Science
L.A.'s mountain lions become more nocturnal to avoid people. Does it come at a cost?
Griffith Park’s late celebrity mountain lion P-22 took the night shift to avoid hordes of hikers, bikers and dawdlers who frequented his home in the heart of Los Angeles — and it’s a pattern replicated by other pumas in the region, according to a new study.
The move to a later schedule is an encouraging example of a species doing its part to coexist in a bustling megalopolis, according to researchers from UC Davis and other institutions who conducted the study.
But the temporal gymnastics they perform may come at a cost, experts said, consuming energy and limiting the amount of time they can spend on critical tasks such as hunting. And it may compound other urban stressors, like whizzing traffic and rat poison.
The study, published last month in the journal Biological Conservation, found that Southland mountain lions became more nocturnal and less crepuscular — i.e., active at dusk or dawn — in popular recreation areas.
To examine the impact of recreation on the lions, researchers used GPS and activity data gleaned from the tracking collars of 22 mountain lions roaming the Santa Monica Mountains and surrounding region between 2011 and 2018.
They also drew data from Strava, a popular app in which users publicly document runs, hikes and more to determine how much recreation was happening in each lion’s home range, and to test how it influenced the patterns and timing of their activity.
The “most nocturnal” puma in the study was the late P-41, who inhabited the Verdugo Mountains, a range bounded by freeways and development on the northeast edge of the San Fernando Valley, and a recreation haven. Ranked second was P-22, affectionately called the Brad Pitt of mountain lions when he stalked the Hollywood Hills.
Researchers wondered if mountain lions who were exposed to more recreation would become immune to it — and simply not care.
“We saw the opposite,” said Ellie Bolas, lead author and a PhD candidate at UC Davis.
“Seeing that mountain lions are flexible in their activity and sensitive to recreation is, I think, a reason we can feel optimistic that they’re willing to avoid us and want to avoid us,” she added.
Other institutions involved included Cal Poly Pomona, the National Park Service, UCLA, the University of Nebraska and Harvard Westlake High School.
The findings are good news for Angelenos worried about becoming a lion’s lunch — given that the cats are steering clear of people. And it helps explain how the apex predators manage to hack it in an intensely urban environment. Los Angeles is just one of two megacities in the world that are home to a big cat; the other is Mumbai, in India, where leopards prowl the streets.
So why are local lions rearranging their schedules for people? The new study notes that animals might high-tail it to areas where there are less people when they can. But in the greater L.A. metropolitan area, with more than 18 million people, even natural areas get gridlocked. So they adopted another strategy.
The National Park Service has monitored lions in and around the Santa Monica Mountains for more than 20 years, which is where the long-term data for the recent research came from.
“A major thing that we’ve been studying all along is the effects of urbanization and fragmentation on these animals,” said Seth Riley, study co-author and branch chief for wildlife at Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, a unit of the park service.
The new study revealed that the lions’ timing shifts weren’t more pronounced on weekends when recreation spikes, contrary to what researchers expected.
There were also differences between the sexes, with female mountain lions found to be more active during the day and closer to sunrise. Researchers surmised that they avoid overlapping with male lions who will kill kittens in tow — and sometimes even the females themselves.
The least nocturnal puma tracked was P-13, a female with a home range in the central and western Santa Monicas.
Beth Pratt, California regional executive director for the National Wildlife Federation, said that while it’s good news that the charismatic cats are “coping,” there are likely tradeoffs.
“By switching their hunting strategy, it’s not ideal,” said Pratt, who was one of P-22’s biggest boosters. “It takes more energy, it doesn’t give them as many options, but the animals here are doing their part.”
People should pitch in, too, by minimizing challenges, she said. Panthers stalking the Santa Monica Mountains are imperiled by inbreeding because of freeways that essentially lock them in — and visitors with needed genetic diversity out.
“At a certain point they’re not going to be able to cope with all these challenges stacked up,” she said, pointing to threats such as cars and rodenticides — both of which took a toll on P-22. He was captured and euthanized in late 2022, deemed too sick to return to the wild because of injuries and infection.
One way to give lions “the edge” is by putting up wildlife crossings, said Pratt, who is a major force behind the largest such passageway in the world rising over the 101 Freeway in Agoura Hills.
The more than $90-million Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing currently under construction is seen as a potential lifeline for the lions of the Santa Monicas. Without an outlet, the population is at risk of blinking out.
Pratt said the new study shows that actions as seemingly innocuous as how we site trails and enjoy the outdoors can impact the species — and that it would behoove us to consider our approach as we navigate a biodiversity crisis.
“It’s not that we shouldn’t do them, but how can we do them differently so that animals aren’t as impacted,” she said.
Bolas said there’s currently no research to tell us if the lions’ flexibility in the timing of their activity is also a cost to them, but that “it very well may be.”
Revelations from the study arrive as some Southern California and Central Coast cougars are at a crossroads.
California wildlife officials are poised to decide whether to designate six isolated clans of pumas as endangered or threatened species under state law.
The state Fish and Game Commission in 2020 granted the cougars who are roaming regions between Santa Cruz and the U.S.-Mexico border temporary endangered status as a candidate to be listed under the state Endangered Species Act.
A final decision is expected next year.
Science
Trump Orders U.S. Exit From the Paris Agreement on Climate
President Trump on Monday signed an executive order to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, the pact among almost all nations to fight climate change.
By withdrawing, the United States will join Iran, Libya and Yemen as the only four countries not party to the agreement, under which nations work together to keep global warming below levels that could lead to environmental catastrophe.
The move, one of several energy-related announcements in the hours following his inauguration, is yet another about-face in United States participation in global climate negotiations. During his first term Mr. Trump withdrew from the Paris accord, but then President Biden quickly rejoined in 2020 after winning the White House.
Scientists, activists and Democratic officials assailed the move as one that would deepen the climate crisis and backfire on American workers. Coupled with Mr. Trump’s other energy measures on Monday, withdrawal from the pact signals his administration’s determination to double down on fossil-fuel extraction and production, and to move away from clean-energy technologies like electric vehicles and power-generating wind turbines.
“If they want to be tough on China, don’t punish U.S. automakers and hard-working Americans by handing our clean-car keys to the Chinese,” said Gina McCarthy, former White House climate adviser and former head of the Environmental Protection Administration. “The United States must continue to show leadership on the international stage if we want to have any say in how trillions of dollars in financial investments, policies and decisions are made.”
On Monday Mr. Trump also signed a letter to the United Nations, which administers the pact, notifying the world body of the withdrawal. The withdrawal will become official one year after the submission of the letter.
U.S. efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were already stalling in 2024, and Mr. Trump’s entry into office makes it increasingly unlikely the United States will live up to its ambitious pledges to cut them even further. Emissions dropped just a fraction last year, 0.2 percent, compared with the year earlier, according to estimates published this month by the Rhodium Group, a research firm.
Despite continued rapid growth in solar and wind power that was spurred by the previous administration’s signature climate legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act, emissions levels stayed relatively flat last year because demand for electricity surged nationwide, which led to a spike in the amount of natural gas burned by power plants.
The fact that emissions didn’t decline much means the United States is even further off-track from hitting Mr. Biden’s goal, announced last month under the auspices of the Paris Agreement, of slashing greenhouse gases 61 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. Scientists say all major economies would have to cut their emissions deeply this decade to keep global warming at relatively low levels.
In a scenario where Mr. Trump rolled back most of Mr. Biden’s climate policies, U.S. emissions might fall only 24 to 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, the Rhodium Group found.
“President Trump is choosing to begin his term pandering to the fossil fuel industry and its allies,” the Union of Concerned Scientists said in a statement. “His disgraceful and destructive decision is an ominous harbinger of what people in the United States should expect from him and his anti-science cabinet.”
Since 2005, United States emissions have fallen roughly 20 percent, a significant drop at a time when the economy has also expanded. But to meet its climate goals, U.S. emissions would need to decline nearly 10 times as fast each year as they’ve fallen over the past decade.
The United States is also a major exporter of emissions. Because of policies promoted by both Republicans and Democrats, the United States is now producing more crude oil and natural gas than any nation in history. Mr. Trump has vowed to further ramp up production and exports.
While the United States may not be party to the Paris Agreement, it will still be part of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which hosts annual climate negotiations known as COPs. This year’s COP will be held in Brazil in November and nations will be announcing new pledges for emissions reductions.
One recent study by Climate Action Tracker, a research group, found that, if every country followed through on the pledges they have formally submitted so far, global average temperatures would be on track to rise roughly 2.6 degrees Celsius, or 4.7 degrees Fahrenheit, above preindustrial levels by the end of the century, well above the 1.5 degrees Celsius the Paris Agreement originally set as a goal.
“Trump’s irresponsibility is no surprise,” said Christiana Figueres, a Costa Rican diplomat and an architect of the Paris Agreement in 2015. “In time, Trump will not be around but history will point to him and his fossil fuel friends with no pardon.”
Science
RFK Jr. wants to improve Americans' health. Here's some advice from the outgoing FDA chief
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called the Food and Drug Administration a “corrupt system” that is waging “war on public health.” He has pledged to eliminate “entire departments” at the agency charged with ensuring the safety of the foods Americans eat and the medicines we take, warning the more than 18,000 people who work there to “pack your bags.”
President-elect Donald Trumphas nominated Kennedy to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. If he is confirmed by the Senate, Kennedy will have the opportunity to “go wild” on health, foods and medicines, as Trump put it during the campaign.
Remaking the FDA may not be as straightforward — or as desirable — as it seems from the outside, says Dr. Robert Califf. He’s in a position to know: his second stint as the agency’s commissioner comes to an end Monday.
Califf’s career has spanned academia, large health systems, the biotech industry, Silicon Valley and the highest echelons of the federal government. His colleagues at the FDA “work just as hard and are at least as smart” as people he’s worked with anywhere else, he said. Public criticism comes with the territory, but things look different when you’re on the inside trying to ensure access to infant formula, make tobacco products less addictive and help consumers understand what’s in their groceries.
Califf spoke to a group of reporters last week on his last day in the FDA’s White Oak campus in Silver Spring, Md. Here’s his advice to those who will take over public health roles in the incoming Trump administration. His comments have been edited for length and clarity.
What do you wish people understood about your job?
This is a job that has a lot of bosses and a lot of constraints. When you’re in the commissioner’s office at FDA, you report to the executive branch. But Congress also thinks it’s your boss. It’s not unheard of for FDA to want to do something and get a message from an important appropriator that, “If you do this, we’re going to cut your budget somewhere else.”
It’s really interesting to me that people think the FDA can just declare this and that. It usually can’t. It usually has to go through a systematic approach. The minute you step beyond the legal boundaries of what the rule book says, you’re going to end up in court. That will get reined in fairly quickly.
How do you expect the new administration to change the FDA?
I have no idea. Right now we have rhetoric, and the rhetoric is contradictory. We just have to wait and see.
Some of the people who have been nominated to positions have been very critical, implying that there are nefarious motives of people working in public heath agencies. It feels a lot different when you have to make the decision and be accountable for it as opposed to criticizing the decision.
I have a copy of [President Theodore] Roosevelt’s “Man in the Arena” speech above my desk at home to remind myself every day that you get all this criticism from people who are not actually doing the work. It’s better to be in the arena trying to do the best that you can do.
Kennedy says he wants to get rid of certain departments within FDA. Are there areas you’re most worried about?
I’m worried about every part of the FDA. I don’t think you’ll find people at FDA doing work that no one cares about.
If you look at the food side of the FDA and the inspectorate, it’s massively underfunded. If you cut that — especially if you’re also saying we need to radically change the food system — that would be a problem.
Kennedy wants to see big changes in the food and health industries. Is that realistic?
Slogans are easy, and they sound really tough, but it’s a little different when you get into the to-and-fro. The lobbies that have very much created this food system are powerful. Maybe they can be overcome. There’s a possibility that things could be done for public health that couldn’t be done before.
The other part of this is if you really want to change the food system, you’d better have a 10- or 20-year plan. If you pronounced today, “No ultra-processed foods in SNAP or other federally assisted programs,” the farming industry would crash. I’m not saying that’s a reason to keep it the way it is. What I am saying is you’d better have a very carefully thought-out plan which sustains the economy, not just a bunch of slogans.
Trump said he would investigate claims about vaccines and autism. How should the FDA respond?
Anyone that investigates this will find that the risks and benefits are already delineated. There are dozens of studies that show no relationship between vaccination and autism. It wouldn’t be where I would spend my time, but if he wanted to do it, I think he’ll find that things are already well-documented.
That doesn’t mean that post-market surveillance couldn’t be better. It’s not a great way to have things that every time a question needs to be answered for public health, you need to get permission from every state and territory.
But I don’t think people are going to find any surprises. It’s all out there. For there to be any kind of conspiracy, it would take a whole lot of people outside of government deciding to work together. I’ve lived in America my whole life. It’s hard to get anybody to work together on things.
You’ve called misinformation a leading cause of death. Is it getting better or worse?
We’re losing the battle on misinformation. I’m not talking specifically about FDA. I’m talking about all of us.
To me it’s very clear that a lot of people died who would not have died had they just gotten a free COVID vaccine, and had they not been misled or been made to feel doubtful by people peddling incorrect information.
Often people who are experts in one area have opinions about another area, then when someone disagrees they call it misinformation. It’s a lot easier to put out a slogan or to make something up than it is to worry about whether you’ve got it right and take the time and effort to go to sources and get the right information.
We’re losing the battle right now because of this intersection of social media and cultural changes that have happened. It threatens a lot of the basis for public health. We’ve got to create networks of people who are dedicated to the truth.
What advice do you have for the new health leadership?
Change doesn’t come so easily in government. If we move at least five people, it has to get a congressional review. This makes it really hard.
When possible, use evidence for decision-making. I’ve heard a lot of tweets and short social media things saying, “We’re going to do this, we’re going to do that.” Let’s see the evidence about what an effective treatment is, and then if it’s good, go with it.
Those are my two main pieces of advice.
Science
Extinct Human Species Lived in a Brutal Desert, Study Finds
Chimpanzees live only in African rainforests and woodlands. Orangutans live only in the jungles of Indonesia. But humans live pretty much everywhere. Our species has spread across frozen tundras, settled on mountaintops and called other extreme environments home.
Scientists have historically seen this adaptability as one of the hallmarks of modern humans and a sign of how much our brains had evolved. But a new study hints that maybe we aren’t so special.
A million years ago, researchers have found, an extinct species of human relatives known as Homo erectus thrived in a harsh desert landscape once considered off limits before Homo sapiens came along.
“It’s a significant shift in the narrative of adaptability, expanding it beyond Homo sapiens to include their earlier relatives,” said Julio Mercader, an archaeologist at the University of Calgary and an author of the study, which was published Thursday in the journal Communications Earth and Environment.
Fossils of our early forerunners collected over many decades seemed to confirm the special adaptability of our species. Our ancestors, known as hominins, split off from other apes in Africa about six million years ago and lived for millions of years in open woodlands. They did not seem to live in extreme environments.
Dr. Mercader and his colleagues closely examined environments in East Africa, which has yielded some of the richest troves of hominin fossils. They picked a site in northern Tanzania called Engaji Nanyor where paleoanthropologists had previously found fossils of Homo erectus.
Homo erectus is believed to have evolved about 2 million years ago in Africa. They were the first to reach the stature of modern humans, and they had long slender legs to run on. Their brains were also larger than those of earlier hominins, though only about two-thirds the size of our own.
At some point, Homo erectus expanded out of Africa, getting as far as Indonesia, where they became extinct about 100,000 years ago. In Africa, many researchers suspect, they gave rise to our own species in the past several hundred thousand years before disappearing there as well.
Dr. Durkin and his colleagues set out to determine exactly what kind of environment Homo erectus lived in a million years ago at Engaji Nanyor. They looked at fossil pollen grains, analyzed the chemistry of the rocks and searched for other clues to the landscape.
“These studies are an immense amount of work,” said Elke Zeller, a climate scientist at the University of Arizona who was not involved in the project.
For hundreds of thousands of years, the researchers determined, Engaji Nanyor had been a comfortable open woodland. But around a million years ago, the climate dried up and the trees vanished. The landscape turned to a Mojave-like desert shrub land — an extremely arid place that seemed inhospitable for early hominins.
“The data led us to a pivotal question: How did Homo erectus manage to survive and even thrive under such challenging conditions?” Dr. Mercader said.
Instead of fleeing, the hominins figured out how survive in their changing home. “Their greatest asset was their adaptability,” Dr. Mercader said.
They changed the way they searched for animal carcasses to scavenge, for example. The hominins found the ponds and streams that sprang into existence after storms. They didn’t just drink at these fleeting watering holes. They hunted the animals that also showed up there, butchering their carcasses by the thousands.
The hominins also adapted by upgrading their tools. They took more care when chipping flakes from stones to give them a sharper edge. Rather than just pick up rocks wherever they were, they preferred material from particular places. And once they made a tool, they carried it with them.
“They may have had strategies where they basically say, ‘This is a good tool. I should bring it with me and be ready if we find food,’” said Paul Durkin, a geologist at the University of Manitoba who also worked on the study.
Dr. Durkin and his colleagues found that Engaji Nanyor was at the southern edge of a vast belt of desert shrub lands that stretched out of Africa, across much of the Middle East and into Asia. It’s possible that the adaptability that Homo erectus displayed at Engaji Nanyor helped them expand to other continents.
Dr. Zeller and her colleagues have taken a different approach to studying hominins: creating large-scale climate models to figure out what conditions were like during our evolution. Their models, like the new study, suggest that Homo erectus may have thrived in environments that were once thought too harsh for species other than our own.
Studies like the ones Dr. Zeller and the Engaji Nanyor team are conducting “are all starting to tell the same story,” she said. “We definitely have to look further back in time to understand our adaptability.”
-
Science1 week ago
Metro will offer free rides in L.A. through Sunday due to fires
-
Technology1 week ago
Amazon Prime will shut down its clothing try-on program
-
Technology1 week ago
L’Oréal’s new skincare gadget told me I should try retinol
-
Technology5 days ago
Super Bowl LIX will stream for free on Tubi
-
Business7 days ago
Why TikTok Users Are Downloading ‘Red Note,’ the Chinese App
-
Technology3 days ago
Nintendo omits original Donkey Kong Country Returns team from the remaster’s credits
-
Culture3 days ago
American men can’t win Olympic cross-country skiing medals — or can they?
-
Technology1 week ago
Meta is already working on Community Notes for Threads