looking on to something. Was it influencing their health?

And so that started me on a very different pathway because I started to look at this paper and realizing that, very clearly, the action of looking at nature was triggering not just mental changes but physiological changes in the body that was improving these recovery rates and effects for human health. And that’s how I started the whole journey of really saying, “Well, what else is there out there? What are the senses, when you interact with nature, [that] have an impact on our health and well-being?”

Feltman: That’s fascinating, and your new book, you know, examines how those senses connect us with nature. Can you tell us a little bit about what you found when you went exploring? What does the research say about how we connect to plants and the outdoors?

Willis: So it’s both outdoors and indoors, but I’ll start—I can certainly start with outdoors. I mean, so the way I looked at it and the way I started to pull the literature together was looking at the different senses: so our sight, our sound, our smell, our touch, and then there’s a hidden sense, but we’ll talk about that later.

But what I found, actually, is that—very much that each of these triggers these different actions in our body, and there are three sort of mechanisms that get triggered when we interact with nature: the three direct ones.

But the first one is: it affects our nervous system. So it triggers changes in things like our breathing rate, our heartbeat goes down, our blood pressure goes down, our heart rate variability: it changes to a parasympathetic variability, which is—induces much more physiological calming. But it also affects our hormone system. So you can think about—I mean, I think, for me, it’s more obvious about the heart rate and the breathing, but for example, your adrenaline goes down.

Feltman: Mm.

Willis: Salivary amylase, which is a hormone that you get in your saliva, which is elevated when you’re stressed, that reduces. And then the—all these psychological experiments show that your psychological state is better when your senses interact with certain aspects of nature.

And then there are two other aspects of nature. The first is that when we breathe in the scents, those scents that you get are molecules—they are volatile organic molecules—and they basically become, they become a gas when they come out into the air from the plant. Those molecules pass into our blood. And once across our lung membrane and once in our blood, they interact with certain biochemical pathways in the same way as if you’re taking a prescription drug.

And then finally, the other things—and our body takes on those aspects of nature, and it comes inside our body. And actually, we shouldn’t be surprised about that; we know pollution gets into our blood—pollution in the air gets into our blood. But so, so do the good aspects of nature. And finally, what I also found out from looking at this research is that when you’re in a more biodiverse environment, that environment has a much more biodiverse bacterial assembly—the good microbes that we all need—and your body adopts and takes on the signature of that environmental microbiome, which I find, again, fascinating. And as a result of that it triggers all sorts of metabolic processes that are good for us.

Feltman: Very cool. And I would love to hear more about that hidden sense you mentioned.

Willis: So with the hidden sense, I mean, you know, with—we’re constantly being bombarded—I don’t know [if it’s] the same for you [laughs], but I, every time I open the newspaper here, I see another thing about how we must eat 30 plants a week and we should eat pickled vegetables and everything else to increase your gut microbiome. And that is true. I think there’s a lot of real very, very important science in there. 

But what I learnt from looking at this is, first of all, that up to 93 percent of our gut microbiome is not inherited; it’s to do with our environment and what we eat. Now, we think about what we eat, but we don’t think about our environment. But a lot of work started about 10 years ago where they started to show that people that live in a more biodiverse environment—where you’ve got greater diversity of plants, different heights of plants, etcetera, etcetera—and more organic environments, so not using whole loads of fertilizers, that those environments, if you measure the air in those environments, they’re full of all these bacteria that we’re busily [laughs] chomping our way on, you know, food to try and get into our gut. And once we’re in those environments or we’re touching that organic soil, we adopt the signature, so we adopt all those good microbes, and it gets into our guts.

Now why is that important? Because then there’s a very—some beautiful study’s been carried out on kindergarten-age—so, you know, children go to nursery school, or play school, in Finland where they, basically, they, for 28 days, they—one group played in a sandpit [where] they poured in soil from the, the local pine forest, and the other group had sterile sand. And they measured their skin microbiota, they measured their gut—so through their poop—but then they also measured their bloods. And what they found was that after 28 days those that had played in the soil had this hugely elevated microbiome in their gut.

But the really critical thing in there is they measured their inflammatory markers in their bloods, and their inflammatory markers were right down. And they found the same with adults, adults playing with soil or adults even sitting in a room with a green wall: after 28 days they’d adopted that microbiome. But also, it’s affecting their bloods in a really good way. In the same way as we’re being told our diet—we ought to, with our diet, you know, eat more plants because it will do this—you can do that with your environment as well.

And I find that really, really fascinating. So as well as eating 30 plants a week we should be interacting with the plants daily in order to build up good bacteria in our gut.

Feltman: That’s really striking research, and I think it’s a great segue to—you know, many of our listeners might not have easy access to soil to play in or lush green spaces. What does the research say about harnessing those positive powers of plants in the outdoors when we’re stuck indoors or in urban environments?

Willis: You can absolutely do it indoors. And I—it’s transformed the way I—my offices and where I work and even my home because what it’s shown [is] if you have plants in your office, you get all the benefits. For example, having a, a vase of roses on your desk.

But on top of that plants in the room will seed the air with the good microbiota. And so something as simple as a spider plant—it doesn’t have to be something exotic and large; it can be a—something that reproduces rapidly like the spider plants. They’ve shown that those actively seed the air with this good microbiome.

But then again, indoors, there’s some beautiful studies showing that when you smell certain plant scents it affects how you are. So lavender makes you more relaxed because it—once it’s in your blood it interacts with the biochemical pathways as if you’re taking an antianxiety drug. So if you want to be more relaxed or want to go to sleep, you can diffuse lavender in your bedroom. If you want to be more awake, you should have rosemary.

And if you want to really do something that’s good for you, what they’ve shown is that the Cupressaceae family, when you smell that, not only does it decrease your adrenaline hormone, but it also elevates the natural killer cells in your blood. And the natural killer cells are those cells that attack the cancers and viruses cells, so we all want elevated natural killer cells in our blood. And so in my study at home I have Japanese cypress oil in a diffuser. I just—few drops in there, and I, every couple of days, I just push it on for 20 minutes. It does me no harm, but it probably does a lot more good.

So there’s so much you can do indoors, but the number of times I go into offices or houses and there’s—the only plant you see there is plastic, if you’re lucky. And so it’s really thinking, “What can I bring into the—my house or my office or where I live in order to bring about these well-being benefits?”

Feltman: Yeah, you mentioned your own personal experiences with changing your environment and habits; could you tell us more about those changes? You know, which did you find most impactful?

Willis: One of the things I’ve found most impactful is just changing my route to work. So up until now—up until, you know, I started writing this book I went the quickest route, and, you know, I’m on my bike, and I’m just going down the streets. And then I started looking, and there’s some beautiful studies that have been carried out, particularly, actually, in the U.S. and actually in Japan as well, where they had—and the Japanese experiment was beautiful—they had a group of participants: Japanese males all [around] the same age, didn’t smoke, hadn’t taken any alcohol or anything. And they walked for 15 minutes [on] the streets, and they did 15 minutes going through the local urban park. And they measured their physiological and psychological markers and there was a significant difference. So walking through the park they were much more physiologically and psychologically calmer than if they walked for 15 minutes, the same pace, on the streets.

And that really got me thinking about: “Actually, can you tweak your route so that you spend more time on the way to work and back by going via the park?” which is what I now do. And it does make a difference. You just feel calmer. Now, part of me thinks, “Oh, well, I’m feeling calm because I know it should make me calmer,” but even if you’re stressed, what they’ve shown is that when you look on to green vegetation, you recover faster from stress—if you look on to nature and particularly on to green vegetation—then if you don’t.

And as we know, huge percentage of global diseases now are not the communicatable ones; they’re ones that actually follow on from high levels of stress, so that, you know, we really, really need to think about this very, very seriously because all that high level of stress in the longer run is really bad for us and for our, our health.

But the other thing, and maybe this is important for your listeners: you don’t have to be pounding the pavements running to get the benefits. There’s a lovely study where they measured the salivary amylase of people over an eight-week period and they could choose the exercise they did in the park. And what they found was that, actually, those people that went and walked to the park and sat down [laughs] had a greater reduction in the salivary amylase—i.e., less stressed—than those doing all the other things. I think that’s always worth remembering: you don’t have to be running to get these benefits; you just have to be looking and enjoying.

And then the other thing that I do now—when I worked on the chapter on sound and the sounds of nature, it’s really clear that certain sounds, like tuneful birdsong or the wind rustling in the trees or trickling of a stream, those have a really significant health benefit; all sorts of things are reduced. But even pain: they found in hospitals that people are having sort of surgery where they’re still awake, like with an epidural, that they have much, much lower stress levels if they can hear the sounds of birds and trees. So when I walk now I don’t wear my headphones—unless I’m near traffic, and then I do.

Feltman: That’s great advice.

Now that you’ve finished this book and it’s out in the world, what do you see as some of the most important areas for future research in this field?

Willis: So I think one of the big areas where the evidence is with nature is very much [that] we know that there are all these benefits that are triggered, but we need to be—now give the medical profession the details that they need to be able to prescribe properly. And we’re not there yet.

So for example, if you think about a practitioner, a [general practitioner] or, you know, someone that you go to with ailments, and they’ll normally prescribe you a prescription drug because all those clinical trials have been done on that prescription drug to tell you what drug to take for the condition. So we sort of know that: we know anxiety, etcetera, etcetera, can be relieved by interacting with nature.

But the second thing is: How much do you take? We also then need to set, you know, what the dosage iso for how long do you need to interact with nature in order to get the benefit?

And finally, which is really important for governments, certainly in the U.K. for the National Health Service, is: What’s the cost-benefit? So how efficient is that drug—what’s [the] efficacy of being in nature compared to, let’s say, cognitive-behavioral therapy to deal with clinical levels of anxiety?

But there are some really interesting studies coming out. There was one in Copenhagen where they took people who’d been off work because of anxiety, and they split them into two groups. And the first group did cognitive-behavioral therapy with a trained psychiatrist over 10 weeks, and they did two sessions a week. The other group did three sessions a week in the university gardens, and they could be doing stuff with the gardeners or they could be doing activities or just sitting. And after 10 weeks they looked at the number of visits back to the, the medical doctor and what they found was: actually, both were very successful.

Feltman: Mm.

Willis: But one of those—being in the garden—was much, much cheaper to deliver than the other.

But the really interesting thing about this study was that a year later, they went back and resurveyed these people to see how many were still at work. Now I had assumed, cognitive-behavioral therapy, they would be the ones more at work because they’d been given the—trained with the techniques to cope. But it was the other way around: that you had a much higher percentage of people who’d spent the time in the garden than those doing the cognitive-behavioral therapy.

So from that you can then start to work out what the cost-benefits are, and it’s that sort of experiment we need to be doing, along with these much bigger clinical trials. But even in Oxford, what we’ve been doing is: Instead of giving you this drug, how about going for a walk for 20 minutes three times a week? But where do you tell them to go walking? And so—especially in the winter. It’s all well and good in the summer—the birds are singing; it’s all sort of green and lush—but what about in the winter? So we’ve been looking in the botanic gardens and the glasshouses here. It’s that sort of approach that we need to be moving.

And then the other thing I would say—and I sit in the second chamber of the government, the House of Lords, and the thing that we really need to be doing is making sure that nature doesn’t always come so far down the priority list, that the first thing when you’re building in a city is you get rid of the nature. Because the most important thing that comes through from all of this is that people need to be near nature. And we’ve all signed up to that internationally, but trying to persuade governments, when they’re looking at city plans, to ensure that nature is part of the infrastructure and not just an add-on is quite hard work.

Feltman: Mm. Well, thank you so much for joining us. This has been a really interesting chat, and I know I’m definitely feeling extremely motivated to go spend more time in my local park, so I really appreciate your time.

Willis: Oh, thank you very much. It’s been really nice to talk to you.

Feltman: That’s all for today’s episode. We’ll be back with another one on Friday. And if you’ve been missing our weekly science news roundup, your wait is almost over: we’ll be rolling back into our regular publishing schedule on Monday.

Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper, Madison Goldberg and Jeff DelViscio. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news.

For Scientific American, this is Rachel Feltman. See you next time!

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

A Story About Salmon That Almost Had a Happy Ending

How tribal leaders, commercial fisherman and a few small environmental groups won an uphill campaign against dams.

Completion of the world’s largest dam removal project — which demolished four Klamath River hydroelectric dams on both sides of the California-Oregon border — has been celebrated as a monumental achievement, signaling the emerging political power of Native American tribes and the river-protection movement.True enough. It is fortunate that the project was approved in 2022 and completed last October, before the environmentally hostile Trump administration could interfere, and it is a reminder that committed, persistent campaigning for worthy environmental goals can sometimes overcome even the most formidable obstacles.How tribal leaders, commercial fisherman and a few modestly sized environmental groups won an uphill campaign to dismantle the dams is a serpentine, setback-studded saga worthy of inclusion in a collection of inspirational tales. The number of dams, their collective height (400 feet⁠⁠) and the extent of potential river habitat that has been reopened to salmon (420 miles⁠⁠) are all unprecedented.⁠The event is a crucial turning point, marking an end to efforts to harness the Klamath’s overexploited waterways to generate still more economic productivity, and at last addressing the basin’s many environmental problems by subtracting technology instead of adding it, by respecting nature instead of trying to overcome it. It’s an acknowledgment that dams have lifetimes, like everything else, and that their value in hydropower and irrigated water often ends up being dwarfed by their enormous environmental and social costs.

How nature organizes itself, from brain cells to ecosystems

McGovern Institute researchers develop a mathematical model to help define how modularity occurs in the brain — and across nature.

Look around, and you’ll see it everywhere: the way trees form branches, the way cities divide into neighborhoods, the way the brain organizes into regions. Nature loves modularity — a limited number of self-contained units that combine in different ways to perform many functions. But how does this organization arise? Does it follow a detailed genetic blueprint, or can these structures emerge on their own?A new study from MIT Professor Ila Fiete suggests a surprising answer.In findings published Feb. 18 in Nature, Fiete, an associate investigator in the McGovern Institute for Brain Research and director of the K. Lisa Yang Integrative Computational Neuroscience (ICoN) Center at MIT, reports that a mathematical model called peak selection can explain how modules emerge without strict genetic instructions. Her team’s findings, which apply to brain systems and ecosystems, help explain how modularity occurs across nature, no matter the scale.Joining two big ideas“Scientists have debated how modular structures form. One hypothesis suggests that various genes are turned on at different locations to begin or end a structure. This explains how insect embryos develop body segments, with genes turning on or off at specific concentrations of a smooth chemical gradient in the insect egg,” says Fiete, who is the senior author of the paper. Mikail Khona PhD '25, a former graduate student and K. Lisa Yang ICoN Center graduate fellow, and postdoc Sarthak Chandra also led the study.Another idea, inspired by mathematician Alan Turing, suggests that a structure could emerge from competition — small-scale interactions can create repeating patterns, like the spots on a cheetah or the ripples in sand dunes.Both ideas work well in some cases, but fail in others. The new research suggests that nature need not pick one approach over the other. The authors propose a simple mathematical principle called peak selection, showing that when a smooth gradient is paired with local interactions that are competitive, modular structures emerge naturally. “In this way, biological systems can organize themselves into sharp modules without detailed top-down instruction,” says Chandra.Modular systems in the brainThe researchers tested their idea on grid cells, which play a critical role in spatial navigation as well as the storage of episodic memories. Grid cells fire in a repeating triangular pattern as animals move through space, but they don’t all work at the same scale — they are organized into distinct modules, each responsible for mapping space at slightly different resolutions.No one knows how these modules form, but Fiete’s model shows that gradual variations in cellular properties along one dimension in the brain, combined with local neural interactions, could explain the entire structure. The grid cells naturally sort themselves into distinct groups with clear boundaries, without external maps or genetic programs telling them where to go. “Our work explains how grid cell modules could emerge. The explanation tips the balance toward the possibility of self-organization. It predicts that there might be no gene or intrinsic cell property that jumps when the grid cell scale jumps to another module,” notes Khona.Modular systems in natureThe same principle applies beyond neuroscience. Imagine a landscape where temperatures and rainfall vary gradually over a space. You might expect species to be spread, and also to vary, smoothly over this region. But in reality, ecosystems often form species clusters with sharp boundaries — distinct ecological “neighborhoods” that don’t overlap.Fiete’s study suggests why: local competition, cooperation, and predation between species interact with the global environmental gradients to create natural separations, even when the underlying conditions change gradually. This phenomenon can be explained using peak selection — and suggests that the same principle that shapes brain circuits could also be at play in forests and oceans.A self-organizing worldOne of the researchers’ most striking findings is that modularity in these systems is remarkably robust. Change the size of the system, and the number of modules stays the same — they just scale up or down. That means a mouse brain and a human brain could use the same fundamental rules to form their navigation circuits, just at different sizes.The model also makes testable predictions. If it’s correct, grid cell modules should follow simple spacing ratios. In ecosystems, species distributions should form distinct clusters even without sharp environmental shifts.Fiete notes that their work adds another conceptual framework to biology. “Peak selection can inform future experiments, not only in grid cell research but across developmental biology.”

From polar bears to polar vortex: How Columbia Sportswear uses nature to protect us from it

I’m standing on a corner in Reykjavík, the most flagrantly fragrantly delicious cinnamon roll I have ever had in my hand, and I am pouring sweat. It’s not because I worked hard to get this blissful brauð; it’s a leisurely 10-minute walk from my hotel. It’s not because it’s unseasonably warm; it’s Iceland in late […] The post From polar bears to polar vortex: How Columbia Sportswear uses nature to protect us from it appeared first on Popular Science.

I’m standing on a corner in Reykjavík, the most flagrantly fragrantly delicious cinnamon roll I have ever had in my hand, and I am pouring sweat. It’s not because I worked hard to get this blissful brauð; it’s a leisurely 10-minute walk from my hotel. It’s not because it’s unseasonably warm; it’s Iceland in late September and a brisk 40 degrees Fahrenheit. It’s because I’m wearing Columbia Sportswear Omni-Heat Infinity baselayers, and I have underestimated their insulating capacities—a mistake I will not make twice. It’s a mistake I shouldn’t have made at all. I spent several days prior testing out breathable membranes and thermal-reflective tech. Columbia’s gold metallic foil—introduced in 2021—helped insulate Intuitive Machines’ lunar lander when it was sent to the actual Moon in February 2024 (and when it launched again in 2025). In space, nobody can hear you sweat, but I’m walking through landscapes that only resemble Mars. And I’m audibly panting. I’ve trudged across the Solheimajokull glacier and been told that Omni-Heat Infinity would be a bit extra for those circumstances, so why I thought I needed it for a casual city stroll, well, I’m feeling the heat from that … I’m taking the heat for that. I packed Omni-Heat Infinity in case temperatures plunged below freezing. I should have stuck with what I’m actually in Iceland to learn about: Omni-Heat Arctic, Columbia Sportswear’s latest insulation system developed through research on polar bear pelts and demonstrated on less carb-focused, more high-output adventures. And what better place to test fabrics than where weather is constantly in flux. Iceland is a land of layers—both wandered and worn. On the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, where the Eurasian and North American plates slowly separate, the country is resigned to be redesigned as the Earth shifts and strains. But because a place is cold doesn’t mean it is unkind. A close-knit society on an unraveling rock, the Iceland I experience is a warm, self-reliant culture that demands warm, resilient clothes. I’ve only been in the country a few hours before I see a new road being freshly graded on top of what looks like last week’s lava. I’ve only been in the country a few more hours before it rains, shines, pours, and then the clouds part. Over the course of one day I’ll be doused winding behind the wind-whipped waterfalls, snake between surging sneaker waves, then scramble up the ashy veins of ice ridges. For every hour that’s brooding and bleak along the black sand coastline, there will be one that’s calm and bright beside thermal rivers. Hiking through the Reykjadalur Valley, we meet Skylar, who is backpacking solo through Europe and proudly shows off his one constant companion: a Columbia Sportswear flannel. Tranquility. Volatility. “If you don’t like the weather, wait five minutes” is a fitting expression and apt alert that you should always approach travel in Iceland with all manner of apparel handy. It’s a saying you’re just as likely to hear in Beaverton, Oregon, home to the Columbia Sportswear Company. Field-testing in Iceland is a first for our host, Director of Communications Andy Nordhoff, but this type of terrain isn’t foreign. Oregon may not be constantly altered by tectonic tension the way Iceland is, but it’s no stranger to maritime influences and geothermal forces. It’s a dramatic backdrop shaped by the slow grind of time and upheaval—weathered smooth in places, rough in others. It’s a landscape that has shaped Columbia since the company was formed in 1938. What started as a hat company is now one tough mother of an outfitter producing apparel and accessories for challenging environments.   And if there’s one thing folks from Oregon and Iceland know, it’s that there’s nothing worse than standing in a coat that has you remembering rather than feeling what it’s like to be warm or dry. To be present in adventures, you can’t be worrying about your clothes. A majority of activities in Iceland—from exploratory tourism to olfactory art collectives—are anchored in cultural reverence for natural resources and capturing the rejuvenating aura of the outdoors. And in a way, that’s the concept behind Omni-Heat Arctic, a solar-capture system. But before I found myself wrapped up in a fleece appreciating untamed beauty, Columbia’s in-house scientists spent years wrapped up in how nature solved the problem of thriving at extremes. Speaking from the Columbia campus, Dr. Haskell Beckham, vice president of innovation, explains how the company set out to “have the warmest jacket without the weight of a giant, damp puffer.” A puffer is, in the most basic terms, a bunch of chopped-up material stuffed in fabric. There’s down, there’s synthetic insulation, but it’s no matter what it’s operating with trapped air, which is low thermal conductivity. Still, humans constantly radiate heat, so the silver metallic Omni-Heat lining was introduced in 2010 to block that loss and reflect it back. Fast forward to 2021, and Omni-Heat Infinity introduced more surface coverage without impacting breathability, now with gold dots to tell the difference. Either way, they stood up to accelerated abrasion testing and real-world comfort testimonials. Plus the off-world partnerships with Intuitive Machines, who spoke the same language of thermal emissivity and solar reflectivity. So, having successfully applied materials science to space, the Columbia lab started thinking about icons of the most extreme environments on Earth. And Arctic inhabitants quickly came up. Digging into scientific literature about polar bears, however, revealed gaps in the understanding of how they survive. So Beckham knew he had to get his hands on a polar bear pelt. After trying the Oregon Zoo, Beckham followed a suggestion to contact the Burke Museum of Natural History at the University of Washington in Seattle. It turned out they did have a pelt that he could check out, like a library book, and he brought it back to the Portland area where it was studied for a year—placed in environmental chambers to measure how it reacted under a solar simulator at various watts per meter squared to mimic what it might see in a cold, yet sunny environment. And that’s when the Columbia team was able to shine some light on how polar pelts absorb light. “We discovered that the fur itself is actually translucent, but not transparent,” explains Beckham. “This lets a degree of solar energy transmission through the fur. And the bear’s skin is pigmented, which helps convert solar energy into heat—just like a black T-shirt in a warm environment feels warmer than a white T-shirt, which reflects solar radiation. With this system the pelt harvested solar energy and converts it to heat, so we set about creating materials and material stacks that have the same effect, which is partially about color and partially about density.” The end result, Omni-Heat Arctic, applies this discovery with thinner outer layers that allow sunlight to penetrate to the insulation (the equivalent of the underfur) and be converted closer to the body. However, unbroken black fabrics wouldn’t work, as the heat collects at the surface and is lost to the environment. It was imperative the solar radiation bypass the shell, go through the insulation, and be absorbed in a lining. For the Arctic Crest Down Jacket, the Columbia lab finally settled on a lining patterned with triangles and dots. Multi-layered engineering allowed the material to have a layer of metal topped with a coating featuring a black pigment. That black coating absorbs the solar radiation and converts it to heat, which is then conducted toward the body, while also protecting that heat from dissipating into the cold. And the team knew they nailed it when beta testers made unprompted comments about how it felt like the warmth amplified after the sun comes out, despite the external temperature.        “It’s a solar-boosted heat … like a biological greenhouse effect,” says Beckham. “That’s why the pattern on the puffer resembles a geodesic dome. On top of that, it’s a warmer jacket even when there’s no sunshine, thanks to how we engineer materials. “The fleece works a bit differently since they don’t have that special low E [low emissivity] coating, but [the high pile and black yarn lining] do work in that way a pelt naturally works.” As straightforward as all that sounds, Beckham’s research produced insight that challenged conventional wisdom, showing it’s not as simple as sunlight transferred through fur onto skin equals warmth. The fur density varies across the pelt, and as little as 3.5 percent of the light sometimes reaches the skin. So, an open question still remains about why the polar bear’s skin is black and what part it versus the fur truly plays in thermal regulation.  This, in a way, makes Omni-Heart Arctic an evolution, even an improvement on the natural means of solar transference. Confirmed by heat flux sensors, control of insulation, shell fabric/coating, lining, and moisture-resistant overlays allowed for garments with up to three times heat retention plus performance-oriented attributes. Core areas needing thicker covering and other areas needing flexibility and breathability can be targeted, while selectively absorbing sunlight promotes warmth without harmful exposure to UV.  Before this trip, my perspective on polar bears boiled down to “If it’s brown, lay down; if it’s black, fight back; if it’s white, say goodnight.” Now, I can appreciate what these creatures and Columbia Sportswear have done to address my mammalian shortcomings. Of course, when you think of a polar bear soaking up the Arctic sun, there’s a good chance you imagine it’s floating on an iceberg. While we didn’t go that far to test our textiles, we did take a sizable amount of moisture into consideration.  The Seljalandsfoss and Skogafoss waterfalls feel like veils between worlds—permeable but formidable. Piercing the multiverse requires preparation, however, and Columbia made sure we were ready with the OutDry Extreme Wyldwood shell jacket and pants. Thrown over the zip-up fleece, OutDry Extreme provided an impervious barrier without forming a moist bubble. With the hydrophobic film-like membrane laminated on the exterior (as opposed to the interior, topped by DWR-coated fabric), I didn’t worry about wet out or wet within. This orientation enhances breathability, allowing the interior fabric to wick perspiration away and more evenly distribute moisture vapor movement so no area gets overloaded. And as someone who constantly runs hot, I can vouch for its effectiveness. The Konos TRS OutDry Mid shoe kept my feet equally dry, stable, and cushioned throughout trail and town (and they remain my rainy day sneaker boots). Having a successful solution doesn’t mean Beckham and his team aren’t looking at new bio-inspired emulations that can improve outdoor apparel, however. The water-repellent properties of the lotus leaf are of interest, as the plant’s microstructure enables water droplets to bead up and roll off effortlessly. This could lead to durable, chemical-free, water-resistant gear. And the structural color of butterfly wings, where microscopic structures rather than pigments create hues, could lead to vivid, long-lasting color without dyes—another sustainable solution. From the 3D printers and swatch prototypes in their fab lab to the computational modeling that allows them to go through infinite combinations of inspirations and materials, the Columbia Sportswear scientists pursue innovation and efficiency.   I’ve now lived in the Arctic Crest Down Jacket and Arctic Crest Sherpa Fleece from one shoulder season to the next, trudging through the most brutally cold winter in a decade. Soon, it will be time to hang them up in favor of windbreakers and lightweight rain shells. In the not-so-distant future, Columbia Sportswear will have cooling technologies to reveal. But the polar vortex surged southward again as I started outlining this piece. Despite the spring-like weather that followed, early-morning hiking and biking isn’t exactly balmy yet. And there are always new latitudes to explore with the right daypack. So, as long as there’s even a hint of crispness or clouds in the years to come, I’m happy to bundle up in biomimicry to help me grin and, well, bear it, warm as a fresh cinnamon roll. The post From polar bears to polar vortex: How Columbia Sportswear uses nature to protect us from it appeared first on Popular Science.

Even Ground Squirrels Got In on the Vole Feast Last Summer

For the first time, scientists documented concerted carnivory by California ground squirrels. But why were there so many voles? The post Even Ground Squirrels Got In on the Vole Feast Last Summer appeared first on Bay Nature.

By last summer, University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire professor Jennifer Elaine Smith had been studying California ground squirrels at Briones Regional Park for twelve years. There wasn’t much these rodents could do that could surprise her.  Then her team saw a ground squirrel stalk, hunt, and eat a California vole. It wasn’t a fluke, like some weirdly motivated or superintelligent squirrel. Because, as the researchers found, the squirrels kept doing it. Again and again. They weren’t sit-and-wait-type predators, but instead chased down the voles over short stretches of dirt. The research team documented 27 individual squirrels hunting voles that summer. “I could barely believe my eyes,” says Sonja Wild, a postdoctoral research fellow in the UC Davis Environmental Science and Policy department who co-authored a paper in the Journal of Ethology on the unusual phenomenon. “From then, we saw that behavior almost every day. Once we started looking, we saw it everywhere.” A California ground squirrel on the move with its unusual prey: a California vole. Normally, ground squirrels eat a mostly plant-forward diet. (Sonja Wild/UC Davis)It was easy to see what was triggering it: there were just so many voles around. “This was shocking,” says Smith, a University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire professor who studies social mammals and lead-authored the paper, which was published in December last year. “We had never seen this behavior before.”  California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi), on most days, have a plant-forward diet. They have also been known to eat meat such as bird eggs, hatchlings, insects, or each other on occasion—but this is the first time in nature that they had ever been documented hunting and eating California voles. “The widespread nature of vole hunting in our population fundamentally changes our understanding of this primarily granivorous species, suggesting that they are considerably more flexible in their diet than previously assumed,” the researchers wrote. California voles (Microtus californicus) are a burrowing rodent species that range from southern Oregon down to Baja California—sometimes living (dangerously?) in ground squirrel burrows. They are ubiquitous, but since they live underground, I usually only see a handful of these rodents every year.  That all changed last year. Female voles can have back-to-back litters—every 21 days—if conditions are right. Just imagine. (Vishal Subramanyan)A heck of a lot of voles In May, I was hiking in Sycamore Grove Park, a regional preserve in Livermore that I’ve been visiting for over seven years. As a wildlife photographer, I spend a lot of time in nature: being still and quiet, watching for animals. This time, from the start, I saw dozens of these tiny rodents running all over the trails. I’d only seen a couple of voles in this park over the years. I saw more of them in a few minutes than I had over the past several years. Throughout the course of my hike, I counted over 100 voles. It was a photographer’s dream. I hunched down and took dozens of photos as the voles scurried through fields, climbed on stalks, and ran in and out of their burrows. It appeared Northern California was in the midst of a vole population boom. Reports emerged of huge surges in their numbers, from San Francisco to Pleasanton to the El Dorado Hills, east of Sacramento. Smith’s team, crunching numbers from the community science platform iNaturalist, reported people logged seven times as many vole sightings in California as the average over the past decade. Livermore, like Briones Regional Park, was crawling with California voles last summer. (Vishal Subramanyan)Booms like this have occurred in the past. Just like their more famous cousins the lemmings, vole populations sometimes just go through the roof—reaching densities of up to 5,000 animals per acre. To humans, these booms may seem random. Vole populations typically cycle up and down over periods of three or four years, Smith says, but this was the biggest boom she saw over twelve years of study.  One thing that’s clear: Peak Vole is achieved by female voles reproducing at much higher rates than usual, according to Phoebe Edwards. She studied meadow vole population cycles for her Ph.D. thesis and is now an assistant professor of ecology, evolution, and organismal biology at Iowa State University. “As they’re increasing from a low population density, the females that are sexually mature are having lots of litters rapidly, back to back,” Edwards says. “They can even become pregnant once they’ve just given birth, and not all mammals can do that.” Voles can give birth to new litters every 21 days, she says. At the boom’s peak, birth rates slow. What sets off such industrious behavior? Generally, Edwards says, it’s because an opportunity has arisen: there’s more food around (possibly because of the climate changing), or fewer predators, or “changes to landscape use where voles are colonizing new kinds of habitats that weren’t really suited to them before,” said Dr. Edwards. Everybody likes eating voles The ground squirrels, like many, took advantage of the situation. Over the summer of 2024, researchers observed them hunting voles on 74 occasions over just 18 days of fieldwork. Of these, 31 involved active hunting, with squirrels stalking through tall grass or chasing voles across open dirt. And the hunters were quite successful—17 of the 31 documented attempts (55 percent) resulted in a kill.  Sometimes, squirrels tolerated other squirrels grabbing their killed voles. But occasionally the researchers saw squirrels fighting over their prizes. That made sense, they wrote, because “the energy contained in a single vole far outweighs that of more common food items, such as seeds or grasses.”  Population booms of small mammals like voles impact whole ecosystems, affecting predators and other animals. A slew of animals prey on voles, as Smith and team noted in their paper—“hawks, owls, egrets, long-tailed weasels, coyotes, skunks, mountain lions, and garter snakes”—all of which likely had more to eat. Burrowing rodents like voles are often ecosystem engineers, too, creating tunnels that other animals use. So more voles could also mean more habitat for those species. But these booms don’t last forever—so as vole populations crash, predators may be once again forced to turn to other prey, and small animals will have fewer places to live.  While the vole boom was a boon for animals with a taste for rodents, it touched human lives a bit differently. Grape grower Dane Stark, who runs Page Mill Winery in Livermore, noticed one summer day that some unknown vandal had nibbled a ring out of the bark on many of his youngest vines. He waited and watched, and quickly learned that the culprits were voles. They got to nearly all his vines. “I’ve been growing grapes for twenty years, and this is the first time I’ve ever noticed something like this,” Stark says. He hoped that the surge in vole numbers would bring in more predators to help control their exploding populations. Researchers documented last summer’s sharp spike in iNaturalist observations of California voles in their paper in the Journal of Ethology. (Courtesy of the authors)Have we passed Peak Vole?  It’s hard to know when or if the vole population boom is over. It would likely require an intensive field survey to get an accurate idea of their numbers. However, on my recent hikes this winter, I’ve observed far fewer voles compared to last summer. Community science reports on platforms like iNaturalist, which were essential in recording the vole boom last year, may also help understand the timing of the boom’s end.  Bobcats were among those that likely cashed in on a surfeit of voles last summer, along with “hawks, owls, egrets, long-tailed weasels, coyotes, skunks, mountain lions, and garter snakes,” according to researchers. (Vishal Subramanyan)The boom also raises other ecological questions, such as whether California ground squirrels learn hunting strategies socially or if it is a genetic predisposition. Wild and Smith are also interested in disease implications of the novel squirrel–vole interaction. “Parasites might be shared between voles and squirrels,” says Smith. “Future research will reveal the extent to which these interactions have positive or potentially negative consequences for ground squirrel populations.”  I’ll remember it fondly, as a wildlife photographer, given the abundance of photo opportunities the voles gave me. One evening, at a local park in Fremont. Down on the ground, voles were scampering across the fields. I watched as a bobcat quietly stalked prey alongside the trail. After patiently waiting for a few minutes, the bobcat pounced, grabbing one of the many voles that scattered these fields. It immediately took the vole and started trotting towards the cover, disappearing over the ridge as the sun set. In a prey boom, the mandate is the same for photographers as for bobcats: strike while it’s hot.  VIDEO A video compilation of ground squirrels hunting. Note: this contains some graphic imagery. (Sonja Wild, UC Davis)

Markus Buehler receives 2025 Washington Award

Materials scientist is honored for his academic leadership and innovative research that bridge engineering and nature.

MIT Professor Markus J. Buehler has been named the recipient of the 2025 Washington Award, one of the nation’s oldest and most esteemed engineering honors. The Washington Award is conferred to “an engineer(s) whose professional attainments have preeminently advanced the welfare of humankind,” recognizing those who have made a profound impact on society through engineering innovation. Past recipients of this award include influential figures such as Herbert Hoover, the award’s inaugural recipient in 1919, as well as Orville Wright, Henry Ford, Neil Armstrong, John Bardeen, and renowned MIT affiliates Vannevar Bush, Robert Langer, and software engineer Margaret Hamilton.Buehler was selected for his “groundbreaking accomplishments in computational modeling and mechanics of biological materials, and his contributions to engineering education and leadership in academia.” Buehler has authored over 500 peer-reviewed publications, pioneering the atomic-level properties and structures of biomaterials such as silk, elastin, and collagen, utilizing computational modeling to characterize, design, and create sustainable materials with features spanning from the nano- to the macro- scale. Buehler was the first to explain how hydrogen bonds, molecular confinement, and hierarchical architectures govern the mechanics of biological materials via the development of a theory that bridges molecular interactions with macroscale properties.His innovative research includes the development of physics-aware artificial intelligence methods that integrate computational mechanics, bioinformatics, and generative AI to explore universal design principles of biological and bioinspired materials. His work has advanced the understanding of hierarchical structures in nature, revealing the mechanics by which complex biomaterials achieve remarkable strength, flexibility, and resilience through molecular interactions across scales.Buehler's research included the use of deep learning models to predict and generate new protein structures, self-assembling peptides, and sustainable biomimetic materials. His work on materiomusic — converting molecular structures into musical compositions — has provided new insights into the hidden patterns within biological systems.Buehler is the Jerry McAfee (1940) Professor in Engineering in the departments of Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE) and Mechanical Engineering. He served as the department head of CEE from 2013 to 2020, as well as in other leadership roles, including as president of the Society of Engineering Science.A dedicated educator, Buehler has played a vital role in mentoring future engineers, leading K-12 STEM summer camps to inspire the next generation and serving as an instructor for MIT Professional Education summer courses.His achievements have been recognized with numerous prestigious honors, including the Feynman Prize, the Drucker Medal, the Leonardo da Vinci Award, and the J.R. Rice Medal, and election to the National Academy of Engineering. His work continues to push the boundaries of computational science, materials engineering, and biomimetic design.The Washington Award was presented during National Engineers Week in February, in a ceremony attended by members of prominent engineering societies, including the Western Society of Engineers; the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers; the American Society of Civil Engineers; the American Society of Mechanical Engineers; the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; the National Society of Professional Engineers; and the American Nuclear Society. The event also celebrated nearly 100 pre-college students recognized for their achievements in regional STEM competitions, highlighting the next generation of engineering talent.

Suggested Viewing

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.