Monday, November 07, 2022

Entomologists issue warning about effects of climate change on insects

UMD entomologist Anahí Espíndola says insects are under threat, but there is still time to change course

Peer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

A bee on a flower 

IMAGE: BEES ARE IMPORTANT POLLINATORS, BUT THEY ARE BEING THREATENED BY CLIMATE CHANGE, WHICH CAN AFFECT THEIR RANGES, THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER SPECIES AND THE PHENOLOGIES OF THE PLANTS THEY DEPEND ON. view more 

CREDIT: ANAHÍ ESPÍNDOLA

In a new scientific review, a team of 70 scientists from 19 countries warned that if no steps are taken to shield insects from the consequences of climate change, it will “drastically reduce our ability to build a sustainable future based on healthy, functional ecosystems.”

Citing research from around the world, the team painted a bleak picture of the short- and long-term effects of climate change on insects, many of which have been in a state of decline for decades. Global warming and extreme weather events are already threatening some insects with extinction—and it will only get worse if current trends continue, scientists say. Some insects will be forced to move to cooler climes to survive, while others will face impacts to their fertility, life cycle and interactions with other species.

Such drastic disruptions to ecosystems could ultimately come back to bite people, explained Anahí Espíndola, an assistant professor of entomology at the University of Maryland and one of the paper’s co-authors.

“We need to realize, as humans, that we are one species out of millions of species, and there's no reason for us to assume that we’re never going to go extinct,” Espíndola said. “These changes to insects can affect our species in pretty drastic ways.”

Insects play a central role in ecosystems by recycling nutrients and nourishing other organisms further up the food chain, including humans. In addition, much of the world’s food supply depends on pollinators like bees and butterflies, and healthy ecosystems help keep the number of pests and disease-carrying insects in check.

These are just a few of the ecosystem services that could be compromised by climate change, the team of scientists cautioned. Unlike mammals, many insects are ectotherms, which means they are unable to regulate their own body temperature. Because they are so dependent on external conditions, they may respond to climate change more acutely than other animals.

One way that insects cope with climate change is by shifting their range, or permanently relocating to places with lower temperatures. According to one study cited by Espíndola and other scientists, the ranges of nearly half of all insect species will diminish by 50% or more if the planet heats up 3.2°C. If warming is limited to 1.5°C—the goal of the global Paris Agreement on climate change—the ranges of 6% of insects will be affected.

Espíndola, who studies the ways in which species respond to environmental changes over time, contributed to the sections of the paper that address range shifts. She explained that drastic changes to a species’ range can jeopardize their genetic diversity, potentially hampering their ability to adapt and survive.

On the other hand, climate change may make some insects more pervasive—to the detriment of human health and agriculture. Global warming is expected to expand the geographical range of some disease vectors (such as mosquitoes) and crop-eating pests.

“Many pests are actually pretty generalist, so that means they are able to feed on many different types of plants,” Espíndola said. “And those are the insects that—based on the data—seem to be the least negatively affected by climate change.”

The team noted that the effects of climate change are often compounded by other human-caused impacts, such as habitat loss, pollution and the introduction of invasive species. Combined, these stressors make it more difficult for insects to adapt to changes in their environment.

Though these effects are already being felt by insects, it is not too late to take action. The paper outlined steps that policymakers and the public can take to protect insects and their habitats. Scientists recommended “transformative action” in six areas: phasing out fossil fuels, curbing air pollutants, restoring and permanently protecting ecosystems, promoting mostly plant-based diets, moving towards a circular economy and stabilizing the global human population.

The paper’s lead author, Jeffrey Harvey of the Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW) and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, said in a statement that urgent action is needed to protect insects and the ecosystems they support.

“Insects are tough little critters, and we should be relieved that there is still room to correct our mistakes,” Harvey said. “We really need to enact policies to stabilize the global climate. In the meantime, at both government and individual levels, we can all pitch in and make urban and rural landscapes more insect-friendly.”

The paper suggested ways that individuals can help, including managing public, private or urban gardens and other green spaces in a more ecologically-friendly way—for instance, incorporating native plants into the mix and avoiding pesticides and significant changes in land usage when possible.

Espíndola also stressed the value of encouraging neighbors, friends and family to take similar steps, explaining that it’s an easy yet effective way to amplify one’s impact.

“It is true that these small actions are very powerful,” Espíndola said. “They are even more powerful when they are not isolated.”

###

Their paper, titled “Scientists’ warning on climate change and insects,” was published in Ecological Monographs on Nov. 7, 2022.

OMNIMATOPEA

Smell words differ primarily in terms of pleasantness and edibility


Peer-Reviewed Publication

STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY

Thomas Hörberg 

IMAGE: THOMAS HÖRBERG. PHOTO: HENRIK DUNÉR/STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY. view more 

CREDIT: HENRIK DUNÉR/STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY

Most languages lack a specialized vocabulary to describe smell experiences. People instead use words from other domains, such as “heavy”, “good” or “fruity”, when talking about smells. But which words are really used and how do they relate to each other? This has been answered for English by researchers at Stockholm University by using a fully automatic method that is based on texts from the Internet.

“Our research shows that English smell words mainly distinguish between pleasant and unpleasant smells, on the one hand, and smells of edible and non-edible things, on the other. The smell words can be divided into words that describe offensive, malodorous, fragrant and 'edible' smells”, says Thomas Hörberg, researcher in linguistics and psychology, Department of Psychology, Stockholm University. He leads the research project whose results will be published in the scientific journal Cognitive Science. A next step is to examine smell words in Swedish and then continue with other languages.

“This type of identification and division of words that describe smells can be of great use in the food and perfume industry, for example. These fields need standardized vocabularies to be able to describe and categorize smells and tastes”, says Thomas Hörberg.

Previous research on words for smells has been limited to pre-selected words. Subjects have had to make subjective judgments about how well these words describe pre-selected smells. The method used in this research study is instead entirely based on texts from the internet.

“We identify smell words automatically by examining which words people most often use to describe smells in text. We then map the meaning of the words in terms of what smells they describe using an AI method. We therefore do not need to rely on assessments from actual subjects”, says Thomas Hörberg.

The study:

The semantic organization of the English odor vocabulary”, is published in Cognitive Science. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.13205

The olfactory vocabulary, together with information about semantic properties of the olfactory words, and the code used to retrieve the vocabulary, is available here: https://osf.io/354tr/

Read more about the work at Sensory Cognitive Interaction Lab (SCI LAB): https://sci-lab.se/

Contact:

Thomas Hörberg, docent in linguistics and researcher attached to the Sensory Cognitive Interaction Lab (SCI LAB), Department of Psychology, Stockholm University. phone: +46707559701, e-mail: thomas.hoerberg@psychology.su.se,

Read more about Thomas Hörberg's research: https://www.su.se/profiles/thh1385-1.184347

Research grant: The Swedish Research Council (2021-03440)

Telehealth brings big advantages for older adults, but new ‘guard rails’ could significantly bolster care

In the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, researchers from West Health push for elevating telehealth standards to meet the unique needs of seniors

Peer-Reviewed Publication

WEST HEALTH INSTITUTE

SAN DIEGO, Nov. 7, 2022 – Today’s telemedicine providers are only scratching the surface of what’s possible in providing high-quality healthcare to people who need it most—and especially to older adults who benefit greatly from its accessibility, according to researchers and clinical experts from West Health.

The solution, they say, is for telemedicine providers to set the bar higher by following guidelines that ensure remote care is delivered in the best way possible to seniors.  

“The COVID-19 pandemic brought to light the immense value of telemedicine to remotely connect patients and doctors for a wide range of healthcare needs,” says Liane Wardlow, Ph.D., senior director of Clinical Research and Telehealth at West Health. “But when treating older patients, we see that telemedicine falls short in many important ways. The problem is that remote healthcare delivery simply wasn’t designed with the needs of older people in mind.”

In an editorial published in the latest issue of the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Wardlow and West Health’s Chief Medical Officer Zia Agha, M.D.—along with their collaborators from University of North Carolina and University of Pittsburgh—offer commentary around a new peer-reviewed report showing that people who are 65 and older appreciate telemedicine's convenience and want it to remain available but have had frustrating technical challenges and other issues that hindered their experience.

“The pandemic has taught us that our healthcare system is vulnerable and needs to adopt capabilities like telehealth in order to deliver safe and effective care in the future,” the authors write.

To solve the problems that are holding back telemedicine, they argue a framework is needed to ensure providers can offer care that meets three key requirements. First, telehealth must be person-centered to enable visits where patients feel connected and heard. It also must be equitable and accessible to people of all backgrounds, as well as to those with possible cognitive impairment and those living in areas where quick Internet access isn’t a given. Finally, telemedicine must be integrated and coordinated with patients’ overall care plans; providers should also understand the patient's social support structure and ability to obtain prescribed medications.

“Without these guard rails, telehealth may further segment care, thereby increasing the chances of low-value care while further exacerbating health inequities,” the authors write. “With these guardrails in place, however, telehealth has the potential to realize its promise of improving access to high-value, equitable, safe, timely and convenient care to older adults.”

In addition, they say it’s imperative that providers are trained in skills unique to offering remote care to older adults: “Simply because a provider is well-trained in supplying in-person care does not mean that the same provider is capable of providing high quality care using telehealth,” they say.

The authors are among key drivers in the creation of a national Center of Excellence for Telehealth and Aging, which is developing first-ever industry guidelines for age-inclusive telehealth.

Telehealth with older adults: Getting it right,” was co-authored by Liane Wardlow, Ph.D., and Zia Agha, M.D., of West Health; Kevin Biese, M.D., of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine; and Steven M. Handler, MD, of University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs.

About West Health

Solely funded by philanthropists Gary and Mary West, West Health is a family of nonprofit and nonpartisan organizations including the Gary and Mary West Foundation and Gary and Mary West Health Institute in San Diego, and the Gary and Mary West Health Policy Center in Washington, D.C. West Health is dedicated to lowering healthcare costs to enable seniors to successfully age in place with access to high-quality, affordable health and support services that preserve and protect their dignity, quality of life and independence. Learn more at westhealth.org and follow @westhealth.

Americans more likely to share COVID-19 misinformation online: SFU study

Peer-Reviewed Publication

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

People living in the United States are more than three times more likely to share misinformation and conspiracy theories about COVID-19 than people in four other English-speaking countries, including Canada, a Simon Fraser University study has found.


When the entire world stopped in early 2020 due to the pandemic, researchers were presented with a rare opportunity to study the sharing of the same conspiracy theories and other misinformation across multiple countries. 

SFU political science professor Mark Pickup, along with colleagues from Colorado State University and McMaster University, focused on five Western, English-speaking democracies: the U.S., Canada, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. 

Researchers found that people in the U.S. were no more likely to report seeing misinformation than people living in any of the other countries but were three times more likely to share these theories with their followers. 

“America is an outlier. Our findings are consistent with recent work about the outsized role that Americans play in sharing misinformation on social media,” Pickup says. 

According to the study, published in the Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media, there are a few reasons why Americans stand out from the other countries. 

While people in other countries self-reported that they shared misinformation to make other aware of them or to criticize them, Americans are considerably more likely to share theories to promote or show support for them and use it as a way to connect with others. 

The polarized political landscape of the U.S., which also played out in debates about COVID-19, also correlated with the sharing of misinformation. Those who identified as conservative and those that trusted the Trump government were more likely to share misinformation online.

In all countries, those who have populist attitudes and distrust health officials were more likely to share misinformation than those who do not.

In Canada, the survey found that the number one reason people shared conspiracy theories online was for people to be aware of them and the second-most common reason was to criticize them.

Facebook was the most common platform for sharing misinformation, accounting for more than half of those sharing misinformation in each country.
The results are based on their study of thousands of nationally-representative surveys conducted in each country in July 2020 and January 2021.

 

AVAILABLE SFU EXPERT

MARK PICKUP, professor, political science | mark_pickup@sfu.ca

ABOUT SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

As Canada’s engaged university, SFU works with communities, organizations and partners to create, share and embrace knowledge that improves life and generates real change. We deliver a world-class education with lifelong value that shapes change-makers, visionaries and problem-solvers. We connect research and innovation to entrepreneurship and industry to deliver sustainable, relevant solutions to today’s problems. With campuses in British Columbia’s three largest cities—Vancouver, Burnaby and Surrey—SFU has eight faculties that deliver 364 undergraduate degree programs and 149 graduate degree programs to more than 37,000 students. The university now boasts more than 180,000 alumni residing in 145+ countries.

Learning science in a hurry

How Americans learned to acquire coronavirus information for personal health decisions and public policy judgments in the COVID-19 pandemic

Peer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

With the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, people were plunged into a situation that required them to acquire information about an emerging scientific issue to assess the adequacy of government actions and programs of significant personal import to each individual. 

There are other important scientific issues like climate change or energy sources, but few involve short-term life or death consequences similar to the COVID-19 pandemic.

An international team led by University of Michigan research scientist Jon Miller found that people who earned a college degree and took the required college science courses gained a general level of biological literacy that enabled them to make more informed policy judgments about the effectiveness of the Trump administration's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

In the last week prior to the 2022 midterm elections, these results are important in understanding how citizens make sense of scientific or technical issues such as viral mutation and transmission and the efficacy of vaccines—and how their government worked to protect them against a deadly virus.

Using a national probability sample of adults, Miller and colleagues asked respondents about the importance of each of a dozen prominent issues ranging from health care to immigration in determining their vote in the 2020 presidential election and then about their views on the substance of each issue. Some of the traditional political issues were completely explained by an individual's partisanship, but the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic displayed an independent influence on vote choice above and beyond partisanship.

Miller's team found that nearly 60% of respondents who had a graduate or professional degree held a strongly critical assessment of the Trump administration's handling of the pandemic, and 45% of those who had completed one to three college science courses were highly critical of the administration's performance. By comparison, just 6% of respondents with one to three college science courses were strongly supportive of the Trump administration's handling of the pandemic.

Reflecting the polarized American political system, partisanship and religious beliefs were strong indicators of respondents’ assessment of the Trump administration's handling of the pandemic. On some issues such as the Affordable Care Act or climate change, the distribution of policy attitudes was nearly identical to ideological partisanship, but on the distribution of the assessment of the government's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was substantial marginal variations that reflected differences in biological knowledge and understanding of the coronavirus. 

Prior biological knowledge aided the acquisition and understanding of emerging news about the COVID-19 pandemic and this information was especially important to the 1 in 4 American adults who think of themselves as "independents" and eschew affiliation with either of the major political parties.

This analysis was published in the International Journal of Lifelong Education. 

In a separate analysis published earlier this year, Miller and his co-authors also examined how Americans decided to get or reject a COVID-19 vaccination. They found that educational attainment, biological literacy and an understanding of the coronavirus were strong positive predictors of willingness to be vaccinated, while religious fundamentalism and conservative partisanship were strong negative indicators of intent to vaccinate.

Sixty-one percent of adults with a bachelor's degree reported that they would definitely or probably get a COVID-19 vaccination, and 70% of adults with graduate/professional degrees reported the same. Just 39% of high school graduates said they were likely to get a vaccination.

More than half (54%) of American adults who completed one to three college science courses—the general education requirement at most universities—indicated they were willing to take the vaccine, while 65% of American adults who took four or more college science courses indicated the same. Seventy-three percent of adults who qualified as literate on a Biological Literacy Scale said they would take the vaccine, while only 44% of adults who did not qualify as biologically literate said they intended to be vaccinated.

"The majority of Americans had never heard of the coronavirus before the pandemic, but these parallel results indicate citizens in the internet era seek information at the time that they need it and the internet makes this possible in a timely manner," Miller said.

Looking at the performance of American adults in acquiring and making sense of complex coronavirus information on relatively short notice, Miller observed that the United States is uniquely positioned to cope with this kind of emergency.

"The U.S. is the only country in the world that requires all of its undergraduates to have a year of science regardless of their major field of study," he said.

Educators and public policy leaders have recognized the long-term benefits of this system, but the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated its value in a public health emergency, Miller said.

The results of the intent to vaccinate analysis was published in The FASEB Journal (Federation of American Societies of Experimental Biology).

For both analyses, the researchers surveyed a group of 3,141 Americans in March and April 2020, then followed up with the same group in November and December 2020. A total of 2,737 completed the second survey.

Study: Public assessment of the Trump administration's handling of the COVID pandemic: A case study in lifelong learning

 

Study: Public attitude toward COVID-19 vaccination: The influence of education, partisanship, biological literacy, and coronavirus understanding


Possible callout:
Educational attainment, biological literacy and an understanding of the coronavirus were strong positive predictors of willingness to be vaccinated, while religious fundamentalism and conservative partisanship were strong negative indicators of intent to vaccinate, the study shows.