Tuesday, June 09, 2020

Fishers are one of the poorest professions in Indonesia, yet they are one of the happiest

Indonesia's status as a maritime country seemingly does not guarantee that its fishers live prosperously. My recent study, analysing data from the 2017 National Socioeconomic Survey (SUSENAS), shows fishers are one of the poorest professions in Indonesia.

As many as 11.34% of people in Indonesia's fisheries sector are classified as poor. That's a higher rate than in other sectors such as restaurant services (5.56%), building construction (9.86%) and waste sorting (9.62%).

As a result, the number of young people who want to work as fishers has declined. Data from the Indonesian Statistics Bureau (BPS) show a sharp decrease in households involved in capture fisheries, from 2 million in 2000 to 966,000 in 2016.

This has occurred not only in Indonesia but also in other parts of the world. In 2016, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) reported a continuous decline of workers in the capture fisheries sector. In Europe, the number of fishers fell from 779,000 to 413,00 between 2000 and 2013. A similar trend can be seen in North America and Oceania.

Policies that limit overfishing, along with the advancement of technologies that replace the role of fishers, seem to be the cause of this decline.

A number of scholars argue that low income, extreme weather at sea and being far away from family for a long time have turned the profession into one that is dangerous and unattractive.

However, research I conducted in 2018 found this does not apply to Indonesian fishers. Amid poverty and uncertainty about catches, Indonesian fishers seem to be happier than other professions in the agriculture sector.

Measuring the happiness of fishers

Our team conducted a statistical analysis of the welfare status of fishers, represented by socioeconomic data from the 2012 and 2015 Indonesian Family Life Survey (IFLS).

The IFLS questionnaire also contained an open survey for fishers, asking them how happy they felt or would feel at present, five years ago and five years ahead.

Even though they are one of the most likely to slide under the poverty line, our analysis concludes there is no strong evidence that fishers are less happy than those in other professions.

Instead, many other aspects displayed a stronger correlation to happiness rather than just their status as fishers—such as education level, marriage status and health condition.

One reason that might explain this result is the nature of their profession, which allows them to enjoy more time outdoors, on the open sea.

Past studies suggest aspects such as "adventure", "freedom" and "activities in nature" act as a form of therapy for fishers.

For instance, research from the University of Rhode Island found roaming in calm seas helped fishers in the Caribbean—such as those in Cuba and Haiti—develop very good social relations and a healthy mental state.

Another study, by researchers at East Carolina University in the United States, describes how many former fishers in Puerto Rico chose to return to work in the open sea as a form of therapy after feeling exhausted by years spent in administrative jobs.

Particularly for Indonesian fishers who employ workers, this "therapy" seems to have a stronger effect as they have to work less and can spend more time enjoying nature.

In our survey, fishers also showed higher optimism than other professions in the agriculture sector about their projected economic situation in five years' time.

The above factors might explain why, even in poverty, Indonesian fishers still perceive their living conditions as being on par with other professions, perhaps even one that is worth pursuing for years to come.

The future of the fishery sector

However happy Indonesian fishers are, statistics still show fewer and fewer people are choosing fisheries as a profession.

This means the government has the important task of increasing the welfare of fishers for the sake of this profession's future.

One thing the government can do is issue better regulations for open-access capture fisheries and policies to protect small-scale fishers.

If the government fails to pay attention to this, large fishing vessels will continue to exploit Indonesian waters, which ultimately reduces the catch of traditional fishers.

Government support to increase fishers' welfare—for instance, by providing insurance for small-scale fishers – is also a must for this highly uncertain profession.

Being a fisher might be a happy job, but it would be meaningless if no one is left to continue this profession in the future.

How small-scale fishers are struggling amid COVID-19 crisis

Provided by The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

2019 fossil fuel subsidies nearly $500 bn: OECD/IEA

by Marlowe Hood

*Combined subsidies for both consumption and production last year totalled $478 billion in 77 economies*

Climate crisis notwithstanding, governments subsidised fossil fuels in 2019 to the tune of nearly half-a-trillion dollars, two intergovernmental agencies have jointly reported.

Subsidies for fossil fuel consumption alone declined $120 billion, or 27 percent, compared to 2018 due mainly to lower oil and gas prices, according to International Energy Agency (IEA) figures.

Governments that heavily support the use of oil and gas include Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, Indonesia, Egypt, India and Venezuela.

At the same time, subsidies for fossil fuel production—in the form of cash, tax breaks and other credits—increased across 44 rich and emerging economies in 2019 by 38 percent to $55 billion, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reported.

Combined subsidies for both consumption and production last year totalled $478 billion in 77 economies, an 18 percent drop compared to the year before, the IEA and OECD said in a joint statement, released at the end of last week.

"The fiscal burden of subsidies means that fewer resources can be potentially devoted to other public funding, be it for clean-energy research, innovation or to strengthen social safety nets," Nathalie Girouard, head of the OECD's environmental performance and information division, told AFP.

Burning oil, gas and coal—which account for more than 80 percent of global primary energy use—is the main source of the greenhouse gases that drive global warming.

Governments have long recognised the need to stop propping up fossil fuel production and use.

As early as 2009, G20 nations responsible for 80 percent of CO2 emissions pledged to gradually eliminate fossil fuel subsidies.

So far, however, they have failed to deliver on that promise.

"Today's low fossil fuel prices offer countries a golden opportunity to phase out consumption subsidies," says IEA hea

"I am saddened to see some backsliding on efforts to phase out fossil fuel support," OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria said in a statement.

"Subsidising fossil fuels is an inefficient use of public money and serves to worsen greenhouse emissions and air pollution."

'Golden opportunity'

Business leaders have also flagged the need to stop bankrolling the production and use of oil, gas and their derivatives.

In December, 631 institutional investors managing more than $37 trillion in assets endorsed the Paris climate treaty goal of capping global warming at two degrees Celsius and called on governments to "phase out fossil fuel subsidies by set deadlines".

With oil, gas and coal prices dropping through the floor due to COVID lockdowns in the first part of 2020, governments need to support the energy needs of their least advantaged citizens while channelling the money freed up into a greener economy, said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol.

"Today's low fossil fuel prices offer countries a golden opportunity to phase out consumption subsidies," he said.

"It is essential to avoid market distortions that favour polluting and inefficient technologies."

Burning fossil fuels causes some 4.5 million premature deaths each year, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air.

"Many subsidies are poorly targeted, disproportionally benefiting wealthier segments of the population that use much more of the subsidised fuel," IEA energy analysts Wataru Matsumura and Zakia Adam wrote in a blog last year.

"Such untargeted subsidy policies encourage wasteful consumption, pushing up emissions and straining government budgets."

Axing fossil fuel subsidies scant help on climate: study

Radiocarbon dating pins date for construction of Uyghur complex to the year 777

by University of Groningen

Dating archeological objects precisely is difficult, even when using techniques such as radiocarbon dating. Using a recently developed method based on the presence of sudden spikes in carbon-14 concentration, scientists at the University of Groningen, together with Russian colleagues, have pinned the date for the construction of an eighth-century complex in southern Siberia to a specific year. This allows archeologists to finally understand the purpose for building the complex—and why it was never used. The results were published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on 8 June.

The Por-Bajin complex, on the border of the Russian Federation and Mongolia, measures 215 x 162 meters and has outer walls of 12 meters high. All of the walls are made of clay (Por-Bajin translates as 'clay house') on a foundation of wooden beams. The complex was created by nomadic Uyghurs sometime in the eighth century. But archeologists did not know the purpose of the complex and why it appears never to have been used.

Khans

"In order to understand this, the exact construction date was required to find out which local leader, or khan, gave the orders for the construction," explains Margot Kuitems, a postdoctoral researcher at the Centre for Isotope Research at the University of Groningen. She currently works on the Exact Chronology of Early Societies (ECHOES) project, funded by the European Research Council and led by Assistant Professor of Isotope Chronology Michael Dee, who is also an author on the PNAS paper.

For the early medieval period, radiocarbon dating is generally precise to within a few decades. This is good enough for most applications. However, as khans came and went during the eighth century, the exact construction date was required to link it to a specific leader. Within the ECHOES project, Kuitems applied a recently developed method to date her samples exactly.

Spike

Carbon-14 (a radioactive isotope of carbon) is created in the upper atmosphere. Plants absorb carbon dioxide, which includes a tiny amount of carbon-14. When the plant—or the animal that ate the plant—dies, the carbon uptake stops and the carbon-14 slowly decays. Every 5,730 years, half of the carbon-14 decays. Therefore, the carbon-14 concentration reveals the age of the object (animal, plant or any other organic material).

Production rates of carbon-14 in the atmosphere are not constant. However, changes in atmospheric carbon-14 were believed to show little variation from one year to the next. Then, in 2013, the Japanese Professor Fusa Miyake analyzed individual tree rings and found a spectacular spike in carbon-14 content in the year 775. "When you find wood at an archeological site from that period, you can look for the spike by measuring the carbon-14 content of subsequent tree rings," explains Kuitems. The spike tells you which tree ring grew in the year 775. And when the sample includes the bark, it is even possible to determine when the tree was felled.

Chinese princess

This approach was used to analyze a beam taken from the very foundation of the Por-Bajin complex. The sample that they used had 45 rings, followed by the bark. Measurements showed that the spike that dated to the year 775 was present in the 43rd ring. "So, we knew the tree was felled in 777. Tree ring specialist and co-author Petra Doeve determined that the final, partial ring was created in the spring." In southern Siberia, there is a clear distinction between summer and winter wood.

Russian archeologists previously reported that the entire complex was completed in a very short time, about two years. Por-Bajin is situated on an island in a lake and it was determined that the trees came from the surrounding area. "We are fairly certain that they were felled for the construction of the complex, and it is therefore highly likely that construction took place around 777."

Previously, the site had been dated to 750, based on a runic inscription on a monument called the "Selenga Stone," which described the construction of a large complex. In 750, Bayan-Chur Khan ruled the Uyghurs. He was married to a Chinese princess and this may explain why some Chinese influences were found in the Por-Bajin complex. "However, previous radiocarbon dating attempts already suggested that the buildings might be slightly younger."

Manichaeism

In the year 777, Tengri Bögü Khan was in charge. He had converted to Manichaeism, a gnostic religion that was strongly opposed. Indeed, Bögü Khan was killed during an anti-Manichaean rebellion in 779. "All this ties in neatly with the archeological evidence," explains Kuitems. It is likely that the complex was built to serve as a Manichaean monastery. "This explains why it was never used after the anti-Manichaeans defeated Bögü Khan. If it had been a palace or a fortress, it is more likely that the victors would have moved in."

The study shows how carbon-14 spikes can help to solve archeological conundrums, says Kuitems: "This technology can be really useful in cases where an exact date is required." And as ever more spikes are identified, their uses will become more widespread.Tree rings could pin down Thera volcano eruption date

More information: Margot Kuitems el al., "Radiocarbon-based approach capable of subannual precision resolves the origins of the site of Por-Bajin," PNAS (2020). www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1921301117

Journal information: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Provided by University of Groningen

Invasive rushes spreading in upland farm fields

by University of Liverpool

A new study involving University of Liverpool ecologists shows invasive native species of rushes are spreading across UK upland farms and have the potential to threaten wildlife and the livelihoods of farmers.

Researchers used a series of Google Earth images to plot the spread of rushes in farm fields in the West Pennine Moor SSSI—an area of the Lancashire uplands between Bolton, Bury and Darwen.

The study is the first to investigate the spread of rushes in areas of the UK uplands. Although the study focused on one area of upland, anecdotal evidence suggests the problem could be happening across many other UK hill farms.

Using more than 200 images from Google Earth taken across a 13-year period between 2005 and 2018, the researchers found that rushes have spread across the surveyed area by between 82 percent and 174 percent.

Rushes, which are much taller than typical pasture grasses and tend to grow in tussocks, can be identified on color aerial photography, such as Google Earth images, because of their different color and growth form to surrounding grasses.

The spread of rushes in upland farmland is of growing importance because it has the potential to reduce the productivity of land for farmers—as livestock, like sheep, find it unpalatable.

Its spread is also problematic for wildlife as many wading birds, such as lapwing and redshank, do not like to breed in fields dominated by rushes.

The researchers also suspect that rushes, as a combustible material, could potentially increase the risk of moorland wildfires.

Dr. Mark Ashby, of Lancaster University and lead author of the study, said: "Our study corroborates the anecdotal reports suggesting that populations of tussock-forming rushes, such as soft rush, hard rush, and compact rush, have been increasing within upland grasslands.

"As they replace palatable grasses, rushes reduce grassland productivity. This can cause considerable losses to upland farm incomes on land where, owing to poorer soils and climate, it is already difficult to make a living. From a wildlife perspective, important upland birds, such as redshank and lapwing, choose not to breed in fields dominated by rushes."

Professor Rob Marrs from the University of Liverpool's School of Environmental Sciences provided his forty-year experience of weed control in the uplands and the interpretation of aerial photography to guide this study.

He said: "We all suspected that that soft rushes were increasing and reducing available grazing land (ask any upland farmer) but we had no idea about how big a problem it had become. The next phase of this work should be do similar studies in other areas to get a national perspective, but there is also a need for experimental work to derive sensible, cost-effective weed control strategies."

Rushes, which are native to the UK, are spreading perennials that prefer wet, acidic and nutrient-poor environments. They can vigorously reproduce, with each stand producing millions of seeds and seeds can remain dormant in the soil for up to 60 years.

It is not known why rushes are spreading. Researchers think it could be due to a number of possibilities, including:

Inadequate field drainage and localized soil compaction.
Changes in farming practices over recent decades such as reductions in the numbers of people working the land, heavier farm machinery and changes in livestock types and densities.
Climatic reasons such as increasingly wet summers and winters and fewer frosts than in previous decades.

Dr. Mark Ashby added: "Determining the drivers of upland grassland rush expansion will help us understand how it can be halted or, in some cases, reversed, which would be of great benefit to hill farmers and upland biodiversity."

As the most effective way of controlling rushes is not known, the researchers believe more research is needed to find out more about the reasons why they are spreading across our uplands so a way can be found to bring them under control.

The study is outlined in the paper "Quantifying the recent expansion of native invasive rush species in a UK upland environment," which has been published by the journal Annals of Applied Biology.

Upland sheep grazing impacts biodiveristy and will take decades to recover

Women still an afterthought in research

by Northwestern University

COVID-19 impacts men more seriously than women, critical information that resulted from research examining how the virus progresses differently based on sex.

But including sex as a variable in scientific research has been historically rare, leading to dangerous gaps in understanding how diseases, drugs and vaccines impact men and women differently.

A new Northwestern Medicine study, published June 9 in the journal eLife, has found females are still an afterthought in most scientific research.

The study is a 10-year follow-up to a 2009 groundbreaking study that found females were left out of biomedical research because of how their hormones might skew fragile study designs, an idea that has repeatedly been proven false. That left only male subjects to represent both men and women in research findings.

Over the past decade, there have been numerous efforts to increase the representation of females as research subjects, including a 2016 policy by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) requiring scientists to "consider sex as a biological variable" in order to receive NIH grant funding.

Today, Northwestern investigators have discovered while scientists are increasingly including females in their research, they're still not breaking down their findings by sex.

"The implications of not analyzing research data by sex are endless," said Nicole Woitowich, associate director of the Women's Health Research Institute and research assistant professor at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. "Without this, we have no way of telling if or how new drugs and therapies may work differently in men and women. It hinders progress toward personalized medicine and it also makes it difficult for scientists to repeat studies and build upon prior knowledge."

The study authors analyzed more than 700 scientific articles across nine biological disciplines in order to determine if a sex bias still exists within biomedical research. They recorded if each study used male, female or both sexes and whether or not they reported and analyzed data by sex. They also recorded if scientists provided a reason for single-sex studies or for why they did not analyze data by sex.

The number of studies to include both male and female subjects increased from 28% in 2009 to 49% in 2019, the new study found, but there was no increase in the number of studies to analyze data by sex between 2009 and 2019.

In some cases, scientists did not provide an exact number of the males and females studied, the report found. And only 4% of published papers provided a reason why they did not use both sexes or why they failed to analyze data by sex. Of those, many claimed to use only males in order to limit the influence of female hormones.

Not analyzing data by sex might lead scientists to have to make assumptions based on the missing information, which requires additional time, resources and ultimately taxpayer-funded research dollars, Woitowich said.

"When we fail to consider the influences of sex in biomedical research, it's like we're trying to put together a puzzle without all the pieces," Woitowich said. "In order for us to improve our understanding of health and disease, it is essential that we include both sexes in research studies and analyze data accordingly."

Explore furtherNo female mice? Scientists may still approve NIH grant
More information: Nicole C Woitowich et al. A 10-year follow-up study of sex inclusion in the biological sciences, eLife (2020). DOI: 10.7554/eLife.56344
Journal information: eLife

Scientific fieldwork 'caught in the middle' of US-Mexico border tensions

by Taylor Edwards, The Conversation

Imagine you're a scientist, setting out camera traps to snap pictures of wildlife in a remote area of southern Arizona. You set out with your gear early in the morning, but it took longer than expected to find all the locations with your GPS. Now, on your hike back, it's really starting to heat up.

You try to stick to the shaded, dry washes, and as you round a bend, you're surprised to see several people huddled under a scraggly mesquite tree against the side of the steep ravine: Mexican immigrants crossing the border. They look dirty and afraid, but so do you.

"¿Tienes agua?" they timidly ask, and you see their empty plastic water containers.

This fictionalized scenario reflects a composite of real incidents experienced by U.S. and Mexican researchers, including me, on both sides of the border in the course of their fieldwork. While giving aid may be the moral thing to do, there can be consequences. Humanitarian aid workers in Arizona have been arrested for leaving food and water for migrants in similar situations, and such arrests have risen since 2017.

The U.S.-Mexico border is a region of significant biological and cultural diversity that draws researchers from a wide variety of disciplines, including geology, biology, environmental sciences, archaeology, hydrology, and cultural and social sciences. It is also an area of humanitarian crisis and contentious politics.

Migrants have always been a part of this area, but dangerous drug cartels and increasing militarization have added additional challenges for those who live and work here. U.S. and Mexican researchers are faced with ethical and logistical challenges in navigating this political landscape. To better understand these complex dynamics, my colleagues and I conducted an anonymous survey among researchers who work in the border region to learn how border politics affect collaboration and researchers' ability to perform their jobs.

Border fieldwork comes with complications

Our binational, multidisciplinary group of concerned scientists distributed an anonymous, online survey to 807 members of the Next-Generation Sonoran Desert Researchers Network. From this group of academic professionals, college students and employees of nonprofit organizations and federal and state agencies who work in the U.S.-Mexico border region, we received 59 responses. While not yet published in a peer-reviewed journal, a summary of our results can be found on the N-Gen website, and the original data is available online.

Researchers in our pre-pandemic study reported feeling safe for the most part while working in the U.S.-Mexico border region. However this may reflect the fact that they adjust their work to stay away from risky places.

Respondents noted the importance of knowing individuals and communities where they work. For instance, one U.S.-based researcher told us, "I feel safe in Mexico where I know landowners and they know me. I don't feel safe in U.S. public lands due to Border Patrol's extensive presence, their racial profiling ways and guns pulled on me."

Many respondents reported having encountered situations during fieldwork when they felt their security was threatened, occurring relatively equally on both sides of the border. Participants did not express safety concerns due to migrants themselves, but instead pointed to the militarization and criminal activity associated with the region.

Safety concerns on the Mexico side were primarily due to drug cartels and other criminal activity. Concerns in the U.S. centered on direct intimidation or "uneasy" or threatening encounters with U.S. Border Patrol, private landowners or militias.

As a result of safety concerns, many researchers from both countries reported their organization or employer had placed restrictions on working in the border areas of Mexico. In most cases, this meant limiting access to specific areas or requiring additional paperwork or approval through their institution.

Respondents reported logistical issues "altered or disrupted" their ability to perform fieldwork. These problems ranged from trouble crossing the border to difficulty obtaining necessary paperwork and permissions.

One researcher reported that permit delays for shipping scientific equipment across the border had stalled their research for over a year. More than half of respondents said these issues had increased in frequency or caused greater disruption to their work within the last three years.

Caught in the middle

Unsurprisingly, most researchers surveyed (69%) said they've encountered undocumented migrants while conducting fieldwork in the border region, although infrequently.

In situations of contact, migrants asked for assistance, such as food, water or a ride, a little over half of the time. Researchers drew a clear distinction between their willingness to offer food or water versus providing transportation.

Despite concerns about recent prosecutions of humanitarian aid workers in the border region, the threat was not sufficient to stop most respondents from taking action they viewed as moral or ethical.

"I would have pause given legal ramifications," one person told us, "But I do not think this would change how I would act." Survey respondents commented that they felt "caught in the middle" of an "impossible situation," where the fear of prosecution conflicts with their moral imperative to help people in need.

Overall our results suggest that research is affected by border policies in myriad ways: Restricted access to areas reduces scientists' ability to collect comprehensive data, such as are necessary for conducting biodiversity inventories.

Restrictions directly affecting the ability of researchers to collaborate over international boundaries can limit creativity and discovery. That can have long-term impacts, such as further separating countries' ability to understand each other and foster meaningful partnerships catalyzed by science, including industrial innovation or ecological sustainability.

Societies have the right to enjoy the benefits of science. This requires that scientists are able to collaborate internationally and to fulfill their functions without discrimination or fear of repression or prosecution

Canada and the U.S. working on extending border closure

Provided by The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

New hints of volcanism under the heart of northern Europe

by Royal Astronomical Society

Scientists have discovered new evidence for active volcanism next door to some of the most densely populated areas of Europe. The study 'crowd-sourced' GPS monitoring data from antennae across western Europe to track subtle movements in the Earth's surface, thought to be caused by a rising subsurface mantle plume. The work is published in Geophysical Journal International.

The Eifel region lies roughly between the cities of Aachen, Trier, and Koblenz, in west-central Germany. It is home to many ancient volcanic features, including the circular lakes known as 'maars'.

These are the remnants of violent volcanic eruptions, such as the one which created Laacher See, the largest lake in the area. The explosion that created this is thought to have occurred around 13,000 years ago, with a similar explosive power to the cataclysmic Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991.

The mantle plume that likely fed this ancient activity is thought to still be present, extending up to 400km down into the Earth. However, whether or not it is still active is unknown: "Most scientists had assumed that volcanic activity in the Eifel was a thing of the past," said Prof. Corné Kreemer, lead author of the new study. "But connecting the dots, it seems clear that something is brewing underneath the heart of northwest Europe."

In the new study, the team—based at the University of Nevada, Reno and the University of California, Los Angeles in the United States—used data from thousands of commercial and state-owned GPS antennae all over western Europe, to map out how the ground is moving vertically and horizontally as the Earth's crust is pushed, stretched and sheared.

The research revealed that the region's land surface is moving upward and outward over a large area centred on the Eifel, and including Luxembourg, eastern Belgium and the southernmost province of the Netherlands, Limburg.

"The Eifel area is the only region in the study where the ground motion appeared significantly greater than expected," adds Prof. Kreemer. "The results indicate that a rising plume could explain the observed patterns and rate of ground movement."

The new results complement those of a previous study in Geophysical Journal International that found seismic evidence of magma moving underneath the Laacher See. Both studies point towards the Eifel being an active volcanic system.

The implication of this study is that there may not only be an increased volcanic risk, but also a long-term seismic risk in this part of Europe. The researchers urge caution however: "This does not mean that an explosion or earthquake is imminent, or even possible again in this area. We and other scientists plan to continue monitoring the area using a variety of geophysical and geochemical techniques, in order to better understand and quantify any potential risks."

Deep low-frequency earthquakes indicate migration of magmatic fluids beneath Laacher See

More information: Corné Kreemer et al. Geodetic evidence for a buoyant mantle plume beneath the eifel volcanic area, NW Europe, Geophysical Journal International (2020). DOI: 10.1093/gji/ggaa227

Journal information: Geophysical Journal International

Provided by Royal Astronomical Society

Amid COVID-19 pandemic, deadly disease strikes rabbit populations

by Deborah Sullivan Brennan, The San Diego Union-Tribune

A lethal disease that strikes rabbits was detected in a jackrabbit in Palm Springs, leading local veterinarians and animal rescue organizations to prepare for its potential spread to San Diego County.

The disease, rabbit hemorrhagic disease virus, is highly contagious and can jump between wild and domestic populations. It hit California for the first time in early May, when a group of about 10 dead rabbits were found in Palm Springs, and tests of one of the carcasses came back positive for the virus.

With a fatality rate up to 80 percent, the disease can decimate colonies of rabbits, jackrabbits, pika and hare, but it does not affect humans or other animals including cats or dogs. Pets, scavengers and other animals can spread the virus on their feet or fur, however, so officials are taking steps to protect rescued rabbits, and urging rabbit owners to safeguard their pets.

"It spreads very fast in the wild populations," said Jon Enyart, director of wildlife medicine for Project Wildlife, the wildlife rescue arm of the San Diego Humane Society. "Then it runs rampant through the domestic populations as well."

The disease has circulated for several decades throughout 40 countries in Asia, Europe, Africa, Australia, as well as Mexico and Canada. A second strain emerged in France in 2010, and in March of this year, it began killing both wild and domestic rabbits in New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Mexico, according to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. That's when officials braced for a possible outbreak in California.

"It's a really hard virus to contain, once its out in a wild landscape," said Deana Clifford, a senior wildlife veterinarian with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. "There's no way to really effectively protect wild rabbits in the state."

Wildlife officials are monitoring rabbit populations and collecting samples, officials said. And they are examining animals that appear to have died of the disease, selectively testing carcasses for the virus to determine if it is spreading to new areas or different species, such as cottontails or other rabbit relatives, Clifford said.

Studies from outbreaks in Europe show that the death rate of infected rabbits ranges from 5 to 80 percent, she said. So it's possible that wild populations may rebound from the epidemic, even if it spreads.

"What we hope is that over time, this disease, that some rabbits will survive and develop some resistance," Clifford said.

In the meantime, the risk to both wild rabbits and pets exposed to the virus is high. The disease in a group called calicivirus, and is unrelated to the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19. To rabbits, however, it's not only far more lethal than coronavirus, but also much hardier. It can remain viable in the environment at room temperature for 105 days, and even longer—225 days—at 39 degrees Fahrenheit, according to a statement by the House Rabbit Society. It's not killed by freezing, and infected rabbits who survive can shed the virus for 42 days or longer.

The virus hasn't appeared among any rabbits San Diego, but rescue workers are taking precautions in case it does. The San Diego Chapter of the House Rabbit Society, an all rabbit rescue organization, is isolating new animals at their shelter, and warning rabbit owners to be careful of their pets.

"We as humans can spread the virus too, on shoes or carpets," said Jennifer Lee, executive director of San Diego House Rabbit Society. "That's why it's important that people who have rabbits, not have their rabbits go outside to play, and have inside shoes, and outside shoes, and clothing ... . If they feel that their rabbit might have it, isolate that rabbit, especially if you have other rabbits in their home."

Other recommendations include washing hands before and after handling a pet rabbit; changing clothes after contacting other rabbits; disinfecting shoes with bleach; using only known hay and feed sources, and avoiding foraged plants, grasses or tree branches; installing door and window screens to eliminate flies and mosquitoes; and quarantining any new rabbit.

The virus causes liver inflammation in infected animals, and prevents blood from clotting, said Linda Knox, a veterinarian at Palomar Animal Hospital, who works with the House Rabbit Society. A vaccine available in Europe can protect rabbits from the disease, but it's not approved for widespread use in the U.S. Veterinarians can only apply to use it once a case is confirmed in their own state. So after the Palm Springs carcass tested positive, Knox applied for access to the vaccine.

"We are trying to get emergency approval through the (U.S. Department of Agriculture) to import this vaccine, Eravac, which is made in Spain," she said. "Once we get the USDA approval, we hope to get this vaccine imported so we can protect the rabbits."

She expects the vaccine to arrive about a month after she receives approval. Once it does, it could be administered to pet or rescue rabbits. It would not be possible to vaccinate wild rabbits, Clifford said. However, some very rare, endangered species, such as the riparian brush rabbit in the Central Valley, which numbers only a few hundred, could potentially be captured and rescued or vaccinated, if the disease strikes its area, she said.

Signs of infection can include low appetite, lethargy, fever, seizures or bleeding from the nose, mouth or rectum. But there may also be no symptoms until sudden death, so shelters, as well as pet owners, must separate new rabbits from others for a quarantine period.

At Project Wildlife, which takes in 12,000 sick, injured or orphaned wild animals, including up to 2,000 rabbits per year, that's a big challenge, Enyart said. However, workers are placing new animals or groups of animals in quarantine rooms, and also assigning staff members to specific rooms, so they don't cross-contaminate other groups.

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, rescue workers have already adopted practices such as social distancing, wearing masks and gloves, and changing clothes before and after working with animals, officials said. The rabbit epidemic has reinforced and refined those practices, officials said.

"I do feel like (COVID-19) has prepared us for this, because we were already in the mindset," he said. "Were finding that in the midst of all this madness, that best practices are getting better. We're able to say these rabbits can't be near these rabbits, that helps us see if there are any concerns with out own (personal protective equipment) and our own biosecurity. So it's really helping us fine-tune it and make it as good as possible."

Towards winning the war on feral wild rabbits

Women's communication shapes division of labor in household

by Lisa Potter, University of Utah

For many couples, COVID-19 quarantine has shattered the normal routine and led some to renegotiate who does what around the house. Research has shown that the way couples divide up housework and how they feel about their arrangements are related to relationship satisfaction. It's also known that communication plays a big role in relationship satisfaction.

In a new study, Daniel Carlson of the University of Utah Department of Family and Consumer Studies led a team that analyzed the role that communication plays in the division of household labor. The authors used data on 487 heterosexual couples from the 2006 Marital and Relationship Survey. They focused on two things: How partners' communication influences the division of housework, and what role partners' communication quality plays in shaping how the division of housework affects relationship satisfaction.

They found that partner communication is the most important factor linking the division of household labor to satisfaction in the relationship. But the way that the partners' communication matters depends on gender.

"Right now people are quarantined, and families have lost important supports that enabled them to work. We've lost child care and schools, and some people have lost jobs, so more responsibilities have been thrust onto parents," said Carlson, associate professor and lead author of the paper. "In these times, focusing on the division of labor and understanding what factors shape it is important."

The paper was published on June 1, 2020, in the journal Socius. Amanda Miller and Stephanie Rudd from the University of Indianapolis were co-authors of the study.

The study found that the way women communicate shapes how couples split up the housework, and when women communicate negatively, men do more. However, the negative communication causes men's relationship satisfaction to decline. Men's communication isn't implicated in how couples divide the housework. Rather, it's an outcome of how the couple shares housework. When men contribute equally to household duties, they communicate better. When women do the majority of the housework, men communicate worse.

For women, an equal division of labor is important to their relationship satisfaction. For men, it depends on how his partner communicates with him.

"The division of labor has ramifications for not only individual relationships in terms of how happy they are, but also has implications more broadly in society," said Carlson. "When societies have gender equality, people have more life satisfaction and happiness."

At first, Carlson had expected that men's communication would determine the division of labor. Traditionally, women have had difficulty gaining equality in relationships and men were the impediment to this. But in this study, that doesn't bear out.

"Women's communication driving the labor division makes a lot of sense. If change needs to happen, women tend to be the one that's going to fight for more equality. The burden of communication would fall on their shoulders," said Carlson. "It's also surprising that it's not compassionate communication that gets men to do more housework, it's the negative communication."

Carlson is now looking into how the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent quarantines has shifted the parents' divisions of childcare and housework. In a pre-publication brief, Carlson shared his and the team's initial findings. They analyzed responses to a survey of 1,060 parents in heterosexual couples conducted in mid-April that asked them to assessed the division of labor in their household during the pandemic compared with before it began. The preliminary results suggest that men are doing more housework and child care since the pandemic began, and this has led to more equal domestic arrangements. Women are still doing the majority of the housework, however.

"A lot of families are in a position where they're in this new world where they're going to have to renegotiate their arrangements," Carlson said. "Right now, it's an important time to think about the role of communication in this, and how things might change after quarantine is over."

Research finds that sharing housework doesn't mean couples have less sex

More information: Daniel L. Carlson et al, Division of Housework, Communication, and Couples' Relationship Satisfaction, Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World (2020). DOI: 10.1177/2378023120924805

Provided by University of Utah

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment