Many of Earth’s creatures see humans as super predators. And no, that title is not as great as it sounds.

The old research

Let us explain what super predator means. Basically, some scientists think that a number of different species of animals view humans as the ultimate killing machine. These animals may even fear humans more than other predatory animals, such as wolves, lions, and bears.

“Humans have diverged from other predators in behavior and influence,” the first study, which appeared in the journal Science in 2015, reports.

“Geographic expansion, exploitation of naïve prey, killing technology, symbioses with dogs, and rapid population growth, among other factors, have long imposed profound impacts—including widespread extinction and restructuring of food webs and ecosystems—in terrestrial and marine systems.”

The possibly new-to-you term was coined in a 2015 report that detailed the impact humans have on the world.

We’re sure you can probably easily glean why being a super predator isn’t great, but just to be safe, we’ll clearly state why some people are concerned: predatory human behavior can disrupt the overall ecosystem.

The new research

Researchers in Ontario recently conducted another similar study based on badger behavior in the United Kingdom, specifically in Wytham Woods.

The Western University in Ontario, Canada study attempted to learn how badgers would react to different predators, including humans. To track the badgers’ activity, the researchers set up motion-activated video cameras around several setts (also know as badger dens).

“At the beginning of the night, the scientists played sound bites of bears, wolves, dogs, sheep, and finally humans, capturing the badgers’ reactions on the cameras when they finally ventured out to look for food,” Treehugger reports.

“The researchers found that bear and dog sounds delayed foraging but that badgers would eventually emerge from their homes to feed while the animal sounds were still playing. Sounds of humans, however, discouraged some badgers from leaving their burrows altogether. Those that did eventually leave in search for food waited 189%-228% longer than badgers exposed to bear or dogs sounds, with more than half of the badgers waiting until the human sounds stopped playing completely before leaving their homes. Hearing human voices also reduced the time that badgers spent foraging and led to increased vigilance. All of these results point to an unprecedented level of fear in badgers when they are exposed to human noises.”

The problem

So, okay. Badgers really don’t like humans.

But as we stated before, this research implies a much deeper, destructive problem.

“Our previous research has shown that the fear large carnivores inspire can itself shape ecosystems,” Dr. Liana Zanette, one of the authors of the study, states.

“These new results indicate that the fear of humans, being greater, likely has even greater impacts on the environment, meaning humans may be distorting ecosystem processes even more than previously imagined,” she adds.

“These results have important implications for conservation, wildlife management and public policy.”

We agree, Dr. Zanette. So, come on, humans. Let’s do better and back off.

Related on EcoSalon
Adrift on the Global Warming Rug
Elephants are Basically Dinosaurs: Habitat Loss, Poaching and Global Warming are Killing Our Favorite Animals
The Mexican Gray Wolf Needs You: Speak Up for the Essential Lobo

Image of predator via Shutterstock

The post Animals See Humans as Super Predators (and We Don’t Blame Them) appeared first on EcoSalon.

Our deep connection with nature has roots seemingly as old as humanity itself. Ancient Celts viewed trees as sacred symbols of fertility and rebirth. Conservationist John Muir believed that everyone should have a sanctuary where “nature may heal and give strength to body and soul.” A recent study from the U.S. Forest Service now suggests that this primordial bond goes beyond metaphor, providing scientific evidence that tree and human health may be intertwined.

“I basically tagged onto one of the oldest ideas in the word,” said lead author Geoffrey Donovan, a researcher at the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Research Station. But “the quantification is a new thing.”

Donovan and colleagues combed through demographic, human mortality, and forest health data from about 1,300 counties in 15 states from 1990 through 2007. Their findings? In counties where trees were plagued by the invasive emerald ash borer, about 15,000 more deaths from cardiovascular disease and approximately 6,000 from lower respiratory disease were reported compared to uninfested areas. The researchers focused on these ailments in particular since trees can filter particulates and other pollutants, improving air quality. Even after controlling for demographic variables, such as race, income, and education, they observed the same trend.

Since earlier studies of nature’s effects on human health often looked only at cross sections of the human population, they didn’t control for community influences on health. Other studies spanned only a year or a few years, but environmental changes happen slowly, and capturing their effects often requires much longer studies.

But Donovan didn’t have those problems, since the ash borer affected a broad swath of the country — wiping out 100 million trees in the eastern and midwestern U.S. — and trees can die quickly once attacked. A swarm of emerald ash borers can kill several trees at the same time, leaving once tree-lined streets barren within a few years of infestation.

Donovan’s study shows an association between loss of trees and human death due to cardiovascular and lower respiratory disease — suggesting, but not proving, a causal link. “This isn’t so much hypothesis proving as hypothesis generating,” Donovan said. “I hope this is ongoing research.”

He added that the results, published last month in the American Journal for Preventive Medicine, offer an understanding of health that could help inform policymaking in a tenuous economy. Although studies have shown that people living near parks tend to be healthier, building a park might not be feasible in a densely populated urban area. Tree planting could be an easier, more practical alternative.

“You need to know what you get for your investment. It turns out now if we plant trees or protect trees, there might be a public health benefit,” he said.  “Maybe we should think of trees as our public health infrastructure and look at it as a basic component of our well-being.” – Melissa Pandika

This article appears courtesy of Sierra Magazine.

Melissa Pandika is an editorial intern at Sierra and a graduate journalism student at Stanford University. Her interests include environmental health and justice, urban environmental issues, and conservation biology. She has a soft spot for cetaceans.

Image: icouldbreathe

The post Healthy Trees Equals Healthy Humans appeared first on EcoSalon.