# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Global Impacts of Habitat Destruction

Despite the habitat loss that has occurred globally to date, there is still hope. Studies reveal that by protecting 50 percent of the land and ocean around the world, plant and animal species could thrive.

About National Geographic Society
The National Geographic Society is a global nonprofit organization that uses the power of science, exploration, education and storytelling to illuminate and protect the wonder of our world. Since 1888, National Geographic has pushed the boundaries of exploration, investing in bold people and transformative ideas, providing more than 15,000 grants for work across all seven continents, reaching 3 million students each year through education offerings, and engaging audiences around the globe through signature experiences, stories and content. To learn more, visit www.nationalgeographic.org or follow us on , and .

Habitat destruction is one of the biggest threats facing plants and animal species throughout the world. The loss of habitat has far-reaching impacts on the planet's ability to sustain life, but even with the challenges, there is hope for the future.

Habitat destruction, defined as the elimination or alteration of the conditions necessary for animals and plants to survive, not only impacts individual species but the health of the global ecosystem.

Habitat loss is primarily, though not always, human-caused. The clearing of land for farming, grazing, mining, drilling, and urbanization impact the 80 percent of global species who call the forest home. Approximately 15 billion trees are cut down each year. According to a study about tree density published in , the number of trees worldwide has decreased by 46 percent since the start of civilization. In addition to the loss of habitat, deforestation reduces the ability of forests to provide the critical benefit of absorbing carbon, which helps to mitigate the effects of climate change.

The situation is even worse in waterways, coastal areas, and the ocean. Coastal estuaries and marshes provide breeding grounds for the majority of marine species. As they, along with inland wetlands, are dredged and filled, species are less able to birth and support their young. Pollution and effluents from the land travel easily through streams and rivers to the ocean, where they impact the health of fish, birds, and marine plants. Deforestation far from shore can cause erosion that enters the water and deposits silt into the shallow marine waters, blocking the sunlight that coral reefs need to survive.

Despite the habitat loss that has occurred globally to date, there is still hope. Studies reveal that by protecting 50 percent of the land and ocean around the world, plant and animal species could thrive. Today, only 15 percent of the land and 7 percent of the ocean is protected, leaving us with a challenging yet attainable goal.

The Campaign for Nature calls upon world leaders to take action in helping to protect 30 percent of the Earth's land and ocean by 2030, on the way to 50 percent of the planet in a natural state by 2050. This commitment represents our best opportunity to preserve the ecosystems necessary for our survival.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Global Impacts of Habitat Destruction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite the habitat loss that has occurred globally to date, there is still hope. Studies reveal that by protecting 50 percent of the land and ocean around the world, plant and animal species could thrive.

# data[].attributes.body
Educate your family about endangered species in your area.

Recycle and buy sustainable products.

Reduce your water consumption.

Reduce your personal footprint.

Do not buy plastic products.

Pressure your civil servants.

Volunteer your time to protect the wildlife in your area.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Will humans become extinct? 6 Minute English

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Today it looks like humans will have to launch themselves into space to get enough room for our collective population, but we weren't always so robust a species. There are three times in history during which humans nearly went extinct. Here's what threatened us, and how we survived.

1.2 Million Years Ago: Humanity Before We Were Exclusively Homo Sapiens

In 2009 scientists spent some time analyzing two completely sequenced human genomes. They were looking for the time to most recent common ancestor, or TMRCA, and they knew what to look for in order to find it.

Mobile genetic elements are little sequences of DNA that don't stay put. They move around, and multiply, within the genome. It's much easier to copy and paste these elements than delete them, so once they're in a gene, they tend to stay. As such, they're genetic mile markers in individuals-signs that they have traveled a certain distance together. One of the most common of these elements is the Alu element. Scientists were looking for it because it separated "old DNA" from "new DNA." According to the study, "the genealogy of a region that contains a mobile element is on average older than that of the rest of the genome. Because genealogies that contain polymorphic mobile elements are old, they are shaped largely by the forces of ancient population history and are insensitive to recent demographic events, such as bottlenecks and expansions."

They read humanity's history on its genes, and it seems that 1.2 million years ago, things weren't looking good. Homo sapiens, Homo ergaster, and Homo erectus had, worldwide, a breeding population of about 18,000 people-no more than 26,000 people. This means that all over the world, every human-like species that could possibly contribute genes to a current human added up to a smaller population than that of gorillas today. Considering gorillas are only on one continent, and humans occupied Africa and Eurasia, that's a very small population indeed.

This result came as a surprise because other evidence indicated that humans were doing very well. They occupied a great deal of territory. Scientists found stone tools in Turkey that date back 1.2 million years. In 2008 archaeologists found the jaw of a thirty-something human who lived in Atapuerca, Spain about 1.2 million years ago. We were all over the place. Why were we so very near extinction?

According to the Chad Huff, a co-author of the study, this might not have been a population anomaly. It might have been humanity's normal state. He told one newspaper, "either the population got large and collapsed or the ancestors of modern humans were always a very small population for millions of years." Human might just have been what we would consider now an "endangered species" for most of their history. The small world-wide population of humans suggests that the expansion of humans past the borders of Africa might be, if not an incorrect observation, then perhaps not genetically significant. It's possible that those far-flung tool-makers died off, and only a core population which stayed close to home contributed to our genes.

If that's the case, then the survival lesson is clear: stay put.

150,000 Years Ago: Homo Sapiens and the Big Chill

Around 195,000 years ago, the world changed. The temperature dropped in the winter, and then dropped in the summer as well. Glaciers expanded. Entire habitats were destroyed. The era is officially called Marine Isotope Stage 6 (because we know of its existence in part by analyzing oxygen isotopes from deep sea sediment samples), and informally called a "glacial stage," but it was likely more of an "ice desert" stage. Deserts expanded as well as glaciers, and much of the world was cold and dry.

Humans in Africa split up. Possibly this happened intentionally as groups had to leave or were driven out of shrinking habitable areas, or possibly it happened by chance as what had been a continuous habitable range of territory shrank to little pockets of land. However it happened, it took a toll on the human population. Some believe that the human breeding population shrank down to only 600 people. Some of those pockets didn't make it.

The ones that did survive got both lucky and smart. They were lucky because many of them happened to settle beside the sea in what's now South Africa. Their particular spot of ground happened to be rich in plants that stored their energy in starchy tubers below the surface the soil. The water beside their area was warmish, and nourished a supply of shellfish. Between the two, humans managed to gather enough food to get by. They helped themselves along, though. A cave called PP13B, near Pinnacle Point in South Africa, shows evidence that the people there used the shellfish shells as tools. It's also possible that they heated and tempered their stone tools, making them more behaviorally modern than people 150,000 years ago generally get credit for being.

The survival lesson of this one is two-fold: it pays to be smart, but also location, location, location.

70,000 Years Ago: The Toba Explosion

About 70,000 years ago, Sumatra blew apart. The explosion is now known as the Toba super-eruption. Super-eruptions differ from regular volcanic eruptions and other environmental catastrophes like earthquakes because, according to The Geological Society, "their environmental effects threaten civilization." The Toba eruption, locally, created a crater that eventually became Lake Toba. Globally, it threw enough ash and debris into the air to, by some estimates, dim the sun for six years.

This happened at a time when humans didn't exactly have it easy. They were already suffering from the cool, dry climate. Now they had to contend with multiple years of winter and an atmosphere full of noxious gases. Some experts believe the entire population could have been whittled down to between 1,000 and 10,000 people.

If Toba had as much of an impact as some people believe it did, from one year to the next, people were living in a different world. Analysis on the pollen before and after the Toba explosion, as taken from a core sample from the Bay of Bengal, show that tree cover died back and grassland grew in. Whole ecosystems changed.

According to the earliest theories, humans didn't survive this so much as diverge and thrive. Steven Ambrose, a proponent of the idea of the Toba eruption as a cataclysm, "One consequence of volcanic winter may have been rapid differentiation of small, isolated African immigrant populations into modern human races. The bottleneck resolves the paradox of the Out of Africa Replacement model: why do human populations look so different yet have such a recent African origin? When the modern African human diaspora passed through the prism of Toba's volcanic winter, a rainbow of differences appeared."

Or possibly not. The Toba idea is hotly contested. While some believe that it created a series of bottlenecks that turned humans into the weird and wild bunch we are today, others think it meant a few crappy years that left humanity essentially unchanged. The Bay of Bengal might have been worked over by the explosion, but analysis of core samples from Lake Malawi indicate the effect on the climate and environment was minimal. People changed and diverged because of a host of climatic, behavioral, and environmental reasons-no volcano needed.

So what's the survival lesson in this one? Perhaps the lesson is to keep our eye on volcanos, just in case.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Close Calls: Three Times When Humanity Barely Escaped Extinction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today it looks like humans will have to launch themselves into space to get enough room for our collective population, but we weren't always so robust a species. There are three times in history during which humans nearly went extinct. Here's what threatened us, and how we survived.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Image credit: Shutterstock)

Deep within Guatemala's rainforest sits one of the most famous remnants of the civilization: a roughly 2,000-year-old citadel turned to ruins called . When Alan Weisman hiked through the surrounding region, he discovered something fascinating along the way: "You're walking through this really dense rainforest, and you're walking over hills," said Weisman, author and journalist. "And the archaeologists are explaining to you that what you're really walking over are pyramids and cities that haven't been excavated."

In other words, we know about sites like Tikal because humans have gone to great efforts to dig up and restore their remains. Meanwhile, countless other ruins remain hidden, sealed beneath forest and earth. "It's just amazingly thrilling how fast nature can bury us," Weisman told Live Science.

This scene from the rainforest allows us a glimpse of what our planet could look like, if humans simply stopped existing. Lately, that idea has been especially pertinent, as the global COVID-19 has kept people inside, and emboldened animals to return to our quieter urban environments - giving us a sense of what life might look like if we retreated further into the background. Weisman, who wrote "The World Without Us" (Thomas Dunne Books, 2007), spent several years interviewing experts and systematically investigating this question: What would happen to our planet - to our cities, to our industries, to nature - if humans disappeared?

A different kind of skyline

There are several developing theories for what could drive humanity to extinction, and it is unlikely that we'd all simply disappear in an instant. Nevertheless, imagining our sudden and complete eradication from the planet - perhaps by an as-yet undiscovered, human-specific virus, Weisman said - is the most powerful way to explore what could occur if humans left the planet.

In Weisman's own research, this question took him firstly into cities, where some of the most dramatic and immediate changes would unfold, thanks to a sudden lack of human maintenance. Without people to run pumps that divert rainfall and rising groundwater, the subways of huge sprawling cities like London and New York would flood within hours of our disappearance, Weisman learned during his research. "[Engineers] have told me that it would take about 36 hours for the subways to flood completely," he said.

Lacking human oversight, glitches in oil refineries and nuclear plants would go unchecked, likely resulting in massive fires, nuclear explosions and devastating nuclear fallout. "There's going to be a gush of radiation if suddenly we disappear. And that's a real wildcard, it's almost impossible to predict what that's going to do," Weisman said. Similarly, in the wake of our demise, we'd leave behind mountains of waste - much of it plastic, which would likely persist for thousands of years, with effects on wildlife that we are only now beginning to understand.

Meanwhile, petroleum waste that spills or seeps into the ground at industrial sites and factories would be broken down and reused by and plants, which would probably take decades. Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) - human-made chemicals such as PCBs that currently can't be broken down in nature - would take much longer, Weisman says. "Some of these POPs may be around until the end of time on Earth. In time, however, they will be safely buried away." The combined rapid and slow release of all the polluting waste we leave behind would undoubtedly have damaging effects on surrounding habitats and wildlife. (But that doesn't necessarily mean total destruction: We need only look at the rebounding of wildlife at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster to understand that nature can be resilient on short timescales, even under such extremes.)

While that polluting legacy unfolds, water running underground in cities would corrode the metal structures that hold up the streets above subterranean transport systems, and whole avenues would collapse, transformed suddenly into mid-city rivers, Weisman explained. Over successive , without humans to do regular de-icing, pavements would crack, providing new niches for seeds to take root - carried on the wind and excreted by overflying birds - and develop into trees that continue the gradual dismemberment of pavements and roads. The same would happen to bridges, without humans there to weed out rogue saplings taking root between the steel rivets: coupled with general degradation, this could dismantle these structures within a few hundred years.

With all this fresh new habitat opening up, nature would stoically march in, pasting over the formerly concrete jungle with grasslands, shrubbery and dense stands of trees. That would cause the accumulation of dry organic material, such as leaves and twigs - providing the perfect fodder for fires sparked by lightning, which would go roaring through the maze of buildings and streets, potentially razing whole parts of cities to the ground. "Fires are going to create a lot of charred material that will fall to the street, which is going to be terrific for nurturing biological life. The streets will convert to little grasslands and forests growing up within 500 years," as Weisman tells it.

Over hundreds of years, as buildings are subjected to sustained damage from erosion and fire, they would degrade, he said. The first to topple would be modern glass and metal structures that would shatter and rust. But tellingly, "buildings that will last the longest are the ones made out of the Earth itself" - like stone structures, Wesiman added. Even those would become a softened version of their former selves: eventually the defined, iconic skylines we know so well today would be no more.

Where the wild things are

Looking beyond the city limits to the great swathes of farmland that currently cover half of Earth's habitable land, there would be a swift recovery of insects, as the application of pesticides and other chemicals ceases with humanity's demise. "That's going to start a real cascade of events," Weisman said. "Once the insects are doing better, then the plants are going to do much better, then the birds." Surrounding habitats - plant communities, soils, waterways and oceans - will recover, free from the far-reaching influence that chemicals have on ecosystems today. That, in turn, will encourage more wildlife to move in and take up residence.

This transition will precipitate an increase in biodiversity on a global scale. Researchers who have modeled the diversity of megafauna - the likes of , elephants, , rhinoceroses and - across the planet have revealed that the world used to be exceptionally rich in these species. But that changed when humans began to spread across the planet, hunting these animals and invading their habitats. As humans migrated out of Africa and Eurasia to other parts of the globe, "we see a consistent increase in extinction rates following the arrival of humans," explained Søren Faurby, a lecturer in macroecology and macroevolution at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. "In Australia, there is an increase in extinction near 60,000 years ago. In North and South America, an increase is seen [about] 15,000 years ago, and in Madagascar and the Caribbean islands a drastic increase is seen a few thousand years ago."

Related: Why haven't all primates evolved into humans?

Without humans spreading to the far corners of the Earth and driving down megafauna populations, the entire planet could have been as diverse in these species as the famed in East Africa is today, Faurby told Live Science. "Effectively, there used to be large animals everywhere, and there would be large animals everywhere around the globe without human involvement." His research has revealed that without humanity's heavy species impact, the central United States, and parts of South America, would be the most megafauna-rich places on Earth today. Animals like elephants would be a common sight in the Mediterranean Islands. There would even be rhinoceroses across most of northern Europe.

Without humans, could Earth reclaim that diversity? Even if we did suddenly disappear from the picture, it would still take millions of years for the planet to recover from those past extinctions, Faurby and his colleagues have calculated. They investigated what it would take to return to a baseline level of species richness and a distribution of large-bodied animals across the planet that mirrors what we had before modern humans fanned out across the globe. They estimate it would take "somewhere between 3 and up to 7 million or more years to get back to the pre-extinction baseline," explained Jens-Christian Svenning, a professor of macroecology and biogeography at Aarhus University in Denmark, and a colleague of Faurby's who has worked on the same body of research.

Basically, "if there weren't human impacts, the whole world would be one big wilderness," Svenning told Live Science.

Nature finds a way

The planet might eventually become lusher and more diverse - but we can't dismiss the effects of climate change, arguably humanity's most indelible impact on the planet. Weisman notes the inherent uncertainty in making useful predictions about what will unfold. For instance, if there are explosions at industrial plants, or oil or gas wellheads that continue to burn long after we're all gone, huge amounts of heat-trapping carbon dioxide would continue to be discharged into the atmosphere, he explained.

Carbon dioxide doesn't stay suspended in the atmosphere forever: Our oceans play an essential role in absorbing vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the air. But there are still limits to how much of it the ocean can take up without its own waters acidifying to unhealthy levels - potentially to the detriment of thousands of marine species. There's also a cap on how much the sea can physically absorb, meaning it isn't simply the bottomless carbon sink it's often thought to be.

As it stands, current levels of CO2 in our atmosphere will already take thousands of years to be fully removed from the atmosphere. (Based on the research he did for his own book, Weisman found it could take upwards of 100,000 years.) And if the sea reaches its cap and more greenhouse gases stay suspended up in the atmosphere, the resulting continuous warming will lead to further melting of the polar ice caps, and the release of even more greenhouse gases from softening permafrost. This will cycle into an ongoing, climate-altering, feedback loop. All this means that we can confidently assume that climate change's impacts will last long after we leave.

But to this, Weisman offered a word of hope. During the Jurassic period, he said, there was five times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is today, which led to a dramatic increase in ocean acidity. Evidently, however, there must have been marine species that coped with these extremes, and went on to evolve and be part of the planet we know today. Which is to say that ultimately, despite climate extremes and the immense losses they can incur, "nature always finds a way," Weisman said.

There might one day be a world without humans, but that won't stop the rest of the planet from soldiering on.

Moving forward

Is there any point in us pondering what our planet will look like, without us here? Well, on the one hand, we might simply take comfort in the knowledge that, free of people, our planet would ultimately be fine, as Weisman said. In fact, it would ultimately thrive.

But taking a glimpse at this imagined future might also prompt us to be more mindful of our actions, in a bid to preserve our own spot on the planet, too. Weisman sees an inherent value to visualizing a world without us, which is why he decided to write his book in the first place. He explained that when he started out, he was conscious that many people avoid environmental stories because it makes them feel bad about the damage that humans are doing to the planet, and how in turn, that's hastening our own demise. "I found out a way to get rid of the fear factor was just to kill [humans] off first," he said, with humor.

With that distraction gone, he found, he could focus people's attention on the planet, and the real point he wanted to make: "I wanted people to see how beautifully nature could come back, and even heal a lot of the scars that we've placed on this planet. Then to think, is there possibly a way to add ourselves back into this picture of a restored Earth?"
Originally published on Live Science.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What would happen to Earth if humans went extinct?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(Image credit: Shutterstock) Deep within Guatemala's rainforest sits one of the most famous remnants of the civilization: a roughly 2,000-year-old citadel turned to ruins called . When Alan Weisman hiked through the surrounding region, he discovered something fascinating along the way: "You're walking through this really dense rainforest, and you're walking over hills," said Weisman, author and journalist.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By John R. Platt

A few months ago a group of scientists warned about the rise of " extinction denial," an effort much like climate denial to mischaracterize the extinction crisis and suggest that human activity isn't really having a damaging effect on ecosystems and the whole planet.

That damaging effect is, in reality, impossible to deny.

This past year scientists and conservation organizations declared that a long list of species may have gone extinct, including dozens of frogs, orchids and fish. Most of these species haven't been seen in decades, despite frequent and regular expeditions to find out if they still exist. The causes of these extinctions range from diseases to invasive species to habitat loss, but most boil down to human behavior.

Of course, proving a negative is always hard, and scientists are often cautious about declaring species truly lost. Do it too soon, they warn, and the last conservation efforts necessary to save a species could evaporate, a problem known as the Romeo and Juliet Effect. Because of that, and because many of these species live in hard-to-survey regions, many of the announcements this past year declared species possibly or probably lost, a sign that hope springs eternal.

And there's reason for that hope: When we devote energy and resources to saving species, it often works. A study published in 2019 found that conservation efforts have reduced bird extinction rates by 40%. Another recent paper found that conservation actions have prevented dozens of bird and mammal extinctions over just the past few decades. The new paper warns that many of the species remain critically endangered, or could still go extinct, but we can at least stop the bleeding.

And sometimes we can do better than that. This year the IUCN - the organization that tracks the extinction risk of species around the world - announced several conservation victories, including the previously critically endangered Oaxaca treefrog ( Sarcohyla celata), which is now considered "near threatened" due to protective actions taken by the people who live near it.

"We can turn things around. We don't just have to sit there and cry," says conservation scientist Stuart Pimm, founder of the organization Saving Nature.

But at the same time, we need to recognize what we've lost, or potentially lost. We can mourn them and vow to prevent as many others as possible from joining their ranks.

With that in mind, here are the species that scientists and the conservation community declared lost in 2020, culled from media reports, scientific papers, the IUCN Red List and my own reporting.

32 orchid species in Bangladesh - One of the first papers of 2020 to report any extinctions announced the probable loss of 17% of Bangladesh's 187 known orchid species. Some of these still exist in other countries, but even regional extinctions (or extirpations, as they're called) tell us that we've taken a toll on our ecological habitats. A similar paper published just days later suggested that nine more orchid species from Madagascar may have also gone extinct.

​19th-century drawings of orchid species recently declared extinct in Bangladesh.

Smooth handfish (Sympterichthys unipennis)- One of the few extinctions of 2020 that received much media attention, and it's easy to see why. Handfish are an unusual group of species whose front fins look somewhat like human appendages, which they use to walk around the ocean floor. The smooth species, which hasn't been seen since 1802, lived off the coast of Tasmania and was probably common when it was first collected by naturalists. Bottom fishing, pollution, habitat destruction, bycatch and other threats are all listed as among the probable reasons for its extinction. Even though the local fishery collapsed more than 50 years ago, the remaining handfish species are still critically endangered, so this extinction should serve as an important wake-up call to save them.

65 North American plants - This past year researchers set out to determine how many plants in the continental United States had been lost. They catalogued 65, including five small trees, eight shrubs, 37 perennial herbs and 15 annual herbs. Some of these had been reported before, but for most this is the first time they've been declared extinct. The list includes Marshallia grandiflora, a large flowing plant from the American Southeast that was declared its own species this past year. Too bad it was last seen in 1919 (and has been confused with other species for even longer).

The original Marshallia grandiflora holotype. Smithsonian NMNH / Creative Commons

22 frog species - The IUCN this year declared nearly two dozen long-unseen Central and South American frog species as "critically endangered (possibly extinct)" - victims of the amphibian-killing chytrid fungus. They include the Aragua robber frog (Pristimantis anotis), which hasn't been observed in 46 years, and the Piñango stubfoot toad (Atelopus pinangoi), which mostly disappeared in the 1980s. A single juvenile toad observed in 2008 leads scientists to say this species "is either possibly extinct or if there is still an extant population, that it is very small (<50 mature individuals)."

Chiriqui harlequin frog (Atelopus chiriquiensis) and splendid poison frog (Oophaga speciosa) - Last seen in 1996 and 1992, these frogs from Costa Rica and Panama fell victim to the chytrid fungus and were declared extinct in December.

15% of mite species - This requires a lot more research, but a paper published this past August announced "evidence of widespread mite extinctions" since the year 2000 following similar disappearances of plants and vertebrates. Mites may not look or sound important, but they play key roles in their native ecosystems. If 15% of the world's 1.25 million mite species have been lost, we're talking more than 8,300 extinctions - a number the researchers predict will continue to rise.

Simeulue Hill mynas - An alarming paper called this an "extinction-in-process" of a previously undescribed bird that probably went extinct in the wild in the past two to three years due to overcollection for the songbird trade. A few may still exist in captivity - for now.

17 freshwater fish from Lake Lanao, Mindanao, the Philippines - A combination of predatory invasive species, overharvesting and destructing fishing methods (such as dynamite fishing) wiped these lost species out. The IUCN this year listed 15 of the species as "extinct" following extensive searches and surveys; the remaining two as "critically endangered (possibly extinct)." The predators, by the way, are still doing just fine. Here are the 15 extinct species:

Some of the extinct species from Lake Lanao. Photo © Armi G. Torres courtesy IUCN.

Bonin pipistrelle (Pipistrellus sturdeei)- Scientists only recorded this Japanese bat one time, back in the 19th century. The IUCN listed it as "data deficient" from 2006 to 2020, a period during which its taxonomy was under debate, but a paper published in March settled that issue, and the latest Red List update placed the species in the the extinct category. The Japanese government itself has listed the bat as extinct since 2014.

- Last seen in Oaxaca, Mexico, in 2001, this succulent was finally declared extinct in the wild this year after numerous expeditions searching for remaining plants. As the IUCN Red List notes, "There are only a few specimens left in ex-situ collections, which is a concern for the extinction of the species in the near future."

- This shrub from New South Wales, Australia, was collected just two times - in 1907 and 1908 - in habitats that have since become "highly urbanized." The NSW government still lists it as " presumed extinct," but the IUCN placed it fully in the "extinct" category in 2020.

Nazareno (Monteverdia lineata) - Scientific papers declared this Cuban flowing plant species extinct in 2010 and 2015, although it wasn't catalogued in the IUCN Red List until this year. It grew in a habitat now severely degraded by agriculture and livestock farming.

Wynberg conebush (Leucadendron grandiflorum) - This South African plant hasn't been seen in more than 200 years and was long considered the earliest documented extinction from that country, although it only made it to the IUCN Red List recently. Its sole habitat "was the location of the earliest colonial farms," including vineyards.

Wolseley conebush (Leucadendron spirale) - Another South African plant, this one last seen in 1933 and since extensively sought after, including high rewards for its rediscovery. The IUCN says the cause of its extinction is unknown "but is likely the result of habitat loss to crop cultivation, alien plant invasion and afforestation." Oh yeah, and it probably didn't help that in 1809 a scientist wrote that the species possessed " little beauty" and discouraged it from further collection.

- This fish from Kazakhstan was last seen in 1953, around the time the rivers feeding its lake habitats were drained for irrigation. The IUCN did not assess the species before this past year.

Lord Howe long-eared bat (Nyctophilus howensis) - This island species is known from a single skull discovered in 1972. Conservationists held out hope that it still existed following several possible sightings, but those hopes have now been dashed.

- This IUCN declared this beautiful plant species "extinct in the wild" this year. All living specimens exist only because botanist Dennis Breedlove, who discovered the species in 1973, collected seeds before the plant's sole habitat in Mexico was plowed over to make way for farmland. Now known as a "holy grail" for some gardeners, cultivated plants descended from Breedlove's seeds can be purchased online for as little as $16.95.

Hawai'i yellowwood (Ochrosia kilaueaensis) - This tree hasn't been seen since 1927. Its rainforest habitat has been severely degraded by invasive plants and goats, as well as fires. It's currently listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, but the IUCN declared it extinct this past year.

- Last seen in 1924, this Cuban flowing plant - the only member of its genus - has long been assumed lost. The IUCN characterized it as extinct in 2020 along with Banara wilsonii, another Cuban plant last seen in 1938 before its habitat was cleared for a sugarcane plantation.

- A relative of cardamom, this plant from Sumatra was only scientifically collected once, back in 1921, and the forest where that sample originated has now been completely developed. The IUCN says one remaining cultivated population exists, so they've declared it "extinct in the wild."

Lost shark (Carcharhinus obsoletus) - This species makes its second annual appearance on this list. Scientists described this species in 2019 after examining decades-old specimens, noting that it hadn't been observed since the 1930s. This year the IUCN added the species to the Red List and declared it "critically endangered (possibly extinct)."

"Lost shark." Photo: PLOS One

Cora timucua- This lichen from Florida was just identified from historical collections through DNA barcoding. Unfortunately no new samples have been collected since the turn of the 19th century. The scientists who named the species this past December call it "potentially extinct" but suggest it be listed as critically endangered in case it still hangs on in remote parts of the highly developed state. They caution, however, that it hasn't turned up in any recent surveys.
John R. Platt is the editor of The Revelator. An award-winning environmental journalist, his work has appeared in Scientific American, Audubon, Motherboard, and numerous other magazines and publications. His "Extinction Countdown" column has run continuously since 2004 and has covered news and science related to more than 1,000 endangered species. He is a member of the Society of Environmental Journalists and the National Association of Science Writers. John lives on the outskirts of Portland, Ore., where he finds himself surrounded by animals and cartoonists. Reposted with permission from The Revelator.
Related Articles Around the Web

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What We've Lost: The Species Declared Extinct in 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A few months ago a group of scientists warned about the rise of "extinction denial," an effort much like climate denial to mischaracterize the extinction crisis and suggest that human activity isn't really having a damaging effect on ecosystems and the whole planet.

# data[].attributes.headline
TV shows and films that look at extinction

# data[].attributes.subject
TV shows and films that look at extinction

# data[].attributes.body
* Extinct or Alive
* Into the Night
* the 5th Wave
* The war of the worlds
* Jurassic World
* Planet of the humans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This story appears in the October 2019 issue of National Geographic magazine.

LIFE, BESIEGED

Most of the animals shown here are among the more than 28,000 species of animals and plants that the International Union for Conservation of Nature says are threatened with extinction. That number actually understates the risk. Since 1964, when the IUCN established a " red list" of threatened species and began compiling data gathered worldwide, the list has become the preeminent global database of endangered life and an essential tool for conservation policy. Yet the IUCN has been able to assess only about 106,000 species of the more than 1.5 million species of animals and more than 300,000 plants that scientists have described and named-which they estimate is less than a quarter of what's really out there. A recent intergovernmental report on the biodiversity crisis estimated that extinction threatens up to a million animal and plant species, known and unknown. The IUCN hopes to raise the number of species assessments to 160,000 by 2020. Next up on its agenda: a " green list " of conservation successes. It will be much shorter than the red one.

THE BIGGEST THREAT: HUMANS

Habitat loss-driven primarily by human expansion as we develop land for housing, agriculture, and commerce-is the biggest threat facing most animal species, followed by hunting and fishing. Even when habitat is not lost entirely, it may be changed so much that animals cannot adapt. Fences fragment a grassland or logging cuts through a forest, breaking up migration corridors; pollution renders a river toxic; pesticides kill widely and indiscriminately. To those local threats one must increasingly add global ones: Trade, which spreads disease and invasive species from place to place, and climate change, which eventually will affect every species on Earth-starting with the animals that live on cool mountaintops or depend on polar ice. All of these threats lead, directly or indirectly, back to humans and our expanding footprint. Most species face multiple threats. Some can adapt to us; others will vanish.

If we lived in an ordinary time- time here being understood in the long, unhurried sense of a geologic epoch-it would be nearly impossible to watch a species vanish. Such an event would occur too infrequently for a person to witness. In the case of mammals, the best-studied group of animals, the fossil record indicates that the "background" rate of extinction, the one that prevailed before humans entered the picture, is so low that over the course of a millennium, a single species should disappear.

But of course we don't live in an ordinary time. Everywhere we look, species are winking out. Just in the past decade, two mammal species have gone extinct: a bat known as the Christmas Island pipistrelle and a rat, the Bramble Cay melomys.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature lists more than 200 mammal species and subspecies as critically endangered. In some cases, like the Sumatran rhino or the vaquita-a porpoise native to the Gulf of California-there are fewer than a hundred individuals left. In others, like the baiji (also known as the Yangtze River dolphin), the species, though not yet officially declared extinct, has probably died out.

And unfortunately, what goes for mammals goes for just about every other animal group: reptiles, amphibians, fish, even insects. Extinction rates today are hundreds-perhaps thousands-of times higher than the background rate. They're so high that scientists say we're on the brink of a mass extinction.

The last mass extinction, which did in the dinosaurs some 66 million years ago, followed an asteroid impact. Today the cause of extinction seems more diffuse. It's logging and poaching and introduced pathogens and climate change and overfishing and ocean acidification.

But trace all these back and you find yourself face-to-face with the same culprit. The great naturalist E.O. Wilson has noted that humans are the "first species in the history of life to become a geophysical force." Many scientists argue that we have entered a new geologic epoch-the Anthropocene, or age of man. This time around, in other words, the asteroid is us.

What's lost when an animal goes extinct?

One way to think of a species, be it of ape or of ant, is as an answer to a puzzle: how to live on planet Earth. A species' genome is a sort of manual; when the species perishes, that manual is lost. We are, in this sense, plundering a library-the library of life. Instead of the Anthropocene, Wilson has dubbed the era we are entering the Eremozoic-the age of loneliness.

Joel Sartore has been photographing animals for his Photo Ark project for 13 years. In an ever growing number of cases, animals housed in zoos or special breeding facilities are among the last remaining members of their species. In some instances, they are the only members.

Toughie, a Rabbs' fringe-limbed tree frog from central Panama, lived at the Atlanta Botanical Garden. He became the last known of his kind when a fungal disease swept through his native habitat and a captive-breeding program failed. Toughie died in 2016, and it's likely the Rabbs' fringe-limbed tree frog is now extinct.

Romeo, a Sehuencas water frog that lives at the natural history museum in Cochabamba, Bolivia, was likewise believed to be a sole survivor. Scientists created an online dating profile for him. It linked to a donation page, and the $25,000 raised helped fund expeditions in the eastern Andes, where the species was once abundant.

Amazingly, the search has revealed five more Sehuencas water frogs, two males and three females. All were taken to Cochabamba; the one female mature enough to breed with Romeo was named Juliet. Whether she will prove a worthy mate and perpetuate the species, no one knows.

Was the Rabbs' fringe-limbed tree frog beautiful? Not in the flashy way of, say, the Spix's macaw (which is believed to be extinct in the wild) or the Gee's golden langur (which is endangered). But with its expressive brown eyes and gangly limbs, it had its own kind of charm.

Sartore treats all creatures-great and small, handsome and homely-with reverence. His photos capture what's singular and, I'd also like to say, soulful about every living thing. One of my favorite images of Joel's is of a Partula nodosa, or niho tree snail, laying down a trail of slime. There used to be dozens of Partula species in the South Pacific, occupying different islands and different ecological niches. Much like Darwin's finches, they are the darlings of evolutionary biologists-living, slime-producing illustrations of the power of natural selection. The introduction of carnivorous snails from Florida drove nearly a third of the Partula species extinct; several survive solely thanks to captive-breeding programs.

Precisely because extinction takes place so frequently now, it's possible to become inured to it. This desensitizing is what makes Sartore's images so crucial: They show us just how remarkable each species is that's being lost.

We live in an extraordinary time. Perhaps by recognizing this, we can begin to imagine creating a different one-one that preserves, as much as is still possible, the wonderful diversity of life.

THREAT: DISEASE

Since the 1980s, a fungal disease called chytridiomycosis, likely spread through direct contact and by infected water, has ravaged global amphibian populations. More than 500 species have been affected; 90 of these may be extinct. The fungus disrupts transmission of electrolytes through the skin of a frog or toad, ultimately stopping its heart.

THREAT: INVASIVE SPECIES

THREAT: FRAGMENTATION

THREAT: HABITAT LOSS

Butterflies can fly long distances and feed on many types of flowers, but caterpillars are locavores, eating plants they hatch on or near. As those plants are lost to development or farming, butterflies disappear. The ones here aren't listed by the IUCN-which has evaluated only 8,100 insect species-but are considered at risk by other authorities.

THREAT: POACHING

THREAT: DEFORESTATION

For tree-dwelling lemurs, there's no life without the forest-or Madagascar, their only home. Yet the island nation has lost 80 percent of its trees to development, charcoal production, and slash-and-burn agriculture. Lemurs are squeezed into limited protected areas; 38 species are critically endangered. Fuel-efficient stoves are being introduced to encourage people to reduce wood use and protect forest habitat.

Elizabeth Kolbert's most recent book, The Sixth Extinction, won the Pulitzer Prize. Photographer Joel Sartore has been called a modern-day Noah for building the Photo Ark, the world's largest collection of animal studio portraits.

Photo Ark is a joint project of National Geographic and Joel Sartore. Learn more at natgeophotoark.org.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Animals are disappearing at hundreds of times the normal rate, primarily because of shrinking habitats. Their biggest threat: humans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Species List | Endangered, Vulnerable, and Threatened Animals | WWF

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WWF is committed to saving endangered species. Learn more about the species we are working to protecting from becoming endangered or extinct.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is deforestation? What is the definition of deforestation and why is deforestation happening? Let's figure out what are the causes and effects of deforestation, as well as what solutions can be adopted to stop it.

What Is Deforestation?

Deforestation refers to the decrease in forest areas across the world that are lost for other uses such as agricultural croplands, urbanization, or mining activities. Greatly accelerated by human activities since 1960, deforestation has been negatively affecting natural ecosystems, biodiversity, and the climate. The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization estimates the annual rate of deforestation to be around 1.3 million per decade.

The Causes of Deforestation: Why Is Deforestation Happening?

Multiple factors, either of human or natural origin, cause deforestation. Natural factors include natural forest fires or parasite-caused diseases which can result in deforestation. Nevertheless, human activities are among the main causes of global deforestation. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the expansion of agriculture caused nearly 80% of global deforestation, with the construction of infrastructures such as roads or dams, together with mining activities and urbanization, making up the remaining causes of deforestation.

1. Agriculture is the Number 1 Cause of Deforestation (~80%)

Why is deforestation happening? According to the FAO, agriculture causes around 80% of deforestation. And how does agriculture cause so much deforestation? According to the same report, 33% of agriculture-caused deforestation is a consequence of subsistence agriculture - such as local peasant agriculture in developing countries.

Commercial or industrial agriculture (field crops and livestock) cause around 40% of forest loss - in the search for space to grow food, fibers or biofuel (such as soybeans, palm oil, beef, rice, maize, cotton and sugar cane). It is also particularly interesting to note livestock is believed to be responsible for about 14% of global deforestation. The main reasons why have to do with the large areas require both to raise livestock but also to grow its (soy-based) food.

2. Deforestation Caused By New Constructions (~15%)

The construction of human infrastructures has also been driving deforestation. More specifically, 10% of deforestation can be attributed to new infrastructures that serve the current human lifestyle in four main ways: transportation, transformation and energy generation.

On one hand, roads, rails, ports or airports have been built to move all sorts of goods - from cereals and fruits to spices, minerals or fossil fuels - either directly to trade centers or to transformation sites. So while at first there were only fruit trees, roads soon arrived to allow transporting fruit to other regions. And while some goods were and are collected manually, others such as coal, oil, natural gas, biomass, but also meat, dairy or spirits, required the construction of large extraction, transportation and/or transformation infrastructures.

3. How Urbanization Is Causing Deforestation (~5%)

The populational shift that is leading people to move from rural areas to urban areas is also contributing to deforestation (5%, according to FAO). This urban growth - in which 68% of the world's population is expected to live in cities by 2050 - is leading to an exponential growth of housing and consumption sites. And as cities become larger so they can host more people, they challenge the natural boundaries surrounding them, often leading to deforestation. This is one of the reasons why deforestation is happening.

Deforestation Effects - How Does Deforestation Affect The Environment?

Deforestation has many consequences for natural ecosystems and it poses serious problems to the resilience of the planet. Let's take a look at the main effects of deforestation to better understand why it is bad for the planet.

1 - The Effects of Deforestation on Biodiversity

The most known consequence of deforestation is its threat to biodiversity. In fact, forests represent some of the most veritable hubs of biodiversity. From mammals to birds, insects, amphibians or plants, the forest is home to many rare and fragile species.
80% of the Earth's land animals and plants live in forests.

By destroying the forests, human activities are putting entire ecosystems in danger, creating natural imbalances, and putting Life at threat. The natural world is complex, interconnected, and made of thousands of inter-dependencies and among other functions, trees provide shade and colder temperatures for animals and smaller trees or vegetation which may not survive with the heat of direct sunlight. Besides, trees also feeding animals with their fruits while providing them with food and shelter they need to survive.
Aren't you yet sure about the importance of biodiversity for the planet's balance and for human life? Then you should find out some examples of how Life is interconnected:
2 - The Effects of Deforestation on Local People and Their Livelihoods

Healthy forests support the livelihoods of 1.6 billion people globally, one billion of whom are among the world's poorest. This means there are many people depending on forests for survival and using them to hunt and gather raw products for their small-scale agriculture processes. But in developing countries such as Borneo, Indonesia, Vietnam, Brazil, or Mexico, land tenure systems are weak. This allows big businesses to get these lands and use them for other ends, disrupting local people's lives.

Locals then have to make one of two choices. They can decide to abandon "their" land and migrate somewhere else, avoiding conflict and embracing the challenge of a new different life. Or they can stay and work for the companies exploring it in remote plantations - often getting unfair wages and working under inhumane conditions. In some countries like Mexico, plantations' owners are often forced to share their profits with local cartels to keep their families alive and to avoid having their crops burned

Related: Is Avocado Production Sustainable? The Social Impact Of Cartels In Avocado Production

3 - Deforestation for Food May Lead to Food Insecurity in the Future

Today, 52% of all the land used for food production is moderately or severely impacted by soil erosion. In the long term, the lack of healthy, nutritious soil can lead to low yields and food insecurity.

4 - Soil Erosion is One of the Consequences of Deforestation

Deforestation weakens and degrades the soi l. Forested soils are usually not only richer on organic matter, but also more resistant to erosion, bad weather, and extreme weather events. This happens mainly because roots help fix trees in the ground and the sun-blocking tree cover helps the soil to slowly dry out. As a result, deforestation will probably mean the soil will become increasingly fragile, leaving the area more vulnerable to natural disasters such as landslides and floods.

5 - Deforestation Affects and Contributes to Climate Change

Deforestation also has a very strong contribution to climate change. Why? Let's remember trees absorb and store CO2 throughout their lives. If we speak about tropical forests, they hold more than 210 gigatons of carbon, according to WWF. And what's worrying is that the destruction of these trees has two big negative side-effects.

Firstly, taking down trees means they'll release back into the atmosphere the CO2 they were keeping. Secondly, fewer trees available means reducing the planet's overall ability to capture and store CO2. Both these effects negatively contribute to the greenhouse effect and to climate change. As a matter of fact, while food and agriculture account for 24% of greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation is estimated to be responsible for 10-15% of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Understanding Deforestation In Video

To understand the challenges of deforestation, check this National Geographic video.

Where Is Deforestation Happening? Countries Most Impacted By Deforestation

Around the world, deforestation occurs mostly in the tropics where there are different types of forests are: from wet and hot rainforests to others that lose their leaves in the dry season and become woodlands. Some parts of the world have managed to protect their forests from deforestation while others have seen their forestal area decline.

According to FAO's report, 6 million hectares of land were lost from forest to agriculture since 1990 in the tropical domain. These changes significantly differ but there are 3 important worldwide examples of deforestation: the Amazon rainforest, Indonesia and Borneo, and Africa.

The Effects Of Deforestation In The Amazon Rainforest

Brazil and the Amazon forest are also important (for the wrong reasons) deforestation areas worldwide. The Amazon Rainforest is one of the world's largest forest hotspots, with huge biodiversity reserves. Its ability to store carbon and produce oxygen makes it of the "lungs" of the planet.

Since the 1960s, the Amazon forest has been under threat, and nearly 760 000 (around 20% of its original size) of forest area was lost. Before 1980-1990, large industrial projects such as dams, roads, or mines were the main causes of deforestation in the Amazon region, together with subsistence farming. However, for around thirty years, the causes of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest are changing. Why?

According to various reports on the subject (Greenpeace, FAO), livestock farming, including soya production, is responsible for about 70 to 80% of deforestation in the Amazon region. The development of intensive livestock production, combined with meat consumption increases in developed countries, is thus the main cause of deforestation in the Amazon forest.

The Effects Of Deforestation In Southeast Asia - Indonesia And Borneo

Indonesia and the island of Borneo are emblematic symbols of the global phenomenon of deforestation. This region in Southeast Asia is naturally one of the richest reserves of forest and biodiversity in the world. But at the same time, it is also one of the regions that have been suffering the most deforestation in recent decades. According to FAO, between 1990 and 2012 alone, Indonesia lost about 9 million hectares of its forests, largely due to deforestation caused by palm oil.

One of the most important causes of deforestation in Indonesia and Borneo is unquestionably the production of palm oil. According to FAO, between 1990 and 2000, nearly 6 million hectares of palm oil plantations have gradually replaced Indonesian forests. This makes the palm oil industry one of the biggest contributors to deforestation in Southeast Asia - and it is expected to continue to be so.

Due to pressure from NGOs ( such as Greenpeace's recent report) and new regulations, as well the expectations of consumers, the situation of the palm oil industry is slowly starting to improve. Certifications are starting to appear, including sustainable palm oil labels (that aim to prove it comes from certified forests and workers are fairly paid) like RSPO.

Indonesia now accounts for nearly 35% of the world's sustainable palm oil production, although the sustainable palm oil market is still small ( only 19% is certified). Despite industries still posing serious environmental problems, the media spotlight on this topic is beginning to shift the lines.

Deforestation In Africa

Africa is also a large area suffering from deforestation. In fact, it experiences more deforestation than Asia: about 2 million hectares of forest disappear each year in Africa. In Nigeria, for instance, over 90% of forests were lost because of practices that started in the colonial era. Woodcutting of forest reserves and the development of cocoa and palm oil plantations are among the main causes of deforestation in Africa, together with land cleaning for mining activities.

What Animals Are Affected By Deforestation?

Unconventional production practices that illegally take down trees and use dangerous chemicals threaten forests and wildlife. In this way, exploiting crops such as palm oil, wood, coffee or avocados has side effects that affect the environment and the surrounding ecosystems. It's estimated that the Earth's biodiversity is going extinct 0,1%, or aprox. 200 species per day, every year. Some of the animals under greatest threat are:

How Can We Stop Deforestation? Solutions to Deforestation

How can we stop deforestation? According to OECD, the human population is expected to continue to increase and reach over 9 billion people by 2050. At the current rate of consumption, and with more people inhabiting Earth, the need for more space to grow food and extract natural resources is only likely to increase - depending, of course, on tech development such as artificial foods. As the demand for food or raw materials like cotton or minerals increases, so does the need to turn forests into farmland, pastureland, or mining spots. Under this broader perspective, how can we stop deforestation?

1 - Eating Less Meat Helps Stop Deforestation

How can we stop deforestation? According to the WWF, livestock-caused deforestation is responsible for the discharge of 3.4% of current global emissions of carbon to the atmosphere every year. That's why the late 2018 IPCC report stood out that reducing meat consumption by 90% is the single biggest way to reduce global warming.

Some studies also show that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by over 75%. In this way, reducing your meat consumption is also a big step to stop not only deforestation but also global warming on a larger scale. Remember: a lot of space is needed to grow both animals and the food they consume, while other nutritious foods could be grown and result in larger food quantities using the same space. Why not saving meat for important occasions only?

2 - Consuming Less and More Consciously Helps Stop Deforestation

As consumers we can choose to buy less industrial and transformed products such as cookies, crips, noodles or cosmetics that use plenty of palm oil. Instead, we can go for a home-made approach with fewer chemicals and food preservatives which is better for both the planet and our health.

However, if you are not willing to make such changes - because they are time consuming - you can still consume more responsibly while keeping your lifestyle. To this regard, you can buy products from brands adopting eco-friendly business practices. When it comes to food, buying directly to small farmers using agroforestry practices is the best choice for the planet.

3 - To Stop Deforestation, When You Consume: Use, Use, Use

Your smartphone, your laptop or your car, to name a few, are all made of aluminium, plastic and rare Earth minerals, among other materials. To get these, (just like foods like coffee or cacao) land was clear to build mining sites, roads and factories and where built to transport and transform them, powerplants provide them with energy...

The longer we use our products for, the higher the changes that demand doesn't grow (it won't likely decrease either - there are more people in the planet every day). Economically-speaking, if the demand doesn't grow, production won't grow either and it it is not necessary to clear more space to extract natural resources and build human infrastructures might, deforestation (and carbon emissions from the industry) might just not increase.

4 - Leaving Fossil Fuels and Palm Oil Behind

Nearly half of UE's imports of palm oil are used as biofuels - although proposals to ban subsidies are currently under debate. Since diesel and petrol are mixed with biofuels, choosing other transportation methods such as walking, cycling or car-sharing can be good ways of reducing palm oil importations (and production) and to help stop deforestation.

5 - Lead by Example and Spread Awareness

If you start adopting the behaviors mentioned above to help stop deforestation you can lead by your example. Teach your family, friends or colleagues what deforestation is and why it is happening, the causes and consequences of deforestation, and what solutions individuals, consumers and organizations can adopt.

A Broader Perspective: How Can We Stop Deforestation?

Apart from people's individual contributions to stop deforestation, from a political and systemic perspective, other more direct and hands-on actions approaches can be taken:

2 - Protecting forested areas by creating laws and policies that ensure forests are kept protected and restored and betting on land practices such as wildfire corridors;

3 - Reforming trade agreements, starting to value differently products obtained through deforestation, and creating incentives for the use of sustainable forestry certifications such as FSC;

4 - Educating local communities and tourists about the need to protect forests and develop and enroll in ecotourism activities.

What Are People Doing to Stop Deforestation?

What is being currently done do stop deforestation? Efforts to replant deforested areas are taking place every day. Unfortunately, some replanting is done with the goal of quickly growing trees to be exploited in the short-term by the logging industry. These often consist of monotypic plantations (less resilient, more appealing to harmful environmental management practices) such as eucalyptus or pines. This is no small effort: there are 1.3 million of these plantations on Earth, according to FAO.

At the same time, efforts to stop deforestation using more ecological management practices are also underway thanks to forest protection NGOs, eco-villages, UN initiatives and workgroups, and national governments such as New Zealand's.
Image credits to deforestation on Shutterstock, trees deforestation on Shutterstock and palm oil deforestation on Shutterstock

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Is Deforestation? Definition, Causes, Effects and Solutions to Stop it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is the definition of deforestation? What are its causes and effects? How to stop deforestation? What animals are affected by deforestation?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hi! I'm doing my project on endangered species living in the Amazon rainforest, and I'd like it if you could answer these questions for me. thanks!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Deforestation can include clearing the land for farming or livestock, or using the timber for fuel, construction or manufacturing.

# data[].attributes.body
"Trees play an important role in the rainforest. The canopy helps regulate temperature and humidity. Troublingly, we are losing nearly 4,500 acres of rainforests every hour from illegal logging, mining, agriculture, forest fires, and oil drilling. This results in a lot of carbon being released into the atmosphere, and with fewer trees, a lot less available oxygen."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Trees play an important role in the rainforest. The canopy helps regulate temperature and humidity. Troublingly, we are losing nearly 4,500 acres of

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Thousands of fires are burning across a southern swath of the Amazon. They belch smoke and soot, blanketing those who live downwind with thick, dirty air, hurting wildlife in their path and destroying part of one the most important carbon storehouses left on the planet.

About 76,000 fires were burning across the Brazilian Amazon at last official count, an increase of over 80 percent over the same time period last year, according to data from Brazil's National Institute for Space Research (INPE). Since then, even more fires have appeared in the satellite imagery that scientists use to assess the extent and intensity of burning, and they expect the number to increase over coming months as the dry season intensifies.

The fires themselves are destructive and devastating, but their primary cause is more concerning, says Ane Alencar, the director of science at the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM).

"The majority of the fires we're seeing now are because of deforestation," she says. "It's crazy. We reduced deforestation by almost 65 percent in the past. We proved that we could do that. And now we're going backwards."

Why now? And how bad is it compared to the past?

So far in 2019, the number of fires burning across the Amazon is higher than at any point since 2010, which was a particularly bad year of drought, says Ruth DeFries, an expert on sustainable development at Columbia University. By last week, about 7,000 square miles of the forest were in flames, an area just smaller than the size of New Jersey.

Most fires observed in the region are caused by humans. Many are set in previously cleared lands in order to quickly remove any excess vegetation that has popped up. Others are set in land that is still in the process of being cleared, in order to make more open land for crops or cattle.

Farmers and ranchers down forest earlier in the year and leave the felled trees to dry out. Once the fallen trees have desiccated, they set them on fire, leaving behind an open swath of land ready for agricultural activity.

But fires have been worse in the past-because deforestation was more acute.

Amazon deforestation peaked in late 1990s and early 2000s. In the worst phases of those peak deforestation periods, over 10,000 square miles of forest could be cut down in a year, much of that cleared area converted directly to cropland for soy or grazing for cattle. In some years, like in 1998 and 2005, that deforestation activity coincided with major El Niño droughts, and fires were abundant and widespread.

A concerted effort from the Brazilian government after the mid-2000s, as well as coordinated international pressures, led to changes in the management of the forest and agricultural land. The efforts were largely successful: By 2012, the annual deforestation rate bottomed out at about 80 percent lower than the average rate between 1995 and 2006.

But last year, Brazil elected a new president, Jair Bolsonaro, who pledged to increase agricultural activity in the Amazon and smooth the way for more development in the region. Under the new administration, many scientists, indigenous leaders, and environmental advocates worried that deforestation rates were likely to shoot up again.

That fear seems to be playing out. Under Bolsonaro, forest protections have been weakend and enforcement of illegal logging has weakened.The fires burning across the region and choking downwind communities are an all-too-visible manifestation of the deeper issue, says DeFries.

Earlier this summer, INPE issued a series of alerts warning that Amazon deforestation was progressing much more rapidly than it had in 2018, the previous year on record. In April, May, and June, over 700 square miles of forest had been chopped down, according to the agency-about 25 percent more than the year before. So far, the number of fires is also up compared to the same period last year.

"What we're seeing now, the uproar and alarm-it's not just that fire numbers are high, but that it's a reversal of that effective policy that was in place," says DeFries.

Deforestation leaves a signal in the smoke

Left to its own devices, the Amazon rainforest rarely burns, and the ecosystem is not adapted to deal with fire. ( Read about how the Amazon could be headed for a critical 'tipping point').

Scientists can look at satellite images and see exactly where trees were cut down several months ago. Then, they match those sites up with the location of fires burning today. Most of the fires burning today match up with spots where trees were felled earlier in the year, says Alencar.

Fires caused by humans and deforestation look different. Researchers can also identify deforestation-related fires by the thick plumes of smoke that billow high into the atmosphere. Those kinds of plumes rise high because they are fueled by huge numbers of dried-out trees, which burn hot and long, heating up the air column above them and filling the atmosphere with heavy loads of burned material, explains Doug Morton, the chief of the Biospheric Sciences Laboratory at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.

Both of those indicators are visible in many of the fires burning across the Amazon today, indicating that they are fueled by deforestation.

Previous years, like 2005 and 2010, were also extremely active fire years, with counts even higher than this year's by this time in the season. The difference, says Morton, is that those were years with serious drought, priming the region to burn. So far, though, this year hasn't been particularly dry, which makes the already-notable number of fires even more alarming, he says.

Dry years generally coincide with El Nino events in this part of the world, and scientists are predicting that an event may develop and intensify in coming months. That could exacerbate the impact of the human-set fires that will likely continue to be set.

"Everyone is on the watch now for 2019 to develop into an extreme fire year," he says, "because of the economic pressures being applied across the region as well as developing drought conditions that could instigate extreme fire risk."

A major fear is that the deforestation-centered fires will spread to intact, healthy parts of the forest. Those types of fires are difficult to identify via satellite imagery, because they often burn near the forest floor, hidden by the tree canopy above. Such burns can do serious damage, though, because they move slowly as they burn through leaf litter and ground cover, progressing only a few hundred yards each day. If they aren't identified and put out, they can kill many of the trees they encounter, because the thin-barked Amazonian species are not adapted to deal with fire-unlike many species of trees in the western U.S. or Mediterranean climates, which evolved to deal with frequent fires.

"These fires are ecologically devastating," says Morton. "Standing fire in the Amazon doesn't serve anyone."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Map: See how much of the Amazon forest is burning, how it compares to other years

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thousands of fires are burning across a southern swath of the Amazon. They belch smoke and soot, blanketing those who live downwind with thick, dirty air, hurting wildlife in their path and destroying part of one the most important carbon storehouses left on the planet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fires in Brazil 's Amazon increased 13% in the first nine months of the year compared with a year ago, as the rainforest region experiences its worst rash of blazes in a decade, data from space research agency Inpe has shown.

Satellites in September recorded 32,017 hotspots in the world's largest rainforest, a 61% rise from the same month in 2019.

In August last year, surging fires in the Amazon captured global headlines and prompted criticism from world leaders such as France's Emmanuel Macron that Brazil was not doing enough to protect the rainforest.

On Tuesday, the US Democratic presidential candidate, Joe Biden, called for a world effort to offer $20bn to end Amazon deforestation and threatened Brazil with unspecified "economic consequences" if it did not "stop tearing down the forest".

President Jair Bolsonaro lambasted Biden's comment as a "cowardly threat" to Brazil's sovereignty and a "clear sign of contempt".

Data from Inpe released on Thursday showed that in 2019, fires spiked in August and declined considerably the month after, but this year's peak has been more sustained. Both August and September of 2020 have matched or surpassed last year's single-month high.

"We have had two months with a lot of fire. It's already worse than last year," said Ane Alencar, science director for Brazil's Amazon Environmental Research Institute (Ipam).

"It could get worse if the drought continues. We are at the mercy of the rain."

The Amazon is experiencing a more severe dry season than last year, which scientists attribute in part to warming in the tropical North Atlantic Ocean pulling moisture away from South America.

The entire Amazon, which spans nine countries, currently has 28,892 active fires, according to a fire monitoring tool funded in part by the US space agency, Nasa.

The fires in September are not only burning recently deforested areas and farmland, where ranchers set them to clear land, but are also increasingly burning virgin forest, a worrying trend that suggests the rainforest is becoming drier and more prone to fire.

Roughly 62% of major Amazon fires were in forests in September, compared with only 15% in August, according to an analysis of satellite images by the US-based non-profit Amazon Conservation.

The warming of the North Atlantic is also helping drive drought in the Brazilian Pantanal, the world's largest wetland, which has suffered more fires this year than ever previously recorded, according to Inpe data.

A Federal University of Rio de Janeiro analysis found that 23% of the wetlands, which are home to the densest population of jaguars in the world, has burned.

"Brazil is on fire," said Cristiane Mazzetti, a forest campaigner for advocacy group Greenpeace Brasil, in a statement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brazil's Amazon rainforest suffers worst fires in a decade

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fires in Brazil 's Amazon increased 13% in the first nine months of the year compared with a year ago, as the rainforest region experiences its worst rash of blazes in a decade, data from space research agency Inpe has shown.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Preserving the Amazon rainforest is of global importance in the fight against climate change, but it is under threat from forest fires, mostly started to clear land for agriculture.

Early numbers from this year's fire season show an increase, leading to concern from scientists.

President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil recently said that claims the Amazon "is going up in flames" were not true, despite statistics published by his own government showing the spread of fires.

So what does the data show about what's happening this year?

Brazil is a huge country with many different environments, including grassland, wetland and rainforest.

Some 60% of the Amazon rainforest is in Brazil, and it plays a vital role in absorbing harmful CO2 that would otherwise escape into the atmosphere. So there's particular concern about the damage that fires might do here.

The total number of fires in Brazil's Amazon until July this year is high - but slightly lower than the same period last year.

But there is concern about a surge in blazes last month, earlier than would normally be expected.

"If we consider the average number of fires in July over the period from 2010-2019, then the number of fires in July 2020 represented an increase of 55.6% of the average," says Prof Marcia Castro, a Brazilian scientist based at Harvard University.

"An increase also happened in June (19.6% compared to June last year, and 36.1% compared to the average for the month of June between 2010-19). The peak of the fire season is often seen in August to September.

"So the consistent increase in June and July is worrisome," says Prof Castro.

And alerts so far in August look set to rival the number recorded last year. Fires this year are at the second highest level since 2010.

In the first seven months of 2020, more than 13,000sq km (5,019sq miles) of the Brazilian Amazon was burned, according to analysis of satellite data provided by Dr Michelle Kalamandeen, a tropical ecologist on the Amazon rainforest.

That's more than eight times the size of London.

Dr Kalamandeen says the torched forest often struggles to grow back.

"When a forest is lost, it is gone forever. Recovery may occur but never 100% recovery," she says.

When you look at the spread of the fires in Brazil, during the week of 11 August, there were noticeable clusters of fires in the Amazon, with Para, Mato Grosso, Amazonia and Rondonia states reporting a high number of alerts.

In areas around Novo Progresso in Para state, farmers reportedly held a "day of fire" last year and satellites have picked up more than 1,300 fire alerts in the past month, according to official statistics.

To the north-east, the large municipality of Altamira has recorded the most fires in Brazil's Amazon region during this period.

Brazilian climate scientist Carlos Nobre says there are two main issues contributing to forest fires this year.

The first is that this year's dry season is much drier than usual.

"The waters of the tropical north Atlantic are warmer this year and when that happens, we have less rainfall over the southern Amazon," says Professor Nobre.

The second is that there is a lot of felled forest left over from last year's logging - this is chopped wood that can fuel fires.

A lot of it didn't get burned as there was a military campaign to stop illegal activity in the forest

This year, the army has been conducting an operation to stop deforestation since June, and in July, President Bolsonaro imposed a four-month ban on forest fires.

Vice-President Hamilton Mourao recently launched a campaign against the fires, including an app for the public to report them.

"We will be out in the field in August to try to stop these fires becoming worse than last year," he told the BBC.

Activists and government critics remain sceptical, says Camilla Costa, a BBC World Service journalist.

According to the Brazilian defence ministry, 28,100 cubic metres of illegal wood has been confiscated with fines totalling 407.2 million Brazilian reais ($72.6m; £55m).

However, fires have continued in the region and critics complain about a lack of sufficient enforcement.

The number of forest fires in the Amazon regions of Colombia, Peru and Venezuela is up on this time last year.

For Amazonian countries, mining and agriculture is driving deforestation and as a result forest fires, according to Dr Kalamandeen.

In Venezuela, an increase in mining for gold is likely to be behind the increase, as since 2016 President Nicolas Maduro has opened up the sector to try and stem the country's economic collapse.

In Colombia, following the government's rapprochement with rebel group Farc in the past few years, areas have been opened up for farming, causing an increase in blazes, says Dr Kalamandeen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Amazon fires: Are they worse this year than before?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Preserving the Amazon rainforest is of global importance in the fight against climate change, but it is under threat from forest fires, mostly started to clear land for agriculture. Early numbers from this year's fire season show an increase, leading to concern from scientists.

# data[].attributes.body
"One year has passed since the world was shocked by the images of the fires blazing across the Amazon in Brazil. But since then, the forest hasn’t stopped burning —and 2020 could be even more devastating for the rainforest and the Indigenous Peoples who call it home. Last week, Greenpeace Brazil flew over the state of Mato Grosso to capture images of the Amazon. Even though the government had ordered a ban on forest fires in the state starting at the beginning of July, the photos show smoke, flames, and just how ineffective the ban has been."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One year has passed since the world was shocked by the images of the fires blazing across the Amazon in Brazil. But since then, the forest hasn't stopped burning -and 2020 could be even more devastating for the rainforest and the Indigenous Peoples who call it home. Last week, Greenpeace Brazil flew over the state of Mato Grosso to capture images of the Amazon. Even though the government had ordered a ban on forest fires in the state starting at the beginning of July, the photos show smoke, flames, and just how ineffective the ban has been.

Last year, more than 1 million hectares of forest were burned, and the trend shows the destruction is far from over. Last June, more than two thousand fire hotspots were registered in the Amazon, the highest number in the last thirteen years. Since Brazil's President Bolsonaro took office in January 2019, his government's agenda has been very clear: dismantle environmental protection law and agencies, so that forest destroyers can burn the forest freely, clearing the land to turn it into pastures, without being held accountable.

The consequences of this destruction are dire. From Siberia to the Amazon, fires are raging across the world. Losing our forests means losing the fight against the climate crisis, putting biodiversity at risk of extinction, and threatening the lives of Indigenous Peoples who depend on the forest standing for their survival. Fighting to protect the forest and Indigenous lands from fires and deforestation become even more difficult-and crucial -during a pandemic.

With a mortality rate from COVID-19 150% higher than the Brazilian average, Indigenous Peoples are already more vulnerable during the pandemic. The smoke from the fires will put their respiratory system at even higher risk during a time when access to healthcare is limited in remote areas in the Amazon.

But things can be different. After the public's outcry last year, there is increasing pressure on Brazil's government. Investors, companies and governments have been signaling their concerns about the destruction of the forest and its impact on the environment, and their message is clear: they don't want to do business with forest destroyers. Even though last week Bolsonaro announced a "fire moratorium" for 120 days, the images of Mato Grosso show how his measures have been performative and inefficient.

To properly protect the forest and its Peoples, the Brazilian government must properly fund environmental agencies, reinforce environmental laws and protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples. The exploitation of nature and people is a major cause of the current health, climate and biodiversity crises.
We must demand governments and companies end business with forest destroyers and invest and support resilient economies that put nature and people first.

about the author

Diego Gonzaga is a content editor for Greenpeace International based in San Francisco, US.

One year has passed since the world was shocked by the images of the fires blazing across the Amazon in Brazil. But since then, the forest hasn't stopped burning -and 2020 could be even more devastating for the rainforest and the Indigenous Peoples who call it home. Last week, Greenpeace Brazil flew over the state of Mato Grosso to capture images of the Amazon. Even though the government had ordered a ban on forest fires in the state starting at the beginning of July, the photos show smoke, flames, and just how ineffective the ban has been.

Last year, more than 1 million hectares of forest were burned, and the trend shows the destruction is far from over. Last June, more than two thousand fire hotspots were registered in the Amazon, the highest number in the last thirteen years. Since Brazil's President Bolsonaro took office in January 2019, his government's agenda has been very clear: dismantle environmental protection law and agencies, so that forest destroyers can burn the forest freely, clearing the land to turn it into pastures, without being held accountable.

The consequences of this destruction are dire. From Siberia to the Amazon, fires are raging across the world. Losing our forests means losing the fight against the climate crisis, putting biodiversity at risk of extinction, and threatening the lives of Indigenous Peoples who depend on the forest standing for their survival. Fighting to protect the forest and Indigenous lands from fires and deforestation become even more difficult-and crucial -during a pandemic.

With a mortality rate from COVID-19 150% higher than the Brazilian average, Indigenous Peoples are already more vulnerable during the pandemic. The smoke from the fires will put their respiratory system at even higher risk during a time when access to healthcare is limited in remote areas in the Amazon.

But things can be different. After the public's outcry last year, there is increasing pressure on Brazil's government. Investors, companies and governments have been signaling their concerns about the destruction of the forest and its impact on the environment, and their message is clear: they don't want to do business with forest destroyers. Even though last week Bolsonaro announced a "fire moratorium" for 120 days, the images of Mato Grosso show how his measures have been performative and inefficient.

To properly protect the forest and its Peoples, the Brazilian government must properly fund environmental agencies, reinforce environmental laws and protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples. The exploitation of nature and people is a major cause of the current health, climate and biodiversity crises.
We must demand governments and companies end business with forest destroyers and invest and support resilient economies that put nature and people first.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fires are raging in the Amazon-again - Greenpeace International

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One year has passed since the world was shocked by the images of the fires blazing across the Amazon in Brazil. But since then, the forest hasn't stopped burning -and 2020 could be even more devastating for the rainforest and the Indigenous Peoples who call it home.

# data[].attributes.body
The Emerald Toucanet

The Jaguar

Tapir

Spider Monkey

Pink Dolphins

Giant Otters

# data[].attributes.body
The Amazon is the large tropical rainforest occupying the drainage basin of the Amazon River. It covers 2.300.000 square miles and compromises about 40% of Brazil's total area, and also runs across Peru and Venezuela.

# data[].attributes.body
The Peruvian Amazon is a region of the Amazon rainforest that is located in Peru, northwest of South America, and east of the Andes.

It consists out of 5 departments:

Loreto, the capital: Iquitos → the largest city in the world that cannot be reached via road. It’s also called the metropolis of the jungle because of its prosperity.

Amazonas: Chachapoyas → One of Peru’s oldest cities, also called the land of orchids, sugar cane, and coffee plantations.

San Martin: Moyobamba → Moyobamba is known for thousands of orchid species, many viewable at the San Francisco Botanical Garden, which also has fruit trees and butterflies.

Ucayali: Pucallpa → the second largest city in Peru -- it’s connected to the Uyacali River that runs all the way through the Amazon.

Madre de Dios: Puerto Maldonado → Madre de Dios is a region in southeastern Peru’s Amazon Basin, bordering Brazil and Bolivia.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFOynLEkZC0&t=3s

The Emerald Toucanet:

The emerald toucanet is one of the most popular birds living in the Amazon rainforest. They are one of the 40 different species of toucans in the world today. With their distinctive large beak and green feathers, it’s easy for them to camouflage themselves. They’re usually spotted in the Peruvian Rainforest, however, they are on the verge of extinction due to habitat endangerment.