Hoy en día, hay muy poca información disponible sobre que les pasó a aquellos walabíes introducidos. Dos científicos, Holly English y Anthony Caravaggi, decidieron investigar qué pasó con aquellos animales. Recogieron información sobre avistamientos de walabíes en los registros oficiales, las redes sociales, y los periódicos. Gracias a lo monos e inusuales que son, los avistamientos suelen ser mencionados en los periódicos locales.

En su artículo reciente publicado en la revista científica Ecologia y Evolución, los investigadores encontraron pequeñas poblaciones de walabíes viviendo a lo largo del sur de Inglaterra. Aunque alguno de estos animales es probablemente un fugitivo moderno de una colección privada o un zoo, es improbable que tales escapadas sean el origen de todos los avistamientos de la región. Por ello, los investigadores creen que las poblaciones del sur de Inglaterra se están reproduciendo en libertad.

Así que, si alguna vez estas en el sur de Inglaterra y crees que has visto a un walabí, ¡no te sorprendas demasiado!

A standard way of finding new species is to simply go on a trip to a place suspected to have undescribed species. That's it, just go and look around.

This was exactly what a team of scientists did that led to the discovery of a lichen that shines when exposed to polarized light. A collaboration between Finnish and Kenyan scientists collected lichens in the Taita Hills in Kenya. The Taita Hills are a biodiversity hot spot, but despite that, the authors realized that there were no records of a very common type of lichens in the area. So they decided to go and investigate what was growing there.

Just by looking, they found four undescribed lichen species. One of them was dotted with tiny crystals. These crystals reflect light, so under the microscope, the new species looked like it had a belt of shining lights — a microscopic Milky Way's arm. The species was aptly named Micarea stellaris ("stellaris" means star in Latin).

Sometimes researchers don’t just suspect there is a new species hiding somewhere, they know it for sure. The recently described Luciola singapura is a perfect example of that. An unidentified specimen was collected 12 years ago during a nationwide survey of fireflies in Singapore. Several years later, Wan F. A. Jusoh, one of the authors of the study, saw that the unknown firefly collected in 2009 matched three other unknown specimens in the collection of the Lee Kong Chian Natural History Museum in Singapore.

So, in 2018 and 2019, scientists arranged an expedition to the area where all unknown specimens had been collected. The expedition was successful, and they were able to find this "unknown" firefly. The Singapore firefly, or as it is known in Malay, kunang-kunang Singapura, is a very small firefly (less than 5 millimeters long). It is orange to yellowish-brown and at night emits flashes of yellow light. This species is the first new luminous firefly described in the country since 1909.

Similarly, sometimes scientists know that there are potentially several new species under their noses yet to be properly described. This happens in what is known as "species complexes." In a species complex, a group of organisms are so closely related and similar in appearance that it is tough to separate them into distinct species.

This is the case with a group of Brazilian frogs called pumpkin toadlets. In the last five years,  15 different species have been described. In 2021, scientists got to add a new species to the list: Brachycephalus rotenbergae. In order to make sure the species was distinct and recognizable, researchers used a variety of methods to describe the toadlet. They used physical characteristics, DNA data, and the song the toadlet sings to ensure it is its own species and future researchers can distinguish it from all other pumpkin toadlets. Some of its distinguishing characteristics are its bright orange color and its call, which contains short notes and a fast rhythm.

Sometimes, even though scientists know that a species complex exists, they might not know much more than that. Science is nothing without data. And no data equals no new species descriptions.

That is the case for members of the "Bryde's whale complex." Scientists suspected this group of whales included different species but couldn't say for sure, due to a lack of genetic data and good research on the animals. Because of this lack of data, they took a conservative approach and considered the group of whales as a single species.

But, in January 2019, a 12-meter long adult male whale became stranded and died in the Everglades. A large group of scientists and citizens were able to take measurements and samples. They also preserved the skull and the skeleton, an important step for species descriptions in whales. Thanks to all this data collected, scientists were able to say that this whale is indeed distinct from other Bryde-like whales. Rice's whale, or Balaenoptera ricei, is a medium-sized baleen whale that lives year-round in the Gulf of Mexico. Rice's whale was named after Dale W. Rice, a renowned American scientist and whale expert. The whales are critically endangered, due to the population’s small size and the many human disturbances that occur in their habitat.

On other occasions, what prevents scientists from disentangling species complexes is not the lack of data, but rather lack of appropriate methods. Even with the advent of DNA sequencing, sometimes the genetic differences are hard to spot. If the physical characteristics of the species in question are also difficult to disentangle, scientists are out of luck until they can find appropriate methods.

There is a widespread cuckoo wasp that ranges from Western Europe to Mongolia. A DNA analysis in 2014 revealed high variability in the species’ DNA, suggesting the cuckoo wasp may be made up of different species. But without easily distinguishable features in the DNA or in the wasps' physical appearances, there was no way to say definitively. Recently, a group of Scandinavian scientists identified hormones that insects have in their skin, called cuticular hydrocarbons, to help with species identification.

With their analysis in hand, scientists went back and studied a group of wasps that had the same type of hormonal profile. They were able to find small body differences in the females of that group and the rest of the wasps under the species complex of Chrysis pseudobrevitarsis. Without grouping of these wasps by their hormonal profiles, finding those minute differences would have been like finding a needle in a haystack. They called the new species C. parabrevitarsis (pictured at the top of the page).

Another way scientists sometimes find out about new species is by pure coincidence. When a scientist expert in one group of animals finds a species that doesn’t match anything else they have ever seen before, they know they may have found something very special. For example, during a survey to study deep fish ecology and the potential effects of human disturbances there, a group of researchers discovered a very large predatory fish.

Usually, slickhead fishes are small, around 35 centimeters. But the new species of slickhead has an average length of 113 cm.

Researchers analyzed the stomach contents of the novel fish and found that they were at the top of the trophic chain. Such a high position is normally found in predatory fishes like sharks; slickheads usually feed on zooplankton and are usually of a lower trophic position than other fishes in their environment. It's no wonder then why the researchers decided to name the species Yokozuna, after the highest sumo wrestling rank in Japan.

And finally: social media. With increased access to portable cameras and scientists, the public has the opportunity to potentially find something novel and unexpected. That was the case with Maratus nemo. Sheryl Holliday found a peacock spider in a South Australian wetland she did not recognize. She posted a picture of the spider on a Facebook peacock appreciation page. Joseph Schubert, an arachnologist, saw the pictures and got in contact with Sheryl.

Sheryl went back to the place she had seen the spiders and collected some, not a small feat considering the spiders are the size of a grain of rice. She sent them to Joseph Schubert, who was able to study them and determine that this was indeed a new species. He named it Maratus nemo due to the coloration of the males, who have a bright orange face with a white stripe.

In England today, there is little information available about the fate of those introduced wallabies. Two researchers, Holly English and Anthony Caravaggi, wanted to know what happened to those wallabies. They collected information on wallaby sightings by scouring through official records, social media, and newspapers. Thanks to the wallabies’ cuteness and distinctiveness compared to other animals, sightings were often reported in local news.

In their recent article, published in Ecology and Evolution, the researchers found small populations living throughout southern England. It seems wallabies can survive in England and potentially even breed. While some of the wallabies they found are probably escapees from current private collections and zoos, such escapes are unlikely to account for all wallaby sightings in the region.

So, if you are ever in southern England, and think you spot a wallaby, don’t be too surprised!

Los humanos modificamos nuestros alrededores como mejor nos parece. Somos capaces de eliminar cualquier animal, desde un caracol inconveniente en el jardín hasta un lobo con la costumbre de matar ganado. No es de extrañar que los animales nos tengan miedo.

Pero los efectos de ese miedo se hacen notar más allá de los animales. Los animales son criaturas adaptables. Se adaptan a nuestros horarios y comportamientos modificando los suyos propios. Y estos cambios en sus comportamientos tienen consecuencias. Los efectos ecológicos de estos cambios se extienden hasta los grandes carnívoros, como los pumas.

Los pumas viven a lo largo de las Américas, desde la Patagonia en el sur hasta las regiones sub-árticas de Canadá. Pero la mayoría de la gente que vive en esos lugares pasará todas sus vidas sin ver a un solo puma. Ellos saben cómo evitarnos, y los animales que suelen ser presas de los pumas lo han notado.

Un nuevo artículo publicado en la revista científica Ecosphere ha encontrado que los ciervos de cola negra en las montañas de Santa Cruz de California están pasando más tiempo en las áreas del bosque más cercanas a la habitación humana. Y no es porque las plantas allí sean de mejor calidad o sepan mejor, o porque los humanos les estén dando de comer. Es porque los pumas están asustados de acercarse a estas áreas donde hay gente en las cercanías, y por ello evitan ir a esas áreas.

Los pumas están pasando tanto tiempo en esas áreas de los bosques que los están modificando. Las plantas en estas áreas se están volviendo más arbustivas, ya que los ciervos están básicamente podando las plantas. Esto, a su vez, crea más comida para los ciervos, creando un escenario ideal para los ciervos. Necesitamos más investigación para saber cómo estos cambios afectan a otros animales en estas áreas, como los pájaros o los insectos, pero el efecto indirecto que la presencia de los humanos ha causado en el paisaje está claro.

But the effects of that fear do not stop with the animals themselves. Animals are adaptable creatures. They adapt to our schedules and behaviors by modifying their own. These changes in behaviour can trickle down. These ecological effects extend even to large carnivores like pumas.

Pumas live throughout the Americas, from Patagonia in the south all the way to the sub-arctic regions of Canada. But most people who live in those areas will go their whole lives never seeing one. Pumas know to avoid us — and their prey have noticed too.

New research published in Ecosphere has found that black-tailed deer in the Santa Cruz Mountains of California are spending more time in the forest areas closer to human habitation. And it is not due to tastier or better quality plants, nor because humans are providing them with food. Rather, it is because pumas are afraid of the nearby humans and so they don’t like going into those areas.

The deer are spending so much time in these forests that they are modifying the environment. The plants in these deer-frequented areas are becoming shrubbier as they are essentially being pruned by the deer. This, in turn, creates more food for deer, creating a win-win scenario for the deer. More research is needed to see how this affects the other wildlife in the area, like birds and insects, but the effect that humans are indirectly having on the landscape is clear.

This semi-legal status has hampered research not just on marijuana, but also on the effects of marijuana legalization and its cultivation. It also means marijuana crops are often not accountable to the federal environmental laws other crops are. Some of the known side-effects of marijuana cultivation include land clearing, diversion of surface water, pesticide use, and wildlife poaching.

But this is very much the beginning of our understanding of the environmental effects of large-scale marijuana cultivation. We know even less about wildlife's interactions with marijuana plantations. Much of the little knowledge we have is based on information gleaned directly or indirectly from illegal marijuana grows.

If trends are any indication, though, legal or decriminalized marijuana is here to stay. In which case, we need to know more about its potential medicinal effects, its detrimental health effects, and the production process of this emerging crop.

Previous research on the effects of marijuana plantations on wildlife have been incidental: a fisher found dead in a remote part of Sierra Nevada, Calfornia, whose necropsy revealed it had died from rodenticide poisoning; a spotted owl found dead in Humboldt County, California, who died of emaciation and parasitism, with significant amounts of rodenticide in its liver and blood. These findings were eventually related to illegal marijuana grows, where pesticides (among other environmental transgressions) are used without any regulatory control.

In a newly published study, scientists from UC Berkeley led by Phoebe Parker-Shames, selected eight small cannabis farms in Oregon, located in an environmentally rich, biodiverse area. With the farms’ permission, the researchers set up camera traps in the cannabis farms and in “comparison sites” (areas within close proximity to the farms, 500m or less). A few years later, they compared the animals they found within marijuana farms and the comparison sites.

They found a surprising amount of wildlife in and around cannabis farms: they recorded 18 species of mammals and birds. On the comparison sites, they found 24 species. The main difference they found, however, was which species were more prevalent in each area.

On cannabis farms, domestic animals like dogs and cats were widespread. Some wild animals were not influenced by the presence of cannabis farms, like brush rabbits and black-tailed jackrabbits. They were as likely to be found in the farms as in the comparison sites.

Carnivores and larger-sized animals, on the other hand, were more common on comparison sites. Gray foxes and black-tailed deer were less likely to be found in cannabis farms than in the comparison sites. The authors speculate this may be related to fences or the presence of dogs and cats.

Unfortunately, this new research does not include farm land-use practices or characteristics, so it is not currently possible to disentangle why certain animals are being found less often in cannabis farms than in other sites.

This research, however, is just the first to tackle the lack of information. This study provided baseline data: it showed that wild animals do make use of the space in and around small cannabis farms, but that their responses may depend on body size or diet, for example. Studying these, and other factors — such as the differences in wildlife responses between small and large cannabis farms, or between cannabis and other crops — will allow us to better understand the effects of the cultivation of marijuana.

Legal, logistical, and security reasons have, up until recently, hampered research into the effects of marijuana plantations. The lack of experimental procedures with controls, or even observational studies, has meant that the data we have obtained up to now are minimal and sometimes skewed towards data obtained in trespass grows.

With the political changes the US has experienced in the last couple of months, the legal situation of marijuana and its research could soon be very different. Democrat Chuck Schumer (the US Senate Majority Leader) has announced that they aim to pass legislation in 2021 to end the federal prohibition on marijuana. If that legislation passes, we will likely see a growing number of research projects focused on marijuana. Hopefully, some of those projects will investigate the potential effects of marijuana on the environment and wildlife.

Todos los científicos quieren que sus investigaciones tengan impacto en el mundo. Pero, ¿cuantas veces ese deseo de marcar la diferencia se traslada en algo concreto en el mundo real? Un reciente estudio en el Parque Nacional y Área Natural de Manejo Integrado Madidi quiso poner números concretos encima de la mesa sobre la tasa real de la difusión e implementación del conocimiento adquirido en estudios científicos.

Este estudio, publicado por Anne Toomey, profesora asistente en Pace University, María Eugenia Copa Alvaro, de la Colección Boliviana de Fauna en Bolivia, y sus compañeros, revela la desconexión entre los beneficios potenciales de un proyecto y quien suele llegar a aprender sobre los resultados. En los últimos 10 años, el 83 por ciento de los estudios que se hicieron en Madidi indicaron que sus proyectos tenían implicaciones fundamentales o potenciales para el manejo del área local hasta niveles nacionales. Sin embargo, la mayoría de los investigadores publicaron sus resultados en revistas científicas, las cuales suelen ser inaccesibles para aquellos interesados a nivel local, o incluso nacional, debido a las barreras de pago y otras barreras de acceso.

Toomey habló con la gente del área para saber su opinión acerca de los proyectos científicos que se llevan a cabo en el Parque Nacional Madidi. Una de las cosas que más mencionó la gente es el valor del conocimiento científico que estos proyectos recaban, para áreas como el manejo de recursos naturales y para cambiar las percepciones de la gente sobre las áreas naturales protegidas. Sin embargo, había un consenso general entre la gente: la cantidad de información que los científicos recaban es mucho mayor que la información que los científicos distribuyen de forma local. Unos estudios anteriores arrojan luz sobre este consenso: información publicada en revistas científicas no llega a la gente que puede usar sus resultados, como los administradores de reservas naturales, las comunidades locales, o incluso, los políticos locales.

La clave para lograr un impacto mayor de los proyectos científicos, y conseguir que los datos lleguen a aquellos que pueden usarlos, está en cambiar la forma en la que diseminamos la información, y a quien dirigimos nuestros esfuerzos de diseminación. Hay formas de incrementar las posibilidades que los resultados científicos sean implementados, como escribir en blogs (conocidos a veces como literatura "gris"), hablar con la prensa local, o crear materiales específicamente para aquellos que tienen el poder de cambiar las cosas.

Toomey y sus compañeros postulan que estas actividades de difusión deberían ser partes integrales de la actividad científica, particularmente en el caso de las ciencias de la conservación, donde la investigación se suele hacer con el objetivo explícito de contribuir a la conservación de una especie o ecosistema.

El estudio realizado en Madidi también incluye las perspectivas de los indígenas locales acerca de los investigadores que realizan estudios en sus tierras. Ellos mencionaron varias razones que les impiden acceder a las investigaciones, como que suelen estar escritas en inglés y estar disponibles solo bajo pago. Sugirieron que aquellos investigadores que quieren asegurarse de que las comunidades locales se benefician de la investigación involucren a las comunidades por crear videos educativos o presentar sus resultados durante las reuniones comunitarias.

Los esfuerzos para diseminar los resultados científicos de una forma diferente no son comunes, pero estudios como los de Toomey ayudan a aumentar la conciencia sobre el tema. Erin Poor, becaria postdoctoral en la Universidad de Maryland, tiene experiencia en hablar con las comunidades locales, y en crear recursos específicamente para ellos. Ella creo una campaña de recaudación de fondos a finales de su doctorado para volver a su lugar de trabajo de campo en Indonesia y difundir el conocimiento que había ganado durante su investigación.

“Para mí, era importante volver y difundir mis resultados a la gente que vive donde yo estaba estudiando, para aumentar las posibilidades de que mis resultados fueran implementados en el terreno,” dijo Poor.

“Los gerentes, los tomadores de decisiones, y la gente del lugar son los que pueden hacer cambios en el área, por eso es importante que ellos tengan acceso a mis resultados.”

Poor se aseguró de que los materiales que entregó estaban en indonesio y en un formato que sabía que ellos usaban. “Las revistas científicas están dirigidas a un público de habla inglesa de países occidentales; en parte es por eso que sentía que necesitaba volver allí y hablar con la gente cara a cara, en indonesio, y distribuir mis resultados en otros formatos (informes, reuniones, y diapositivas de PowerPoint) en inglés e indonesio.”

La gente de Madidi también sugirió que una buena forma de asegurarse de que la investigación es relevante y puede tener un impacto real es colaborar con las comunidades locales antes de empezar un proyecto nuevo. Aunque es difícil para muchos investigadores, debido a la falta de fondos para llevar a cabo este tipo de consulta, puede ser factible en proyectos a largo plazo.

Por ejemplo, un reciente artículo que investigaba si unas luces parpadeantes funcionarían para parar ataques de depredadores al ganado en la meseta andina de Chile reclutó a afectados por estos ataques y les presentó con los diferentes métodos que pueden funcionar para desalentar a los pumas y los zorros culpeos. Ellos, junto con los científicos, quienes ya habían hecho investigaciones en el área, seleccionaron que método sería probado en su área. Gracias a la participación local, los investigadores maximizaron las probabilidades de que sus resultados fueran relevantes y de que estos sean implementados.

Aunque actualmente la diseminación de resultados a la gente local es una faceta poco apreciada del trabajo de campo, es una parte importante del trabajo. Asegurarse de que el trabajo le llega a aquellos que tienen el poder de hacer algo con él, y quienes tienen derecho a él, no solo resultara beneficioso para las especies o ecosistema, sino que también fomentará una buena relación entre los investigadores y las comunidades locales.

Como dice Poor: “Yo estaba investigando como una invitada en su país, y recibí una ayuda increíble por parte de la gente local por todo Riau. Sentía que era su derecho tener acceso a mis resultados. Yo no hice la investigación sola; fue posible gracias al esfuerzo increíble de muchas personas que tienen un interés personal en mejorar el paisaje para la fauna silvestre, y por eso la investigación también les pertenecía a ellos.”

This study, published by Anne Toomey, assistant professor at Pace University, María Eugenia Copa Alvaro from the Colección Boliviana de Fauna in Bolivia, and colleagues, reveals the disconnect between the potential impacts of a project and who learns about its results. Over a ten year period, 83 percent of the studies conducted in Madidi indicated that their project had definite or potential implications for the area's management from local to national levels. Yet, the majority of researchers were publishing their results in peer-reviewed academic journals, which are often inaccessible to local (or even national) stakeholders due to "paywalls" and other barriers to access.

Toomey interviewed local people on their opinion about the research projects being performed at Madidi National Park. One of the things often mentioned was the value of research for providing relevant knowledge, for things like natural resource management and changing local perceptions of protected areas. However, there was a general consensus that the amount of knowledge gained by researchers was far superior to the information the researchers actually distributed. Previous studies shed a light on why this is the case: data published in peer-reviewed journals does not reach those the people who can make direct use of the results, such as reserve managers, local communities, or even local politicians.

The key to achieving a greater impact of research projects, and getting the data into the hands of people who can act on it, lies in changing how and to whom we disseminate our results. Writing blog posts (sometimes called "grey literature"), talking to the local press, or creating material geared towards those with the power to change things are methods that can make research findings more likely to be implemented.

Toomey and her colleagues argue that these dissemination activities should be seen as an integral part of research, particularly in the case of conservation science, where research is often done with the explicit goal to contribute to the conservation of a species or ecosystem.

The Madidi case study also included the perspectives of local indigenous people about researchers studying on their land. Some reasons they reported for why they couldn't access the research were that it was usually written in English and locked behind paywalls. They suggested that researchers who want to ensure that local communities benefit from research can engage them by creating educational videos or doing presentations at community meetings.

Efforts to disseminate research results in a different way are not yet common, but case studies like Toomey’s help to increase awareness of the issue. Erin Poor, a postdoctoral fellow at University of Maryland, has experience in talking with and creating resources specifically for local communities. She created a GoFundMe campaign at the end of her PhD to return to her field site in Indonesia and spread the knowledge she had gained while doing fieldwork.

“For me, it was important to go disseminate my results to the people that live in the landscape I was studying, to increase the chances that my results would be implemented on the ground," said Poor.

“The managers, decision-makers, and local residents are the people who can make changes on-the-ground, so it's necessary for them to have access to my results.”

Poor made sure to provide the materials in Indonesian and in a format she knew they use. “Peer-reviewed journals cater to an English-speaking Western audience, so that's in part why I felt I needed to go back and talk with people face-to-face, in Indonesian, and distribute my results in other formats (reports, meetings, Powerpoints) in English and Indonesian.”

Local people in Madidi also suggested that a good way to ensure research is relevant and impactful was to collaborate with the local communities before starting a new research project. While this is difficult for many researchers, due to the lack of funding to undertake this kind of consultation, it may be feasible in long-term projects. 

For example, a recent article investigating if flashing lights could deter predators from attacking livestock in the Andean plateau of Chile recruited local people affected by livestock predation and presented them different options that may deter pumas and Andean foxes. Together with the scientists, who had performed research in the area before, they selected which option would be tested in their area. Thanks to the local participation, the researchers maximized the likelihood of their results being relevant and the potential that they become implemented.

Although dissemination of results to local stakeholders is currently an unappreciated facet of fieldwork, it is nonetheless an important step. Ensuring that work reaches those who can act on it, and who have a right to it, will not only prove beneficial to the species or ecosystem in question, it will also foster a good relationship between researchers and local communities.

As Poor puts it: “I was doing research as a guest in their country, and I received incredible help from locals throughout Riau. I felt that it was their right to have access to my results. I didn't do the research alone - it took an incredible effort from many people who have a vested interest in improving the landscape for wildlife, so the research belonged to them, as well.”

Between 2013 and 2017, 503 free-living koalas got fitted with telemetry collars, which allowed scientists to find them in the wild, record their positions, and importantly, detect when they were dead. Over these four years, scientists tracked koalas and recovered those that perished. Or at least they tried to — some were tracked to the inside of carpet pythons! 

Experienced veterinarians examined the retrievable koala bodies and determined causes of death through a necropsy, which is an autopsy for animals. With these results, the realization that carpet pythons do prey on wild koalas, and knowledge about carpet python behavior, the study authors were able to accurately estimate how many koalas died from carpet python predation. And it was more than initially expected.

Carpet pythons seem to kill more koalas than they can swallow. In most cases attributed to carpet python mortality (62%), koalas were killed by asphyxiation with evidence of attempted ingestion, but the koala carcass was ultimately abandoned.

This finding enabled scientists to pinpoint the signs of carpet python predation attempts: identification of a bite site, slicked fur from the snake's saliva, and damage to the lungs caused by the pythons wrapping their body around the koala’s body. We now know that carpet pythons are the second biggest predator of wild koalas, behind wild dogs (dingo relatives, not to be confused with the dogs we keep as pets). This is an important finding that will allow wildlife managers to identify safe koala habitat.