Connect with us

World

Did toxic algae kill hundreds of elephants in Botswana?

Published

on

Did toxic algae kill hundreds of elephants in Botswana?

An investigation into the sudden deaths of at least 350 elephants in Botswana in 2020 has revealed the cause was almost certainly a “toxic brew” of open water tainted by a species of cyanobacteria that released cyanotoxins, essentially contaminating the elephants’ watering holes.

According to researchers, approximately 20 watering holes in Botswana’s Okavango Delta had been contaminated across roughly 6,000sq km (2,316 square miles).

So what happened, and how?

What is cyanobacteria and how does it harm elephants?

Although not all cyanobacteria, commonly referred to as blue-green algae, is toxic, some cyanobacteria can produce a type of deadly algal blooms (HABs) in standing water. This is the type which was discovered in the investigation carried out by researchers at King’s College London.

The study showed that the African elephants (Loxodonta africana) died in May and June 2020 after drinking from water holes contaminated with these toxic algal blooms.

Advertisement

“Scientists believe that the production of cyanotoxins is related to certain environmental triggers, for example, sudden rise in water temperature, nutrient loading, salinity,” Davide Lomeo, Earth observation scientist at King’s College London, a collaborator with Plymouth Marine Laboratory and the Natural History Museum in London, and lead researcher in the recent study, told Al Jazeera.

How did the elephant deaths come to light?

In early to mid-2020, a series of routine aerial surveys conducted by helicopter by the conservation organisation, Elephants Without Borders, revealed multiple elephant carcasses scattered across the landscape of the Ngamiland district of northern Botswana.

The aerial survey showed 161 elephant carcasses and 222 sets of bones, while also counting 2,682 live elephants throughout the eastern region of the Okavango Panhandle. In addition, the distance between the dead elephants indicated the deaths had been sudden, rather than gradual.

“The strong clustering of carcasses also suggests that the event was sudden, with limited dispersal of elephants prior to death,” the authors of the study said.

A combination photo shows dead elephants in Okavango Delta, 2020 [Handout via Reuters]

How did researchers identify toxic algae as the cause of death?

Before researchers confirmed it was toxic algae which killed the elephants, they had to rule out several other probable causes.

Advertisement

“Although this area is a known poaching hotspot in Botswana, this was ruled out since elephant carcasses were found with tusks intact,” the authors of the study said.

Other initial theories included virulent and bacterial causes, such as encephalomyocarditis virus or anthrax, but the evidence taken from the field – such as the age of the dead elephants and the absence of any clinical signs of disease, meant the researchers ruled these out as the cause.

The distribution of carcasses and bones suggested a unique “spatial pattern”, which indicated that localised factors may have played a role in the mass die-off. This led to further exploration of specific environmental and ecological conditions in the affected areas.

There were several other factors that served as evidence that the elephant watering holes were to blame. Using satellite photos, researchers measured the distance the elephants walked after they drank from the watering holes – an average of 16.5km (10.2 miles). Many of the elephants died shortly thereafter, roughly 3.6 days (88 hours), after they drank from the nearby contaminated water holes.

The report states that 88 hours aligned with previously reported toxicological timelines for other large mammals which have died from blue algal poisoning.

Advertisement

In addition, Lomeo’s previous body of doctoral work investigating the history of mass-mortality events and water quality in waterbodies in Africa served as evidence to further look into the theory of water hole contamination.

“This event was what led to this idea, since it was a well-covered news at the time, but no one really knew why they died. I then applied my skills in geospatial and computational data science to investigate the event under a well-known set of methods typically applied in epidemiological investigations (eg COVID-19),” explained Lomeo.

algae
Blooming blue-green algae caused by cyanobacteria in water bodies, rivers and lakes can be poisonous for animals [Shutterstock]

What is still unknown about the elephant deaths?

It is impossible to measure the level of toxicity for each waterhole from aerial photos. In addition, it is unclear whether elephants drank from one watering hole or several, according to researchers.

“It is highly likely that they drank from multiple pans before their death. It cannot be established if the fatal intoxication occurred in a single drinking event, but it seems more plausible that if cyanotoxins were present and were the cause of the die-off, this was through toxins bioaccumulation in elephants’ organs,” stated the study.

Although it is clear that the toxic waterholes were the likely source of the elephants’ mass mortality, there remains some uncertainty about the findings due to the timing of the mass die-off.

“The event occurred during the COVID-19 movement restrictions, and timely intervention was not possible. Therefore, tissue samples [which would have confirmed the presence/ absence of cyanotoxins] were not collected. Post-mortem investigations also need to be done within a certain timeframe, beyond which samples would be too degraded. Additionally, cyanotoxins cannot be detected from satellites, so the links can only be but indirect,” Lomeo explained.

Advertisement

As the aerial data was collected considerable time after the deaths in March and May 2020 – researchers could not definitively rule out the involvement of other animals in the elephant deaths.

Furthermore, smaller creatures may have been missed in the aerial survey, potentially limiting scientists’ understanding of the full scope of the incident.

“The area is well-known for very high predation rates, meaning that animal carcasses disappear quickly because of scavengers like hyenas and vultures. Hence, the involvement of other animals cannot be ruled out,” Lomeo said.

The specific conditions that would produce the level of toxicity in a watering hole that would be lethal to surrounding animal species are also still unknown.

“There is still uncertainty. We know that certain cyanobacteria species are more likely to produce cyanotoxins, and we know which toxins each species typically produces,” said Lomeo.

Advertisement

According to the research, cyanotoxins exhibit significant variations in their potency and effects. Certain types are extremely toxic, capable of causing death even in very small concentrations. Others, while less immediately dangerous, may still pose health risks at higher levels without necessarily being lethal. The field of cyanotoxin research remains active, with many aspects yet to be fully understood and explored.

Despite this, the overall findings of the study have been widely accepted. “The cause of the die-off has been officially attributed by the Government of Botswana to environmental intoxication by cyanobacterial toxins, also known as cyanotoxins,” the study’s authors said.

Could this happen again?

Although mass deaths of elephants are rare, researchers cannot be certain it will not happen again and that it will only affect elephants or land animals.

“[In] all arid systems where animals are dependent on stagnant water in lakes/ponds are susceptible to this [mass die-offs], the aquatic life in lakes also can be harmed in this same manner. We have even seen this in rivers and oceans where high nitrification from agricultural run-off combined with warming temperatures leads to disastrous bacterial blooms,” George Wittemyer, a behavioural ecologist at Colorado State University, one of the institutes involved in a study in Kenya that revealed that elephants use individual names, told Al Jazeera.

While it was relatively easy for researchers to identify the elephant carcasses from the air due to their size, the sudden deaths of smaller animals might not be so easy to identify.

Advertisement

World

Massive 11,000-carat ruby believed to be second-largest ever found in conflict-ridden country

Published

on

Massive 11,000-carat ruby believed to be second-largest ever found in conflict-ridden country

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A massive ruby unearthed in Burma is being hailed as the second-largest ever discovered in the conflict-ridden country.

The ruby weighs about 11,000 carats — about 4.8 pounds — and was unearthed near Mogok in the Mandalay region, the center of Burma’s gem industry and an area affected by ongoing conflict, according to The Associated Press, citing state media. 

The stone was found in mid-April, shortly after the country’s traditional New Year celebrations.

MAN STUMBLES ONTO RARE DIAMOND TREASURE DURING ARKANSAS PARK TRIP WITH FAMILY: ‘KNEW IT WAS DIFFERENT’

Advertisement

Burma’s newly discovered ruby is displayed at the president’s office in Naypyitaw on May 7, 2026. (Myanmar Military True News Information Team/AP)

Although it is roughly half the size of a 21,450-carat ruby discovered in 1996, experts say the new find could be more valuable because of its higher quality, the outlet reported.

It has a purplish-red color with slight yellow tones, moderate transparency and a highly reflective surface.

Burmese President Min Aung Hlaing and his cabinet have already inspected the stone in the country’s capital of Naypyidaw.

ONCE-IN-A-CENTURY TREASURES DATING BACK 4,500 YEARS UNEARTHED IN LEGENDARY CITY

Advertisement

Burmese officials inspect a newly discovered ruby at the president’s office in Naypyidaw on May 7, 2026. (Myanmar Military True News Information Team/AP)

Burma produces up to 90% of the world’s rubies, mostly from Mogok and nearby Mong Hsu. 

The gem trade — both legal and illegal — is a major source of income in the country.

However, rights groups, including Global Witness, have long urged jewelers to avoid buying Burmese gemstones, saying the trade helps fund the country’s military governments, according to The Associated Press.

RARE 10-CARAT BLUE DIAMOND AMONG $100M WORTH OF GEMS GOING UP FOR AUCTION

Advertisement

This photo taken on May 16, 2019, shows miners working in a ruby mine in Mogok, north of Mandalay. (Ye Aung Thu/AFP via Getty Images)

Gem mining also finances ethnic armed groups fighting for autonomy, contributing to Burma’s long-running conflicts.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The mining regions remain unstable. 

Mogok was seized in July 2024 by the Ta’ang National Liberation Army (TNLA), an ethnic armed group. Control later returned to the military under a ceasefire deal brokered by China late last year.

Advertisement

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

World

‘We need to make up our mind’: EU split over direct talks with Russia

Published

on

‘We need to make up our mind’: EU split over direct talks with Russia

The European Union is still struggling to decide if, how, and when it wants to talk directly with Russia to advance negotiations towards a lasting peace in Ukraine, as member states remain split on whether the benefits would outweigh the risks.

ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT

The absence of political unity, an indispensable precondition for such a significant undertaking, was laid bare on Monday during a meeting of foreign affairs ministers in Brussels, where several representatives urged fresh sanctions rather than dialogue.

“(Vladimir) Putin is really not interested in real peace talks yet. So we need to put more pressure on Russia in order to change the calculus and make him interested,” Sweden’s Maria Malmer Stenergard said upon arrival.

“What will we discuss? What will be our demands? Can we agree on our demands on Russia?” said Lithuania’s Kęstutis Budrys. “What is our strategy and agenda, and what’s the goal? What’s the end state? It’s not dialogue as dialogue per se.”

Advertisement

Italy’s Antonio Tajani said the EU was “not at war” with Russia and it was “important” to be part of the ongoing negotiations, while Austria’s Beate Meinl-Reisinger noted it was time for Europeans to become active participants through their own team.

“We need to make up our mind,” said Finland’s Elina Valtonen.

The only point on which ministers agreed was that Europeans themselves should pick their envoy. The Kremlin’s suggestion to nominate Gerhard Schröder, the former German chancellor who has worked for Russian energy firms, was unequivocally dismissed.

At the end of the meeting, High Representative Kaja Kallas acknowledged that the topic was not yet mature and required further reflection among governments.

“The EU has always supported attempts to achieve a just and lasting peace,” Kallas said.

Advertisement

“For Europe to take a more active role, we must agree amongst ourselves what we want to talk to Russia about and what our red lines are.”

The High Representative, who previously said the EU should not “humiliate” itself by seeking direct talks with Russia, has been trying to bridge gaps among capitals with a draft document outlining the concessions Moscow should make.

The confidential document will be discussed later this month when foreign ministers meet again for an informal gathering in Cyprus. However, given the considerable divergences, a unified position is unlikely to emerge any time soon.

“We are not there entering the negotiations in any way,” Kallas cautioned. “Right now, we don’t see that Russia is really negotiating in good faith.”

If, how and when

The question of whether the EU should engage directly with Russia to end its war of aggression has been popping up in and out of the conversation since US President Donald Trump unilaterally launched a diplomatic process to end the war in Ukraine.

Advertisement

Earlier this year, French President Emmanuel Macron, who last spoke with Putin in July 2025, and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni publicly called on the bloc to change policy, arguing the fate of European security could not be left in American hands.

The debate lost traction after Macron’s advisor, Emmanuel Bonne, travelled to the Kremlin for exploratory talks and was given the cold shoulder.

But it has once again risen to prominence as a result of the conflict in the Middle East, which has shifted Washington’s focus and slowed down the mediation in Ukraine.

Last week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who seems increasingly frustrated with the White House’s course of action, asked Europeans to take a more active role.

“We need to find a workable diplomatic format, and Europe must be at the table in any talks with Russia,” Zelenskyy said at a summit in Armenia. “It would be good to develop one common European voice for talks with Russia.”

Advertisement

A few days later, European Council President António Costa said there was “potential” for the bloc to negotiate one-on-one with the Kremlin.

“I’m talking with the 27 national leaders to see the best way to organise ourselves and to identify what we need effectively to discuss with Russia when it comes to the right moment to do this,” Costa said in Florence, Italy.

The European Commission also weighed in. “We can see the merit of having one single figure speaking on behalf of the 27,” a spokesperson said.

Both Costa and the Commission were quick to note that direct talks would only make sense once the Kremlin showed willingness to compromise and make concessions. Putin insists that Kyiv give up the entire Donbas region and that the West recognise the occupied territories aslegally Russian — both demands that Zelenskyy firmly rejects.

Brussels is keen to avoid creating the impression that it is attempting to replace Washington, which might give Trump a reason to walk away for good.

Advertisement

On Monday, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said the EU should not pursue “alternative peace talks” but rather play a “complementary” role in the ongoing process.

Russia’s relentless bombardment of Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure, including a kindergarten last week, is another factor that makes officials and diplomats think twice.

Instead, some capitals prefer to wait and weaken Russia’s hand at the negotiating table. The country has begun to show signs of economic strain after 20 rounds of sanctions and was forced to pare down its Victory Day parade over fears of Ukraine’s strikes.

At the same time, Kyiv’s standing has been reinforced by the approval of the EU’s €90 billion assistance loan and the signing of multiple defence deals with Gulf countries.

“Russia must be pushed back to Russia,” Estonia’s Margus Tsahkna said. “Putin is not ready to talk about a lasting and just peace at all.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

What Middle Powers Fear from the Trump-Xi Summit

Published

on

What Middle Powers Fear from the Trump-Xi Summit

Poland will soon host production lines for South Korean tanks. Australia is buying warships from Japan. Canada will send uranium to India, while India offers cruise missiles to Vietnam, and Brazil builds military transport planes for the United Arab Emirates.

All of these deals were sealed in the past few weeks. Each one represents an attempt by middle powers to protect themselves as the conflict in Iran throttles global energy supplies, and as a high-stakes summit between President Trump and Xi Jinping of China looms.

Global polls show the world has little trust in the United States and China. Mr. Trump and Mr. Xi have both used their enormous leverage over trade and security to coerce or punish. And in response, smaller nations are behaving as if they are stuck in “Godzilla” or “Dune” — moving quietly in small groups, trying not to provoke the wrath of petulant giants.

“It’s fifty shades of hedging,” said Richard Heydarian, a Filipino political scientist at Oxford University. Or, as Ja Ian Chong, a security analyst in Singapore put it, “No party wants to cross Beijing and now Washington, too.”

For countries watching from afar, dread and hope hover over the Trump-Xi meeting in Beijing, which is scheduled for this week. In Asia, which has been hit hardest and fastest by oil shortages caused by the war and China’s tight control of oil-product exports, the mood is particularly grim. Interviews with officials, and statements from leaders traveling the globe to secure trade and defense deals, suggest that most middle powers feel overwhelmed by the deteriorating world order.

Advertisement

Many believe the summit carries more potential for harm than help. And Mr. Trump’s gut-driven approach to complex issues is the main source of anxiety.

For months, officials in Asia have worried that the president might be too eager to make a deal with Mr. Xi, ending weapons sales to Taiwan or agreeing to softened policy language that could make it easier for China to undermine the democratic island.

“That would be the biggest nightmare,” said one Taiwanese official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal government matters. He insisted that reduced support from the U.S. was unlikely.

But any concession on Taiwan could lead other American partners to fear abandonment. Beijing’s push for compliance on contested territory elsewhere would be bolstered, from the border with India to the South China Sea.

Vietnamese officials said that if President Trump makes a conciliatory gesture or flatters Xi, even without bigger compromises, China will gain leeway to press harder on smaller countries.

Advertisement

Another concern being discussed across the region: that Mr. Trump might alter long-term security plans in exchange for better economic terms with China.

Mr. Trump’s decision to redirect a carrier strike group from the Pacific and munitions from South Korea for the war in Iran may have created momentum for broader redeployments. When the Pentagon announced it would pull at least 5,000 troops from Germany after Mr. Trump expressed annoyance with the German chancellor, allies in Asia were again reminded how quickly collective deterrence can be weakened.

Mr. Trump has threatened in the past to make troop withdrawals from Japan, which hosts around 53,000 American military personnel — more than any other country — and South Korea, where another 24,000 Americans are stationed. If he could get something big from Mr. Xi for a drawdown, would he turn down the deal?

Analysts noted that plans opposed by China, such as AUKUS, a pact between Australia, England and the U.S. designed to counter Beijing’s influence by equipping Australia with nuclear-powered submarines and advanced technology, could also be suddenly canceled.

“The sense that U.S. allies have to look to one another because they can no longer look to America is very real,” said Hugh White, a former Australian intelligence official who teaches strategic studies at the Australia National University.

Advertisement

That sentiment is much stronger than “the cautious public language” of national leaders might suggest, he added.

European and Asian officials often talk privately in frank terms about giving up their faith in America, prompting a no-turning-back effort to diversify away from the United States. In casual discussions with reporters, they can sound a lot like Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada, who received a standing ovation in Davos this year for a speech that declared, “We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.”

But in public, they’re more circumspect. Some officials admit their countries are trying to buy time and evade Mr. Trump’s fits of pique, while continuing the performance of imperial fealty.

South Korean officials have simply expressed resignation over American military diversions, after making clear they felt betrayed in 2004, when President George W. Bush announced plans to move troops from Asia to the war in Iraq. Australia, Taiwan and Japan publicly and repeatedly stress the value of American leadership without caveats — even as U.S. tariffs and the war Mr. Trump started with Iran kneecap their economies.

No one wants to be seen stepping out of line.

Advertisement

Japan’s new prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, has been bolder than most in trying to foster stronger relationships with other countries. Yet even as she crisscrossed the region promoting military cooperation, officials in Tokyo worried about how Washington would view her efforts.

“The Japanese don’t want Takaichi’s security cooperation and tour, especially to Australia, to be seen as a version of Mark Carney,” said Michael J. Green, the author of several books on Japan, and chief executive of the United States Study Centre at the University of Sydney.

Others have apparently reached the same conclusion. Mr. Carney’s recent visits to India and Australia did not yield strong statements from their leaders echoing his criticism of great power rivalry or his warning that if middle powers are “not at the table, we’re on the menu.”

At the same time, many countries — including some that are benefiting from the thickening of middle-power bonds — have been careful not to anger the world’s other hegemon, China.

Nations managing their own disputes with Beijing, such as Indonesia, have done less to rally around Japan than some in Tokyo would have liked, since Ms. Takaichi became embroiled in a diplomatic crisis after telling her Parliament that if China attacked Taiwan, Japan could respond militarily.

Advertisement

Vietnamese officials even pressed Ms. Takaichi to avoid directly criticizing China in her speech at a university on May 2 in Hanoi, according to diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe sensitive discussions. It is not clear if adjustments were made. Chinese officials later condemned her diplomatic efforts as “war preparation.”

And yet, in a sign of how middle powers are still doing more while saying less, the two countries signed six cooperation agreements, including one on satellite data sharing and another to secure deliveries for Vietnam’s largest oil refinery, potentially easing shortages.

“The U.S. has become more unreliable, so it makes sense to try to develop alternatives,” said Robert O. Keohane, an international relations professor at Princeton University. Even if what’s been formed so far is insufficient, he added, “having a weak alternative is better than having no alternative at all.”

Reporting was contributed by Tung Ngo from Hanoi, Vietnam; Javier C. Hernández from Tokyo; Amy Chang Chien from Taipei, Taiwan; Jim Tankersley from Berlin; Ian Austen from Ottawa; and Matina Stevis-Gridneff from Toronto.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending