Monday, November 17, 2025


Rats played major role in Easter Island’s deforestation, study reveals



Binghamton University archaeologist Carl Lipo explores what happened to Rapa Nui's trees




Binghamton University

Illustration of Polynesian Rat 

image: 

Illustration of Polynesian Rat, Rattus exulans from an article entitled 'On the New Zealand Rat. (With Illustrations.)', by Walter Buller, Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Volume 3, 1870, between pages 2 & 3. The Polynesian or Pacific Rat is known in New Zealand and other parts of Polynesia by the Polynesian word kiore.
 
view more 

Credit: Walter Buller, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons





The common myth of Easter Island goes something like this: To roll their massive moai statuary into place, the islanders deliberately cut down all the trees, causing an ecological disaster that scythed through the human population.

Binghamton University, State University of New York archaeologist Carl Lipo’s research has played a major role in debunking this story and outlining what actually happened on Rapa Nui, as the island is known in its native Polynesian language. Among his discoveries: The moai, which represented ancestors, served to bring communities together and weren’t moved by logs but upright by ropes. The human population didn’t suffer any sort of crash until the arrival of Europeans in the 18th century.

And while the Rapa Nui people did play a role in the island’s deforestation, the greater role may belong to a virtual tidal wave of rats.

“The human impact on these environments is very complex,” said Lipo, a professor of anthropology. “Sometimes there are unintended consequences, like the rats. In this case, the modification of the environment wasn’t a human disaster.”

University of Arizona anthropologist Terry L. Hunt and Lipo explore the complex situation in “Reassessing the role of Polynesian rats (Rattus exulans) in Rapa Nui (Easter Island) deforestation: Faunal evidence and ecological modeling,” which recently appeared in the Journal of Archaeological Science.

{!--[aside]1[/aside]--}Prior to human settlement, Rapa Nui was dominated by large palm trees of a variety now extinct; however, they were related to Jubaea chilensis, the Chilean wine palm. These massive trees can live up to 500 years; they’re also slow-growing, taking around 70 years to reach maturity and begin to fruit.

Few of the palms remained at the time of European contact in 1722. By the time the Europeans began to take an interest in the island’s ecology, they were gone.

“The Europeans basically describe a treeless island, but they also describe palms and palm leaves. It’s hard to know whether they’re using the term to describe some other tree,” said Lipo, adding that coconut palms weren’t introduced until the 1950s.

The rats

When setting out for a new island, the Polynesian people brought their subsistence package with them: taro, sweet potatoes, bananas, yams, dogs, chickens and pigs. Tagging along was, inevitably, the Polynesian rat. Unlike the Norway rats brought to the island after European contact, this small, arboreal species prefers to live in the tree canopy.

For researchers, the rats are a goldmine of information.

“Because of their genetics and the ‘founder’s effect,’ they have unique haplotypes. We can trace the colonization of people and, to some degree, the number of colonizations by how variable the rats are as they move across the Pacific,” Lipo explained.

Exactly how they ended up in Polynesian’ outrigger canoes is a matter of debate: Were they stowaways or brought deliberately as a backup food source?

Ethnographic evidence suggests the latter. After the arrival of Europeans, a naturalist collecting specimens for the British Museum saw a man walking down a path, carrying rats; he told the collector that they were for lunch, Lipo recounted. Rat bones are also found in midden deposits — essentially, ancient trash heaps — throughout the Pacific islands.

When the Polynesians arrived on Rapa Nui around 1200 CE, the rats found a virtual Eden devoid of predators and full of their favorite food. Capable of having multiple litters a year, the population exploded into the millions in a few years’ time.

“Palm nuts are rat candy,” Lipo said. “The rats went bananas.”

Rapa Nui’s palm trees co-evolved with birds and never developed the boom-and-bust productivity cycle that would ensure some nuts survived exploitation by rodents. The rats devoured the palm nuts, preventing the next generation of trees from taking root.

Meanwhile, the humans cut down swathes of trees to establish their sweet potato fields. The combination of the two led to the deforestation that marks the island today.

The humans

In addition to plants and animals, the Polynesian survival kit also included practices such as slash-and-burn agriculture to boost soil fertility. Older volcanic islands such as Rapa Nui can suffer from poor soils, the nutrients leached out by the rain.

Clearing and burning sections of forested land can temporarily infuse the soil with nutrients. Once the nutrients wear out, the farmers move to another site, leaving the land to recover and the trees to regrow.

“We see this in New Guinea and other places across the Pacific. But on Rapa Nui, the trees grow so slowly, and they don’t grow back due to rat predation on the palm nuts,” Lipo said.

Ultimately, the islanders resorted to a new style of farming, using stone mulch to enrich their crops.

While the loss of the palm forest was an undeniable environmental change, it wasn’t a human disaster. The islanders didn’t need the palm trees for survival; instead, their food sources depended on cleared land. Additionally, palms aren’t hardwood trees; they’re related to grasses, and cannot provide timber for canoes, houses or firewood.

“It’s a sad loss of a palm forest, but it wasn’t a disaster for the people,” Lipo said. “It wasn’t a necessary part of their survival.”

While some of the palm trees may have survived into the European occupation, the introduction of sheep ranching in the 19th century may have sounded the final knell of extinction; any remaining seedlings would have been eaten by the sheep.

Ironically, the Polynesian rats met the same fate as the palms; on most islands, they were driven to extinction, out-competed by the Norway rat, or consumed by introduced predators such as hawks. While the specific species has changed, islanders still tell stories of rodent boom and bust cycles — years when the population explodes, followed by a massive die-off.

The story of Rapa Nui is one of unintended consequences — but also of adaptation and survival on one of the world’s most remote inhabited islands, where the closest neighbors are 1,200 miles away.

“We have to be more nuanced in our understanding of environmental change,” Lipo said. “We are part of the natural world; we reshape it often for our benefit, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that we create an unsustainable world for ourselves.”

 

Medieval communities boosted biodiversity around Lake Constance




Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology
Abbey archives 

image: 

Charter from the Abbey Archives of St. Gall. Dated March 9th, 736. Describes the donation of property in Eigeltingen and Neuhausen, near Lake Constance. Archived documents like this reveal the social, economic, and agricultural practices prevailing in the Lake Constance region during the early medieval period.

view more 

Credit: St. Gallen, Stiftsarchiv, IV 345 (Private charter)





One of the major realizations of the Anthropocene era has been the importance of biodiversity for the functioning of the earth system, as well as for human societies. Recent trends show that human activities are driving biodiversity loss around the globe, but previous research has also shown an increase in biodiversity in Holocene Europe, showing that human societies can in fact support the health and resilience of their environments. The cultural phenomena that accompanied the increase in biodiversity, however, are less understood.

Now, a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences integrates data from interdisciplinary datasets to examine the drivers of biodiversity change around Lake Constance in southwest Germany, then part of the Carolingian Empire. Researchers found a significant, sustained increase in plant diversity starting around 500 CE, culminating in a 4000-year “plant diversity optimum” around1000 CE. This increase, data shows, was driven by cultural innovations in agriculture, land management and trade in the formative period of medieval Europe.

“Our findings document a success story in human-environment interactions,” says Adam Izdebski of the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology. “Human communities can support biodiverse landscapes, and have done so for long periods of time in the past.”

“This study offers lessons for policy makers and conservationists,” adds Adam Spitzig of Stanford University. “Our data suggest that High Nature Value (HNV) farming systems and intermediate-disturbance, agro-ecological mosaics can effectively enhance plant diversity while simultaneously sustaining food production.”

To reach these findings, the researchers used palaeoecological and historical datasets from the Lake Constance region, a uniquely well-documented area. Analysis of fossil pollen from six sediment cores, combined with archaeobotanical evidence from hundreds of sites, allowed researchers to reconstruct the changes in plant diversity over the past 4000 years. By combining this data with historical documents from regional archives, including the Abbey Archives of St. Gall, they could uncover the agricultural, trade, and land management practices that enabled the increase in plant diversity.

As society progresses into the Anthropocene, the human era, stories of positive human-earth system interactions are increasingly important, reminding us that our societies can support biodiversity and healthy landscapes too. The researchers hope that future studies will continue to integrate long-term biodiversity estimates with detailed cultural contextualization, so that policy makers can implement the most effective biodiversity management policies.

Modern view of the landscape that experienced a large, agriculture-driven expansion of regional plant diversity during the early medieval period. Taken at Hohentwiel Castle overlooking the countryside near the western shores of Lake Constance.

Credit

Adam Spitzig


Lake sediment core from the greater Lake Constance region, split lengthwise to reveal sedimentation layers. From cores like this, fossil pollen is extracted and taxonomically identified to reconstruct centuries of regional plant diversity change.

Credit

Sara Saeidi (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) Project number 443614159)

 

Groundbreaking research identifies lethal dose of plastics for seabirds, sea turtles and marine mammals: “It’s much smaller than you might think”



Less than three sugar cubes of plastic can kill a seabird, according to comprehensive new analysis


Ocean Conservancy




“Ocean Plastics are an Existential Threat to the Diversity of Life on Our Planet”: Data Show that Nearly Half of Animals that Ingested Plastics were Red-Listed as Threatened Species

 

WASHINGTON — The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences today released a new study, “A quantitative risk assessment framework for mortality due to macroplastic ingestion in seabirds, marine mammals, and sea turtles.” Led by Ocean Conservancy researchers, the peer-reviewed paper is the most comprehensive study yet to quantify the extent to which a range of plastic types — from soft, flexible plastics like bags and food wrappers; to balloon pieces; to hard plastics ranging from fragments to whole items like beverage bottles — result in the death of seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals that consume them.

The study reveals that, on average, consuming less than three sugar cubes’ worth of plastics for seabirds like Atlantic puffins (which measure approximately 28 centimeters, or 11 inches, in length); just over two baseballs’ worth of plastics for sea turtles like Loggerheads (90 centimeters or 35 inches); and about a soccer ball’s worth of plastics for marine mammals like harbor porpoises (1.5 meters, or 60 inches), has a 90% likelihood of death. At the 50% mortality threshold, the volumes are even more startling: consuming less than one sugar cube’s worth of plastics kills one in two Atlantic puffins; less than half a baseball’s worth of plastics kills one in two Loggerhead turtles; and less than a sixth of a soccer ball kills one in two harbor porpoises. 

“We’ve long known that ocean creatures of all shapes and sizes are eating plastics; what we set out to understand was how much is too much,” said lead author of the study Dr. Erin Murphy, Ocean Conservancy’s manager of ocean plastics research. “The lethal dose varies based on the species, the animal’s size, the type of plastic it’s consuming, and other factors, but overall it’s much smaller than you might think, which is troubling when you consider that more than a garbage truck’s worth of plastics enters the ocean every minute.”

To arrive at their findings, Ocean Conservancy scientists analyzed the results of 10,412 necropsies, or animal autopsies, conducted worldwide in which cause of death and data on plastic ingestion were known. Of the animals studied, 1,537 were seabirds representing 57 species; 1,306 were sea turtles representing all seven species of sea turtles; and 7,569 were marine mammals across 31 species.

They then modeled the relationship between the plastics in the gut and likelihood of death for each group, looking both at total pieces of plastics as well as volume of plastics. Based on data availability, they also looked at different plastic types to determine which are particularly lethal to each group. They found that rubber and hard plastics are especially deadly for seabirds, soft and hard plastics for sea turtles, and soft plastics and fishing gear for marine mammals.

“This study reminds us that plastic bags, lost fishing gear, and other larger items can be dangerous to animals big and small,” said Ocean Conservancy’s Director of Ocean Plastics Research and study co-author Dr. Britta Baechler, who co-authored a study in 2024 that showed microplastics are present in both animal and plant-based proteins eaten by humans. “One in 20 sea turtles that we studied died from ingesting plastics. I wouldn’t take those odds.”

Nearly half (47%) of all sea turtles; a third (35%) of seabirds; and 12% of marine mammals in the dataset had plastics in their digestive tracts at their time of death; overall, one in five (21.5%) of the animals recorded had ingested plastics, often of varying types. Additional findings included:

Seabirds

  • Of seabirds that ate plastic, 92% ate hard plastics, 9% ate soft plastics, 8% ate fishing debris, 6% ate rubber, and 5% ate foams, with many individuals eating multiple plastic types.

  • Seabirds are especially vulnerable to synthetic rubber: just six pieces, each smaller than a pea, are 90% likely to cause death.

Sea Turtles

  • Of sea turtles that ate plastic, 69% ate soft plastics, 58% ate fishing debris, 42% ate hard plastics, 7% ate foam, 4% ate synthetic rubbers, and 1% ate synthetic cloth.

  • Sea turtles, which on average weigh several hundred pounds, are especially vulnerable to soft plastics, like plastic bags: just 342 pieces, each about the size of a pea, would be lethal with 90% certainty.

Mammals

  • Of marine mammals that ate plastic, 72% ate fishing debris, 10% ate soft plastics, 5% ate rubber, 3% ate hard plastics, 2% ate foam, and 0.7% ate synthetic cloth.

  • Marine mammals are especially vulnerable to fishing debris: 28 pieces, each smaller than a tennis ball, are enough to kill a sperm whale in 90% of cases.

The study also found that nearly half of the individual animals who had ingested plastics are red-listed as threatened — that is, near-threatened, vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered — by the IUCN. Notably, the study only analyzed the impacts of ingesting large plastics (greater than 5 millimeters) on these species, and did not account for all plastic impacts and interactions. For example, they excluded entanglement, sublethal impacts of ingestion that can impact overall animal health, and microplastics consumed.

“This research really drives home how ocean plastics are an existential threat to the diversity of life on our planet,” said Nicholas Mallos, vice president of Ocean Conservancy's Ending Ocean Plastics program and a study co-author. “Eating plastics is just one way that marine life is threatened by the plastic pollution crisis. Imagine the dangers when you also consider entanglement and the everpresent threat of toxic chemicals leaching from plastics.”

Scientists estimate that more than 11 million metric tons of plastics enter the ocean every year. Much of those plastics are single-use items like those commonly found by volunteers during Ocean Conservancy’s annual International Coastal Cleanup®. Since 1986, more than 19 million volunteers have removed more than 400 million pounds of trash from beaches and waterways worldwide. 

“Every year, volunteers collect massive numbers of balloons, plastic bags, straws, food wrappers, and other items that are lethal to wildlife even in small amounts, according to this research,” said Ocean Conservancy’s Senior Director of Conservation Cleanups Allison Schutes. “When you pick up just a few pieces of plastic, you are helping to protect the life of a marine animal. And when we all clean up together, we are helping to protect countless lives.”

Scientists have determined that to successfully address the plastic pollution crisis, we need to reduce plastics production, improve waste collection and recycling, and clean up what does get into the environment.

“We are thrilled to have this new research quantifying the wildlife impacts of plastic pollution,” said Ocean Conservancy’s Director of Plastics Policy Dr. Anja Brandon. “While there is no single solution to this issue, these hard numbers reaffirm that our work addressing particularly problematic items like balloons and plastic bags are truly meaningful. In the fight to protect our marine wildlife, every policy and every individual action matters.” 

“Governments around the world are grappling with how to address plastic pollution, and they are looking for science-based targets to inform policy decisions,” said Dr. Chelsea Rochman, associate professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Toronto, scientific advisor to Ocean Conservancy, and senior author of the study. “This research provides an important foundation for decision-makers to understand thresholds for risk to better protect biodiversity.”

###

ABOUT OCEAN CONSERVANCY  

For more than 50 years, Ocean Conservancy has delivered effective, evidence-based solutions for the ocean and all who depend on it. Today, we continue to unite science, people and policy to protect our ocean from the greatest challenges it faces: climate change, plastic pollution and biodiversity loss. We are a 501(C)3 headquartered in Washington, D.C. that inspires a worldwide network of partners, advocates and supporters through our comprehensive and clear-eyed approach to ocean conservation. Together, we are securing a healthy ocean and a thriving planet, forever and for everyone. For more information, visit oceanconservancy.org, or follow us on LinkedIn, FacebookX (formerly Twitter)Bluesky or Instagram.